Raed Salama
The theory of “low-stress crises” was the most important theory adopted by successive American administrations in dealing with international crises after the end of World War II. This theory was founded on the United States managing international crises by maintaining the levels of tension inherent in them at a low level. It does not allow the fundamental causes of crises to develop on their own, leading to an explosion that takes them out of control, nor does it contribute to sincere and real efforts. In creating radical solutions; To end these crises. In its management of the theory of “low-tension crises,” the United States relied on controlling the rhythm of these crises through its use of its historical or new allies, or even through the manufacture and sponsorship of tactical “enemies,” which it pushed; To achieve the goals of keeping the stress level at a low level.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and when the United States was baptizing itself as one and only pole, it was required to resolve some crises decisively, in order to prepare the ground; To fully implement the theory of “low-stress crises” according to new rules and requirements in a new era. For example, the United States’ intervention in the war to liberate Kuwait, which ended in January 1991, was governed by this theory, according to which it expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait, in support of the legitimacy it sponsored, while keeping the basis of the crisis in place, without a final solution, until the time for a decisive decision came. When it invaded Iraq in March 2003, after paving the way; To ensure the destruction of the traditional system of the Iraqi state, whose capabilities were controlled by the Baath Party, it thus ended an important role that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had played in the region on the one hand, and on the other hand, it established a new tradition, confirming its exclusivity in running the world as a single controlling pole, protecting its economic interests by force of arms. He appoints whomever he wants as ruler, and excludes whomever he wants.
Many waters have passed under the bridge of history. With America and its allies alone in the world, some of the emerging powers chose their own paths that relied on the highest levels of seriousness in self-centered construction in favorable historical moments. These powers imposed themselves on the map of international conflict with new data, which became entrenched upon the impact of defeat. “Globalization” due to the financial crisis in 2008.
In light of the internal contradictions of the “low-tension crises” theory, the United States was forced to adopt a different vision for its crisis management, according to which it accepted a decline in the level of managed tension from “low” to “calculated.” It provided more support, sometimes obvious and sometimes hidden, to the tactical enemies it made. To eliminate its historical enemies, while maintaining the elements of power that qualify it; To get rid of them after their roles are over. But the mean history – as Hegel described it – had another say, and a direct impact on the further negative development of the US theory of crisis management. After the United States dropped the level of managed tension from “low” to “calculated,” the matter reached, with the development of reality, a new level of tension, which appeared in the Corona crisis in December 2019, and then deepened in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis in February 2022, so that the contract of control in October 2023.
On the eighteenth of last month, forty-one days after the situation exploded in Gaza, US President Joe Biden published an article in the Washington Post, in which he outlined the broad outlines of his government’s policies in the next stage. What was stated in Biden’s article was not only a departure from what was customary in American policy, in that any American official in his last year of rule would be a “lame duck” who does not make strategic decisions, but the article also contained, what indicates To the decomposition and disintegration that afflicted the theory of crisis management with low, then calculated, tension.
The Russian-Ukrainian crisis received the largest share of Biden’s article, while with regard to the bloody Gaza events, he stressed his non-acceptance of the displacement of the Palestinians, and his refusal to re-occupy Gaza, while adopting – in very general terms – the two-state solution after the disappearance of Hamas with its military elimination, and without presenting his visions for it. The thorny issues, such as the status of the city of Jerusalem, for example. Not to mention the confusion in setting priorities, the adoption of exhausted general propositions, without proposing non-traditional application models, and the lack of clarity of vision, regarding the possibilities of expanding military conflicts with high costs borne by the American taxpayer, whether in Ukraine or in Gaza, what was stated in the article reflects Clearly, the United States does not have an objective political recipe that would allow ending either crisis, in what is known as the “Exit Scenario.”
The theory of low-tension crisis management was defeated when the United States lost its ability to control the level of this tension, which transformed over time from low tension to calculated tension, and then quickly became reckless tension, difficult to fathom. Biden will leave the White House, leaving his country with one of two options that have no thirds. Either America will modify its vision of the theory of tension in another, more violent form, by which it will regain control and control, or it will transform into a country that is more just and respectful of human values.
