US leadership is indifferent to (repeatedly) touching the hot stove because they’re not the part of the apparatus that is burned. Many solutions to fix that, why are we unable to create diplomacy with states like Iran? Saudi Arabia has many rough spots but friendly relations remain.
You note that we look back on the Hundred Years' war and see it as a single thing from our distant vantage point. Then you somewhat strangely describe WWI and WWII as distinct--I say strangely because they are at least as related in time and causes as these "Three Gulf Wars" (and much closer in time, and at least arguably in causes, as the Hundred Years' War). And then you confidently declare, a month after a conflict has begun (or, I suppose you could say, continued), that we've reached the end of an arc. Wouldn't that be like someone declaring in, say, 1389 that the conflict between France and England had reached its end and attempting to understand the previous years from that vantage point?
Hm, Rush Doshi’s book in 2021 built on the less academic work of Pillsbury in 2015. The CCP took over the WHO in 2007 and accelerated efforts to infiltrate and capture the UN in the early 2010s. Guess it depends on how one quantifies “very recently.”
A pretty credulous reading of Iran’s negotiating posture if you ask me. Why would they have been willing to forego enrichment and their missile program? They had no incentive to do so.
Excellent historical overview, thank you. Domestically, we see the rise of MAGA Fascism as an accelerant to the advent of toxic hegemony.
US leadership is indifferent to (repeatedly) touching the hot stove because they’re not the part of the apparatus that is burned. Many solutions to fix that, why are we unable to create diplomacy with states like Iran? Saudi Arabia has many rough spots but friendly relations remain.
You note that we look back on the Hundred Years' war and see it as a single thing from our distant vantage point. Then you somewhat strangely describe WWI and WWII as distinct--I say strangely because they are at least as related in time and causes as these "Three Gulf Wars" (and much closer in time, and at least arguably in causes, as the Hundred Years' War). And then you confidently declare, a month after a conflict has begun (or, I suppose you could say, continued), that we've reached the end of an arc. Wouldn't that be like someone declaring in, say, 1389 that the conflict between France and England had reached its end and attempting to understand the previous years from that vantage point?
Is it truly fair to continue to assume unipolarity? The CCP doesn’t count?
not until very recently, but marking the end of unipolarity is a big debate
Hm, Rush Doshi’s book in 2021 built on the less academic work of Pillsbury in 2015. The CCP took over the WHO in 2007 and accelerated efforts to infiltrate and capture the UN in the early 2010s. Guess it depends on how one quantifies “very recently.”
A pretty credulous reading of Iran’s negotiating posture if you ask me. Why would they have been willing to forego enrichment and their missile program? They had no incentive to do so.