His name was ubiquitous in the news. His funeral drew hundreds of thousands of mourners across Iran and Iraq. His friends vowed retaliation. In case you ignored this week’s news—or missed the hundreds of memes circulating on Reddit—know this: General Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s top general and second most powerful man was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport. Though few shed tears in the West, America should prepare for the ramifications of the attack and revise its Iran strategy.

To understand the consequences of Qasem Soleimani’s death, one must first comprehend the vast system of alliances and Iranian influence he developed. Soleimani was an Iranian general and leader of Iran’s Quds Force—an elite branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. He functioned as the linchpin of Iran’s Middle-East foreign policy; all of Iran’s involvements in surrounding countries—Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza—all of its power plays, revolved around him. In many ways, his role in cultivating ties with surrounding governments was more important than the foreign ministry’s; the day of his death, he was supposed to meet with Iraq’s Prime Minister, Adil Abdul-Mahi.

Iran’s Middle-East foreign policy, centered around propagating its influence while mitigating that of its enemies through constant pressure, primarily took shape following America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003—and Soleimani’s role was vital. Like other American opponents, such as Vladimir Putin, Soleimani was adept at turning US blunders into strategic victories for himself. Following the US invasion and the subsequent collapse of Iraq’s government, he outmaneuvered American intelligence and armed forces and managed to build friendly ties with Iraq’s leaders and its Shia militias (Iran and Iraq are both Shia Muslim majority countries). It is no coincidence that the day of his death he was supposed to meet with Iraq’s Prime Minister and that the car he shared when the American drone struck also contained Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah—an Iraqi Shia militia and listed terrorist group by the US State Department.

His actions elsewhere in the Middle-East mirrored his Iraq stratagem. He sought to create a pathway between Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza through Iraq and Syria to fund Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia militia, political party, and terrorist group, according to the State Department (Kata’ib Hezbollah and Hezbollah are separate entities), as well as anti-Israel organizations in Gaza, such as Hamas (also considered a terrorist group by the US). It is why he tried to mobilize Iranian power in Baghdad and explains his support of Bashar Al-Assad, Syria’s blood-stained dictator, against American-backed rebels and Sunni jihadists, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. (Soleimani was a silent American ally in the war on terror during the Bush and Obama administrations.) In Yemen, he funded the Houthi rebels against the Saudi-backed government. Through Hezbollah and allies in Gaza, Iran could leverage and suppress Israel’s capabilities in the region; with the Houthis in Yemen, it could do the same with Saudi Arabia.

There is no doubt Soleimani was guilty of many crimes—especially toward America and Israel. He was a vile, contemptuous man despised in the West and even among lots of Iranians. Nonetheless, he was no fool, and his careful geopolitical machinations that built Iran an expansive web of regional partners, militias, and politicians should be taken seriously. What he built will live past his death. Unlike organizations that rely solely on a strong charismatic leader, Soleimani’s Quds force—and thus the string of alliances he sewed—now disposes of the three pillars needed to survive, according to Jenna Jordan, an international affairs expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology: organized bureaucracy, local resources, and powerful ideology. The Quds are now an effective task force that can funnel resources to pro-Iran militias and paramilitaries all across the Middle-East, and perform assassinations in far-flung lands. It has a force of trained combat veterans of wars all over the region against numerous enemies—an army filled with rage after the killing of its commander.

With this geopolitical context in mind, what are the consequences of Soleimani’s death? The outcome depends on two factors: the effect of American deterrence and its impact on Iran’s regional capabilities. Start with deterrence. Iran was testing America’s limits—what it could and could not do before the USA declared war—long before the attack, ever since Trump pulled America out of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in May 2018. It started by bombing oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, moved on to striking Saudi oil facilities and an American drone, ordered attacks by its militias on Iraqi military bases with US personnel, which killed an American contractor, and finally started orchestrating violent protests against the US consulate in Basra and its embassy in Baghdad.

American retaliation through killing Soleimani showed the US was willing to strike back and temporarily paralyzed the country’s leaders; Iran’s missile attack on an American base in the wake of Soleimani’s death killed no US soldiers and was more an act of chest-thumping than actual retaliation. Yet that does not mean Iran will stop probing the US through airstrikes, cyber attacks, assassinations, or suicide-bombings by proxies, nor does it guarantee an end of hostilities. After all, Iran’s aggressive actions only amplified the last time America provoked it, following Mr. Trump’s departure from the JCPOA and the return of economically crippling sanctions. As for the strike’s impact on Iran’s regional capabilities, even though Soleimani was a powerful figure and one hard to replace, what he built is much larger than himself and will survive his demise. Moreover, Iran now sees no reason to abide by the terms of the JCPOA, and just started enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb—an eventuality that significantly reduces America’s leverage in the region.

In fact, the strike draws America into a situation it cannot afford to be engaged in, what game theorists call an “infinite game”. Game theory differentiates two types of games: infinite and finite. A finite game is one where all players are present at the start of the game and ends in victory for one side; an infinite one, on the other hand, drags on forever and can gain or lose players. America risks starting an infinite game with Iran—a series of hostilities that last years without end in sight—while preserving the attitude of a finite game. Mr. Trump and future administrations will look for a victory against Iran in the Middle-East, while Iran will do anything to ensure its survival. That risks getting America stuck in a no longer strategic region for years—precisely the opposite of Mr. Trump’s wishes.

America’s confusing “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran is floundering. Just as Obama failed to negotiate his way out of the Middle-East through establishing the JCPOA, Mr. Trump will not manage to leave by implementing a strategy that requires a constant American presence. Neither is war an option—Americans do not want a repeat of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and countless other military calamities. So what should America do? Concentrate its efforts on stirring up internal resentment against the Islamic Republic instead of placing itself against Iranians by touting war and the destruction of their cultural sites. When the US assassinated Soleimani, thousands mourned his death. When Iran admitted accidentally downing a Ukrainian International Airlines flight out of Tehran that carried some of Iran’s brightest students, thousands of Iranians demonstrated against the regime’s negligence and lies—with some protestors demanding Khamenei, Iran’s dictator, step down. Iranians remained silent in misery for years, but more are protesting—over adverse economic conditions in 2017 and 2018, over rising fuel costs in 2019, and even against the government’s Islamism in all three years.

America should use growing Iranian wrath against the Islamic Republic to its advantage. It is critical, therefore, that America strikes up another agreement with Iran and gets back to the negotiation table; without an end of sanctions and the easing of hostilities, Iran will remain in an infinite game mindset—in a fight for its survival. America cannot yet start negotiations—that would weaken its image and potentially embolden Iran. Instead, Europe must urge the Iranians to keep their commitments to the JCPOA and work with Iran and the US through back-channel negotiations. As Mr. Macron, France’s president showed in the last G7 summit in August, Europe is ready to play the role of peacekeeper between the two powers and favor a rapprochement. Perhaps the dream is beyond reach during the Trump administration—the amount of bad blood between his cabinet’s hawks and Iran prevents any real breakthroughs. But with the arrival of a new president in 2020, and a partially blank slate, negotiations can start anew.

