In a March 20, 2026, opinion column published by Middle East Eye, Tunisian-British commentator Soumaya Ghannoushi critiqued the Trump administration’s foreign policy as an “American crusade” driven by raw domination rather than diplomacy or international norms. The piece, titled “American crusade: Domination is the only language for Trump’s team,” focuses heavily on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his 2020 book American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free. Ghannoushi portrays the administration’s rhetoric and actions—particularly amid U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iranian targets—as a shift toward militaristic spectacle, civilizational confrontation, and rejection of post-World War II restraints.
While the column reflects a perspective sympathetic to Palestinian and Iranian viewpoints, it raises legitimate questions about tone, escalation risks, and ideological framing in U.S. policy. A fuller examination, however, reveals a more pragmatic story rooted in “peace through strength,” deterrence failures of prior approaches, and the realities of great-power competition in a dangerous world.
Hegseth’s “American Crusade” in Context
Pete Hegseth, a U.S. Army combat veteran, Fox News host, and Trump’s Secretary of Defense, published American Crusade during the 2020 election cycle. The book argues that America faces existential threats from within and without: radical left-wing ideologies eroding cultural and institutional foundations at home, and jihadist Islamism abroad. Hegseth invokes martial and occasionally faith-infused language, describing a needed “crusade” to defend Western freedoms, individual rights, and Judeo-Christian heritage. He portrays historical Crusades as largely defensive efforts to halt expansionist pressures on Europe and Christian communities in the Mediterranean, enabling later cultural flourishing.
Critics, including Ghannoushi and outlets like CNN, highlight passages framing contemporary politics as a civilizational clash, with Islamism as a primary external foe enabled by domestic progressives. Hegseth’s tattoos—including “Deus Vult” (“God wills it”)—and references to Christian knights draw particular scrutiny as evidence of religious zealotry. Supporters counter that the book is unapologetic cultural defense: naming incompatibilities between sharia supremacism, jihadist ideology, and liberal democratic order rather than papering them over with multiculturalism or economic appeasement.
The renewed attention to the book in 2026 stems from ongoing U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, missile capabilities, naval assets, and nuclear-related sites under Operation Epic Fury. Hegseth has described these operations as targeted, focused on eliminating threats—destroying offensive missiles, preventing nuclear breakout, and disrupting terror financing and proxy networks—without open-ended nation-building.
Trump’s “America First” Foreign Policy
Donald Trump’s second-term approach emphasizes transactional realism over ideological nation-building or unconditional global policing. Core elements include:
- Rebuilding military lethality and deterrence after perceived weakness invited aggression.
- Demanding fair burden-sharing from allies (e.g., higher NATO defense spending).
- Maximum economic and military pressure on adversaries like Iran, combined with willingness to negotiate from strength.
- Prioritizing core U.S. interests: secure borders, energy independence, freedom of navigation, and protection against terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
In the Iran context, administration officials argue that years of proxy attacks by Tehran-backed militias, nuclear advances despite the JCPOA framework, and threats to international shipping necessitated decisive action. Trump has historically blended tough talk with deal-making, as seen in the Abraham Accords. Rhetoric about “death and destruction” is blunt but reflects battlefield realities rather than celebration of civilian suffering; operations reportedly emphasize precision targeting of military assets.
Critics like Ghannoushi see this as thuggish arrogance replacing liberal internationalism. They argue it treats violence as spectacle and discards diplomacy. Yet recent history offers cautionary lessons: restraint or accommodation toward Iran’s regime often correlated with expanded proxy wars, attacks on U.S. forces, and regional destabilization. Pure multilateralism without enforcement mechanisms frequently failed to curb determined revisionist actors.
The Limits of “Domination” Rhetoric—and Its Alternatives
No serious analyst claims domination is the only language of statecraft. Effective foreign policy mixes credible force, economic leverage, diplomacy with off-ramps, and clear prioritization. Bombastic framing can fuel adversary propaganda, strain alliances, and risk miscalculation. At the same time, pretending all regimes and ideologies are compatible with a rules-based order ignores empirical patterns: theocratic expansionism, rejection of secular pluralism, and use of terrorism as statecraft have driven conflicts from 9/11 onward.
Western self-criticism post-Iraq and Afghanistan often swung toward excessive caution, allowing adversaries to advance while America debated its own sins. Hegseth’s worldview, for all its rhetorical flourishes, reflects a counter-assessment: civilizations compete, values are not neutral, and weakness invites predation. Russia’s moves in Ukraine, China’s assertiveness, and Iran’s regional ambitions under lighter pressure periods illustrate the point.
Realism acknowledges that power remains central to international relations. The post-WWII order succeeded in part because American strength underwrote it—not because institutions magically transcended human nature or cultural differences. Today’s challenges—nuclear proliferation, Islamist militancy, great-power rivalry—demand clear-eyed evaluation of threats rather than moral equivalence or perpetual apology.
Ghannoushi’s column highlights genuine risks: escalation, humanitarian costs, and the seductive pull of ideological framing over pragmatic outcomes. Yet it underplays why such postures gain traction—repeated attacks on U.S. interests and allies, alongside failures of softer policies to deliver lasting stability. Trump’s team speaks in terms of strength because decades of perceived retreat often worsened security dilemmas.
Foreign policy is not therapy, moral performance, or endless accommodation. It is the art of securing a nation amid competing powers where not all actors share liberal premises. Deterrence, backed by superior capability and willingness to use it judiciously, remains essential. Domination alone breeds resentment; ignoring power realities courts disaster. The test for any administration lies in results: reduced threats, protected interests, and avoidance of unnecessary quagmires—not in whether its language satisfies critics who preferred the prior status quo.
About The Author
