April 24, Kathmandu — On April 8, 2026, on the social platform Truth Social, US President Donald Trump expressed a grim view threatening the future of approximately 93 million people in West Asia. He warned, “An entire civilization will die tonight, never to return.”
A young teacher from Tehran read this message and was instantly terrified. The harsh words of the President confronted her with a chilling reality. She told an international media outlet, “If we lose access to the internet, electricity, water, and gas, we will truly revert to the Stone Age.”
Trump publicly unveiled a devastating blueprint of his plan. All bridges in Iran would be destroyed, and every power plant would be demolished beyond repair. This declaration indicated the crippling of essential infrastructure—temperature control systems, water treatment facilities, hospitals, and food supply chains—affecting millions of civilians dependent on these lifelines. Such destruction was certain to plunge an entire civilization into darkness.
In response, several Democratic senators unanimously condemned President Trump’s threat to obliterate an entire civilization. They argued that deliberately destroying critical infrastructure supporting millions of civilians would constitute a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and an unforgivable war crime.
Not only Democratic leaders but even Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a staunch supporter of Trump, denounced the post as “evil and madness” and called for invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment over the president’s incompetence.
Pope Francis criticized this as the “illusion of omnipotence,” fiercely questioning Trump’s moral decline and violation of human dignity. He emphasized that the ultimate right to decide whose life has value should not rest solely with America, as such a belief contradicts America’s own values and trust.
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched coordinated military operations named “Operation Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion.” Just two days earlier, mediators from Oman had characterized the February 26 talks as “diplomatic progress,” but within 48 hours, Trump claimed a direct threat from Iran to US national security and ordered the attacks.
During the brutal conflict from February 28 to April 8, Israel carried out hundreds of airstrikes and dropped thousands of bombs. According to sources, the US targeted over 2,000 sites within 100 hours, including Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missile infrastructure, air defense systems, and top military leaders. This destruction propelled the entire region into a vortex of war.
This raises a fundamental question: Does such a “sudden attack” align with democratic values and principles? Basic tenets like transparency, accountability, and respect for international law were mercilessly undermined by Trump’s unilateral decision.
Although the US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, Trump disregarded this constitutional process, constituting a severe abuse of power.
Realpolitik of Power: America Through John Mearsheimer’s Lens
Distinguished political scientist John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has long argued that states are guided not by morality or ideals but by the harsh logic of power.
His theory of “offensive realism,” fully elaborated in his 2001 book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” asserts that amid international anarchy, states are never satisfied with security alone and continuously seek maximum power.
According to Mearsheimer, the United States is the sole regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere in modern history. Nations in this position actively work to prevent the rise of competitors.
While interventions in West Asia, military presence in East Asia, and roles through NATO in Europe claim to spread democracy or protect human rights, their true driving force remains calculations of state interests.
The Trump administration exemplified this reality. White House advisor Stephen Miller remarked, “We live in a world ruled by power and force,” and the 2025 National Security Strategy introduced a “flexible realism” concept, reviving the notion ‘might makes right’ in a modern form.
However, Mearsheimer notes that the idea of maximum power equating to ultimate security has never been conclusively proven, as no state has achieved total dominance without opposition from others.
During the war against Iran, disruptions to oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz caused significant global market volatility, pressing the international economy.
Still, Mearsheimer’s theory has limitations. Critics caution that assuming all great powers behave identically regardless of regime type risks downplaying differences between democratic and authoritarian states. History demonstrates that states with institutional accountability tend to make less unilateral and less destructive war decisions. Thus, while aiding in analyzing US behavior, Mearsheimer’s framework offers no moral justification.
Jeffrey Sachs and the Underlying Contradictions of ‘America First’
Jeffrey Sachs, formerly a senior architect of World Bank and IMF economic programs and later a fierce critic, identifies a fundamental contradiction as a core flaw in US foreign policy.
He argues that America’s underlying foreign policy goal is to maintain a world order controlled by the US, where it dictates trade and financial rules, controls technology, maintains military supremacy, and restrains competitors.