The US must not abandon its allies in the region and recall its troops, but it cannot afford to embroil itself once more in a Middle-Eastern conflict, especially not against a large opponent such as Iran. Instead, America should concentrate on re-establishing diplomatic ties with Iran and expose to Iranians the regime’s failures, just as the Iran Nuclear Deal did. Protests in 2017 and 2018 were not fueled by wealthy, upper-middle-class Iranians, who are already suspicious of the regime, but by poor and middle-class people who lamented the Islamic Republic’s prioritizing of Shia militias and despots over regular Iranians. Since the JCPOA removed most sanctions on Iran, the regime could not deflect blame for its mismanagement of the economy towards Western powers. A return to cultivating Iranian resistance against the Islamic Republic is possible, but it requires a change of American strategy. Only through internal reform is regime change in Iran possible, but the only way to initiate such reform is through building ties with Iran—not by escalating into war. America, do not destroy Iran. Help Iranians fix it.

That climate change is real and caused by humans is obvious. Scientists have known that human activity engenders climate change for years—the idea of the “greenhouse effect” dates back to 1896. Out of populations from 38 countries polled in 2017, 61% of respondents believed climate change to be a big threat. Even traditional skeptics are warming up to the issue (no pun intended). Yet despite overwhelming consensus over global warming’s causes and consequences, solutions for it remain lackluster—nobody seriously wants to limit carbon emissions. A change in thinking is needed: citizens, business leaders, and politicians must understand that they can all benefit from eradicating or at the very least limiting climate change through cutting emissions together. Here’s how.

Start with citizens. Asides from climate change causing fires ruining their Napa wine, smog spoiling their cities’ air, and plastic covering their oceans, the average citizen gains immensely from tackling global warming. When it comes to health, America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paints a grim image of a world with more global warming. It reckons climate change “increase[s] respiratory and cardiovascular disease, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, changes in the prevalence and geographical distribution of food and water-borne illnesses and other infectious diseases, and threats to mental health”. A heatwave in Japan in 2018 cost around 125 lives. That is just the start of global warming’s nasty consequences.

Concerns over home security should alarm citizens as well, incentivizing them to curtail their emissions. Huge forest fires swarmed Greece, Sweden, and California last year. Northern California fires alone destroyed more than 18,000 homes—the number will only multiply with rising temperatures. Coastal regions today are productive and attractive. But they are also increasingly exposed to global warming’s nefarious effects, falling prey to floods caused by ever-rising sea levels. And it is not just the coast that is at risk. Warmer air holds more evaporated water than its cooler counterpart, meaning precipitation augments as temperatures heighten: America’s Midwest will possibly experience a 30% increase in rainfall if carbon emissions continue to climb, according to the US’s National Climate Assessment (NCA). With intense precipitation being a main cause of floods, even regions far from the coast—such as America’s Midwest—are not safeguarded. The region already fought a devastating “once-in-500-years” flood this year. Its population should expect more to come. Considering these risks, citizens should limit their carbon emissions through recycling, carpooling, using public transport more than cars and cutting their meat portions a tad.

Executives also have a role to play in fighting global warming. In fact, tackling climate change benefits them. Some corporations could lose up to a fifth of their value because of climate change’s harm on their physical assets—and that figure will grow as global warming persists. Witness the utter destruction of Puerto Rico’s booming pharmaceutical industry in 2017 because of Hurricane Maria—a calamity likelier in the future because of increasing global warming.  Furthermore, climate change doesn’t only pose physical harm to businesses. McKinsey, a consulting firm, reckons corporations also have to deal with price and reputation risk. Climate change’s supply-chain disruptions cause price spikes for commodities such as raw materials. A company like IKEA, which uses wood for a myriad of its products, will suffer enormous economic harm in the long run—the price of wood ratchets up since forest fires increase. And as citizens come to accept climate change and its ramifications, companies unwilling to reduce their emissions will face a consumer backlash. Clever businesses can even profit from consumer worries of climate change. The rise of eco-friendly grocery stores today is no coincidence.

Yet despite evidence of its dangers and opportunities for profit, some business leaders are still wary of spreading knowledge of climate change’s consequences—a necessary step for fighting the problem. A common worry is that shareholders might pull back investment if informed. That thinking is counterintuitive. Apprising shareholders of climate change’s risks may hurt in the short run, but acknowledging these risks today mitigates damage tomorrow as shareholders now consider climate change an issue worth resolving. With this in mind, companies can limit global warming’s effects by, for example, pivoting towards renewable energy sources: instead of car manufacturers deriving their factory energy from coal-powered thermal plants, they can encourage utility companies to build more renewable energy plants, and use green energy. They should force their suppliers to do the same, just as Volkswagen does.

There is a clear incentive to shift to green policies for politicians, too. In this year’s European elections, the Green parties were among the largest winners. Furthermore, as businesses experience the consequences of climate change, lobbies will push for more environmentalism in politics as well. Not to mention citizens’ growing fears of global warming will surely lose anti-environmentalist politicians votes. Incentivize is there—politicians just need to know about it.

How should they regulate climate emissions? Limit climate change all while maintaining practicality and prosperity. Few American centrists supported Ms. Cortez’s Green New Deal as it requires massive government expansion—which is both impractical and costly. Moreover, polluting firms, especially those in the oil and gas industry, account for huge sums of wealth—money necessary for welfare schemes. But there are pragmatic solutions. A good start is to decrease the oil industry’s subsidies, giving the saved money to the renewable energy sector. Another policy idea is the carbon price or tax, limiting businesses’ incentive to release carbon emissions by making them pay for the amount they release. And politicians should counterbalance loses in GDP through tax cuts—bolstering popular support for green policies—as to avoid a situation like that of France’s gilets-jaunes.

A world with continuous global warming is a deeply unpleasant place to inhabit. And global warming is a complicated issue. Individually, citizens, business leaders, and politicians cannot possibly beat back climate change. United by common benefits, however, they might just shift the balance of the war on climate change in humanity’s favor.

As democracy indexes improve across the world in 2019, it seems political freedom is finally within reach. But freedom of choice in electing government does not equate to national political independence. Through economic and political pressure, powerful states can effectively exercise their will on the world stage—to the detriment of other nations.

Start with economics. A major tool used by countries to coerce each other is trade. Since capitalism is the most recurrent economic system today, trade naturally occupies an important seat in international relations. Though a great boon to all when done freely and fairly, it can be manipulated to serve a country’s own interests. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. Following their assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and regime critic, they denied all accusations of wrongdoing—despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary. Yet European powers and the USA did not put substantial political pressure on Saudi Arabia. Such an act would potentially end billion-dollar weapon sales from the West to Saudi Arabia, terminate Saudi Arabian shipments of oil to the West, and force the relinquishment of rights to a large percentage of the world’s oil to a now non-Western ally. Europe and America lost considerable political independence: their democratic ideals were cast aside in exchange for business and financial interests.

