The only trouble is, we are no longer the superpower that we were in 1950 or even 1980. What I think will be interesting from this realignment is how our alliances will probably shift toward countries which are strategically aligned with us even if they're much less ethically or ideologically aligned with our stated beliefs.
South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not. I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south. But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis. A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.
Most of Europe combined (meaning the EU + the most closely aligned non-EU countries) are a much more formidable force than the UAE or Israel... You can't compare using individual European countries since in a hot scenario the vast majority of the EU countries would band together, and the movement towards military integration has already been started.
The US never had a period without flexing its muscles after the Cold War, you can't say that there were 20 years of "soft power is all you need" while keeping wars like Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years, keeping spending more on the military than the next 10-20 countries combined.
The trouble is that the US has lost the plot, there's no value or vision to defend, it hollowed itself out with hyperfinancialisation since the 80s, the consequence is that there's no rallying inspirational point anymore. It doesn't have a "hook" to attach its vision of the future, I have no idea what's the vision of the USA for the future except for "generating wealth".
As a nation it just seems to be lost, butting heads while moving backwards.
During the Cold War, there was an easy "US good, USSR bad" pattern for the world to be inspired by, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, the rest of the world no longer needs to (or even can if it wanted to) rally around a call of "hey, at least we're not the USSR".
Now we don't have the USSR in the picture, what does the USA offer? Much of the rhetoric I see from it these days is "We're not China", and true, you're not, but when we're looking in from the outside there's a loss of scale and rightly or wrongly the ICE detention camps and exporting of people to CECOT, looks much the same as Uighurs being put in Xinjiang internment camps.
Meanwhile, increasing fractions of my hardware, from injection moulded widgets to laser welding kits, from 3D printers and PV to computers and smartphones, is made by Chinese firms, so China looks increasingly like the place where stuff actually happens, and conversely the USA looks increasingly like the place where grand visions are pronounced only to fail from lack of awareness of how to engineer anything or what customers really benefit from (e.g. Juicero, Metaverse, Cybertruck).
I'm not entirely sure I buy this. Everything you said feels true, and it's happening in the moment. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The way you wrote "hyperfinancialisation" makes me think you are European (German?)
I'd imagine a vision for the country would be explained at places like World Expo right? In 2025 their booth (developed during Biden years even though it launched during Trump) gave a "semi" okay idea of where the country is placing its vision. Was it expressed well at the Expo? Not entirely sure, but it was there.
Historically, they didn't need to really do much at these Expos because who doesn't know the U.S.? And who doesn't know what the country is about? But I guess with the increasing decline of the U.S., they now have to 'advertise' themselves and explain to people what the underlying vision is.
In the end, the underlying theme seems to be "optimistic collaboration led by American innovation". Yeah I know its hard to picture this in the moment after everything that has happened in the last year but as the Biden years ended this was the thinking among government officials.
[1]:https://youtu.be/NVCcdeYMzpU?t=183
Watching this video a year later, it just seems so comical that this whole vision of "collaborative innovation": of the future being a collaborative project, with America wanting to lead it but not alone, and the slogan 'Imagine what we could create together' just seems comical after everything that's occurred in the last year. I guess it remains to be seen if this vision will hold once Trump is out of office.
I'm Brazilian-Swedish, living in Sweden.
> I'd imagine a vision for the country would be explained at places like World Expo right? In 2025 their booth (developed during Biden years even though it launched during Trump) gave a "semi" okay idea of where the country is placing its vision. Was it expressed well at the Expo? Not entirely sure, but it was there.
A vision for the country is something that's built upon, across governments and party lines since it's "what the nation is about" more than what policies are being voted on by diverging ideologies, it's something to tether a nation's spirit onto. Advertising something on a World Expo is just advertisement, it's the actions over a longer period of time that can be linked to a vision that actualises it, and that's what I don't see from the USA at all.
> In the end, the underlying theme seems to be "optimistic collaboration led by American innovation". Yeah I know its hard to picture this in the moment after everything that has happened in the last year but as the Biden years ended this was the thinking among government officials.
That line couldn't reek more of corporate-speak than it does, it's something you'd read on a PowerPoint slide from McKinsey. It doesn't inspire anyone, reading it doesn't make you feel "yeah, I want to buy into that". It just cements more of my thought that the vision is "get wealthy", it just states an end without inspiring any of the means for it.
