Dear Önder,
Donald Trump seems to think that he is negotiating successfully with the Iranian government. At the same time, he's sending 2,000 more troops to the region, Israel has increased its bombardment of Iranian targets, and the Saudis are reportedly urging Washington not to end the war without achieving regime change in Tehran.
Iran has so far rejected Trump's 15-point plan. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Gas prices, which apparently are what the average American cares most about, continue to rise.
It is, in short, a mess. Trump, who can't really articulate why he started this war, similarly can't explain how he's going to get out of it.
But it's all part of a new kind of presidential action, which I call "multitrashing"—the destruction of everything, everywhere, all at once.
"The trash-talking and trash-acting president has discovered, in his second term, that the U.S. military arsenal is not just for deterrent purposes," I write in this week's World Beat column. "Trump has been released in the FAO Schwarz of military toy stores, and he wants to use all the gadgets. This time around, the generals aren’t holding him in check. The itinerary of destruction so far this term has involved the U.S. military in Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria, along with two excursions to Iran. It’s been only a year, but what a long, strange, vindictive trip it’s been."
The war in Iran exemplifies the president's peculiar mindset. "Donald Trump, a textbook example of the boy-gangster’s mentality, has no interest in democracy or with laws, U.S. or international," Mira Oklobdzija explains. "After a year dedicated to attacks on his opponents—plus offenses given in all direction, promises offered and broken, contradictions, confusions, lies, blackmails, bullying, and threats—Trump decided to ignore the advice of everyone except his closest buddies in order to use a large portion of the U.S. arsenal to attack Iran."
This week at Foreign Policy In Focus, we look at some of the many consequences of the Iran War. First up is the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. "The Hormuz crisis is, in the end, a symptom of a broader structural condition," writes Sahasranshu Dash. "The networks that make global trade efficient are the same ones that concentrate systemic risk in particular corridors, infrastructures, and resources. Around 90 percent of global trade by volume continues to move by sea, and that dependence is unlikely to decline significantly in the near term, whatever the rhetoric of reshoring might suggest."
Next is the impact of technology, specifically artificial intelligence. "The operation showcased AI’s contribution to modern warfare," writes Kaushik Bhowmik. "The 'decision compression' of AI collapsed the window from target to strike almost to the 'speed of thought.' In the Middle East conflict, nearly 900 strikes were launched in the first 12 hours alone."
Then there are the reassessments taking place in countries in the Middle East that host U.S. bases—because of their vulnerability to attack. "This recognition may lead governments in different regions of the world, from the Middle East to East Asia, to reassess the potential risks and benefits of hosting foreign military forces," writes Ericka Feusier. "This was demonstrated in the 2024 referendum in Ecuador that rejected future U.S. bases, the current parliamentary debate in Iraq on U.S. troop presence, and local opposition in Okinawa, Japan, to the expansion of a U.S. Marine base. If this trend continues, the United States may face pressure to reassess its global military presence."
Europe, too, is in the middle of a reassessment of its security relationship with the United States in favor of beefing up its own independent military capability. "After Europe’s refusal to assist him with the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. president anticipated a 'bad future' for NATO," writes Miguel Ángel Roca Durán. "Needless to say, the phrasing is volatile. But if the Iran war cannot be sold as a victory, then the existential threat to NATO posed by Trump’s threat to seize the Danish island will return. Only the U.S. midterm elections might serve as a constraint on executive action."
So far, Europe has stayed largely on the sidelines of the Iran War. But news of an Iranian attack on Diego Garcia might change that, since it would suggest that Iran has missiles that could threaten European cities.
But don't jump so quickly to that conclusion, warns David Vine. "Some clearly stand to benefit from a version of events in which Iran is a threat to Europe," he writes. "Until more evidence emerges about whether or not the Iranian military actually attempted to strike Diego Garcia and, if it did, how close it got to succeeding, extreme caution is warranted before drawing any conclusions."
Other countries appear to be following the U.S. and Israeli lead in violating the sovereignty of other countries. Pakistan, for instance, has stepped up its cross-border attacks on Afghanistan to stop its support of the Pakistani affiliate of the Taliban. "The Taliban regime’s lack of domestic legitimacy and international recognition has created a legal vacuum for the Afghan state in the international system, rendering it vulnerable to foreign aggression," writes Atal Ahmadzai. "Nevertheless, the absence of legal recognition for the Afghan state does not entitle Pakistan to violate its sovereignty. After all, the principle of sovereign equality remains binding regardless of a state’s political status."
Finally, we have two pieces from Imran Khalid. In the first, he examines the consequences of Trump's "Pearl Harbor" joke in his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. "When Trump jokes about Pearl Harbor, he is essentially telling his most important Asian ally that their historical sensitivities and current legal constraints are irrelevant," he writes. "It is the diplomatic equivalent of a 'banger meme' delivered at a funeral."
He also reports on developments in U.S.-China relations. "We are witnessing the birth of what might be called a 'Cold Peace,'” he writes. "It is a world where we will argue about subsidies and maritime boundaries during the day, but share the same AI protocols and supply chains at night. This isn’t the idealistic globalization of the 1990s, nor is it the paranoid isolationism of the early 2020s. It is something entirely new: a managed, guided competition that prioritizes systemic stability over ideological purity."
Please join us on Friday, April 3 at noon (EST) for a discussion on the Trump administration's new critical mineral policy with Melinda St. Louis of Public Citizen providing an overview of the new U.S. government policies and Raquel Dominguez of Earthworks focusing on rare earth elements. You can register here.
John Feffer
Director, FPIF
No comments:
Post a Comment