Currencies and economic institutions promote the interests of nations that supply or fund them. Thanks to the all-powerful dollar, the United States controls access to all world markets and operates as the world’s most important reserve currency; in order to trade, one must use the dollar. Thanks to this power, the USA can alienate foreign nations it deems dangerous to its interests by simply removing them from global markets. It’s the case with nations like Iran: the country is effectively banned from international commerce since the USA restricts trade in greenbacks with it. And there is no hope in complaining to organizations such as the WTO: the USA controls all access to them. Iran has repeatedly attempted to enter the WTO, but the USA constantly vetoes against its membership. Iran loses considerable political independence: if it does not abide by American demands, then it will remain ostracized from world markets.

Then there’s the politics. Military involvement is frequently used between states to apply political pressure—the USA holds military personnel in almost 150 countries across the globe. With around 54,000 American troops within its borders, Germany cannot radically dissent with American policies out of fear of military repercussions. China, another global superpower, is ramping up its presence in Africa in order to strengthen economic and commercial ties; with Chinese armed forces breathing down their necks, African governments are reluctant to decline Chinese commercial partnerships and interests. National and political independence is jeopardized because of risks of direct foreign military interference.

Soft power is equally key when influencing politics. After decades of British rule, many countries around the world preserve strong ties with their former rulers: witness India, Canada, and South Africa’s membership in the Commonwealth of Nations. Even Americans, who constantly boast of driving out British monarchy in favor of republicanism, always count the British among essential allies. (After all, they were the only ones to follow America into its second war with Iraq.) America’s role in Europe’s reconstruction after World War II—the funds it provided and its promotion of a military alliance, NATO—cemented its reputation as a champion of freedom and democracy (though that position is challenged today). Rising world powers, such as China, have also embraced the use of soft power. Witness the growing number of Confucius institutes around the world, and that the Chinese economic model—otherwise known as the “Beijing Consensus”—is the economic standard for more and more Africans.

The strengthening of democracy is great news and worth a celebration. But there is more to political freedom than casting a vote: forces beyond our control play a pivotal role in politics as well. Be aware of that.

Since the Mexican-American war ended in 1848, the United States and Mexico have enjoyed a fruitful relationship. Trade between the two nations provides America a lucrative foreign market and Mexico vital investment and capital. Immigration merged America and Mexico’s cuisines, creating the frankly delicious “Tex-Mex” culinary style. The two countries cooperate to solve a variety of issues ranging from the environment to security. Yet today their relationship is at risk. How does this reflect America’s new foreign policy doctrine?

Start with trade and economics. In early June the US president, Donald Trump, threatened Mexico with tariffs, stipulating that the country crackdown on undocumented migrants entering the US. That Donald Trump threatened another country with tariffs is not surprising—witness the trade war he wages with China. But the context in which he planned using tariffs is: Donald Trump did not wish to instigate a trade war with Mexico for an economic reason. He wanted to for a political one: to force Mexico to curb the arrival of undocumented migrants into the USA. The president’s thought process reflects a change in America’s use of economic deterrence: that tariffs can be used to solve issues going beyond economics.

America’s new policies towards Mexico also demonstrate America’s new love for unilateralism. Mr. Trump does not regard undocumented immigration as a problem for both the US and Mexico; he deems it unique to the USA and does not think cooperation between the two nations improves American interests. His views contrast sharply with those of previous presidents—including Republican ones. In the 1980s Republican president Ronald Reagan proposed working with Mexico to limit its unemployment, thereby reducing illegal immigration. The idea benefits Mexico by curtailing labor flights to the US and reassures American communities worried about Mexican labor overwhelming their job markets (though such fears are overblown). Trump’s proposed border wall—and his constant demand for Mexico to pay for it—shows his conviction that Mexico is at fault for the issue and stands nothing to gain from resolving it. It is once again proof of his thinking that the world is, for some reason, rigged against America, and that America must solely lookout for its one interests.

America’s new attitude towards Mexico puts trade, the environment, and immigration at risk through limiting cooperation between the two states. It mirrors the Donald Trump’s foreign policy thinking: that the US should use its strong economic position to bully nations into submission to American plans; and that cooperation between America and other countries is futile and undermines US interests. Repairing the damage he causes won’t be easy. And we haven’t even started.

We live in peaceful times. But it certainly doesn’t feel that way. With war tearing up Syria and Yemen, US tensions heating up with North Korea and Iran, and conflicts over handling Venezuela, it seems the prospect of war looms again. How do we stop it? By overhauling the US’s foreign policy doctrine.

First, revamp deterrence policies. Deterrence should be rooted in denial strategies intended to dissuade specific actions by rival powers through making them infeasible or too risky, as data show these strategies to be more effective than punishment forms of deterrence. In the case of Venezuela, the US should cooperate with anti-Venezuelan allies, such as members of the Lima Group, to deter the regime from launching military action or continuing to oppress its people. The US itself should not send troops to Venezuela—that would only allow Maduro, Venezuela’s de facto dictator, to paint the US as imperialist—but instead, it should convince Venezuela’s neighbors to send troops to corner the nation. Colombia and Brazil, two of Venezuela’s neighbors and members of the Lima group, could do just that. Colombian and Brazilian troops at the country’s borders force Maduro to stretch his forces thin, reducing their capacity to suppress protests; they may also prompt senior Venezuelan military officials, the key to Maduro’s rule, to switch sides. Such policies force Maduro to abandon his iron-grip on the nation, as it becomes impossible to maintain.

Second, America should push for more multilateralism to neutralize aggressive regimes. There are two reasons. Firstly, denial strategies are far more effective with alliances. To stop China’s abusive intellectual property laws and the manipulation of its currency, the US should have reached out to its allies, such as the EU, instead of ratcheting up tariffs on their goods. Together they could have reinforced economic ties—in this case, the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA—moving American commercial transactions with China towards the EU. The US could have done the same with its Asian partners, such as Japan and South Korea. This, in turn, would have prompted China not to continue its abusive policies out of fear of being cornered out of major world markets. Secondly, reinvigorating multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) shields the world against anarchic international relations. Countries do not look out solely for themselves, and through cooperation, reach a desirable end goal for all parties. The need for war or conflict to reach international policy goals is replaced by civilized, cooperative diplomacy.

Third, America must compel nations to revisit nuclear weapons and support denuclearization. Nuclear weapons are a constant reminder of how one heated conflict can morph into a humanitarian catastrophe. Furthermore, nuclear deterrence, a punishment form of deterrence, is doomed to fail in modern times. With eight world powers possessing nuclear weapons, no more can the US frighten fellow actors into modifying their policies with the threat of atomic bombs: the other countries can do the same, as they now have these weapons as well. As mentioned before, the US should seek denial forms of deterrence and push towards denuclearization. This requires time. The USA cannot expect North Korea, for example, to denuclearize in a matter of months: the weapons are North Korea’s only political leverage and are therefore paramount to the regime’s survival. But it is still possible—and a goal worth pursuing. Concessions must be made—the US can withdraw some troops from North Korea’s pro-American neighbors, such as Japan, for North Korea in return opening up its nuclear facilities to UN inspectors. Through such diplomacy, the lofty dream of denuclearization may become a reality.

