Reyhane Hejazi - This pattern reflects a policy in which the United States intervenes directly in the fate of other countries without reliance on international institutions, without global consensus, and outside established legal frameworks. During Donald Trump’s presidency, this approach became not an exception, but an integral part of official U.S. policy.
The first clear signal of this trajectory was Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement—an accord negotiated between Iran and six world powers and endorsed by the UN Security Council.
The Trump administration exited the deal without proposing a concrete alternative and without the support of the other signatories, launching instead a policy branded as “maximum pressure.”
The stated objective of this policy was to change Iran’s behavior through economic and political coercion. In practice, however, it undermined one of the few successful examples of multilateral diplomacy in recent decades. For many international observers, the move signaled that Washington no longer considered itself bound by international agreements.
This approach gradually moved beyond diplomacy and into the realm of security and military action. In January 2020, the United States carried out an operation outside its borders, targeting and killing Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military commander, in Baghdad. The strike was conducted on Iraqi soil and without UN authorization.
Regardless of political interpretations, from the perspective of international law this act was widely regarded as a violation of the sovereignty of a third country. It intensified concerns about the normalization of the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.
From that point onward, the perception grew that decision-making in Washington was no longer governed by established rules, but increasingly tied to the personal will of the president.
Along the same trajectory, the United States last year carried out direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities—sites that had previously been under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These strikes, involving extensive use of U.S. air power and strategic weapons, triggered widespread global reactions.
For many analysts, this marked the crossing of lines drawn after World War II to limit direct military confrontation between states. Political disputes that had once been managed through negotiation or diplomatic pressure were now being pursued through direct military action.
Within this context, Donald Trump’s remarks on domestic protests in Iran took on significance beyond media posturing. In a message, he wrote: “If Iran shoots peaceful protesters… the United States will come to their aid.”
Tehran’s response sought to bring the debate back into a legal framework. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, stated in reply: “Today’s message from the U.S. president is highly irresponsible and dangerous.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson also emphasized: “The repeated violation of international law by certain powers should not be interpreted as the erosion of these principles. The international community must reach a shared understanding that the absence of such rules will push the world toward the ‘law of the jungle.’ Our position against the use of naked force is principled and not bound by geography. This military crime is absolutely condemned, and its perpetrators must be held accountable before the international community for the consequences of this dangerous precedent.”
Recent developments in Venezuela indicate that the Trump administration’s actions are no longer confined to temporary or situational policies, but have become a structural and inseparable component of the U.S. approach to international affairs.
From the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani on Iraqi soil and airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to the abduction of Venezuela’s legitimate president, Washington has openly demonstrated that its major decisions are driven not by international law or respect for state sovereignty, but by personal will, displays of power, and maximum pressure.
Donald Trump, who began his new presidential term with slogans about ending wars, has so far—beyond fueling conflict and supporting aggression against Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Venezuela—also violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries such as Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, and Iraq through military interventions justified by various pretexts.
Trump articulated this logic more explicitly than before when he stated: “We will run the country [Venezuela] until we can create a safe transition.”
In response, international relations analyst Sina Toossi wrote: “What Donald Trump is doing in Venezuela is unrestrained imperialism.”
What links Iran and Venezuela is not political similarity, but a shared experience of confronting a single model—one in which a major power defines itself as standing above common rules.
The consequence of this approach is not merely regional instability, but the gradual erosion of an order designed to restrain the use of force.
In a world where agreements, institutions, and rules are so easily discarded, little will remain of the international order itself.
Your Comment