There’s something that has always made me wonder — why does it feel as though one nation holds a remote control over the rest of the world? In this article, I am not aiming to attack or accuse, but rather to explore a question that many think about, yet few voice openly: Why does global power so often revolve around the United States? From economic sanctions to decisions on nuclear capabilities, it frequently appears that other nations must pass through a single gate — Washington. Through this piece, I hope to reflect on how this quiet dominance operates, why it is widely accepted, and what it means for the ideals of equality and sovereignty in the modern world. I write this not with hostility, but with genuine curiosity — because understanding the reality is the first step toward asking the right questions.
The Myth of “Global Peacekeeper”
From Hollywood movies to international headlines, America has crafted a powerful image of itself—the saviour of humanity, the protector of peace, and the guardian of democracy. It’s the country that rushes into wars for “justice,” delivers aid for “freedom,” and preaches values like human rights, equality, and law. But behind that carefully built facade lies a reality that the world is either too afraid to challenge or too used to accepting.
How It All Started: The Hero of a Broken World:
After World War II, much of the world lay in ruins. Europe was devastated, Asia was shattered, and millions of people had lost everything. But the United States? It stood tall—undamaged, rich, and ready to lead. While other nations were struggling to breathe, America stepped in as the “helper.” It funded the rebuilding of Europe through the Marshall Plan, took the lead in creating global institutions like the United Nations, and positioned itself as the defender of democracy against the growing influence of the Soviet Union.
This wasn’t just a moment of generosity. It was the beginning of a powerful image—America as the world’s moral compass. A country that didn’t just win the war, but “saved” the world from evil. This gave the U.S. the moral license to speak louder, act bigger, and influence deeper than any other country for decades to come. The world didn’t just admire America—it trusted it. Or at least, it was made to.
But Peacekeeper for Whom?
Fast forward to today, and the truth looks a little different. Korea. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. Syria. The list goes on. These weren’t just wars—they were stories of U.S. military invasions, drone strikes, regime changes, and occupations. Each one justified under words like “freedom,” “terrorism,” or “global security.” But what followed? Broken countries, collapsed governments, and millions of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
What kind of peace needs bombs? What kind of democracy begins with an invasion? The idea of America being the “world’s peacekeeper” begins to look more like a mask for global dominance—a way to enter where it wants, control what it wants, and remove whoever doesn’t agree.
The Irony of the Mighty Preacher:
And here’s the bitterest irony: the country that speaks the loudest about nuclear danger is the same one that has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. The one that warns others about war crimes has itself been accused of civilian killings, illegal invasions, and torture. The one that lectures others on democracy often supports dictatorships when it benefits its interests.
Even nations like Israel, with undeclared nuclear weapons, receive full American support. Meanwhile, countries like Iran or North Korea face severe threats, sanctions, and global isolation for trying to build the same thing. The rule is clear—but unspoken: you can only rise if you rise under America’s watch.
Beneath the white flag of peace, America often carries the weight of control. And when control becomes the goal, then peace is no longer the mission—it’s the excuse. This brings us to its favourite tool of control: economic sanctions.
Sanctions as Silent Warfare: America’s Economic Handcuffs
War today doesn’t always come with tanks and bloodshed. Sometimes, it arrives through blocked bank accounts, frozen assets, and empty supermarket shelves. In a world where the U.S. dominates not just military alliances but also global finance, it has developed a deadlier, quieter weapon—economic sanctions. A tool that sounds diplomatic on the surface, but beneath it lies a system designed to starve, isolate, and break any country that dares to defy American interests.
What Are Sanctions, Really?
In theory, sanctions are supposed to be peaceful tools—used by countries or international bodies to pressure governments into improving their behavior, ending wars, respecting human rights, or following international law. They’re often sold to the public as a way to avoid violence. But when one country—the United States—controls most of the global trade, the dollar system, and influence over institutions like the IMF and World Bank, these so-called “peaceful tools” turn into silent warfare.
Sanctions under U.S. influence are rarely about justice. They’re about punishment and control. They’re about sending a message: If you don’t fall in line with U.S. policy, your economy will pay the price.
The Irony: Who Gets Sanctioned, and Who Gets Shielded?
