The United States between the principles of democracy, human rights, and the logic of power: from international leadership to the global crisis of confidence in the regime

author

An analytical article by Professor Maher Abdel Qader - political analyst and international relations

Introduction: Is American power declining or is confidence in it declining?

Today, the United States stands before an important strategic paradox. It still possesses enormous military, economic, and technological capabilities, and maintains broad influence in international institutions, security alliances, and the global economy, but at the same time it faces increasing questions about the credibility of its discourse on democracy and human rights, and the extent of its commitment to international law when its provisions conflict with its strategic interests or the interests of its allies.

The war with Iran, the American position on the war in Gaza, and disagreements with international judicial institutions have once again raised a fundamental question: Can the United States maintain its leadership position in the world by relying on military force and economic pressure alone, or does its continued position require restoring international confidence and adhering to the principles of international law in a more consistent manner?

Understanding this paradox requires returning to the emergence of the international system after World War II, then studying American military interventions, the influence of internal political currents and pressure groups, all the way to the repercussions of the war with Iran and the sanctions on human rights and judicial institutions, and the repercussions of all of this on America’s image in the world.

First: The United States and the establishment of the international order after World War II

The world emerged from World War II in 1945 burdened with millions of victims and widespread destruction, which prompted the victorious countries, led by the United States, to work to build an international system that limits major wars and establishes a framework for cooperation between countries.

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was one of the most important results of that stage. Then came the General Assembly’s adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1984, to affirm the principles of human dignity, freedom, equality, and fundamental rights.

The United States also contributed to the reconstruction of Europe, supported international financial institutions, built security and economic alliances, and presented itself as one of the main forces defending the liberal international order.

But this picture was not without contradictions from the beginning. The United States used nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and its history during the Cold War witnessed foreign interventions and support for authoritarian governments and regimes in cases where strategic interests conflicted with the principles of democracy.

Hence, the contradiction between rhetoric and practice is not a phenomenon that began with the administration of Donald Trump, but rather a historical problem in American foreign policy, the severity of which has increased or changed in its forms according to different administrations and international circumstances.

The question that imposes itself is: Were democracy and human rights always independent goals in American policy, or were they sometimes part of a broader strategy to achieve influence and confront competitors?

Second: Wars, military interventions, and the crisis of credibility

The past decades have witnessed a series of US military interventions that have sparked widespread controversy regarding their legal legitimacy and their political and humanitarian consequences.

In Grenada in 1983, and then Panama in 1989 and 1990, the United States used military force to achieve political and security goals. During the 1990s, it participated in NATO operations related to Bosnia, within a complex international context in which humanitarian and strategic considerations intersected.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States entered the Afghanistan war, which lasted for nearly two decades and ended with the withdrawal of American forces in 2021 and the return of the Taliban to power. This result raised questions about the feasibility of long-term military interventions, the cost of building states by force, and the extent to which military superiority can achieve sustainable political stability.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major turning point in the image of the United States. The George Bush administration relied on claims about weapons of mass destruction, but the stockpiles that justified the war were not found. The war led to the fall of the Iraqi regime, but it also left huge human losses, political and security unrest, and regional repercussions that extended for many years.

In Libya in 2011, a Security Council mandate was issued to protect civilians, and NATO carried out military operations within the framework of that mandate. But disagreement continued over the extent of the operation’s commitment to its declared goals, and over the responsibility of international powers for the repercussions of the collapse of state institutions.

These experiences reveal that military superiority does not necessarily guarantee the achievement of the desired political results. Changing regimes by force may also lead to a security vacuum, internal divisions, and regional conflicts that are difficult to contain.

Hence, the importance of distinguishing between the ability to win militarily and the ability to build sustainable peace is reinforced. The first may be achieved within a short period, while the second requires political legitimacy, stable institutions, conflict settlement, and respect for the rights of the population.

Third: The Trump administration, the conservative right, and the relationship with Israel

Donald Trump's return to the White House in 2025 has reaffirmed a political trend based on prioritizing American interests as the administration defines them, using trade tariffs, economic pressure, and the threat of military force, and reevaluating international commitments and traditional alliances.

Several currents and interests overlap in this policy, including conservative nationalism, the pro-Israel evangelical Christian right, and pro-Israel pressure groups, in addition to security and economic interests linked to the American-Israeli alliance.

The evangelical Christian right is a component of Trump's political base. Sectors of it adopt religious and political positions that make support for Israel a priority, even though the motives of its individuals and organizations are not identical.

Pro-Israel pressure groups also play a role in communicating with members of Congress, and financing political activities according to the role, especially when urging military aid to Israel, congressional positions, and decisions related to war and peace.

But objective analysis requires reducing the American decision to the influence of one group.

However, the basic question remains legitimate: To what extent do domestic political considerations and the strategic alliance with Israel affect Washington’s willingness to implement the standards it declares adherence to in the field of human rights and international law?

Gaza has become one of the most prominent arenas for this testing. While the United States emphasizes the necessity of protecting civilians and delivering humanitarian aid, its critics accuse it of contradiction due to its continued military and diplomatic support for Israel despite the scale of destruction, civilian casualties, and the legal controversy surrounding military operations.

The essence of the criticism here is not merely the existence of an alliance between two countries, but rather the question of whether Washington applies the same standards of accountability to its allies and opponents, or whether strategic considerations sometimes lead to a clear discrepancy in positions.

Fourth: War with Iran and testing the limits of American power

The war with Iran represents a very important test for American strategy, given Iran's geographical location, its regional influence, the connection of the Arabian Gulf to global energy markets, and the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz.

