The United States' calling the rest of the world’s unwillingness to join America’s war in Iran “a failure of allied courage or willpower” cannot mask the fact that doing so is a major blow to America. What it really amounts to is a blistering indictment of what this administration has done to its allies and partners, what it’s done to international law and multilateralism, what it’s done to democratic values, and what it’s done to basic human rights. That perception of America won’t magically disappear. It is a fundamental shift that will shape America’s relationships with other countries for generations.
Having worked in diplomacy since the early 1990s, I cannot recall another moment in my lifetime when none of our traditional partners and allies chose to stand with us in such a bold manner. Their loss of respect for the U.S. is clear when, despite seeing America’s ships being blown up and military personnel at risk, these visuals do not move them toward assistance. This is not what happened when the United States was attacked on 9/11 when NATO instituted Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all and commits members to assist the attacked party. This was the first time Article 5 was instituted, and it was our allies standing beside the U.S. Not today. The U.S. has also been rebuffed by others, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The isolation of the U.S. is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of a U.S. domestic and foreign-relations pattern of actions: making demands, lacking a consistent strategy, and being unpredictable, and most of all, treating partners and allies as tools rather than sovereign equals. Many who want to normalize U.S. behavior seek excuses for what we do. However, we must see this for what it is. We did this to ourselves.
From Habitual Consultation to Go-It-Alone
For decades, U.S. diplomacy operated on a simple principle: before you took major international action, you consulted with partners and allies, and which countries were consulted depended upon the action to be taken. It is rare that in an action of this magnitude that we would not. In 2018, when the U.S. bombed Syria in response to Syria using chemical weapons, Trump engaged France and the United Kingdom, and when it was done, we announced that the United States, France, and the United Kingdom launched combined “precision strikes” against Syrian targets. Differences, then, of course, are that we understood the value of engaging other countries, and that the U.S. administration had a policy process based on advice from experienced individuals in the Departments of State and Defense, and from a foreign policy structure led by the National Security Council. That has all changed now.
In my work at the Department of State and in other diplomatic positions, we met regularly with other countries in consultations. We realized the importance of relationships and trust. Our outreach was based on the premise that doing so helps build legitimacy. In many situations, we need to inform countries that might be affected by our actions. That is what diplomacy is about…engaging countries on a regular basis, even with our adversaries. It is part of what it means to be a responsible state in the international system, particularly as a powerful nation. We knew we should show something this administration has not: humility. Being powerful did not mean you needed to constantly remind countries of what you have or use your power to make demands. You did not always hang a threat of the U.S. over countries to achieve goals, showing off our military strength.
In this war with Iran, that basic normal principle of engaging partners and allies, and even in some cases adversaries, did not exist. Allies were not properly informed before the strikes. Countries with citizens in Iran were not adequately warned that their people, their infrastructure there, or their companies could be at risk. There was little visible attempt to engage the United Nations or to seek earnest multilateral backing. What once were regular engagements with countries have been replaced by something different: act first, then complain later when no one follows.
Alienating Friends, One Policy at a Time
This unilateral instinct has been reinforced by the way we have treated some of our closest partners. There are reports that the United States will likely withdraw air defenses, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) from South Korea so give those systems to the Middle East. There is little South Korea can do to stop the U.S. from taking these actions. However, this is a country we have assured, since the end of the Korean War, that we have their backs and that they benefit from our extended deterrence. In fact, we have convinced them that they do not have to develop a nuclear weapon because of that extended deterrence. Simply withdrawing these systems, as we are doing, is short-sighted. These actions are on top of the tariffs on South Korea affecting Korean industries and workers, and in September 2025, when U.S. authorities detained and subsequently deported over 300 South Korean workers from a Hyundai-LG Energy Solution battery plant construction site in Georgia that was to provide jobs for Americans. These actions are a warning to South Korea that, in this administration, we treat security and economic ties as bargaining chips rather than the foundation of a shared strategy.
Or consider our approach to NATO and Europe more broadly. Publicly and privately questioning NATO’s value, constantly criticizing European allies as if they were misbehaving children, and floating threats such as taking Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, a NATO ally, have certainly not gone unnoticed. When that same attitude appears in United States official documents, such as the U.S. National Security Strategy, the message becomes unmistakable: Washington knows best, and allies are expected to fall in line.
No serious government appreciates being mocked in public, strong-armed in private, and then asked to aid when they were not consulted in the decision-making process.
Countries are also confronted with the recent moral and legal dimensions of U.S. behavior.
They have watched questionable uses of force, such as bombing fishing boats in the Caribbean on the claim that the boats carried drug traffickers, and without transparent evidence surrounding that decision, and whether killing was the appropriate action to take. To date, the U.S. Southern Command reports that U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific have killed over 150 people. These actions have been labeled by some lawyers as violations of international law; however, Trump made it clear in early 2026 that the actions and use of American power are constrained only by his “own morality” and his “own mind,” not by international law. Partners and allies have seen reports of U.S. strikes in Iran that killed children and other civilians, with scant public accountability. They have watched the U.S. invade Venezuela, take President Maduro, and have him go in front of a U.S. court, while at the same time the President pardoned drug dealers, rapists, and individuals who committed other criminal acts, including the January 6 th rioters.
