Whose Liberation is it Anyway?

For decades, US foreign policy has adopted the pattern of 'selective liberation'-the deployment of human rights language when aligned with US strategic interests and its relative absence when it conflicts with them

- By Mrinalini Dhyani

IS A SENIOR CORRESPONDENT AT OUTLOOK.

SHE COVERS GOVERNANCE, HEALTH, GENDER AND CONFLICT, WITH A STRONG EMPHASIS ON LIVED REALITIES BEHIND POLICY DEBATES

On March 19, 2003, as American forces crossed into Iraq, President George W. Bush addressed the world from the White House.

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear,” he said.

Within weeks, Baghdad fell. Statues of Saddam Hussein were pulled down in scenes broadcast globally as visual shorthand for liberation. But by the end of that year, Iraq had descended into insurgency.

For decades, the United States has framed key foreign interventions as missions of liberation, to free people from dictatorship, terrorism or repression. From Baghdad to Kabul, American leaders have spoken of democracy, women's rights and human dignity. Yet in other conflicts, particularly Palestine, Washington’s posture has been markedly different, relying on strategic alliances or limited military engagement without invoking the same liberation rhetoric.

Critics call this pattern 'selective liberation': the deployment of human rights language when aligned with US strategic interests and its relative absence when it conflicts with them.

The idea resurfaced sharply on February 28, 2026, when a joint US-Israeli military campaign struck targets across Iran. Within hours, Iranian state media confirmed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been killed in the strikes.