Nader Entessar, professor emeritus of political science from the University of South Alabama made the remarks in an interview with Mehr News Agency, commenting on the recent airstrikes conducted by Washington on targets in Iraq and Syria.
Early on Saturday, United States President Joe Biden confirmed the US airstrikes on targets in eastern Syria and western Iraq in retaliation for the death of three soldiers on Jan. 28, pledging that the attacks will continue.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its forces struck more than 85 targets in the two countries “with numerous aircraft to include long-range bombers flown from the United States”.
Many say these attacks have been ineffective and it was just a show. What do you think of this?
The full assessment of the damages has not yet been completed or divulged by the US and the Iraqi and Syrian governments. What we do know is that the US announced its planned bombing attacks several days before they were launched. Therefore, it is very likely that the targetted forces removed most of their valuable assets before the US bombing was initiated last Friday. Many military experts, including some in the US, have already acknowledged the ineffectiveness of last Friday's bombings.
How do you see the US hegemony all over the world? many believe it is declining and the US is not a determining power in the international arena anymore. Do you think so?
The US is still a superpower hegemon in the global arena, but its hegemony is no longer absolute. To remain an unchallenged hegemon, the US must dominate in several areas. This picture is changing. Washington's economic hegemony is being challenged seriously by competing countries and emerging blocs. Militarily, although the US remains the dominant global hegemon with its far-flung military bases and bloated and wasteful budget, It is painfully becoming clear to many American experts that the level of military commitment that has defined Washington's post-World War II full spectrum dominance outlook in foreign policy is not sustainable in the medium to long term. On the other hand, several influential individuals and policy centers in Washington still cling to the idea of reviving American hegemony in the 21st century by all means possible. Therein lies the biggest threat to global stability and peace.
Some say the recent attacks are somehow useless efforts by the US to restore its hegemony. Could the attacks affect public opinion to this end?
The idea of 'bombing to win" has been ingrained in American military doctrine since at least World War II. This idea, of course, has been challenged many times in recent decades. For example, during the Vietnam War, the US military conducted an aerial campaign named "Rolling Thunder" which remains one of the most sustained bombing campaigns in history. As a 1986 US Air Force study shows, This ferocious campaign failed to make an impact on the US war aims and failed. There have also been several scholarly studies on the ineffectiveness of aerial bombardment as a means to achieve war aims. Nonetheless, power wielders in Washington, including many in the Biden administration, still cling to the idea of overwhelming reliance on areal bombings to maintain American hegemony in the US's never-ending wars. A significant segment of the American public has been conditioned to believe in Wahington's global hegemony as a force for peace. However, the blind trust in perpetual wars and foreign conflicts is being questioned at a time when the US is beset with a myriad of economic and social problems at home.
Interviewed by Mohaddeseh Pakravan