Global peace is at risk, and America faces a daunting task as the world’s sheriff. Policing the world is harder than it used to be. But by updating foreign policy, fostering multilateralism and pushing denuclearization, peace and prosperity may live on.

To say that since 1979 relations between the United States and Iran have been troublesome is a gross understatement. The two nations have a lot of excess baggage between them, and relations today have not improved. Currently the two countries seem geared towards war. How did we get here? How can we stop the conflict? And should we?

History provides some insight into contemporary Iran-US relations. At the start of the 20th century, between 1905 and 1911, Iran underwent a revolution resulting in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy: the imperial family, the Qajars, were to share power with a parliament known as the Majlis. This revolution, though condemned by Russia and the UK—who subsequently bombed the Majlis and reinstated authoritarian rule in Iran—was supported by the United States. Surprisingly, the first finance minister of the new constitutional monarchy was American. Iran and the United States have not always had tensions—and a return to such times is possible.

Yet while the United States did not interfere in Iran in the early 20th century, it did not show such restraint in 1953. In the early 1950s Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, nationalized all of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s assets in Iran, effectively nationalizing Iran’s oil sector and creating the National Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh believed the UK had no right to Iran’s oil and that Iran’s monarch, Shah Reza Mohammad Pahlavi, had no prerogative to hand over large portions of it to the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The UK, outraged by Mossadegh’s actions, took the Iranian government to the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, however, ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case, which allowed Iran to maintain control of its oil. Following the debacle, the UK waged a trade war with Iran and sought America’s help to overthrow Mossadegh’s democratically elected government, with the 1953 CIA coup d’état against Mossadegh being the end result.

Thanks to the CIA coup, the Shah’s status was elevated from co-leader—with the other leader being the prime minister—to autocrat. Between 1953 and Iran’s second revolution, in 1979, he retained his position of dictator. There are mixed views regarding these twenty years. The Shah modernized the country’s judicial system along Western lines, though arrests without trial were prevalent toward the end of his reign. Economically the period was prosperous, with Iran’s GDP increasing and the oil sector booming because of the Shah and foreign companies’ investments. But while the economy as a whole improved, rapid industrialization exacerbated regional and social inequalities. Tehran increasingly resembled a modern, Western city, but rural parts of the country were left behind. Corruption was rife as Iran experienced a period of economic growth similar to that of America’s gilded age. The Shah, his entourage, and the growing middle class profited, yet the poor’s condition remained the same and, in some cases, worsened.

Political liberties were also ambiguous. In 1963, during his White Revolution, the Shah granted Iranian women the right to vote. But elections were rigged—never was the pro-Mossadegh National Front a winner, despite its massive popularity at the polls. Additionally, the Shah cracked down regularly on liberals, communists, and religious leaders—anybody suspected to be against the monarchy. He established the Savak—Gestapo-like secret police—to enforce his will. Anyone suspected of “treason” was sentenced—often without trial—to the infamous Evin prison in Tehran. So many anti-Shah intellectuals were held in Evin that the prison was nicknamed “Evin University.”

Iran’s 1979 revolution was not so much a religious reaction against the Shah’s reforms as it was objections against a corrupt government and unjust economy. While the Shah organized massive ceremonies—such as his celebration of 2500 years of Persian Empire, held in Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Achaemenid Empire—levels of education (e.g. literacy rates) and wages among the poor failed to increase. Iran’s economy still lacked the dynamism of the West’s, as it still relied heavily on oil to boost GDP. Political liberty was a joke, and the Shah himself lacked acumen when dealing with his allies: although the US was an Iranian ally when a Republican was in office, Democrats, such as Jimmy Carter, somewhat resented him. (The latter even stood by Khomeini, Iran’s religious future leader, in the months leading up to the revolution.) The Shah did improve women’s rights, reformed the judicial system, and introduced massive industrialization, but it was too little. His corruption, blatant ignorance of political rights and ostentatious behavior only deepened resentment for him.

How does this history inform on dealing with Iran today? The 1979 revolution was also a backlash against Western intervention in Iran. Memories of the 1909 bombing of the Majlis, 1921 coup, 1941 invasion of Iran and the 1953 coup—all supported by Western powers, primarily the UK—were still ingrained in the minds of Iranians. Both sides of the revolution, pro and anti-Shah, claimed Western powers were helping the other side. (Khomeini, one of the revolutionary leaders, called the Shah an “American puppet” while the opposition deemed him a British one.) Iranians, though globally friendly toward the West, especially the United States, will not want to recall such times where their country was manipulated by foreign entities. And since it is vital to have the backing of Iranian citizens when fighting the Iranian government, it is primordial for the West not to appear domineering towards Iran’s people. What does this entail? Let me explain.

First, the United States should abandon sanctions on Iran. Iran’s citizens are not at fault with the regime’s presence in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and therefore should not be punished. Sanctions only reinforce the dictatorship’s rhetoric: their claim that the United States does not care for Iranians and is untrustworthy becomes credible in the eyes of the populace. They boost the appeal of Iranian hardliners and fundamentalists in parliament in a time where moderate Iranian rulers are desperately needed to avoid war.

Second, Europe should maintain its efforts in reinstating the Nuclear Deal. Iran has started to renege on some of its promises—namely enriching uranium above the permitted levels—but European leaders must understand that such antics are bargaining tools, and do not prove that Iran has stopped committing to the deal. Furthermore, they should realize that moderates and hardliners split Iran’s political climate. This means aggressive actions, such as bombing oil tankers going through the Strait of Hormuz, were not undertaken by Rouhani’s moderate government but by radicals, such as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Third, the West must avoid war at all costs: if there is war, all chance of ridding Iran of its tyrannical theocracy is gone as Iranians—liberals and religious conservatives alike—unite against invading powers. Instead, the West must regain its credibility by removing sanctions and showing Iranians that liberalism and democracy work: they’re not Western ploys for defeating Iran. Luckily, Iran has an expansive, educated middle class that understands such distinctions. But war strangles its efforts at best and turns Iran’s liberals into zealots at worst.

Iran and the West have a long, tumultuous relationship. It has persevered through revolutions and coups. It has proven resilient enough to withstand the worst calamities. It even blossomed for a time. But a war today inevitably ends it.

Times have changed—and with them societies and political philosophies. In the last thirty years, the world has gone from bipolar, to unipolar to multipolar. It has gone from liberal to progressively illiberal. What are these changes, their consequences, and what is the new world order?

