There is a bizarre co-incidence playing out in international politics right now. Russia and the US are both in a situation where their leaders started an unnecessary war they thought they couldn’t lose, and have ended up backing themselves into a corner from which there is no escape.
Putin has spent the last 20 years getting rid of anybody who told him what he doesn’t want to hear, doesn’t have an internet connection, and gets all of his information filtered through his “team”. This means he literally doesn’t know what is going on on the battlefield, and although he is now being told publicly by his closest international allies that the war needs to at least be “frozen”, he has no plan B. So he is now planning a enforced conscription to continue the meatgrinder strategy that hasn’t worked for the last 5 years, even while Russia’s version of Amazon burns and Crimea is returned to the pre-industrial age. He cannot back down, because admitting the war is lost probably means the end of his life.
Trump, meanwhile, never had any real grasp on how the world actually works, either politically or militarily, and has also surrounded himself with yes-men (and women). His strategy in Iran was always doomed to fail, the US is running horribly short of missiles which take years replace, no ground option is available, so the only way out is a negotiated settlement which somehow acknowledges Iranian control over the strait of Hormuz – arguably the worst strategic defeat in US history, given that this wasn’t even an option before the war and the US goal was regime change, the end of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, all of which is now off the table. But Trump’s ant-sized brain can’t process this, so we are stuck in an endless oscillation between “I’ll wipe your country off the face of the Earth you mad bastards” and “We’re pausing operations because Iran really wants a deal. I’m trying to stop this war!”. Trump cannot back down either, because doing so means the end of his political career, and in his world that cannot be real (because he’s already thinking of running for third term, even though it is constitutionally prohibited).
Where does it end? Which situation will break first? I have no idea, but it is way better than any reality TV show.
It could be said that “putin” started that war to stop ‘nato’ advancing further east towards “soviet” borders. Whereas, “trump” started that war out of pure greed and selfishness for more oil.
But ‘the goal’ was never for regime change, nor for the end of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, ‘The goal’ has always been to obtain more oil.
Just because one claims a war is needed for regime change or because of weapons of mass destruction, for example, never necessarily means that is what the war is for exactly.
“trump” like the “kim” family is not going anywhere. “trump” is staying in control. Any so-called “constitution” means absolutely nothing anymore. “trump” was elected to power, and it ain’t giving that power and control up.
It’s a struggle between three superpowers for complete total domination over the entire planet and two of them are in alliance against the one. United States, Russia, and China.
The world is very dangerously on the verge of World War III where the United States currently is the most aggressive one militarily. Game theory meets geopolitics and eternal doom.
You have a specific objective within a given context. You cannot shape the context to your will, you have limited resources. How do you define victory?
When wars seem to be poorly handled and seem to be heading towards bad consequences, a good thing to check is: who benefits from these bad consequences? How might this centralize power more in the world in the hands of the few? A lot of actions that seem to point to the weaknesses of politicians or leaders may actually have the consequences some people want. And the politician or leader may well be doing their bidding or even is part of reaping the benefits. I think self-interest is the root of a lot of what gets called stupidity.
Here are some ways Trump being “stupid” in Iran might actually be a conscious choice. Mega energy corporations and commodity hedge funds can make a tremendous amount of money when there’s energy and commodity volatility. Longer-term conflict moves money from citizens towards defense contractors, intelligence providers, cybersecurity firms, and private military companies. Mistakes often result in more spending, not less. Disaster capitalism, from our old friend Naomi Klein, the whole thing can disorient and distract whole populations so that in the middle of foreign crisis, governments can pass controversial trade agreements, enact domestic surveillance laws, and give out lucrative contracts for all sorts of things with less than the usual journalistic and public scrutiny. Situations like the one in Iran can lead to destabilization of smaller countries, which can allow the IMF or the World Bank to come in with emergency bailouts, and then later this leads to demands for privatization of public resources and deregulation in relation to foreign corporate investors or corporations themselves. Let’s say it adds to the already problematic US economy. For the little people like us, recessions and debt crises, people lose their homes. Small businesses go bankrupt, but wealthy individuals and private equity firms can buy all sorts of these assets on the cheap. If it leads to high unemployment, this means workers have less bargaining power. If there was a failure of the US dollar, well, that could make it more rapid the transition towards central bank digital currencies or global reserve assets, giving centralized control over financial transactions and money and currency, blah, blah, blah. What looks like a disaster is actually an extremely predictable set of volatilities and distractions and crises that the the wealthy and the powerful are in good positions to utilize, especially if they know the timing.
