|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When the United States with its partner, Israel, started the war against Iran on 28 February 2026, most people around the globe were completely flummoxed. They could not make any sense of the actions that were certain to put many lives at risk in the region and wreak economic havoc on countries and people far and wide. A lot has been written on the economic effects of the conflict; from the price of gas, food, fertilizer, shipping cost, and so forth. Those are easy to comprehend.
However, the intersection of international and domestic issues and realities needs to be understood if one is to obtain a better comprehension of what motivated the US on attack Iran. Let’s start with the international realities because US actions have affected the entire globe. The US, as we knew it, is no more. Its power and prestige worldwide have been declining for the past few decades. Its hegemony has waned as the days of being the sole superpower have ended. Whether it likes it or not, it must contend with the rise of China, both economically and politically.
The rise of China has contested US power, and even its soft power is no longer getting the results that it did before. China has made impressive inroads in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean with its Belt and Road Initiative. It has made massive investments in these regions for much-needed infrastructure projects. Also, across Asia and Europe, Chinese investment is significant. China has become a much more attractive partner because its economic engagements do not come with strings attached. In other words, the Chinese do not browbeat their trade partners to adopt political and economic policies in exchange for economic assistance.
However, it is not just China that is willing to do business in the Global South, especially in Africa. Countries such as Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Brazil, India, and various Middle Eastern ones are casting a wide net to boost their trade. This should be obvious to the US, but instead of changing course, it either ignores countries in the Global South, especially Africa, or it continues to push the same policies that are no longer acceptable. Moreover, in the case of Iran, it is trying to flex its military muscles while trying to contain Russia and China. It should know that naked power will decrease, not increase, its hegemony. The US is willing to become a rogue state because it has enjoyed uncontested power in the past, and it cannot accept that its hegemony has diminished.
This essay is not to explain the history, culture, economics, and politics of Iran, but rather, its goal is to situate the conflict within the context of the US by beginning with its position first as a British settler colony. Before it became a nation-state, its domestic actions and policies were always undergirded by race, class, and gender, starting with the arrival of the first settlers. Its international policies, actions, and activities basically followed suit, with many of them formed along racial, class, and gender lines.
US Settler‑colonial history and conflict with Iran
The Iranians have a history, culture, and identity that are far longer and deeper than what the Americans have. Perhaps people are bewildered because they do not comprehend the motivations behind the Trump administration’s willingness to attack Iran. The chaos, instability, and political polarization in the US should not serve as reasons to attack Iran. The US should not let its loss of control at home be a motivation to control Iran. Iran is not Venezuela. Despite the language that the Trump administration uses to berate and humiliate Iran, nothing has worked to deter the Iranian government from maintaining sovereignty over its land, people, and waters.
To get a better and broader grasp on this latest effort by the US to impose its will on Iran, one must not only understand Iran, one must also understand the US and its many violent campaigns to conquer land, seas, and people.
The US was born in the belly of the imperial beast – the United Kingdom. Too often, Americans engage in wilful ignorance and appear oblivious to the fact that, like Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Algeria, Kenya, and others, the United States was a settler colony. Settler colonies, by definition, are the result of violence, destruction, oppression, subjugation, displacement, racism, and gross human rights violations. All former colonies in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Latin and South America were not “founded” by anyone. Europeans did not discover them. They encountered people who had their own cultural, political, economic, religious, and social institutions long before they set sight on a single European. The US was not the exception to this phenomenon. We all know that millions of Indigenous people were present throughout what became the United States. No matter how hard the Trump administration tries to make their history and presence in this country disappear, it will not be successful. How many towns, cities, rivers, and landmarks have Indigenous names? I am from the Northern Neck region of Virginia, and there are thousands of indications that at one time, Indigenous people lived, worked, and thrived throughout the area. The European colonial onslaught decimated their numbers in all of the original thirteen colonies through the introduction of diseases that they did not have immunity against, violent clashes as they tried to fight off increasing European expansion, and theft of land, forced labour through indentured servitude, and outright murder by colonial authorities and colonial subjects that was carried out with impunity.
