Saturday, January 18, 2025

What I Learned After “The End of History”


 January 17, 2025
Facebook

History in HD.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” So declared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ah, if only it had proved to be so.

Although my respect for MLK is enduring, when it comes to that upward-trending curve connecting past to present, his view of human history has proven to be all too hopeful. At best, history’s actual course remains exceedingly difficult to decipher. Some might say it’s downright devious (and, when you look around this embattled planet of ours today, from the Ukraine to the Middle East, deeply disturbing).

Let’s consider a specific, very recent segment of the past. I’m thinking of the period stretching from my birth year of 1947 to this very moment. An admission: I, too, once believed that the unfolding events during those long decades I was living through told a discernible story. Although not without its zigs and zags, so I was convinced once upon a time, that story had both direction and purpose. It pointed toward an ultimate destination — so politicians, pundits, and prophets like Dr. King assured us. In fact, embracing the essentials of that story was then considered nothing less than a prerequisite for situating yourself in the ongoing stream of history. It offered something to grab hold of.

Sadly enough, all of this turned out to be bunk.

That became abundantly clear in the years after 1989 when the Soviet Union began to collapse and the U.S. was left alone as a great power on Planet Earth. The decades since then have carried a variety of labels. The post-Cold War order came and went, succeeded by the post-9/11 era, and then the Global War on Terror which, even today, in largely unattended places like Africa, drags on in anonymity.

In those precincts where opinions are manufactured and marketed, an overarching theme informed each of those labels: the United States was, by definition, the sun around which all else orbited. In what was known as an age of unipolarity or, more modestlythe unipolar moment, we Americans presided as the sole superpower and indispensable nation of Planet Earth, exercising full-spectrum dominance. In the pithy formulation of columnist Max Boot, the United States had become the planet’s “Big Enchilada.” The future was ours to mold, shape, and direct. Some influential thinkers insisted — may even have believed — that History itself had actually “ended.”

Alas, events exposed that glorious moment as fleeting, if not altogether illusory. For several reasons — Washington’s propensity for needless war certainly offers a place to start — things did not pan out as expected. Assurances of peace, prosperity, and victory over the foe (whoever the foe it was at that moment) turned out to be false. By 2016, that fact had registered on Americans in sufficient numbers for them to elect as “leader of the Free World” someone hitherto chiefly known as a TV host and real estate developer of dubious credentials.

The seemingly impossible had occurred: The American people (or at least the Electoral College) had delivered Donald Trump to the pinnacle of American politics.

It was as if a clown had taken possession of the White House.

Shocked and appalled, millions of citizens found this turn of events hard to believe and impossible to accept. President Trump promptly proceeded to fulfill their worst expectations. By almost any of the measures habitually employed to evaluate political leadership, he flopped as a commander-in-chief. To my mind, he was an embarrassment.

Yet, however inexplicably, Trump remained to many Americans — growing numbers, it would turn out — a source of hope and inspiration. If given sufficient time, he would redeem the nation. History had summoned him to do so, so his followers believed, fervently and adamantly.

In 2020, the anti-Trump Establishment did manage to scratch out one final chance to show that it was not entirely bankrupt. Yet sending to the White House an elderly white male who embodied the politics of the Old School merely postponed Trump’s Second Coming.

No doubt Joe Biden was seasoned and well-intentioned, but he proved to possess little or nothing of Trump’s mystifying appeal. And when he stumbled, the remnant of the Establishment quickly and brutally abandoned him.

So, four years on, Americans have reversed course. They have decided to give Trump — now elevated to the status of folk hero in the eyes of many — another chance.

What does this head-scratching turn of events signify? Could History be trying to tell us something?

The End of the End of History

Allow me to suggest that those who counted History out did so prematurely. It’s time to consider the possibility that all too many of the very smart, very earnest, and very well-compensated people who take it upon themselves to interpret the signs of our times have been radically misinformed. Simply put: they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Viewed in retrospect, perhaps the collapse of communism did not signify the turning point of cosmic significance so many of them then imagined. Add to that another possibility: Perhaps liberal democratic consumer capitalism (also known as the American Way of Life) does not, in fact, define the ultimate destination of humankind.

It just might be that History is once again on the move — or simply that it never really “ended” in the first place. And as usual, it appears to have tricks up its sleeve, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House arguably one of them.

More than a few of my fellow citizens see his election as a cause for ultimate despair — and I get that. But to saddle Trump with responsibility for the predicament in which our nation now finds itself vastly overstates his historical significance.

Let’s start with this: Despite his extraordinary aptitude for self-promotion, Trump has shown little ability to anticipate, shape, or even forestall events. Yes, he is distinctly a blowhard, who makes grandiose promises that rarely pan out. (If you want documentation, take your choice among Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Magazine, Trump Taj Mahal, and even Trump: the Game.) Barring a conversion akin to the Apostle Paul’s on his journey to Damascus, we can expect more of the same from his second term as president.

Yet the yawning gap between his over-the-top MAGA rhetoric and what he’s really delivered should be instructive. It trains a spotlight on what the “end of history” has actually yielded: lofty unfulfilled promises that have given way to unexpected and often distinctly undesired consequences.

