American foreign policy has a glaring blind spot: its friends and foes wear different moral cloaks. One need only glance at the rugged logic of arms deals versus the soft language of sanctions. In Riyadh, Washington finds an ally and writes blank checks; in Tehran, it writes indictments. The result is a diplomacy of hypocrisy where strategic interests and lucrative contracts drown out consistent values. A thousand op-eds could (and have) cataloged the crimes of this double standard, but the evidence is simplest: receipts.

The United States manufactures elaborate justifications for the actions of its allies while portraying its adversaries as irredeemable villains, revealing a policy driven more by allegiance than by ethics.

Consider Saudi Arabia, since 2009, the United States has signed more than $100 billion in arms sales with the House of Saud, recent largest arms deal in its history, of $142 billion, and a $600 billion investment in the US. Under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden alike, U.S. bombs and missiles have poured into the kingdom, through eras of war in Yemen and beyond.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have repeatedly slammed this, accusing America of “deadly hypocrisy” for raining weapons on a regime documented to commit war crimes. Yet U.S. officials shrug and say Saudi purchases support jobs in America. And when the press asks about Khashoggi or Jamal Kashogi’s murder in a consulate? The answer is another arms sale. We look the other way unless, of course, we are pointing at Iran.

Contrast that with how the U.S. treats Iran (and to some extent Qatar). Iranian protesters taking to the streets for democracy are lauded in Washington columns, but the Saudis who face house arrest for a tweet are quietly defended. The State Department will loudly condemn Tehran’s “systematic suppression of expression”, but it rarely even pauses before granting Riyadh another fighter jet. Judith Butler would say this is the operation of power: America preaches freedom as a hymn while singing along with whomever has its ear.

There is also a particularly gross contradiction with Qatar. Doha has been accused of funding radicals in Syria and elsewhere, yet it hosts the largest U.S. airbase in the Middle East. Its rulers meet privately with U.S. presidents and play host to American think tanks, even as Washington paints Iran as the terror kingpin of the region. The message to the world is: Criticize Iran, and it’s principled; criticize Saudi/Qatar, and it’s personal or “untimely.” Noam Chomsky would call this “manufacturing consent.” We manufacture excuses for some allies and demons out of others.

Washington supplies weapons that contribute to the deaths of schoolchildren in Yemen and, in the same breath, delivers lofty sermons about democracy and human rights to the rest of the world.

Let us put a fine point on the receipts. A 2016 Amnesty report echoed by U.S. politicians noted that the U.S. has been “providing vast arms sales to repressive allies in the Middle East” even while those regimes bomb civilian homes. For Yemen alone, U.S.-made bombs and intelligence have abetted an “unprecedented increase” in civilian deaths. The U.S. government’s response? A silent nod and an arms pipeline that never ceases.

By contrast, Iran’s leaders are cast as recalcitrant. The same West that won’t sanction Saudi Arabia for breaking the Yemen blockade imposes lethal sanctions on Iran for nuclear test ambiguities. Protests in Tehran earn global sympathy; protests in Riyadh earn no coverage. The disparity is obvious to dissidents: as HRW (Human Rights Watch) noted, “Dissidents in places like Saudi Arabia doubt that the United States is really on their side.” Even U.S. diplomats sometimes mumble that “to defend our friends, we defend everything they do.” When that happens, the lesson is clear: No standard applies, only interests.

A recent example, the Israeli bombardment of over 100 strategic sites within Iran ostensibly to thwart its nuclear aspirations, lays bare a striking double standard in Western geopolitics. Despite the operation’s scale and its breach of sovereign airspace, Western capitals, particularly Washington, have swiftly condemned any Iranian counterstrike while mumbling about de-escalation, yet stop short of denouncing Israel’s aggression as such. This moral asymmetry suggests that preemptive war is acceptable when wielded by an ally, even as identical actions by a pariah state would invite global outrage. The U.S.’s vocal offense at Iran’s potential reaction, but tacit acquiescence to Israeli strikes, doesn’t just undermine diplomatic credibility; it crystallizes a foreign policy built more on allegiance than on principle.

Edward Said would remind us that such “orientalist” double-talk breeds cynicism in the entire Middle East. When U.S. grandstanding about democracy is seen as a tool used selectively, ordinary people across the Arab world react with rage wrapped in elegant logic. It is rage at being lectured about human rights by a nation that sells the bombs killing Yemeni schoolchildren. That rage is rational: how can Washington criticize Qatar’s press restrictions one day while clearing a multi-billion arms deal to Riyadh the next?

By selectively ignoring human rights abuses committed by allies and aggressively spotlighting those of its enemies, the U.S. exacerbates regional grievances and undermines its credibility on the global stage.

This hypocrisy has consequences. It undermines any moral authority America might claim. Today’s sermon about tyranny will be mocked tomorrow at a Persian caravanserai or a cafe in Riyadh. Blended with frustration is anger: not blind passion, but the angry arithmetic of truth. People have the receipts, after all, signatures on arms contracts and UN reports. And in those numbers, they see betrayal of justice.

The irony is that this approach breeds more instability, not less. By discounting human rights in one corner and fetishizing them in another, the U.S. deepens every grievance. Ordinary Saudis and Qataris hear every drone strike from Gaza or interrogation in Tehran, and think: “My rulers may kill, and America’s silence speaks volumes.” That is the diplomacy of hypocrisy at work and a stark admission that in international politics, nothing but interest is sacred.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.