Paul%20Wolfowitz

The modern geopolitical landscape often feels like a series of disconnected crises, yet Scott Horton argues there is a singular, driving philosophy behind nearly four decades of American interventionism. As the director of the Libertarian Institute and author of Provoked, Horton provides a meticulous autopsy of the strategies that shifted Washington DC from a Cold War victor into a global hegemon seeking permanent dominance. This exploration is not merely a historical retrospective but an analysis of how specific doctrines, often penned by a small circle of neoconservatives, have led to the current state of perpetual conflict in Ukraine and Iran. The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the quest for total hegemony The root of contemporary American foreign policy lies in a 1992 document known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Penned by Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Zalmay Khalilzad, this defense planning guidance established a bold and aggressive posture for the post-Cold War era. Its core tenet was simple yet radical: the United States would not tolerate the rise of any rival power, anywhere on the globe, that could challenge its supremacy. This was not a plan for a United Nations world government, but for a Washington DC world government. Following the first Gulf War, this group of neoconservatives argued that the United States must remain the most dominant power on every continent. They sought to construct an international order where American power was permanent, effectively discouraging any other nation or group of nations from even attempting to balance against it. This led to the expansion of the American military footprint into the Middle East and Eastern Europe, regions that were previously under the Soviet Union sphere of influence. Horton argues that this strategy was driven by a mix of arrogance and the financial interests of the military-industrial complex, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict. How Washington triggered the catastrophe in Ukraine The current conflict in Ukraine is frequently presented as an unprovoked act of Russian aggression. However, Horton details a long history of NATO expansion that directly violated promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. During the fall of the Soviet Union, Western leaders including George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and Helmut Kohl repeatedly assured the Russians that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." These assurances were crucial in securing Russian cooperation during the reunification of Germany. Instead of integrating Russia into a new European security architecture, the United States pushed the military alliance directly to its borders. This was not a passive process; Horton points to the "Revolution of Dignity" in 2014 as a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew a democratically elected, pro-Russian government in Kyiv. He cites Victoria Nuland as a key figure in this intervention, describing a level of infiltration where American State Department officials were essentially managing the Ukrainian government at every level. From the Russian perspective, Ukraine had become a "sock puppet" colony of the United States, posing an existential threat that eventually led to the invasion of the Donbas and Crimea. The Clean Break and the shifting sands of the Middle East In the Middle East, the roadmap for war was provided by the Clean Break doctrine, a 1996 policy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu by David Wormser and Richard Perle. This strategy abandoned the Oslo Peace Accords in favor of total regional dominance through regime change. The goal was to weaken Israel's enemies by shattering the "arc of power" stretching from Tehran through Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Horton notes that the Iraq War was the first major step in this plan, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was actually a Sunni roadblock to Iranian influence. The neoconservatives believed a hairbrained scheme that overthrowing Hussein would lead to a pro-Western Shiite government that would abandon its ties to Iran. Instead, the war destroyed the only counterweight to Iran in the region, effectively handing Baghdad to Tehran on a silver platter. This failure did not lead to a reassessment of policy; instead, it led to further destabilization in Syria and Libya under Barack Obama, continuing the cycle of "coping with crumbling states" that remains the primary focus of American activity in the region. Challenging the Iranian nuclear narrative The obsession with Iran's nuclear program is another area where Horton argues the public has been fundamentally misled. He asserts that the United States and Israel have long known Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program. Instead, Iran maintains a safeguarded civilian nuclear program under the strict inspection of the IAEA. The conflict arises because the Israeli government views the *capability* to enrich uranium as identical to possessing a bomb. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to unprecedented levels of oversight, including pouring concrete into its plutonium-producing reactor at Arak. However, Benjamin Netanyahu convinced Donald Trump to abandon this deal and pursue a policy of "maximum pressure." This shift moved the goalposts from preventing a weapon to demanding that Iran give up its sovereign right to enrich uranium for any purpose. By calling Iran's bluff and launching strikes against its facilities, Trump essentially shattered the latent deterrent that had kept the peace for years, leading to a direct military confrontation that has exposed the bankruptcy of American conventional power in the Persian Gulf. The end of the American conventional empire The recent military exchanges between Iran and the United States have revealed a significant shift in the balance of power. Horton argues that Iran now possesses "escalation dominance" in the region. Their short and medium-range missile forces can overwhelm any existing U.S. missile defense systems, such as the Patriot. Iran has demonstrated its ability to reach out and touch every major U.S. base from Iraq to Oman, rendering these multi-billion dollar installations little more than high-priced hostage sites. This reality has forced U.S. allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to seek their own security arrangements with Tehran, realizing that Washington DC can no longer guarantee their safety. The American empire in the Middle East is effectively bankrupt, maintained only by political inertia and a refusal to admit defeat. Horton concludes that the only path to safety for the American people is to abandon the quest for global hegemony, close the overseas bases, and return to a policy of non-interventionism that prioritizes national security over the narrow interests of the military-industrial complex and foreign clients.