That adverse judgment hardly applies to Trump alone. In reality, it applies to every president since George H.W. Bush unveiled his “new world order” back in 1991, with his son George W. Bush’s infamous 2003 “Mission Accomplished” claim serving as its exclamation point.

Since then, at the national level, American politics, especially presidential politics, has become a scam. What happens in Washington, whether in the White House or on Capitol Hill, no more reflects the hopes of the Founders of the American republic than Black Friday and Cyber Monday express “the reason for the Season.”

In that sense, while Trump’s return to the White House may not be worth celebrating, it is entirely appropriate. It may well be History’s way of saying: “Hey, you! Wake up! Pay attention!”

The Big Enchilada No More

In 1962, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson remarked that “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.” Although a bit snarky, his assessment was apt.

Today, one can easily imagine some senior Chinese or Indian (or even British) diplomat offering a similar judgment about the United States. America’s imperial pretensions have run aground. Yet the loudest and most influential establishment voices — Donald Trump notably excepted — continue to insist otherwise. With apparent sincerity, President Biden all too typically clung to the notion that the United States does indeed remain the planet’s “indispensable nation.”

Events say otherwise. Consider the arena of war. Once upon a time, professing a commitment to peace, the United States sought to avoid war. When armed conflict became unavoidable, America sought to win, quickly and neatly. Today, in contrast, this country seemingly adheres to an informal doctrine of “bomb-and-bankroll.” Since three days after the 9/11 attacks (with but a single negative vote), when Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, war has become a fixture of presidential politics, with a compliant Congress issuing the checks. As for the Constitution, when it comes to war powers, it has become a dead letter.

In recent years, U.S. military casualties have been blessedly few, but outcomes have been ambiguous at best and abysmal — think Afghanistan — at worst. If the United States has played an indispensable role in these years, it’s been in underwriting disaster, spending billions of dollars on catastrophic wars that were, from the moment they were launched, of distinctly questionable relevance to this country’s wellbeing.

In his inconsistent, erratic, and bloviating way, Donald Trump — almost alone among figures on the national stage — has appeared to find this objectionable and has proposed a radical course change. Under his leadership, he insists, the Big Enchilada will rise to new heights of glory.

To be clear, the likelihood of the incoming administration making good on the myriad promises contained within its MAGA agenda is close to zero. When it actually comes to setting basic U.S. policy on a more sensible course, Trump is manifestly clueless. Buying Greenland, taking the Panama Canal, or even making Canada our 51st state will not restore our ailing Republic to health. As for the team of lackeys Trump is assembling to assist him in governing, let us simply note that there is not a single figure of Acheson’s stature among them.

Still, here we may find reason for at least a glimmer of hope. For far too long — all my life, in fact — Americans have looked to the White House for salvation. Those expectations have met with repeated, seemingly endless disappointment.

Vowing to Make America Great Again, Donald Trump has, in his own strange fashion, vaulted those hopes to a new level. That he, too, will disappoint his followers, no less the rest of us, is, of course, foreordained. Yet his failure might — just might — bring Americans to rethink and renew their democracy.

Listen: History is signaling to us. Whether we can successfully interpret those signals remains to be seen. In the meantime, brace yourself for what promises to be a distinctly bumpy ride.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

Andrew Bacevich is the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military Historywhich has just been published by Random House.


The Possibility of a War Against Iran


January 17, 2025
FacebookTwitter

Photograph Source: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class James F. Bartels – Public Domain

In early January, most of the major military forces of Iran participated in a large military exercise called Payambar-e Azam (Great Prophet), which started as an annual exercise 19 years ago. These forces included the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij Resistance Force, and took place in the air, on land, and in the sea. The exercises began in Iran’s western Kermanshah province, with the Mirza Kuchak Khan Brigade in the lead. Mirza Kuchak Khan (1880-1921) successfully led the Jangal (forest) Uprising in northern Iran in 1918 against the British and counter-revolutionary Tsarist forces. Then, after a triumph, he created the short-lived Socialist Republic of Gilan in June 1920 (which was eventually overthrown by the Shah’s forces in September 1921). That a brigade of forces in the Islamic Republic is named after this socialist warrior is interesting by itself, but not germane to the fact that these Special Forces are now playing a leading role in what appears to be military exercises for the defense of the Iranian state against a possible attack.

The military exercises began on January 3, 2025, which is the fifth-year anniversary of the assassination by the United States of General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the IRGC’s Quds Force. The Quds Force is responsible for Iranian military operations outside the boundaries of the country, including building what is called the ‘Axis of Resistance.’ The latter includes various pro-Iranian governments and non-governmental military forces (such as Hezbollah in Lebanon). Soleimani’s assassination was the start of a determined new political and military campaign by the United States, Israel, and their European allies to undermine Iran’s role in West Asia. Punctual strikes by Israel and the United States on Iranian logistical bases in Syria and Iraq weakened Iran’s force posture. Israel’s regular assassinations of IRGC military officers both in Syria and in Iran itself have also had an impact on the leadership of the Iranian military forces. Israel’s assassination of the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on September 27, 2024, and the Israeli and U.S.-assisted overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria on December 8, 2024, dented Iran’s strength across the Levant region (from the Turkish border to the Occupied Palestinian Territory) as well as along the plains from southern Syria to the Iranian border. Hezbollah’s new Secretary-General Naim Qassem admitted, “Hezbollah has lost its military supply route through Syria.”

