
US is at war with Iran — and with itself
Forget about the war with Iran for a moment. The conflict inside the US, with universities, foreign students, immigrants, and the polarization between interventionists and isolationists, may have far more impact on the country's future as a world power or on the empire it has built itself up to be in the 20th century. In this conflict, the US is at war with itself and has much to lose.
When the dust settles, what will matter is whether what the US achieved through war can be preserved in times of peace. We have seen how that failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, when after a military victory and occupation, the US did not succeed in creating a local government that could control the country as its ally. For an empire, military power is important for expansion, but empires consolidate their control by recruitment.
Former empires controlled vast territories with very few people because they could co-opt the locals who then ruled on their behalf. Romans ruled most of the known world for almost a millennium because the conquered could become Romans, absorbing the culture and language and serving the empire. Some emperors, such as Septimius Severus and Philip the Arab, were from Carthage or the town of Shahba in the Roman province of Arabia, now in Syria. The British in India ruled over tens of millions with tens of thousands, incorporating officials, administrators and the military. Several early Ottoman grand viziers were also originally recruited as slave boys in the Balkan provinces, such as Serbia and Croatia, and rose through the ranks both through meritocracy and by joining Sufi religious orders.
The empire that America built is ruled by global corporations and cultural influence through technology, education, innovation and lifestyle. You know you have landed in one of its provinces from the signs in the streets, the way people dress and, to a certain extent, what can loosely be described as American values. It is a system that anyone can join and become part of. Immigrants become Americans in ways that they can never become Chinese or Russian.
When the dust settles, what will matter is whether what the US achieved through war can be preserved in times of peace
Nadim Shehadi
America spread its influence through education, immigration and its belief in a universal mission to uphold and preserve American values of freedom, democracy and human rights. This universalism is deeply rooted in puritan beliefs and emphasizes education and equality among people as a model — the city upon a hill that was meant to be a model for all nations. These are the three pillars of American soft power.
America was always a reluctant empire. After all, it revolted against the British Empire and is composed of a population that left Europe to create a free and egalitarian society. So, the pendulum swings between interventionism and isolationism, with one administration dismantling what the previous one achieved.
I lived in the US for seven years and barely began to understand the complexity of its society. But then again, I am also Lebanese and, believe me, I can recognize acute and toxic polarization when I see it. I am not sure if the Trump phenomenon is behind the polarization of the country, whether it is a symptom of it or if it is a kind of backlash against a system that has become so rigid that half the country feels alienated by it. The result is what we have now — a feeling that the country is imploding under the tension of extreme polarization, which future historians will probably describe far better than I can.
Symptoms of the American malaise are obvious: complicated phenomena like the conflict between the Trump administration and universities such as Harvard, together with the protests in California about immigration policies. America has also proved to be an unreliable ally when each administration reverses the policies of its predecessors.
When foreign students are seen as a threat to the US, it means that the country is losing confidence in itself, its cultural values and recruiting power. An experience of living and studying in the US should be seen as producing assets to America and a threat to students' own strict societies if, say, they come from China, Russia or Iran. Even when they protest against the US itself, these foreign students are learning that protests are possible and realize that they are not possible at home. They are becoming American.
US power is challenged by China and its BRICS allies, but America has the upper hand as long as students choose it for education
Nadim Shehadi
It is also absurd to think that the protests in California are directed against the application of immigration laws. It is precisely because the US is a country that is governed by the rule of law that it attracts immigrants, especially those escaping the rule of drug cartels and failed states in Latin America. If faith in the rule of law is no longer there, and immigrants are no longer welcome, then this is far more dangerous to what America stands for.
Silicon Valley, which produced many of the leaders of the tech industry, was also part of that recruitment ability. The brightest and most creative, whether products of Syrian, Indian or South African immigration, all became part of America's empire, together with countless executives of American companies and banks.
In occupied Iraq, the US lost its alliances among both Shiite and Sunni because it proved to be an unreliable ally when President Barack Obama fixed a date for withdrawal as an election campaign promise. The Iraqi Shiites were eventually recruited by Iran, which gained more control in the country. The Sunnis also felt abandoned after Sunni tribes had worked with the Bush administration to fight Al-Qaeda in the north. Afghanistan is another story.
American power is challenged by China and its BRICS allies, but America has the upper hand as long as students choose it for education. Every emigrant wants to become American and its allies will not worry that the next administration will reverse policies and abandon them. In the war with Iran, these are battles that cannot be lost and that will affect the outcome as much as, if not more than, the military operations.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Breaking: India will buy Russian oil despite Trump's threats: Report
Indian officials have said they would keep purchasing oil from Russia despite the threat of penalties that US President Donald Trump said he would impose, the New York Times reported on Saturday. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.


Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
FAA planning more helicopter route changes after January collision that killed 67
The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it is planning additional helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. FAA official Nick Fuller said at a National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearing that an agency work group is planning changes on a key helicopter route near Reagan after imposing permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations in March and further restricting where they could operate in June. NTSB officials at the hearing expressed concerns about a 'disconnect' between front-line air traffic controllers and agency leaders and raised other questions about FAA actions before the fatal collision, including why earlier reports of close call incidents did not prompt safety improvements. Board members have also raised concerns about the failure of the FAA to turn over documents in a timely fashion during the investigation of the January collision. The NTSB received details on staffing levels at the time of the January 29 crash 'after considerable confusion and a series of corrections and updates from the FAA,' a board report said. The hearing has run more than 30 hours over three days and raised a series of troubling questions, including about the failure of the primary controller on duty to issue an alert to the American regional jet and the actions of an assistant controller who was supposed to assist the primary controller. 'That did not occur and we're trying to understand why. And no one has been able to tell us what the individual was doing during that time,' NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. Homendy said earlier this week the FAA had ignored warnings about serious safety issues. 'Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you,' Homendy said. 'You transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem... Fix it. Do better.' FAA officials at the hearing vowed to work more collaboratively and address concerns. Senator Tim Kaine on Friday also cited concerns raised by an FAA manager about the volume of flights at the airport before the collision and the decision by Congress last year to add five additional daily flights to Reagan. 'Congress must act to reduce dangerous congestion by removing flights into and out of (Reagan National),' Kaine said.


Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Columbia University deal with Trump admin sets dangerous precedent, academics warn
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government 'assault' on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle antisemitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into antisemitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an 'untenable position.' Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the 'manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start' and slamming the agreement as giving 'legal form to an extortion scheme.' Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing antisemitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions 'represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy,' said Pozen. 'What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society,' he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal 'signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them.' In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the 'administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit.' Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that 'in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating.' 'First round' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a 'template for other universities around the country.' On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted 'there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies' but were 'priorities of the federal administration.' Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities 'has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history.' While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be 'weaponized' and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: 'Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more.' 'There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round,' he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for 'major research universities to hold the line' compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and 'fight back,' including in the courts. 'Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do,' he said. 'This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together.'