America has presented its might to the world as the greatest military power. However, in the 21st century, it has also demonstrated that it can lose peace after winning a conflict, writes Scott Faulkner.
What will be the consequences after the cessation of hostilities? This question has become central in Washington's discussions following the recent "epic fury" that led to the fall of the Iranian regime. The answer to it will have a serious impact on the domestic policy of the Donald Trump administration. What will happen next in Venezuela after the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro? How will the situation unfold in Iran? What will occur if Cuban communists collapse?
America has demonstrated its military power, but in the 21st century, it has also shown that it can lose peace after winning a war. After the Cold War, the U.S. approach to supporting countries on the path to pro-Western free societies has ranged from "successful" to "failed" and "catastrophic".
UNRAVELING THE SOVIET EMPIRE
With the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, a 72-year tyranny that engulfed Russia and many "captured" countries came to an end. Active opposition movements began to form in the former Soviet republics, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe. Most Warsaw Pact countries aspired to democratic transformations that had been interrupted by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
Leaders like Lech Wałęsa from Poland and Václav Havel from the Czech Republic were ready to take key positions. Movements such as "Solidarity" and "Samizdat" created a core of political activists capable of filling power after regime changes in Eastern Europe.
The U.S. did not engage in active "nation-building," but provided important support to new leaders seeking to rid themselves of long-standing oppression.
This work was supported by bipartisan cooperation. Under the leadership of the State Department during the Clinton administration and Speaker Newt Gingrich, delegations from the new states were conducted to familiarize them with the workings of Congress. Prime ministers and parliamentarians spent several days receiving advice on how to adapt legislative processes and voting systems to their countries' conditions.
The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, under a contract with the State Department, organized week-long training sessions for members of parliaments. These interactive seminars were conducted by senators and members of Congress to provide practical knowledge on how to effectively represent the interests of their countries.
The European Union also played an important role, helping to harmonize legal practices and guiding new countries towards compliance with legislation in anticipation of EU membership. Non-profit organizations such as the Atlantic Council and the European Institute facilitated dialogue between EU leaders and regional stakeholders. European ambassadors acted as mentors to their counterparts.
The success lay in providing each country with the opportunity to develop at its own pace, based on its unique identity, history, and culture. The implementation of "best practices" was suggested but not mandatory.
Unfortunately, the only failure was Russia. Despite the fact that Duma members eagerly attended Harvard courses, they could not foresee that Boris Yeltsin's alcoholism and corruption would lead to Vladimir Putin's rise to power.
THE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN
The successes in Eastern Europe went unnoticed by the neoconservatives surrounding President George W. Bush.
Afghanistan, being a feudal society, consisted of village elders, clergy, and warlords who retained the title of shah. The Mohammadzai tribal leaders ruled the country for 155 years until the last shah was overthrown in a coup supported by the Soviet Union in April 1978.
This led to years of chaos, including a civil war and a full-scale invasion of Soviet troops in December 1979.
A prolonged guerrilla war was fought between the pro-Western Northern Alliance and Islamist groups known as the mujahideen. Eventually, the most radical of these groups, the Taliban, gained the upper hand.
The withdrawal of Soviet troops on April 14, 1988, left behind an unstable government between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. The leader of the Northern Alliance was killed just days before the September 11 attacks in the U.S., which strengthened the Taliban's control and allowed the U.S. to overthrow their regime in December 2001.
The U.S. chose the path of "state-building." Ignoring history and culture, Bush's officials appointed Hamid Karzai as president after the Taliban's overthrow. Karzai, who was a "treasurer" for the CIA, turned out to be corrupt and unreliable, selling mining rights in the country for $40 million.
Bush's officials did not allow the traditional feudal society to revive and refused to bring back the shah's family for national reconciliation. Instead, they sought to establish a Western democracy before the 2008 U.S. elections, ignoring the centuries-old process of power evolution in Western Europe.
Billions of dollars were invested in training and infrastructure, but most of the funds were squandered and used for selfish purposes.
Local communities were forced to rely on NATO and U.S. forces for peacekeeping, while Western values were imposed on the population. This created conditions for the Taliban's victory. Karzai rigged the 2009 elections, ignoring worthy opponents, and his declining authority, rampant corruption, and suppression of dissent led to a crisis in Afghanistan.
In September 2014, Ashraf Ghani, one of the opposition candidates in the rigged 2009 elections, became president, but it was too late. The Taliban consolidated their positions on the battlefield and in negotiations, and their forces entered Kabul on August 15, 2021, after the catastrophic withdrawal of U.S. troops.
IRAQ
In 2003, Bush's neoconservatives unleashed a war based on dubious intelligence. They profited from fictitious contracts, destroying the country.
The U.S. prefers to create highly centralized governments, ignoring successful federal systems and local self-governance. This centralization resulted from laziness, as the location of everything in the secure "Green Zone" of Baghdad allowed officials to avoid real problems.
This led to disaster. Iraq is historically divided into three states: Kurds in the north, Shiites along the coast, and Sunnis in the center. The British united Iraq after World War I, creating a puppet government that collapsed in 1958.
The 2003 war overthrew Hussein, paving the way for 20 years of waste and abuse. Bush's occupying authorities did not strive for a federal system, which caused discontent in the three historical regions.
The Kurds suffered the most severe consequences. After the 1991 war, they gained semi-independence through the establishment of a "no-fly zone." Seeking help from Western companies to develop their lands, they faced suppression from the U.S. State Department.
Kurdistan, populated by small villages, could have benefited from installing small hydro turbines, but the State Department halted this project, fearing that decentralized electricity supply would weaken the central government in Baghdad. As a result, many villages still remain without electricity.
PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
In Venezuela, there is an active opposition movement that was defeated in the recent elections due to fraud. Its leader is Nobel Prize laureate María Corina Machado. While Trump is satisfied that interim president Delcy Rodríguez is taking responsibility for restoring order, her actions show a lack of independence from Washington.
Iran also has a viable opposition both inside and outside the country, including a significant Iranian diaspora in the U.S. and other countries.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) was established in 1981 as a coalition of 460 members seeking a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic. The NCRI's mission is to organize free elections within six months after the overthrow of the theocracy.
When the "Epic Fury" began, Maryam Rajavi, the elected president of the NCRI, announced the establishment of a Transitional Government of the NCRI to transfer sovereignty to the people of Iran and establish a democratic republic based on a ten-point plan presented by Rajavi in December 2006.
The plan includes the establishment of a pluralistic republic based on the separation of religion and state, gender equality, the abolition of the death penalty, peace, coexistence, and a non-nuclear Iran.
This well-organized initiative, along with a possible symbolic national leader, the hereditary prince Reza Pahlavi, could quickly fill the power vacuum after the overthrow of the current regime.
After the attacks, there is indeed hope, as long as Trump and his team learn the lessons of the past.
Scott Faulkner served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He was the personnel director for Reagan's 1980 campaign and worked in the White House. He currently advises companies on strategic changes.
The post What Awaits America After Iran first appeared on K-News.
