The End of United States Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge a Multipolar World Order by Federico Pieraccini!
(2020-01-20 at 11:33:44 )

The End of United States Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge a Multipolar World Order by Federico Pieraccini!

Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Donald Trump, the United States has made some missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately.

Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors have only accelerated the United States hegemonic decline.

ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy

The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the United States.

The United States often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats.

Thus, the United States withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.

This argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such missiles.

As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin, the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federations nuclear-deterrence capability.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russias borders, including in Romania and Poland.

Following from Donald Trumps momentous decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.

Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the strategic balance, Mr. Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse Washington,D.C. of its first-strike fantasies.

Even as Washington,D.C. propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.

There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists.

Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington,D.C.s vaunted ABM systems.

In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington,D.C.s aggression.

This ABM system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to intercept ICBMs as well as any future United States hypersonic weapons

The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have only ended up leaving the United States in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China.

Moscow has obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.

No JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran

In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the countrys leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyangs example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from United States aggression.

While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from United States aggression as a result of its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied.

While a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as North Koreas experience attests.

While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration in the Middle East.

But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear weapons have been acquired) does not exist, with them having a stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.

Once again, Washington,D.C. has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended.

Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the United States, by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

Donald Trumps short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bushs withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington,D.C.s actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors.

The death of General Soleimani punctures the myth of the United States invincibility

I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimanis death that examined the incident and then considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.

What seems evident is that Washington,D.C. appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of its reckless actions.

Killing General Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we assume that Donald Trump was not looking for war (I explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a response from Iran to the United States terrorist actions.

The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a United States military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload). Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic means to obliterate thousands of United States and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if it so wished, with the United States would be powerless to stop it.

United States Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few months ago.

We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the United States to protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles.

Donald Trump and his generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate United States bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of United States allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dubai.

After demonstrating to the world that United States allies in the region are defenseless against missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting surgical strikes on two United States bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception of United States military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered missile conflict.

Conclusion

Washington,D.C.s diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a world world that is more hostile to Washington,D.C. and less inclined to accept its diktats, often being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington,D.C.s bullying.

Even as the United States remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the United States has no chance of defending itself against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate against the United States in the region.

As I continue to say, Washington,D.C.s power largely rests on perception management helped by the make-believe world of Hollywood.

The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabias oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on United States military bases in Iraq (none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington,D.C.s military vulnerability.

No amount of entreaties by Washington,D.C. to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain will help.

The more aggressive the United States becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.

If the United States could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could possibly be realistic.

But Washington,D.C.s peer competitors have shown that they have the means to defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here to stay.

With that, Washington,D.C.s efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon are futile.

In a region vital to United States interests, Washington,D.C. does not have the operational capacity to stand in the way of Syrias liberation.

When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles knocked down or deflected, once again highlighting the divergence between Washington,D.C.s Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.

The actions of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate the worlds transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one.

As Donald Trump follows in the steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the United States global position and strengthen that of his opponents.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.