Alwaght- Amid increasing warnings by American scholars and officials about the future disputes in the bottom layers of the society, poll results suggest that half of the Americans think that their country is moving to a civil conflict and they are ready to take up arms in the face of their government— something escalating the expectations of collapse of the global American empire from within.
Meanwhile, one cannot simply ignore the emerging phenomenon of Trumpism, which has fueled ethnic and racial divisions more than before in recent years. In recent months, the Democrats have been trying to remove Donald Trump from the politics forever by investigating cases related to him and the possibility of his involvement in the storming of the Congress after the 2020 election. But Trump's temperament and character can stir violence in the country in response. According to new statistics published by the US Transportation Security Administration, in a country where the amount of deadly violence increases every year due to the freedom to carry guns, the number of firearms seized has reached an unprecedented level in the last two decades. The US Department of Defense is now afraid of devastating chaos within the country's military after the 2024 elections. Nevertheless, the political and social situation in the country has reached a stage where the officials are extremely afraid of the future and a coup and civil war are what they say they expect post-election.
To shed light on the issue, Alwaght has hosted a discussion with Foad Izadi, an Iranian expert of American affairs, and Ibrahim Motaqi, a professor of University of Tehran and an expert of international affairs.
Alwaght: The American home developments are moving to a direction that in recent months we heard warnings of a civil war on American media. What happened that the Americans are expecting a scenario of civil war and essentially when they talk about war, do they mean something like the wars of secession of 19th century?
Izadi: Expectation of civil war in the US can be right as much as wrong. In the past, there were predictions of American civil war but they did not come true. If the civil war means that one state would want to separate from the mainland America and cause conflict, this will never happen because although separatist movements have always existed in the US, they have not been so influential and the constitution does mention possibility of separation. That is, they have to fight against the federal government for secession, which happened in the civil wars of 1860 to 1864, during which nearly 700,000 people were killed, and yet the separatist states could not separate from the central government. There is no evidence that a civil war is in the making.
But if we consider it a civil conflict in which people are massively discontented and can take up arms and a small number can use these arms to show their discontentment, this is possible. Examples are the storming of Congress last year by Trump supporters or an attack on FBI headquarters in Ohio in recent days. Now, according to the latest polls, about 12 percent of people believe that the situation in America is not well at all. They argue that even the 2020 elections were rigged and that Donald Trump should have become the president. Also, 68 percent of Republicans believe that the previous elections were rigged, and 28 percent of independents also say that it was fraudulent. The 12 percent of the American population, who are about 20 million, are very dissatisfied with the current state of the country and have said that the use of weapons is justified to change the current situation. This shows that if one percent of this population really takes up arms towards their goals, the US internal situation will fall apart.
In social riots that happen in countries, it is not necessary that the majority of the society be dissatisfied with the internal situation for the riots to spark, and to create a riot, only a minority is needed to advance the protest process and achieve their goals. If by civil war we mean armed conflict, it should be said that the more political deadlocks and disputes increase in the US, the higher levels of dissatisfaction. In a country of 320 million people, there are about 400 million registered guns in the hands of people, and in a tense country like the US, violence flare-up is possible.
After the attack on the FBI office in Ohio, its officials warned of more attacks on the agency's offices across the country. The level of political tensions in the country is not yet alarming and the Trump's cases investigation has not reached a dangerous stage and all his cases are just currently under review. The Congress motion is trying to determine how much Trump was involved in the attack on the Congress post-election. This case has not yet reached a definitive conclusion, but if the Democrats want to legally ban Trump from running in the presidential election in 2024 and remove him from the political scene, the problems and social divisions in the US will broaden.
Alwaght: What do you think are the grounds causing concerns about a civil war in the US? How much did the attack on the Congress fuel these security concerns?
