THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Larry Johnson, 7 January 2024
The recent issue of Foreign Affairs print magazine (January/February 2024) contains a number of articles that illustrate the difficulty in “thinking outside the box.” The first article (“The War That Remade the Middle East: How Washington Can Stabilize a Transformed Region,” by Maria Fantappie and Vali Nasr) states the following:
“The influence of the United States still looms large over the Middle East. But its support for Israel’s war has decidedly compromised its credibility in the region….This means the United States will have to craft a new strategy for the Middle East, one that contends with the realities it has long ignored. Washington, for example, can no longer neglect the Palestinian issue. In fact it will have to make resolving that conflict the centerpiece of its endeavors….”
So far it sounds like some fresh thinking is on tap. However, the prescription for the new United States’ strategy is as follows:
“To achieve these aims, the United States does not have to discard all that it has worked for. In fact, it can—and should—build on elements of the order it previously envisioned. In particular, Washington must anchor its new plan for the region in its partnership with Saudi Arabia, which has working relations with Iran, Israel, and the entire Arab world. Riyadh can use its expansive influence to help revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and help the United States strike a nuclear agreement with Iran. And together, Riyadh and Washington can create the Middle East economic corridor the United States needs to balance against China.”
This proposal seems more like a tweak or expansion of the decades-long United States/Saudi relationship. The problem is that Saudi Arabia has moved on to develop relationships with China, Russia and Iran that are probably as important to the Saudis as the one with the United States. China is one of the largest customers for Saudi oil, and more payments are being made in local currencies, not the United States dollar. Russia is working in close partnership with the Saudis in OPEC+ to manage the world oil market, and could be a future major supplier of military weapons. Iran and Saudi Arabia have buried the hatchet, thanks to Chinese mediation. And to top it off, both Saudi Arabia and Iran became members of the BRICS on January 1, 2024. Any new strategy for the United States should take these new factors into account, but the Foreign Affairs article fails to do so.
The article was probably written before the recent triumphal visit by the Russian President to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, where he received royal welcomes. It also could not have included the recent visit by the Iranian President to Moscow, and the numerous agreements made between the two countries. These episodes indicate that the United States is not likely to make much headway in bringing stability to the Middle East unless it starts to think outside the box with regard to Russia. In fact, it seems at least as likely that Russia could be the country that brings more stability. In other words, the notion that the United States can do a deal with Saudi Arabia without regard to dealing with Russia and China, is probably wishful thinking.
The lead essay in Foreign Affairs (“The Self-Doubting Superpower: America Shouldn’t Give Up on the World It Made,” by Fareed Zakaria) attempts to counteract the notion that the US is in decline. The author asserts that, on the contrary, the country remains in a “commanding position” in the world:
“…Washington needs a new strategy, one that understands that it remains a formidable power but operates in a far less quiescent world. The challenge for Washington is to run fast but not run scared. Today, however, it remains gripped by panic and self-doubt.”
He then goes on to list a number of reasons why the United States is still number one. These include per capita income, artificial intelligence, digitization, Internet, bioengineering, energy, globally systemically important banks, the dollar, demography, number of allies, geography—protected by two oceans, and aircraft carriers. Therefore, the author notes “the danger of declinism” and calls on the United States to “keep the faith” in the rules-based international order:
“…But perhaps above all, after 1945, [the United States] articulated a vision of the world that considered the interests of others. The world order it proposed, created, and underwrote was good for the United States but also good for the rest of the world. It sought to help other nations rise to greater wealth, confidence and dignity. That remains the United States’ greatest strength….”
“If the United States reneges on this broad, open, generous vision of the world out of fear and pessimism, it will have lost a great deal of its natural advantages. For too long it has rationalized individual actions that are contrary to its avowed principles as the exceptions it must make to shore up its own situation and thereby bolster the order as a whole. It breaks a norm to get a quick result. But you cannot destroy the rules-based system in order to save it.”
“The most worrying challenge to the rules-based international order does not come from China, Russia, or Iran. It comes from the United States. If America, consumed by exaggerated fears of its own decline, retreats from its leading role in world affairs, it will open up power vacuums across the globe and encourage a variety of powers and players to try to step into the disarray.”
“Those challenging the current system have no alternative vision that would rally the world; they merely seek a narrow advantage for themselves. And for all its internal difficulties, the United States above all others remains uniquely capable and positioned to play the central role on sustaining this international system. As long as America does not lose faith in its own project, the current international order can thrive for decades to come.”
Well, this essay by Mr. Zakaria is certainly a valiant attempt at supporting belief in a positive role for American hegemony. Of course, there are a few problems with it. Too many of the United States’ strengths are based on spending more money, not on the useful results for the effort. Despite spending much more than Russia, the United States appears to have lost the arms race. The essay omits discussion of the obsolescence of aircraft carriers and the importance of hypersonic missiles. It overlooks the fact that Russia is now the leading military power, and that China is the leading economic power. How to cope with de-dollarization is also missing. In fact, it is not a new strategy, but a return to the strategy of the last century. Finally, it sidesteps any real discussion of the many serious internal problems confronting the United States that affect its military power and its foreign policy.
The rest of the articles, essays, and book reviews in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs print magazine also exhibit a certain detachment from objective facts and a lack of rigorous thinking. The bottom line is that the foreign policy bible of the American Establishment still cannot seem to publish lead articles or essays that deal with the real world situation and provide some creative and out-of-the-box ideas on how the United States might cope with the challenges to its glorified rules-based system.