This is Beyond Mere Incompetence (w/ Robert Kagan) | The Bulwark Podcast

Robert Kagan asserts that the US has repeatedly learned (e.g., 1990s Iraq, 1999 Kosovo) that bombing alone cannot solve complex geopolitical problems. The ongoing Iran conflict is presented as the 'most abject demonstration' of this, where despite open skies and precision bombing, the US is 'more losing this war than winning it' because it lacks the ground invasion capabilities or willingness to commit necessary to achieve its stated goals.

We have learned before that bombing alone wasn't going to do it. And now we've had the most abject demonstration possible because it has been a a free fly pretty much... We've been able to bomb Iran at will... And yet here we are and I think we're, you know, we are still more losing this war than winning it because we can't finish it off with what is going to be required if we want to, which is a full-scale ground invasion of Iran.

The guest argues that the US's current foreign policy, characterized by unilateral action and a transactional approach, is actively destroying its alliance system. This is evident in the strained relationships with NATO allies and Asian partners. The US is seen as unreliable and self-interested, abandoning its historical role as a global protector, which forces allies to seek alternative security arrangements or align with rivals. The US did not consult NATO allies on the Iran operation, and then blames them for not participating.

we are uh we've basically ended the alliance with our NATO allies and therefore we will not be engaged I presume in the defense of Europe anymore... Our Asian allies are now basically deciding that they also have to go it alone. the the relationship with South Korea is is a is a total disaster... at the end of the day, we are going to be a very very very lonely very lonely country without without allies.

Kagan highlights that the US's actions in Iran are inadvertently strengthening its primary geopolitical rivals. China gains influence in the Persian Gulf, potentially undermining the petrodollar, while Russia benefits from a weakened NATO and US distraction. As the US withdraws or acts unilaterally, a power vacuum is created, which China is eager to fill, especially in critical energy regions. The destruction of NATO, a long-standing goal for Putin, is seen as a direct consequence of US unreliability and internal divisions.

we've given Putin the greatest prize that he could possibly have which is the destruction of NATO... The Chinese are uh improving their position globally at our expense... Iran is already talking about asking uh people to pay other countries to pay for transit through the strait in yuan in Chinese yuan which will basically you know strengthen the Chinese yuan against uh the American dollar and and undermine the petro dollar system.

The host and guest discuss the shift in US targeting strategy in Iran, moving from military facilities to civilian infrastructure, which they equate to war crimes. The intentional targeting of energy, water, and transportation infrastructure aims to make the Iranian people suffer to force government capitulation, a tactic similar to Russia's in Ukraine. This strategy seeks 'state failure' rather than traditional regime change, resulting in widespread humanitarian catastrophe.

the first attack on a major civilian infrastructure target intentionally uh was yesterday uh which was an attack on the B1 bridge near Thran... when you start going after the energy grid of a country that is a clear civilian uh that's an attack on a civilian target. This is what Putin is doing in Ukraine... we will go sailing off into the sunset having turned Iran into a smoking ruin where people are dying of starvation and disease and lack of access to water.

Kagan argues that US involvement in the Middle East was never primarily for direct US homeland security or oil, but to defend a global order and protect allies. The current 'America First' stance negates this historical rationale, making current interventions counterproductive. From WWII through the Cold War, US presence secured vital regions for allies and countered adversaries. The support for Israel, for example, was based on moral reasons and global responsibility, not direct national security. If the US no longer cares about global order or allies, its presence in the Middle East becomes a liability.

our involvement in the Middle East was entirely a consequence of the decision... to engage in World War II... it was a project of defending the world order... no one in the region... ever posed a direct threat to the security of the American homeland... If we're not interested in Europe... and if we're not interested in our Asian allies, what are we doing it for?