The myth of US peacemaking: Why Washington’s mediation in West Asia keeps crumbling

Peiman Salehi, The Cradle, November 3, 2025 —

The illusion of American neutrality in West Asia is unraveling as Washington’s alliances and coercive diplomacy repeatedly sabotage peace across the region.

The US has long styled itself as a guarantor of peace and stability in West Asia while systematically undermining both. From the Oslo Accords to the Abraham Accords, Washington’s so-called peace initiatives have masked coercion as consensus. 

These efforts consistently reinforce the regional status quo, prioritizing Israeli security over Palestinian sovereignty, and maintaining western hegemony over regional autonomy.

The collapse of another US-backed Gaza ceasefire, violated within days by renewed Israeli aggression, exposes the structural flaws in this diplomatic model. Rather than arbitrating peace, Washington serves as an enabler of conflict. 

Its diplomacy rests on selective morality and strategic interest, not universal principles. The American insistence on brokering ceasefires while actively resupplying Tel Aviv’s military machinery makes a mockery of its so-called neutrality.

‘No legal basis under international law’ 

The recent joint letter by Iran, China, and Russia to the UN Secretary-General rejecting Washington’s attempt to reactivate the expired “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231 further lays bare the fissures between western powers and global legitimacy. 

The mechanism, part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, formally expired on 18 October 2025. Yet, the US and its European partners are now attempting to revive sanctions via a legal instrument widely considered void.

Tehran’s rejection of the move, supported by Moscow and Beijing, signals a collective refusal to let Washington unilaterally interpret international law. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian affirmed in August that “China reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue and opposes the invocation of the UN Security Council’s ‘snapback’ mechanism.”

His words echoed a broader conviction across the Global South that legitimacy can no longer be dictated by Washington’s will. Fifteen years ago, Beijing and Moscow joined western powers in imposing sanctions on Iran; today, they stand beside Tehran in open defiance of that same framework. 

The world’s center of gravity is shifting from a unipolar order managed by Washington to a multipolar one defined by resistance to its dominance.

Economic multipolarity and the end of American centrality

Nowhere is the erosion of US dominance more visible than in East and Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), once conceived as a Cold War neutral bloc, has evolved into a robust, self-sustaining economic engine. As reported by the Japan News in March 2024, ASEAN’s combined GDP now rivals that of Japan.

Following Washington’s 2017 withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the region coalesced around the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Even traditional US allies have joined. As Professor Amitav Acharya argues in ‘The End of American World Order,’ what is emerging is not anti-western, but post-western – a world in which regions increasingly manage their own affairs. Trump’s recent visit to East Asia highlighted Washington’s growing irrelevance in a region it once dominated.

Yet Washington continues to operate as though the post–Cold War era never ended. Its diplomats still speak the language of the “rules-based order,” even as its actions violate the very norms they claim to uphold. 

The attempt to weaponize international law through the snapback mechanism mirrors its broader conduct in Gaza: mediation that enforces control rather than fosters compromise. When the US calls for restraint but resupplies Israel with weapons as civilian casualties rise, its moral authority collapses under its own contradictions.

As former US diplomat Chas Freeman once observed:

“Sadly, theories of coercion and plans to use military means to impose our will on other nations have for some time squeezed out serious consideration of diplomacy as an alternative to the use of force. Diplomacy is more than saying ‘nice doggie’ till you can find a rock … The weapons of diplomats are words and their power is their persuasiveness.” 

This transition from persuasion to pressure has degraded Washington’s credibility. US diplomacy increasingly resembles an extension of Pentagon strategy – a negotiation backed by bombs, not by principle.

And this is not limited to Gaza or Iran. From Venezuela to North Korea, from Syria to China, Washington’s diplomatic strategy hinges on threats, sanctions, and military posturing. The soft power myth has dissolved under the weight of decades of failed interventions.

A cultural and philosophical disconnect

Western liberalism, historically presented as a universal framework for progress, falters in regions like West Asia, where faith and justice are intertwined. As even Francis Fukuyama – the American political scientist best known for declaring the “end of history” at the Cold War’s close – himself conceded, liberalism is not a universal fit. For Iran and much of West Asia, peace cannot be reduced to the absence of war or bought through economic incentives. It must arise from justice, dignity, and recognition.

This is the blind spot of every US-brokered deal: the failure to grasp that sovereignty and moral legitimacy cannot be negotiated away. The more Washington pressures regional actors into conformity, the more resistance solidifies into a collective identity. 

Tehran’s approach reflects this new reality. Rather than reacting impulsively to western provocations, Iran has adopted a hybrid posture combining strategic deterrence with selective diplomacy. Its partnership with Moscow and Beijing is not an alliance of convenience but of conviction – a shared rejection of a system where power masquerades as principle. 

In the wake of the failed snapback, Tehran has deepened energy and transport cooperation through the North–South Corridor while maintaining calibrated dialogue with regional states seeking stability beyond US patronage.

The existential failure of US diplomacy

Unlike in previous decades, Iran is no longer isolated. It now commands a regional network of partnerships that reflect mutual interests rather than asymmetric dependencies. From Iraq to Central Asia, Tehran’s outreach has become a model for post-western engagement.

Meanwhile, the Gaza ceasefire serves as a grim mirror of Washington’s diplomatic decay. Within 48 hours of its declaration, Israeli airstrikes resumed under the pretext of “pre-emptive defense,” and the White House responded with silence. For the Arab and Muslim world, this silence is deafening and an unmistakable confirmation that American mediation is designed to manage violence, not end it.

The myth of the western peacemaker has endured because it served both sides: it offered Washington moral legitimacy and offered local elites a pretext for inaction. But that myth is now collapsing under the weight of its contradictions. 

A world divided between moral resistance and strategic cynicism cannot be reconciled through the language of “balance.” It demands a new moral vocabulary – one that acknowledges power but subordinates it to justice.

The failure of US mediation in West Asia is therefore not tactical but existential. It stems from a worldview that confuses control with order and influence with peace. Until Washington accepts that peace cannot be engineered through dominance, its diplomacy will remain what it has always been: an empire’s negotiation with its own illusions.