At the turn of the century, America had emerged victorious from the Cold War and stood unchallenged.
It had greater power and influence than any other nation in history. It could have wielded that power judiciously to protect the American-led post-war world order and inspire other countries to follow its values of freedom and democracy.
Instead, it squandered that supremacy embarking on a calamitous misadventure in Iraq that was ill-advised and disastrously executed. It would be the beginning of the end of the pax Americana.
A direct line can be drawn between that debacle, which began on 20 March 2003 and others that followed, right up to the perilous state of the world today.
Image: Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein standing by an Iraqi flag in 2002
Image: George W Bush had the support of Britain’s Tony Blair in his decision to invade Iraq
The falsehoods and delusions that led to war
America went to war led by ideologues who believed they could refashion the Middle East in their own likeness and bring democracy and a more pro-Western outlook to the region.
The failure of that neoconservative project has done lasting damage to Americans’ claims of exceptionalism, and their belief that their form of governance is an example to the rest of the world. And that has by extension done enduring harm to the American-led world order.
The failings of that project in Iraq are well documented. The false premise of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the delusion that invaders would be welcomed as liberators, the absence of any plan for the day after. The damage to America’s standing in the world has been incalculable.
Advertisement
Equally, human rights violations, violations of democratic norms, targeted killings, and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison, from where photographs showing abuse of inmates by US soldiers emerged, tarnished America’s image as the standard-bearer of democracy and human rights.
Iraq fell apart under occupation. The US disbanded the Ba’ath party and sents its army home. In the vacuum sectarian extremists thrived. The war had been fought to neutralise the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.
The opposite happened and even more extreme groups were spawned launching unprecedented campaigns of terror against occupiers and civilians alike. From the failed states of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State was born – an organisation that for years wrenched swathes of territory from both countries and plumbed new depths of terror and depravity.
For America, the enduring impact of the war and occupation has been a weakening of Washington’s influence in the world. When India and other countries in the global south sit on the fence in UN resolutions on Ukraine, their ambivalence can in part be traced back to America’s record in Iraq.
The distraction of Iraq led to failure in Afghanistan, a protracted two decades of occupation and a disastrous withdrawal.
Iraq sucked up what policymakers in Washington call bandwidth year after year, while in the east a far greater challenge was rising. The West would take years to wake up to the threat posed by China.
Closer to Iraq, Iran was strengthened. Before the invasion, its regional influence was limited to a militia in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah. Today it has clout in capitals from Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad to Yemen.
The war in Iraq has done damage to America’s belief in itself. The conflict cost a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives. It has fuelled opposition to any more military adventures abroad.
And it has undermined Americans’ faith in both government and the political and media elites meant to hold it to account. That only in part helps explain the rise of populism that ultimately brought Trump to the White House.
Image: An explosion rocks Baghdad during air strikes on 21 March 2003
Image: US military escort a group of Iraqi soldiers dressed in civilian clothes north of Basra, Iraq, in 2003
Iraq still recovering from journey to hell and back
In Iraq, people are now no longer living under tyranny. There is reportedly some sense of hope and renewal, but only recently. And the country has literally been to hell and back to get there.
Hundreds of thousands have died in the war and the waves of sectarian violence that followed. The country has been broken, its institutions destroyed and its economy ravaged.
It is only just beginning to recover from all that trauma. But perhaps it can now look forward cautiously to a slightly better future. That is more than might have been said had Saddam Hussein remained in power or any of his impulsive, venal sons.
Image: Another view of Saddam Hussein’s statue being pulled down
Image: Thousands of crosses at a memorial for US troops killed in the Iraq war, in Lafayette, California
Ten years ago, George W Bush said the final verdict on his actions inIraq would come long after his death.
That may be true, and it may take more time to judge whether the removal of one of the worst tyrants in history in any way justified the enormous cost and pain that then ensued.
Twenty years on, though, we can say the invasion and occupation have had a lasting legacy on the region and the world, and much of that has not been for the better.
The scientist who first raised the alarm over microplastics in the world’s oceans has warned of a “David vs Goliath” battle between scientists and the plastics industry – as delegates begin to negotiate a global deal to reduce plastic pollution.
As United Nations talks begin this week, Professor Richard Thompson, head of the International Marine Litter unit at Plymouth University, said: “We’re seeing some coercion and some pressure being put by some of those that have got conflicts of interest that fear they stand to lose from the treaty progress.”
Representatives of 175 countries will meet in Switzerland today, for what should be a final round of negotiations over a legally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution.
