By Alexander Morse

So right now, the media is ablaze with commentary on the recent meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky. Countless left-leaning and neo-conservative commentators on mainstream, alternative, and social media are reacting in horror at Trump’s language. How could the leader of the free world, the person who is supposed to represent the greatest example of freedom, say such odious things to a freedom fighter? This is a betrayal of America’s tradition of defending freedom and opposing authoritarianism. As I watch the comments and listen to the talking heads, I wonder what the United States of America they are talking about. The country in which Donald J Trump presides over as commander-in-chief has never had a president in recent memory who advanced democracy or human rights. For nearly a century, every single United States President has had a lengthy track record of supporting authoritarian regimes and undermining human rights whenever it served a purpose. This is because the American government, like every single government that has existed in human history, operates under a principle of realpolitik—making decisions based on pragmatism and not idealism.

What follows is a brief overview of how every president from FDR onwards has been actively involved in regime change, supporting dictatorships, and other forms of human rights violations. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is enough to show how empty claims about Trump ushering in a “new era” of foreign policy is meaningless. Multiple Studies from numerous scholars have examined many ghastly interventions. Some key studies include Daniel Pipes’ Friendly Tyrants: an American Dilemma, William Blum’s books The Rogue State and Democracy: America’s Deadliest Export, and Stephen Kinzer’s book Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Additionally, untold amounts of books by distinguished scholars, journalists, and government officials discuss the consequences of American intervention in many different areas of the globe. Virtually any reputable book written about the modern history of Iran will discuss the consequences of America’s support for the Shah, Saddam Hussein, and Saudi Arabia. Some monumental studies include Hamid Dabashi’s Iran: A People Interrupted and Abbas Amanat Iran: A Modern History.

Before I continue, I will need to issue the following disclaimers. The first is that these views presented are entirely my own, and are not a reflection of any institution or individual that I have ever associated with, nor are my views necessarily the same as any source that I reference in this article. Another disclaimer is that this piece is not designed as a prescriptive model for how America ought to conduct its foreign policy. There are certainly arguments to be made in favor of any of these interventions that shall henceforth be elaborated on. The point of this article is simply to demonstrate the cold, hard truth that America’s foreign policy is not now, or has never been, concerned with any idealistic notions of human rights. The last disclaimer is that this is not to claim that America is some kind of unique evil in the world, solely responsible for misery or suffering. Certainly, America’s rivals and adversaries in the modern era have untold amounts of blood on their hands and have been actively involved in bloody regime change wars of their own. This article is not an apology for any government or quasi-political entity that America has sparred with, diplomatically or militarily.

To start, allow us to consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Widely acknowledged as the founder of the modern presidency, ushered us into a new era of foreign policy that ended the so-called “isolationist” era of American politics and ensured that America would serve on the front lines “defending democracy.” FDR, as is widely known, was knee-deep in supporting brutal dictatorships. Long before Adolf Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, FDR sought better relations with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. This was in spite of the fact that there was a widespread acknowledgment of the Holodomor, Stalin’s famine-genocide designed to exterminate Ukrainians as an independent people.[1] After Germany’s invasion of the USSR, FDR ratcheted up support for Stalin’s regime. Even before the declaration of war against Germany, the US provided Russia with adjusting for inflation, which amounted to well over 100 billion dollars. This included not just humanitarian aid but also tanks, airplanes, bullets, and other weapons of war. [2] This was even though Stalin, along with Winson Churchill, violated Iran’s sovereignty, jointly invading and occupying the country despite its neutrality. FDR’s response to this invasion was to excuse it as a “wartime necessity.”[3]

