The spectre of military tensions is haunting millions of pacifists across the world, with the US planning to increase its defence budget to $1.5 trillion, Russia, China, Iran and South Africa carrying out joint naval exercises and Europe fearing the annexation of Greenland, threatening the dismantling of Nato.
In addition, the Western Hemisphere is waiting for the next moves by policymakers in Washington. Some countries in the region have already indicated that they are ready to be US collaborators against Cuba and Colombia in case Trump decides to mount any military campaign against the anti-American governments there in a bid to dislodge them. Military strikes might be easy, but changing governments might require American boots on the ground, which is sure to embroil the US in a protracted war. Even if the US manages to dislodge these governments, the spectre of a guerrilla war would haunt American policymakers.
It is not only the ambitions of political leaders that seem to be plunging the world into anarchy; turmoil in different parts of the globe is also paving the way for military intervention and confrontation among different powers. The violence that has gripped Iran during the past few days has prompted many war-mongers sitting in the power corridors of Tel Aviv to seek regime change in the Islamic Republic. While the brutal repression of the Iranian theocratic regime cannot be justified on any grounds, it should also be made very clear that foreign intervention would only lead to more killings and destruction.
Those who delude themselves into believing that such intervention could turn out to be a blessing should read the history of American interventions. Washington’s invasion of Iraq sparked a regional conflict, killing more than 2.5 million people in the region and rendering millions displaced. The conflict also engulfed Syria, while its flames in one way or another also incinerated the social fabric of Libyan society. Today, Syria and Libya lie in ruin while Iraq is still grappling with the effects arising from the illegal invasion. The sectarian scars caused by the invasion and foreign interference will take decades to fade.
Greenland is also under the threat of a possible US invasion. Trump and his tedious acolytes have been engaging in sabre-rattling against the territory of Denmark. The Scandinavian country has already made it clear that any attempt to annex the region would spell disaster for Europe, triggering the dismantling of Nato. Such dismantling would leave Europe at the mercy of mighty Russia, which is seeking to retain the Ukrainian areas it has already captured and is asking for more territory. Pushing a situation where Europe will have to deal with Moscow on its own will create consternation in Western capitals, prompting them to militarise on an industrial scale because the few hundred nuclear bombs of the UK and France are no match for Russia’s 7000 nukes. The dismantling could also prompt Russia to threaten other small states in the Baltic and elsewhere.
If the erratic president of the US goes ahead against his Western allies, this will greatly shatter the trust of other non-European American allies. Perhaps it is Trump’s fickleness that prompted Saudi Arabia to explore alternative security arrangements rather than putting all eggs in one basket. Riyadh has been protected by the US for decades, but the current uncertain situation is a matter of grave concern for Arab rulers. Their approach to Pakistan could be one of the alternatives they have already sought.
The situation has also worried Turkiye, which is believed to be interested in seeking security arrangements with Pakistan. Ankara has been suspicious of Washington’s designs in its backyard. Despite being part of Nato and the second biggest contributor to the organisation’s military, it feels that the US did not take its interests into consideration while siding with the Syrian Democratic Front in Syria. Fears of a separatist movement might resurface after Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. Tel Aviv has been advocating the creation of a Kurdish state in the region. Ankara fears that if such a situation arises and if Israel throws wholehearted support behind a Kurdish state, the US is likely to side with its most trusted ally instead of protecting the interests of Turkiye.
It seems hawks in Washington do not want regime change in Cuba and Colombia, but they might want it in Iran. Trump’s provocative statements indicate that he might decide to intervene in the Islamic Republic if the situation deteriorates. And again, regime change cannot be achieved without boots on the ground. Does this mean that the US would open possibly three fronts in various parts of the world, toppling governments in Cuba and Colombia while carrying out regime change in Iran?
All three governments are close to Russia and China. Moscow faced a tough political situation after regime change operations were carried out in its backyard. It lost pro-Russian governments in its former sphere of influence during colour revolutions. Now the question is whether it would stay neutral if three more pro-Moscow governments are dislodged. The removal of Maduro has already created problems for Russia, with the US seizing oil tankers owned by Moscow. So, if Russia decides to prevent such US moves, it will raise the spectre of US-Russia military confrontation.
In addition, Russia would be greatly alarmed if the US militarily seized Greenland, as the region is highly significant to Moscow strategically. If Ukraine was attacked because Nato was getting closer to the Russian border and threatening Russian security, then why would a US move to capture Greenland not be resisted by Russia, which many Russians feel would jeopardise their security? American moves would also alarm China. The communist country has long-term trade agreements with the Iranian government, which would be revoked if a new government is installed with the help of Washington. The Chinese would also be greatly upset if two more anti-American governments are toppled in the Western Hemisphere, where it has invested heavily, besides loaning over $141 billion.
It seems Trump wants to use force to achieve his targets. His favourite president is William McKinley, who led the US through a surge of territorial expansion at the end of the 19th century, including the military takeover of Cuba and the annexation of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and American Samoa. Trump has already poured scorn on international law, saying nothing can stop him except himself. It is not only Trump who knows nothing except employing military force, but his tedious acolytes are also in favour of such tactics. For instance, the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller went on CNN to provide the rationale for Trump’s new approach to foreign policy. He said, “We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
The question is whether, if the real world is governed by strength, Russia and China will also employ their own strength after noticing that Trump is not ready to accept any international law and, in that case, whether we will witness military confrontation between major powers.
The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at: [email protected]
