by AZADEH AKBAR
Special contributor
TEHRAN, (CAJ News) – INTERNATIONAL tensions are again spotlighting a growing global perception that the United States acts as a bully and warmonger, willing to intervene militarily, impose threats and violate sovereignty — often without broad international support or United Nations approval.
Recent events involving Venezuela, Iran, NATO tensions over Greenland, and U.S. military action in Africa are seen by many nations as emblematic of an aggressive U.S. foreign policy that disregards international norms.
In January 2026, U.S. forces carried out a large-scale military operation in Venezuela, kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and detaining him in New York on criminal charges.
Washington’s justification centred on narcotics and terrorism allegations, but critics domestically and internationally quickly labelled the intervention a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law.
Countries including Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain and Uruguay issued a joint communique rejecting the action as unlawful and dangerous for regional peace.
Several governments — including Russia, China and South Africa — also condemned the intervention as aggression.
This operation followed a controversial period of U.S. military involvement in Nigeria, where airstrikes targeting Islamic State affiliates were conducted late in December 2025.
Although the Nigerian government coordinated with U.S. forces, many locals questioned the accuracy and necessity of strikes, given the complex security dynamics on the ground and civilian impacts, raising broader questions about unilateral U.S. military action in sovereign African states.
Further fuelling perceptions of U.S. unilateralism, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly suggested that the United States might pursue strategic interests in Greenland, a Danish territory — comments that alarmed many in Europe and Arctic states.
While the actual likelihood of military invasion remains debated, the rhetoric itself underscored fears of U.S. expansionism.
At the same time, relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated sharply.
Tensions rose after joint Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025 and widespread Iranian protests.
Washington has deployed aircraft carriers and military assets to the Middle East while continuing to pressure Tehran over its nuclear enrichment, which Iran asserts is for civilian energy and security.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has publicly stated that Iran remains open to negotiations but rejects talks under what it perceives as threats, noting “conducting diplomacy through military threat cannot be effective or useful.”
He emphasised that peaceful negotiation must be free of coercion. Araghchi also warned that Iranian forces were prepared and would “immediately and powerfully respond” to any aggression against the nation’s territory.
Meanwhile, President Trump hinted at the possibility of deals to avoid military escalation but did not rule out military action entirely.
Many Arab and Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Oman, have urged restraint from both Washington and Tehran, highlighting fears that any escalation would destabilise the region and its energy markets.
Critics also argue that U.S. demands for Iran to curb nuclear enrichment ring hollow when Israel maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal that poses a significant regional threat — one the United States has not pressured with the same intensity.
This double standard undermines confidence in international norms and the United Nations system, which many in the Global South view as ineffective or biased.
Skeptics contend that the UN often fails to check powerful states, reducing faith in its ability to uphold sovereignty and peace.
These events are viewed by many governments and analysts as evidence that U.S. foreign policy relies too heavily on military force, sanctions and coercive diplomacy, contributing to instability rather than peace.
Critics say unilateral interventions and threats — whether understood as attempts to defend national interests or to project power — risk damaging global trust and international law.
For nations seeking a more balanced world order, these developments underscore the need for robust multilateral frameworks where sovereign states are heard equally, and diplomacy, not dominance, defines global relations.
– CAJ News