The Problem with War No One Talks About

There’s no shortage of reasons for people to hate war.  From the mass casualties to the displacement of civilians to the impact on the economy to the famine it can cause, war causes no shortage of problems for humanity.  However, there is an issue that most people don’t talk about when discussing war.

Wars don’t just produce winners, losers, and stalemates.  They also change countries, redefine their culture, build new alliances, and change national or international politics.  War has the potential to destabilize order and create new crises.  For that reason, it is worth discussing how that can (or could) change the political landscape.

After the United States removed Saddam Hussein, the country fell into a power vacuum with a shaky democracy.  As a result, Iran started setting up shop and backing militias that served its interests.  It also managed to build a relationship with Iraq through shared culture and religion.  

On the other end, the terrorist group ISIS rose in the absence of Saddam’s leadership and used hardship in the country to gain supporters.  As a result, his removal also led to the rise of a major terrorist organization in the region that the US also later had to fight.  Unintentionally, the US created an ally for one of its greatest enemies, and a new monster it also had to defeat just by eliminating one of its longtime enemies in the region.

Another example of strange relationships being forged during war would be the Napoleonic wars.  During the war with Napoleon, Prussian, Austrian, and Russian leadership had to come together as allies to oppose his efforts and stop him from conquering Europe.  However, all three nations were historic enemies so once the shared threat was gone, so was their unity.  War can create temporary alliances, but once the threat is gone the status quo will return.

The point is that war doesn’t just result in immediate pain.  It also causes regional crises and destabilize relationships among the populace.  It can also cause weird friendships that don’t last or get replaced when the moment arises.  So, it may be worth considering how current conflicts are already changing the region.

In Iran, the death of the previous Supreme Leader led to a power vacuum among leadership.  Since there’s no confirmation that the current Supreme Leader is even alive anymore, it seems that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is taking over the government and exerting even more control on the government than it already had.  As a result, the pretense of being an authoritarian theocracy is evaporating as Iran is about to become a military dictatorship with a theocratic front.

Meanwhile, there are even further divides in the Middle East.  With Iran’s attacks on regional states, already weak relationships with the country are gone as everyone (deservedly so) hates them.  Also, this is impacting other alliances as the UAE left OPEC, helping grow a rivalry between them and Saudi Arabia.  In short, the Iran War has shifted the balance of power in the middle east and made the Iranian Government even more authoritarian.

Another conflict that has potential to reshape the world order is the Ukraine conflict.  Obviously, what’s happening with Russia matters to Europe as Putin has claimed that many of the regions border it are historic Russian territory, trade between Russia and Western Europe is at an all time low which is impacting multiple national economies, and this is causing infighting across NATO as debates come on who should pay for how much of the military alliance.  So a former superpower attacking a country trying to join the biggest military and economic alliances on the globe shaking up their continent’s economy isn’t surprising.

What is surprising is the possible fallout.  Russia has seen its economy stagnate, especially in its capital city, and become increasingly dependent on China.  There has been a push for Russia and China to join forces, but that has resulted in Russia becoming a junior partner as China is starting to push its influence more into the country and seems to have plans for what it wants to do with Russian territory.  With that happening and the decline in trade, Russia is seeing its influence and connection to Europe shrink.  So it's looking to be another “once great empire” with limited influence and continued military defeats against Ukraine could result in it being seen as not much of a threat to European nations.

The elimination of a European threat may be seen as a positive, but like Napoleon’s downfall, the end of a shared threat brings about old rivalries.  After all, both Ukraine and Poland are historic rivals who have a shared hatred of Russia.  When their common threat disappears, how long might they stay as allies?

This is an interesting question.  Poland intends to have the largest land military in Europe by 2030 while Ukraine has been leading the way in drone technology.  If those countries found themselves both wanting to dominate Eastern European cultural influence, they may find themselves in a Cold War.  So one must wonder what will happen if Russia is defeated like the West wants.

So, will Iran become the Middle Eastern North Korea?  Will Russia become a vassal state to China?  Will Poland and Ukraine go to war?  Honestly, there’s no way to make predictions like that.

There are many factors that can change the outcome of wars, politics, and culture shifts in a region.  There’s the desire to always assume the worst case scenario, but that’s usually unlikely.  Time will tell what will actually happen.  All of this is merely factors to consider in our current world.

Which highlights the actual point of this blogpost.  Though war has obviously terrible aspects, the long term effects it can have on domestic and international politics is staggering.  As a result, it reshapes the world we live in as friends become enemies, enemies become friends, and enemies become even worse enemies.  Time will tell what our conflicts today will lead to, but most likely they’ll lead to conflicts of tomorrow.