FDR’s support for dictatorships didn’t end with Joseph Stalin; FDR spared no expense to support the dictatorial regime of Chiang Kai-shek, who had, since the 1920s, committed numerous massacres of Chinese political dissidents and ethnic minorities.[4] During his contentious rule over China, The nationalist party ruled with an iron fist, executing political dissidents and brutalizing ethnic minorities.[5] After Kai-shek’s KMT assumed power in Taiwan, his government enacted a policy of repression known as “The White Terror.” This campaign of repression was targeted at political dissidents, as well as the native Taiwanese population, who saw their language and cultural traditions destroyed. This support for Cheng Ke-Shek continued through every American president until his death in 1975. This support continued even when Taiwan remained under a brutal dictatorship until 1986.[6]

After the death of FDR, his successor, Harry Trueman, continued this support for dictatorship, siding with the same Japanese fascists whom America had just defeated. When American troops occupied Southern Korea in 1945, rather than help the local population transition to democracy, they suppressed the anti-Japanese forces and installed a puppet regime staffed by those who had previously collaborated with the Japanese.[7] Throughout the Korean War, there was never any human rights or democracy to speak of in South Korea. Syngman Rhee, South Korea’s dictator, brutally suppressed all opposition to his rule. He regularly dismissed, jailed, and executed political opponents, carefully controlling the appointments of all government officials. He also prolonged the Korean War, obstructing UN peace talks.[8]

Dwight Eisenhower expanded America’s intervention on multiple fronts. He initiated what would become the long and bloody American occupation of Vietnam. He sent advisors and aid to the French colonialists, who brutally suppressed the Vietnamese people’s fight for freedom despite post-World War II calls for decolonization.[9] On the Latin American front, Ike also spared no expense in supplying logistical and financial support to the dictatorship of Batista in Cuba. This dictatorship prompted the anti-American Cuban revolution, which has led to ongoing strained relations between these two nations.[10] On the Middle Eastern front, Ike’s self-proclaimed “Eisenhower doctrine” led to a string of interventions in the region. One of the most notable examples of this was the CIA-assisted overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran. The CIA played a crucial role in producing both pro-Shah propaganda and black propaganda, trying to portray Mossadegh as a communist stooge. The CIA also provided crucial aid to pro-Shah forces, allowing Pahlavi to regain power.[11] This intervention established an almost three-decade relationship with the Shah. Every president until his overthrow warmly received him and showered praise on him.[12]

JFK proceeded to escalate America’s involvement in Vietnam, escalating the conflict by sending more money and advisors to assist the dictatorial Diem administration. When Diem had outlived his usefulness, JFK authorized the 1963 coup against President Ngo Diem, bringing into power a puppet military dictatorship responsible for countless deaths.[13] JFK also supported the rise of Indonesian dictator Suharto, creating a relationship that would last decades. Suharto’s brutal 32-year dictatorship was marked by hundreds of thousands of deaths in a coordinated effort to destroy the Indonesian labor movement.[14]

The Johnson administration is widely remembered for escalating military involvement in Vietnam from a backdoor advisory to a brutal ground war. Most Americans now look back with a sense of shame on the massive amounts of casualties inflicted by US soldiers and their South Vietnamese allies. In addition to his brutality in Vietnam, Johnson also initiated a bombing campaign in Laos, the largest mass bombing in history, which killed about 30,000 civilians.[15]

Richard Nixon remains one of the most controversial presidents in modern history. Many of his dishonorable exploits are widely known and rightfully condemned. This includes his authorization of a coup in Chile, which brought dictator Pinochet to power.[16] He also provided material and logistical support to Sadat in Egypt. While Sadat was internationally lauded for his recognition of Israel, internally, Sadat brutally suppressed dissent and initiated economic reforms that devastated the population and lined the pockets of the richest strata of Egyptian society.[17] During Nixon’s presidency, East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan as a result of continued negligence and oppression from the Pakistani government. Pakistan cracked down brutally in a brief but bloody war, which many scholars recognize as a genocide. The Nixon administration provided logistical and military support to Pakistan during this bloody time.[18]