Mutaqi: The fact is that the US has never enjoyed social cohesion and as the French sociologist Émile Durkheim put it, the country has never had organic cohesion. The reason for this should be sought in the racial, religious, cultural diversity as well as massive immigration waves. So, the US has never been considered as a country of historical makeup. The art of the Americans is that they want to shape the American identity without reference to an American history. But the fact is that the US was in an atmosphere of division from 1991 onwards, because until 1991 there was a threat called the Soviet Union and the Communists, and this threat caused cohesion and convergence within the country, and therefore the society adapted itself to the English language and to the American culture and also to the power structure. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the "evil empire", as President Donald Reagan put it, this threat ceased to be a cause of social cohesion in the US. So, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, two waves rose in the US: a globalist wave, which argued that the era of ideology ended and predicted end of history with comprehensive victory of the US and liberal democracy in the world. The second wave was in a state of division and two people have explained this phenomenon. The Spanish author Manuel Castells in his book The Power of Identity elaborated on the American social, cultural, and identity challenges and revealed the centrifugal forces within the American society. He even claimed that American militias are anti-federalist and anti-structuralist and this was the driving force behind the bombing at a federal government building in Kansas in 1994. The bombers argued that the US as a country does not care about the American society and only seeks to be a world police. This thought still exists, and whenever a meeting of the group of industrialized countries is held in the US, there are generally waves of protest, and a clear example of this can be seen in the Seattle summit where marginal groups exist and struggle to take the power.
There are people who think that the American society is normatively divided and they do not consider the government of serious authority, and they feel that the American government is in the hands of a limited number of people. These concepts are related to the 'deep state' and organizations and are basically a criticism of American democracy. It should be seen in what conditions the social forces are in this context. The American people have employment challenges, inflation has increased significantly and they disappointedly feel that the ideal atmosphere that they had in their minds will not be achieved, and for this reason, the American society today is divided. When a society is division-stricken and has no normative, communicational, and structural correlation with the government, a crisis would emerge.
One of the forms of crisis in societies is the crisis of legitimacy, and the crisis of legitimacy that exists in the US stems from distribution crisis, and the economic problems and the high prices that the country has seen in recent months left a significant impact on the perception of Americans, leaving their society fragmented. A society divided lingually, racially, and economically risks going to a civil war. Today there are gaps in the American society that are intersecting, namely at the same time there are high income and social insurance that cover the social gaps. Civil war takes place when divisions go deeper and the society takes a passive mode and the other point is that the intersecting gaps go dense. In this situation, crisis can develop into an organized armed battle.
Alwaght: Can the militias and marginal groups in the US take the social conflicts in the country to armed violence? Ideologically and organizationally, what is the nature of these groups? How do you see their role in sparking a civil conflict?
Izadi: Militant groups existed before the establishment of the US, and even in the constitution, these groups have been mentioned, and the second amendment of the constitution is the reference of the groups favoring freedom of carrying arms, and the gun lobbies believe that carrying weapons in the US has legal basis. This amendment also talks about militias and emphasizes that these groups must be armed and this issue is not new. But with the shootings that have happened in recent years, the level of dissatisfaction has increased and these dissatisfied people are also inside these militia groups, and their difference is that they are organized and do military training and have capabilities, and as the violence grows, the forces that are present in the militia groups may be involved either personally or in an organized manner. This chaos and conflict does not have a positive horizon, because the problems that exist in the US have not appeared overnight and it took a process to reach this stage.
One of the reasons why it is said that the present American situation is different from what it was a few decades ago is the failure of the globalization project. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans felt that their main competitor withdrew from the international scene and they could expand their hegemony worldwide because there was no rival. The theories of the American thinker Francis Fukuyama about the 'end of history' are also related to these concepts. One of the American tools to create hegemony was economic influence in different parts of the world in order to expand the capitalist system, with the mindset that multinational companies and the presence of American institutions in different regions, while creating economic influence, will gradually create political influence as well. Because these are the owners of capital, and in countries whose democratic style is similar to the US's, politicians take money from American capitalists, and the politicians who attract more capital can win the elections. In the US, it is the same thing, and the candidate who attracts the most capital has a 94 percent chance of winning, and the one who attracts less money has a 6 percent chance for victory.
