Solving international crises impossible sans trust
For now, it appears that despite the president’s having declared the United States “locked and loaded” and ready to retaliate against Iran should Saudi Arabia verify that Iran perpetrated the attacks on its oil fields, we may yet settle for a duel of recrimination and economic sanctions rather than firing missiles and risking all-out war in that region.
The world rightly holds its collective breath in such a moment.
History reminds us that a simple assassination of an archduke can trigger a world war if parties itching for a fight have enough allies honor-bound to help them get revenge.
Blood-ties and honor codes no longer bind them, but alliances still flourish, and the world never lacks those who see war as the optimum response to grievance or provocation. Moreover, political and religious figures who speak for the president’s political base, even if they don’t always have his ear, make no secret of their desire to wage war against Iran, the sooner the better. Some want to settle old grudges, others would help God bring on Armageddon.
The most unsettling reality of the current showdown on Main Street writ large is the fact that there isn’t a trustworthy actor in the scene.
The U.S. president, with his staff-supplied alternative facts, distrusts our own intelligence operatives and consistently demonstrates a total disregard for the truth no matter how large or insignificant the matter at hand. Neither citizens here nor the leaders of other nations can take him at his word.
The Saudis, whose assessment of Iran’s alleged involvement we await, not only despise Iran, they lied so shamelessly about their liquidation of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi that their word can only be taken as self-serving. Iran and the United States have engaged in mutual deception for so long, neither would, or should, trust the other concerning anything more debatable than the wetness of water.
Russia and China also have significant stakes in the current crisis, but anyone who trusts Mr. Putin or the Kremlin lives in a fantasy world. Do bitter trade wars make for trustworthy international confidants? If so, perhaps we can trust China.
Historians occasionally refer to the Cold War era as the time when nobody trusted anyone. Institutionalized fear and loathing, plus the threat of “mutual assured destruction,” kept everyone on edge.
We had nightmares and children practiced nuclear holocaust survival tactics, but after everyone pretty much bankrupted themselves and Mr. Gorbachev finally tore down that wall, we had somehow succeeded in not blowing up the planet because on top of all our other fears, no one had the nerve to push the button first.
Because it worked, sort of, some propose that scenario as a model for statecraft in today’s tense, dangerous world. By these lights every nation should look out only for itself, mistrust and fear everyone else, and ideally, others should fear us more than anyone. Should someone shoot the neighbors’ archduke or blow up another nation’s oil fields, we’ll isolate perpetrators and duel with threatening tweets at ten paces, but at least we won’t start World War III.
Unfortunately, we can no longer afford that alternative to genuine peace. We may survive for the short term, but the family of mistrustful nations faces other threats we can only address if we let our guards down, work at building trust and being trustworthy, and talk. Our president seems to understand this at some level. Why else would he invite the Taliban to town? (That should have happened in October 2001!)
The requisite trust will never come, however, without some serious practice at being truthful.