Nournews: Amid escalating global crises—particularly the economic and security consequences of the U.S. and Israeli regime’s military aggression against Iran—and as Tehran, by abandoning previous practices in the Strait of Hormuz, continues to implement a smart and calculated management of traffic through this strategic waterway, Singapore hosted the 23rd Shangri-La Dialogue beginning on Friday. The conference brought together defense ministers, senior military commanders, and security strategists from across the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, North America, and representatives from 40 countries.

Against this backdrop, the speech delivered by Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of War, not only repeated outdated illusions that bear little resemblance to realities on the ground but also once again beat the drum of anti-China rhetoric. His approach resembled that of an arms dealer far more than that of a security official. Current geopolitical realities have exposed both the illusory nature of Hegseth’s show of strength and the growing distrust among America’s allies.

Selling Fear, Selling Security: From the War Department to Arms Marketing

Through questionable statistics and military claims, Hegseth attempted to project an image of a powerful Trump-era America. Yet his remarks on China, maritime security, and the need for allies to increase defense spending ultimately reflected Washington’s traditional strategy of prioritizing security concerns over economic interests while profiting from arms sales.

Although he claimed that the United States remains committed to its obligations in the Asia-Pacific region, his assertion that “the era of American subsidies for wealthy nations is over,” coupled with demands that allies allocate at least 3.5 percent of their GDP to defense spending—or face “a significant change in the way we engage with them”—laid bare the true nature of U.S. foreign policy. It is a policy that has descended from claims of mediation to overt coercion and hegemonic pressure.

Such an approach effectively turns the U.S. Secretary of War into an arms salesman, much like Donald Trump, whose foreign trips have often focused more on weapons deals than on diplomacy. This behavior suggests that the American political establishment is primarily concerned with advancing the interests of major defense contractors—companies in which, according to various reports, both the Trump family and Hegseth have substantial investments.

Another noteworthy aspect is the continued promotion of China-phobia in East Asia, Russia-phobia in Europe, and Iran-phobia across the Arab world. Washington has long employed this strategy to justify its military presence and facilitate weapons sales. Hegseth’s anti-China remarks, delivered despite Trump’s recent humiliating visit to Beijing, underscore America’s determination to pursue ambitious policies in East Asia—policies that pose a threat to regional and global security.

Reality on the Ground Versus Washington’s Display of Power

A significant portion of Hegseth’s speech focused on allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran. He claimed:

“We fully retain the capability to resume operations if necessary. Our weapons stockpiles are sufficient for such action, both in the region and elsewhere in the world, thanks to the balance we have established between advanced weapons systems and large-scale munitions.”

The U.S. Secretary of War also stressed that Trump would only accept what he considered a “great deal.”

While these statements fit within the White House’s broader effort to portray the war as a success, realities on the ground tell a different story. Iran has not retreated from its negotiating red lines, and Tehran’s strategic management of the Strait of Hormuz remains firmly in place. Furthermore, any violation of the ceasefire by the United States has been met with a strong Iranian response. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that while it remains committed to diplomacy, it also maintains full readiness for any potential military confrontation.

At the same time, Trump’s repeated retreats from his earlier threats and maximalist demands, along with his contradictory behavior regarding Oman, have become clear indicators of confusion and instability within the U.S. administration. Many international analysts and theorists now argue that Trump may ultimately have no option but to accept failure.

The Decline of Trust Capital: Allies No Longer Believe

Although Hegseth sought to project confidence and reassurance at the Singapore gathering, the positions taken by participants and the growing trend of countries distancing themselves from Washington—particularly following developments related to the Strait of Hormuz—demonstrated that trust in the United States has weakened more than ever.

Among the key factors driving this trend are Washington’s insistence on an “Israel First” approach and the collapse of its claimed military prestige in the face of Iran’s demonstrated capabilities.

In this context, To Lam, President of Vietnam, speaking during the Shangri-La security summit in Singapore, indirectly criticized coercive American actions on the international stage, particularly the war imposed on Iran. He emphasized that the global order requires dialogue and restraint far more than threats and coercion.

Highlighting the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, he stated:

“What the region seeks is neither the mere presence nor the absence of any great power; what is needed is responsible commitment.”

Such remarks, delivered by one of the summit’s most prominent participants, reflect the declining global standing of the United States and the erosion of international confidence in Western power. This trend signals deeper structural changes within the international system.

Two Conferences, Two Approaches: Selling Security or Building Security?

The Singapore summit, centered on security and military affairs, took place shortly after the 14th International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues in Moscow, attended by representatives from roughly 120 countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Although both meetings focused on security, they differed fundamentally in both content and approach. At the Singapore summit, the United States sought to justify militarization, promote confrontation, and market security through increased military spending and arms purchases. In contrast, the Moscow gathering emphasized cooperation, de-escalation, mutual engagement, and the pursuit of lasting peace through collective efforts and coordinated responses to common threats.

This stark contrast—particularly as reflected in Hegseth’s remarks—once again highlighted the crisis-generating nature of American policies and suggested that Washington is not the solution to global crises but rather part of their root cause. Under such circumstances, coordinated resistance to the United States and its ally, the Israeli regime, has become, in the view of many participants, a prerequisite for achieving lasting peace and security worldwide.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran, drawing upon its operational capabilities, popular support, diplomatic resources, and continued strategic management of the Strait of Hormuz, has played a decisive role in shaping these developments.