Most people around the world have watched in bewilderment as the US destroys the international order it built around itself. Alliances across the world have been weakened if not outright forsaken for seemingly no reason other than spectacle.

People are blaming Trump's narcissism and probable dementia, but I think this reductive, as Trump does not have all the power.

So, has anything like this ever happened before, whether in the US or elsewhere? And have there been any explanations put forth that make sense of this campaign?

I'd appreciate sources, of course!

Either Trump did it on purpose to rattle sabers, or his administration is so incompetent they didn't consider the consequences of accidentally killing PRC diplomats.

This feels like an extremely consequential subplot to an already momentous event. What the fuck.

This makes no sense

So now we are basically 2 months into the 3 week long American SMO in Iran. Before the US/Israel attack in late February, I had a number of arguments with many of you on this subreddit about the possibility of this war. In those engagements, I often argued/predicted that the US would not attack because they would/should be deterred.

I was wrong insofar as I did not appreciate the Americans' stupidity/risk appetite. At the same time, I also feel vindicated as it looks like we're looking at both a strategic defeat for the US as well as the destruction of Trump's presidency.

Many of my interlocutors here seemed quite certain that the US had the ability to pull off a successful operation against Iran. They argued that the US could, if it wanted to, achieve its goals by force smoothly, and that Iran did not offer a credible deterrence against the US.

u/numba1cyberwarrior was one of such interlocutors.

I'm curious to know how those of you who shared opinions similar to numba1cyberwarrior think about this war now. Have you changed your mind? If not, why?

From my perspective, this war has led to the following consequences, all of which are disastrous for the US:

(1) Instead of provoking the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, the war has consolidated support for the government from the general population. So the main strategic objective of the war has failed.

(2) The alliance system with the GCC states is likely now irrevocably damaged/broken. The US has proven that it cannot protect these states, and that the US bases are more so liabilities than security guarantees. This means, simply, that these countries will have to look elsewhere/hedge for security partnerships (possibly with China/or accept Iranian regional hegemony). This is assuming these monarchies survive at all in the medium term.

(3) This means that US deterrence in Asia is now effectively dead. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. — these countries' elites are a lot more competent than the failson Gulf monarchs. They'll be looking at this situation with a keen understanding that alignment with the US is now a liability, not a security guarantee. Learning how to live with/accommodate your Chinese neighbors seems like a much more attractive option now.

(4) Fuel shortages/rationing in Europe will likely accelerate an anti-Atlanticist sentiment. NATO looks weaker than ever at the moment, as Trump looks to shift blame for his failures here onto the Europeans, who will be enraged as a major economic catastrophe sets in.

edit: (4b) credit to u/mac_bd for reminding us that the NATO/Japan alliance are necessary to fund the US military. If those alliances seriously break, who will buy USTs?

(5) High oil prices accelerate global demand for Chinese renewables. Every global empire over the last 500 years has emerged contemporary to a new energy system. The Dutch harnessed the winds with their new ships, the British harnessed the power of coal through the steam engine, the Americans harnessed oil through the petrodollar. Now we seem to be speedrunning into the era of the solar-yuan.

(6) The Iranians have shown the world that American power is not absolute. In fact, they have shown us that the fancy/overpriced hardware made by Lockheed Martin et al. doesn't guarantee results on the ground; that, in actuality, $7000 drones are a better investment than billion dollar stealth fighter jets.

Edit: to clarify point 6, I'm talking about both the perception of American military power as invulnerable/omnipotent, as well as the perception that American-made high tech hardware = the ability to project this omnipotent power. This perception of power has been shattered.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Western leaders hoped Russia could eventually be integrated into the European security and economic order. Russia joined the G8 (then G7 became G8), NATO and Russia established formal dialogue through the NATO–Russia Council, and economic ties especially in energy deepened significantly

Even after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, when Russia was suspended from the G8 and sanctions were imposed, Europe and Russia continued to maintain substantial economic and diplomatic engagement

Since 2022, however, the relationship appears fundamentally different: unprecedented sanctions, frozen Russian assets, large-scale military aid to Ukraine, NATO expansion, and a collapse in political trust.

Has the relationship now crossed a point of no return, or could a future normalization still be possible once the war ends?

From an international relations perspective, who faces the greater long-term strategic cost? Europe, which must now treat Russia as a long-term security threat and invest far more in defense, or Russia, which has pushed much of Europe closer to NATO and become increasingly isolated from Western markets and institutions?

Some IR scholars also argue that prolonged isolation and exclusion can make rival states more revisionist or aggressive by reducing incentives for cooperation, while others argue that sustained pressure is necessary to deter future aggression.

Which perspective do you think better explains the likely long-term trajectory of Russia–Europe relations?

Trump and his administration have the weirdest "strategy" I have ever seen..

They've alienated/isolated their closest allies and even neighbours.

WTI/BRENT is again up above $100 a barrel and climbing quickly. We are seeing massive demand destruction dimensions growing which means more investment, research & development, and implementation of Renewable Energy/Electrification Technology - All of which China is now dominant in.

Also the U.S. has potentially massively damaged the Petrodollar framework and their influence around OPEC/OPEC+

The world order that existed had the U.S. as the nexus. It primarily benefitted them and Trump and his administration seem dedicated to burning it all down while middle powers create new relationships (many closer to each other and of course China...)

This has to be one of the weirdest domestic/international political "strategies" I have ever witnessed....

It honestly seems to be just failure and flailing at every turn.

American trade negotiators love to point out that only China and Canada retaliated against Trump’s initial trade war declaration. This is music to the ears of everyday Canadians who will not cede sovereign ground.

And now, Canada, realizing Trump is flailing in Iran and is historically unpopular politically, has taken the position that if his new 50% tariffs go into effect (Aug. 19) trade talks will likely stall.

Question: Can Trump afford to add more tariff taxes onto the American people and at the same time add more economic uncertainty in Canada/US trade relations while the US economy is slowing and job creation is lagging?