This is where the hypocrisy starts to burn. Countries that challenge U.S. authority—whether through independent policies, strategic alliances, or ideological resistance—get sanctioned. But those that violate human rights, wage wars, or even possess nuclear weapons—as long as they’re U.S. allies—walk free.
Take Iran, for example. Its nuclear program has led to decades of crushing sanctions. Yet Israel, which holds undeclared nuclear weapons and refuses inspections, receives military and financial aid.
Look at Cuba, punished since 1962 simply for adopting socialism and refusing U.S. interference.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia—with its documented human rights abuses and role in the Yemen war—remains a close U.S. partner, untouched by real economic restrictions.
The message is clear: It’s not about what you do. It’s about who you listen to.
Sanctions Hurt Civilians—Not the Powerful:
What’s most heart-breaking is that these sanctions almost never topple governments. Instead, they crush ordinary people—mothers, students, workers, children.
In Venezuela, sanctions contributed to shortages of food and medicine, inflation so high that people couldn’t buy bread, and a healthcare system on the verge of collapse.
In Iran, cancer patients have died because certain medicines are blocked by trade restrictions.
Even in Russia, while oligarchs find loopholes, regular citizens face the brunt of inflation, job losses, and fear of isolation.
Sanctions are presented as “targeted” and “smart,” but the truth is—they’re a slow, invisible bomb that goes off in kitchens, hospitals, and schools. And unlike war, there’s no media coverage to mourn the dead.
Power that Decides, Not Just Punishes:
Sanctions may not drop from the sky like bombs, but their damage sinks deeper—into the bones of economies and the lives of people. And the terrifying part? They’re often accepted by the world without question. Why? Because America doesn’t just punish—it controls the story around the punishment. It decides who the villain is. It shapes the headlines, the global response, even the silence that follows.
So maybe the real power isn’t just in America’s weapons or wealth.
Maybe it’s in its unmatched ability to paint itself as the saviour—while turning its enemies into monsters.
And that brings us to something even more powerful than sanctions—the power to control truth itself.
Controlling the Narrative: How America Owns the Global Story
In today’s world, the most dangerous weapon isn’t a missile—it’s a microphone. It’s the ability to control what people believe, who they fear, and what they think is “right” or “wrong.” America may use armies and sanctions to dominate the world, but what truly keeps its supremacy intact is its power over the global narrative.
The U.S. doesn’t just fight wars on the ground—it fights them in minds. With control over major media houses, global news agencies, tech giants, Hollywood, and even educational institutions, it has shaped the way the entire world views conflict, power, justice, and even morality.
Think about it—why does the word “terrorist” instantly connect to certain countries or religions, while mass shooters, invaders, or abusers within Western nations are often given softer labels like “lone wolf” or “mental health victim”? Why are U.S.-led invasions described as “liberation missions,” while any country defending its land from the West is labelled as “aggressive” or “anti-peace”?
When America bombs a country, the headlines say: “U.S. launches targeted strikes.”
But when another country responds? It’s called “hostile escalation.”
When allies violate human rights, media says: “Security concerns.”
When rivals do the same: “Brutal oppression.”
This isn’t journalism. This is information warfare.
Even platforms like Netflix, Marvel, or CNN participate in this slow, subconscious shaping. Soldiers are heroes, American flags are symbols of hope, and non-Western identities are often shown as backward, violent, or suspicious. Generations grow up watching, believing, and never questioning the deeper reality.
And so, when sanctions are imposed or bombs are dropped, the world doesn’t react.
Why? Because the story has already been told. And America is always the good guy.
Truth as a Territory, Too:
This is why America’s power runs deeper than just policy or weapons. It owns the mic, and when you control the mic—you control who gets heard, and who gets erased.
So the next time we see a country being shamed, sanctioned, or invaded—maybe we should ask who’s telling the story, and who’s being silenced.
But what happens to countries that refuse to be silent?
The ones who fight back, speak out, and rise without American permission?
Well, let’s talk about that next.
But what happens to countries that refuse to be silent?”
“The ones who fight back, speak out, and rise without American permission?”
The Nuclear Monopoly: Power Only for the Privileged
Why only certain nations get to hold the bomb—and others get bombed for trying.
