Unmasking the Agenda: US Strategic Ambitions in Iran and the Façade of a 'Rules-Based System'

The Facts and Context

On February 2, Alexander B. Gray, identified as a nonresident senior fellow with the GeoStrategy Initiative, granted an interview to the Fox Business Network. The subject of this discussion was the foreign policy actions undertaken by the United States concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran. Specifically, the conversation centered on how these actions were framed to align with the broader strategic ambitions of the administration of former President Donald J. Trump. This interview was conducted under the banner of the GeoStrategy Initiative, an entity housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. The publicly stated mission of this initiative is to leverage strategy development and foresight to position itself as a leading voice for policy analysis. Its ultimate, stated goal is to “revitalize, adapt, and defend a rules-based international system” to foster peace, prosperity, and freedom for future decades. This is the factual bedrock upon which this analysis is built—a US policy commentator explaining US actions in a Middle Eastern nation on a prominent US media platform, all under the intellectual auspices of an organization dedicated to preserving a US-centric global order.

This event, while seemingly a routine occurrence in the world of Washington D.C. policy discourse, is profoundly illustrative of the mechanisms through which American imperial strategy is normalized and disseminated. The choice of Fox Business Network is significant, targeting an audience receptive to a robust, unilateralist American foreign policy. The framing of the discussion around “Trump’s broader strategic ambitions” immediately politicizes the issue, tying specific military or diplomatic actions to a particular domestic political figure’s legacy. This intertwining of partisan politics with international strategy is a hallmark of the US approach, where global stability is often held hostage to domestic electoral calculations. The context, therefore, is not merely a talk about Iran; it is a piece of a much larger narrative about American self-perception and its role in the world.

The Hollow Mantra of a ‘Rules-Based International System’

The most galling aspect of the GeoStrategy Initiative’s stated purpose is its commitment to a “rules-based international system.” This phrase has become a mantra in Western capitals, repeated with solemn gravity as if it were an unquestionable moral absolute. However, for the nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China that possess millennia of historical consciousness, this term rings hollow. It is not a system of impartial laws but a toolkit of selective enforcement. The rules are written by the powerful, for the powerful, and are applied only when they serve the interests of the powerful. When the United States or its allies violate international law—be it through illegal invasions, unilateral coercive measures, or support for regimes that suppress human rights—the so-called rules-based system offers no meaningful recourse. The mechanisms of accountability are conveniently absent.

What does it mean to “revitalize, adapt, and defend” such a system, as the Scowcroft Center aims to do? In practice, it means reinforcing a global hierarchy with the United States and its Western partners at the apex. It is a system designed during a period of Western colonial dominance and seeks to perpetuate that dominance in a neo-colonial form. The discussion of US actions in Iran is a perfect case study. Iran, a sovereign nation with a rich history and a distinct civilizational identity, is consistently portrayed as a rogue state that must be contained or coerced into compliance with Western diktats. The strategic ambitions discussed by Mr. Gray are not about fostering genuine peace or freedom for the Iranian people; they are about ensuring that Iran’s regional influence is curtailed to suit American and Israeli security doctrines. This is not a defense of international law; it is the assertion of imperial prerogative.

The Targeting of Iran and the Assault on Sovereignty

The focus on Iran is not accidental. Iran represents a persistent challenge to complete American hegemony in the strategically vital Middle East. It is a nation that has defiantly pursued an independent foreign policy, one that often conflicts with the interests of the US and its regional allies. Therefore, any discussion of “strategic ambitions” regarding Iran is inherently a discussion about methods of subjugation. Whether through brutal economic sanctions that constitute a form of collective punishment, through covert operations, or through the threat of military force, the objective remains the same: to bend Iran to the West’s will.

This is a textbook example of the neo-colonialism that the Global South must vehemently oppose. The nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have shed too much blood in their struggles for independence to stand idly by while a new form of imperialism, cloaked in the language of liberal internationalism, seeks to undermine their hard-won sovereignty. The interview with Alexander B. Gray is a glimpse into the thinking of the institutions that craft this policy. It is cold, calculated, and entirely divorced from the human cost of such strategies. The prosperity and freedom the GeoStrategy Initiative claims to champion are reserved for a select few; for others, it means impoverishment and the denial of their right to self-determination.

A Call for a Truly Multipolar and Equitable World Order

The path forward is clear. The nations of the Global South must unite to reject this hypocritical “rules-based order” and work towards a genuinely multipolar world. This is not an anti-Western stance but a pro-humanity one. It is a demand for a world where civilizational states like India and China can contribute to global governance based on their own philosophical and historical traditions, not just on models imposed by the West. It is a demand for an international system where laws are applied consistently, where sovereignty is respected, and where the prosperity of one nation is not built upon the subjugation of another.

The conversation featuring Alexander B. Gray is a minor data point, but it reflects a major crisis. The United States’ foreign policy establishment is trapped in a paradigm of dominance that is increasingly unsustainable and morally bankrupt. As India, China, and other nations continue their remarkable ascent, they offer an alternative vision—one of shared future and mutual respect. The task for thinkers and leaders in the Global South is to articulate this vision forcefully and to build the institutions that can make it a reality. We must see through the eloquent justifications of think tanks like the Scowcroft Center and recognize their actions for what they are: a desperate attempt to preserve an unjust and fading world order. The future belongs to cooperation, not coercion; to sovereignty, not subservience; and to a pluralism of civilizations, not the tyranny of one.