Is Marco Rubio Running the White House?

The headline is extremely clickbaity, but it’s a question that might be worth asking.  Since being confirmed as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio has been heavily involved in some of the most important international political events of the still developing 21st century, and his influence only seems to be expanding with each passing day as more situations globally keep developing.  It might be worth investigating how much influence he has, then, and how his role continues to develop.

So to start off with, a little background on Marco Rubio.  Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rubio would go on to serve on the Senate Committee on Intelligence (where he was the acting chair and then ranking member) and the Committee on Foreign Relations.  He also served on the Committee on Appropriations, which, while not directly dealing with foreign affairs, does have full jurisdiction over all discretionary spending and military spending constitutes 56% of the federal discretionary budget.  So he was very heavily influential in government legislative committees that focused on foreign and military affairs.

Of note, he had a particularly prominent history of supporting military intervention in foreign affairs.  In the senate, he supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, supported giving ammunition to Syrian rebels during the civil war under Bashar al-Assad, pushed against establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba during the Obama administration, called for revolution in Venezuela and met with an opposition leader that was accused of attempting a coup by the Maduro government, supported increased military ties with China’s neighbors (and enemies), etc.  Of note, during the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the candidate who called for use of military force third most out of all of them according to the CATO institute (Trump was dead in the center between most calls and least calls).  So he has a history of wanting to use military force to accomplish America’s foreign policy objectives.

This is noticeable because since he’s become Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (the first to hold both positions at the same time since Henry Kissinger back in the 70s), the Trump administration has taken a noticeably more hawkish tone since its first term.  Similarly, many of Rubio’s policy agendas when he was in the senate have been coming to fruition.  During his tenure as Secretary of State, the US has captured now former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, placed an oil embargo on Cuba while talking about regime change, and placed steeper tariffs on China while pushing stronger military relations with Japan.  In addition, the US has pushed to take Greenland and has created the largest military buildup in the middle east around since the Iraq War due to a growing possibility of war with Iran (a country which Senator Rubio supported sanctions on).  So it seems like much of Rubio’s agenda in the senate is being reflected by the Trump administration.

Now, one could argue that Trump possibly changed his mind during his four years out of the office.  Besides, many of these countries are ones he clashed with during his first term as President.  After all, he did take out the leader of Iran’s Quds force, struck Syria, and recognized Venezuela’s opposition leader as the real head of the country’s government during his first term.  He’s also been a long term critic of China so being strong against them isn’t all that surprising.  Therefore, Trump’s actions are not definitive proof that Rubio is in complete control of the US’s foreign policy.

However, the fact that Rubio is getting most of his foreign policy agenda as a senator made a priority by the current administration does show the impact and influence he is having.  Likewise, he has publicly disagreed with his boss, noticeably when he downplayed military options to take Greenland when Trump refused to rule that out and took a more collaborative tone towards working with Europe than did JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.  The fact that he is able to push back on those with higher authority than himself when disagreement has led to firing of officials in the past shows that Rubio may be in a safe position.

Similarly, there have been reports about Trump’s dependence on those closest to him.  There was a saying that during Trump’s first term, the last person he spoke with was usually the one he agreed with at the time.  Keeping in mind that Trump had never been elected before, it’s not surprising that he wanted to take advice from people with more experience than himself in the governmental field.  However, Rubio was not a direct member of Trump’s administration during his first term so that means he has a lot more opportunity to influence the President.

The final point to consider is the weakness of Trump’s ability to accomplish his domestic agenda.  Noticeably, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has struggled to get legislation passed, making an inactivity record, which makes it hard to pass domestic policy since most of that is in the hands of the legislature.  Similarly, a lot of the early policies of the Trump administration was supported by investigations from the Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative championed by Elon Musk.  However, Musk is no longer part of the administration so that initiative seems no longer to be front and center in Trump’s administration.  Increasingly, Trump’s agenda is moving away from what requires congress’s help and is becoming more focused on how he can assert himself internationally.  That means that much of the Trump administration’s second term will be defined by Marco Rubio.

In fairness, there’s a saying that leadership is about getting the right people in the right positions.  If Rubio is directing the White House’s current agendas, then that isn’t a statement of weakness on the President since his goal is to lead the executive branch and make sure the right people are doing the job he requires of them.  However, this blog post should show how much influence Secretary of State Marco Rubio has and how much he can shape the direction of the president.  So it is likely he might be the one actually determining US policy, at least internationally, going forward.  Regardless, whatever his influence, a biography on him will likely be a fascinating read, and a must for anyone who wants to understand US foreign policy in the 21st century.