Gerald Ford continued to support many of these aforementioned dictators, including Chaing Ke-Shek, Suharto, Anwar Sadat, and Muhammad Raza Pahlavi. In his short presidency, Ford oversaw a military coup in Argentina against Isabele Peron, this new junta brought down a reign of terror on the Argentinian population, without any American condemnation.[19]

Jimmy Carter claimed to seek a new era for the United States through a promotion of human rights. Indeed, Carter openly expressed criticism of several of these figures, causing tension between the US and some of her dictatorial allies. These criticisms, as well as some good-faith actions, such as returning the Panama Canal to the country in which it is based, caused a firestorm of criticism from many conservative Republicans.[20] However, financially and logistically, Carter continued to support many of these previously mentioned regimes, especially the Shah and Suharto. Even after Indonesia launched a brutal invasion of East Timor.[21]

Ronald Wilson Reagan is a president beloved by Republicans and respected by many Democrats. Especially now with the current crisis, a great many memes and op-eds have been shared over the last few days contrasting Reagan and Trump. The claims essentially being that Reagan had the courage to stand up to dictators and promote the rights of free people everywhere, whereas Trump is a supporter of dictatorships. Indeed, a great number of Republican staffers have expressed outrage at Trump’s current actions about Russia and Ukraine.[22] This is nothing but outright denialism. Whatever Reagan had to say about the evils of Soviet dictatorship, his actions around the world demonstrated that the oppression suffered by ordinary soviet citizens didn’t bother him. If it did, there’s no accounting for his track record.

Reflecting back on Carter’s self-proclaimed moral presidency, one instance where Carter seems to have actually been successful was suspending aid to the dictatorial government of Guatemala. The Guatemalan government had, for years before then, engaged in a campaign of repression and human rights violations of Guatemalan people, in particular, Guatemalan minorities. Despite continued indirect support in other ways, Carter successfully introduced an arms embargo against Guatemala. However, Ronald Regan, right as Guatemala shifted from brutal repression to outright genocide of the Maya people, lifted all restrictions and flooded the dictatorship with material and logistic support.[23]

In southeast Asia, Reagan supported Pol Pot, who butchered a quarter of Cambodia’s population. After being deposed in a Vietnamese-backed invasion and the support of anti-Pol Pot forces, the Cambodian tyrant underwent an insurgency against the Soviet-backed government for many decades. During this period, Reagan insisted that Pol Pot’s faction was represented in the United Nations as the legitimate government, on top of the financial support that was given to the Khmer Rouge. This was despite the fact that Khmer guerrillas very rarely targeted government officials and mostly targeted civilian areas.^[24]

On the Middle Eastern front, Reagan’s support for dictators began even before he became president. According to Badr Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran who later became a dissident and lived the rest of his life in exile, Reagan made a backroom deal with Khomeini when the Ayatollah was in exile in France. According to Badr-Sadr, Reagan encouraged Khomeini to capture the hostages and hold them until after the election. This was done to humiliate Carter and guarantee a Republican victory. Khomeini was enthusiastic about the deal, for Khomeini would go down in history as the man who single-handedly brought down the Shah and Carter. Badi Sadr, in his memoir My Turn to Speak, speaks of Khomeini’s meetings with Reagan aids before the election and his realization that the destabilization of Iranian-American relations under the end of the Carter administration had been masterminded as an agreement between Khomeini and Reagan.[25]

I realized there was another agreement in the works, and it had nothing to do with Carter. With whom then, if not his rival for the white house, Ronald Reagan?[26]

