This essay argues that the war on terror that followed the 9/11 attacks on the United States is fundamentally misconceived and is actually achieving the opposite to what was intended. The architects of the war on terror have been chasing rainbows since 2001 as the harder they have run towards their goal, the further away it has seemed to move.
The magical thinking behind the ‘war on terror’ has allowed a radical disconnect between problem and solution – most glaringly, between 9/11 and attacking Iraq. Solutions offered by leaders with a degree of certainty often appeal to publics even if they are apparently illogical. But why pursue such policies at all?
In many ways geopolitics is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be thought about; it’s the taken for granted arrangement of things that provides the context for policy making. Except that what it most obvious in how we understand the world isn’t necessarily the only way things can be understood. Given dominant geopolitical specifications in the White House then, what are the prospects for an attack on Iran?
