The US administration has adopted a unilateralist approach in international affairs in the name of "America first" ever since taking office. A notable example being its arbitrary decision on May 8, 2018, to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal, which was achieved in April 2015 upon a comprehensive agreement being reached between Iran and 5+1 powers (P5+1) - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

Moreover, Washington has since imposed harsh sanctions on Iran, and its campaign of maximum pressure has led to its recent brinkmanship with Teheran.

The unilateral decision to withdraw from the deal cannot be justified in terms of rationality. Before the deal was reached, the dilemma the world community faced over the Iranian nuclear crisis was obvious.

On the one hand, it would be disastrous should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, given its impact on the already fragile prospects for Middle East peace and stability. On the other hand, it would be equally catastrophic, if not more, should force be used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

That is why the Iranian nuclear deal was applauded by the international community, for it was the only solution to this dilemma. Not only would the deal, to which all the P5+1 committed, provide Iran with a great degree of national security in exchange for Iran giving up its endeavor to gain nuclear weapons capability under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it would also substantially improve global energy security as Iran could fully gear up its oil and gas production after the economic sanctions were lifted on it.

Thus, the danger of a nuclear weapons capable Iran could be eliminated, while the expected economic development in Iran after the lifting of sanctions could also help the country turn toward right direction in terms of regional stability and development.

But all these expectations were dashed by the US withdrawal from the deal. So far, this unilateral action, along with Washington's bid to put "maximum pressure" on Iran, has yet to achieve the desired goal (if there is any). Iran has not caved in at all but appears more defiant and determined to defend its national interests, as defined by the regime.

What has been substantially damaged, however, is the multilateral commitment, made by the P5+1 and Iran to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program and to maintain regional peace. After all, it is not only the US that had a stake in the deal with Iran, the other five powers - China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany - also did, and still do.

The US withdrawal from the deal without any consultation with the other signatories, among whom France, Germany and the UK are three important US allies, has demonstrated a hegemonic unilateralism that is indeed injurious to world peace and stability, which the US itself also has a fundamental interest in.

As we are moving into a multipolar world, unilateral and arbitrary actions by the US on key issues, such as the nuclear deal with Iran, which involve the fundamental stakes of the other poles will at best create enormous uncertainty and confusion, which in turn will foster distrust, misunderstanding and miscalculation that could lead to conflict.

That is why few powers in today's world, except the UK which has recently seized an Iranian oil tanker, have supported the US policy on Iran. It is true that quite a few companies have withdrawn from or frozen their business with Iran due to harsh US sanctions, but the deal still stands because the other signatories, and countries such as India and Japan which also hold substantial stakes in the deal, refuse to give up on it.

This indicates that on the Iranian nuclear deal, which has significant implications for regional and even global peace and stability, the other powers have formed a de facto counterbalance to the unilateral hegemon, not necessarily against the US per se (France, Germany, UK and Japan are still the most important US allies), but to minimize the risks attendant on the uncertainty caused by the US unilateralism.

Should the US insist on pursuing unilateralism in world affairs, one can expect that such balancing actions of the other powers will continue and even take root. After all, in a multipolar world in which international institutions and norms based on multilateral arrangements are ineffective or even severely damaged because of the hegemon's unilateralistic behavior, maintaining a certain degree of "the balance of power "can become realistically feasible, not necessarily to check the hegemon, but to make the cost of it using unilateral force so high that even the hegemon would have to be very cautious.

The author is dean of the Institute of International and Regional Studies of Beijing Language and Culture University.

The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.