The Last Imperial War?
This article was published on Substack – but behind a paywall entitled the “First Multipolar War”
Fortunately, Will Schryver posted the whole thing on X.
I like Arnaud Bertrand a lot and overall I agree with this article, and most of my disagreements are semantic, a matter of terms and concepts. But I fear that some people may misunderstand some important points that he is making.
So I have some quibbles.
This not the First Multipolar War, not exactly.
It IS more correctly arguably the Last Imperial War because it presages the decline and future demise of the American empire, whose ashes will provide fertile ground for the growth of a multicentric world community— the antithesis of the empire that was. There will be no more empires after this because we are entering a new era, environmentally, technologically and socially - an era that cannot tolerate hegemons.
Still, some people see the war as being a proxy war against BRICS. But Russia and China and other BRICS countries are not fighting the US, rather supporting Iran so it does not lose. They are clearly against war.
Other people confuse the concepts of “symmetry” and “asymmetry”
In geopolitics, “symmetry” assumes response in kind. With empires, there can be no real symmetry because the empire is “uber alles’— it is exceptional. Not do as I do, but do as I tell you to. The US is fundamentally “asymmetric”. And therefore Iran has prepared for an “symmetric war”. The US wanted ‘short’ . Iran does “long”. The US has weapons harking back to WWII. Iran has weapons looking forward 20 years.
All this comes to my mind from this excellent article.
At this point in the war, with Trump doing a “TACO” on his threat to attack Iranian power plants, which was always an empty threat anyway since it would invite massive retaliation against vital infrastructure throughout West Asia, energy infrastructures, desalination plants and the like—not to mention complete closure of Hormuz with the danger of a global economic meltdown – all in all, Iran’s “nuclear options”.
Now he calls off the plan and says he’s talking to Iran, which he isn’t, except in his imagination.
So, he’s moved on. Once again he is threatening “boots on the ground”, which has everyone in the media squawking about it – because it is (again) irrational, not because this war was insane from the beginning — but because squawking is what media people do. Donald?
Would Donald do it? It won’t be his boots on the ground —remember he has bone spurs.
Stas gets it right.
sAn American expeditionary force of 5000? Even 50,000 would not be enough. They have no hope of taking any of the Iranian Islands, nor stealing nuclear materials, as Stas explains, correcting common misperceptions. This aint Caracas , baby!
Maybe Trump is just trying to buy time, as some in the Alt Media, mostly people not familiar with the Oil Kingdoms say. According to this line of reasoning, Trump - who does not reason at all - hopes that the Saudis will join his war against Iran. They would not do that since it would mean the end of the House of Saud. The Houthis, of course, are just waiting for an excuse to give the Saudis some well-deserved comeuppance. Like Hezbollah, they have spent the last year quietly building their military capabilities awaiting this opportunity.
Now the article — with comments
The First Multipolar War
Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand
·Mar 24
I don’t think people realize just how extraordinary what we’re witnessing with Iran is. I was arguing with a dear journalist friend of mine yesterday who was telling me that Iran was winning, yes, but only on the strategic level, not tactically.
The fact that people think it is “extraordinary” tells you how mind-wiped the public—especially journalists— have become. As Bertrand goes on to point out, we learned all about this in high school.
The type of thing a skinny kid getting stuffed in lockers in high school tells himself to make himself feel better: “These people will BEG to work for me in ten years. Everyone knows jocks peak in high school. They’ll literally beg.”
I think that’s precisely wrong, and that’s what makes the Iran war different.
Of course, it’s wrong, as you should know from high school.
In my high school, there was a skinny kid, who was also a boxer. I think he had been in one fight in which he clocked his much larger opponent in seconds.
Or at least that was the story.
Nobody would mess with him. After I took up judo, nobody messed with me either, even though judo is a sport, not for street fighting. It’s not what you can do – as much as it what people think you can do --what you might be able to do!
It is also true that bullies often go on to do well in business or politics - as sociopaths - for a while —until their behaviors catch up with them, unless compensated for by real abilities (which are rare).