The wilful ignorance of too many Americans is that these actions were carried out with the blessing of Christians and their leaders. Because to maim, murder, degrade, and attempt to annihilate millions of people, justification was needed. The belief that Europeans were superior to the indigenous people could be found in the Bible and elsewhere. Although the early European settlers could not have survived without the indigenous people, they took it upon themselves to view their cultural, religious, and political practices as “savage, backward, and uncivilized”. They had to be othered, conquered, captured, and removed from whites. From the time the first European arrived, they were in danger of losing their lives, land, homes, and way of life because they possessed what the Europeans believed was their God-given right to take by any means necessary.
Political culture is a powerful tool that can be used to help us understand US foreign policy toward Iran because of its settler beginnings. The country’s long-held beliefs and values that undergird its structures and institutions constitute its political culture. The political system that evolved from this is rooted in settler colonialism, racial hierarchy, imperial expansion, and the gendered norms of toxic masculinity. These are the factors that shape American political culture and foreign policy behaviour.
Settler colonialism created a political culture that was inculcated through political socialization, especially with the media. Indigenous people were depicted in the media as savage and uncivilized. Their removal through force was illustrated in most newspapers at the time as normal and needed. Thus, settler colonialism created a political culture that portrayed the use of force to gain territory as justified to achieve state formation.
The Trump administration and conservative media outlets use stereotypes to portray Iran as inherently aggressive, fanatical, or incapable of rational statecraft. These echo older racialized narratives that were used to justify intervention in other non‑white societies. Thus, the war in Iran is not an isolated miscalculation but the predictable outcome of deeper structural logics and how they are religiously and racially constructed. The fact that the initial attack on Iran resulted in the assassination of its most supreme religious leader should be a global outrage. Trump, the media, political leaders, and others have demonstrated their disdain for Muslims and Iranians.
Scholars argue that the American political system produced a political culture that upheld and embraced expansion, pre-emption, and the use of force as legitimate tools for national growth. The logic later migrated outward into foreign policy that later shaped interventions far beyond North America. Therefore, the US has a long tradition of treating security as something achieved through expansion and domination. This should help us to understand why the US has repeatedly chosen military action over diplomacy.
The US has always had a racial hierarchy based on white supremacy and the social construction of race. Racial categories determined who was “civilized”, “dangerous”, and “ungovernable”. The dispossession of indigenous people and the enslavement of African Americans were embedded in racial hierarchies as part of its political culture. These hierarchies influenced how US leaders and policymakers viewed non-European societies. Through “othering”, they were viewed as less capable of self-rule or prone to “irrational behaviour”. Middle Eastern countries, such as Iran, are often framed through these racialized lenses in US discourse, with the media often leading the charge. Trump and the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, use social media to portray Iran as the aggressor in the conflict, fanatical, or incapable of rational statecraft. These stereotypes echo older racialized narratives that were used to militarily intervene in non-white societies.
Imperial power and US expansion
The Spanish-American War was coined the “splendid little war” because it lasted approximately 100 days. One must wonder if Trump, his advisors, and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters felt the same about the invasion of Iran – that it would be over in a few weeks, regime change would be achieved, and American values could be easily inculcated into the population overnight because they are superior to the Iranian ones. It was obvious that they, and other Americans, were clueless about the history and culture of Iran. This is not the 19th century, when the US could use brute force to conquer and colonize people. The conflict has not been a splendid little war for the US or its ally, Israel.
During the 19th century, the United States began to flex its expansionist muscles by seeking additional territory. The Louisiana Purchase cleared the way for massive expansion and settlement in 1803. However, Mexico stood in the way of even greater land acquisition after it declared its independence from Spain in 1821. Hence, the United States went to war with its southern neighbour because it wanted to “take” the northern part of the country on its march to conquer territory that would allow it to have access to the Pacific Ocean.
The spoils of war did not close the gap to provide the US with a contiguous southern border. There was still some mopping up that was needed. The Gadsden Purchase of 1854 served this purpose, and southern Arizona and New Mexico became a part of US territory.
The Louisiana Purchase, Mexican-American War, and Gadsden Purchase still did not quench the thirst for US expansion. The country now needed to be expanded beyond its contiguous borders, and this was done with the purchase of Alaska in 1867.
