International order

From the Cold War to the ICE Age: The US Abdication from the Free World

From Iraq to Kabul and from foreign battlefields to American streets the United States has drifted from law to force. This post traces how post Cold War hubris 9/11 trauma and Trump era doctrines have hollowed out the rule based order leaving the free world leaderless and at risk.

Three and a half decades after the end of the Cold War the United States has undergone a profound and troubling transformation in its posture toward international law the world order and even the trust of its own citizens. What was once a superpower championing a “rules based order” has shifted toward a posture that increasingly looks like raw authority cloaked in legal pretexts and bolstered by domestic political narratives. To understand where the United States finds itself in 2026 we must trace the arc from the 1990s to the present and confront the unsettling reality that the nation’s commitment to the law both abroad and at home has been steadily eroding.

In the 1990s the US intervened militarily in Iraq in ways that foreshadowed the long twilight struggle that would define the early years of the twenty first century. The 1991 Gulf War had broad international support under United Nations auspices yet even then the US demonstrated it would act unilaterally when it chose to maintain no fly zones over Iraqi airspace without a fresh Security Council mandate. That decision planted seeds of resentment in the Middle East and exposed the limits of a legalistic framework when convenient interpretations replaced clear legal legitimacy. These policies contributed in part to the environment that produced the attacks on September 11 2001.

9/11 was a national trauma of unparalleled intensity and the Bush Administration’s response was swift and total. The decision to invade Afghanistan was easily reconcilable with international law in its initial hunt for those responsible for the attacks. Yet as the campaign in Afghanistan expanded and then as the 2003 invasion of Iraq unfolded with no new charge of direct responsibility for 9/11 the US drifted from self-defence into a broader assertion of pre-emptive authority. The legal basis for that second war was thin at best and the human cost profound.

Once in Iraq and later in Afghanistan the US found itself on the defensive not only against militant groups but against its own strategic overreach. Two decades of war showed that technological superiority could not substitute for political legitimacy or for a coherent vision of peace and security. International law was invoked when convenient and ignored when inconvenient. The result was the paradox of spending trillions of dollars in theatre while undermining the very principles the US claimed to defend.

The tenure of the Trump Administration marked a distinct turn. By the second term of Donald Trump the foreign policy ethos had moved away from even a pretense of multilateral engagement toward doctrines that can only be described as transactional and cynical. The “Donroe Doctrine” and its associated FAFO (“Fuck Around Find Out”) mentality captured an approach that privileged unpredictability and raw force over diplomacy and restraint. These are not academic labels but real strategic departures from established norms. They represent a United States that sees international law as optional and views force projection as a tool of domestic political signaling as much as strategic necessity.

Domestically this trend has metastasised. The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis in early January 2026 is a stark symbol of how far the national discourse and practice of force have shifted. Good a 37-year-old American citizen was shot and killed during a federal immigration operation an incident that has ignited protests and intensified scrutiny of federal law enforcement. Video released from multiple angles shows conflicting narratives about whether she posed an imminent danger when she was shot as she attempted to drive her vehicle away from the scene. Federal authorities including the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security have labelled her actions as “domestic terrorism” a claim sharply contested by local officials and protesters. The FBI has assumed exclusive control of the investigation limiting access by state investigators and deepening distrust of federal motives. Thousands have taken to the streets not only in Minneapolis but in other cities nationwide demanding accountability and transparency.

This episode is striking not merely because a federal agent killed an American citizen but because of the public rhetoric deployed to defend and justify it. The swift adoption of a narrative that frames a civilian as a terrorist without presenting clear evidence reflects a broader shift in official newspeak. It mirrors the way the government rationalizes actions abroad without transparent legal justification. It reflects a political culture where force is valorized and skepticism of official lines is labelled subversive. In this context the law becomes a malleable instrument rather than a constraint on power.

Critics argue that what we are witnessing is not merely a backsliding but a descent into an authoritarian mindset. When federal power is deployed against citizens with scant accountability and when official narratives dismiss contrary evidence the line between law enforcement and political performance blurs. The Minnesota shooting is not an isolated incident it is the culmination of a trend in which the United States increasingly subordinates the rule of law to the imperatives of political survival and dominance. The consequences extend beyond American borders because when the self proclaimed leader of the free world abandons its legal moorings it signals to other powers that might makes right and that international commitments are disposable.

