Trita Parsi
tritaparsi.substack.com / August 22, 2026
It’s not about Iran. It’s the threats that an unchecked America poses to others
I have been stunned by the number of officials from a wide variety of countries who, while hardly favouring Iran or feeling much empathy for the Islamic Republic, have privately expressed to me a huge sigh of relief over Tehran’s success in thwarting US-Israeli aggression.
Given that many of these officials represent countries squarely in the US camp and have deep problems with the Islamic Republic, this “tacit rooting” for Iran tells us something about the state of global affairs.
There is relief that aggression and violations of international law did not pay off for the US and Israel in Iran, just as they didn’t for Russia in Ukraine. Venezuela was, in the eyes of many, a terrifying case. Regardless of one’s views of Maduro, the idea that a superpower could surgically kidnap the head of state of another country, install its favoured ruler—who must now get her social media posts approved by the US Secretary of State—and gleefully announce that Venezuela is now American territory was petrifying to a lot of countries. So was the fact that European leaders praised the regime-change operation while dismissing concerns about its legality.
Europe, which had by and large stood against the George W. Bush administration’s illegal invasion of Iraq, was now enthusiastically onboard with regime change in Venezuela, all while insisting on the sanctity of international law in Ukraine and Greenland. That lack of resistance made the cost of a US neocolonial rampage all the more manageable. And given Donald Trump’s proclivities, both friends and foes of the United States feared they could be next.
The remarkable military success in Venezuela was one reason Trump became so gung-ho about war with Iran. If Venezuela took a few hours, he believed Iran would take four days at most. He promised sceptical regional leaders that the whole ordeal would “take no longer than 100 hours,” according to an Arab official.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Six months later, he is stuck in a losing war with no end in sight. And officials around the world feel relieved because Iran’s successful resistance has effectively prevented Trump from moving on to his next targets.
As one official from a traditional American ally told me: “Had it not been for the resilience of the Iranians, Trump would likely have attacked Cuba by now and perhaps even annexed Greenland.”
It is important to understand that these sentiments have little to do with Iran. I have detected little sympathy for the Islamic Republic at the government level, although the situation appears different among general public. Rather, these sentiments are rooted in naked self-interest.
An America pursuing a naked neocolonial foreign policy is a greater threat to many countries than Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Certainly, the latter hurts innocent countries that played no role in encouraging Trump’s disastrous war. But it is a comparatively manageable pain. Few countries, unlike Iran, have designed their militaries to repel American or Israeli aggression should they find themselves on Trump’s target list.
Indeed, I have even detected concern that Iran may open the Strait of Hormuz too soon—before Trump has committed himself to never playing neocon again. Just as Iran helped create a quagmire for America in Iraq to prevent the Bush administration from invading Iran next, many countries now secretly hope Trump remains stuck in the Persian Gulf for the foreseeable future. It may be the most effective guarantee that his regime-change and annexation spree comes to a halt.
What we are seeing is a world yearning for balance. And from the perspective of many countries—not just those in the Global South—the United States is the country that most acutely needs to be balanced against.
Not Russia. Not Iran. Not North Korea. And certainly not China.
That is not an endorsement of any of these countries, their governing structures, domestic policies, or ideologies. Nor is it a dismissal of the threats and challenges they pose in their respective regions. It is simply a cold and sober assessment of where the most pressing threat emerges from.
We saw a variation of this in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. The vast majority of countries in the Global South sympathized with Ukraine for obvious reasons, even if they also placed some blame on NATO. But they did not see Russia as a threat to themselves, because Russia lacked the capacity to replicate its invasion of Ukraine in Africa, for instance.
Then Washington cut Russia off from the international financial system within five days, and alarm bells rang in capitals around the world. Not because they sympathized with Russia or believed the sanctions were unwarranted, but because the US had demonstrated that it could devastate economies around the world within days, given their dependence on the dollar for trade.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed no comparable vulnerability of Global South states to Russian designs. Washington’s swift sanctions response, however, revealed a massive vulnerability to American whims and capabilities.
That threat may have been theoretical in 2022. After all, Biden showed no inclination to wield that weapon for the fun of it. Today, it is anything but.
Being a friend of America provides you with no protection from Trump’s mood swings. A Western diplomat recently told me about her efforts to convince her leadership not to push for a state visit to Washington. “Nothing good can come of it. It’s just better to not be on his radar,” the diplomat of an allied state told me.
Just as in the jungle, there is protection in not being noticed by the top predator.
This reality demonstrates once again how disastrous the Iran war—and neoconservative foreign policy more broadly—has been for the United States itself. All states seek to amass power. But responsible statecraft and diplomacy ensure that power is not unnecessarily perceived as a threat by other nations, which will have no choice but to find ways to balance against you.
Or, as we are now seeing, to balance against you by proxy.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the world wants America to lose. But it increasingly wants America to be balanced and constrained.
Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute and an award-winning author
