Certain analysts and observers may assume that today’s situation in American government and politics has no precedent or parallel whatsoever. Which might be true, depending on how we interpret history. After all, history is a matter of subjective interpretation, not empirical methodology. Thus, if history is a matter of subjective interpretation and not a matter of empirical methodology, it follows that to assume that there is no precedent or parallel to today’s situation in American government and politics whatsoever is also a matter of subjective interpretation and not a matter of empirical methodology.
And if we were to suggest that based on our subjective interpretation of history we may perhaps infer even somewhat of a precedent and parallel to today’s situation in American government and politics from a perusal of history, we can perhaps go back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s to find that both a domestic affairs upheaval and a foreign policy pivot were happening at the exact same time. For instance, the Nixon Administration faced an onslaught from the liberal elements of government, media, and academia all while having to adapt and adjust to a multipolar world after Asian wars such as the one in Vietnam.
And even if the Nixon Administration fell short on the domestic front and could not overpower the liberal elements of government and media at that time, the foreign policy aspect of what went on set the precedent for what is going on now, in the sense that the United States faces a multipolar world after a set of Asian wars even today.
And how did Nixon adjust to an increasingly multipolar world after a set of Asian wars all while taking on the liberal media and liberal establishment in government at home? Nixon – with the help of Henry Kissinger – came up with what was known as “The Nixon Doctrine.”
In terms of the way it is worded, the “Nixon Doctrine” seems quite complex. But in practice, it really was not that complicated. In a sense, what the “Nixon Doctrine” amounted to was the formation of satellite states in the Middle East and Asia as opposed to direct intervention. And what that translated to in reality was making Iran a pawn in the Middle East and making China a pawn in Asia. Before the 1970’s, relations between the United States and China were very much hostile. But as they say, necessity is the mother of creation, and in due time, the United States created an “opening” to China in order to “contain” what was then Soviet expansion. Iran as an American satellite state was also a bulwark against Soviet expansion in the Middle East during this period of time. But of course, the challenge for the United States throughout the Cold War was that important pawns in the overall chess game with Moscow such as Iran and China faced popular uprisings that overthrew American satellite states.
And of course, the perception is that the United States does not deal with nationalist governments that arose from popular uprisings. But China in the 1970’s defied that rule. Moreover, official U.S. policy is that the United States does not support governments that arise out of a military coup. Yet, the United States supports Egypt. As a result, the United States is quite pragmatic in terms of picking up as many pawns as possible when it comes to the overall chess game with Moscow. Historically, or at least since the end of World War II, the sole aim and goal of American foreign policy was to win this huge chess game with Moscow. It did not matter whether a nationalist or military government was in power somewhere, as long as pawns could be picked off in the overall chess game with Moscow. Of course, the aim and goal changed to absurd global conquest under the neocons beginning in 2001. But as we stated, the neocons were an absurd lot of pathetic creatures who were entirely ignorant of American culture and history.
Hence, it could well be the case that “The Nixon Doctrine” is our compass and guide in terms of navigating today’s situation in government and politics which many consider to have no precedent and parallel in history when in reality, there is in fact a precedent and history, and when you consider it all, nothing has really changed since then. It is the same polarization internally and the same multipolar world that is becoming ever more multipolar abroad.
Adam A. Azim 