In an interview published in the Financial Times on January 3, 2025, U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken said that “Iran is not in much of a position to pick a fight with anyone” given the strategic setbacks that it has faced in both Lebanon and Syria. The grand scale of Payambar-e Azam this year is intended to both lift the morale of the Iranian military forces and to send a message to Tel Aviv and Washington that Iran can and will defend itself from any direct attack on Iranian soil.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a statement on December 14, 2024, that shows how Israel sees the situation regarding Iran: “A year ago, I said we would change the face of the Mideast, and we’re indeed doing so. Syria is not the same Syria. Lebanon is not the same Lebanon. Gaza is not the same Gaza. And the head of the axis, Iran, is not the same Iran; it has also felt the might of our arm.” Netanyahu did not mention Yemen, whose government—led by Ansar Allah—continues to fire missiles at Israel and has shut down Israel’s only Red Sea port at Eilat. Israel and the United States have fired barrages of missiles at Yemen, but—like the Saudis before them—they are finding that the Yemenis are simply not backing down. Netanyahu also did not mention Iraq, where many of the forces close to the Assad government fled, and where the Iraqi militia groups remain intact. On January 5, at the commemoration of the assassination of both Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was one of the leaders of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation forces, Iraq’s Prime Minister Shia’ al-Sudani said that Iraq was prepared to respond to any “potential aggression.” In other words, despite many setbacks to Iran (such as in Lebanon and Syria), the forces against the Western ideas for West Asia (such as in Yemen and Iraq) remain engaged.

Israel continues to bombard the military bases of the Syrian army and of military units close to the Iran IRGC in Syria. Initially, these attacks and the Israeli invasion of Syria beyond the Golan Heights had been welcomed by the new government of Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly the al-Qaeda leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani), since these attacks weakened Syria’s government of Bashar al-Assad. Now, the contradictions have begun to set in. Al-Sharaa, however much he is a Western, Turkish, and Israeli creation, is nonetheless forced to respond to these continued violations of Syrian sovereignty, which he started to do in a muted manner. He has asked Israel to stop attacking Syria but has also said that Syrian soil will not be used to attack Israel.

In October 2024, Israeli military aircraft violated Iranian airspace and struck two Iranian weapons facilities, one in Parchin and the other in Khojir, both less than an hour’s drive from Tehran. Both facilities are known to be part of Iran’s missile development program. Hitting these hard, as far as Israel is concerned, was a way to damage Iran’s ability to make medium-range and long-range missiles. Israel claimed, as it was expected to, that these were nuclear weapons facilities, but Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said in response, “Iran is not after nuclear weapons, period.”

On November 11, 2024, Israel’s defense minister Israel Katz had a meeting with his military’s General Staff. After the meeting, he said on X, “Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities. We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel.” What Katz has announced publicly is that Israel is ready more aggressively to attack Iran, including launching a barrage of missiles at what it claims are nuclear weapons production sites, but which are, from Iran’s perspective, its research unit for nuclear power, its ballistic missile production lines, and its other weapon production units. This aggressive behavior from Katz comes because of what Israel sees as the weakness of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the lack of any credible forward deterrent from Iran (Israel has been striking Yemen hard to diminish the ability of Ansar Allah to fire its rockets at Israeli targets). The moment Israel feels that Iran has no way to retaliate against Israel, Tel Aviv—either with the United States directly or with U.S. backing—will launch a massive military attack on Iran. This is not a theoretical possibility as far as Iran is concerned, but an existential reality.

At the Payambar-e Azam exercises, Iranian brigadier general Kioumars Heydari said something that is revelatory and true: “Our country’s armed forces, especially the Army’s Ground Forces, will prevent whatever type of encroachment against our Islamic nation’s soil, by relying on national will and integrity.” Heydari’s statement, like that of other military leaders from Iran in recent weeks, suggests that they are anticipating a massive Israeli attack. His statement shows how the Iranian military is building a national consensus to defend their country if the strikes are followed by an attempt to change the government by force. There is a certainty that most of the Iranian population will rally against any infringement of their sovereignty. Even if “Iran is not in a position to pick a fight with anyone,” as U.S. Secretary of State Blinken put it, Iran will not collapse before the combined might of the United States and Israel. Pride in Iranian independence and defiance against a repeat of the coup of 1953 are cemented into the Iranian consciousness. That is the meaning of Heydari’s statement.

Iran, meanwhile, has announced that it is ready for peace talks (almost unreported in the Western press). The Western capitals have not responded.

This article was produced by Globetrotter

Vijay Prashad’s most recent book (with Noam Chomsky) is The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the Fragility of US Power (New Press, August 2022).