The United States: From international leadership to a global crisis of trust
Introduction: Is American power in decline, or is it confidence in America that is declining?
The United States today faces an important strategic paradox. It still possesses immense military, economic and technological capabilities and retains wide influence in international institutions, security alliances and the global economy, yet at the same time it faces growing questions about the credibility of its rhetoric on democracy and human rights, and about the extent of its commitment to international law when its rulings conflict with its strategic interests or those of its allies.
The war with Iran, the American position on the war in Gaza, and the disputes with international judicial institutions have raised a fundamental question: can the United States maintain its leading position in the world by relying on military power and economic pressure alone, or does the continuation of its standing require restoring international trust and a more consistent commitment to the principles of international law?
Understanding this paradox requires going back to the emergence of the international order after World War II, then examining American military interventions, the influence of domestic political currents and pressure groups, and arriving at the repercussions of the war with Iran and the sanctions on human rights and judicial institutions, and what all of that means for America's image in the world.
First: The United States and the founding of the international order after World War II
The world emerged from World War II in 1945 weighed down by millions of victims and vast destruction, which pushed the victorious powers, led by the United States, to work on building an international order that would limit major wars and establish a framework for cooperation among states.
The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was one of the most important outcomes of that phase, followed by the General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, affirming the principles of human dignity, freedom, equality and fundamental rights.
The United States also contributed to rebuilding Europe, supporting international financial institutions and building security and economic alliances, presenting itself as one of the principal powers defending the liberal international order.
But this image was not free of contradictions from the outset. The United States used nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and its history during the Cold War included foreign interventions and support for authoritarian governments and regimes in cases where strategic interests conflicted with the principles of democracy.
From here, the contradiction between rhetoric and practice is not a phenomenon that began with the administration of Donald Trump; it is a historical problem in American foreign policy whose intensity has grown or whose forms have changed with different administrations and international circumstances.
The question that imposes itself is: were democracy and human rights always independent goals of American policy, or were they at times part of a broader strategy to achieve influence and confront rivals?
Second: Wars, military interventions, and the crisis of credibility
Past decades have witnessed a series of American military interventions that sparked wide controversy over their legal legitimacy and their political and humanitarian outcomes.
In Grenada in 1983, then in Panama in 1989 and 1990, the United States used military force to achieve political and security objectives. During the 1990s, it took part in NATO operations related to Bosnia, within a complex international context in which humanitarian and strategic considerations overlapped.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States entered the war in Afghanistan, which lasted nearly two decades and ended with the withdrawal of American forces in 2021 and the return of the Taliban to power. This outcome raised questions about the usefulness of long 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 America's image. The George W. Bush administration relied on claims about weapons of mass destruction, but the stockpiles cited to justify the war were never found. The war brought down the Iraqi regime, but it also left enormous human losses, political and security turmoil, and regional repercussions that extended for many years.
In Libya in 2011, the Security Council issued a mandate to protect civilians, and NATO carried out military operations within that mandate. Yet disagreement persisted over how far the operation adhered to its declared objectives, and over the responsibility of international powers for the consequences of the collapse of state institutions.
These experiences reveal that military superiority does not necessarily guarantee the desired political outcomes. They also show that changing regimes by force can produce a security vacuum, internal divisions and regional conflicts that are difficult to contain.
From here, the importance of distinguishing between the ability to win militarily and the ability to build a sustainable peace is reinforced. The first may be achieved in a short period; the second requires political legitimacy, stable institutions, a settlement of conflicts and respect for the rights of populations.
Third: The Trump administration, the conservative right, and the relationship with Israel
Donald Trump's return to the White House in 2025 brought back to the fore a political approach based on prioritizing American interests as the administration defines them, using trade tariffs, economic pressure and the threat of military force, and re-evaluating international commitments and traditional alliances.
Several currents and interests intersect in this policy, among them conservative nationalism, the pro-Israel evangelical Christian right, and pro-Israel pressure groups, alongside the security and economic interests tied to the American-Israeli alliance.
The evangelical Christian right represents one component of Trump's political base. Sectors of it adopt religious and political positions that make supporting Israel a priority, even though the motives of its members and organizations are not identical.
Pro-Israel pressure groups also play a role in communicating with members of Congress and funding political activities, especially in what relates to urging military aid to Israel, congressional positions, and decisions related to war and peace.
But objective analysis requires not reducing American decision-making to the influence of a single group.
Nevertheless, the fundamental question remains legitimate: to what extent do domestic political considerations and the strategic alliance with Israel affect Washington's readiness to apply the standards it declares its commitment to in the field of human rights and international law?
Gaza has become one of the most prominent arenas of this test. While the United States stresses the need to protect civilians and deliver humanitarian aid, its critics accuse it of contradiction because of its continued military and diplomatic support for Israel despite the scale of destruction, civilian losses and the legal controversy surrounding the military operations.
The essence of the criticism here is not merely the existence of an alliance between two states, but the question of whether Washington applies the same standards of accountability to its allies and its adversaries, or whether strategic considerations sometimes lead to a clear disparity in positions.
Fourth: The war with Iran and the test of the limits of American power
The war with Iran represents an immensely important test for American strategy, given Iran's geographic position, 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 does not limit its effects to the parties to the conflict; it extends to the entire global economy.
