Acknowledgement

I would like to first thank Miss A.Revati Raj for her guidance and
patience in helping me complete this project. Her presence has
allowed me to develop a keen interest in political science and in
extension international relations and has granted me the liberal
freedom to inquire into the subject through diversified perspectives
and sources.

I am also greatly indebted to miss Armin Shroff, (Vice principal of ISC)

and to K.T Karmachandran sir (Principal ) for their patience and
measured influences to help me complete the project in time.

Finally, I am grateful to my classmates without whom my mind

wouldn't have had the ability to formulate and disect interesting
ideas. The constant debates and discussions have kept me in track of
my research and a platform to express the same perspectives I've
built on in this project.

Hafis S Mohammed

U.S. dominance in World politics in the

Post Cold War Era
Why was this topic chosen?
I personally believed that this topic has paramount importance in
understanding international relations and foreign policy of the 21​st​ century.
After the cold war, the power shifted from a bi-polar axis towards a uni-polar
one and is slowly shifting towards a multi-polar world. To understand this, one
could study the United States of America in the context of its involvement in
various events of importance in the past and as well as in the present.
Therefore, we will be studying the evolution of changes in world politics in the
context of US involvement, particularly in its war efforts.

Framing the research question:

Is the active involvement of USA in world politics helping it
maintain its dominance in the Post Cold War era?

Hypothesis​: In the post cold war era, while USA has managed to secure a uni
polar world, the continuation of its foreign policy in attempting to play a key
role in world politics has in turn led to a counter intuitive effort leading to the
reduction of US dominance in world politics. Especially in the sphere of its war
efforts and its consequences. This can be understood by applying simple
elements in game theory to USA’s various military campaigns in the past as
well as the present.
Background:
Historical context : The Cold War

The Cold War was a time of tension between the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR), or the Soviet Union and the United States, and their
respective ideologies. It followed the Second World War and persisted from
roughly 1945-1991.It was not declared in the same sense as most wars, rather
it progressed over time.

A lot of wars, like the Korea War, The Vietnam War, and the Soviet Afghanistan
war was fought between the two side, but they never came into open conflict
save for a few instances. It drew in many
people and economies and saw fighting in
more places than the Second World War,
including the Middle East, Asia, Africa, South
America, and Central America.

During the course of the years from 1945 -

1991 an air of fear and paranoia persisted with the on-going arms race,
counter space programs and the usage of espionage and information warfare
against each other.

Millions of people died as a result of the indirect conflict between the two
titans.

The War ended in 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the
dynamics of world politics had been forever changed. The United States of
America had proclaimed their victory in the cold war, ushering in an age of
unipolarism and seeming dominance over world politics.

Understanding game theory :

Game theory, also known as interactive decision theory, studies the behaviour
of decision makers in situations of strategic interdependence. Its founders are
John Von Neumann​ ​and ​Oskar Morgenstern ​who published the book ​The
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior​ in 1944. The relevance of the theory
for international relations (IR) goes undisputed; it is a truism to assert that
states interact by trying to predict other states’ reactions to their decisions.

While the theory in its entirety is completely beyond the scope of this project,
we will be picking two concepts from it. Namely “Finite and Infinite games” as
well as “zero sum game”

These concepts will be applied to America’s mindset in world politics as well as

in its actions.

Finite and Infinite Games

In a finite game, there are fixed number of players, pre-set goal or a clear end
to achieve and fixed rules.
In an infinite game, There are indefinite number of players, no pre-set goal and
no fixed rules. The only goal of an infinite game is to keep the game going on.
When a player depletes their resources and can no longer continue the game,
they back out and the game continues on.

Now, when a finite player is set against a finite player; the system is stable.
When an infinite player is set against an infinite player; the system is also
stable.

But when there are any other combinations, the system becomes instable and
chaotic.
This concept will be the one that is used predominantly.

Zero – sum Game

A zero-sum game, in any context, is one where the players can only win by
taking from other players. In the political context, an election with two
candidates is a simple example. One candidate’s loss results in the other
candidates victory.

Applying the concepts to the cold war can provide a better understanding of
the nature of the project itself.

The whole of the Cold War could be treated as an infinite game with two
players, the US and the USSR. Even though they claimed to have clear goals (
destroying capitalism/ communism ) the game that they were in was an infinite
one.

Further, lets apply the theory to the soviet afghan war and the Vietnam war.

