The wheel of global history has turned full circle. After decades of relative calm, wars have returned with a vengeance, proving that even the mightiest superpowers cannot escape
the deadly lure of conflict
By Shailendra Kumar
SNAPSHOTS
- Does domestic politics drive U.S. war, or have presidents abandoned diplomacy as a viable tool for national strategy?
- Despite campaigning as peacemakers, past U.S. presidents frequently abandon non-interventionist promises once they assume power in office
- Despite initial pacifist rhetoric, Trump supported Israel’s wars and eventually joined Tel Aviv in bombarding Iranian nuclear sites
- Fearing mid-term losses, Truman entered the Korean War to appear strong, whereas Eisenhower preferred pursuing a stable armistice
THE global history has wheeled a full circle – and we are back to wars in many regions of the planet. Both the superpowers of the Cold War era have failed to escape the cage of jarring temptations to wage avoidable wars. The first one to do so, is now terribly mired in pug-ugly quagmire, casting a dystopian spell on both sides of the theatre of war. For the second, the rising war temperature and the sprawling spread of the violent ripples in the region may soon prove to be equally appalling imbroglio. Alas, going by the frequency of dozens of military aircraft flying over Taiwan, it is quite predictable that the challenger to the superpower mantle has restlessly been cooling its feet at a striking distance.
SURPRISE STRIKE ON TEHRAN
The arch of global eyeballs shifted from Kyiv to Tehran on 28th February this year, when the US and Israel struck Iran even before language failed them – the third round of Geneva talks were underway. Maximising the first mover’s advantage, the duo of Washington and Tel Aviv pounded the Iranian seat of power with tonnes of explosives and successfully ‘beheaded’ the ‘dragon head’ of the Islamic Republic. Obviously, this triggered raining down of a tide of cruise and ballistic missiles on not only the enemy country and the US Naval assets but also the American bases and
other critical business assets of the neighbouring countries a la oil refineries, desalination plants, and business towers.
TRUMP’S SHOCKING U-TURN
Washington’s decision to launch a blitz of air strikes on Tehran was a colossal shock for the Trump-watchers all over the world. Nobel Committee members must have regretted in silence, pondering that their favourable decision might have dissuaded POTUS from going berserk! Anyway, Trump’s decision to attack Iran has crystal-clearly proven wrong to the geopolitical experts and the global political leaders that Trump is, first, a real estate tycoon, then a politician!
Voila! The popping up truth is – it is the other way round! Probably, records of his first term led to such misreading! What might have been a redoubt to such perception was his repeated mocking of past Presidents for avoidably entangling America into expensive wars. Even during his poll campaign, his dubious slogan “America First’ buttressed the global view that Donald Trump’s foreign policy would largely work for global peace and truce for the on-going conflicts. He, indeed, tried that to strengthen his claim for the Nobel Peace Prize, which was once ‘injudiciously’ given to Barack Obama – a source of his aching envy! But, at the same time, Trump 2.0 is no less trigger-happy than the Presidents he used to jeer at. The US has dropped bombs at more than seven countries in the first year of his second term.
THE CRUSHING ECONOMIC COST
Trump’s war against Iran is costing America USD one billion a day. It is barely a fortnight and the US taxpayers have paid over USD 14 billion besides a few lives of servicemen. US households, besides the Europeans and the Global South have begun paying higher energy, commodity, and shipping costs. If the war drags on for a few more weeks, oil prices may hit a new record price above USD 120 per barrel, and the tepid global economic growth would be poorer by a few basis points as the fastest engine of growth- India, is already severely hit by the disruption of oil and gas and the rocketing prices.
Trump’s war against Iran is costing America USD one billion a day, and the US
household has begun paying higher energy, commodity, and shipping costs. The
tepid global economic growth would be poorer by a few basis points
WHY WAR RECURS IN U.S. STRATEGY
This brings us to the central argument of this article: is there an enduring compulsion within the United States to remain engaged in wars? Put differently, has it become almost de rigueur for American presidents to leave behind military legacies? Or are U.S. citizens largely indifferent to their leaders’ foreign policy priorities? Is the persistence of conflict driven by electoral calculations – by the need to sustain a war to influence political outcomes? Or have recent presidents simply lost faith in diplomacy as an effective instrument of statecraft?
A closer, more cautious examination suggests that a range of factors has contributed to America’s repeated involvement in conflicts since the Second World War. These include the influence of interest groups, the pursuit of strategic resources, the desire for geopolitical dominance, the economic interests of defence contractors, pressures from congressional bodies, and, at times, electoral incentives.
In the early decades of the Cold War, historians frequently pointed to the “domino theory”, the belief that the spread of communism in one country would trigger its expansion across neighbouring states. This logic underpinned U.S. involvement in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, conflicts that dragged on for years, exacting a heavy human cost and, ultimately, denting the aura of American military invincibility.