Following two catastrophic world wars, humanity learned something: Liberalism prevents wars. Liberalism improves trade. Liberalism is good. So in 1945 the United Nations (UN), a framework for multilateralism to protect world peace and human rights, was created. That same year prominent economist John Maynard Keynes helped create the International Monetary Fund (IMF), another piece of multilateralism encouraging economic development, at the Bretton Woods conference. And in 1949 NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance was formed to safeguard a rebuilding, democratic Europe from the authoritarianism of the USSR. Things were looking good.

Skip a couple of decades and it’s the 80s and 90s. Liberalism, especially economic liberalism, is in full swing. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in the USA with Margaret Thatcher in the UK set about trust-busting and encouraging trade, strengthening the European single market and establishing the precursors of the WTO. Globalization—low barriers to international trade and investment—becomes standard economic policy. Millions of jobs are created, especially in developing countries, and the prices of goods plummet. Some 1.2bn people are lifted out of poverty. Then in 1991 the bastion of illiberalism and despotism in eyes of the West, the USSR, collapses. The world becomes unipolar, with the United States as the sole global superpower—charged with permeating liberal values and conserving world peace.

Today, however, the liberal world order fades. Start with foreign policy. Following the 2001 9/11 attacks, the United States rejects multilateralism for unilateralism, culminating in its second invasion of Iraq in 2003 without UN authorization—a war deemed illegal by most of the international community. The contrast between the 2000s and before is clear: in 2003 the US invaded illegally and with just one ally, the UK; in 1991 it invaded with UN approval, a coalition of other nations and in order to counter Sadam Hussein’s violation of Kuwait’s territorial integrity, not solely for national reasons.

There is a brief return to multilateralism under the Obama administration but it is not the same as before: the US is not the sole world superpower; it must contend with rising China, the EU and the rest of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). And after winning the presidential election in 2016, Donald Trump inculcates unilateralism as the dominant US foreign policy. His aggressive foreign policy against Iran—where he reneged on the Nuclear Deal the nations signed during Obama’s presidency—and his skepticism of NATO and the WTO are proof of his unilateral attitude.

Economically the liberal world order weakens as well. By 2010 globalization’s run as the dominant economic policy is over; the “golden age of globalization” comes to an end. The world is rocked by the financial crisis in 2008, causing a large loss of faith in the US and its financial system—the underpinning of the post-war liberal economic order. While before the dollar was unquestionably considered the “world currency”—the currency all countries use for commerce—its position today is scrutinized. The end of globalization translates into the rise of protectionism—economic policy based on high import tariffs—and growing resentment for economic migration as well as cross-border investment. The ongoing trade war with China and withdrawals from economic unions, such as Brexit, are a testament to this new thinking.

Politics are also heavily impacted by changing global thinking. Centrist, liberal parties are losing ground to growing populism and radicalism. In this year’s European election, parties considered on the “fringe” of the political spectrum, such as the environmentalist Greens on the left and populist, nationalist parties on the right, gained the most votes. Europe suffers a wave of euro-skepticism—hatred and suspicion of the EU’s social and economic liberalism—shown through these last elections, Brexit and the presence of a plethora of populist, nationalist leaders all over the continent (e.g. in Italy, Hungary, Poland…). South America also grapples with populism with the rise of Mr. Obrador as president of Mexico on the left and the election of Jair Bolsonaro on the right in Brazil. Even establishment parties, such as the Republicans in the USA and the Conservatives in the UK, embraced populist candidates and policies: Republicans nominated Donald Trump, a political outsider, and the Conservative Party embraced Brexit.

The new world order is a dangerous one. Multilateralism is vital for world peace. Unilateralism, on the other hand, engenders wars over national priorities. Globalization saved millions from poverty and is the reason why the West, particularly America, is so economically vibrant. It also helped close the gap between rich and less developed countries: rich ones invested more into poorer country markets, and migrants in rich countries from said poor countries sent money back home. Its nemesis, protectionism, destroys jobs through increasing the cost of intermediate products: one estimate, by Trade Partnership Worldwide, a think-tank, reckons Trump’s tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum create 26,000 American jobs but cause a loss of around 400,000. Not to mention consumer variety weakens and prices inflate. Populism causes political instability and often correlates with nationalism—the cause of the two largest conflicts in world history, the World Wars. Demagogues are also more likely to fear-monger, leading to increased ethnic violence (witness the El Paso shooting in America) and locking-up of opposition deemed “evil” (Erdogan’s Turkey jailed 122 journalists in 2018 alone). They also reject globalization in favor of protectionism (e.g. Donald Trump’s trade war), bringing heaps of trouble.

The new world order is terrible. But that does not mean the previous one was perfect. Globalization spread trade and commerce across the world, but certain industries suffered terribly. The most famous example in the US is the car industry, where Detroit’s manufacturing empire was reduced to a ghost town. Countries must provide aid to workers needing to shift industries in order to remain in the workforce. Nordic countries do just that, and Singapore provides courses to older workers who struggle to adapt to a new work environment (one with increasing exposure to technology, for example). Emulating these policies is a good place to start.

Countries should also show that multilateralism is still worthwhile. Instead of the UN and other global organizations sitting idly as war tears Yemen and Syria to shreds, force them to act. Instead of twiddling their thumbs they should convince Venezuela’s neighbors that it is worth working together to beat the uncooperative and tyrannical regime. They should do the same for North Korea. Organize coalitions. Engage the peace corps. Demonstrate that multilateralism is not merely restricted to theory; it keeps peace in practice, too.

When it comes to political parties, liberal, centrist politicians must understand that relying solely on the upper to higher classes does not win elections; they need the poor and the middle class behind them, too. They need to show lower-class voters that populism just grows their ills and that liberalism and ensuing free trade and immigration improve their lives. Liberals should also freshen up their image, and debunk the elitism and corporatism their critics assign to them. A start would be to invest more in public education. Another good policy would be to regulate some health-related industries more tightly, especially in America where there is a lack of regulatory oversight concerning the pharmaceutical industry. And liberals should reform tax laws by fixing loopholes that benefit the already rich, such as the US’s mortgage-interest deduction. These policies show that liberal governments care for corporations and the well-off but also for their average citizens. Fighting the toxicity of populism won’t be easy, but it is a fight worth winning.  

The new world order is not the liberal one of before. Liberal democracy and all it stands for—free trade, immigration, and multilateralism—is in retreat as growing populism and radicalism in both left and right-wing circles eat away at its dominance. We will have to wait and see how this new order will tackle rising issues. One thing is certain, though: it won’t be pretty.

Technology is everywhere in our modern world—and that’s a good thing. Tech facilitates payments, allows long-distance communications and connects people. But it also jeopardizes democracy. Democracy today grapples with a new problem: social media disinformation.

Spread of disinformation—otherwise known as propaganda—is not a new phenomenon. In antiquity, Persian emperor Darius I propagandized to justify his rise to power and discredit political enemies. The Romans did the same, especially throughout the war of Mark Anthony and future emperor Octavian. During World War I the US government established the Creel Committee, run by propaganda artist Edward Bernays, in order to promote a pro-war public opinion. The French even had a name for this sort of World War I propaganda: “bourrage de crâne”, translated roughly as “brain stuffing”.

