Time for Honest Reflection
The recent conclusion of the Israel-Iran conflict offers a sobering moment for Americans to examine their nation’s role in yet another Middle Eastern crisis. While politicians and pundits debate the immediate tactical outcomes, a more fundamental question demands our attention: How did American foreign policy contribute to creating the very conflicts they claim to resolve?
Latest chapter, familiar story
The Israel-Iran war followed a depressingly familiar script. Initial provocations escalated into full-scale military confrontation, with the United States providing unwavering support to Israel while demonizing Iran. American intelligence agencies presented conflicting assessments, with some officials acknowledging no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, while others pushed for military action based on questionable intelligence, a pattern that the US has shamelessly followed in most of the doctored conflicts around the world, prominent being the claims of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, a false construct on which US invaded and ruined Iraq.
Throughout the present conflict, American officials spoke of Israel’s “right to self-defence” while remaining conspicuously silent about the massive civilian casualties in Iranian cities, and the ongoing Gaza genocide. This selective application of humanitarian concern reflects a deeper pattern in American foreign policy—one that prioritizes geopolitical allies over consistent moral standards.
A pattern decades in the making
The Chinese embassy in Moscow recently published a list of countries bombed by the United States since World War II, spanning over 30 nations from Japan in 1945 to Syria in recent years. While the timing and source of this list served obvious propaganda purposes, the underlying facts are undeniable and documented by the US Congressional Research Service.
Since 1991 alone, the United States has launched 251 military interventions, bringing the total to 469 interventions since 1798—with half occurring since 1950. This represents an extraordinary level of global military activity that far exceeds any other nation in modern history.
Each intervention was justified to the American public as defending freedom, democracy, or civilian populations. Yet military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage,” and nearly all post-World War II interventions defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. interests rather than promoting genuine democracy.
Human cost of American exceptionalism
The most troubling aspect of the Israel-Iran conflict was not the tactical details, but how it reflected American attitudes toward foreign casualties. Research consistently shows that while Americans are extremely sensitive to American casualties, they remain remarkably insensitive to casualties suffered by foreigners, including innocent civilians.
During the recent conflict, over 7.6 million children under five in post-9/11 war zones suffer from acute malnutrition, while over 38 million people have been displaced by conflicts involving American military action. These numbers represent more than statistics—they represent human lives disrupted by policy decisions made in Washington.
The environmental and health consequences extend far beyond immediate battlefield casualties. Studies from Iraq show a 17-fold increase in birth anomalies in Fallujah, rises in cancers, and widespread health problems linked to bombardments and exposure to heavy metals.
The blowback USA refuses to acknowledge
Former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson warned of “blowback”—the unintended consequences of U.S. government international activities kept secret from the American people. The Iran crisis exemplifies this phenomenon perfectly.
The CIA’s 1953 operation to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and install the Shah brought twenty-five years of tyranny to the Iranian people and directly contributed to the 1979 revolution that brought anti-American forces to power. Today’s tensions with Iran are not ancient religious conflicts—they are the direct result of decades of American interference in Iranian affairs.
Similarly, CIA support for Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union helped create the very forces that later formed Al-Qaeda and carried out the September 11 attacks. Yet American policymakers consistently fail to connect these dots, treating each crisis as if it emerged in a vacuum.
The failure of military solutions
A comprehensive 2021 review found that foreign interventions since World War II overwhelmingly fail to achieve their stated objectives. Despite this documented pattern of failure, American leaders continue to reach for military solutions first.
Recent research examining 174 countries between 1968 and 2018 found that higher levels of U.S. military aid result in more anti-American terrorism in recipient countries, while failing to enhance military capacity and instead contributing to exclusion and corruption.
The Israel-Iran conflict followed this pattern precisely. Rather than pursuing diplomatic solutions that addressed underlying grievances, American policy focused on military deterrence and alliance commitments that ultimately escalated tensions.
Double standards undermine legitimacy
Perhaps most damaging to American credibility is the consistent application of double standards. When Iran responds to Israeli attacks, it’s labelled terrorism. When Israel bombs Iranian cities, it’s called self-defence. When Russia violates sovereignty, it faces sanctions. When America invades countries, it’s promoting democracy.
Studies have found that major American media predominantly focus on human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of violations by American allies. This selective outrage undermines the very international legal framework America claims to defend.
The institutional momentum of intervention
Why does this pattern persist despite repeated failures? The answer lies in powerful institutional interests that benefit from permanent global conflict. The U.S. military operates the biggest arms sales operation on earth, creating economic incentives for continued instability.
Despite decades of talk about “smart power” and “integrated power,” the United States has yet to discover an effective way to use diplomatic and economic tools, increasingly relying on the military to carry out tasks better handled by civilian agencies.
The defence establishment, intelligence agencies, and foreign policy bureaucracy have institutional interests in maintaining global military presence that often override strategic logic or humanitarian concerns.
A different path forward
The Israel-Iran conflict offers important lessons if Americans are willing to learn them. A growing number of analysts argue that the United States needs a major strategic reorientation, becoming more selective in its commitments if it is to remain secure and prosperous.
This doesn’t mean withdrawing from the world, but rather:
Applying consistent standards: international law and humanitarian concerns must apply equally to all nations, including american allies.
Diplomacy first: military force should be the last resort, not the first response to international crises.
Acknowledging costs: honest assessment of intervention costs—human, financial, and strategic—before military deployment.
Learning from history: recognizing how past interventions created current problems rather than pretending each crisis is unprecedented.
The stakes for democracy
As Chalmers Johnson presciently warned, the most dangerous blowback from American imperial interventions may be the destabilization of the American democratic process itself. The militarization of foreign policy has contributed to the militarization of domestic politics, with leaders competing to appear “tough” rather than wise.
The Israel-Iran conflict consumed enormous resources and attention that could have been devoted to pressing domestic challenges—infrastructure, education, healthcare, and climate change. As one analyst noted, “Our empire has exploited us, making enormous drains on our resources and energies”.
Time for honest reflection
The conclusion of the Israel-Iran war offers a moment for sober reflection. Since September 11, the U.S. military has accepted massive civilian deaths as part of the cost of war, with planners making little distinction between rebels and civilians, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure.
This approach has not made America safer. Instead, it has created a world where millions of children suffer malnutrition in war zones, where civilians die from “reverberating effects” of destroyed infrastructure, and where entire populations are displaced by conflicts that American policies helped create or escalate.
A choice for America’s future
America faces a fundamental choice. Americans can continue down a path that has produced 251 military interventions since 1991 with mixed results at enormous cost, or they can pursue a more restrained approach that prioritizes diplomacy, applies consistent legal standards, and recognizes that not every global problem requires an American military solution.
As one foreign policy expert observed after September 11, “Whatever the ultimate outcome of America’s war on terrorism, U.S. foreign policy will probably never be the same”. The question is whether we will learn the right lessons from our recent experiences or continue repeating the same costly mistakes.
The Israel-Iran conflict is over, but the underlying dynamics that created it remain unchanged. Until America honestly examines its role in creating the very conflicts it claims to resolve, Americans will continue to see their resources drained, their moral authority diminished, and their security undermined by the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but misguided interventions. America needs an urgent reappraisal of their Israel policy before it is too late in a rapidly changing world order that does not augur well for the American empire, and will surely sink it
The world needs American leadership, but it needs the kind of leadership that builds bridges rather than walls, that seeks to understand rather than dominate, and that recognizes that true security comes not from the ability to project force anywhere on Earth, but from building a more just and stable international order that serves all nations’ legitimate interests.
The choice is of Americans. The question is whether they have the wisdom and courage to make it.
