Situation in Ukraine is a sign of US decline

n an interview with Dr. Ebrahim Mottaghi, Professor of International Relations at the University of Tehran, Khamenei.ir has examined the different aspects of Imam Khamenei’s recent statements regarding the Ukraine crisis. Dr. Mottaghi believes the Ukraine crisis reflects the fact that the United States has lost its power advantage to be able to play an international hegemonic role.

Interviewer: The Leader of the Revolution considers the root of today's crisis in Ukraine to be a result of the policies of the United States and the West. He stated that the Americans have a crisis-making regime and that they feed on crises. What do the roots of the Ukraine crisis have to do with the United States and the West?

E. Mottaghi: The form of the political power system in the United States is linked to the characteristics of the hegemonic system. The main feature of the hegemonic system is the creation of networks to merge and consolidate its power. These networks operate on the basis of the two very basic, essential features of “enticements and force.” The policy of force in the American model of behavior is based on militarism. The United States spends $730 billion annually for its military. This amount is equal to the total military expenditures of Russia, China, France, Britain, Italy, Germany and Japan. In fact, the United States is using its military to consolidate its power and capabilities based on its policy of force. It is based on its policy of force that the United States has conducted military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries.

America's policy of power is also based on enticements. The link between the politics of enticements and force is similar to what is seen in mafia networks. The policy of enticements means using mechanisms that pave the ground and prepare the situation for deceiving others. One of Mearsheimer’s discussions on the foreign policy of the great powers is that he says American foreign policy, as a great world power, is based on the mechanism of setting traps. That is to say, it enters who it wishes into a circle of power equations on the basis of which proxy wars are inevitable. The policy of enticements uses mechanisms by which the target believes he can change his position in the hope that the ground will be prepared for a better situation. A better situation always has a kind of mirage-like attraction.

Therefore, the American power structure has the form of a mafia. Firstly, because it links the politics of power and enticements. Secondly, it benefits from a network of virtual, written, and visual media that can be used to create a kind of ideology and an ideal model of political, social, and international behavior. Thirdly, these networks link together and form a foundation with a sense of solidarity that is based on a false ideology. Then they confront powers that are endeavoring to achieve justice or to maximize their regional standing on the basis of peaceful competitive forms.

Another behavioral and political characteristic of the United States may be seen in its building of an extensive, global coalition. In the bipolar structure, the Americans considered themselves to be the owners of the Western Hemisphere and extended this to Eastern Europe after World War II. Their main argument was that the literature on patterns of behavior and manifestations of American politics should be propagated in the world. The foundations of American Puritan thought and ideas are based on missionary work that provide the basis for expanding influence and increasing intervention in various geographical areas. Consequently, interventionism and expansion are key features of American foreign policy that we witnessed in the nineteenth century in the pre-World War II era and are witnessing more extensively in the post-World War II era.

Patterns of their intervention varry in different geographical areas. Interventionism may be military in nature and based on economic workings, or it may be based on political mechanisms. One example of American interventionism was the Iranian coup d'état in 1953. Another example of interventionism can be seen in relation to Iran's joining the Baghdad Pact and CENTO. At times, US intervention becomes military in nature. The US war in Vietnam is a great historical tragedy that reflects the fact that the United States has the capacity to kill, destroy and demolish.

In Ukraine, the Americans have been putting their own pattern of behavior on the agenda since 1993 with regard to NATO expansions. They added countries such as Poland and Hungary to NATO and signed defense and security treaties that would pave the way for the formation of a coalition against China, Russia, Iran, and even independent countries in West Asia and East Asia. NATO's expansion to the east is at the heart of American foreign policy planning, setting the stage for the [current] Ukraine crisis.

Kiev residents leaving capital on first day of crisis (Feburary 24, 2022)

Another American policy is adding fuel to the fire. This act of working to intensify a conflict or difficult situation is another of America's policies and it is one of the ways they work. The occupation of Kuwait by Iraq was based on their strategy of adding fuel to the fire used for the US security policy. The Iraqi military invasion of Iran was another form of their adding fuel to the fire that paved the way for proxy wars. Therefore, the Iraqi military invasion of Iran should be seen as related to some of the policies that the United States and its allies put on the agenda in support of a venturous agent. In a meeting with Saddam in 1989, the US Ambassador to Iraq at that time declared, “We hold a neutral position in your disputes with your neighbors.” In other words, he paved the way for the Iraqi military invasion of Kuwait. It is in such situations that agents and countries need to be watchful and insightful. Strategic rationality means that they should use mechanisms that do not allow them to be used by the big powers, especially by the United States.

Interviewer: Another aspect of the crisis in Ukraine today is the futile hope for support that pro-Western governments have for Western and American support. What is the lesson to be learned from the situations in Afghanistan and Ukraine for pro-Western governments?

