Before Condemning Iran: A Glimpse into 30 Disturbing U.S. Military Interventions Since WWII By Yassim Dukawuya
The muted reactions of Western powers to Israel’s unprovoked assaults in recent months have reignited an age-old debate about the double standards that dominate international politics. This silence is not simply diplomatic inertia; it is a reflection of selective outrage that reveals deep inconsistencies in how global power and military aggression are judged. At the center of this hypocrisy is a historical pattern often ignored in mainstream discourse: the United States’ long and expansive record of military interventions since the end of World War II.
A sobering list of nations bombed or invaded by the U.S. reveals a consistent readiness to project force far beyond its borders. These interventions—whether in the name of democracy, counterterrorism, or national interest—have shaped the geopolitical order but have rarely been subjected to the same level of international condemnation reserved for other nations. The resulting pattern is one where power often escapes accountability, and justice is applied unequally.
Consider some of the most glaring examples:
Japan (1945): The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were technically part of the final act of World War II, yet their inclusion in this narrative is critical. They marked the dawn of a new era of American military dominance and a signal to the world of the unmatched destructive capacity Washington was willing to wield.
Korea (1950–1953): In defense of South Korea, the U.S. spearheaded a UN coalition, but the campaign was brutal and marked by extensive aerial bombardment that devastated the North, setting the tone for decades of hostility on the peninsula.
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (1961–1973): The Vietnam War stands as a tragic emblem of American overreach. With more bombs dropped on Laos than were used during the entirety of World War II, the campaign extended far beyond Vietnam’s borders, often in secrecy. The human toll was immense and the justifications increasingly hollow.
Iraq (1991–2015): Beginning with the Gulf War and evolving into a full-scale occupation in 2003, the Iraq saga exemplifies the endurance of U.S. military involvement. Civilian casualties, regional destabilization, and the birth of extremist movements emerged from a conflict built on controversial premises.
Afghanistan (2001–2021): What began as a direct response to 9/11 became America’s longest war. Generations of Afghans grew up under the shadow of drones and occupation, even as the original mission—defeating al-Qaeda—faded into broader and vaguer strategic aims.
Beyond these, there were more discreet yet equally significant operations:
Guatemala (1954): A CIA-backed coup against a democratically elected government.
Read Also:
Panama (1989): A swift but deadly invasion under the banner of removing a dictator.
Libya (1986 and 2011): Airstrikes first as retribution for terrorism, then as part of a NATO-backed regime change.
While each intervention came with its own rationale—some arguably more justified than others—the sheer volume and frequency expose a troubling pattern: the normalization of military action as a primary tool of foreign policy.
This brings us to a pivotal question: How has the international community responded?
More often than not, the response has been disturbingly muted. While popular protests—such as the global backlash against the Iraq War—have been significant, official responses from U.S. allies have rarely gone beyond mild rebukes. Sanctions, travel bans, or international legal proceedings—tools frequently deployed against adversaries like Russia, Iran, or North Korea—are conspicuously absent in cases involving the United States.
The implication is unavoidable: global norms appear to apply differently depending on the actor. When the U.S. acts, the machinery of international accountability slows down or grinds to a halt altogether. When others follow suit, condemnation is swift, coordinated, and often accompanied by punitive action.
This double standard was most recently highlighted in global reactions to Iran’s retaliation against Israel. Western nations wasted no time in condemning Iran. Yet those same voices have remained largely silent or cautious in criticizing Israel’s own military provocations—just as they have consistently avoided confronting the U.S. for its far more expansive record of interventions.
Such selective morality undermines the credibility of international law. It erodes trust in the so-called rules-based global order and breeds resentment among nations and peoples who see a clear hierarchy in how justice is applied. If international principles are only invoked when convenient, they cease to be principles at all.
To move toward a more equitable world order, we must first confront these uncomfortable truths. A fair and just international system cannot be built on the silence of some and the condemnation of others. The legacy of U.S. interventions—and the international community’s complicity or indifference—must be reckoned with, not just by historians, but by policymakers and global citizens committed to peace and accountability.
Only when every nation is held to the same standard, regardless of its power or alliances, can we begin to create an international community grounded in genuine justice. That begins with remembering not just the aggressions of our adversaries—but also those committed by our allies, or even ourselves. Silence is no longer neutrality; it is endorsement. And the world can no longer afford to be silent.
Yassim Dukawuya writes from Kofar Famfo, Kano City