Today disinformation, the manipulation of information for ideological reasons, makes a comeback through the medium of social media. Freedom House, a think-tank, reports that in 2017 internet freedom—the presence of diverse, free opinions on the internet—declined for the seventh consecutive year. The same report suggests that in 18 countries deceit and disinformation played important roles in 2017 elections. Authoritarian regimes—such as China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia—were notable contributors to the decline of internet freedom. Yet democracies were involved as well.

In the Philippines, now-president Rodrigo Duterte was supported by a paid “keyboard army” that spread propaganda in his favor during the country’s elections. France saw the shutdown of thousands of fake Facebook accounts spreading lies before its election in 2017. Hyper-partisanship and Russian intervention played a significant role in pervading disinformation during the 2016 American election.

Disinformation is dangerous for democracy. Not only does it suppress internet freedom by pushing ideologies, but it also puts democracy fundamentally at risk: how can one vote consciously and reasonably if facts are quashed? How can electors make choices best for the nation if rationality is destroyed? And will their beliefs matter if one specific ideology is dominant over all others—especially if that belief is not based on fact but feeling?

Evidently we need to save democracy’s caretaking of debate and diversity of opinions by fighting disinformation. Yet even solutions are plagued by partisanship and rarely please everyone. Some argue any censorship of media violates free speech, and that therefore it should be illegal. Others wish to see increased censorship—but to what extent? Striking a balance between conserving freedom of speech and eliminating lies and propaganda is easier said than done.

In order to solve this ongoing issue, the populace must come to terms with certain realities. First, if we are to fight disinformation there must be a consensus on what constitutes opinions and what is fake news. An opinion, if based on fact and logic, is not propaganda. Many reputable journals and magazines hold an editorial line—a sort of general thesis throughout their essays and articles. The New York Times, for example, generally holds a left-of-center editorial line, meaning they mostly defend leftist principles and causes (e.g. free healthcare, environmentalism…). Nevertheless, it promotes its principles through fact-checking and structured arguments. That is not fake news: the magazine does not impose a belief by lying; it defends one through logic.

Second, social media platforms—such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit—must understand the immense power they wield on peoples’ opinions, and thus regulate false content on their platforms in order to avoid spreading of disinformation. The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar—the persecution of Muslims by the Burma government—was exacerbated by viral fake news on Facebook. Toxic content was likewise permeated throughout the 2016 election. The US government must force Facebook as an American-registered company to curtail false information as to avoid these nefarious consequences—for domestic as well as international safety.

Third, the government—and the president or leader in particular—must set an example of proper conduct for the country to follow. If the leader of the nation blatantly lies, the consequences and gravity of such wrongdoing are greatly undermined. That means there needs to be maximum transparency in regards to government foreign and domestic policy. The American government should have, for example, detailed the horrid conditions of detained illegal immigrants as to clarify the situation and avoid the spread of lies (instead it sought to downplay its wrongdoing). Additionally in the case of the US, Donald Trump should revise his tweets before making them. Politifact, a fact-checking website, found only 31% of his statements to be true, with the remaining 69% considered either “half-true”, “pants on fire” (meaning completely wrong) or “false”.

Lastly, an exchange of opinions between the left and right is needed to separate truth from fiction. Not only is such an exchange enriching by encouraging intellectual diversity, but it allows right-wingers to differentiate between real leftist opinions and fake ones, and vice-versa. This should raise awareness about disinformation—boosting support for anti-disinformation policies— and weaken its effects by demonstrating the chasm between fact and prejudice.

As with every new and groundbreaking technology, humanity must adapt to its ramifications. Social media is not a weapon the same way a gun is, but it can be just as dangerous through spreading disinformation. Democracy, it is time for you to adapt to this new world. Just do it quickly.

Karl Marx was a terrible person. The large portion of humanity that endured marxism—the communist ideology of his creation—lived in indigence, was oppressed, and eagerly rejected his ideas in favor of capitalism when the opportunity arose. Only a couple countries today identify as communist: Cuba, an isolated, ostracized society stuck in the 1950s; North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship and arguably the world’s most backward country; Vietnam, a country where 95% of its people now support capitalism, according to the Pew Research Center; and China, perhaps the world’s most ardent capitalist.

Marx didn’t succeed in morality or character either. He impregnated his maid then abandoned the child to foster parents. He was so racist towards Jews that, in 1910—a time plagued by anti-Semitism, like in the sham-trial of a Franco-Jewish military officer, Alfred Dreyfus, a mere sixteen years beforehand—editors of his letters forced themselves to censor his work. And one cannot help to feel arrogance, a sort of unjustified vanity and superficiality in his writing.

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution”

—Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

His writing’s superficiality is not merely stylistic; it’s quite literal. Marx’s solutions for capitalism are bland, dreary—unrealistic and facile. He drastically oversimplifies society, thinking that workers simply rising and seizing means of production is the cure to capitalism’s ills. He didn’t factor in worker qualification and education: 19th-century farmers and coal miners are unable to run an economy; university-trained economists are. If Marx wanted freedom for the proletariat, he should have encouraged the development of a liberal, free-market economy, a place where the worker seeks employment through his own volition, in any industry. Of course, 19th-century capitalism did not promote workers shifting social classes—it pushed for the opposite by tolerating monopolies and suppressing workers’ rights—but Marx was shortsighted: he failed to anticipate massive leaps in technology as well as globalization that specialized jobs; nor did he forecast moving primitive industries—such as coal and textile-weaving—toward large-scale, well-paid manufacturing needing engineers, or firms offering lucrative financial and legal services.

He should also have advocated the building of universities and improvement of education, providing political and economic freedom to the populace, empowering it to fight for its political rights and beliefs. Educating the population encourages diversification of the economy, reducing the chances of economic crisis and enriching society. A propaganda-smeared dictatorial regime sitting atop a faceless bureaucracy wasn’t the solution towards society’s woes: liberalism was. Marx’s society simply replaced the unjust governing financial elites with a pipe dream of a classless, stateless society. Aside from being unrealistic, the issue was that such a society would only exist after a violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorial regime even more unresponsive to the people’s needs—as evidenced by the calamity that was Soviet Russia or Mao Zedong’s China.

Marx’s economic alternative against capitalism was flawed as well. Instead of promoting antitrust action to break up monopolies and encourage innovation, Marx railed against markets and advocated keeping the current economic structure of nations—that is, industrialization—except with the government supposedly assuring workers’ rights by eliminating private property and controlling all enterprises—a recipe for despotism, not liberty. And since Marx stood against markets, preferring state organization of industry despite their capacity for the most efficient allocation of resources, the basis for all technological and scientific innovation in resulting communist states was thus not from markets—which assures a product’s use by demonstrating the demand for it—but was restricted to anything of use to the government: mining of natural resources, agriculture, and the military. Anybody not interested in these fields would face the boring, futile worker’s life Marx criticized so fervently throughout his literature.