In today’s world, one of the greatest illusions of fairness lies within the global nuclear order. We are told that nuclear weapons are dangerous, that their spread must be prevented for the sake of global peace. But when we look closer, the picture is painfully one-sided: some nations are allowed to possess unimaginable destructive power, while others are sanctioned, isolated, and even invaded for merely trying to protect themselves. And in the middle of this moral maze stands one country acting like the self-declared guardian of global security—the United States.
The Birth of Nuclear Power and the Rise of Fear
The United States was the first and only country to use nuclear weapons in war—Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945. Over 200,000 people died, mostly civilians. Cities were flattened in seconds, generations were scarred. That moment was not just the end of a war—it was the beginning of a new kind of power: one that didn’t just kill, but terrified the world into submission.
After the war, instead of leading efforts to ban nuclear weapons, the U.S. chose to hold onto its advantage. It expanded its nuclear arsenal, tested bombs in distant islands, and started setting the rules for who could—or could not—access this devastating force. Slowly, the message became clear: power is fine, as long as it belongs to us.
The Illusion of “Nuclear Responsibility”
The U.S. insists that only “responsible” nations should have nuclear weapons. But what makes a nation responsible? Is it their behaviour? Their history? Their respect for human life?
Because if that were true, the U.S. would disqualify itself.
It has thousands of nuclear warheads—more than enough to wipe out humanity.
It has invaded countries illegally (Iraq), toppled governments (Libya, Chile, Iran), and caused global instability.
It withdrew from important treaties like the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—moves that made the world less safe.
And yet, despite all this, no one questions America’s right to have nukes.
On the other hand:
Iran, with no confirmed nuclear weapons, is heavily sanctioned.
North Korea, isolated and surrounded by U.S. bases, is treated as a global threat for building nukes—yet those very weapons may be what’s kept it safe from invasion.
Israel, which has secretly built an undeclared nuclear arsenal, receives billions in U.S. aid and never faces pressure to disarm.
India and Pakistan, who also never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are tolerated because they serve geopolitical interests.
This isn’t about safety. This is about who listens and who doesn’t.
Nuclear Power as a Privilege, Not a Right:
Let’s be honest: most nations don’t want nuclear weapons to dominate others—they want them to defend themselves. In a world where America has a history of bombing countries it disagrees with, many governments believe that nuclear power is the only real insurance against being invaded, sanctioned, or overthrown.
Take Libya.
Muammar Gaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear program in 2003 in exchange for peace. Less than a decade later, NATO—with U.S. support—intervened militarily, and Gaddafi was brutally killed.
The message to the rest of the world was terrifyingly clear: disarmament does not protect you—strength does.
This is why countries like North Korea refuse to back down. They’ve seen what happens to the weak. They don’t trust empty promises from a superpower that changes policies with every president. And honestly, can we blame them?
A World Built on Fear, Not Fairness:
The global nuclear order is not based on justice—it’s based on preserving an old power structure, where a few elite nations decide the future of everyone else. America often claims to protect the world from chaos. But in doing so, it creates the very fear that pushes nations to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.
When one country holds a gun and tells others not to arm themselves, it’s not peacekeeping—it’s intimidation dressed as diplomacy.
And even worse? The institutions that are meant to monitor and regulate nuclear power—like the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)—are often pressured, influenced, or overridden by U.S. foreign policy
Power or Permission?
At its core, the nuclear issue isn’t just about weapons—it’s about who gets to be powerful. And in the current world order, power is granted by permission—not by principle.
The United States has turned nuclear privilege into a political weapon, using it to protect allies, punish rivals, and prevent any real challenge to its dominance.
So the next time a nation is accused of “threatening global peace,” maybe we should pause—and ask:
Is it truly a threat, or just a refusal to kneel?
Global Institutions or American Puppets?
How the world’s “neutral” systems serve the interests of one nation?
On paper, the world runs on fairness. We have global institutions built to protect human rights, maintain peace, support struggling nations, and ensure equal treatment. Names like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) sound like guardians of justice.
But look closer—and you’ll see something disturbing. Most of these institutions don’t work for the world. They work for the powerful. And at the very top of that chain is the United States.
Built After War, Owned Through Influence:
Many of these global institutions were formed after World War II, when the world needed rebuilding. America, being the richest and strongest at the time, played a key role in shaping their rules—and quietly made sure it would always hold the upper hand.
