The superpower’s engineers and soldiers waded into the waves lapping at the Mediterranean shoreline and tethered their pontoons to form a sort of pier, eventually to become a bridge, but a storm wrecked the pier and delayed the superpower’s plans. Those ultimately turned out to be doomed anyway.
You are probably recognizing the start of Herodotus’ account of the Persian attempt to cross the Hellespont in 480 BC. I could not help but think of it when a storm recently buffeted and disabled the pier that the US was building on the coast of the Gaza Strip.
Within weeks of that setback, the Americans, like the Persians of yore, rebuilt their floating structure, but it is still not being used the way it was intended.
Cindy McCain, widow of the former US senator and head of the UN World Food Programme, said this week that it is not safe to unload humanitarian provisions there, after rockets hit nearby warehouses and injured staff. That also means the US Agency for International Development, which coordinates with the UN World Food Programme, is pausing its efforts.
The floating pier was an idea that US President Joe Biden announced in his State of the Union address in March. He gave that speech five months to the day after Hamas massacred Israelis in the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and almost as long after Israel began bombing the entire Gaza Strip into rubble, while often hindering the humanitarian aid meant to succor its 2 million civilians.
Throughout that time and the three months since, Biden has not been able to change the situation for the better. To his credit, he has kept the conflict from spreading into a regional war between the US and Iran, but he has not deployed the full power of the Oval Office to restrain or guide the Israeli government, nor to lean on both Hamas and Israel, via their intermediaries, to agree to a ceasefire that would free the hostages and prepare the eventual reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.
Pleasing neither side, Biden has instead resorted to largely symbolic half-measures. When the Israelis held up aid supplies on land, he ordered a few loads to be dropped by parachute. When they kept dropping tunnel busters, he blocked one shipment of the most explosive bombs going to Israel, while continuing to supply it with all the other weapons that the US gives Israel.
This week, in what must pass for a diplomatic win, Biden finally pushed a US-drafted resolution through the UN Security Council. It calls on Hamas and Israel to accept a ceasefire agreement that Biden recently sketched out, but its language was diluted enough to satisfy few and offend many, while not necessarily bringing peace any closer.
The most tangible symbol for US fecklessness is that pier. When I first heard Biden describe it during the State of the Union address, I thought of other heroic US feats of logistics. During the Berlin airlift of 1948 to 1949, for example, the Americans and their British allies fed half a city for almost a year, at the risk of sparking World War III, until the adversary yielded in the face of such awe-inspiring resolve.
Biden’s pier operation, by contrast, is well-meant and ambitious, though hardly on the epic scale of 1948 (or 480 BC). Massive amounts of victuals and medicine first go to Cyprus, then to an offshore platform where they are reloaded onto vessels to the pier. From there, they are meant to travel by truck, under UN supervision, throughout the Gaza Strip.
That is the theory, at least. In practice, only a few dollops have arrived in Gaza, often to be looted. During the brief time the pier was working before the storm, about 27 trucks a day left from it, with planning for 150; the Gaza Strip apparently needs at least 600 a day to escape famine. This pier is hardly the humanitarian equivalent of a D-Day beachhead.
As Herodotus told his anecdote about the Persian setback, King Xerxes, who was on the way to conquering the Greeks, was so full of hubris that he gave orders to whip the Hellespont’s waves with 300 lashes and to scald the water with hot irons as punishment. The sea was unimpressed, and Xerxes, as Herodotus’ audience understood, already doomed.
The US, as a long-in-the-tooth superpower, also succumbs to hubris from time to time, thinking that it can or should solve every problem. Unlike Xerxes, though, Biden yearns to use whatever remains of his nation’s power for good. It is just that he keeps learning that the world and its many hatreds, like the Hellespont, will not be tamed, by him or any US president.
At worst, Biden’s pier, long before it does any good, becomes a target for the region’s terrorist groups, drawing the US deeper into the fighting. At best, the pier operates for a while longer with negligible impact, until it becomes irrelevant once Israel and some outside coalition of custodian powers restore adequate humanitarian access by land.
Herodotus’ story moved his audiences because they knew what came next: The Persians lost, and on their way home discovered that their rebuilt bridge was in ruins yet again. The Achaemenid Dynasty began its decline; one-and-a-half centuries later, Alexander the Great crossed the Hellespont in the other direction and dissolved the Persian Empire.
The US is not, or not yet, in danger of such a fate, but Biden and his successors would do well to accept that Washington cannot solve every problem and must choose judiciously where and how to intervene, and then with full commitment rather than symbolic gestures.
Xerxes, incidentally, had no good reason to be in Greece at all. Whenever the current conflict in the Middle East winds down, the US might do well to leave that region and stay gone.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
RSS