US Repeating Historical Mistakes by Focusing on Middle East Conflicts Instead of Core Challenges

For the past 15 years, many American leaders have come to believe that they are deeply entangled in the Middle East under the guise of changing the social order. Among those leaders are the three presidents of this period. They have begun to view the reconstruction of the American industrial base and the rise of China as the main challenges facing the US.

But now, America is once again preparing to fight a war to change the social order in the broader Middle East. As in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the results here do not seem likely to meet the expectations of the war proponents.

• Why does this happen repeatedly?

To understand the present, one must look back at the past. In modern history, there is only one country with a global reach comparable to that of America: Great Britain. Until the beginning of the 20th century, Britain was the sole superpower in the world.

Around 1870, the British Empire accounted for about 25 percent of the global Gross Domestic Product. America's share is currently around the same level. During the time of Britain's dominance, London was the world's financial capital.

While eagerly debating their strategy in the Mesopotamian region, British leaders of that time fundamentally ignored the real economic and technological challenges.

Britain stopped Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign for sole rule across the European continent. It halted Russia's expansionist efforts in Southern Europe in the Crimean War. Britain, running a vast empire, set the agendas for international life. The America of today does the same.

In the period from 1880 to 1920, Britain found itself responding appropriately to the instability, poor governance, and power vacuums existing across Asia and Africa. Britain maintained control by sending its troops to countries like Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, and Jordan.

At that time, all those military campaigns looked attractive. But in reality, the campaigns distracted Britain from the endless series of local crises occurring in the outer reaches of the world. Most campaigns often came at a great cost.

The suppression of the Iraqi revolt in 1920 cost more than a million British and Indian troops and millions of pounds. Meanwhile, the estimated total budget for education in Britain at that time was equivalent to the cost of that Iraqi 'expedition'.

While eagerly debating their strategy in the Mesopotamian region, British leaders of that time fundamentally ignored the real economic and technological challenges. While Britain was fighting various groups across the Middle East, Africa, and the Atlantic, America was quietly building the world's most advanced industrial economy.

After being defeated in the First World War, Germany gradually rebuilt its industry and highly organized military system in Europe. While Britain was stuck in the turmoil on its periphery, another country was overtaking it at its center. As a result, Britain was dethroned from its position as the world's leading power.

Russia is determined to weaken European security and Western democracies. To achieve this, Russia has adopted a hybrid (political-military) warfare method, which is very difficult to discern.

Today's America is also trying to fall for a similar imperial temptation. It feels compelled to react to crises in the Middle East. It finds political, military, and moral justifications for such reactions. Ultimately, grand strategy boils down to how limited resources are prioritized.

America does not have infinite political capital, 'bandwidth', military capacity, or economic strength. Every airstrike in Tehran, every 'anti-drone interceptor' fired over the Persian Gulf, and every moment spent by American administrative officials debating the minutiae of Iranian politics represents energy diverted from the real and colossal challenges that will define the 21st century.

In fact, America's primary role is to protect the global system from the revisionist ambitions of Russia and China. China is currently staying away from the quagmires of the Middle East. Instead, it is continuously increasing investment in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, solar energy, wind energy, batteries, and robotics. These technologies will determine the balance of global power in the coming days.

Russia is determined to weaken European security and Western democracies. To achieve this, Russia has adopted a hybrid (political-military) warfare method, which is very difficult to discern. It is even harder to stop and defeat.

While Beijing and Moscow are challenging the American world order, America is spending its blood and treasure trying to gain control in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is trying to elect its preferred leader in one of those countries.

History has shown us that superpowers are often tempted by 'small wars'. This is because there is an illusion that such wars will be quickly won and yield political and moral victories. Unfortunately, such tactical successes rarely translate into strategic gains. Instead, they often turn out to be the first steps toward a superpower's long-term exhaustion.

Even if America's intervention in Iran were successful now, it would necessitate deeper American involvement in the future. Is it worth spending American time and energy in this way in the coming decade?

Britain's experience in history teaches us a clear lesson—superpowers are rarely defeated by foreign invasion; rather, they collapse by overextending themselves too far toward the periphery and neglecting their own center.

(From The Washington Post)