&w=3840&q=100)
Beyond Trump's Iran strikes: Is America a compulsive warmonger? Debate rages on US military interventions
From its inception to at least 2022, the United States has carried out nearly 400 military interventions worldwide. It's possible that the roots of this behaviour go deeper than the ideology or personality of any particular president. read more
Donald Trump's recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have once again triggered a familiar and deeply polarised debate: is the United States compulsively drawn to war?
The operation, billed as the largest B-2 stealth bomber deployment in history and involving over 125 aircraft and submarine-launched missiles, came despite Trump's repeated promises to keep America out of foreign entanglements. Critics say the action illustrates a long-standing pattern in US foreign policy– where rhetoric about restraint consistently gives way to the use of force.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
But defenders of the strikes argue that Trump's hand was forced by the international obligations and security commitments that come with being a global superpower.
An empire built on interventions
From its inception to at least 2022, the United States has carried out nearly 400 military interventions worldwide– a number that has sharply accelerated in recent decades. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the US conducted 469 interventions between 1798 and 2022, with over 250 occurring after the Cold War ended in 1991. These have spanned nearly every region of the world, from Latin America to West Asia, and from Africa to the South Pacific.
Instead of receding after the Cold War, military action only intensified. The post-9/11 period is now regarded as one of the most militarily aggressive eras in US history, characterised by not only the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also continuous drone strikes, special operations, and cyber offensives in countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.
Far from signalling a retreat, America's global military posture appears more entrenched than ever.
The structure that compels war
It's possible that the roots of this behaviour go deeper than the ideology or personality of any particular president. The US operates over 750 military bases in 80 countries and is treaty-bound to defend more than 50 nations, including through alliances such as Nato, ANZUS, and bilateral pacts with countries like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.
This sprawling network of obligations and strategic interests creates what some experts describe as a structural bias toward intervention. In effect, the US is constantly at risk of being pulled into conflicts on terms dictated by others.
Even Trump, whose 'America First' campaign promised to end 'endless wars,' escalated drone strikes during his first term, killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, and sent troops back to West Asia in moments of crisis.
Addiction or obligation?
To critics, this behaviour is not a coincidence but a pathology: a kind of compulsive warmongering disguised as leadership. They cite the uninterrupted line of US military campaigns from Korea and Vietnam to Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now, again, Iran.
Yet others argue that US military power remains the backbone of global security. As threats multiply from state and non-state actors, and as alliances such as Nato agree to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, they insist that America's engagements abroad are less about aggression than deterrence.
Either way, the question remains: Can the United States ever break its cycle of war, or is the machinery of global empire too deeply embedded to stop?
As Trump's recent actions show, the pattern is likely to persist — whoever sits in the White House.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Iran nuclear programme set back years with strikes: CIA chief to lawmakers
Ratcliffe also told lawmakers that the intelligence community assessed the vast majority of Iran's amassed enriched uranium likely remains buried under the rubble at Isfahan and Fordow AP Washington CIA Director John Ratcliffe told skeptical US lawmakers that American military strikes destroyed Iran's lone metal conversion facility and in the process delivered a monumental setback to Tehran's nuclear programme that would take years to overcome, a US official said on Sunday. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive intelligence, said Ratcliffe laid out the importance of the strikes on the metal conversion facility during a classified hearing for US lawmakers last week. Details about the private briefings surfaced as President Donald Trump and his administration keep pushing back on questions from Democratic lawmakers and others about how far Iran was set back by the strikes before last Tuesday's ceasefire with Israel took hold. It was obliterating like nobody's ever seen before, Trump said in an interview on Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures". "And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time. Ratcliffe also told lawmakers that the intelligence community assessed the vast majority of Iran's amassed enriched uranium likely remains buried under the rubble at Isfahan and Fordow, two of the three key nuclear facilities targeted by US strikes. But even if the uranium remains intact, the loss of its metal conversion facility effectively has taken away Tehran's ability to build a bomb for years to come, the official said. Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation that the three Iranian sites with capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree". But, he added, some is still standing and that because capabilities remain, if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again". He said assessing the full damage comes down to Iran allowing in inspectors. "Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared, and there is nothing there," Grossi said. Trump has insisted from just hours after three key targets were struck by US bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. His defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has said they were destroyed". A preliminary report issued by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, meanwhile, said the strikes did significant damage to the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan sites, but did not totally destroy the facilities. As a result of Israeli and US strikes, Grossi said that it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage". Israel claims it has set back Iran's nuclear program by many years". The metal conversion facility that Ratcliffe said was destroyed was located at the Isfahan nuclear facility. The process of transforming enriched uranium gas into dense metal, or metallisation, is a key step in building the explosive core of a bomb. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in comments at the NATO summit last week also suggested that it was likely the US strikes had destroyed the metal conversion facility. You can't do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility," Rubio said. "We can't even find where it is, where it used to be on the map. You can't even find where it used to be because the whole thing is just blackened out. It's gone. It's wiped out. The CIA director also stressed to lawmakers during the congressional briefing that Iran's air defence was shattered during the 12-day assault. As a result, any attempt by Iran to rebuild its nuclear programme could now easily be thwarted by Israeli strikes that Iran currently has little wherewithal to defend against, the official said. Ratcliffe's briefing to lawmakers on the US findings appeared to mesh with some of Israeli officials' battle damage assessments. Israeli officials have determined that Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a weapons-grade level was neutralised for a prolonged period, according to a senior Israeli military official who was not authorized to talk publicly about the matter. Tehran's nuclear programme was also significantly damaged by the strikes killing key scientists, damage to Iran's missile production industry and the battering of Iran's aerial defence system, according to the Israeli's assessment. Grossi, and some Democrats, note that Iran still has the know-how. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have, Grossi said, emphasising the need to come to a diplomatic deal on the country's nuclear programme. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran has ‘serious doubts' over ceasefire with Israel, says ready to strike if truce broken
Iran said it is not convinced and has "serious doubts" that a tentative US-brokered ceasefire with Israel will hold, signaling it is ready to strike back if hostilities resume. This handout picture provided by the Iranian foreign ministry shows Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi mourning next to the coffin of Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami, who was killed during Israeli strikes.(AFP) 'We have serious doubts about the enemy's commitment to its obligations, including the ceasefire,' the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Iran's armed forces chief of staff, Abdolrahim Mousavi, as saying. 'We are prepared to deliver a firm response if aggression is repeated,' Abdolrahim Mousavi added. Mousavi made the comments in a Sunday phone call with Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, addressing the fragile truce that began on Tuesday, June 24. The Iran-Israel conflict began on June 13 with Israeli strike that killed several senior Iranian military and nuclear officials, including Mousavi's predecessor — a move that shook global markets and raised fears of regional escalation. Alongside military and nuclear targets, the Israeli strikes also hit civilian areas in Tehran and other cities. The Donald Trump administration later joined the Israeli campaign with its own offensive, bombing three key nuclear sites in Iran— attacks President Donald Trump said had 'completely and totally obliterated' the Iranian atomic infrastructure. Iran-Israel ceasefire On June 24, Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the two regional foes have agreed truce. Trump's post read: 'CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED! Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World. During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, 'THE 12 DAY WAR.' This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!' In another post, Donald Trump said, 'Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, 'PEACE!' I knew the time was NOW. The World, and the Middle East, are the real WINNERS! Both Nations will see tremendous LOVE, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY in their futures. They have so much to gain, and yet, so much to lose if they stray from the road of RIGHTEOUSNESS & TRUTH. The future for Israel & Iran is UNLIMITED, & filled with great PROMISE. GOD BLESS YOU BOTH!' The ceasefire hit a setback briefly as both Israel and Iran accused each other of violating it, with Israeli strikes targeting Iranian cities again. The ceasefire resumed after Donald Trump's outburst, asking both countries, particularly Israel, to not drop bombs anymore. Iran reported 627 people killed in Israeli attacks, while Israeli emergency services cited 28 deaths and over 1,300 injuries from Iranian strikes. (with inputs from Bloomberg)
