THE Chinese embassy in Moscow recently published a list of 30 countries the United States has bombed since World War II — framing it as evidence of American aggression cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy and human rights. A full rebuttal to this sweeping indictment is beyond the scope and space of this article. Instead, this piece aims to offer an objective analysis of some of the most consequential and controversial cases — placing them in historical, moral and geopolitical context. There is no scope for denying that American foreign policy has been marked by both triumphs and missteps — but to equate every military action with unprovoked aggression is indefensible — if not disingenuous.
Ìý
History without context is indefensible
THE embassy’s list that treats every instance of US military involvement — regardless of context, justification or consequence — may be maligned as propaganda. Hiroshima (1945) is cited alongside drone strikes on ISIS in Syria (2015), ignoring the vast differences in geopolitical conditions, international law and strategic objectives. This reductionist view paints the US as the universal aggressor, while conveniently omitting the wars, invasions, genocides and instability that often-prompted American involvement.
Take the Korean War (1950-1953): it was triggered by North Korea’s invasion of the South, supported by both China and the Soviet Union. China entered the war militarily, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Or the Vietnam War, a Cold War tragedy no doubt — but China’s support for the genocidal Khmer Rouge in neighbouring Cambodia is left unmentioned.
NATO’s intervention in Serbia (1999), led by the US, sought to halt ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Interventions in Iraq and Libya — though controversial — were often multilateral, targeting regimes engaged in war crimes or regional destabilisation. Stripping these events of complexity and reducing them to a mere ‘bombing list’ is not history — it’s strategic disinformation.
Ìý
What the list leaves out
EQUALLY telling is what’s missing: liberal democracies. The US has never bombed a functioning democracy — never invaded and occupied one. Virtually every country on the list was, at the time, governed by a dictatorship, military junta or authoritarian regime, often ones that had either initiated violence, supported terrorism or committed gross violations of human rights.
That pattern is not coincidental. While flawed, US foreign policy operates within a larger framework of democratic values, public accountability and international collaboration. Unlike other major powers, the US does not make a habit of attacking open societies or suppressing dissent abroad. Democracies rarely go to war with each other — and the US has consistently refrained from doing so.
Meanwhile, major autocratic powers continue to prop up autocratic regimes — North Korea, Iran, Syria — regardless of their repression, censorship, or disregard for civil liberties. This distinction undermines the moral equivalency China seeks to draw.
The Chinese embassy in Moscow poses a rhetorical question: Has the world ever sanctioned or condemned the US? The answer is an emphatic yes — led often by Americans themselves. The Vietnam War, Iraq invasion, drone warfare and covert interventions have triggered mass protests, congressional inquiries and international criticism. America’s democratic institutions — free press, independent judiciary, civil society — ensure that its policies are scrutinised and challenged.
Can the same be said of the global autocracies powers? They crush dissent, censor criticism and exercise near-total state control. Their war crimes, human rights abuses, and regional aggressions go unchallenged within their own borders. For example, China’s suppression of Uyghurs, its crackdown in Hong Kong, and its militarisation of the South China Sea are never debated in its parliament — because no real parliament exists. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 met domestic protest with arrests, assassinations and prison sentences. Iran jails women for refusing the hijab and executes protesters.
Ìý
Demonizing the US — while depending on it
THERE’S an added irony: countries that denounce American imperialism often rely heavily on its innovations, infrastructure and institutions. They crave access to US markets, send their children to American universities, and adopt US technology — even while vilifying its democracy. They criticise America’s ‘global meddling’ while reaping the benefits of the post-war liberal order the US helped create — an order that has lifted millions out of poverty and prevented another world war. This does not, however, exempt America from its share of significant and at times evident inconsistencies.
Ìý
Selective outrage and the Iran-Israel triangle
THE current hostility between Israel and Iran — intensified by Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Iran in April 2024 — has escalated tensions and provoked retaliatory measures. Iran is often portrayed as a destabilising actor in the region, accused of arming proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, backing the Assad regime in Syria, and fuelling sectarian divisions.