Soviet Afghan War

Here, the USSR was playing a finite game of destroying the mujahideen, a clear
cut goal.
While the Mujahideen were playing an infinite game, where they just had to
survive and continue to survive.
Therefore when these two players come
into conflict the finite player’s chances of
success are less in comparison to the
infinite player.
Therefore here, the USSR lost in its
endeavours.
Its interesting to know that *insert
anecdote
Vietnam War ​( second phase )

Here, the USA was playing a finite game of not allowing North Vietnam to
reunify with South Vietnam,
While North Vietnam was playing an infinite game of reuniting with South
Vietnam regardless of the cost.
Here also, the infinite player ended up succeeding in the long run, once again
proving the implication of game theory in world affairs.

Now,
Towards the end ​the Soviet Union was disintegrating. In response to severe
economic problems and growing political ferment​ it had to back out of the
infinite game it was in. This led the us to believe that it’s the only player
remaining in the ‘game’. That’s when the problem began, when the US
seemingly forgot which game it was in, considering itself to have emerged
victorious from the whole ordeal. The consequences of which we shall
investigate into.

Impact on world politics through the military after the

Cold War

World politics is
often dictated by
military strength,
since when it comes
to negotiations, the
country with the
bigger fire power get
a heavier say in things,
the same applies to
victors in a war. A
primary example of this would be the importance of the permanent five
members of the security council of the United Nations, after t
After the cold war, the major threat to security and peace in the global
community was the rise of terrorism rooted in fundamentalism. Even if the
world didn’t look to U.S for guidance, the U.S due to its newfound
understanding that it leads the world took it upon itself to further aggravate
the situation.
The plane hijacking of Boeing 767 and the subsequent destruction of the world
trade centre in New York was a shock to the entire world, without a doubt a
massive incentive for the US to engage itself in a war that still goes on.

On September 21, 2001 then president George W Bush, declared a “war on

terror“and what followed was retaliation swift and strong. Leading to the
Afghan war and the Iraq war.

The Iraq war can be used as a strong example, to shed light on how USA
started to lose its grip on world politics.

Iraq War: Results and Interpretations.

The United States of America in 2003 was not a new foe for Saddam Hussein’s
Iraq. Ever since the Gulf War broke out after Iraqi forces invaded and occupied
Kuwait in 1990, tensions were running high. Two major operations, viz.
Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, were carried out by
coalition forces against Iraq in a span of a year, before a ceasefire was
negotiated between the warring factions. Prior to the Gulf War, during the
Cold War era, Iraq was always an ally of the Soviet Union and had a stance that
the United States did not want any country in the Middle East to have. The
United States even included Iraq to the list of countries it believed were
sponsors to terror outfits in the late 1970s.

In his “Letter to America” in 2002, Bin Laden explicitly mentioned that one of
the reasons the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated was because of the sanctions
placed against Iraq. Additionally, he mentioned the other reasons to be US’
apparent support for violence against Muslims in various parts, including the
territories occupied by Israel and Chechnya. Which further added to the
suspicions US already had, this coupled with its fears of Iraq owning WMDs and
nuclear weapons was reason enough for the US to invade Iraq.
The IAEA was roped in to inspect along with the UNMOVIC. The IAEA in
February 2003 “found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a
nuclear weapons program in Iraq.” It stated that the materials considered to
be centrifuges were actually for other purposes and not for the manufacture of
WMDs. The United States however, was adamant in its pursuit to formally
invade Iraq. The United States along with its allies viz. The United Kingdom,
Spain, Portugal decided to devise plans for the invasion, when their Heads of
State met in March 2003, days before they would eventually invade Iraq.

What followed was a period that changed the fate of the country and the
region in particular.

By applying game theory to this war, a few points can be understood. In the
context, the USA can be seen as a finite player whose motives are to capture
Saddam Hussein and his sons.
The Iraq as an infinite player, who seeks to maintain its sovereignty in the face
of any adversity.
With what we have established, it is clear that USA plunged the area into an
instability that is outlined by the outcome of what happens when an infinite
player is pit against a finite player.
The Middle East paid the price for it, and is still an instable region due to this
war.

The attack on Iraq is only one of many US and western led capturing of lands in
the Middle East, mostly on the excuse of battling the terror front but analysing
the facts, the narrative shifts.

