The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
What Nouri al-Maliki’s prime minister bid tells us about Iraq
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Nouri al-Maliki’s brief comeback bid exposed how Iraq’s political system remains highly vulnerable to external power competition despite official claims of restored sovereignty. The article cites Iran’s rapid backing of Maliki through networks tied to the Coordination Framework and PMF-linked actors, alongside Washington’s late but forceful intervention (including Trump’s public warning) to block an Iran-aligned outcome. It also frames Maliki’s candidacy as a break from Iraq’s post-2003 pattern of selecting weak consensus premiers, showing how quickly elite bargains can shift under foreign pressure. Strategically, the piece implies Iraq’s near-term stability depends on fast government formation, tighter management of militia-state fragmentation, and a balancing approach that reduces exposure to escalating US-Iran confrontation.
中文摘要
Chatham House主張，努里・馬利基（Nouri al-Maliki）短暫的回歸競逐，暴露出伊拉克政治體系儘管官方宣稱主權已恢復，仍高度易受外部強權競爭影響。文章指出，伊朗透過與「協調框架」（Coordination Framework）及與人民動員部隊（PMF）相關行動者相連的網絡，迅速支持馬利基；同時，華盛頓則在較晚階段但以強硬方式介入（包括川普的公開警告），以阻止親伊朗結果。文章亦將馬利基參選界定為對伊拉克2003年後偏好選擇弱勢共識型總理模式的突破，顯示在外部壓力下，菁英協議可迅速轉向。從戰略層面看，該文暗示伊拉克短期穩定取決於快速完成政府組建、加強管理民兵與國家體系碎片化，以及採取可降低暴露於美伊對抗升級風險的平衡策略。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
3.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
4.
The article argues that bond market behavior is not driven by an 'addiction' to tariff revenue but rather by the government’s overall fiscal health, growth prospects, and debt servicing capacity. Key evidence shows that customs duties generate a fraction of total federal receipts compared to core tax streams, meaning tariffs are too small to fundamentally alter the nation's fiscal trajectory. Furthermore, market reactions were dictated by the aggregate economic damage caused by large tariffs (inflation/growth concerns), not merely the revenue generated. Policymakers should recognize that the real concern for bond investors remains persistent budget deficits and high interest costs, issues that require comprehensive structural reform rather than reliance on tariff income.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.