Let’s break it down:
In the IMF and World Bank, countries don’t get equal votes. Voting power is based on how much money they contribute. And guess who contributes the most? America. Which means, guess who has the final say?
The UN Security Council has five permanent members with veto power—including the U.S. So any decision that goes against its interests? One word: Vetoed.
The SWIFT banking system, which connects global banks, is heavily influenced by the West. That’s why when the U.S. wants to punish a country, it can simply get them disconnected—like it did with Iran and Russia.
This isn’t cooperation. This is ownership of fairness—only for those who play along.
Economic Aid with Strings Attached:
When countries go through financial crises, they turn to the IMF or World Bank for help. But the help doesn’t come free—it comes with conditions. These are usually called “reforms,” but they’re really economic handcuffs:
Cut subsidies, raise taxes, reduce public services.
Open your markets to foreign (often U.S.) companies.
Privatize local industries.
These policies often hurt poor people the most, but the country has no choice—because if they say no, they don’t get the loan. And without the loan, they collapse.
So they agree. And slowly, their economy stops being theirs.
It’s no surprise that the Global South—Africa, Asia, Latin America—has suffered the most under these so-called rescue plans.
They’re not getting rescued. They’re getting restructured.
Selective Justice in the UN:
The United Nations was supposed to be a symbol of equality. But in reality, it often becomes a platform for America to justify its actions and criticize its enemies.
When the U.S. wants to invade or sanction someone, it seeks UN support.
When Israel faces backlash for human rights violations, the U.S. shields it with a veto.
When developing nations want to raise their voices on issues like climate change, debt, or occupation, they’re often ignored or silenced.
So what kind of justice is this—where the loudest voice always belongs to the strongest hand?
A World That Obeys, Not Agrees:
These institutions were built to bring balance—but over time, they’ve tilted. They no longer reflect the needs of the many. They protect the comfort of the few.
And America, by sitting at the heart of them, controls the buttons, the funding, and often, the final word.
So maybe the world isn’t truly divided into free nations and oppressed ones.
Maybe it’s divided into those who follow the script—and those who write their own.
And when a country dares to write its own? That’s when America brings in its next weapon:
Regime change. Coups. Interference. Overthrow.
The Price of Disobedience: Coups, Regime Changes & Political Interference
When countries refuse to obey, America doesn’t always walk away—it walks in.
You’ve seen it before. A country tries to stand tall. It builds its own path, questions American authority, or dares to say no. And then suddenly, like a domino, things start to fall. Protests turn violent, leaders are assassinated, military generals rise, foreign support floods in—and just like that, a government collapses.
This isn’t coincidence. This is a pattern. This is power at its darkest:
The U.S. doesn’t just want influence. It wants obedience.
And when it doesn’t get that, it quietly—sometimes openly—helps to remove those who don’t play along.
Covert Operations: Quiet Hands, Loud Consequences:
Since the Cold War, America has mastered the art of regime change without declaring war. Through its intelligence agencies—especially the CIA—it has funded opposition parties, armed rebels, bribed politicians, and supported coups to replace governments that refuse to bow.
- Iran (1953) – The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized oil. He was replaced by the Shah, a brutal dictator—but friendly to U.S. oil companies.
- Chile (1973) – America backed General Augusto Pinochet in toppling elected socialist leader Salvador Allende. What followed was years of torture and dictatorship—fully supported by the U.S.
- Guatemala (1954) – The CIA staged a coup to protect the profits of an American banana company. Thousands died in the civil war that followed.
- Congo, Haiti, Indonesia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan—the list is long and chilling.
Some operations are quiet. Others are loud. But the pattern is always the same: remove resistance, install loyalty.
Modern Day Coups: Disguised as Democracy:
In today’s age, regime change doesn’t always need tanks—it just needs narratives, NGOs, and digital influence.
Through “democracy promotion” groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or foreign-funded civil society organizations, the U.S. influences elections, funds opposition media, and stirs unrest—all under the label of freedom and reform.
In Ukraine, the U.S. supported opposition protests in 2014 that led to a pro-Russia president being ousted.
In Venezuela, America backed an unelected leader Juan Guaidó as the country’s “real” president—despite having no military or public control.
