Not-so-special agents exercising agency in troubled times

What have we been looking at over the course of the past week?
Yes, we have been watching, horror-struck, as two sovereign states unleashed fire and death upon each other's populations. Israel pre-emptively, Iran in self-defence, both have entered into a state of war.
Given the geostrategic fragility of the Middle East, this is alarming. Even more alarming, however, is that the United States appears (at the time of writing) to be seriously contemplating joining the war at Israel's side.
So, this past week has been a week of violence and dread. A week of fear.
But, it has also been a week of agency. Agency, as in "action or intervention producing a particular effect" is a crucial attribute of geopolitical power.
A sovereign state without the will and the means to act, to intervene, with high levels of confidence that the nett effect of its intervention will accord with its expectations, is not a geopolitically significant power.
It might be assumed that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, France, and the Peoples Republic of China — would all be possessors of geopolitically significant agency.
The veto power wielded by each of the five permanent members is, presumably, an acknowledgement of their ability to disturb the peace of the world unilaterally and seriously. Of their agency.
Except that, in the 21st century, only two of the five permanent members, the USA and the Russian Federation, have demonstrated significant geopolitical agency.
The Americans have invaded and conquered (if only for a little while) Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has invaded and occupied roughly a third of Ukraine's territory, but Ukraine continues to rule the rest.
Now, it could be convincingly argued that these invasions and occupations, far from being examples of geopolitical agency, are actually demonstrations of American and Russian weakness.
In the American case especially, the failure to secure the anticipated effects of its Middle Eastern interventions called into question its status as ''the world's sole remaining superpower''.
Ditto, in regard to the Russian Federation. The Russian President Vladimir Putin's confident expectation that the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, would fall to his armoured columns in less than a week proved to be wildly misplaced. Three years, and one million Russian dead later, Kyiv remains free.
And the other permanent members? What of their agency?
In this century, neither the UK, nor France, have attempted to act or intervene unilaterally. Indeed, their capacity to do so must be seriously doubted.
After all, if the UK and France were in possession of genuine geopolitical agency they would have confronted Vladimir Putin with steel, not protests.
Not that they were permitted to do otherwise. Until the arrival of Trump, it was a rock-solid American policy that the movers-and-shakers of Europe: the UK, Germany, France and Italy; must never be permitted to acquire the military strength to act independently of the US.
The European states were never to become agents in their own right. Hardly surprising, when you think about it. Twice in the 20th century, just one of those powers, Germany, took on the whole world – and came within an ace of winning.
But what about China? Aren't geopoliticians touting the People's Republic as the next global superpower? Isn't the Chinese dragon seen as Uncle Sam's understudy, just waiting to huff-and-puff its firepower on the world stage?
Well, China is certainly building up a massive military force. It already boasts the world's largest and most up-to-date navy, and the People's Liberation Army currently has more than 2 million "active personnel".
The thing is, neither the Chinese army, nor the Chinese navy, has been in a real fight since 1979 – when the Vietnamese kicked their ass. Unlike the Americans and the Russians, the Chinese cannot call upon troops who know what it's like to go to war.
No-one on the planet knows how the Chinese armed forces will perform in the face of a determined enemy ( such as Taiwan) and it's difficult to avoid the impression that China's leaders are in no real hurry to find out.
Though it vexes the five permanent members beyond measure, it is Israel that best exemplifies geopolitical agency.
And it will likely continue to do so – right up until it runs out of American ammunition.
■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Otago Daily Times

9 hours ago

• Otago Daily Times

'She's wrong': Trump contradicts spy boss on Iran nuclear programme

US President Donald Trump said on Friday (local time) that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey. "She's wrong," Trump said. In March, Gabbard testified to Congress that the US intelligence community continued to believe that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon. "The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon," she said. On Friday, Gabbard said in a post on the social media platform X that: "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." She said the media had taken her March testimony "out of context" and was trying to "manufacture division." The White House has said Trump will weigh involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict over the next two weeks. On Tuesday, Trump made similar comments to reporters about Gabbard's assessment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified a week of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets by saying Tehran was on the verge of having a warhead. Iran denies developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment programme is only for peaceful purposes. In March, Gabbard described Iran's enriched uranium stockpile as unprecedented for a state without such weapons and said the government was watching the situation closely. She also said that Iran had started discussing nuclear weapons in public, "emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus." A source with access to US intelligence reports told Reuters that the assessment presented by Gabbard has not changed. They said US spy services also judged that it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could hit a target of its choice. Some experts, however, believe it could take Iran a much shorter time to build and deliver an untested crude nuclear device, although there would be no guarantee it would work. Trump has frequently disavowed the findings of US intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have charged - without providing proof - are part of a "deep state" cabal of US officials opposed to his presidency. Gabbard, a fierce Trump loyalist, has been among the president's backers who have aired such allegations. The Republican president repeatedly clashed with US spy agencies during his first term, including over an assessment that Moscow worked to sway the 2016 presidential vote in his favour and his acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials.