After his election to the presidency, Reagan spent the vast majority of his two terms pouring money and logistic support into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Even though Saddam was under sanction for his support of various terrorist organizations, Reagan encouraged Saddam to attack Iran to annex the oil-rich Khuzestan, stroking Saddam’s ambitions to annex the Arab-majority province. After Iraqi forces had been driven out and Iran launched a counter-invasion, Reagan removed all sanctions against Saddam.[27] Reagan then proceeded to arm the Iraqi army to the teeth. Among his support included billions of dollars in alleged humanitarian aid for economic development, but then were used to purchase weapons from Arab league countries and rogue soviet arms dealers, with mediation provided by the CIA. This was in addition to military aid directly given by the United States to the Saddam Regime. Chemical weapons were included in this military aid.[28] The CIA and US Air Force also provided Saddam with logistical support in the form of photographs from satellites and planes, which detailed the locations of Iranian troops and Iranian-backed Kurdish separatists. This logical support was instrumental for Saddam in his genocidal campaign against the Kurds at the end of the war.[29]

In the Republic of Turkey, the Iranian revolution, together with increased pressure from disenfranchised minorities, prompted the military to stage a coup and suspend elections. Ronald Reagan didn’t condemn this violation of democracy, and Turkey’s membership in NATO was not revoked.[30] Reagan enthusiastically supported this military dictatorship due to its anti-communism and anti-Islamism. Much in the same way Trump has expressed praise for Putin, much to neo-conservatives’ chagrin, Reagan had nothing but glowing public admiration for the Turkish government.[31] The new Turkish regime was violently opposed to the existence of Kurds as an independent people and proceeded to brand them as “mountain Turks.” Under the premise of “fighting terrorism” and promoting national unity, the Turkish army went on to burn down 3,000 Kurdish villages in an act that many scholars call genocide. On top of these acts of violence, the Kurdish language and cultural traditions were suppressed, with Kurdish speakers beaten up and thrown in prison for speaking in their native languages.[32]

To the east of Iran, Reagan also authorized “Operation Cyclone,” providing millions in aid to the Afghan rebels against the USSR-backed Afghan government. This was done with full knowledge of the fundamentalist ideology that dominated the Afghan mujahideen, which was anything but “democracy” and “human rights.” They also knew very well the ideologies of the so-called “Afghan Arabs,” that is to say, Salafi extremists who traveled far and wide to Afghanistan to establish a base of operations. Despite what some neoconservative apologists and denialists have argued, the US played a crucial role in arming the groups that would become the Taliban and Al-Queda. This was done through three separate sources: aid directly to the mujahideen, aid to Pakistan, who then in turn funneled it to Afghan rebels, and aid to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Arab league countries, who then used it to further finance anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan.[33] Many of those who received this US government assistance proceeded to commit acts of terrorism outside of Afghanistan, including against the United States.[34]

George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, continued this path of supporting dictators, prompting greater problems that would haunt the United States and the rest of the world in coming decades. Most notably, Bush solidified the relationship between the United States and the Saudi monarchy. While Saudi Arabia and the United States had enjoyed a cordial relationship for decades before then, largely due to the Saudi Monarchy’s staunch anti-communism,[35] it was George Bush who stationed military bases in the country that remain there to this day. The stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia cemented the relationship that America built and continues to enjoy with one of the most despotic regimes on the face of this planet. Furthermore, the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia helped further inflame anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and, by the United States government’s own admission, a key motivation for the tragedy of 9/11.[36]

Furthermore, despite whatever condemnation one can make of Saddam’s decision to violate international law and declare another country as part of itself, Kuwait certainly had no democracy to speak of before the war, nor has any democracy been established in Kuwait after the fact. Kuwait, for its entire independent existence, has been ruled as an absolute monarchy, with a society resembling apartheid, if not a slave society, where the rights of foreign workers and even local Arab Bedouins are slim to non-existent. A 1995 report from Human Rights Watch, several years after the desert storm, showed that the majority of Kuwait’s population were stateless citizens with no rights at all. So this goes to show that Bush Sr. certainly had no interest in creating, let alone restoring, any kind of democracy or human rights in Kuwait.