Mint
7 minutes ago
- Mint
Big, beautiful budgets: not just an American problem
LAST YEAR America ran a budget deficit of 7% of GDP. It may soon be even bigger. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now working its way through Congress, permanently extends tax cuts introduced in 2017, offers more to hospitality workers and old folk, and boosts payments to poor children. The proposed legislation amounts to trillions of dollars of extra borrowing over the next decade. Mr Trump's showmanship attracts attention—but America is not alone. Governments across the rich world are increasingly profligate (see chart 1). This year France will run a deficit worth 6% of GDP; Britain's will be only a little smaller. The German government will borrow the equivalent of 3% of GDP. Canada's budget balance is also moving into the red. Jean-Baptiste Colbert, a bureaucrat under Louis XIV, remarked that the essence of tax policy involved 'plucking as many feathers from the goose with the least hissing". Today's governments do not pluck the goose. Like producers of foie gras, they stuff it. Governments have long run deficits. France, the land of foie gras, has not seen a surplus since 1974. And a government can simultaneously borrow money and become less indebted, if the economy grows faster than debt accumulates. What is happening today, however, is unprecedented. Deficit levels would not be unusual if the economy were in recession. In fact, rich-world GDP is growing decently. The unemployment rate is near an all-time low. Corporations' profit growth is healthy. Meanwhile, borrowing costs have jumped. The average rich-world government, weighted by GDP, now borrows for ten years at a 3.7% annual interest rate, up from 1% during the covid-19 pandemic. In these circumstances, many textbooks would advise, at the very least, cutting your deficit. Today's governments prefer to double down. Many are promising to raise defence spending. Although that may be unavoidable, the same is not true of other decisions. In Japan political parties are offering fiscal sweeteners, ranging from cash handouts to consumption-tax cuts, ahead of an election to the upper house of parliament. The British government recently undid cash-saving measures it had imposed only a few months before, restoring payments to old people to help with energy bills. South Korea is cutting inheritance tax. Australia is cutting income tax. Even once-prudent countries are getting in on the act. The German government is planning to borrow €800bn ($940bn) to invest in defence and infrastructure. 'By German standards, this truly is 'whatever it takes' fiscal policy," say analysts at Deutsche Bank. Switzerland, which before the pandemic ran a large budget surplus, now has a small one. Next year the country will introduce a 13th month of state-pension payments. The silver-haireds enjoying a late lunch on the banks of the Rhine do not appear to be on the breadline. These days, though, everyone gets a handout. Why are governments so spendthrift? During the pandemic politicians developed a habit of bailing out businesses and households. High inflation then spurred demands for payments to alleviate a 'cost-of-living crisis". Today many incumbents hope to ward off populists by throwing around money. When a politician suggests a cut, 24-hour news and social media ensure that everyone hears a sob story. Fiscal responsibility is more toxic than ever before. Until recently, it was painless for governments to run loose fiscal policy. In 2021-23 nominal GDP was growing reasonably fast, inflation was high and interest rates were low. Under these conditions, the average rich-world government could run sizeable primary deficits (ie, before interest payments) and still cut their debt load. Some countries, such as Japan, could reduce their debt-to-GDP ratio even if they ran a primary deficit of 12% of GDP. As such, two-thirds of rich-world governments are less indebted today than five years ago. Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio has fallen by 24 percentage points. Greece's has fallen by 68 points. Today growth and inflation are down, and interest rates are up. We calculate that, for the average rich country to cut its debt, it must now balance its primary budget. For some, the fiscal arithmetic has radically altered. Italy's debt-reducing primary balance has swung from a deficit of 3.1% of GDP in 2023 to a surplus of 1.3% of GDP. The Italians are shrinking their budget deficit, but not by enough. With many other governments making even less progress, and a trade war promising a growth slowdown, rich-world public debt is likely to start rising (see chart 2). This is bad timing. Demographers have known for decades that the mid-2020s would be the point at which baby-boomers would begin to retire in droves, prompting demand for health care and pensions to surge. In 2015 Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility, a watchdog, suggested that even under benign conditions, now was the point at which the government would struggle to avoid accumulating debt. A demographic crunch and free-spending fiscal policies are therefore about to interact in unpleasant ways. No one can predict if or when investors will lose patience, forcing interest rates much higher. Yet there must be a limit to the debt binge. As any lover of foie gras knows, overfeeding even the greediest goose can cause its liver to explode.