As of now, Iran is in fact holding its own tactically too.
In fact, Iran is holding back, as it methodically reduces American and Israeli defenses.
Think about other U.S. wars of aggression these past few decades. Take Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, etc. (the list is unfortunately very long). The pattern was roughly always the same with an immense power differential between aggressor and victim. These wars were, by and large, imperial: the empire attempting to crush a much weaker people whose only realistic recourse was guerrilla resistance. And that is when they actually had the will to resist: some - like Libya - barely even bothered, just resigning themselves to their fate (despite being, at the time, the richest country in Africa).
Libya might have survived had it not thought somehow that the US and NATO would live up to their word – and international law. It also needed to have acquired the means to really hurt an aggressor, which would have meant a nuke. The US attacks weaker countries that cannot hurt the US. Of course, even if defeated, these countries do not forgive or forget.
As spectators of these wars, if you had any moral sense, the dominant emotion was a kind of helpless disgust: you were watching a giant stomp through someone else’s house.
Not a giant. Just a home invasion by a local gang. When the police will not help, you have to organize the neighborhood, which is what Iran is doing.
Sure, the U.S. actually lost many - if not most - of these wars, famously replacing the Taliban with the Taliban or being expelled with their tail between their legs from Vietnam, but the power differential was no less real for it.
The Americans killed upwards of two million people in Vietnam for a loss of 50,000 over a long period of time. It did not win. But, in some perverse way, it demonstrated power. It also demonstrated that the US cannot be trusted.
It’s just that power doesn’t always guarantee victory: sometimes the giant can’t kill everyone, and eventually tires of trying. But the “victories” won this way were always pyrrhic at best: the people endured, yes, but what they were left with was a country in ashes that takes decades to rebuild. Meanwhile, in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego.
Actually, countries reduced to ashes, often rebuild fast—if not divided by sectarian animosities, as was the case in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Iran is - remarkably - proving to be an entirely different beast: when others were merely surviving a giant, Iran appears to be able to compete with one.
One word: sanctions.
As with Russia, American Islamophobia and sanctions enforced a degree of technological autarky.
What just happened over the past 48 hours is the best illustration of this. You had the President of the United States issue a formal ultimatum: reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or we “obliterate” your power grid.
Trump issues a lot of ‘ultimatums”, which he has to walk back or moderate or compromise later. He is a very stupid man. And he shoots off his mouth. But because he is “President” people somehow assume either he is thinking or someone around him is thinking. Nope.
So, he threatens Iran, kidnaps Maduro in a sneak attack and…finds himself in one of those, “Oh my, now what?" situations. Delcy Rodriquez looks like a nice lady so he ends up arranging funds to rebuild Chavismo’s petro infrastructure. He controls the money. But at some time in the future, the Chavistas will get their revenge.
The Iranians know that the Americans cannot risk Iran overthrowing the Gulf Monarchies and closing the Gulf of Hormuz.
Iran’s response was essentially: we dare you, if you do this we’ll make all your Gulf allies uninhabitable within a week.
And, as we saw, Trump backed down: pretexting non-existent “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS” with Iran, he said his ultimatum no-longer applied (or, rather, became 5 days). Adding he now envisaged the Strait of Hormuz being “jointly controlled by me and the Ayatollah.” To the amusement of Iran’s diplomacy .
That, folks, is a textbook tactical victory. It is, remarkably, Iran demonstrating in this instance that it had escalation dominance over the United States of America. That is, the ability to credibly threaten consequences so severe that the US - for perhaps the first time since the Cold War - found it preferable to stand down.
That’s no skinny kid being locked in a locker dreaming of revenge fantasies. That’s the kid grabbing the bully’s wrist mid-shove and watching his face change.
Always beware skinny kids. Skinny kids face with big bullies often do real damage to win. So bullies will often times, threaten, then back off, hoping the smaller kid will turn to leave and they can attack from behind.