Kuwait practices a system of institutionalized discrimination against its residents known as Bedoons, long-time inhabitants who have been denied Kuwaiti citizenship and are now being rendered stateless. Barred from employment, denied education for their children, restricted in their movements, and living under the constant threat of arbitrary arrest and deportation, Bedoons are a community of “have-nots” in one of the wealthiest countries of the world. At the same time, tens of thousands of Bedoons who fled Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation have been barred from returning to their country.[37]

Most of these previous human rights violations and support for brutal dictators and reprehensible individuals were justified by the necessity of winning the Cold War. Indeed, apologists for Cold War era presidents often say that without aid to dictators and terrorists in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Guatemala, the world may very well be ruled by the USSR. This deal with the devil was for the greater good of humanity, just as FDR needed to supply aid to Joseph Stalin in his war against Adolf Hitler. While there certainly can be a discussion on the merits of that argument, it is hard to understand why Bill Clinton didn’t relax America’s support for dictators if this was truly the case. With the USSR defeated, it is reasonable to think that perhaps the Clinton administration may have been an ideal time to end military aid to ruthless regimes, but there doesn’t appear to have been any kind of change in American policy. The Clinton administration continued to provide aid to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and other friendly tyrants from the Cold War era. Notably, Clinton turned a blind eye to a dictatorial Algerian regime that suspended elections because the “wrong party” was projected to win. During the war, 100,000 Algerians died, and the government committed widespread atrocities against the Algerian Berber population, whose language was brutally suppressed by the Algerian government. Furthermore, Berbers were attacked by the government’s foes, radical Islamists who opposed the speaking of any non-Arabic language. Despite the fact that the US government was supporting the Algerian government against the fundamentalist rebels, the latter were the consequence of America’s long-standing support of financing Islamic fundamentalism.[38]

The events of 9/11 saw the dawn of the “war on terrorism,” which resurrected the justifications for working with despotic allies. In order to defeat Islamist terrorism, it was necessary to work with dictatorial regimes. George Bush increased aid to and military cooperation with Pakistan, enabling the government’s persecution of Christians, Ahmadis, and genocide of the Balochi and Pashtun populations. A cooling of Reagan-era cooperation preceded this due to disputes over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.[39] Despite his rhetoric about the necessity of removing an evil dictator in Iraq and the promise of a flourishing democracy that would emerge post-invasion, his promise never went through. Nouri al-Maliki was widely described as being a “new Saddam” by Iraqis, even those who had initially supported U.S. intervention. The only thing George Bush succeeded in doing by invading Iraq was the replacement of one dictatorship with another, as well as creating a host of other problems, including providing a base of operations for the groups that would become the dreaded ISIS.[40] This was on top of Bush’s continued support for Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, the Saudi Monarchy, and virtually every dictatorship within the Arab League.[41]

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of change. However, one thing that remained constant through his eight years in office was the continued U.S. support for the Saudi monarchy, even after they began a genocide in Yemen. Despite warnings from numerous human rights organizations, Obama never took any action against Saudi Arabia’s brutal bombardment of the Yemeni people. Human Rights Watch in 2018 highlighted the shameless hypocrisy of Obama-era officials condemning then-president Trump for his handling of the Yemen crisis.

Well before President Trump’s appearance, we at Human Rights Watch and others had documented well over 100 apparently indiscriminate or disproportionate aerial attacks by the Saudi-led coalition on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Yemen, causing devastation to Yemenis in their homes, markets, schools, hospitals, and even during their weddings and their funerals. In case after case, we showed that US weapons were being used in many of these attacks, including widely banned cluster munitions in populated areas. False denials and cover-ups by Saudi military authorities were clear signs that they were not trustworthy partners. We repeatedly provided this evidence to Obama administration officials, but they would insist, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, that the support they were providing was reining in the Saudis and helping improve their ability to comply with the laws of war. This is not a case of hindsight knows best. The Obama administration should have known back then.[42]