By the end of the 19th century, it was an imperial power following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. The agreement that ended the war resulted in the US having control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Wake Island, and the Samoan Islands. Early imperial expansion normalized the use of war to acquire territory and influence. The huge amounts of land acquired from wars and purchase and the occupation of Haiti and the Philippines cemented US power through conquest and coercion. These actions established precedents for using military force to secure resources, markets, and geopolitical advantage. The idea that the US has the right to intervene in strategically important regions, especially those tied to energy, reflects a long imperial tradition.
The US developed a global security architecture built on establishing its military presence. From the Philippines to the Caribbean to the Middle East, the US built bases, protectorates, and client states. Currently, there are an estimated 750 US military bases around the world, including Europe and Asia.
This created a foreign policy establishment accustomed to projecting power abroad to maintain access to resources and shape regional orders. The US presence in the Gulf, its alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and its longstanding goal of shaping regional security all stem from this imperial architecture.
Racial capitalism is tied to US economic power to have control of land, labour, and resources. This was demonstrated by the seizure of land from indigenous people, plantation slavery, and overseas resource extraction. US economic expansion has often relied on coercive control. In the 20th century, the US developed a global strategy that made Middle Eastern energy resources its cornerstone. Therefore, policymakers contend that it is in the interest of the US to control the flow of oil from the region and shipping lanes to maintain stability in the region. These serve as justifications for the intervention.
The US has a pattern of treating non-aligned and anti-imperial states as threats. When Haiti had a revolution, when Mexico instituted reforms, when the US faced resistance to occupation in the Philippines, the US characterized these as destabilizing and illegitimate. Iran’s 1979 revolution subsequently placed it in a similar category as a state rejecting US influence in the region. Iran’s refusal to align with US geopolitical goals fits a long pattern in which the US confronts states that challenge its regional dominance.
These historical patterns help explain why the US interprets geopolitical challenges through a lens of dominance rather than coexistence. Because it wants to show dominance, it views military intervention as a normal policy tool. Particularly in non-white countries, it racializes and de-legitimizes adversaries. The priority is to have control over strategic regions and their resources. Restraint in not a valuable tool because it is framed as weakness. Non-aligned states – often in the Global South – that are viewed as threats are treated accordingly. In sum, the war in Iran is not an anomaly but it is an extension of deeper structural rationales that are rooted in settler colonialism, racial hierarchies, imperial expansion, and a militarized political culture.
Toxic Masculinity, American Political Culture, and Iran-US War
Toxic masculinity created a political culture that equates dominance with strength and compromise with weakness. The US developed within patriarchal structures that valorized aggression, control, and the suppression of perceived threats from the initial contact with indigenous people. This was followed by a frontier mythology, slave-owning hierarchies, and militarized nationalism that reinforced the idea that real leadership requires force rather than negotiation. This produced a political ethos in which toughness is performed through coercion and restraint is stigmatized as failure. This is connected to diplomacy, or lack thereof, with Iran. Diplomacy with Iran is often framed as capitulation, while escalation is treated as proof of resolve, reflecting a political culture that equates masculinity with dominance.
The denigration of women and reproductive control reinforce a worldview of hierarchical authority. Movements that demean women or restrict reproductive autonomy cultivate a broader ideology that prizes control over bodies and the policing of gender roles. This worldview normalizes punitive authority and the belief that order is maintained through coercion rather than consent.
These domestic attitudes shape foreign policy thinking by elevating domination as a legitimate mode of governance. The same political forces that champion abortion bans and patriarchal hierarchy often support aggressive foreign policy, treating Iran’s autonomy as something to be disciplined rather than engaged.
Hyper-masculine norms shape how threats are perceived and responded to. This explains why leaders influenced by toxic masculinity tend to exaggerate threats and interpret negotiation as humiliation. Displays of force become the preferred means of establishing credibility. International crises are reframed as tests of toughness rather than strategic problems requiring diplomacy.
Iran is frequently portrayed as a challenge to American strength, encouraging escalatory responses designed to perform toughness for domestic audiences, especially by media outlets that cater to MAGA supporters.
