Human Rights as a Weapon: The Fraud at the Core of U.S. Foreign Policy

The United States does not practice a human rights–based foreign policy. It practices a power-based morality, selectively deployed to punish enemies and excuse allies. Nowhere is this hypocrisy clearer than in how Washington champions protests in Iran while systematically dismissing Palestinian suffering.

When Iranians rise up against their government, U.S. leaders rush to microphones. Statements are issued. Sanctions are justified. The language of freedom flows easily. Iran is an adversary, so condemning its repression costs nothing and serves strategic goals. Human rights become a useful weapon.

But when Palestinians demand the same basic rights — freedom of movement, political self-determination, protection from military force — the language changes. Suddenly the issue is “complex.” Suddenly restraint is urged. Suddenly the United States claims neutrality while actively funding, arming, and diplomatically shielding one side.

This is not inconsistency. It is doctrine.

Under Donald Trump, the contradiction was simply stripped of pretense. His administration openly aligned U.S. policy with Israeli government priorities while abandoning even the appearance of concern for Palestinian rights. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, cutting aid to Palestinians, closing diplomatic channels, and endorsing settlement expansion were not accidents — they were declarations.

The declaration was simple: human rights do not apply when an ally violates them.

This pattern did not begin with Trump, and it did not end with him. It is embedded in U.S. foreign policy architecture. Washington condemns authoritarianism only when it comes from states outside its alliance system. When repression is carried out by partners, it is relabeled as security, self-defense, or unfortunate necessity.

Iran is punished for crushing dissent. Israel is excused for doing so.
Venezuela is sanctioned for collective punishment. Gaza is blockaded with U.S. backing.
Russia is condemned for occupation. Palestine is told to accept it.

The message is unmistakable: rights are conditional on alignment with U.S. interests.

American officials insist this is realism. In truth, it is moral bankruptcy. A system that treats human rights as optional cannot credibly claim to defend them. A country that invokes international law only against enemies is not upholding order — it is undermining it.

Worse, this selective morality fuels instability. When people see that international norms are enforced unevenly, trust collapses. Cynicism spreads. Resistance radicalizes. The very extremism Washington claims to oppose is nurtured by its double standards.

Palestinians are not invisible because their suffering is unclear. They are invisible because acknowledging it would force the United States to confront its own role — as financier, protector, and political shield of policies it condemns elsewhere.

This is the core truth U.S. foreign policy avoids:
You cannot build a global order on rules you refuse to follow yourself.

Until Washington applies the same standards to allies as it does to enemies, its human rights rhetoric will remain what it has long been — not a principle, but a tool.

And the world sees it.