US Media Wonders Why Nations Don't Rush to Join America's Next War
Al-Monitor, citing unnamed 'experts' via AFP, breathlessly reports that while Beijing and Moscow might offer Tehran 'diplomatic and economic aid,' they're apparently not foolish enough to get into a direct military spat with Washington over Iran. (One wonders if these 'experts' also predicted the Iraq War would be a cakewalk.) It’s almost as if the U.S. maintains its global military posture,
including over 800 military bases worldwide, precisely to ensure few nations feel bold enough to challenge its imperial ambitions directly. The article frames this as a pragmatic geopolitical calculus, not a testament to the immense, disproportionate military power the U.S. wields in its quest for global hegemony. What the 'experts' fail to mention is how often the U.S. itself has bypassed
international law and multilateral agreements. Remember the Iraq invasion (2003)? Or the bombing of Libya (2011)? These interventions were conveniently framed as humanitarian or security imperatives, often with limited international backing, yet never seemed to deter U.S. military action. The idea that Russia and China, both seeking to carve out their own spheres of influence and challenge U.S.
unilateralism (especially after watching Washington unilaterally withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018), would simply sit back and allow another U.S.-led regime change operation in a strategic energy hub is, to put it mildly, an optimistic assessment for anyone hoping for a replay of the unilateral 90s.