TEHRAN – The world once again stands before an age-old question wearing a new face: Has the United States entered a new phase of warmongering and direct power projection?

A review of the developments in recent months—from Gaza to the 12-day war on Iran and even the aggression against Venezuelan ships—demonstrates that Washington is no longer merely a behind-the-scenes actor.

The U.S. has entered the field itself with a more naked and unmasked face, attempting to consolidate a new architecture of war in the international order.

Election promises about “world peace” quickly gave way to the policy of naked power—a policy that views war as a component of the process of consolidating hegemony.Contrary to some superficial analyses, these developments are not merely a temporary deviation or the product of a specific president’s personality.

What we are witnessing today is the continuation of a deep-rooted strategy in American foreign policy; a strategy on which both Republicans and Democrats, despite tactical differences, share a consensus: the preservation and consolidation of America’s supposed global hegemony at any cost.

Historical experience shows that the U.S. has always oscillated between hard and soft tools; sometimes sitting behind the negotiating table with a diplomatic smile, and other times appearing with bombs, aircraft carriers, and missiles.

The difference today is that Washington, especially during the Trump era, no longer makes an effort to hide this logic. Election promises about “world peace” quickly gave way to the policy of naked power—a policy that views war as a component of the process of consolidating hegemony.

The roots of this approach must be sought in the intellectual and theoretical foundations governing the American elite.

From the era of Reagan to Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., this logic gradually became more transparent and operational. After the September 11 event, warmongering became a “historical necessity” in official American discourse.

Theorists such as Fukuyama and Huntington, each in their own way, formulated the idea that the global order desired by the U.S. would not take shape without conflict and war.

American warmongering does not have solely intellectual and ideological roots; the war economy also plays a decisive role.In this view, “power” holds authenticity while “ethics” are marginalized. Aggression, occupation, torture, and sanctions are no longer deviations but are considered legitimate tools of policy.

The idea of “the rule of the immoral elite,” which was raised in neoconservative literature, conveys exactly this meaning: to preserve power, one must be liberated from the constraints of human and ethical values.

The result of such a view is a more insecure and unstable world, the main victims of which are independent nations and countries outside the orbit of domination.

Alongside these theoretical foundations, one must not overlook ideological and religious ties. A segment of the American political elite, particularly in the Christian Right, has tied foreign policy to apocalyptic readings—interpretations that align directly with the interests of Israel.

In this framework, war in West Asia is no longer a human tragedy, but a step towards realizing an ideological narrative; a narrative that sacrifices al-Quds, Palestine, and even the fate of the region’s nations.

However, American warmongering does not have solely intellectual and ideological roots; the war economy also plays a decisive role.

The arms industries are one of the main pillars of America’s political economy. Every crisis, every threat, and every war translates into multi-hundred-billion-dollar arms sales contracts.

From Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Europe, they are permanent customers of this blood-soaked market. The activation of military bases, the fueling of tensions, and even the prolonging of wars like Ukraine can all be analyzed within this very framework.

In this midst, Israel plays the role of the operational arm and propeller. The genocidal war on Gaza and even the 12-day war on Iran are not merely regional disputes; rather, they are pieces of the larger puzzle of U.S. hegemonism.

The U.S. may wish to intimidate the world by displaying power, but in practice, it is accelerating the decline of its own hegemony.When Israel faces a deadlock or defeat in the field, the U.S. enters the action openly and unmasked; a clear message to the world that “ultimate power” still resides in Washington.

The same logic is observed regarding countries like Venezuela. The U.S. does not tolerate true independence.

A country that wishes to define its own path without Washington’s permission will sooner or later face pressure, sanctions, or military operations, even if the excuses are labeled as fighting drugs or defending democracy.

As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has explicitly stated, the dispute between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. is an “intrinsic” dispute; the difference between the domination-seeker and the domination-rejector.

Nevertheless, the final question is this: Will this strategy lead to the strengthening of the U.S. position? Signs indicate that the result will be the reverse.

The intensification of unilateralism and the resort to force drive countries toward new convergences. BRICS, regional cooperation, and efforts for a multipolar order are all reactions to these very aggressive behaviors. The U.S. may wish to intimidate the world by displaying power, but in practice, it is accelerating the decline of its own hegemony.

Source: Sedaye Iran, the online newspaper of the Institute of the Islamic Revolution of Iran — December 21, 2025