An expert on US affairs recently posed a provocative question. He acknowledged that the ongoing war in the region will eventually end. However, he then asked: Who will rectify President Donald Trump's mistakes? As usual, the expert showed little interest in answers. Instead, he first made a prediction about Trump's future, speaking at length about how the President will soon be impeached well before the November midterm elections. A brief discussion ensued, and that exchange forms the basis of this article.
The Nature of Predictions
A prediction is a forecast or an informed guess about a future event. Mention prediction, and Nostradamus inevitably comes to mind. His 'predictions' consist of nearly 1,000 vague, untranslatable phrases devoid of specific names or dates. He used terms like 'the Great Man' or 'the young Hero', labels flexible enough to fit almost anyone. Researchers have concluded that his supposed 'hits' result from vague language and post-event reinterpretation, not genuine foresight. No formal tally of true versus false predictions exists. Yet for centuries to come, whenever the word 'prediction' is uttered, Nostradamus will come to mind. Why? Simply because perception is stronger than reality.
Expert Failures in Foreign Policy
The same principle often applies to experts on foreign policy. International relations severely limit predictions. No model can reliably forecast geopolitical events like the ongoing Middle East war due to the sheer complexity of human decisions and politics. Variables such as leadership changes or politico-economic shifts make forecasting international events a fool's errand. However, a regional expert or an area specialist with deep knowledge of a specific part of the world is permitted to interpret events or even make predictions. But these experts keep making mistakes, both in interpretation and prediction, yet go completely unnoticed because no one bothers to point out the flaws in an IR theorist's deductions.
No Accountability for Wrong Interpretations
Luckily, there is no law against wrongly interpreting world events. Otherwise, several experts who swore by their understanding of US affairs, insisting Trump would never directly attack Iran, might already be behind bars. Since no official certification qualifies someone as an expert, there are hardly any penalties. Playing it smart, many experts change their evaluation depending on which way the wind blows. In this way, their interpretative track record remains clean. Meanwhile, the epistemic community decides who belongs.
Trump's Unpredictability
Now consider this: Has any prominent expert on US affairs ever correctly interpreted President Trump's actions, from winning two presidential elections, to the tariffs' saga, to starting an unauthorised war, to establishing the Board of Peace? Can anyone claim their assessment of the most unpredictable US President was even close to reality? To be fair, a handful of analysts correctly predicted that Trump would challenge NATO allies or withdraw from international agreements. But on major, world-altering decisions, especially the Iran war, nearly all were wrong.
The Iran War and Its Consequences
The most interesting part is that they believe Trump is unpredictable yet still try to understand his statements and actions. That is because international relations are probabilistic, not deterministic. Nevertheless, due attention may be given to an expert if they can at least reduce uncertainty or explicitly state alternative scenarios. Some conspiracy theorists, drawn to breaking news, often link the Iran war to the Epstein files, reviving the familiar notion of diversionary tactics. They may or may not be right. But what does this have to do with the immense loss of human life, widespread destruction, and global economic turmoil? The focus shifts, and the possible justifications for war overshadow the real human and material costs. In truth, the war eliminated top Iranian leadership, and Washington, operating under the delusion that heavy bombing would spark a popular uprising, saw its strategy backfire. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy prices soaring. Yet did anyone foresee these events?
Shifts in US Foreign Policy
Some analysts believe the war has even fractured the Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. Long-time allies have castigated the interventionist policy, arguing it broke Trump's 'America First' promises. Critics further note that the White House's handling of federal statistics and factual claims has eroded the 'last bastions of objective truth'. The list goes on. Yet the most important change affecting the world at large lies in US foreign policy: a shift from traditional foreign aid towards a model of 'Trade over Aid'. Who would have predicted America's alienation from its Western allies so swiftly and perhaps irreversibly?
The Irrelevance of Expert Analysis
The fact remains. Donald Trump is still the President of the United States, and he appears more confident than ever before. Another rigmarole…!! A broad range of authorities have publicly documented specific actions they view as unlawful or unconstitutional. Legal scholars agree the administration is engaging in 'lawless authoritarian' behaviour. Critics note that Trump revoked security clearances for political retribution, threatened judges with impeachment, defied court orders, and weaponised the Justice Department. However, ironically, no one can stop Trump from whatever he is up to. If legal experts and Congress alike are powerless, then a final question remains for readers: What is the relevance of interpreting President Trump's statements and actions – let alone making any predictions – when all such assessments fall flat on their face; when neither the US Congress nor the American people can change them or suggest a pathway for course correction? Think.
Najm us Saqib is a former Ambassador of Pakistan and author of eight books in three languages. He can be reached at najmussaqib1960@msn.com