They have not followed a consistent process of support for Ukraine. The United States has been withdrawing or backing out at critical moments, and then recently in this war with Iran, are turning to Kyiv for help in combating Iranian drones, and still, continuing to criticize Ukraine at the same time. From the outside, that looks less like principled solidarity and more like opportunism. Confusion also resulted when, after four years of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and all the efforts by the U.S. and many other states to help Ukraine, the U.S. temporarily removed sanctions on Russian oil shipments. Russia not only makes money but also believes that the Russian energy market is necessary for a stable global energy market. Meanwhile, the U.S. decision not to agree to Russia’s proposal to continue implementing New START despite the treaty’s expiration in February 2026 was not only a step back from a series of bilateral treaties with the Soviet Union and then Russia since the 1970’s. It was a letdown to the arms control and nonproliferation community around the world, particularly Europeans concerned about Russian tactical nuclear weapons.
The international community has witnessed the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers: family separations, harsh detention conditions, aggressive immigration raids, and the killing of fellow citizens. They see people, including children, dying in U.S. detention centers, and the opening of a center called “Alligator Alcatraz,” where we are still unsure of the whereabouts of some of the individuals sent to that location. They watched as the government took away from children’s supplies that would allow them to write letters, one vehicle to help these children deal with the emotional anguish of being in a detention center. Other countries see a government that is disturbingly comfortable with the suffering of vulnerable populations, including those as a result of our canceling the US Agency for International Development (USAID). And in 2025, the U.S. incinerated nearly 500 metric tons (about 1 million pounds) of taxpayer-funded emergency food aid stored in Dubai after delays caused by USAID staffing cuts. The food was to be sent to hungry children in crises. We then followed this up by withdrawing from over 66 international organizations, some of which address issues affecting women, children, and the effects of climate change.
All of this erodes any perception that the United States is a defender of human rights. We are now on “that side” of the list of countries with little to no moral authority or a guardian of a rules-based order.
It is not just the Failing Iran War: Racism, Scandal, and the Cost of Association
Yet there is more.
The Trump administration has made extreme and unnecessary racist statements and images. The cruelty in their words cannot be mistaken, and there are no filters to mask their racism or care in how these statements resonate in the U.S. and abroad. Leadership matters, and so do the personal entanglements of leaders. The President and many of his friends are connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Despite the attempt to hide more files, what is out there for anyone to read and see is horrific. Countries around the world are watching. Foreign publics see the pattern of scandals, alleged abuse, and again, an apparent lack of full accountability.
For democratic governments that must answer to voters and taxpayers, joining a controversial U.S. war today is not just a security decision—it is a reputational gamble. Few leaders want to explain to their citizens why they aligned their country with a government perceived as indifferent to the crimes of sexual abuse. The Trump administration is oblivious to the fact that “business is not usual” in every country when there is a major scandal involving its leadership and those around it. While we may want to pretend others won’t be affected, some leaders may be, and know their public also cares. They will weigh this in their calculations of association with the U.S., and when they can, find a ways to dissociate themselves and not be in any way connected with the now titled “Epstein class.”
The U.S. is Alone
It is certainly difficult to keep up with all that continues to confront us everyday, and there is much more than this article addresses. However, it has been long enough for partners, allies, and adversaries to see patterns. The refusal of states to support the United States in Iran is more than a question about why the United States and Israel invaded Iran and how the war will end. The hard truth is that many now see the United States as behaving like a rogue actor—a country that disregards international law when it is inconvenient, undercuts multilateral institutions while insisting others respect them, treats human life as negotiable, at home and abroad, and uses alliances as instruments of pressure rather than partnerships of mutual respect.
And there is another truth Washington must confront: military power alone does not confer leadership, nor does it automatically confer respect. The U.S cannot bomb its way into legitimacy. The U.S. cannot ignore international processes that help ensure stability in the
International system – a system that the United States helped establish after World War II.
Sadly, the U.S. has repeatedly shown itself willing to punish or abandon partners when convenient, and there is no reason to assume this situation would be any different. Under those conditions, refusal is not seen as betrayal. It is seen as responsible self-preservation.
How to Get Back In
If America wants friends to have its back in the next crisis, it needs to turn back.
That starts with rebuilding a strong and respected State Department that makes actual consultation standard operating procedure, rather than an afterthought. It requires treating allies as equals rather than children. It means recommitting ourselves to international law through the United Nations and real multilateral diplomacy.
It also – just as importantly – requires our domestic policies to live up to our stated values. Stop abusive detention. Treating migrant lives as worth something. Hold our officials accountable when they break the law or plain decency.
America’s allies refusal to stand with us over Iran is not just momentary humiliation. It’s a sign. If we fail to rebuild trust and credibility and continue to alienate our partners, we should welcome isolation as the new normal.