Among the most dangerous repercussions are disruption to oil and gas supplies, rising shipping and insurance costs, greater risks to commercial ships, and the increases in fuel, transport, food and basic commodity prices that may result.
This war also reveals an important strategic truth: military power can inflict major damage on an adversary, but it cannot by itself produce a lasting political settlement. The absence of a clear diplomatic path can turn temporary military gains into long-term crises whose costs are borne by the peoples of the region and the global economy.
Fifth: Sanctions on judicial and human rights institutions and the clash with international law
The controversy over American policy is intensifying in light of the disputes with international judicial institutions and the human rights bodies that support investigations related to violations in Gaza.
On October 9, 2026, press reports said the Trump administration had imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court, in the context of Washington's objection to what it considers an overreach of the court's jurisdiction, especially in files relating to Israeli officials.
Critics of the sanctions argue that they obstruct the court's work, weaken the independence of international justice, and create a dangerous precedent: punishing a judicial institution because of its investigations or its legal positions.
It is necessary here to distinguish between the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes falling within its mandate, while the International Court of Justice primarily hears legal disputes between states and issues advisory opinions on matters referred to it under the Charter and the applicable procedures.
In another development, reports on October 14, 2026 said a federal judge in New York had issued a preliminary order temporarily halting the imposition of sanctions on two American organizations, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), in the context of their objection to measures linked to assisting the International Criminal Court.
The challenge rested on concerns related to freedom of expression and constitutional protection for human rights work. It must be emphasized that the preliminary order does not amount to a final ruling invalidating the policy in question nationwide.
The Trump administration has also taken steps to withdraw from international institutions, including the World Health Organization and UNESCO, within a broader context of objection to some international commitments and multilateral working mechanisms.
These developments raise an important question about the relationship between national sovereignty and international cooperation: to what extent may a powerful state use sanctions and economic pressure to prevent an international institution from exercising its jurisdiction? And how can the right of states to object to judicial jurisdiction be reconciled with the need not to disable accountability for international crimes?
Sixth: How have these policies affected America's image in the world?
The effects of these policies go beyond immediate diplomatic disagreements; they reach what is known as American soft power: the ability of the United States to influence through the appeal of its institutions, universities, culture and economy, and through the confidence of others in its principles and positions.
Results of a survey published by the Pew Research Center in June 2026, covering 36 countries, showed that views of the United States were negative for a median of 57% of respondents across the surveyed countries, compared with 37% whose views were positive. The survey also showed declining confidence in Trump's handling of international affairs in a large number of countries.
The decline in trust can be explained through several overlapping factors.
The first is the contradiction that critics of Washington see between its human rights rhetoric and its positions on the war in Gaza, and the questions that raises about equality in applying international law.
The second is the repercussions of the war with Iran and the disruption it may cause in energy markets and international trade, in addition to the risks of the conflict expanding and its rising cost for America's allies.
The third is the tension with international institutions and the objection to their decisions or the imposition of sanctions on bodies that cooperate with them, which may reinforce fears that multilateral institutions become vulnerable to pressure when their work conflicts with the interests of the major powers.
The fourth is the oscillation of American policies between successive administrations, which leads some allies to question the durability of American commitments and encourages them to diversify their economic and security partnerships.
Seventh: Can the United States regain international trust?
Restoring trust does not require abandoning American national interests, but rather reconsidering how those interests are defined and pursued.
The national interest is not limited to military superiority or immediate economic gains; it also includes the stability of markets, the security of allies, the effectiveness of international institutions, the containment of conflicts, and the preservation of a global environment that helps trade, investment and scientific cooperation.
Addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict also requires looking at rights, security and human dignity as issues without seriously engaging which no lasting stability can be achieved. Stability cannot rest on force alone, just as ignoring the political and human rights of peoples does not necessarily bring conflicts to an end.
As for the Iranian file, combining deterrence with diplomacy, the existence of verifiable agreements, and clear mechanisms for de-escalation may provide a less costly path than continuing open confrontation.
In international relations generally, the United States can strengthen its standing when it uses its influence to support sustainable solutions, rather than relying excessively on sanctions, threats and the use of force.
Conclusion: Power alone does not make 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 that role and its future.
The United States remains a major power with exceptional tools of influence, yet the continuation of its ability to lead the international order is also affected by how much trust states and peoples grant it, and by how convinced others are that the rules it defends apply to everyone.
The experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show that military superiority alone is not enough to build sustainable political stability. The war with Iran highlights the risks of shifting the cost of conflict to energy markets and global trade. And the sanctions on judicial and human rights institutions raise questions about the limits of using economic power against international accountability mechanisms.
The American challenge, then, is not merely maintaining superiority, but reconciling power with legitimacy, national interests with international responsibilities, and strategic alliances with commitment to human rights.
A state that seeks to lead the world needs more than aircraft carriers and economic sanctions; it needs trust, institutions that respect the law, and a foreign policy that can be explained and defended according to consistent standards.
The ability to impose decisions may achieve temporary gains, but the ability to build trust and produce fair settlements is what gives international leadership the chance to endure.