In Bolivia (2019), a democratically elected indigenous leader, Evo Morales, was forced out under pressure, and the U.S. was among the first to welcome the change.
Democracy, it seems, is only respected when it delivers America-approved results.
The Aftermath: Chaos, Fear, and Puppet Governments:
What happens after a regime is toppled?
More often than not: chaos.
In Libya, after NATO’s intervention and Gaddafi’s murder, the country fell into civil war, with multiple governments and extremist groups fighting for power.
In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein’s removal, the U.S. left behind a shattered society that gave birth to ISIS.
In Afghanistan, decades of interference led to endless war, billions wasted, and a final withdrawal that looked like defeat.
And in many places, new leaders rise—not because the people chose them, but because Washington approved them.
Leaders who sign deals, not defend sovereignty.
Leaders who govern for donors, not citizens.
The Cost of Saying No:
For some nations, the only crime is refusing to kneel. They don’t want to be enemies—but they won’t be puppets either. And for that, they pay the price.
In a world where democracy is used like a tool, where freedom comes with conditions, and where independence is punished—what does real sovereignty even mean anymore?
Maybe it’s time we ask:
Is this leadership—or control dressed up as freedom?
Because when power decides who rules a nation, the people no longer do.
Who Decides the “Axis of Evil”?
Photo by Valentin Salja on Unsplash
Why some countries are labelled threats—and others get a free pass?
In global politics, words are everything. A single phrase can change how the world sees a country.
Words like “rogue state,” “axis of evil,” “terror haven,” or “threat to democracy”—they echo in speeches, flood media, and shape international policy. But who decides which countries get these labels.
The answer is clear: America does.
And it often does so not based on facts, but on fear, interest, and control.
The Power to Name = The Power to Control:
The moment a country is branded as “dangerous,” the world watches it differently.
Media paints it in shadows. Aid disappears. Sanctions follow.
And sometimes, invasions are justified.
But history shows that the label of “evil” isn’t given to those who are actually dangerous—it’s given to those who refuse to obey.
Let’s break it down:
Iraq was labeled a threat because of supposed “weapons of mass destruction.” None were found. The country was destroyed anyway.
Iran is called a “terror sponsor,” but many of its neighbors face more internal extremism—yet go untouched.
North Korea is mocked, feared, and isolated—but many say its nuclear stance is about survival, not aggression.
Cuba, under U.S. sanctions for decades, has no nuclear weapons, no record of invasion, yet is still branded an “enemy.”
Now ask yourself:
Why isn’t Saudi Arabia—a known human rights abuser—on the same list?
Why not Israel, despite its open violations of international law?
Why not the U.S. itself, after bombing multiple nations illegally?
Because it was never about morality. It’s about control over the global narrative.
It’s not about what you do—it’s about who you are to America.
Enemy Creation: A Tool of Distraction:
Labeling countries as threats helps the U.S. justify:
- Trillions spent on military,
- Arms deals with “good” allies,
- Interference in foreign politics,
And silencing those who dare to resist.
It also fuels fear at home. If people believe the world is filled with “madmen” and “terrorists,” they won’t question their government’s spending, spying, or strikes.
They’ll support it.
They’ll wave the flag and say it’s for peace.
In that way, the “axis of evil” wasn’t a description.
It was a story.
A story where America is always the hero, and every critic becomes a villain.
What If the Labels Were Reversed?
What would happen if we flipped the roles?
If we asked:
Which nation has used nuclear weapons in war?
Which has the most military bases in foreign lands?
Which invades countries without UN approval?
Which spies on the world, funds coups, controls trade routes, and manipulates governments?
Suddenly, the “evil” label looks different.
Maybe the countries America fears aren’t evil—they’re just uncontrollable.
Maybe the real threat isn’t rebellion—but independence.
Stories That Shape the World:
In the end, what America fears the most isn’t just weapons or ideologies.
It’s nations that think for themselves.
That’s why it doesn’t just fight wars on the ground—it fights wars over meaning, image, and identity.
So the next time you hear a country called a “threat to peace,” pause for a second.
And ask yourself:
Is it the country that’s dangerous—or the story being told about it?
Can a Truly Multipolar World Exist Without U.S. Interference?