If this policy refuses to accept a multipolar world reality, it risks provoking increasingly destructive wars and potentially leading to a Third World War.
This contradiction is evident in the United Nations Charter, which committed all member states to a global order based on shared institutions without any single nation’s supremacy.
Sachs sharply critiques the US-led “rule-based international order,” noting that while most countries accept rules developed multilaterally, the US and some allies impose rules designed solely by themselves. This creates a fundamental gap between the proclaimed “rule-based order” and the actual US-defined system.
In an April 2025 article, Sachs recalled Antonio Gramsci’s famous observation: “The crisis is that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, many morbid symptoms appear.”
According to him, the end of the US-led old order is evident, yet a true multipolar world is yet to emerge. One of the most visible unhealthy symptoms of this transitional phase is Trump’s destructive threat against Persian civilization.
Historically, Asia accounted for 65% of global production in 1500, which declined to 19% by 1950 due to European colonialism.
Sachs observes this cycle is now reversing, with G7 nations’ combined output falling below that of the BRICS countries. This is not merely an economic statistic but signals a historic shift in power and legitimacy.
His hope is for US foreign policy to pivot from military might and “chosen wars” toward shared sustainable development goals. He views the quest for superiority as leading America into reckless and unwinnable wars. His poignant conclusion: “America still deludes itself into thinking it controls the world. But it no longer holds the economic, military, or technological capacity, nor the legal and moral foundations required, to dominate 96% of the world’s population.”
The End of Western Liberalism: Dugin and the Multipolar Future
Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin—often called Putin’s brain and who tragically lost his daughter Darya Dugin in a car bomb attack—explains the end of Western dominance from philosophical and civilizational perspectives.
His “Fourth Political Theory” critiques the three pillars of modernity—liberalism, communism, and fascism—as insufficient, envisioning a new multipolar global order.
Dugin argues that liberalism’s global hegemony is historically ending and the world must accept emerging power centers based on distinct civilizations.
He categorizes nations accordingly: countries like China, Russia, Iran, and India reject dependence on US domination and seek autonomous identities, while avoiding outright confrontation.
Conversely, nations including Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea directly challenge Western values and American supremacy.
In a 2025 speech in Moscow, Dugin described three uncertainties in the current international system: the transition between unipolarity and multipolarity, vague theoretical formulations of multipolarity, and Trump’s unpredictable international expression.
His main argument is that sovereignty felt by smaller nations is illusory since real power is militarily and politically concentrated in ‘civilizational centers.’
In debates with French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy, he warned that if US decline is not halted, it would mark the beginning of an age of many civilizational empires, weakening the nation-state concept and empowering large regional powers.
Dugin’s philosophy remains controversial. Many Western scholars regard him as an advocate of authoritarian imperialism, especially given his philosophical justification for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Latin American critics point out his denunciation of US imperialism comes with enthusiastic support for Russian imperialism, seeing it as merely another colonial form. Nonetheless, his prediction—that the global dominance of liberal democracy is waning while alternative power centers rise—continues to find daily validation in world politics.
Institutional Failures: NATO and the United Nations’ Weakness
Who can check American hegemony and unilateral behavior? Institutions like NATO and the United Nations were theoretically created to maintain power balances and prevent conflicts, but in practice, these bodies reveal clear structural limitations.
NATO’s internal structure is deeply rooted in American dominance, which has led to a loss of independent operational capacity.
During Trump’s tenure, US contributions to NATO’s joint budget were halved, dropping to 16% by mid-2025, reflecting Washington’s transactional rather than protective view of the alliance.
Maintaining strategic unity within NATO is challenging due to significant differences in security perceptions and priorities among members. Though European countries increased defense budgets, many benefits primarily went to American arms manufacturers.
Consequently, rather than gaining autonomy, Europe’s dependence on US defense systems has increased.
When Trump labeled NATO a “paper tiger” and Defense Secretary Hegseth declared America’s priority was not just European security, NATO found itself at an awkward crossroads. The US-led organization has increasingly been treated by Washington as a burden.