PEACE CANDIDATE TO WAR PRESIDENT
Though geopolitical theorists may coin different rationale for wars launched by various US Presidents in the past, but what I can clearly see is that there has been a uniform pattern in these leaders vowing to be peace-makers during the poll campaigns and doing exactly the opposite when they enter the Oval Office. Though the inner coterie of a President may be giving him presentations about military and diplomatic ramifications of a war, but electoral considerations always dominated their mind. And it was admitted by President Richard Nixon when he once said that while deciding the best course of action in wartime, ‘winning an election is terribly important’. His admission of electoral uncertainties tends to acknowledge the fact that in democracy, politics is not fugacious and does not evaporate merely because a war is raging. This also showcases the intertwined nature of elections and foreign policy-making.
It is almost universal truth that it is too fiendish to make a distinction between political interest and the national interest. That is why most war-making decisions taken by the past US Presidents were often ad-hoc in nature rather than a thoughtfully-crafted war strategy. The fact that they always had hustings in their mind, comes out clearly by several studies on Korea, Vietnam and Iraq wars. In each case, the self-interest of Presidents prevailed over national interests!
PAST PRESIDENTS: SELF-INTEREST OVER NATION
Historians have recorded that President Harry Truman lurched into the Korean War owing to his gripping fears that he may look brittle ahead of the 1950 mid-term polls. In 1952, the Republican candidate Dwight D Eisenhower intriguingly maintained a bellicose stance on Korea in order to placate the hardliners in the party but after winning the presidency, he favoured armistice by parrying his electoral hyperbole.
A range of factors have contributed to America’s repeated involvement in conflicts since the Second World War, including the influence of interest groups, the pursuit of strategic resources, the desire for geopolitical dominance, and electoral
incentives
President George W Bush writes in his memoir that he disfavoured sending more troops to Iraq until 2006 mid-terms as it might have influenced voters. Two years later, when Obama contested for the presidency, he vowed to pull out troops from Iraq but walked slowly after winning the elections as he feared that it might hurt the outcome of mid-terms. Interestingly, he intensified the withdrawal of troops closer to his re-election campaign.
President Biden weaved his poll campaign around American troops trapped in Afghanistan and pulled them out hastily after stepping into White House. However, his administration got embroiled in the Ukraine War and the US rained down modern munitions and oodles of funds on Ukraine to combat against Moscow.
When Trump replaced him, he acted as a pacifist but backed pugnacious Israel to go on war against Hamas and Hezbollah, and finally joined Tel Aviv in bombarding nuclear sites in Iran. Once Nobel slipped out of his reach, he changed his ‘skin colour’ and launched an oral offensive to acquire the Panama Canal and Greenland by force! This painfully infuriated his NATO allies. Anyway, he finally struck Venezuela and now Tehran. He has deployed three large aircraft carriers into it and is keen to allow boots on the ground along with Israel, to seize half-enriched uranium.
CONGRESS SURRENDERS ITS WAR POWERS
Clearly, the Constitution of America vests war powers in the US Congress but its Presidents have unduly exercised such powers without their approval to serve their other than national interest. In the entire history, the Congress has given approval for wars only 11 times – the last one was during World War II. So far as Trump goes, he has been on a mission to test the limit of the executive powers of the President right from the day one of his second term, has walloped the global economy with his universal tariffs, withdrawal of American aid and subsidies to globally-reputed
universities and national research funds. He has been busy removing federal employees and Commissions’ members in ad hoc fashion. His passion is to rub his shoulders, rudely, with all revered institutions and regulators. He is a proud green-refusenik and a staunch supporter of all polluting industries of his preferences. So, when the Jews’ caucus backed Netanyahu’s proposal to annihilate Iran for defying the US diktat on its nuclear ambitions, Trump, who is not eligible for re-election after his second term, could not care a damn about the impending mid-term and took a plunge. Strangely, he is the first President who appears to be unmoved by the waning prospects of mid-term hustings. As per one poll, only one out of four Americans supports his Persian Gulf misadventure, and the fortune of Democrats has recorded a significant shift to the extent that they might gain control over the Senate.
TRUMP THROWS OUT THE POWELL DOCTRINE
While pursuing his ‘terminator’s dream’, Trump has scornfully tossed out the Powell Doctrine of the 1990s. General Powell had laid down the principles that military intervention should be the last resort; should serve national interest; and include a clear exit plan. Worse, when a motion was peddled in the Senate and the House of Representatives to slice away the President’s war to continue with the on-going war, the Republican-dominated Congress has retreated, fearing his fury – wow, rather ‘Epic Fury’! Sacré bleu, arrant abdication of its responsibilities!
While pursuing his ‘terminator’s dream’, Trump has scornfully tossed out the Powell
Doctrine of the 1990s. General Powell had laid down the principles that military
intervention should be the last resort; should serve national interest; and include a
clear exit plan
Today, Trump seems to be sucked into a long-drawn war and does not seem to have any clear-cut exit strategy unless he lets his fibbing gland come up with some exotic announcement. My quick analysis is – there is so much power vested in the American President that the POTUS, being swarmed by a multitude of interest groups, fails to resist the temptation to get addicted to military conflicts. And all such conflicts extract a pound of economic flesh from all the countries as the global economy is so intricately knitted with the US economy! Holy POTUS!