Imagining a planet where no one country pulls all the strings
After everything—wars, sanctions, coups, surveillance, and selective morality—one question remains:
Is it even possible to have a world where power is shared, not dominated?
A world where nations speak freely, act independently, and rise on their own terms—not based on whether they’ve pleased one global authority.
This dream is what many call a multipolar world—a planet led by many voices, many values, many visions, not just one flag waving above all others.
But every time that dream begins to form, interference breaks it apart.
Why Multipolarity Scares the U.S?
A multipolar world means:
- The dollar doesn’t rule all trade.
- Military alliances like NATO don’t decide all wars.
- The U.N. doesn’t bow to vetoes.
And countries like China, Russia, Brazil, Iran, and even smaller ones in Africa and Asia… begin to decide their own futures.
For America, this isn’t just competition—it’s a loss of control.
And history shows: when control slips, conflict follows.
Look at:
The Cold War — fear of the USSR becoming a pole of power.
Recent hostility toward China’s rise, BRICS expansion, and Global South alignment.
Efforts to block or weaken new systems like:
- CIPS (China’s version of SWIFT)
- AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank),
Or new digital currencies that challenge the dollar.
Multipolarity is possible.
But not when the old superpower keeps flipping the chessboard every time it starts losing.
What Would a Fairer World Look Like?
Imagine this:
A world where Africa trades on its own terms—not through loans that chain it.
A Middle East where peace isn’t tied to oil deals or arms sales.
A United Nations where every nation has real say, not just those with nuclear weapons.
A media that shows Palestinian tears and Ukrainian tears with equal compassion.
A global economy where local ideas matter as much as Wall Street’s charts.
This isn’t utopia.
It’s possible—if we stop defending the idea that one country must always lead.
Ending: Leadership or Liberation?
The U.S. often says the world “needs its leadership.”
But maybe the world doesn’t need a leader.
Maybe it needs freedom from leadership.
Because true peace won’t come from one voice echoing over all others— It will come when every voice finally gets heard.
And that world—the one that’s multipolar, respectful, and real—
It’s not just an idea.
It’s a possibility.
But only when the world dares to choose it.
Diplomacy or Coercion? When Power Talks, Who Really Has a Choice?
Is American “leadership” rooted in dialogue—or disguised dominance?
Diplomacy, at its core, should mean conversation, compromise, and cooperation.
But when the most powerful country in the world sits at the table with military might, economic threats, and media control behind it—can the other side really say “no”?
This is the uncomfortable truth behind many U.S. diplomatic missions:
They aren’t discussions—they’re deals you can’t refuse.
When Choice is an Illusion:
Let’s be honest—many countries don’t agree with America.
But they comply anyway.
Why? Because not complying comes at a cost.
If a nation doesn’t:
- Support an American-backed resolution at the U.N.,
- Reduce ties with countries America disapproves of (like Iran or Russia)
- Or “promote democracy” in the way the U.S. defines it...
…it risks:
- Losing financial aid,
- Being sanctioned,
- Blacklisted from trade routes,
- Or even facing military pressure or surveillance.
Is that diplomacy?
Or is it extortion under the flag of freedom?
The Leverage of Money and Threat:
- American “aid” is often portrayed as generosity.
- But in many cases, it’s a contract, not a gift.
Take examples:
- Egypt receives billions in military aid—but that flow is conditional on loyalty.
- Pakistan was once called a “major non-NATO ally,” but faced funding cuts over policy differences.
- Latin American countries that lean left economically often see their IMF negotiations suddenly tighten.
- Even Europe, often painted as an equal partner, faces threats when it steps out of line:
- Germany was warned over Nord Stream 2 (its gas deal with Russia).
- France was undercut in a submarine deal by AUKUS.
And when some EU nations tried to work with Huawei, the U.S. threatened “security consequences.”
When the Tone Is Civil, but the Weight Is Violent:
This is the genius of U.S. foreign policy—it looks polite, but it feels like pressure.
And countries trapped in debt, conflict, or climate crises simply can’t afford to say no.
They smile.
They nod.
They sign.
But their sovereignty is shrinking.
Diplomacy Isn’t Supposed to Feel Like Submission:
A true diplomatic table has equal chairs.
But too often, when the U.S. speaks, it doesn’t listen—it leads with leverage.
