Global peace threatened by American unilateralism
By Amir Dabiri Mehr
Political researcher
The two wars waged by the United States and Israel against Iran — one lasting 12 days and the other 40 days — can be examined on two distinct levels.
The first level is the narrative promoted by mainstream American media and the various arms of the Zionist media empire. According to this version, the conflicts stemmed from escalating tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv on the one hand and Tehran on the other, particularly over nuclear issues. This narrative claims that the confrontation will continue until Iran capitulates and the dispute is resolved in favor of the US and Israel. However, following the admirable resistance of Iran’s Armed Forces and the Islamic Republic’s assertion of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, the nature of the dispute has shifted. It has now become clear to everyone that the American-Zionist narrative of the recent war was highly unrealistic and fabricated.
The second level views the recent war as a confrontation of wills within the international system. The naïve assumption held by the US and Israel was that a joint military assault would achieve the following: overthrow Iran’s political system, destroy its peaceful nuclear facilities, neutralize its missile capabilities, and render pro-Iran forces in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen passive. In reality, none of these four American-Zionist objectives were realized. Instead, Iran created a new problem for the United States by closing the Strait of Hormuz, redirected global criticism toward Washington over the resulting energy crisis, and forced the US to expend enormous efforts over several months to reopen the strait — efforts that have so far failed. Oil prices have reached their highest levels in recent years as a result.
In other words, despite spending more than $80 billion — funded by American taxpayers — the United States has been unable to impose its will on Iran. Based on the same flawed analysis, President Trump has requested an additional $95 billion to try once again to force his defeated will upon Iran. Given past experiences and current realities on the ground, this attempt is doomed to failure.
A crucial point is that the indifference and silence of countries around the world toward American warmongering in the Persian Gulf would only be understandable if the first narrative were true. In that case, nations might refrain from commenting or opposing the US due to their own political and economic considerations. However, nearly five months after the start of the war against Iran, it has become evident to all experts and analysts that the first narrative primarily serves to justify Washington’s warmongering. It is the second narrative that aligns with existing realities.
Consequently, the likelihood of future American warmongering in other regions of the world to impose its unilateral will is now a serious possibility, and the interests of other countries are potentially at risk. International peace and security have therefore been placed in jeopardy by the United States, and governments face a fateful choice.
If American policies and actions are condemned and met with clear and covert reactions and protests, there can be hope for international peace and security in the future. However, if other countries remain silent and passive in the face of America’s aggressive and warmongering policies, a precedent will be established whereby international peace and security become subordinate to American will and interests rather than the national interests of other nations.
To put it more plainly: whenever the United States has a conflict of interest with any country, it will resort to military solutions and attempt to achieve its objectives through military unilateralism. Such a pattern will benefit no nation.