The upcoming midterm elections thus represent more than a routine contest for seats in Congress. They are a referendum on whether the United States will reclaim its commitment to the rule of law or continue down a path where law is trumped by might and messaging. The choices voters make will not only shape domestic policy but inform global perceptions of American leadership. The world is watching as once again the United States stands at a crossroads between its ideals and its instincts for unilateral action.

The Cold War ended with the promise that the rule of law would anchor the international order. Yet what has emerged in the decades since is a United States that increasingly treats legal norms as flexible depending on the audience and the agenda. From no fly zones to 9/11 interventions from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to the streets of Minneapolis the arc of American power reveals a profound ambivalence toward the law that once defined its leadership. The question now is whether the next chapter will be a renewal of those principles or further surrender to the ICE age of force devoid of the legal and moral framework that once justified them.

Alarm Bells in Caracas – a wake up call for the EU

Trump’s reckless invasion of Venezuela shatters illusions about a self-sustaining rules-based order. The EU now faces a decisive choice: drift into irrelevance or unite, wielding both muscle and diplomacy, to defend postwar values of human rights, justice and law. History demands leadership; hesitation means surrender by instalments for Europe itself.

There are moments when history does not knock but barges in uninvited, kicks over the furniture and dares you to respond. The reckless invasion of Venezuela by President Trump has done exactly that. The shockwaves are not only felt in Caracas or Washington. They reverberate through Brussels, Luxembourg, Berlin and every capital that has grown accustomed to the comfortable illusion that the post-war order, once built, maintains itself. It does not. It survives only if someone is willing to defend it.

What we are witnessing is not a passing aberration. It is the naked assertion that force trumps law, that personal bravado outranks multilateral process, that sovereignty and human dignity are props in a televised spectacle. The United Nations looks on, its mechanisms sidelined. International courts issue words while tanks supply facts on the ground. The question therefore returns, unavoidable and urgent: who, if anyone, will step up for the rule of law?

Europe was born out of the smoking ruins of precisely this kind of arbitrariness. It is no coincidence that the vocabulary of the Union is studded with words like dignity, rights, justice, peace. These are not rhetorical ornaments; they are its genetic code. Yet over the past years the EU has preferred the language of caution, incrementalism, lowest common denominators. Strategic ambiguity has become strategic paralysis. All the while, the world has ceased to wait for Europe to make up its mind.

Trump’s Venezuela adventure makes the choice starker than ever. Either the European project dissolves into a genteel talking shop, destined for gradual dismantlement into insignificance, or it accepts adulthood. Adulthood means power. It means speaking with one voice, building the capacity to deter aggression, backing diplomacy with credibility and muscle, and refusing the comforting refuge of “not our problem.” It means understanding that defending human rights, international law and multilateralism today is not an academic exercise but a question of geopolitical survival.

There is no shortage of hypocrisy to overcome at home. An EU that wants to lead must first confront internal backsliding on the rule of law, the temptation to placate strongmen for short-term gains, and the ever-present fear of domestic populists who rail against imaginary Brussels overlords while depending on the stability Europe provides. Leadership will not be improvised; it must be claimed, and it will be contested.

But the alternative is worse. A world of transactional invasions and punitive raids dressed up as destiny will not leave Europe untouched. It will reach our borders, our currencies, our energy, our democracies. Retreat is not neutrality; it is surrender by instalments.

So the time for pussy-footing is over. Europe must decide whether it is merely a market with an anthem or a political community prepared to defend a civilisation of law. That means coordinated foreign policy, credible defence integration, principled diplomacy, and the moral clarity to say that invasions without legal mandate are unacceptable regardless of who orders them. The post-war values that once seemed self-evident require guardians again.

History has pushed the European Union to the front of the stage. Either it bows and exits quietly, or it stands its ground and leads. The choice will define not only the future of the Union but the fate of the rules-based order itself.