The US has done an excellent job at reinvigorating alliances across the globe. AUKUS is a bold newcomer,but in the background the US has also significantly strengthened links with South Korea (a standout US achievement),and the Philippines (a complete turn around).
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Joe Biden.Alex Ellinghausen
In Europe,once neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland now accept with gratitude the significant obligations that come with NATO membership,on the basis that the US underwrites the credibility of NATO’s commitment to come to the aid of any member who is attacked.
But alarmingly,three current developments raise the question of whether this polarised global order – of which Australia is a cheerleader – may be little more substantive than the paint on facades of a Potemkin village.
The flaw increasingly seems to be that the US’ absolute belief in its military might is unfettered by a clear calculation of its national interests at stake,or the limitations imposed by domestic support.
This has become characteristic of US engagement. Unequivocal military commitment,followed by hedging and ultimately abandonment when the military adventure is no longer politically sustainable. The US is all in,until it is not. That can be devastating for its allies who cannot simply leave as the US can,and increasingly does.
Ukraine,the West’s favouritecause celebre,is in great danger as a result of Russian aggression and Western encouragement followed by indifference. Now,even under President Joe Biden,US support for Ukraine’s war with Russia is tenuous. And then there is the possibility of a Trump presidency. Ukraine’s military prospects are bleak. Russia has survived and will likely emerge stronger and emboldened.
And then there’s impoverished Yemen. Three months after on shipping in the Red Sea,the attacks continue to disrupt global trade.
The failure of the US is evident and embarrassing given the Houthis have only an odd assortment of often antiquated missiles and drones. It evidences weakness of the States’ will if not capability.
Finally,Israel. Regardless of views on the merit or otherwise of the US’ initial unconditional support for Israel’s action in Gaza,current US hand wringing represents a major backflip that will satisfy no-one,while alarming every ally they have so skilfully nurtured.
In this context,prospect of direct military engagement with Iran may strengthen US resolve. The US has unfinished business with Iran from the hostage crisis in 1979,as well as attacks by Iranian-backed militia on its forces in Iraq.
But even with its arch-enemy,US calculations are not clear-cut about whether or to what extent to support Israel in a fight with Iran.
The US has its own vulnerabilities. Indeed,Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to attack US forces in Iraq directly and through proxy militia. For example,when the US killed Qassem Soleimani,an Iranian Commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp in 2020,Iran selectively targeted US forces in Iraq,even giving advanced warning of the attacks. It was a calibrated demonstration of its ability to strike US forces in Iraq at will.
However,there is more than the region at stake. The US cannot afford to falter.
Forget the embarrassment of the US strategic miscalculation of its project in Afghanistan and its subsequent stumbling withdrawal. That pales in insignificance compared to decisions of support for Israel. If the US can turn from its oft declared unconditional support for Israel,especially against a national foe like Iran,which of its allies can feel secure?
The answer is uncomfortable for Australia,Japan,Korea,the Philippines,AUKUS and even NATO.
In the West,and especially in Australia,where there is a tremendously positive view of the US supported by history,culture and values,a globally polarising narrative centred on a newish Axis of Evil of China,Russia and Iran,speaks to an appreciative audience,particularly among the political and policy elite. So profound is that effect that Australia is a key part of the vanguard.
But everything is premised on the US continuing to believe in the narrative it has so effectively promoted,and backing it with US blood and treasure.
The Houthis have shown that even their impoverished and hotchpotch drone and missile capabilities are difficult to defeat. The western Pacific is far from the US mainland. China is a world leader in drone production and technology. Any conflict between the US and China in China’s backyard is bound to involve carnage on a level hard to imagine.
The middle of such a conflict is not the ideal time for the US to more carefully consider the extent of its national interests at stake,or to properly understand the limitations of its domestic support,but that is now clearly a possibility.
These are issues best considered before committing to uncompromising strategies that may not be sustainable,but the US repeatedly failing to do so until it is too late is undermining its credibility.
Australia’s AUKUS advocates seem determined to dismiss this possibility,but they could do worse than discuss their confidence in US commitment with former allies and leaders in Iraq,Afghanistan,Ukraine and potentially even Israel.
David Livingstone is a former Australian diplomat and an international security and strategy specialist. He served as deputy head of mission in Iraq between 2011 and 2012.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own..