The US does not protect human rights—it weaponizes them.

In recent decades, the phrase “human rights” has become a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy. It’s invoked to justify sanctions, regime change, military intervention, and diplomatic pressure. But when we look closely, a pattern emerges: “human rights violations” are only a problem when they threaten U.S. geopolitical or economic interests.

Take Iraq. In 2003, Washington claimed it was defending human rights against Saddam Hussein. The result? Over a million dead, a country shattered, and zero accountability. Where were human rights when U.S. bombs fell on hospitals and homes?

Take Libya. In 2011, the U.S. and NATO launched an air war, claiming to protect civilians. They destroyed the state, flooded the region with weapons, and created open-air slave markets. Western media called it humanitarian. Libyans call it hell.

And what about Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on Earth? No sanctions. No invasions. Just arms deals. Because Saudi repression is profitable. So is Israeli apartheid, Egyptian dictatorship, and Ukrainian ultranationalism—so long as they align with U.S. interests.

Meanwhile, countries that invest in healthcare, education, and poverty reduction—like Cuba, China, Venezuela, and Iran—are framed as “human rights abusers” simply because they reject American domination.

This is not about rights. It’s about power.

The U.S. uses “human rights” as a rhetorical shield for imperialism. It never applies the standard to itself. No one in Washington is held accountable for police killings, mass incarceration, or the bombing of civilians abroad.

Human rights should mean food, shelter, healthcare, dignity. The U.S. has never guaranteed those—not at home, and not abroad. So it redefines the term to suit its own interests. It swaps substance for slogans.

If you want to understand U.S. foreign policy, forget the moral talk. Follow the oil. Follow the markets. Follow the power.