If Marx is so blatantly wrong, what’s the benefit of reading his work? While Marx stumbles in proferring viable solutions, he points out critical flaws of capitalism—structural flaws capitalism needs to mend to assure its success.

Marx claims that capitalists do not create wealth—they rob it from workers by skimming the surplus value of the labor they produce. However, this theory of value—the so-called labor theory—has fallen out of favor; most economists today agree that value comes from marginal utility, not from labor, which makes Marx’s theory that capitalists become rich by exploiting surplus value untenable. Nevertheless, today’s wealth concentration amongst the super-rich is worrisome, as is the current trend of economic power being primarily vested in capital instead of labor which Marx predicted (albeit for the wrong century). In the USA alone since 1970 the top 1%’ s wealth grew 242%, around six times more than that of the middle-class worker; the top 1% of America’s rich produce twice the wealth of the bottom 50%. Marx was right in pointing out that capitalism allowing such wealth inequalities is not feasible—politically and economically.

Throughout world history, countless nations’ political systems have collapsed because of massive economic inequalities. Due to such inequalities nations also experience a surge of populism, battering current political systems for the worse. Yet another threat from harboring society’s wealth in practically solely the super-rich’s hands is economic. As average employee wage growth stagnates, there is less capital available for purchasing goods and services, meaning the overall economic output of a nation decreases.

The cause of this stagnation is corporate consolidation—the surge of oligopolies and quasi-trusts—leading to another of Marx’s claims: that capitalism naturally tilts towards monopolies. In this regard, he is also right: Amazon controls a 40% market share in the online retailer industry, and in some countries, Google has over 90% market share in the internet browser industry. He is equally right about fighting against them. Through busting these oligopolies the economy diversifies, salaries balance, and new companies can challenge incumbents with better products and innovation—all thanks to competition. The result benefits consumers who are free to choose products instead of being restricted to a few; workers who now have fairer salaries; and the nation’s scientific output as innovation—and therefore scientific research—is of the utmost necessity against the competition.

Marx was also right about capitalism’s infeasibility on its own: that is, humans cannot live in societies solely through corporate motivation. Some regulation is needed, especially when dealing with trusts or regarding product quality, but there’s more: capitalism needs a welfare state, to some degree, to assure its survival. First and foremost, there is a moral aspect to this choice: should we privy any individual from access to basic rights like healthcare and education on grounds of profit? Second, the welfare state reinforces a society’s social contract: if people see their government provide them with some benefits even in the worst of times, they will be more likely to trust in their leaders instead of opting for radical alternatives detrimental to a nation’s stability. Finally, there exists an economic risk related to restricting social rights such as healthcare, education, and housing. If a large percentage of the population does not have access to basic medical aid, they will live shorter, less efficient lives, cutting economic output. They may even go bankrupt, negatively impacting corporations that need average citizens spending money on their goods or services (the main cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills). If they lack stable housing, they cannot have a full-time job and will restrict themselves to the gig economy, harming big corporation CEOs and the middle to lower classes alike. The state must thereby allocate certain resources towards furnishing basic necessities for socially and economically intertwined reasons.

Marx was at the same time brilliant and idiotic. The solutions for capitalism he proposes created nightmares for generations of citizens around the world, yet his identification of its flaws is useful to socialists and die-hard capitalists alike. His diagnosis must be carefully used to reform capitalism. Perhaps this is where Marx was most wrong: he underestimated the power of reforms and turned extremist. Let’s prove him wrong.

Capitalism has been the prevalent economic system for most Western countries since the late 19^th century. Yet an incorrect implementation of its ideals has led to revolution, protest, and popular unrest—paving the way for different economic ideologies to take over the stage. The time has come to give capitalism a hundred-year-old reform. But how? Reinvigorate competitive capitalism.

Most of capitalism’s issues arise from the creation of monopolies and oligopolies. These are created through a process known as corporate consolidation: large companies stifle competition by simply buying it out. Without competition, companies can set employee wages low and product prices as high as they want, allowing profits to rise sky high; they can also reduce the quality of their goods since the consumer has no other or limited alternatives. The best way to tackle the issues of capitalist society—that is, the impression that the rich are getting richer to the detriment of the middle-class—is through taking down and preventing the creation of oligopolies and monopolies: fostering competition, leading to better wages, higher quality goods, and more equitable prices. Although antitrust laws exist today, judging by the fact that a tenth of the American economy contains industries in which four or fewer firms control more than two-thirds of market share, and that market concentration has risen in two-thirds of the American economy, it seems that they are not working properly.

It is clear that reform is needed, yet how will it be carried through? Companies have no choice but to accept some popular or governmental demands. In the United States, as an example, employee wage growth is stagnant and the top 1% of the country generates twice the income of the bottom 50%. This situation is not restricted to economics: it has a significant impact on people’s opinions of capitalism. The Economist reports that, in a poll conducted in 2016, less than 40% of people aged 18-34 regarded capitalism positively.

Growing resentment for capitalism amongst young people—the future of the country—reflects that if companies do not change their policies, mass protestations and even complete rejections of corporate culture may take place. The United States and Europe have already witnessed this to a degree: during the 2016 US election, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—who campaigned for socialist policies in government—gained sizable appreciation amongst young voters. (According to the Washington Post, over two million voters under 30 voted for him while only around 828,000 voted for Donald Trump and 766,000 voted for Hillary Clinton.) He finished with a significant 13 million votes in the Democratic Primary, only around 3 million short of the primary winner, Hillary Clinton. In fact, almost all democratic 2020 US presidential candidates support socialist reforms—at least reforms that are considered socialist in America. And in Europe, policies aimed at reducing intercontinental trade between European countries, such as Brexit, were eagerly accepted by the populace.

Sizable political opposition against capitalism will continually manifest itself, incentivizing companies to accept some rules imposed by the government instead of lobbying against them. Candidates with increasingly pro-corporation modules will not win the next elections, as support for capitalism is diminishing. The success of self-described socialist candidates in the USA such as Bernie Sanders should worry businesses, prompting them to opt for less lobbying against antitrust policies.

So corporations should recognize the need and desire for reform rather than resisting. But some in the government, too, must shift their current position toward capitalism and globalization. Instead of rebuking capitalism’s benefits, such as markets and innovation, by advocating central planning and more barriers to trade, they should aim to enforce competition law so commerce can continue to flourish. Unfortunately, many in the American left and the right do not seem to support the principles of capitalism, which hampers efforts to reform: the right backslides into mercantilist protectionism and the left is enamored with what it considers socialism. It is of utmost importance that America’s liberals fight for capitalism’s future and preserve its unique values—for both the right and the left are misguided. The U.K. presents a similar political atmosphere: bonkers brexiteers claiming Brexit is economically beneficial—despite evidence of the contrary—against a divided left led by crypto-communist Jeremy Corbyn. Start with the conservatives.