E. Mottaghi: The Ukraine crisis shows that the United States has lost its power advantage to be able to play an international hegemonic role. In the 1990s, the US felt they were the undisputed power of the world. In 2001, George W. Bush proposed the theory of pre-emptive warfare. That is to say, if it was thought a country may be likely to have plans for disrupting regional security in the future, they would confront it before that. Thus, the Ukraine crisis shows that the United States system is in decline. Why do we say it is in a state of decline? Because hegemonic power can change conditions to control the behavior of those it wants. But was the United States able to convince Russia not to launch a military strike on Ukraine?

The next point is that a great power, whose capabilities are increasing, must have the necessary ability to control events. The Ukraine crisis has shown that the United States does not have the capability to control events. Therefore, when a power is declining, the ground is ready for the emergence of regional crises, which are not based on the tenets and logic of that great power. In his book “The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations,” Edward Hallet Carr points out that from 1919 to 1939, there were signs of successive crises. In my opinion, since 2019, the ground for the emergence of new successive crises is being formed. The second and third decades of the 21st century have many structural similarities to the second and third decades of the twentieth century. In these circumstances, the great power does not have the ability to manage regional crises. Therefore, the ground will be inevitably prepared for new forces that are not a part of the central force.

Another point is that the crises in Afghanistan, Ukraine and Iraq have shown that the United States is incapable of managing regional crises and is facing increasing security challenges. In this situation, what should regional countries do? Regional countries’ first step should be the application of the policy that one must help oneself. Namely, every country knows that it cannot rely on others and must seek the foundations and infrastructures needed for power within its own borders.

The next point is that coalitions are unstable in nature. Unstable coalitions are characterized by the fact that due to the constant change in the balance of power, they provide the ground for the formation of a new crisis. Ultimately, the United States may try to pay the military, humanitarian and social costs of Ukraine or other countries in these circumstances, but it uses mechanisms that show that it is not able to solve those issues in such circumstances. This can ultimately create new problems for the world system.

Finally, it should be noted that the lessons to be learned from the Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Iraq crises are the following. First, the United States is declining and unable to manage crises. Second, alliances with the United States have tactical and strategic costs. Third, the United States uses proxy warfare mechanisms to back geopolitical change in a regional environment. The US has not resisted Russia in Ukraine at all, but they are willing to give Ukrainian social groups the weapons, money, facilities, training and information they need to confront Russia. Such a trend shows that the groundwork has been laid for the formation of multiple and multilateral proxy wars, because the United States is seeking to create a crisis for the world's geopolitical spheres at no cost to itself.

Interviewer: Many Western governments and the US have condemned the current situation in Ukraine. But we can see that in the last century, the United States, the West and their allies have launched numerous military strikes against other countries. Would you tell us a little about the historical background of these US and Western military interventions over the last century and their double standards?

E. Mottaghi: Double standards are a feature of American foreign policy. A double standard means that sometimes there is an issue involving American interests and preferences that can be a positive factor, which is to the benefit of the United States and the Western world. Specifically, when the crises in Afghanistan and Yemen arose, when the Americans took advantage of the belligerence and military aggressions and after the children had been killed and the hospitals destroyed, there was no reaction. But if the same actions had been taken by another power in another geographical area, their pattern of behavior would have been completely different and the opposite.

The main goal of the US is to build barriers and fortifications. When George W. Bush announced that countries are either pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist, he divided the world into two black and white sections, with no gray areas. The gray areas are absorbed in the US policy of forcing others to adopt supportive roles through force or enticements. Therefore, American double standards have social and structural contexts. Why are double standards formed and implemented? Because first of all, the US was able to forge a kind of geopolitical alliance with the Western world. This alliance goes back to the years of World War II and before that. Second, the Americans formed shared institutions with the Western world and were able to extend these institutions to different geographical areas.

With this aim and based on its geopolitical thinking, the US defines its ideas in terms of alliances. The key question is what other power is working in a coalition with the United States? What policies and patterns of behavior lead to the optimization of American interests and preferences in the regional environment, according to which the United States temporarily supports another power? Their double standard policy involves not only confronting opposing powers and rivals in geopolitical formations, but also creating a kind of historical conflict with other powers.

Interviewer: What is the purpose of the American mafia regime in determining the states and creating crises in different parts of the world?

E. Mottaghi: The balance of power in US foreign security policy is based on transitional coalitions. One day it cooperates with Russia in the framework of NATO. Another day, it uses NATO against Russia within the framework of the Minsk Group. The fact is that the United States is trying to re-establish the idea of ​​a new Cold War based on the structure of an international system. In the new worldwide Cold War, there is room for confrontation with some of the powers. This confrontation is not military in nature at first, but it progresses through stages and determines the conditions for the security of that society in the near future. The main policy of the United States in various geographical areas is to threaten the security of a society and to create a crisis for it, for a society that pursues dreams of freedom and economic development in the geopolitical policies of the Western world and the United States.