Ozempic Geopolitics
There’s no miracle drug for world peace.
Prozac. Viagra. Lipitor. Nexium. All pharmaceutical products that became household names due to their popularity and seeming ubiquity in advertising and popular culture. Now, another prescription drug has joined that veritable pantheon: Ozempic. The drug (and others in similar classes, like Wegovy and Mounjaro) was proven effective in treating diabetes, but has also been shown to induce somewhat radical weight loss through hunger suppression. Since this revelation, the drug has skyrocketed in sales and has been everywhere in pop culture, from The Real Housewives to South Park. Further studies have seemed to indicate that these drugs could be effective in treating all manner of illnesses and disorders – things like cancer, Covid-19, Alzheimer’s, depression, and substance abuse. These compounds, grouped under the banner of Ozempic, have been praised as miracle drugs. And they very well may be so.
But the broader figurative idea of a miracle drug – a perfect, easy solution to an intractable problem – hasn’t remained siloed to medicine; it has expanded most recently into geopolitics, at least if the ideas of our two major presidential candidates are any indication. The problem is, there isn’t a prescription for success in foreign affairs.
This magical thinking is detrimental to our national interests and the ability to protect and defend them from our enemies, as it posits a quick and simple answer to complex, nuanced questions. Nothing is uncomplicated in geopolitics; decisions by one party necessarily impact the choices and actions of dozens of others. The international community, such as it exists, is a constantly-shifting ecosystem where each nation acts in its own sovereign interests, while simultaneously having internal disputes over what those interests are and how to act accordingly. The nature of diplomacy involves dealing with a multitude of divergent perspectives, often contradictory, if not mutually exclusive. War is even thornier to deal with. The problems that face America and our allies in 2024 are not solvable by easy platitudes or ‘one weird trick’ answers. Yet that is exactly how our leading candidates for president present them.
Donald Trump has been on this bandwagon for his entire campaign. He has repeatedly stated, when asked about the Russian invasion (or the October 7 attack/Afghanistan withdrawal debacle/Chinese pressure in the South China Sea), that it wouldn’t have happened under his watch. That very well could be true – I think his point with respect to Iranian proxies and Israel is largely right, as Iran wouldn’t have had the funds to prosecute a multifront war against Israel under the previous sanctions regime – but it isn’t a meaningful solution. Who cares if it wouldn’t have happened under Trump? He lost and it did indeed happen, so what is he going to do about it? That is what matters here. A candidate for president should be able to say what he would do about the geopolitical situation now, not simply pretend that the current state of affairs doesn’t actually exist.
When the former president does deign to comment on the present reality instead of his mentally-crafted unreality wherein he won the 2020 election, he wholeheartedly embraces the miracle drug approach to geopolitics. This has been especially clear when it comes to the Russian war on Ukraine. Trump has continually claimed that he would end the conflict in 24 hours if he is elected, but mentions no specifics as to how he would halt a conflict that has been ongoing for nearly 3 years and is rooted in millennia of history. The Russo-Ukrainian War is a fairly intractable confrontation in which each side’s war aims are mutually exclusive – Russia seeks dominion over Ukraine, while Ukraine desires independence and sovereignty. Russia has annexed several Ukrainian provinces, tried to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government in favor of a pliant client, and wishes to exert total control over Ukrainian politics and policy. Ukraine wants all Russian forces to leave its territory – Crimea included – seeks closer relations with NATO and Europe, and desires to have its sovereign rights respected by its larger, imperialistic neighbor. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a gap that can be bridged in 24 hours. And both Russia and Ukraine have stated that fact directly. Still, in the world of Donald Trump’s Ozempic geopolitics, this a reasonable claim to make.
Lest you think this is a one-sided political problem, it surely isn’t. Kamala Harris, her running mate Tim Walz, and her campaign apparatus at large have embraced the same kind of magical thinking when it comes to geopolitics. Just as with the Republican nominee, Harris seems to think that the electorate can be convinced that the last three-and-a-half years never happened. She – mostly through press releases and surrogates, naturally – has declaimed all responsibility for the disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, instead blaming it entirely on the Trump administration. As someone who has been consistently against not only the chaos of the withdrawal process in August 2021, but the withdrawal as a whole, I have to say that the blame for the former lies entirely with the Biden-Harris administration. They had no need to leave in the hasty, poorly-planned manner in which they chose to, and the unnecessary deaths of Afghan civilians and thirteen American servicemembers are on their hands. And I say “their” because, according to Harris herself, she was the “last person in the room” with the president during the Afghanistan decision process.
Just like her opposite number on the GOP side of the election, Harris believes that she can miraculously solve an intractable conflict entirely through her own unique willpower and abilities. Unlike her rival, however, Harris’s Ozempic geopolitics relates to Israel and its enemies. Since the horrific terrorist massacre of October 7 – nearly a year ago as I write – Israel has been under coordinated assault from Iran and its proxies on seven fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Iran itself. The road was paved for this brazen and continuous attack on one of America’s closest strategic allies by America itself, namely the light treatment of Iran by the Biden-Harris administration. Their stance prior to 10/7 was essentially pro-Iran and anti-Israel, building on the disastrously bad Obama strategy. The Hamas attack provided a brief respite from that policy, but as Israel’s just war to exterminate the terror army has continued, the administration has returned to form. Harris has been the spokeswoman for that change, arguing against, for example, Israel’s incursion into Rafah, as well as in favor of a ceasefire on terrible terms for Jerusalem.
Now that she is the Democratic nominee, Harris – in concert with Walz and her campaign – has taken a position that is pure Ozempic geopolitics: pushing for an immediate halt to combat, the release of hostages, a Hamas-free Gaza, and a Palestinian state. In an interview with CNN – a veritable slow-pitch softball game of a discussion, I might add – Harris said, after claiming that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed,” that “This war must end. We must get a deal.” Well, I’m glad she thinks the war must end, but what is her plan? She, as usual, speaks entirely in vagaries and without specifics or details that can be checked or criticized. But just as with Ukraine, the sides here have nothing at all in common. Their goals and aims are fundamentally incompatible. Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel as a nation-state, the genocide of all Jews in the Middle East, and the establishment of an Islamofascist government in present-day Israel. Iran, Hamas’s backer and puppet-master, supports these aims and has set up proxies surrounding Israel on all sides; if Hamas is totally defeated in Gaza, as it very well may be, Tehran has several other options with which to achieve its antisemitic goals. Israel seeks to remain a sovereign nation, living in peace and security. That gap is not being bridged. The war will eventually end, but only when victory has been achieved. Israel cannot afford to lose this existential war, regardless of what Kamala Harris thinks should happen.
The world is full of chaos and conflict. American allies and interests are under assault across the map, from Asia and Europe to the Middle East and Latin America. We are in the most precarious geopolitical position our nation has faced since the end of the Cold War, if not since World War II. Our future as a superpower managing a world-system that has made us secure and prosperous beyond belief is in question. And the leadership on offer this November is not even close to being up to the task at hand. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris see themselves as secular saviors who will miraculously solve our foreign problems with the wave of a hand, if only they are allowed the opportunity. But there is no magical elixir for the defense of our national interests. It takes hard work and carefully-planned strategy over the course of years to succeed. And a single mistake can ruin it all. The globe cannot be injected with an idea that soothes chaos and reverses the gains of our adversaries. There’s no magical elixir for world peace and American security, despite what the presidential candidates may have us believe.
Sorry Kamala and Donald, there’s no Ozempic for geopolitics. Better hop on the treadmill and get ready to do it the hard way.