And the world has learned to comply quietly, even if it burns inside.
This is why so many nations stay silent—even when they disagree.
Because in global politics, power doesn’t shout anymore—it whispers.
But its silence is just as loud.
Maybe the real danger isn’t just that America holds too much power.. It’s that the world keeps calling it diplomacy, even when it feels like a warning.
And in this silence… who really has a voice?
If Power Keeps the Peace—Then Why Is the World Still Burning?
How long will we keep trusting force to build freedom?
America calls itself a guardian of peace.
Its leaders speak of order, freedom, and security.
Its flag is waved at summits, its slogans chanted in press conferences, and its military alliances celebrated as symbols of “stability.”
But look around the world, and ask yourself: If this is peace… why does it feel so much like war?
Behind every speech about global harmony, there’s:
A drone strike in Yemen.
A child buried in Gaza.
A refugee fleeing Libya.
A mother mourning in Iraq.
A country shattered in Afghanistan.
America doesn’t just claim to defend peace—
It decides who “deserves” peace,
And who must suffer to protect it.
The Most Dangerous Power Is the One That Thinks It’s Saving You:
Empires that know they’re cruel are easier to fight.
But the ones that believe they’re righteous are harder to stop.
Because they don’t just act —
They justify.
They lecture.
They pretend to liberate as they conquer.
And when their bombs fall, they call it strategy.
When their sanctions starve nations, they call it justice.
When their media covers only one side, they call it freedom of the press.
So who gets to question them?
Ask the Silenced:
Ask:
A mother in Gaza, if American aid brings her child back.
A father in Iraq, if democracy ever arrived.
A protester in Iran if sanctions feel like human rights.
A child in Yemen, if drone strikes teach peace.
A student in Libya, if intervention gave them stability.
They won’t quote presidents.
They’ll give you truth.
Not the kind that headlines want—
But the kind that history remembers.
Because If This Is Peace, What Does War Look Like?
If the global superpower is the one:
Selling the most weapons,
Waging the most wars,
Building the most military bases,
Controlling the global economy,
And deciding who lives in prosperity and who survives on aid…
…then maybe the real question is:
Are we living in peace, or are we just surviving under control?
Final Reflection That Leaves the Reader Uneasy:
Because peace built on silence, submission, and fear… Isn’t peace.
It’s power—dressed up to look pretty.
And until we learn to tell the difference,
The world will keep burning…
While the peacekeepers keep pretending to put out the fire.
. . .
Bibliography:
- Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Penguin Books, 2004. Explores the U.S.’s pursuit of global power through military and economic tactics.
- Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Times Books, 2006. A documented history of U.S.-backed coups and foreign interference.
- Pape, Robert A. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House, 2005. Discusses how U.S. military presence in foreign lands fuels anti-American sentiment and conflict.
- Amnesty International. Annual Reports (Various Years). Detailed records of U.S. foreign policy impacts on human rights globally.
- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). Reports on Yemen, Gaza, Libya, and Iraq Humanitarian Crises. → Used to highlight civilian impacts of war and sanctions.
- The Guardian. “US Sanctions and the Politics of Economic Coercion.” 2021. Analysis of U.S. sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. [www.theguardian.com]
- Al Jazeera. “The Aftermath of American Wars.” Covers the destruction left behind in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. [www.aljazeera.com]
- Foreign Affairs. “Who Made America the World’s Police?” 2022. Essays examining the self-assigned global role of the U.S.
- The Brookings Institution. “The Weaponization of the Dollar.” Analysis of how U.S. economic dominance influences foreign policy and sanctions.
- Human Rights Watch. World Reports on U.S. Foreign Policy and Global Conflict Zones. Includes case studies on the impact of American military aid and drone strikes.
- International Crisis Group. Reports on Proxy Wars and U.S. Involvement in Conflict Zones. Deep analysis of U.S. actions in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, etc.
- Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. Realist political theory explaining how dominant powers operate in global politics.
- The Intercept. “The NSA Files: Spying on the World.” Documents from Edward Snowden revealing U.S. global surveillance programs.
- The New York Times. “America’s Forever Wars: Where We Stand Now.” Ongoing analysis of military engagements post-9/11.
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Nuclear Status Reports. Updated facts on global nuclear policy and U.S. double standards.