Trump, American power, and the call for a new world order
By Uji A Iliyasu
Donald Trump’s recent campaign in the Middle-East or precisely war on Islamic Republic of Iran has once again reignited a global debate about the enormous influence of the United States on international affairs.
Whether through trade, sanctions, military alliances, or diplomatic pressure, decisions made in Washington often have consequences far beyond American borders. This reality has led many around the world to question whether it is healthy for a single nation to wield such extensive influence over the global political and economic order.
Supporters of President Trump argue that his “America First” doctrine is designed to protect American jobs, strengthen national security, and ensure that US taxpayers are not unfairly burdened by international commitments. They contend that every sovereign nation has the right to prioritise its own interests.
Critics, however, see a different picture. They argue that Trump’s approach has often unsettled allies, intensified geopolitical rivalries, and increased uncertainty in global markets. Frequent tariff disputes, the use of economic sanctions, and sharp changes in foreign policy have affected countries with little influence over American decision-making.
For many nations, these developments reinforce the perception that the United States possesses disproportionate power over the world’s economy and security.
The broader concern extends beyond one individual. Long before Trump, the United States occupied a dominant position in global finance, military capability, and international institutions. Because the U.S. dollar serves as the world’s principal reserve currency and many international transactions pass through American financial systems, Washington can exert considerable economic influence through sanctions and regulatory measures.
Likewise, its military alliances and global presence enable it to shape security outcomes across multiple regions.
These realities have prompted increasing calls for a more multipolar international system, one in which power is more widely distributed among major nations and regional organizations.
Advocates argue that a balanced world order could reduce overdependence on any single country, encourage broader participation in global governance, and make international institutions more representative of diverse interests. Not a single global power where the United States is no different from the United Nations, or even more powerful.
At the same time, replacing one dominant power with another is unlikely to solve the underlying challenges. A stable international order depends not only on the distribution of power but also on respect for international law, diplomacy, economic cooperation, and accountability. No nation, regardless of its strength, should be above agreed international norms, as America of today.
Some observers believe that Trump’s presidency symbolises the unpredictability that can arise when immense global influence is concentrated in one office. Others maintain that the checks and balances within the American constitutional system continue to constrain presidential authority and prevent unilateral control over world affairs. The later statement seemed not well researched.
The way Trump treats leaders of other nations like if he’s divinely appointed to rule over the world is the last straw that is breaking America’s back. If Trump is not called to order over his over-bloated ego, it is likely that he is going to be the last Emperor that rules the American Empire.
Will the international community continue to rely so heavily on the policies of any single country with an oil-thirsty emperor?
It’s unfortunate that the US economic ‘sattelite towns’ of Arab nation’s (except Iran) believe that America is protecting them. No! America is protecting it’s economy in the Gulf region. the only country that America can die for is Israel. Not Saudi. Not UAE. Not Kuwait. Not the generous Qatar.
Democracies determine their own leaders through their constitutional processes, and that choice belongs to the people.
The world would benefit from stronger international institutions, deeper regional cooperation, and more equitable participation in global decision-making than a single global kingdom. Such could reduce vulnerability to policy shifts in any one capital while promoting dialogue instead of confrontation.
Ultimately, the debate about Donald Trump’s bloated ego and arbitrary control of world affairs calls for a new way about how the international system should evolve in the twenty-first century. A world in which responsibility is shared, institutions are strengthened, and nations cooperate as equals may prove more stable and resilient than one heavily dependent on the decisions of any single superpower, who uses discriminatory laws against the less powerful countries of Africa, Middle-East, and Latin America, but uses the same laws to protect leaders who operate within his alliance.