NZ Herald

10 hours ago

• NZ Herald

David Seymour: I went to Oxford to test my beliefs and learned a sad thing about NZ

Is it a prank? We think it's real. Okay, then, but we can't use taxpayer money. That conversation is how I ended up debating at Oxford Union. The question of the debate was that 'no one can be illegal on stolen land'. It was a clever moot, tapping into colonisation and immigration. What Government has the right to tell would-be migrants they can't come, when every inch of the planet has been fought over at some time? I went to test my beliefs that human rights are universal, that we should stop searching the past for reasons to doubt one another and focus more on where we're going than where we've been. I think those beliefs held up well, but I learned something sad about our country, too. Every Thursday in semester time, the Union invites guests to debate. Most people don't realise Lange was one of six or eight debaters. His speech, and the uranium line, obliterated the others. I had a student and a couple of American 'immigration enforcement experts' on my team. On the other side was the president of the Union, an Australian senator, an Oxford academic, and someone best described as Noam Chomsky's daughter. At the end of the debate, the audience divides, going through one door or another to register their vote for or against the motion, like Parliaments of old. The president of the Union opened, saying our team of white guys in tuxedos had 'something in common', that all borders are drawn in blood, and that New Zealand 'invites, exploits, then hunts' migrants. Since she came in an Alice in Wonderland dress with a two-metre hoop skirt, though, you can't help but like her. I think she was in on the joke. The Australian senator said 'white immigration' to Australia is unlawful, then described her own migration from India without explaining the difference. The academic wanted open immigration rights for anyone whose ancestors had been colonised, but it wasn't clear how far back this went. Chomsky promised to make seven points in her speech. I listened, but can only guess they were above my pay grade. My team agreed that, yes, history is filled with barbarism on all sides, but who decides where it stopped and started? Should we count Scottish victims of the Clearances as victims or villains? How about descendants of Māori who slaughtered other tribes in the musket wars? How do we account for people who, like the new Pope, have ancestors on both sides of conflict? We argued that grouping ourselves into victims and villains, based on ancestry, is exactly what leads to oppression and discrimination – seeing an individual as just another faceless member of a guilty group. Even if you could pick a time when land stopped being owned and started being stolen, you would create another problem, determinism. No wonder young people are depressed and anxious, being told they are either victims or villains in stories written before they were born. Building a better world, we said, needs a commitment to treat each person as a thinking and valuing being, deserving equal rights and dignity. I think the arguments for equal rights stood up well, but I learned something about New Zealand from how the events in Oxford were reported at home. What a depressing little country we can be. TVNZ based its coverage around an activist saying I shouldn't be able to speak because free speech is dangerous. The headline was me 'defending' speaking. What a contrast with the Oxford Union's commitment to free speech. Stuff's coverage announced, sneeringly, that I 'debated at Oxford, and lost'. Nowhere in the article does it explain how the debate is decided, or that my team, not I, lost by a margin of 54-46. It quotes a handful of audience members who disagreed with me, but didn't try to inform the reader of what I said or why nearly half voted for my team. Anyone reliant on these outlets would prove the adage that if you don't read the media, you're uninformed; if you do, then you're misinformed. I thank the Herald for its more balanced coverage and this right of reply. Thank you, Oxford Union, for the wonderful opportunity to freely debate controversial topics. Yes, all borders are drawn in blood, but if you want a better world, you need to ask not where we came from, but where we're going. Some in our media could learn from your spirit. David Seymour is the Deputy Prime Minister and Act Party leader

Otago Daily Times

a day ago

• Otago Daily Times

Trump to decide US' Israel-Iran action in next two weeks

President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the Israel-Iran air war, the White House said, raising pressure on Tehran to come to the negotiating table. Citing a message from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks." The Republican president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the U.S. might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday (local time), he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier he mused on social media about killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The threats have caused cracks in Trump's support base between more hawkish traditional Republicans and the party's more isolationist elements. But critics said that in the five months since returning to office, Trump has issued a range of deadlines - including to warring Russia and Ukraine and to other countries in trade tariff negotiations - only to suspend those deadlines or allow them to slide. "I think going to war with Iran is a terrible idea, but no one believes this 'two weeks' bit," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on the social media platform X. "He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not. It just makes America look weak and silly." Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon. She said any deal would have to prohibit enrichment of uranium by Tehran and eliminate Iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. "The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution ... if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it," Leavitt said. "But he's not afraid to use strength as well I will add." BYPASSING CONGRESS? Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for any strikes on Iran. Democrats have raised concerns over reports on CBS and other outlets that Trump has already approved a plan to attack Iran, bypassing Congress, which has the sole power to declare war. Leavitt said U.S. officials remained convinced that Iran had never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying it would take Tehran just "a couple of weeks" to produce such a weapon. Leavitt's assessment contradicted congressional testimony in March from Trump's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard. She said then that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead. This week, Trump dismissed Gabbard's March testimony, telling reporters: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." On Wednesday, Trump lieutenant Steve Bannon urged caution about the U.S. joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight, as a week-old air war escalated and neither side showed any sign of an exit strategy. Leavitt said Trump had been briefed on the Israeli operation on Thursday and remained in close communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She said Iran was in "a deeply vulnerable position" and would face grave consequences if it did not agree to halt its work on a nuclear weapon. Iran has been weighing wider options in responding to the biggest security challenge since its 1979 revolution. Three diplomats told Reuters that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes last week.