A Broken World: US Politics and Global Destabilization
In the post-Cold War era, the United States has sought to regulate world order in many ways. In a world strained by economic collapse and humanitarian crises, U.S. foreign policy—namely, the intervention in Venezuela and the lack thereof in Iran—has sparked recent debate over the consequences of American power throughout the globe.
Historically, the United States has relied on economic sanctions and political pressure in Venezuela as its primary tools against the totalitarian regime. For years, they have used sanctions to target the country’s oil industry in an attempt to weaken President Nicolás Maduro’s government. However, these measures severely restricted Venezuela’s ability to generate revenue, worsening an already dire economic situation. Moreover, these sanctions have led to a decline in quality of life for many Venezuelans, according to the Washington Office of Latin America (WOLA). As a result of economic hardships, Venezuelans face a lack of accessibility to vital resources such as food, water, and medicine. While the United States aimed these sanctions at Maduro’s already oppressive regime, the middle class of Venezuela has often borne the brunt of both Washington’s actions and Maduro’s economic policies. Through the U.S. and Venezuelan governments combativeness, a battle between the two nations for economic influence evolved into a humanitarian crisis.
On September 2, 2025, tensions escalated when the United States carried out its first strike against a ship that departed from the coast of Venezuela. In recent months, the United States has bombed upwards of 20 Venezuelan vessels that have been suspected of trafficking drugs. Finally, on November 10, 2025 the situation took a turn as Venezuela “mobilized” a large number of troops and volunteers to the shores of Venezuela. However, the bombings continued and a little over a month later, the United States launched a covert military operation wherein the United States captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife for violating international law as a “narco-terrorist”. In the days following, U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, framed this covert operation as a response to corruption and narcotics trafficking, as well as an intervention meant to liberate the Venezuelan people from their oppressive totalitarian government. This action stunned the international community. Critics around the globe argued that it violated the national sovereignty of Venezuela, setting a dangerous precedent for unilateral action. Similarly, Latin American citizens have condemned the move as an example of American overreach, while some Western allies cautiously defended it as a necessary step against authoritarianism. Since the capture of Nicolás Maduro on January 3rd, the consequences facing Venezuela have extended beyond their own borders. According to the UN refugee agency, the Venezuelan people, one third of whom had already immigrated before the regime change, were further intimidated by these attacks. Since this intervention, the immigration issue has only persisted as millions of Venezuelans who stayed during Maduro’s regime remain stuck in this cycle of fear and oppression. This action has exacerbated existing regional instability in South America, and critics immediately cited the United States’ main motivation as the roughly 303 billion untapped barrels of oil in Venezuela. Spanish teacher Milena Almira commented that “this situation is directly impacting the Cuban humanitarian crisis.” This sheer amount has sparked great controversy in the United States with Trump citing both the boil and the hope of subverting authoritarianism as reasons for this military action. Regardless of those intentions, this intervention has weakened global norms meant to restrain adjacent uses of force. If any powerful nation, whether it be the United States, Russia, or China can act without consequence when it suits their interest, are any nations truly safe? This fear will continue to guide international politics as the world enters a new era of sectional rules.
In a similarly unstable region across the world, the same issue of totalitarianism and military intervention faces citizens. In Iran, which operates under another totalitarian regime that has existed for years, the United States has relied heavily on sanctions to prohibit the expansion of their economy and to prevent nuclear expansion. Recently, Congress has increased economic restrictions on Iran’s energy sector, targeting oil exports accused of evading sanctions. These United States’ attempts to isolate Iran have only pushed the nation’s government to strengthen ties with other sanctioned allies, adversely affecting the United States’ national security. A prime example of this is the long-standing partnership between Iran and Venezuela. This alliance highlights a paradox of American foreign policy: efforts to weaken national adversaries unintentionally lead to new allied blocs that often undermine United States’ efforts for peace. In the same way as Venezuela, the impact of an authoritarian regime and sanctions from the United States have fallen disproportionately on civilians, contributing to the already existing economic hardship. Starting on December 28th, 2025, large scale protests broke out in the streets of Tehran after yet another economic collapse in Iran. The Iranian rial had fallen to an all time low of zero dollars (actually zero). United in opposition to this economic collapse, Iranian shop owners took to the streets in protest of their totalitarian regime. Those protests have quickly become focused on overthrowing the government, as many have called for a regime change. While violence has escalated, with nearly 6,500 people being killed per PBS, protesters have remained steadfast in their fight for freedom. These protests have posed the question: Will the United States intervene, and if so, when?
The United States’ intervention, allegedly on behalf of democracy in Venezuela, sets a dangerous precedent; it would only make sense if they act similarly in Iran to support democracy there. This has caused much unrest in the international community: the United States has not been appointed the global defender of democracy, yet by intervening in Venezuela, it introduced itself as that sort of power. With their previous sanctions in Iran and Venezuela, the United States have revealed broader patterns in international politics. Economic sanctions have devastated national economies and hurt the people, without producing the political transformations the United States seeks. In response to sanctions weakening the people, the power of these governments have grown exponentially and in response, United States military interventions have become the solution to these totalitarian regimes. As a result, the United States has eroded trust in international law and made it increasingly easier for the strongest nations to economically and militarily overwhelm smaller ones, all while the people have continued to be impacted by the destabilization in their home nations and the humanitarian crises United States action has caused.
Many argue that these outcomes reflect a deeper failure in how the United States engages with the world. Junior Dean Vouyouklis said “America’s current approach of using economic pressure to deal with Iran’s developing nuclear program has been very diplomatic and has the potential to be very effective.” Senior Alice Goldberg added that “an Iran with nuclear capacity would be a significant threat to any remaining hope of stability in the Middle East region.” By prioritizing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral action over compromises, U.S. foreign policy risks perpetuating the very instability it claims to oppose. In an increasingly polarizing world, such strategies accelerate the rift between peoples and nations rather than restoring order.
A broken world is not the result of any single decision made by the United States—or any country for that matter—but a series of events inflicted by the result of repeated choices that favor economic sanctions and military force over diplomacy. The cases of Venezuela and Iran serve as reminders that global dictatorship stability cannot be created through sanctions and intervention alone but rather require a sense of diligence and belief that the costs of such policies are often paid by those with the least power to influence them.