US Foreign Policy Is Becoming Morally Bankrupt

Over the years, many analysts, including myself, have questioned whether the United States consistently adheres to the ethical principles it expects other nations to respect. Under Donald Trump, the contradiction between Washington’s rhetoric and its actions has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Democracy, sovereignty and a rules-based international order are presented as universal principles, yet their application often appears conditional on American strategic and economic interests.

The war against Iran, the killing of its Supreme Leader and Washington’s pursuit of regional objectives raise serious questions about the limits of American power. Similarly, the arrest of Venezuela’s president and the drive to control the country’s energy resources have reinforced concerns that national sovereignty becomes negotiable when a government challenges Washington’s interests.

In South Asia, allegations of American involvement in political changes in Pakistan and Bangladesh have fuelled suspicions that Washington’s commitment to democracy is selective. Such allegations require scrutiny, and domestic political dynamics cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the perception that external powers can influence political outcomes undermines the credibility of the principles they claim to defend.

The latest Russian diesel arrangement offers another revealing example of Washington’s shifting priorities. The reported purchase of 300,000 tons of Russian diesel, despite American efforts to restrict Moscow’s energy revenues over its war against Ukraine, raises questions about the consistency of US policy. When energy security and domestic economic pressures become pressing, previously declared strategic principles appear open to adjustment.

The implications extend beyond energy markets. Ukraine, under President Volodymyr Zelensky, has depended heavily on American military and financial support to resist Russia’s invasion. Yet Trump’s reported suggestion that Ukraine needed new leadership following disagreements over policy raises a fundamental question, is American support grounded in a consistent commitment to sovereignty, or is it conditional on political compliance?

Here lies the contradiction. Washington has supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression, yet its own interests can lead it towards arrangements that potentially benefit Moscow. The immediate priorities of American consumers and voters may take precedence over the strategic concerns of an ally fighting for its territorial integrity.

The issue is not whether America has the right to pursue its national interests. Every sovereign state does. The question is whether Washington can claim moral leadership while applying one standard to its adversaries and another to itself.

Military supremacy can compel compliance, economic power can impose costs, and political pressure can influence governments. None, however, guarantees moral authority. When principles become negotiable and national interests override proclaimed values, the result is a crisis of credibility.

A superpower may impose its will through military and economic strength, but it cannot command moral authority. American foreign policy risks losing precisely what Washington claims to defend - the moral legitimacy of its leadership.