While once the parties of Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK, today’s conservatives are radically different. Both Reagan and Thatcher supported economic liberalism, financial cooperation between nations, and antitrust policies to tune markets to their finest. Yet today’s right does not care for these policies—mainly because voters do not. In the US’s “flyover” country, voters are fed up with globalization and the economic and social changes it creates: the impending death of certain industries (e.g. coal) and fears of looming unemployment are much more important issues than preserving free international trade. The UK finds itself in the same boat: most of the right prefers Brexit to a second referendum (i.e., potentially staying in the EU).

It is important to note that while voters might be persuaded by promises of these policies—protectionism in the USA and Brexit in the UK—they are disadvantageous economically speaking and offer no advantages to the populace. In the case of the United States, while the Treasury has collected $7.1bn thanks to tariffs on foreign goods, the long term consequences are disastrous. Trade Partnership Worldwide, an economics government consulting firm, estimates a loss of around 400,000 American jobs due to tariffs; the US government even promised American farmers $12bn in compensation for financial damage caused by foreign duties on US Soybeans and Pork. (The foreign tariffs were instated after the US imposed tariffs of its own.) American industry is now automated—the market has shifted toward services rather than raw manufacturing; in fact, around 80% of Americans currently work in service sectors. There is thus limited demand for reinvigorating traditional manufacturing. Instead of looking to the past, the Trump administration must embrace globalization and use it for the benefit of the American people. If jobs are Mr. Trump’s concern, then he should know that Apple alone employs around 47,000 people in the US. Rising iPhone prices due to tariffs on Chinese manufacturing will not increase that figure.

As for the UK, while the majority of the population desired Brexit, its effects are potentially disastrous for the British economy and people. For starters, the UK’s GDP per capita may drop up to 8% in the event of a no-deal Brexit according to the Bank of England—an eventuality ever so likely as the exit date of March 29, 2019, encroaches on a Parliament with no deal (or plan for a second referendum). Plus, as world trade plummets going into 2019, trade-dependent economies like the UK (trade accounts for around 62% of British GDP) will take an enormous hit. The shock is only exacerbated by the possibly 40% drop in trade with the E.U—Britain’s principal trade partner—following Brexit. Unless Britain’s no-deal brexiteers wish to restructure Britain’s entire economy into a trade independent entity between now and the UK’s exit date, Brexit poses severely damaging consequences for the British economy and population.

The left is also mistaken when it comes to sound economics and political philosophy. In the United States, it has adopted a new type of socialism far more radical than the third-way politics of the Clinton and Blair governments of the 1990s and 2000s. While some of its policies are undoubtedly good and common in most rich countries—such as free healthcare and education—this new socialism does not provide an adequate diagnosis of the American economy. Consider their critic of American inequality. Certainly, inequality rose exponentially since the 1970s (the top 1%’ s wealth grew 242%, around six times more than that of the average middle-class individual), yet that does not mean it shall continue to do so. Between 2014 and 2017, the median household income in the United States rose by 10% adjusted for inflation. There are also more jobs for the middle class: in 2005 there were 89 conventional full-time jobs for every 100 Americans aged 25 to 54; in 2017 there were 97. A hasty analysis of today’s capitalist economies misguides policy-making and overlooks pragmatic solutions.

Yet the greatest threat this new socialism poses is not rooted in its identification of today’s capitalism’s flaws but in its so-called solutions. Take its fiscal and economic policy, for example. America’s politicians who identify as socialists, such as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, claim that sky-high taxes on the rich will revitalize the economy and fund a welfare state. It does not quite seem that way: according to one estimate, her proposed 70% tax on the richest Americans will provide the government $12bn in extra revenue—just 0.3% of the total tax take. Furthermore, as populations age and more citizens need pensions, the tax money necessary for their welfare ambitions (e.g. a government job for every citizen wishing one) will only increase; taxes on the ultra-rich—no matter how enormous—are simply not enough to ensure funding. The tax burden will henceforth fall on the middle class. Other policy, like forcing companies to put workers on boards—supported by Britain’s Labour Party (who also wants to give them shares) and American socialists like Elizabeth Warren—will only empower workers to fight against innovative technologies that reduce the size of the workforce, thereby hurting competition and technological advancement. It also allows workers to unknowingly reduce the economic benefits of globalization—creating better-paying jobs and saving millions for consumers—through adopting protectionism. (They can coerce corporations into accepting protectionist government policy instead of fighting it.)

Most of all, this new socialism misuses markets and does not seize the vast opportunities they provide—causing economic slowdown or crisis. Ms. Ocasio Cortez’s Green New Deal, which earns the support of most current 2020 US democratic candidates, is a key example of this. The idea that the United States can convert all energy usage to renewable sources in only 10 years is preposterous, for it mistakes the functioning of markets. The Green New Deal’s success requires massive subsidizing of renewable energy in order to combat fossil-fuel, as demand for such fuel currently outshines that of renewable energy. (The demand is so great that ExxonMobil will increase its investment in fossil fuels by 25% in 2025 compared to 2017.) Such huge subsidizing is exactly what leads to economic downturn: fake demand is generated by massive spending, leading to an inflationary bubble, as demand for renewable energy is only from government spending—not real markets (i.e. consumers). The same goes for Britain’s Labour Party’s plan to nationalize the UK’s energy sectors. Some new socialists even support “modern monetary theory,” proposing the US to run enormous spending deficits while keeping interest rates low. This is economically dangerous for two main reasons. First, the government will not continue to receive loans if it does not pay them back. Second, low interest rates in times of economic upturn lead to unnecessary inflation—engendering fake demand, market collapse and eventual economic recession and depression. The government must not bind itself to the economy; it must assure the development of markets, paving the way for jobs, lower inequality and myriad economic and social opportunities.

Instead of relying on massive government enlargement and spending, today’s socialists should use the power of markets to push their ambitious policies. Ms. Ocasio Cortez should use markets to promote her environmental plans: instead of colossally subsidizing renewable energy to the point of it being economically dangerous, or simply planting more trees, she can give tax incentives to private corporations providing innovative energy solutions. She can also tax carbon emissions more. These policies allow for a “natural” market shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy; save governments from indebting themselves because of overwhelmingly large spending; and encourage innovation and competition. (Some spending on green energy is of course still beneficial and necessary, but using markets alongside spending reduces the latter’s strain on the economy.) In the UK Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party should do the same instead of central-planning energy. By regulating markets instead of ignoring them, both American and British socialists can boost competition, leading to better jobs, wages, and less inequality.

Capitalism has led to more opportunities and jobs than any other economic and political philosophy thus far. By properly ensuring its functioning—allowing free trade, reforming antitrust laws, and promoting markets—it will continue providing such benefits. The status quo must shift, yet adherence to a backward right and an overly ambitious and unrealistic left are not the solutions. It is the job of the liberals to guide both sides on the right track—the road to capitalism’s reforms.