Using the same empty justifications of human rights and democracy that brought America into both Gulf wars, Obama, together with the rest of NATO, invaded Libya during an insurgency against Gaddafi’s regime waged by radical Islamists. The bitter irony of the situation is that Gaddafi surrendered his nuclear weapons program and enacted a series of economic reforms in the aftermath of the Second Gulf War. For this, he was rewarded by George Bush and the international community with integration into the world stage. This was largely due to the knowledge that the prime opponents of Gaddafi were radical Islamists who resented Gaddafi’s secular rule. After Gaddafi’s rehabilitation, the CIA was more than happy to torture Libyan dissidents before returning them to Libya.[43] However, despite the reality of the brutality of Gaddafi’s rule, it is now widely acknowledged that NATO’s intervention in Libya turned the country into a failed state. The removal of Gaddafi brought forth a genocide of Libya’s African community, along with many tribes in the West, in addition to creating a base of operations for Islamic extremists.[44] Furthermore, the removal of Gaddafi destroyed the greatest hope for Africa, breaking free from neo-colonialism. Gaddafi actively promoted the replacement of the IMF and the World Bank with a new African central bank. Gaddafi also supported the creation of a new gold-backed currency that African nations could collectively use to replace the Dollar and the Euro. While this replacement would have bankrupted American and European corporations, there is no telling how much this would have benefited ordinary Africans[45].

Relevant to the current political climate, it’s necessary to point out that Obama assisted with a coup in Ukraine that removed a pro-Russian US president, Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych. Far from being a revolution against a despotic tyrant in favor of freedom, those who rebelled against his regime were largely ultranationalists, if not outright neo-fascists. The subsequent administrations in Ukraine have, despite being elected, ratcheted up campaigns of repression against the Russian-speaking people of Donbas. This increased persecution led the people of Donbas and Luhansk to declare independence in 2014.[46]

These situations didn’t change with Trump in the white house. Despite claims that he was seeking reproach from Putin and Kim Il-Sung, relations between these two countries deteriorated further, and the new Cold War burned brighter. Trump continued to keep the flow of aid and logistic support to Saudi Arabia, and it’s genocide in Yemen. Yet, for some bizarre reason, many commentators acted as if Trump was the first president to support dictatorships.

These policies of supporting dictatorships, of course, prevailed in the Biden administration. As Biden unapologetically still continued to funnel aid into the Saudi war machine. His only grievance with the kingdom was their proposal to limit oil production.[47] Of course, one of the most pressing issues of his presidency, the conflict that resulted in the recent exchange between Trump and Zelensky, was Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite whatever justifications or lack thereof, that may exist for Putin’s actions from 2022 onwards, there is no doubt that Zelensky, for right or wrong, has further eroded any democracy that existed in Ukraine.[48] In addition to suspending elections indefinitely, he also banned political parties that were with him, allegedly for being Russian sympathizers. Furthermore, Zelensky also shut down all independent media and consolidated the news into one single continuous news station.[49]

Now, where does that leave the current Trump administration? As stated at the beginning of this article, the point of this piece is not to proscribe policy. Some of these instances are often held up as examples of where it is necessary to support a lesser-evil in the face a greater threat. In a few of these cases, that certainly is a defensible position. However, whatever policy is the best choice for the United States, it should be done from a position of honesty. The honest, irrefutable truth is that despite whatever rhetoric exists in terms of upholding some kind of standard for international human rights and dignity, the track record for nearly a century so far has been one of supporting dictatorship and undermining human rights. Does this mean there are no valid reasons to critique President Trump’s handling of the Russo-Ukraine war? Absolutely not. His actions should be scrutinized and critiqued when it is warranted. However, undermining democracy, ignoring human rights, and supporting dictatorships is not the exception. It is the rule in American foreign policy.

[1] Ray Gramache Ray Gramache, “Contextualizing FDR’s Campaign to Recognize the Soviet Union, 1932-1933: Propaganda, Famine Denial, and Ukrainian Resistance,” Harvard University Society of Fellows Journal 37, no. 3–4 (2020): 287–321, https://www.husj.harvard.edu/articles/contextualizing-fdrs-campaign-to-recognize-the-soviet-union-1932-1933.