Also, the Biden years already feel long gone, it could've been the beginning of re-steering the ship into a brighter path, barely a bit more than a year without Biden and nothing from the previous USA is recognisable.
> Watching this video a year later, it just seems so comical that this whole vision of "collaborative innovation": of the future being a collaborative project, with America wanting to lead it but not alone, and the slogan 'Imagine what we could create together' just seems comical after everything that's occurred in the last year. I guess it remains to be seen if this vision will hold once Trump is out of office.
Exactly, it's comical that it was kept as a pitch given everything we are seeing from post-Trump USA. It's really hard for me to imagine coming back from this, even more if it does last for another 3 years.
Call me paranoid, but I think it's due to one of our greatest strengths being hijacked. Our free speech laws and the openness of our society, the total non-filtering of information - which I support - have created a fertile ground for sophisticated propaganda from China and Russia, Iran and Qatar, to overwhelm the brains of a lot of people on both sides of our political divide through massive social media psyops that have gone on for a decade.
It's reached the point that very few people in America can state why America is a good thing, even for its own citizens, let alone for the rest of the world.
But not very long ago, this was not the case. And there are excellent arguments to be made for why America should remain the keystone of the global order: It's inclusive, it's progressive, its system has been a miraculous engine of economic growth for everyone in its orbit. But the easiest and most banal reason, one which no one says out loud is: If not America, which country would you rather have exercising power to create some kind of international order? The people who think everything America does is automatically evil haven't really made much study of what life is like under the realistic alternatives to that question.
> I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime;
Iranian regime was not "taken out". It does not seem like it will be taken out either. Its leader got changed for younger more hard line one with the same name. Edit: also Filipinos are much more affected by oil crisis then USA. It is literally an emergency crisis for them.
> But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis.
Venezuela is under exactly same regime as before. Maduro got changed for Delcy Rodríguez, keep regime intact. Trump got personally richer, but that is it.
Who hasn't been seen or heard from yet. I'd give this a few more days before pronouncing it a done deal.
And nearly half of the US supports this.
What exactly was ruined for the next generation of Iranians, by taking out that 87 year old man?
This does not accurately describe the picture.
When the US went to Iraq the approval rating was in the 90s(correction I mixed up Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq was 70-80s) because the US had been attacked, and Bush took the time to sell the war to the Americans (with lies) by the time all the disasters kept coming in, support dropped to the 40s.
This war started in the 40s approval rating. If bodies start coming home in mass, I don't know how things will turn out for Trump and his party but its already looking like a disaster for them and it hasn't even hit the really ugly part yet.
Personally I find it strange that with all the vocal detestation of "Nazis" so many people aren't in favor of intervening when an undeniably fascist regime commits the largest mass murder since the early days of the Holocaust and has no plans to stop the killing.
Of course now we have cheap drones, putting massive asymmetric financial power. Every time Iran fires a $1k drone, America fires a $1m missile to stop it.
That's a great way to lose a war of attrition.
America has been losing wars for 50 years, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. 11 carrier groups or 110 doesn't make any difference.
But are they really 1 million dollars? I've always had the feeling that the cost of military equipment in peacetime has an extreme inflated price because it's a tax payer black hole with so much bureaucracy, middlemen and some level of corruption that you can charge almost any price you want. In a war economy where the goal is to make as many missiles as possible, would governments really pay 1M a piece?
Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby!
> The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has.
The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout.
> I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south
Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies).
> But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis
The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro.
> A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.
The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.
The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.
This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.
There aren't many options on the table. Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries. The right strategy would be to join forces to try and help the US get back on track because what other superpower is there? And that means somehow dealing with Israel as they are going to continue causing trouble for everyone.
> This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.
This is the biggest change. The Gulf states were completely blindsided by the war, and are now rethinking their alliance with the US. Expect to see more Chinese and EU bases in the region - China already has a military base in the UAE. Al Udeid is going to be massively downsized. And these guys are going to be shopping in the EU for weapons systems, not the US.
> Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries.
The right strategy is for the Asian countries to stop quarreling between themselves and forge new defensive alliances. Or alternatively, submit to Chinese hegemony as tributary states (tributing natural resources that is), as they used to do in the past.
I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate).
On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.
In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors.
>> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.
Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved.
Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?
That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change".
In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it.
If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country.
> Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer,
This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.
So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East.
However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one.
This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.