More than anything, the terrorist groups outward expressions of religious

fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.
according to Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and
founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism
“What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not
religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military
intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the
terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the
West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the
Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military
intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying
territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else”
Robert Pape and his colleagues have studied every suicide attack in the world
since 1980, evaluating over 4,600 in all. Since the very nature of this project is
interpretation and inferring, from this report, the same understanding that is
applied to suicide terrorists can be extended to terrorists in general and it
further proves the point that not only was the US’s effort in Iraq counter
intuitive to their “war on terror” but led to an aggravation in the same.

Further if it were to be noted, US’s completely adamant stance on not being

willing to negotiate unless they’ve captured Saddam Hussein and his sons, is
yet another staple of game theory, where such a stance can be defined as a
zero sum game that US was playing.
This approach that the US has frequently adopted leaves out on any options of
picking a less drastic measure.

Cold War 2.0

Once you reduce the Cold War between the USSR and USA down to a couple of
factors, a new narrative or way to look at international relations in the post
cold war era is revealed.
These factors are :
a) Nuclear tension
b) Ideological differences
c) Economic tension
During the cold war, there existed the question of using nuclear weapons
against each other.
The ideological difference between soviet style communism and democratic
capitalism was evident.
The economic tension between the two countries, kept the cold war going.
If these were indeed the factors, then the end of the cold war would mean that
these factors also cease to exist but that’s not the case.

The Nuclear threat still exists in the presence of countries like Pakistan, Iran
and especially North Korea.
The Ideological difference still exists in the form of Islamic fundamentalism
from terrorist groups.
The economic tension also exists, but with China.
So from these, we can conclude that merely the players have changed but the
Infinite game that started between USA and USSR still remains.
The 21​st​ century can be said to still be in a Cold War, albeit a cold war 2.0

Further, all these countries that stand against U.S’s interests are absolute in
realizing who they are up against but the US in its attempts to do the same,
end up launching themselves into short term policies and actions. Which when
co-related to game theory is playing the game a finite player plays, in an
infinite game which undoubtedly leads to chaos and instability in regions.

This chaos quaintly translates into the forum of world politics too were US’s
allies would hesitate before coming to its aid, noting the current strained
relationship between Israel and USA.
It must be stated that during the original cold war, USA had a general ease in
rallying its allies against the USSR. Perhaps this was cause even if USA didn’t
realize it then, it was an infinite player in an infinite game.

Now in a broadly similar situation, as per the conclusions we have reached, the
US fails to counter its primary opponents militarily as well as diplomatically
cause it doesn’t realize the “game” its playing.
Further reiterating the problems in misconceiving itself as the “leader of the
free world”

Conclusion :
The US’s policies in terms of military decisions or diplomacy may have led to
the illusion of a US dominance over world politics, but the damages that it has
done to the US’s motives are more than the advantages that it has gained.
Undoubtedly after the Cold War the US did have a high standing in the world,
but it over stayed its welcome on the grand pedestal of “world leader”. The
effects of the same are self evident.
At this point it must be made clear that this whole project should in no way be
taken as a call for inactivity from the U.S.
Coming back to the question that was originally raised “​Is the active
involvement of USA in world politics helping it maintain its dominance in the
Post Cold War era? “ The answer is, it could have, if US were to pick its battles
both in the diplomatic sphere and military sphere wisely. This would have
helped its allies have a better idea regarding their foreign policy as well ( this
would have in turn led to more active support from them )
Perhaps redemption can be still attained since a lot of fronts where US could
maintain and further push its dominance, exists in the form of the strife in the
South China Sea. This redemption begins with foremost understanding the
game that the US is playing and adopting long term policies instead of short
term ones. Reinstating the importance of value systems such as life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness into their decision making policy. This would not only
be in line with what the US claims to be, but would be an example of leading
by example and something the US should consider if wants to maintain its “
leader of the free world” stance. That being said, in the light of the recent
administration change in 2017 the chances of such measured approaches are
bleak.
On a final note,
Even though mainstream international relations considers cold war as a heated
state of unrest between two countries, given the logical reasoning provided in
the project, it can be re contextualized as a struggle for power, ultimate
dominance, a race to become the greatest country in the world
and this is an infinite game.
No clear ending, no rules, the only way to proceed forward is to ensure that
the game continues.

Bibliography
1. Simon sineck - game theory and american foreign policy

2. Game theory - coursera.com

3. Vietnam war - history.com

4. Korean war - history.com

5. Iran- Iraq war - history.com

6. Un.org/documents/
7. www.IAEA.com reports
8.

7. The strategic logic of suicide terrorism - Robert Pape