[2] U.S. Embassy in Russia, “World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945,” U.S. Embassy in Russia, accessed March 1, 2025, https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/.

[3] U.S. Department of State, “Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, Volume VIII, The Soviet Union, Document 360,” Office of the Historian, accessed March 1, 2025, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v08/d360.

[4] Henry G. Schwarz, “The Treatment of Minorities,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 31, no. 1 (March 1973): 193-207, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1173494.

[5] “Overview of the Nanjing Decade,” Chinese History for Teachers, accessed March 1, 2025, https://chinesehistoryforteachers.omeka.net/exhibits/show/nanjing-decade/nanjing-decade-overview.

[6] “Taiwan: Chiang Kai-shek, the White Terror, Transitional Justice, and Transnational Repression,” World Without Genocide, accessed March 1, 2025, https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/taiwan-chiang-kai-shek-the-white-terror-transitional-justice-and-transnational-repression.

[7] Noam Chomsky, “Restoring the Traditional Order,” accessed March 1, 2025, https://chomsky.info/unclesam03/.

[8] “Syngman Rhee,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last modified [date if available], accessed March 1, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Syngman-Rhee.

[9] “America’s Vietnam,” Miller Center, University of Virginia, accessed March 1, 2025, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/americas-vietnam.

[10] Patrick R. Sullivan, “Covert Imperialism: The Eisenhower Administration and Cuba” (student scholarship, Gettysburg College), https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=student_scholarship.

[11] Scott A. Koch, The Central Intelligence Agency and the Fall of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, August 1953 (Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, June 1998), https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/the%20central%20intelligence%20%5B15369853%5D.pdf.

[12] Bruce Riedel, “1979: Iran and America,” Brookings Institution, February 10, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/1979-iran-and-america/.

[13] John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, “Vietnam,” JFK in History, accessed March 1, 2025, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/vietnam.

[14] National Security Archive, “Indonesia Mass Murder 1965 – U.S. Embassy Files,” The George Washington University, October 17, 2017, accessed March 1, 2025, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/indonesia/2017-10-17/indonesia-mass-murder-1965-us-embassy-files.

[15] Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State, “The Kennedy Administration and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Milestones: 1961-1968, accessed March 1, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/foreword.

[16] National Security Archive, “Coup in Chile: What Did Nixon Know and When Did He Know It?” National Security Archive, September 12, 2022, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2022-09-12/coup-chile-what-did-nixon-know-and-when-did-he-know-it.

[17] “Anwar Sadat,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 1, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anwar-Sadat.

[18] Kallol Bhattacherjee, “Henry Kissinger, Nixon Broke US Rule to Help Pakistan, Sent Aircraft from Third Countries as They Feared India Was About to Attack West Pakistan,” The Hindu, December 16, 2024, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kissinger-nixon-broke-us-rule-to-help-pakistan-sent-aircraft-from-third-countries-as-they-feared-india-was-about-to-attack-west-pakistan/article67591823.ece.

[19] “Argentina’s Military Coup: What the U.S. Knew,” National Security Archive, March 23, 2021, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/southern-cone/2021-03-23/argentinas-military-coup-what-us-knew.

[20] Robert Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs,” Miller Center, University of Virginia, accessed March 1, 2025, https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs.

[21] Gordan Smith, “Jimmy Carter’s No Real Humanitarian,” PRISM: A Publication of the Office of Strategic Services Society, accessed March 1, 2025, https://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html.

[22] David Smith, “Reagan-Era Republicans Aghast as Trump Turns Russia Policy on Its Head,” The Guardian, February 19, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/19/trump-russia-ukraine-reagan-republicans.

[23] Danielle Valdevit, “The Role of the United States in the Guatemalan Genocide,” Chronos: The Undergraduate History Journal 14 (2020): 41-48, https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=chronos.