The American mindset was that the multinational companies establish the American democracy in the hosting countries and make their politicians indebted as they create political and economic American dominance. Then this dominance develops into cultural one and forms American global hegemony as President George H. W. Bush put it.
This was the American thought after the Soviet Union. But what happened in practice was that the US was first victim of this project. In countries where there were no restrictions and there was no longer the Soviet, the multinational companies hired cheap workers driven by their profiteering policies. Then they closed down their factories in the US and moved to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and other counties for their cheap labor force. The waves of discontentment we are seeing in the US these days are a byproduct of globalization project. The people who were employed by these companies in the US lost their jobs or were re-employed in service sectors that paid less.
If we review the US wage growth rates, we find out that they are negative and it was these pressures that gave rise to a president like Trump, and some with economic nationalism slogans blamed the politicians who were linked to corrupt corporate for these challenges. One of Trump's slogans was draining what he called the corruption swamp in Washington. Although he did not make success, he won the presidential race with these slogans. Trump argued that he was rich and was not looking for capitalists' money like other politicians and that he could fight corruption, and one of the reasons why Trump won in 2016 election and is still popular in the American society is that part of the society still buys his words and he thinks that he can attract people and win next election.
Alwaght: So, your understanding of the marginal groups is that they were created by the American political and economic system?
Izadi: My view goes beyond the marginal groups. These groups have always existed and as they get more active, they spread discontentment in the society. Various polls show that the positive view of the future of the US is between 10 and 15 percent, and most people imagine a dark future for their country because they compare the current situation with the past, and the result is an increase in dissatisfaction. One of the reasons for the current situation is that the US fell victim to the same plot it designed for other countries for its own dominance. So, it is impossible to get this structure right.
Alwaght: In 2020 incidents, we could see that the role of the militias in the US was off the election dispute and driven by a series of deep-rooted and unresolved social conflicts. Do these militia groups have the potential to lead the society towards civil war in critical conditions?
Izadi: We should see the US as it is. There are root problems in America that go beyond militia groups, and if these groups could wage a civil war, there would have been dozens of wars in this country by now. Militias are a part of the people who have training and organization and discipline in using weapons, and when the challenges in the country grow rife, people who have military training and organization will usually have a more effective role in possible conflicts.
Alwaght: In recent years, the American economic, political and even military power has declined compared to such competitors as Russia and China, and for this reason, many experts inside and outside the US have pointed to this issue and predicted decline of American global power and hegemony. Even Trump always talks about the decline of American power. To what extent has this American weakness influenced the formation and escalation of American social conflicts.
Mutaqi: The fact is that the US is on the one hand the world's greatest power and on the other hand is declining. This is like the loss the humans suffer, namely they have the structure but they weaken from within and their will to play a role in the society diminishes, their operational movement goes nowhere, and their security provision costs increase. In his book, The Political Economy of US militarism, the US-based Iranian author Ismail Hassan-Zadeh writes that many of the American military structures are contrived and actually many of the military purchases are for no real needs and are aimed to create rents. The military personnel order stuff whose price is several times higher than the real price.
The point is that at present, the American internal structure is declining gradually. The signs of this decline are explained in Graham T. Allison's book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? In this book, Allison explains how the Chinese have managed to enhance their power. He suggests that the American internal structure is boisterous and emotional but empty and a country with this status has a vague future.
Allison says that the war between China and the US is inevitable and that is why after the visit of the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan two weeks ago, there was an opportunity for the Americans to show more flexibility and show no aggressive posture. Washington adopted an aggressive policy against Russia in the Ukraine crisis and tried to bring Finland and Sweden into the NATO, but in relation to China, the Americans walked back from advocacy to Taiwan independence and their argument is that the resolution of territorial disputes is related to the countries themselves. This issue showed that the Americans do not have the necessary will to restore their role in world politics. Former US President Barack Obama repeatedly said that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria should step down from power, but al-Assad remained in power. This showed that a great power faces challenges when it cannot manage its regional policies. The next point that should be taken into account is the issue of high security costs for America.
