America’s Attack on Iran Should Have Asia-Pacific Countries Very, Very Worried

Having overthrown regimes in Latin America and the Middle East, why would Washington draw the line at Asia?

Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) fires a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) in support of Operation Epic Fury, Feb. 28, 2026.

The Trump administration’s worldviews and foreign policy have been framed as a break from the past. It’s true that several things distinguish Trump from his predecessors: his disdain for allies; lack of respect for global norms and institutions; and abjuring a value-driven foreign policy. But whether it be the neoconservatives of the George W. Bush administration, the liberal internationalists of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, or Trump’s transactional or value-neutral foreign policy, there has been more continuity than change in U.S. foreign policy from one presidency to the next. 

A common thread running through every post-Cold War U.S. presidency is the objective of maintaining primacy in the international system and a willingness to bend the rules to achieve this. From relying on “coalitions of the willing” during the second Iraq War to not ratifying the United National Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or joining the International Criminal Court, the U.S.-led global order has maintained a “pleasant fiction” as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney referred to it in his speech at the Davos World Economic Forum in January. The strongest states (namely the United States) “exempt themselves when convenient,” and international law is “applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.” 

Trump’s behavior merely makes these actions more overt. There is no pretense of acting in accordance with international law and fewer constraints on his actions from U.S. Congressional oversight or securing a U.N. mandate.

Another common thread running through successive U.S. administrations is a proclivity for regime change. Putting aside the debate on the merits of removing unsavory regimes, the American urge to proselytize is well-entrenched. While every administration will criticize its predecessor for getting bogged down in humanitarian interventions and never-ending wars, they cannot resist getting themselves into the same situation. Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen U.S. military operations justified on the basis of upholding the rules-based international order (repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait during the first Iraq War in 1990) or the liberal international order (humanitarian interventions in the Balkans and Somalia in the 1990s); acting in defense of U.S. national security interests (invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks); or for reasons of pure power politics (remaking the Middle East through the second Iraq War in 2003 under the false pretense of terrorism linkages and weapons of mass destruction claims). 

The reasons for U.S. military adventurism under Trump may be more difficult to define now (capturing President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Iran, despite neither country posing an imminent or existential threat to the United States) but the proclivity to intervene remains unchanged. 

Contrast this with other emerging or global powers, such as China and India. While these countries do throw their weight around on occasion, particularly in their near-abroad, their impulse is to stay aloof rather than intervene. As a result, they are often criticized for being timid, not pulling their weight or being free riders of the........

© The Diplomat