Uncle Sam's Imperial Arrogance: Trump's Withdrawal Doctrine and America's Global Deceit

By: M. S. Qorbani

Trump’s reentry into the Oval Office and his reiterated pledges to extricate the United States from international agreements and contracts evoke the precedent of his earlier administration, during which his systematic abrogation of multilateral commitments earned the epithet “Trump Withdrawal Doctrine.” This nomenclature, however, myopically centers on his persona and governmental non-compliance, neglecting the broader, endemic practice of treaty violations that has pervaded successive US administrations and institutions.

Historically, the United States has exhibited a consistent propensity to flout its treaties, agreements, and solemn promises—the modus operandi that has engendered profound mistrust among international actors and secured its reputation as an unreliable partner on the global stage. The nation’s historical record is replete with instances of treaties being signed only to be subsequently unratified, repudiated, or coercively imposed upon other nations, only to be later dismissed by the United States itself.

From its very inception, American policy has been characterized by an aversion to steadfast adherence to international commitments. This is starkly illustrated by the multitude of treaties forged with Native American tribes between 1772 and 1869—374 in number—of which a significant proportion were either flagrantly violated or never ratified. In contemporary terms, the United States remains one of the few nations to have ratified a mere 5 of the 18 human rights treaties promulgated under the aegis of the United Nations.

A review of official US governmental archives further underscores this chronic dereliction of international obligations. Notable examples include the Treaty of Versailles (1919), signed by President Woodrow Wilson yet subsequently spurned by a Republican-dominated Congress; the International Labor Convention (1949), the oldest extant treaty still languishing without Senate ratification; and the Geneva Agreement (1954), which the United States, despite active participation in its negotiations to conclude the Korean and First Indochina Wars, ultimately refused to sign. Additional instances of non-compliance encompass the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979); the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996); the Ottawa Treaty (1997); the Kyoto Protocol (1997); the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (1998); and the Lisbon Treaty (2009).

This historical trajectory of non-compliance reached an apex during the Trump era, epitomized by his unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA—the Iran nuclear deal—in 2018. Under the pretext that the agreement was “incomplete,” he not only extricated the United States from its commitments but also instituted a policy of maximum pressure on Iran, simultaneously articulating a desire to negotiate a “more comprehensive” accord. Such actions provoked widespread consternation among key international stakeholders, including then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May, who contended that Trump’s unilateral maneuver flagrantly breached UN Security Council resolutions.

A critical dimension of this recurrent pattern lies in the constitutional prerogative of the US Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—in ratifying or repudiating treaties, agreements, and sanctions. Numerous accords, including those enumerated above, have been initiated by US presidents yet have languished without implementation due to Congressional intransigence. Even the JCPOA, despite its operational execution, was never afforded ratification by Congress, thereby ensuring the persistence of Congressional sanctions against Iran.

In this context, the current administration’s dualistic approach—employing both coercive sanctions and ostensible overtures toward negotiation—exemplifies a continuity of disloyalty and inconsistency in US foreign policy. Historical precedent strongly suggests that any future attempt by Trump to mitigate or rescind sanctions on Iran will be thwarted by a Congress that has consistently eschewed binding international commitments.