How We Got to the Brink of World War III

Late last month, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk offered a stark warning regarding the current conflicts facing the world, namely in Ukraine and the Middle East, that many everyday Americans believe, but few in power are willing to say publicly: “We are sleepwalking our way into World War III with one foolish decision after the other.” With the war in Ukraine continuing to draw in ever-more U.S. resources, instability in the Middle East after Hamas’s attack on Israel, and China moving naval warships into Middle Eastern waters along with more aggression toward Taiwan, it is hard to disagree with Musk’s statement. While a larger war is far from certain, and God-willing peace will prevail, what is clear is that the world has entered a new era. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, neoconservatives and the Washington foreign policy class widely predicted that global trade and the erosion of national boundaries through organizations like the United Nations and European Union would see the end of large-scale global conflict. The 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama argued this point and was one of the most cited works during that time. Fukuyama and his fellow “experts” predicted that wealth created by democratic governments, backed by capitalism, would create one unified, global community. Free trade, free markets, and universal human rights would become the norm in this new utopia. That vision came crashing down with the 9/11 attacks followed by two decades of war in the Middle East and a series of horrific decisions by the ruling class that was supposed to bring about “the end of history.” Permitting China to join the World Trade Organization as a permanent member killed millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs and emboldened the Chinese Communist Party. American adventurism in the Middle East drained manpower and resources as well as crippled America’s international prestige. Meanwhile, NATO’s efforts to “westernize” former Soviet satellite states backfired, leading to the rise of Vladimir Putin. One bright spot since the turn of the millennium, in terms of international relations, was in fact the Trump presidency. Despite breathless predictions that he would instigate World War III, Trump was the first president in two generations under whom the United States entered no new wars or conflicts, Putin seized no additional territory, China was held in check, and the Middle East saw a real chance at lasting peace. Yet the “experts” ignored all this progress and predicted President Biden’s 2020 victory would reinvigorate and restore American integrity on the international stage – despite decades of Biden doing precisely the opposite of that in the Senate and as vice president. The fantasy that Biden would be a great foreign policy success story was soon shattered by his calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan and then Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden attempted to rally support for his failing presidency by promising that the American-led West would make Putin a “pariah” on the national stage and lead to the speedy defeat of Russian forces. Yet Russia is far from a pariah, with China, Iran, and several other nations continuing to conduct commerce with Russia in direct defiance of the United States. Meanwhile, support for Ukraine in the United States and throughout the West is beginning to wane. Hamas’s attack on Israel has further revealed that it is the United States and its allies, not only America’s enemies, that face real internal divisions. As terrorists murdered thousands of innocent Israelis, thousands of people marched in the streets throughout the West in support of the terrorists. Biden currently can’t even keep his own party together on sending support to Israel. The biggest beneficiary of all this chaos is China, who is using this moment to attempt to shift the global balance of power away from the West. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last month, Antoine Bondaz, a China expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, warned that Beijing is trying “to portray the U.S. as the factor of instability and China as a factor of peace. China’s goal is to present itself to the developing nations as an alternative—and as a more attractive alternative.” China has found fertile ground in many of these nations, in no small part due to the failed military adventurism of the U.S. political establishment. Disastrous wars, indiscriminate drone strikes, and ongoing military strife in multiple theaters have left deep lingering resentment across the developing world toward the U.S. To be sure, the United States still retains a strong military advantage in terms of overall force capabilities over China or any other nation. But America now has its attention spread across multiple theaters, creating potential weak spots that enemies could exploit. The U.S. deterrence factor is undoubtedly lower than it was even a few years ago. The U.S. is still heavily involved in Ukraine, and is now supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas. Israel has also exchanged rockets with Syria and Lebanon, and Iran’s involvement still threatens to turn that conflict into a wider Middle East war that would almost surely drag in more resources and perhaps even necessitate U.S. troop deployments. Meanwhile, China has dispatched six naval warships to the Middle East and is still eyeing Taiwan. With U.S. attention divided, Chinese President Xi Jinping could decide that now is a prime opportunity to make his move. In that scenario, the United States would be forced to either look incredibly weak by allowing Taiwan to fall or likely enter into open conflict with China. With U.S. forces engaged in multiple theaters of combat around the world, it would in effect mark the beginning of World War III. So much for the end of history. Andrew Shirley is a veteran speechwriter and AMAC Newsline columnist. His commentary can be found on X at @AA_Shirley.