Foreign policy becomes a stage for performing masculine strength, as we have witnessed from Trump, Vance, and Hegseth. Social media, through their many tweets, serves as their stage to perform masculine toxicity for domestic and international audiences. American political culture often treats global politics as a theatre in which leaders must demonstrate resolve. Military action becomes a symbolic act that communicates power to both domestic and international audiences. Restraint is interpreted as weakness, even when it aligns with strategic interests.
The escalation toward Iran served as a performance of strength at a moment of domestic political vulnerability, reinforcing the gendered logic of credibility. The Trump administration is engaging in zero-sum thinking that discourages diplomacy and cooperation. This allows toxic masculinity to frame the conflict within the context of winners versus losers, dominance versus submission. Therefore, the US will have to come out of this conflict as the winner that can have dominance not only over Iran but over the region. If this foreign policy approach is followed, it produces a worldview that discourages compromise, multilateralism, and coexistence. US policy has been to treat states that assert independence as challengers that need to be subdued. This is the position that Iran finds itself in as its regional influence is interpreted not as a geopolitical reality but rather as a challenge to American dominance that must be countered through force.
It is important to have empathy and compassion in conducting foreign policy. These are devalued and viewed as tools that weaken diplomatic capacity. Instead, toxic masculinity underscores US diplomacy toward Iran that stigmatizes empathy, patience, and listening. All three are needed to have a diplomatic outcome that is beneficial to all parties. What we have witnessed are efforts to marginalize diplomatic institutions while militarized responses are elevated as the only serious tools of statecraft. This undermines the ability to manage crises through negotiation.
In the case of Iran, diplomatic channels have been sidelined while the elevation of impulsive displays of power has been used. This reflects a political culture that devalues cooperative approaches.
To understand the connection between toxic masculinity and US foreign policy, we need to see the intersection of domestic gender politics and foreign policy and clearly comprehend the rhetoric that reinforces each the other. For example, the same coalitions that promote abortion bans, demean women, or police gender roles often champion aggressive foreign policy. These movements share a worldview that prizes hierarchy, control, and punitive authority. Domestic and international arenas become mutually reinforcing sites for performing dominance, especially through social media. The political forces driving restrictive gender policies at home are often the same forces advocating confrontation with Iran, treating restraint as weakness and escalation as a demonstration of national virility.
There are several key gendered dynamics that help to explain why the United States went to war with Iran. The US interprets Iran’s independence as a challenge to its geopolitical influence in the region and therefore must be subdued. On one hand, diplomacy must be framed as a weakness. On the other hand, escalation is viewed as strength; military action to perform toughness for domestic audiences is used. The country’s foreign policy treats restraint as a form of emasculation. Subsequently, coercion is heightened over cooperation. The result is that diplomatic institutions are marginalized and replaced in favour of force. The role of the State Department is taken over by the Department of Defense that was recently renamed the Department of War.
In this view, the war in Iran is not only a geopolitical event but also an expression of the toxic masculine norms embedded in American political culture, shaped by centuries of patriarchal hierarchy, frontier mythology, and militarized nationalism.
Historical and cultural forces intersect that help explain why the United States interprets global politics through a framework of domination shaped by conquest, racial hierarchy, and patriarchal authority. Because of these, it treats military force as a normal and legitimate instrument of national purpose, rooted in a long tradition of expansion through coercion and violence. It racializes and de-legitimizes adversaries, framing non-aligned states as irrational, uncivilized, and incapable of self-rule.
It views strategic regions, especially those tied to energy and trade, as spaces to be controlled rather than engaged; equates restraint with weakness and diplomacy with capitulation, reflecting gendered norms that valorize toughness and punitive action for those states that refuse to cooperate; and performs military escalation as a demonstration of credibility for domestic audiences, especially during moments of internal political fragility. This type of foreign policy marginalizes diplomatic institutions and elevates impulsive displays of power, shaped by a culture that stigmatizes empathy, cooperation, and multilateralism. It treats independent or anti‑imperial states as threats, continuing a pattern established in earlier confrontations with Haiti, Mexico, and the Philippines, along with later ones that include Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela, along with very recent threats to Cuba.