The costs of Iranian security, for example, was around $200 million and General Qassem Soleimani provided this cheap security with the help of the regional resistance forces, while the costs of shallow security for the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are high. The US example of security provision is Afghanistan where the Americans were present in the country for 20 years and spent dearly and at the end of the road, they even failed to make a glorious retreat. In military terms, there is an issue that has tactical nature; namely the Americans thought that fleeing is retreat but this is not true. Militarily, retreat is a tactic and takes planning and organizing and should remove the forces successfully. Fleeing is when a country loses its organization. This US withdrawal from Afghanistan was a fleeing and this damages the American power and image. Today, if you take calculated reciprocal measure in the face of the Americans, they show flexibility but if you show compromises and flexibility, they grow aggressive.
You may ask why the US withdrew from Iran nuclear deal. I should tell you because the previous Iranian government officials showed flexibility to Washington. So, the more you are compromising and flexible, the more aggressive the opposite side is. The US is currently not in position of implementing a strategic plan. Even if it is, it is not cheap, and even if it is, it is not adoptable. Therefore, it is no use to spend without an outcome. The country is now struggling with its large economy and vast military forces. Servicing and organizing 2.8 million forces costs dearly, and to run them, it requires war. Thus, the US decline destroys its credibility and legitimacy. If the legitimacy and credibility disappear, the social atmosphere will become centrifugal and society will be a divided society because the state is divided.
Alwaght: One issue about the US legitimacy crisis is the growing criticism against the two-party system in the US. Recently, a centrist party, Forward, announced existence, with its founders being defected Democrats and Republicans. Being critical of the two-party system, they vowed fundamental changes, including in electoral system. They argue that if this system does not change, they US does not see its 300th anniversary. How effective has the two-party system been in shaping the pessimism in the American society?
Izadi: Two-party dictatorship is a better term for the US political system. There are about 15 active parties in America, and the new party that has been established is headed by Andrew Young, a Democrat, and he was one of the candidates of this party in the 2020 elections, and the Democrats have protested that these people cannot play an active role in the American structure. Therefore, the American electoral system is a two-party dictatorship, and the constitution of this country is written in such a way that if the third party wants to play a role, it is practically impossible to do so.
For example, the Green Party has been present for years but it cannot play an active role in the election campaigns or send a representative to the Congress or name a candidate for president. That is, the law does not allow them to do so. One of these obstacles is the electoral voting system, and in any state, the party that gets the most electoral votes has its candidate as the winner, and the candidates of the two strongest parties, Democratic and Republican, always get the highest electoral votes. If the election candidate is Democratic or Republican, they go to the final stage via intra-party elections, but if there is a candidate from a third party, they go nowhere, and they are told that in order to run in the election, they must collect signatures, and therefore the laws block them. The people who form a new party know that they cannot do anything and that this is only a propaganda issue, and that if the Democrats or Republicans form a new party, it works under these main two parties and cannot advance its critical vision.
Alwaght: The gun laws in the US encourage people to buy arms and now there are about 400 guns in the people's hands. According to the statistics, the violence and death caused by arms has increased significantly and even during coronavirus outbreak gun purchases grew 43 percent. How much does gun law drive the concerns about a civil war in the US?
Mutaqi: I think that it is the whites that majorly buy and carry licensed guns. One of Trump's plans was continuation of freedom of carrying arms, though he believed that this should be controlled. Because this has roots in the American strategic and social culture. Since the 17th century, the Americans have been armed and this is driven by a specific thought in the American mind, namely self-defense. There were vast lands and plantations and many threats and challenges were inevitable, and it is for this reason that people were armed. So, the US society being armed cannot trigger a civil war. Rather, it can prevent some protests.
Many Americans favor use of power to stabilize the structure and no president can approve a law to ban gun purchases. Another point is that continuation of carrying gun cannot stir violence and instability. Rather, it encourages some groups to arm and equip to counter the rival groups. The most important problem the US is facing is a kind of demographic erosion that has taken shape in the country and represents a significant issue.
