Historical realities cannot be denied.
According to Atlas Diplomacy, the article “Trump’s Cabinet and the Clash of Civilizations?” by Zulfaqar Sadeghi was published by Iranian Diplomacy. Focusing on remarks by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio about Iran, the piece examines the current confrontation through the lens of the clash-of-civilizations theory, historical interpretations, and Washington’s strategic calculations. The author argues that excessive reliance on past military successes can lead to miscalculation and entrapment in an “imperial trap.” The following is a summary of the piece.
Donald Trump’s administration can be examined through the relationship between power politics, civilizational narratives, and the redefinition of the United States’ position in the international order. From this perspective, statements by senior administration officials, including Marco Rubio, are not merely temporary political positions. They may also reflect a broader outlook on the historical identity of the West and its relationship with other civilizations. This approach brings the clash-of-civilizations theory back to the center of debates about American foreign policy. The theory interprets global competition not only in terms of economic and security interests, but also through cultural and historical differences.
However, turning political and strategic disagreements into civilizational confrontations can oversimplify international relations and reinforce one-sided interpretations of history. The history of civilizations is marked by interaction, the exchange of knowledge, competition, warfare, and mutual influence. Portraying civilizations as fixed entities that are perpetually hostile to one another therefore fails to capture the full complexity of the historical record. Such a perspective can recast present-day political disputes as inevitable conflicts rooted in the distant past, narrowing the space for diplomatic solutions.
Historical examples involving ancient Iran and Greece also demonstrate how civilizational narratives can be shaped by political perspectives. Relations between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greek city-states, including Athens, were not limited to warfare and hostility. They unfolded within a broader context of regional competition, political relations, and cultural developments. Selective readings of this past can produce a simplified image of an enduring East–West confrontation. Rather than clarifying historical complexity, such an image may serve to justify contemporary political positions. Historical realities cannot simply be redefined to suit the political needs of the present.
At the strategic level, the use of military metaphors and displays of force also requires careful scrutiny. Expressions such as “a massive fleet” or “armada” can turn military capability into a symbol of political resolve and national superiority. Yet historical experience shows that the size of a military force does not necessarily determine strategic success. The fate of the Spanish Armada in the sixteenth century remains a well-known example of the gap between the display of power and the achievement of military objectives. Apparent superiority can be undermined by miscalculations, operational limitations, environmental conditions, and an adversary’s resistance. A show of force is therefore more likely to produce the desired outcome when it is accompanied by a realistic assessment of objectives, costs, and the opposing side’s capabilities.
A major risk in foreign policy decision-making is the phenomenon known in strategic literature as “gambling for resurrection.” It arises when a political leader undertakes a high-risk action in an attempt to recover lost credibility, compensate for previous failures, or reverse a decline in domestic standing. Under such circumstances, decisions may be driven less by a rational assessment of interests and costs than by the need to demonstrate resolve and restore prestige. Military action intended to strengthen a power’s position can consequently intensify a crisis and increase its political and security costs.
The United States’ experience across various military operations also highlights the need to distinguish operational success from the achievement of political objectives. Winning a battle or gaining an advantage on the battlefield does not necessarily establish a stable order or fulfill long-term goals. Military power can influence the balance of forces in the short term, but political outcomes depend on other factors, including legitimacy, an understanding of the target society, the ability to manage the aftermath of war, and the capacity to establish durable agreements. Ignoring these factors can draw major powers into a cycle of intervention, expenditure, and failure.
Ultimately, the concept of the “imperial trap” warns of the gap between a state’s ability to exercise power and its capacity to preserve the gains that power produces. Expanding military and political commitments can drain national resources while increasing resistance to a country’s influence. When foreign policy rests on rigid civilizational assumptions, displays of force, and overly optimistic calculations, the risk grows that a state will enter conflicts that are difficult and costly to escape. A realistic foreign policy requires recognition of the limits of power, attention to historical realities, and resistance to turning political competition into a sweeping war between civilizations./ Source
