TEHRAN - U.S. isolation is the keyword that is highlighted by the majority of experts and analysts in contemporary political analysis. The frontline against the U.S. became more apparent with the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. And U.S. enemies, despite minor differences, stood on one side, highlighting their sides against the U.S. and weakening its power day by day.  

Opponents of the U.S. policy have outnumbered in recent years, where every international event added to their number. Starting with Donald Trump’s policies and exacerbated by the Ukraine war, more and more countries are added to the list of U.S. opponents. 

On July 3rd, the New York Times published a report on China's military activities in Cuba and Iran-Russia's defense cooperation in drone construction, stating the signals of an alliance of U.S. opponents. The article also noted that U.S. politicians refer to these rivals as the "United Axes of Authoritarian," framing the global competition as a competition between tyranny and freedom.  

The New York Times referred to the U.S. miscalculations during the Cold War and labeled it as the "main factor" that united its enemies. The report stated that the U.S. actions, including imposing sanctions on Cuba and reneging on agreements with Iran, pushed these countries closer to China and Russia. Below are some important points mentioned in the report.

Fundamental duality is not democracy vs. authoritarianism

After the end of isolationism, the U.S. chose to use the term “democracy” as its normative and identity tool in its international arena. It was through the argument of defending democracy that the U.S. government persuaded public opinion to enter the war against Hitler. Since then, the United States has intensified its use of this trick to eliminate competitors. 

The U.S. has justified its intervention in other countries by exporting democracy. During the Cold War, this approach was the central policy of the U.S. against the Soviet Union. The U.S. as the exporter of democracy expected to rule the free world and defeat the authoritarian Soviet Union. Though the most undemocratic governments were backed by the U.S. whenever necessary, democracy remains the main slogan.   

Since the U.S. hegemony was threatened in 2008, the U.S. exacerbated the use of “democracy” to encounter its enemies. The U.S. claim of “encountering authoritarian governments” is its main idea to resist isolation. Within this framework, Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, and Venezuela are called non-democratic countries to persuade public opinion in Western governments to oppose these countries.

However, not the battle of authoritarian governments against democracies but the resistance of effective discourse against liberal democracy properly explains the current confrontation with the U.S. In this definition, even India, called by Western media "the world's largest democracy,” is defined against the policies of the United States. Also in this definition, efficiency is considered in both domestic and international aspects, with theoretical and practical aspects.

Regarding domestic issues, there has been a rise in poverty, inequality, and a significant gap between social classes. In addition, there has been a decline in cultural and identity values as evidenced by young Europeans joining ISIS. This highlights the inadequacy of liberal concepts in addressing societal challenges. However, India and China have seen millions of impoverished families rise above the poverty line due to their unique economic and political ideas, prioritizing competence over democracy.

On the international scale, the expansion of U.S. unilateralism, aggression, and extensive interventions worldwide have led the U.S. rivals to define different ideas against the U.S.-led world order, which promote peace and stability in the world and oppose domination and colonialism. Supporting multilateral mechanisms and international organizations are the methods that competing countries, especially China and India, follow against the U.S. 

Currently, democracy is not the primary concern for people around the world. Instead, many in Asia, Africa, and South America prioritize proficiency as the key factor in resolving the world’s crises. 

As a result, most countries refrain from accompanying the U.S. and its ideas. So, the U.S. cannot create a savior front from the democracy-authoritarianism duality. The U.S. failure to persuade countries that account for nearly half of the world’s population to follow Washington’s policy to impose sanctions on Russia exemplifies this inability.   

US enemies are countless!

Another analytical mistake of the New York Times report was counting four countries as the enemies of the United States. The rivals weakening the U.S. are not limited to Iran, Russia, China, and Cuba. Russia is fighting NATO proxies on the ground, and Iran is openly trying to expel the U.S. from the region. Weakening the United States is no longer limited to direct hostility, as countries that are ostensibly friendly to the U.S. are contributing to the country's decline.
  
For example, consider countries like Saudi Arabia, India, or Brazil. These countries have no open enmity with the U.S., but their policies weaken the United States. Saudi Arabia's refusal of pump more oil to global markets, or India and Brazil's serious participation in the de-dollarization process, will eventually break the hegemony of the United States. Many countries, dissatisfied with the current state of order, compete with the United States in different areas.  

Various countries compete in different fields. Additionally, other countries are actively working towards creating a new world order, which goes against the will of the United States. 

Of course, the report correctly emphasized that the U.S. created the current situation. The unity of the U.S. rivals mirrors the United States’ aggressive behavior. International relations (IR) theorists predicted the current situation with theories such as balance of threat and balance of power, a state in which the aggressive behavior of a superpower causes the opponents to unite their capabilities against the aggressive superpower.

Observers have been surprised by the current list of U.S. rivals, including India, Russia, and China, typically viewed as Asia's rivals with significant differences. However, these countries have come together in a pragmatic alliance against the U.S. This alliance is not reminiscent of Cold War alliances that focused on security and military strategies. 

For example, India may participate in the quadrilateral agreement with the United States against China but adjusts its economic policies - such as participating in the de-dollarization process - in a way that leads to the weakening of U.S. hegemony.