Any military escalation in this region will not only affect the parties to the conflict, but will extend to the entire global economy.

One of the most serious repercussions is the disruption of oil and gas supplies, higher shipping and insurance costs, increased risks to commercial ships, and the resulting rise in the prices of fuel, transportation, food, and basic commodities.

This war reveals an important strategic truth: military force can inflict great damage on an opponent, but it cannot alone produce a lasting political settlement. The absence of a clear diplomatic path may turn temporary military gains into long-term crises, the costs of which will be borne by the peoples of the region and the global economy.

Fifth: Sanctions on judicial and legal institutions and the clash with international law

The controversy over US policy is intensifying in light of disagreements with international judicial institutions and human rights bodies that support investigations into violations in Gaza.

On October 9, 2026, press reports reported that the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court, in the context of Washington’s objection to what it considers to be an excess of the court’s jurisdiction, especially in files related to Israeli officials.

. Critics of the sanctions argue that they obstruct the work of the court, weaken the independence of the international judiciary, and create a dangerous precedent of punishing a judicial institution for its investigations or legal positions.

Here it is necessary to distinguish between the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court specializes in trying individuals for international crimes within its jurisdiction, while the International Court of Justice mainly considers legal disputes between states and issues advisory opinions on matters referred to it in accordance with the Charter and applicable procedures.

In another development, on October 14, 2026, it was reported that a federal judge in New York issued a preliminary order temporarily halting the imposition of sanctions on two American organizations, “Democracy for the Arab World Now” (DAWN) and “Taxpayers Alliance Against Genocide” (TAAG), in the context of their objection to procedures related to assistance to the International Criminal Court.

The appeal was based on concerns related to freedom of expression and constitutional protection for human rights work. It must be emphasized that the preliminary decision does not equal a final ruling nullifying the policy in question at the country level.

The Trump administration also took steps to withdraw from international institutions, including the World Health Organization and UNESCO, in a broader context of objection to some international commitments and multilateral action mechanisms.

These developments raise an important question about the relationship between national sovereignty and international cooperation: To what extent is it permissible for a powerful state to use sanctions and economic pressure to prevent an international institution from exercising its jurisdiction? How can we reconcile the right of states to object to judicial jurisdiction with the necessity of not obstructing accountability for international crimes?

Sixth: How did these policies reflect on the image of the United States in the world?

The effects of these policies go beyond direct diplomatic disputes, and extend to what is known as American soft power. That is, the ability of the United States to influence through the attractiveness of its institutions, universities, culture, and economy, and the confidence of others in its principles and positions.

The results of a survey published by the Pew Research Center in June 2026, which included 36 countries, showed that the view of the United States was negative among a median of 57% of respondents across the countries included, compared to 37% whose view was positive. The poll also showed a decline in confidence in Trump in leading international affairs in a large number of countries.

The decline in confidence can be explained by several interrelated factors.

The first is the contradiction that Washington’s critics see between its human rights discourse and its positions on the war in Gaza, and the questions this raises regarding the equality of application of international law.

Secondly, the repercussions of the war with Iran and the disruption it may cause in energy markets and international trade, as well as the risks of expanding the conflict and its high cost to countries allied with the United States.

Third, tension with international institutions and objection to their decisions or imposition of sanctions on parties that cooperate with them, which may reinforce fears that multilateral institutions become vulnerable to pressure when their actions conflict with the interests of major powers.

Fourth, the fluctuation of American policies between successive administrations, which prompts some allies to question the extent of the continuity of American commitments, and encourages them to diversify their economic and security partnerships.

Seventh: Can the United States restore international confidence?

Restoring trust does not require abandoning American national interests, but rather reconsidering how those interests are defined and achieved.

The national interest is not limited to military superiority or direct economic gains, but also includes the stability of markets, the security of allies, the effectiveness of international institutions, the reduction of conflicts, and the preservation of a global environment conducive to trade, investment, and scientific cooperation.

Addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict requires looking at rights, security, and human dignity as issues that cannot achieve lasting stability without dealing with them seriously. Stability is not based on force alone, and ignoring the political and human rights of peoples does not necessarily lead to an end to conflicts.

As for the Iranian file, the combination of deterrence and diplomacy, the presence of verifiable agreements, and clear mechanisms for reducing escalation may provide a less costly path than continuing open confrontation.

In international relations generally, the United States can strengthen its position when it uses its influence to support viable solutions, rather than relying excessively on sanctions, threats, and the use of force.

Conclusion: Power alone does not make for sustainable global leadership

The current transformations do not necessarily mean the end of the American role, but they reveal a real challenge related to the nature of this role and its future.

The United States is still a major power that possesses exceptional tools of influence, but its continued ability to lead the international system is also affected by the extent of trust that countries and peoples give it, and the extent of others’ conviction that the rules it defends apply to everyone.

The experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya demonstrate that military superiority alone is not sufficient to build sustainable political stability. The war with Iran also highlights the risks of transferring the costs of the conflict to global energy markets and trade. Sanctions on judicial and human rights institutions raise questions about the limits of the use of economic force in the face of international accountability mechanisms.

Hence, the American challenge is not merely to maintain superiority, but rather to reconcile power and legitimacy, between national interests and international responsibilities, and between strategic alliances and commitment to human rights.

A country that seeks to lead the world needs more than aircraft carriers and economic sanctions; It needs trust, law-abiding institutions, and a foreign policy that can be interpreted and defended according to consistent standards.

The ability to impose a decision may achieve temporary gains, but the ability to build confidence and produce fair settlements is what gives international leadership the opportunity to continue.