However, to characterise Israel’s actions as purely defensive and morally justified is overly simplistic. With one of the most advanced and powerful militaries in the world, Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes in Syria and Lebanon, frequently targeting Iranian and Hezbollah positions but also causing civilian casualties. Its prolonged blockade of Gaza, continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank and resistance to a meaningful two-state solution have deepened resentment and entrenched cycles of violence. While framed as responses to existential threats, Israel’s security policies have increasingly taken the form of an assertive, militarised strategy that often relies on force at the expense of diplomacy.
What makes this instability more combustible is the US’s unwavering support for Israel, including billions in annual military aid and routine diplomatic shielding at the UN. America’s rhetorical commitment to human rights rings hollow when it turns a blind eye to Israel’s apartheid-like practices against Palestinians.
Israel, an undeclared nuclear power, vehemently opposes Iran’s nuclear ambitions not out of fear of an attack, but to preserve its regional military superiority. Some analysts suggest Israel also envisions a future Kurdish state carved from parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and possibly Turkey, as part of a broader strategy of regional influence. While the US has not endorsed such plans, its unconditional support for Israel fuels perceptions of double standards in American foreign policy.
Ìý
America’s troubling alliances with autocratic kingdoms
THIS inconsistency is even more glaring in Washington’s enduring alliances with autocratic monarchies in the Arab world. These monarchies remain close military and economic partners of the US, despite egregious records on human rights, political repression and media censorship. They execute dissidents, restrict women’s rights and suppress even modest calls for reform. The devastating intervention in Yemen, with US weapons and logistical support, contributed to one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, was met with muted outrage and quickly papered over in the name of ‘strategic interests’.
Washington’s transactional relationships with such regimes directly contradict its professed commitment to democracy and human rights. These alliances may serve short-term geopolitical goals — access to oil, counterterrorism cooperation — but they erode America’s moral authority and fuel perceptions of western hypocrisy. I applauded the editor of this newspaper for courageously raising, across several talk shows, the pressing question: Does America genuinely support democracy in Bangladesh after the fall of autocrat Sheikh Hasina?
Ìý
True global threat: authoritarian nationalism
LET’S be clear: the world does face an existential threat. But it does not stem solely from America’s past military actions. The greater danger is the rise of authoritarian nationalism, embodied by the very regimes now posing as moral arbiters. There is no dividend to gain from exploiting historical grievances, but to undermine liberal democracy, silence dissent and challenge the post-war international system. I wished the Chinese embassy’s ‘list’ constituted a peace manifesto. Instead, it is tantamount to a weapon in an information war — a strategic move in the broader contest between open societies and authoritarian states. It aims not to heal global wounds but to deepen them, fostering resentment and dividing democratic alliances.
Ìý
What the world needs now
IF WE are to avoid a catastrophic escalation — possibly even a Third World War — we must move beyond partisan scorekeeping. We must:
Confront authoritarian hypocrisies.
Hold all global actors accountable, including the United States and Israel.
End double standards that protect allies while condemning adversaries.
Reinforce democratic norms, rule of law, civil liberties and press freedom.
Build international institutions that are inclusive, not dominated by any single bloc.
Ìý
Exceptionalism and accountability
DESPITE many missteps and failures — especially in foreign interventions and backing authoritarian allies — America remains uniquely capable of self-reflection and course correction. Its constitution, system of checks and balances, and civil society make it one of the few global powers that can critique itself, learn from mistakes and change policies.
For all the attempts to diminish or belittle American influence, the enduring adage remains: ‘Yankee, go home — but take me with you.’ That contradiction lies at the heart of American exceptionalism — why its global role, though often flawed, remains indispensable in an increasingly unstable world.
Ìý
Dr Abdullah A Dewan is a former physicist and nuclear engineer at BAEC and is professor emeritus of economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.