Venezuela was Just the Beginning

On January 3rd, Americans and Venezuelans woke up to the announcement that U.S. special forces had captured Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro.  This was met with many opinions, but mostly shock as an action like that rarely happened outside of war and the U.S. was not at war with Venezuela at the time.  Now, because Maduro was arrested on drug trafficking charges, one may think that this was an isolated event based on conflict that had been brewing between the two countries for sometime.  However, if we look at events going on in the world, we’ll see that this might be part of a growing strategy realignment for the U.S., one that suggests what happened in Venezuela was only the first step.

Since the downfall of Maduro, the U.S. has been getting more heavily involved in international affairs and setting up possible regime change.  The Trump administration’s attempt to take control of Greenland is probably the most publicly well known example, but that’s hardly the only one.  Examples of Trump’s growing involvement in foreign affairs include:

• Iran-at this time, the U.S. is providing support to protesters, engaging in nuclear talks, and considering military strikes 

• Cuba-the Trump administration placed an oil blockade on the country at a time of economic decline and following major protests

• Russia-the U.S. let the START treaty, which put limits on nuclear weapons, expire, 

• Somaliland-the United States has defended Israel’s right to recognize Somaliland, a breakaway state from Somalia.  Of note, Israel is the first country to do so

  
  

Keeping in mind the U.S. is the world’s largest empire, it’s not surprising it’s involved with so many different world events and is trying to influence foreign governments.  However, this seems at odds with the Trump Presidency because in his first term, he was the first President since Jimmy Carter to not start a new war and set the original timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan (which was disregarded by the Biden Administration).  Likewise, this is still a break from his predecessors as Obama and Biden sought to improve relations with Iran and Cuba, and Biden’s administration even increased the bounty on Maduro’s head yet didn’t go through with the military capture.  So what could be motivating the change?

To put simply, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.  The two countries have been growing their influence around the world and seem to have plans to build (or in Russia’s case, rebuild) a global empire that threatens U.S. dominance as the world superpower.  There are many actions they are taking that put the U.S. influence at risk and increase their potential power, such as:

• Europe and Canada-China has been seeking to expand their influence financially and politically with the U.S.’s historic allies, creating division and serving as a potential long term threat to the U.S. and national liberty

• Iran-80% of Iranian oil exports go to China and both China and Russia have been supplying weapons to the country

• Cuba-Interestingly, Cuba has a history of supporting communist groups globally, and had strong relations with Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez.  In regards to China and Russia specifically though, both countries have provided trade and aid to Cuba, and China was accused of building advanced listening posts on the island to spy on the U.S.

• Venezuela-Under Maduro, China is Venezuela’s largest purchaser of oil and Venezuela sits on the world’s largest oil reserves.  Longterm, that’s a strategic threat to the U.S. if it’s helping fuel China’s military

• Nuclear testing-Russia had already suspended its participation in the START treaty back in 2023 and had been accused of violations by the state department even in 2025.  However, the Trump administration also mentioned China performing secret, underground nuclear tests back in 2020 as justification for letting it expire as well.  China wasn’t a party in the START treaty, but their handling of nuclear weapons makes the one with Russia out of date and stresses the need for new treaties that include both countries

• Africa-there was a series of coups across former French colonies.  Russia has been using them as an opportunity to grow its economic and military power, even supporting some for Moscow’s benefit, moving Africa away from France and towards Russia.  Also, China has its only foreign military base in Djibouti, near Somaliland

  
  

That’s only a drop of international involvement from China and Russia that’s been stirring tensions around the world.  From China’s Belts and Roads Initiative to increased investments in Brazil in Argentina (which the latter was recently bailed out by the U.S.), to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin going on trips to former Soviet territories and allies, it seems that both countries are getting more heavily involved in international affairs and trying to shore up resources and support.

With current events being what are, that puts a lot of actions by the U.S. in context, from seeking to build an anti-missile defense system that would include territory in Greenland to regime change to Secretary Marco Rubio’s speech calling for good European-US relations based on shared culture at the Munich Conference to increased involvement in Latin America and much, much more, the U.S. seems to be drawing lines in a new, growing cultural and political war with the two largest countries on the Asian continent.  Only time will tell what this leads to, but the events in Venezuela foreshadow a growing international divide and may be the start of a new political reality.