Who Can Stop the United States From Its Imperialistic Bombing Campaigns?

By Nancy O'Brien Simpson 

Photo: Generated by AI by DALL·E 3 by OpenAI is licensed under Free for commercial use

Импорт

In the long arc of modern history, no empire has wielded airpower quite like the United States. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Iraq, from Balkan skies to Yemeni villages, the U.S. has dropped bombs on at least a dozen nations in the past half-century. These strikes have often been cast as necessary interventions or "surgical" defenses of democracy. But in truth, they are imperial dominance cloaked in noble language.  And, now the "Peace President" has bombed Iran.  

According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the post-9/11 wars have killed over 940,000 people, displaced at least 38 million, and cost $8 trillion—figures that far exceed any terrorist threat they were meant to prevent. If we strip away the rhetoric, we are left with a blunt question: Who, if anyone, can stop the United States from bombing other countries?

The short answer: not many. But let us consider the possibilities.

 
1. Multipolarity: The Rise of Other Powers

The most cited counterweight to U.S. military dominance is the emergence of a multipolar world—where China, Russia, and the Global South dilute Washington’s unilateral power.

Case for it:
China’s GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, already exceeds that of the U.S. It is building global infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative, investing in African and South American development while expanding its soft power. Meanwhile, Russia, though economically weaker, remains a nuclear superpower with regional influence (as seen in Ukraine and Syria). Nations like India, Brazil, and South Africa are asserting regional power and resisting Western dictates at the UN.

But:
Multipolarity does not guarantee peace. China has engaged in repression at home and aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is itself a flagrant violation of international law. Replacing one empire with three spheres of influence is not a moral solution—it is merely geopolitical balancing.

 
2. International Institutions: Law Without Teeth

The United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and other global bodies were designed to rein in state aggression.

Case for it:
Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, nations are prohibited from using force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval. The Rome Statute empowers the ICC to investigate war crimes, regardless of national affiliation. There’s a growing movement to hold leaders accountable for illegal wars—e.g., calls to try George W. Bush and Tony Blair for Iraq.

But:
The U.S. does not recognize ICC jurisdiction and has even sanctioned ICC officials. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it can veto any resolution against itself. In 2014, for instance, the U.S. vetoed a resolution condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, despite overwhelming global support. International law without enforcement is performative justice.

 
3. Mass Mobilization and Global Civil Society

Movements like the anti-Vietnam War protests or the global demonstrations against the 2003 Iraq invasion show that popular dissent can shape policy.

Case for it:
In 2003, over 30 million people across 600 cities protested the invasion of Iraq—the largest coordinated protest in human history. Public opinion shifted dramatically once casualties and lies (like the nonexistent WMDs) mounted. Today, younger Americans are far more skeptical of military intervention: only 31% of those aged 18–29 support U.S. global military dominance, according to Pew Research.

But:
These movements often peak early and dissolve without achieving structural change. The Iraq War went ahead despite mass protest. The U.S. media ecosystem, heavily concentrated and often aligned with defense contractors, shapes narratives that soften public outrage. Social media’s fragmentation, while amplifying voices, also dilutes sustained collective action.

 
4. Economic Decline and Domestic Collapse

Empires fall when they can no longer afford their own weight. Could financial collapse, climate catastrophe, or internal unrest finally force a retreat?

Case for it:
The U.S. national debt has surpassed $34 trillion, and interest payments now outpace military spending. A recent Congressional Budget Office projection warns of unsustainable deficits by 2035. Domestic crises—from the opioid epidemic to school shootings—suggest a nation increasingly unable to care for its own. An empire that can’t feed its children or house its veterans may no longer afford endless wars.

But:
History shows that declining empires can become more dangerous. Britain clung to its colonies after WWII. Rome intensified repression in its twilight years. The U.S. military budget, at $886 billion, remains larger than the next 10 countries combined. Decline may bring more aggression, not less, as leaders stoke nationalism to distract from internal rot.

 
5. Whistleblowers and Media Exposure

Leaks and journalism have punctured the imperial illusion.

Case for it:
The Pentagon Papers exposed Vietnam’s false justifications. WikiLeaks revealed shocking footage from Iraq. Journalists like Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, and the late Robert Fisk have illuminated the human toll of war.

But:
Whistleblowers face exile or prison. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning paid a brutal price. The mainstream press often reverts to official narratives in times of war. A 2021 FAIR study found that major U.S. outlets rarely challenge Pentagon framing—especially in conflicts involving U.S. allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia.

 
6. Cyber Warfare and Technological Disruption

In theory, tech can equalize power—undermining the traditional state monopoly on violence.

Case for it:
Non-state actors and rogue nations have used cyber attacks to disable infrastructure, leak secrets, and embarrass the U.S. In a world increasingly reliant on digital systems, power doesn’t always come from bombs.

But:
The weaponization of cyber can also empower dictators, deepen surveillance, and provoke retaliation. Peace is not the automatic consequence of digital disruption. Chaos is.

 
So, Who Can Stop the U.S.?

The honest answer is: no one force alone. But together, they form pressure points. A multipolar world, global protest movements, collapsing economic foundations, and moral outrage—when these align, they can hobble the war machine.

But if we are to imagine a true deterrent, it must come from within. When the American public awakens to the real costs of empire—not only in blood and treasure abroad, but in decaying cities and broken schools at home—then, perhaps, the bombs may stop falling.

Not because someone forced America to stop.

But because it chose to.