What if the United States of America decided to stop leading the most critical international affairs in the world’s political arena, including the Middle East crises, and the Iranian nuclear issue– a high regional and international security threat? What would US policy makers’ stand be when faced with the sectarian violence incited by Iranian transnational militias that spread in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, without any indication of regression in their destructive political ideologies, with the latest terrorist attack to assassinate the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mustapha Al-Kadhimi? Wouldn’t a withdrawal from the political hot spheres constitute a threat to international security and stability, if decision-making shifts away from the US to Russia (i.e. in Armenia and Poland) and China (i.e. in Africa) that are both striving to gain greater influence as major international political players, and at any price? How to maintain America’ superpower in light of the increasing influence of China, Iran, and Russia?
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the United States emerged as a new world superpower, which formed the second most structural change in modern history. However, the events of the twentieth century including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the twenty-first century’s wars on terrorism and violent extremism caused by Takfiri groups, have caused some deep international deviations in countries’ official and public opinion on the leading position of Washington.
These changes, based upon the aftermath of the US role in these wars, prepared the ground for the emergence of a competitor to the Anglo-Saxon political trend, for new players challenging Washington’s decision-making and striving for power-sharing in the management of the regional and world crises. Intellectuals were divided upon those adopting the idea of the withdrawal of the “American empire” like the British historian Paul Kennedy in his book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” and those who believe that the United States will remain a principal influencer in any future international system, as described by US diplomat Richard Haass in “The Age of Nonpolarity.” As for the American writer of Indian origin Fareed Zakaria, he states in his book “The Post-American World” that the role of America will continue in determining the international political agenda, and putting in order alliances to face transnational challenges, including resources management, as the global broker in a world that is trying to dissociate itself from a unipolar system.
From an international economic perspective, large countries such as China, India, Brazil and Russia, were able to achieve unexpected results in infrastructural, developmental and financial growth. Today, the tallest building in the world is not an American skyscraper but is Dubai’s “Burj Khalifa” in the UAE; and the largest commercial corporation (China Three Gorges- CTG) is a Chinese one. Nevertheless, these facts do not mean that the United States of America is losing its world leadership, as the credit for the emergence of other countries on the international scene, goes to the United States’ policy itself. During the past six decades, the US foreign and diplomatic policy played a significant role in spreading the market economy’s mechanisms, enabling political liberties, enlarging world trade, and developing information and communications technologies.
In addition to the dynamism of the American economy, the United States is one of the “youngest” countries in the world in terms of demographic makeup, and its greatest in terms of being a hub for human resources and expertise from different corners of the world. On the other hand, a powerful world’s political player such as the European Union lacks the necessary national unity needed for an international leadership role, and is unable to effectively act as one. Similarly, Russia continues to face internal economic and political challenges that prevent it from playing any present leading role on the international scene. Therefore, the United States still holds in its genes enough chromosomes of youth and political dynamism, and is immune to the fatigue of “aging” countries, as it will continue leading the international sphere for a significant length of time in the third millennium.
As for Washington’s abstinence from playing a leadership role in the current political issues of more than one Arabic country, and voluntarily leaving the scene for Russia, Iran and Turkey to deal with areas of conflict (i.e. in Syria), it is not more than a tactic aiming to submerge these countries in supporting certain declining police states while preserving American diplomatic energy for the management of the critical Iranian issue, which will determine, once settled, the shape and depth of the growing Iranian extremism influence in the region.
Original version was written in Arabic by: Marah Bukai, Al Arab Newspaper Washington Bureau Chief & Principal Correspondent in the White House.
Edited and translated into English by WHIA English Senior Editor
