Editor’s Note: This article, which discusses possible consequences of a U.S.–Iran war, was written prior to American bombings of Iran Saturday night.
One unfortunate consequence of America’s hyperactive global security role since the end of World War II has been Washington’s acquisition of allies and clients around the world. Such relationships invariably involve the United States in quarrels that may be pertinent to those security dependents but would otherwise not be relevant to Washington. That factor has entangled the U.S. in an assortment of unnecessary and unwise military ventures.
It is hard to imagine that Washington would have launched its military interventions in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Yemen based on a sober assessment of genuine American interests. We intervened because of the belief (well-founded or otherwise) that a client faced the prospect of defection or collapse if Washington did not take action.
That mentality still guides (and distorts) U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, there is a growing number of dangerous situations facing the United States that pertain to Washington’s clients. Habitually simmering tensions between North and South Korea show few signs of dissipating. The same is true regarding tensions between China and Taiwan. Beijing has become increasingly assertive in displaying its growing military capabilities in Taiwan’s neighborhood, but Taiwanese leaders seem as committed as ever to preserving the island’s de facto independence.
Meanwhile, Poland, the Baltic republics, and NATO’s other East European members have adopted very hostile, hardline policies toward their large Russian neighbor. They are leading the campaign for imposing yet another round of onerous economic sanctions on Moscow. Those countries also have been among the most enthusiastic NATO members that favor surging military assistance to Ukraine and giving Kyiv membership in the Alliance.
Those situations are just some of the quarrels that could trigger a new crisis for the U.S. The ongoing fighting between Washington’s ally, Israel, and an increasingly angry and abused Palestinian population is yet another confrontation that could easily spiral out of control. All of those flashpoints also have high potential to entangle America because of official or informal security commitments that Washington has made to client states.
Two other armed conflicts that are currently raging have an even greater potential to escalate and perhaps even engulf the U.S. in a third world war. One began in February 2022 when Moscow escalated its already ugly territorial spat with Kiev over Crimea and the Donbass and launched a much larger invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. and its NATO allies responded by providing financial and military aid to Kyiv. Indeed, NATO resorted to using Ukraine as an outright military proxy to weaken Russia and knock that country out of the ranks of the world’s great powers.
The other conflict that could trigger World War III began this month when Israel launched a surprise attack against Iran to decapitate its military leadership and damage nuclear facilities. Both sides have struck numerous high-profile targets and wreaked havoc in urban areas. Last week, President Donald Trump urged all Iranians to evacuate the capital, Tehran, leaving many analysts with the impression that the U.S. was about to attack.
The U.S. already is entangled in both of these extremely volatile and dangerous conflicts. Worse, the republic could easily be drawn into the fighting in either arena as a full-fledged belligerent. Political and military leaders in both Ukraine and Israel seem increasingly determined to pursue their own policies regardless of Washington’s official preferences or words of caution.
Recently, Ukrainian forces were able to smuggle 117 deadly drones deep inside Russian territory and conduct Operation Spiderweb—a series of coordinated attacks on four air bases housing a significant portion of the Kremlin’s strategic bomber fleet. Estimates about the extent of the resulting damage vary widely, but there is little doubt that the Russian military suffered a humiliating setback. Indeed, Kiev and its backers are calling the attack “Russia’s Pearl Harbor.”
One persistent element of doubt is what role, if any, the U.S. government played in this episode. The Trump administration contended that Ukraine acted without even notifying the White House, much less seeking authorization. Pro-Ukraine media outlets, however, contend that the administration was informed. Either scenario would be troubling. Empowering a client state to conduct military actions against the homeland of a rival great power that has nuclear weapons would imply an alarming degree of recklessness in U.S. policy. Moscow would have every right to consider U.S. assistance to Ukraine in conducting an assault on Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal as an act of war by the United States. However, the alternative scenario is not much better. A lack of direct U.S. involvement might enable Washington to escape legal culpability and Russian reprisal, but the idea that a U.S. client state had gone rogue and acted on its own against a major power would be extremely worrying.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
A similar problem has arisen with respect to Israel’s attacks on Iran. On the eve of those strikes, Trump insisted that he favored continued negotiations with Iran regarding that country’s nuclear program. Shortly after the attacks, the White House created the impression that it did not know about Israel’s air assault in advance. Hours later, though, Trump boasted that he knew the specific day the attacks would begin, and he praised them. In any case, the U.S. actively helped Israel fend off Iranian counterattacks, moving this country closer to belligerent status. Moreover, Trump has increasingly given reason to think that the U.S. might join Israel’s military offensive. He even appeared to go beyond his demand that Tehran end its nuclear enrichment efforts entirely, calling for nothing less than Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”
The principal question about the recent developments with respect to both Ukraine and Israel is whether those clients are openly defying Washington’s wishes or have become so effective at manipulating their patron that they effectively control the policy agenda. Neither situation offers much comfort to people who want U.S. foreign policy to reflect the best interests of the American people. Both alternative scenarios create a “wag the dog” phenomenon in which a foreign client state effectively determines U.S. policies—potentially at great cost and risk to America.
America’s current leadership elite seems unwilling to face a disagreeable reality. Accumulating ever more political and military clients is not a smart policy. Except in those rare instances when a client state occupies a vital strategic location or provides an exceptionally rare, valuable product, the client is more often a liability than an asset. Indeed, as should be apparent with respect to Ukraine and Israel, sometimes the relationship can become a potentially catastrophic liability for the United States.