The United Nations says while some countries are taking action on plastic, pollution is a global problem that needs a global agreement – but there is no official scientific presence at the talks.
Professor Thompson, who is attending the negotiations, said: “We’re only there as observers with a limited capacity to speak, whereas those from the industry have got a massive vested interest. They’re funded to be there. And it’s a bit of a David and Goliath battle.”
Image: Professor Richard Thompson
He continued: “It concerns me that I see some nations that are taking an increasingly short-sighted view, a view that’s perhaps driven by political cycles or short-run profits.
“You know, we need those leaders of countries, those negotiators, to take the long-term view to protect our planet for future generations.”
More than 430 million tonnes of plastic is produced each year.
But according to environmental charity WWF, around 11 million tonnes end up in the ocean each year as pollution.
And that’s expected to rise to 29 million tonnes a year by 2040.
There is wide consensus among countries that plastic pollution is a problem, but they are split over what to do about it.
The UK and more than 70 other nations that are part of a “High Ambition Coalition” want production and consumption of plastic reduced to sustainable levels.
But major oil producing nations and the chemical industry oppose any cuts.
The previous round of talks, in South Korea last year, collapsed in disagreement.
Professor Thompson is a founding member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.
‘Strong treaty’ still possible
He said previous negotiations have been swamped by lobbyists from the chemicals industry putting pressure on delegates – and that if a good agreement cannot be achieved, leading countries should look to work outside the United Nations framework.
Professor Thompson said: “Given that there are more than 100 nations that are already backing the level of ambition that’s required, I think it could be possible to take this out of the UN process, to have a strong treaty that will function to end plastic pollution, to start with those 100 or 120 or so countries and to add others over time.
“I think there’ll be a realisation for those that aren’t on board initially, that if they don’t join forces with that coalition of the willing, they’re going to suffer in terms of their own international trade and that it’s better to be part of that strong treaty than not to be.”
Plastic is so widely used because it’s cheap, durable and can take many forms. So production of new plastic will only fall if better use can be made of the material that already exists.
The company Project Plan B is working with the charity The Salvation Army to recycle polyester textiles.
They’ve installed the first machine of its kind to turn the material into plastic pellets that can be used to make yarn for new clothes.
Just a handful of the pellets is enough to make a T-shirt.
Tim Cross, the director of Project Plan B, said the aim is to make the recycling process a closed loop, so as little as possible escapes as waste or pollution.
“This makes much better use of that plastic,” he said.
Image: Thomas Moore and Tim Cross
“If we’re wasting it and losing it into the environment, that’s a terrible waste, and we mustn’t allow that to happen.”
The UK produces around 700,000 tonnes of textile waste each year. Almost all is landfilled or incinerated.
A major problem is that most clothes are made of mixed materials, which makes it uneconomical to recycle them.
A polyester shirt may have nylon buttons and cotton thread.
But Project Plan B has been working with school uniform maker David Luke on a blazer made completely out of polyester and 100% recyclable.
Image: The Project Plan B recycling plant
“These garments normally last on children’s backs for a couple of years and used as goalposts a few times. And then what?” said Mr Cross.
“We wanted to make sure that we can fully recycle the blazer through the system that we’ve got here, so we had to completely redesign it.
“This is groundbreaking, changing the way that clothing can be made.
“When you’ve got something that is recycled and recyclable, you’ve got an instant solution.”
Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will convene his security cabinet to discuss how to instruct Israel’s military to proceed in Gaza to meet all of his war goals.
“We must continue to stand together and fight together to achieve all our war objectives: the defeat of the enemy, the release of our hostages, and the assurance that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel,” the Israeli prime minister told his cabinet.
It came after indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, which had aimed to agree on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel, fell apart.
Mr Netanyahu is believed to be leaning towards expanding the offensive in Gaza and seizing the entire enclave, according to Israel’s Channel 12, which cited an official from his office.
He will convene his cabinet on Tuesday to make a decision, Israeli media reported.
Image: Palestinians carry aid supplies. Pic: Reuters
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak told Sky News chief presenter Mark Austin the war in the last several months has been “a war of deception”.
“It’s nothing to do with the security in Israel, and it has nothing to do with the future of the hostages. It’s basically a war to hold together the coalition and to save Netanyahu from the day of reckoning that will come inevitably when the war stops, when these criminal court cases of corruption will be accelerated. Basically, it’s totally unjustified.”