The United Nations’ situation is even more precarious. The veto power granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council has prevented the adoption of any significant proposals, with veto use increasing dramatically, undermining the council’s effectiveness and impartiality.
Jeffrey Sachs notes that the current Security Council reflects the 1945 world order and fails to represent the 2026 realities. Latin America and Africa lack permanent representation, and Asia has only one permanent seat.
Furthermore, the US alone funds about 22% of the UN’s total budget and roughly 27% of its peacekeeping forces, casting persistent doubt on the institution’s neutrality.
Why Can No One Stop This?
It is difficult to immediately halt American hegemony and unilateralism for three primary reasons: financial dominance of the dollar, global military presence, and selective application of international law.
Dollar supremacy underpins American power most profoundly. It penetrates not just military realms but every nation’s economic life worldwide.
In 1974, Henry Kissinger’s agreement with Saudi Arabia established the petrodollar framework: Saudi Arabia agreed to sell oil only in dollars, and the US guaranteed military protection and modern weaponry to the Saudi regime.
This created a cycle in which every country needed dollars to purchase oil, and oil-exporting states invested those dollars back into US financial markets.
History shows that those challenging this economic structure have paid a high geopolitical price. Analysts do not regard Venezuela’s crisis following its decision to sell oil in Chinese yuan as accidental.
Now, Iran is testing a risky new approach. It demands halting US-Israeli military actions supporting Hormuz Strait transit and insists that oil transactions be conducted in yuan rather than dollars.
Analysts at Deutsche Bank view this as a potential phase in the weakening of petrodollar dominance and the emergence of a “petroyuan.” By 2025, the dollar’s share in global reserves fell to 57.8%, signaling its historical absolute dominance is diminishing.
Militarily, the US maintains an unparalleled global presence. It deploys 80,000 troops in Europe and operates hundreds of military bases from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East.
By 2025, America alone accounts for 44% of NATO’s total military capability, keeping US diplomacy firmly at the forefront.
However, the selective application of international law remains the most contentious aspect of this power. The US adopts policies of adherence to or disregard for laws based on its interests.
When criticizing Trump’s plan to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran as a war crime, he paradoxically labeled nuclear weapons as the greater crime. The US has placed itself above the law by bypassing Senate approval.
According to the Brookings Institution, Trump’s 2025 security strategy signaled a departure from the ‘rule-based order’ toward ‘rules by powerful nations,’ steering international politics toward a new paradigm.
Defending Unipolar Dominance
Former ambassador and political science professor Lokraj Baral states that America’s recent actions are driven not by concern for humanity but by self-interest in preserving its power and unipolar dominance. He said, “America’s aim is to prevent any other power from rising. The effort to contain China is clear.”
The US argument that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons threatens Middle Eastern countries serves primarily as a pretext to preserve American leadership, he contends.
History shows that vast empires decline quickly when they overextend. The US refuses to accept a multipolar world because emerging powers like China, Russia, India, and Europe weaken unipolar dominance.
Even after the International Court declared the Israeli Prime Minister a war criminal, no effective action was taken, underscoring the impotence of the present world order.
The belief that regimes in countries like Iraq and Libya can be changed effortlessly has proved false in Iran. Citing failures in Vietnam and Afghanistan, Baral noted, “Being a great power does not always guarantee victory.”
Trump has distanced himself from allied nations and NATO over Iran; calling NATO a “paper tiger” and belittling India among others reveals his desperation and agitation. “No clear objectives or exit plans were laid before striking Iran. Now they are seriously entangled,” Baral added.
Baral concludes that initiating war without secure exit strategies has cost the US dearly in international politics.
Former UN ambassador Jayaraj Acharya remarks that America has not abandoned its democratic processes. Leadership and policy issues within a democracy are natural and can be corrected over time.
He said, “While practically these issues are hard to address, media and citizens are raising their voices against state injustice, indicating that democracy still persists.”