I don't think people have the patience for this orwellian bullshit anymore in 2026. While we watched the United States kidnap a country's leader in order to "take their oil", while we are watching them literally starving another country with a blockade in a "friendly takeover" (or unfriendly) while simultaneously bombing a third country in order to (according to Lindsey Graham) control a third of the world's oil supply. And before i forget, threaten the territorial integrity of a fourth country and NATO and European ally to boot. But sure, tell us how the Chinese are the real bad guys that we needing to be watching out for.
> A short-term rotation away
One of those better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt kind of situations. Replace fool with incapable.
A short term rotation that revealed US isn't just overstretched but systemically incapable of honoring mild security obligations. US failing to protect CENTCOM vs Iran... an opponent like 2% of PRC GDP and even less industrial output. Abandoning CENTCOM infra to IR counter attacks, running out of interceptors... losing regional ABM shield assets... Ultimately it's still Iran, and US has overmatch if sufficient will to power through... (insert at what cost meme). On paper, anyone not retarded knew US posture in 1,2IC not sustainable or US MIC not calibrated to fight adversaries more than 50% it's GDP, let alone PRC 150% by PPP (more by industrial capacity). There is functionally no doubt US can't protect 1IC vs PRC if it has to dedicated this much hardware to Iran in CENTCOM. SKR and PH are going to have hard time convincing their constituents where even delulu can only sustain so much cognitive dissonance, all while paying war premium of MENA fossil, whatever that leaks through, which again breaks retarded narrative that they are unsinkable aircraft carriers vs PRC... who is in fact a land power with resources capable of sustaining regional hegemony, and in Indopac war, US partners would starve/suffer/be blockaded long before PRC suffers. US no longer sole superpower, when it tries to insist upon itself, current aligners are seeing limitations of power and cost of alignment.
Not to mention what US+Israel has normalized... PRC has munitions in 1/2IC to decapitate/gaza US partners, which is now permissible.
1IC / 2IC: First Island Chain / Second Island Chain.
ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile.
CENTCOM: United States Central Command, combatant command for Middle East
MENA: Middle East and North Africa, in this case oil that comes from gulf to asia.
IR: Iran
MIC: Military-Industrial Complex.
PRC: People's Republic of China.
SKR: South Korea (Republic of Korea).
PH: Philippines.
The broad analogy is imagine a boxing match. US is aging heavy weight with finesse, Iran is a teen whose been training for a few years. The super weight's day job is protecting other teens from Iran.
On paper one would expect US to absolutely brain Iran in first round. Before fight, heavy weight had to spend months training / prepping. Which is strange vs fight against teenager, but we can charitably interpret that as diligence. Fight starts, teenage Iran somehow lands a few blows. Which is concerning. Maybe got lucky, a little embarrassing but as long as US heavy weight knocks out teen emphatically in first round. Then teenager survived first round, spent rest period between rounds to punch the other teens US was obligated to protect in the face. Fight continues, what if that knockout doesn't happen until round2... 3... 4... etc. What if heavy weight drags out and wins by TKO in 10th round, what if heavy weight gets tired and forfeits by 5th round. Other teens in protection racket gets nervous, because PRC is not Iran, PRC is like 10 super heavy weights with homefield advantage watching US heavyweight borrow equipment to finish a minor fight with Iran. Some will fixate on the fact that yes, in deed the super weight can probably murder that teen eventually, but the amount of effort required feels insane.
Maybe the strategically dignified / smart thing was for US not to accept (pick) that fight in the first place. Especially if staking credibility/reputation on fighting PRC one day. I'm 50/50 on this, there's medium/long term reason why Iran missile complex is existential for US regional posture (and Israel), taking it out is strategically sound. Taking it out while revealing that's about the limit of what US can take out is... not.
Dear Leader is currently threatening Cuba with regime change, because reasons.
I wonder what stupid obvious lies the administration will tell when they start blowing up that sovereign country and killing or kidnapping it's leaders.
Esp. when there's no apparent reason to invade them in the first place.
How much is the taxpayer going to be on the hook for to replenish these supplies? And what's the price tag going to be when a second country starts throwing around missiles the way Israel and the US are doing?
But note that SCMP is a known pro-China website, so keep that in mind when reading the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post
I think Manila already knows the answer.
The Gulf Arab allies invested trillions, literally trillions of dollars in the United States, and are basically left to fend for themselves after the U.S. pulled out its entire military and air defense assets to defend the "greatest ally" in a war instigated by said ally - an ally that gets billions of dollars in aid from the United States and doesn't even say thank you.
"strategic partner"? LMAO