A group of around 600 retired Israeli security officials have written to Donald Trump to urge the US president to pressure Israel to bring the war to an immediate end.
“It is our professional judgement that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel,” the letter said. “Your credibility with the vast majority of Israelis augments your ability to steer Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his government in the right direction: End the war, return the hostages, stop the suffering.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:06
Gaza: A war of ‘deception’
Meanwhile, at least 40 Palestinians were killed by Israeli gunfire and airstrikes in Gaza on Monday, including 10 seeking aid, local medics said. Another five died of starvation, they added.
Aid groups say Israel’s latest measures to allow aid into the besieged enclave are not enough.
Image: Smoke rises after an explosion in Gaza. Pic: Reuters
Several hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since May as they headed towards food distribution sites and aid convoys, according to witnesses, local health officials and the UN human rights office.
Israel’s military says it has only fired warning shots and disputes the number killed.
Image: Palestinians rush to collect humanitarian aid in Gaza. Pic: AP
Several countries have been airdropping aid to Gaza, though the UN and aid groups warn such drops are costly and dangerous for residents, and deliver less aid than trucks.
COGAT, the Israeli military agency that coordinates aid, said during the past week, more than 23,000 tons of humanitarian aid in 1,200 trucks had entered Gaza, but hundreds had yet to be driven to aid distribution hubs by UN and other international organisations.
Palestinian and UN officials said Gaza needs around 600 aid trucks to enter each day to meet its humanitarian requirements – the number Israel used to allow in before the war.
The war began when Hamas-led militants killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostage in an attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.
Israel’s offensive has since killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-backed health ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count.
Israeli officials say 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with only 20 of those believed to still be alive.
The Kremlin has urged caution in nuclear rhetoric, responding for the first time to US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US is repositioning nuclear submarines.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov played down the significance of Mr Trump’s comments, saying on Monday that US submarines are already on combat duty and that Moscow does not want to comment further.
Mr Trump said last Friday that he had ordered two submarines to be moved to “the appropriate regions” in response to remarks from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed powers.
“In this case, it is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that’s the first thing,” Mr Peskov told reporters.
“But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,” he said. “Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.”
Mr Peskov said Moscow did not view Mr Trump’s statement as an escalation in nuclear tension.
“We do not believe that we are talking about any escalation now. It is clear that very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, are perceived very emotionally by many people,” he said.
More from World
He declined to answer directly whether Mr Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, was advised to tone down his online altercation with Mr Trump.
Image: The spat between former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and Donald Trump intensified over nuclear rhetoric. Pic: Reuters
“Listen, in every country, members of the leadership… have different points of view on events that are taking place, different attitudes. There are people who are very, very tough-minded in the United States of America and in European countries, so this is always the case,” Mr Peskov said.
“But the main thing, of course, is the position of President (Vladimir) Putin. You know that in our country, foreign policy is formulated by the head of state, that is, President Putin.”
The spat between Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev flared up after the US president said he is reducing his 50-day deadline for Russia to end its war in Ukraine to less than two weeks.
Mr Medvedev posted on social media that Mr Trump was “playing the ultimatum game with Russia… Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war”.
The US president responded: “Tell Medvedev, the failed former Russian president who thinks he is still in power, to be careful what he says. He is entering very dangerous territory.”
Image: A Russian air strike has set cars on fire and damaged buildings in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region. Pic: Sofiia Gatilova/Reuters
Medvedev’s following post mentioned “Dead Hand,” the automatic nuclear retaliation system created during the Soviet era.
Ukraine and Russia continue attacks amid stalled talks
Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine continue exchanging strikes as peace talks to end the conflict remain stalled.
Ukraine’s security service said on Monday that its drones have attacked a Russian military airfield in Crimea, damaging several planes.
Image: US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff meets Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin.
The Ukrainian military also claimed it had attacked a Russian fuel depot at Sochi airport the previous day. Russian officials reported on Sunday that an overnight Ukrainian drone attack on an oil depot near the Black Sea resort of Sochi caused a large fire, which prompted authorities to halt flights from the airport.
Ukraine said on Monday its forces neutralised 161 out of 162 Russian drones launched overnight.
As the US deadline for the Russian president to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine approaches, Mr Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Wikoff will be travelling to Moscow on Wednesday for talks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that Ukraine and Russia have agreed to exchange 1,200 prisoners following their latest round of negotiations in Istanbul in July.
Mr Zelensky also said that his office is in communication with US partners and that “pressure on Russia can truly work – in a way that makes them feel the consequences of prolonging the war”.