And it’s not the only tactical victory in this war so far. Take the episode over the Israeli attack on Iran’s South Pars gas facility. Iran had warned that if that happened U.S. allies in the region - including Israel - would face a symmetrical response.
And they delivered: famously devastating Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility - which produced roughly 20% of global LNG supply - and leading, according to Qatar themselves, to a $20 billion loss of annual revenue for the next 5 years (https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Qatar-to-Lose-20-Billion-Annual-Revenue-from-Iranian-Attacks-on-LNG.html).
Not only that but they also managed to hit Israel’s Haifa refinery one of the country’s most strategic and protected sites.
The result was Trump distancing himself from the South Pars attack, saying that Israel had “violently lashed out” unilaterally and that “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field.” Israel then said it wouldn’t strike Iran energy sites anymore
From where I stand, that’s another tactical victory. It is, at least, Iran demonstrating that is can fight back **symmetrically** against the U.S. and its allies. Not through asymmetric resistance with IEDs hidden in the roadside or traps hidden in the jungle, but eye for eye, and against some of the most heavily protected sites on the U.S.’s side.
Arnaud is, of course, correct but he might be misunderstood by his use of “symmetric” and “asymmetric”.
People often confuse “asymmetric” with guerrilla warfare when it really means using different tactics from your enemy. When Arnaud talks about fighting back “symmetrically” he means fighting back inflicting the same or greater degree of pain.
Iran does not have an air force; it does not have a navy, but it has strategic position, a huge supply of missiles and drones which the US cannot counter. And it has economic weapons. It does not need nuclear weapons when its main enemy Israel has nuclear energy sites, destruction of which would result in nuclear level devastation.
This is actually asymmetric. As in high school, if the bully punches with a fist, you must kick or throw, or use your elbows or knees or palm strikes.
That’s qualitatively different from any other adversaries the U.S. has directly fought in recent wars.
There’s plenty more, such as the pretty relevant fact that Iran has gained control of the single most strategic energy chokepoint on earth and the U.S. is finding it impossible to break that control.
To the point where Trump has been reduced to publicly begging China - of all countries - for help, which given Trump’s ego mustn’t have been easy to do. Only to be told no. By China. And by everyone else he asked.
Going back to high school, bullies usually have an audience and look for support from buddies. When they face real resistance. The more credible the resistance, the less willing the buddies who see the things escalating out of control and somebody getting hurt.
This is the topic of my latest article: how this is, in fact, the first genuine “multipolar war.”
Most wars are multipolar, involving allies, passive or active. This war is “multipolar” only in the context of the term as it is used to separate the Russian / Chinese /Iran concept of “multipolar” or “multicentric”.
First, in the narrow sense: because Iran is revealing itself to be a genuine pole of power - not a superpower, but an actor that cannot be submitted, which is all multipolarity is.
Vietnam was an actor that would not be submitted. So too Cuba. So too Afghanistan. This is less about “multipolarity” and more about independence and autonomy. Consider Venezuela. Consider Russia and China in these respects.
And second, because the war itself is accelerating multipolarity everywhere else: the U.S. has never been more isolated, never looked weaker and its security guarantees have never been more hollow.
The US seeks to exploit and plunder and reslave the world. Most countries would prefer independence and autonomy. “Multipolarity” is not about divvying up the world between the “Great Powers” — it is a concept of intercultural communication, respect, and freedom.
In my article I lay out the full scoreboard - military, economic, political - and explain why this war has already changed the world, regardless of how it ends.
Among my favorite animals—SKUNKS
But it helps if they are de-scented….LOL
We need help in getting new subscribers. Please crosspost, and feel free to post urls on other blogs or X or other platforms. Every time someone does that, I get a new subscriber.
"The problem with lying all the time: sooner or later, you lie about important things to yourself."
-Johnny Ringo
Unlike Re... Arnault, you are a very sharp blade, Julian, a contrarian empath with sound logic and integrity, like Berletic, and that's why we love you so much!
Also. as Larry Johnson correctly stated, "Mario (Nawfal) is a good indicator of the current status and level of mass media propaganda" LOL