Are we at a turning point in world history? Here's why one shouldn't bet on it
The turmoil of the last year-and-a half— tariff wars and physical wars (Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine), the abduction of a head of state and assassination of another, territorial ambitions and tattered alliances—has led to claims that the Pax Americana of stable global institutions managing commerce and conflict has ended. If that is true, what comes next? This uncertainty has fostered many forecasts of the future of global politics by policy pundits.Consider the analysis of Hal Brands, a historian at Johns Hopkins University and the American Enterprise Institute.
Brands is a well-known neoconservative with strong ties to the Republican Party’s security and foreign policy establishment. He has been called a “war intellectualizer/lover” for his hawkish positions on US power.
Agree with him or not, his views carry weight. In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, Brands identifies three possible scenarios for the coming era.
The most likely outcome, one that Brands argues has felt inevitable for the last several years with the rise of China, is of a world divided into two blocs led by Washington and Beijing. This bipolar world would resemble the Cold War of US-Soviet rivalry, in which an “array of swing states—from India to Saudi Arabia, Brazil to Indonesia—would align selectively with these blocs while maneuvering opportunistically between them.” If recent US actions are indeed meant to hasten the creation of this new bipolar world order, I find it difficult to understand how the US would achieve this by alienating its existing allies (in Europe) and starting an unnecessary war with Iran.
Read on livemint.com