[24] William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2005).

[25] Badr Sadr, My Turn to Speak (Riverside, NJ: Brassey’s Inc., 1991), 32.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Hamid Dabashi, Iran: A People Interrupted (New York: Nation Books, 2007), 167-79.

[28] Sussan Webb, “Why the U.S. Concealed Its Chemical Weapons Role in Iraq,” People’s World, October 20, 2014, https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/why-the-u-s-concealed-its-chemical-weapons-role-in-iraq/.

[29]Joyce Wiley, The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Shi’as (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992), 112-120.

[30] Paul Henze, “Why Turkey is Not a Friendly Tyrant,” in Friendly Tyrants: An American Dilemma, ed. Daniel Pipes and Adam Garfinkle (New York: The Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1991),

[31] Ronald Reagan, “Remarks at the Welcoming Ceremony for President Kenan Evren of Turkey,” Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, June 5, 1985, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-welcoming-ceremony-president-kenan-evren-turkey.

[32] Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Repression of Dissent,” March 2005, https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turkey0305/3.htm#_Toc97005223.

[33] Craig Baxter, “The United States and Pakistan: The Zia Era and the Afghanistan Correction,” in Friendly Tyrants: An American Dilemma, ed. Daniel Pipes and Adam Garfinkle (New York: The Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1994), 479-506.

[34] William Blum, The Rogue State, 33-39.

[35] Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 159.

[36] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), 47–63, https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.

[37] Human Rights Watch, Kuwait: Promises Betrayed (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1995), [page number], https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Kuwait.htm.

[38] Minorities at Risk Project, Chronology for Berbers in Algeria, 2004, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38621e.html %5Baccessed 19 May 2023].

[39] Arms Control Association, “Bush Okays $3 Billion Aid Package for Pakistan,” Arms Control Today, July 2003, accessed [date], https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003-07/press-releases/bush-okays-3-billion-aid-package-pakistan.

[40] Foreign Policy. “How Maliki Ruined Iraq.” Foreign Policy, June 19, 2014. Accessed [March 1, 2025]. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/19/how-maliki-ruined-iraq/.

[41] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The Bush Administration’s Budget and Democracy in the Arab World,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 2008, https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2008/08/the-bush-administrations-budget-and-democracy-in-the-arab-world?lang=en.

1. [42] Human Rights Watch, “Obama Officials’ Incomplete Reckoning with Failure in Yemen,” Human Rights Watch, November 19, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/19/obama-officials-incomplete-reckoning-failure-yemen.

[43] Human Rights Watch, “US Torture and Rendition in Gaddafi’s Libya,” Human Rights Watch, September 5, 2012, https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/us-torture-and-rendition-gaddafis-libya.

[44] Quallen, Brooklyn. Libya Country Report. Genocide Watch, January 2024. https://www.genocidewatch.com/_files/ugd/425a5b_b72e84331a3f457da38ff74cb1ebed7f.pdf.

[45] Salah Sarrar, “We Can Build United States of Africa, Gaddafi Says,” Reuters, July 28, 2010, https://www.reuters.com/article/world/we-can-build-united-states-of-africa-gaddafi-says-idUSTRE66Q706/.

[46] Stephen F. Cohen, War with Russia: From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate.  (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2019), 16-18, 74, 139-44, 179-82.

[47] Sadie Statman, “Biden’s Empty Call to Reevaluate US-Saudi Relationship,” Human Rights Watch, January 24, 2023, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/24/bidens-empty-call-reevaluate-us-saudi-relationship.

[48] Konstantin Skorkin, “Ukraine’s Internal Election Struggles,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 29, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/01/ukraine-internal-election-struggles?lang=en.

[49] Emily Feng, “Zelenskyy Has Consolidated Ukraine’s TV Outlets and Dissolved Rival Political Parties,” NPR, July 8, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par.