|
"With words we govern men" – Disraeli
back to bloglist
Alexey Sazonov's column
Entries
29 September, 2009, 21:18 Prediction
permalink
I’ve wanted to write about this for a long time and here it is. I believe that there will be a large war with most powers dragged into it around 2014. I will justify this grim assumption in this article, but I truly hope that I will be wrong.
From the way the world is going, the region where a cataclysmic event may happen is in the Middle East. There are too many sides fighting for power and dominance of the region, and each is pushing the envelope further and further, currently testing the other sides’ patience and diplomatic ability.
The world today does not want to see war, necessarily. However, the veterans of World War II are dying out. They are the ones that have seen how devastating and brutal a world war can be, and how even the most civilized countries are ready to indiscriminately kill civilians and demolish whole cities in order to gain a simple ability to sell something that is located in a different land.
Commerce is the name of the game, and those that have the most resources have the best commercial ability. Commerce is power and leverage. It is control of whole economies. The United States has been very discreet about imperial aspirations. The basics of empire expansion are control of resources for a purpose of selling them. Not everyone has the power to expand in such a manner, and most take the old-school route -- that is, guns blazing and bombs flying, with tanks sweeping in and destruction in the armies’ path.
The most important resource allocation in the world right now is located in the Middle East. Also, the biggest rivalries are in the Middle East. The interesting thing is that it was Europe and the United States that created the reason for there to be conflict in this area. They sparked old rivalries anew in the Middle East by creating Israel as a state. It was a gesture of good will from the Allies and the USSR. However, dislocating a large portion of people and telling them that their rivals are now the owners of the soil is bound to get one side pissed off.
And guess who that side is: the whole Arab world. Now, I am not against the State of Israel, but it is the reason for instability in the Middle East today. With European and mainly America’s backing and support, Israel was able to muster up one of the most able fighting forces in the world and some of the most sophisticated weaponry for their military.
One of my professors, Brandon Valeriano, Ph.D., spent a semester pounding into us that there are patterns that begin every conflict. Those are the presence of territorial disputes (proximity of states does not matter), alliances, rivalries, arms build ups, and hardliners. With statistical proof, he eagerly showed that there is empirical support for these steps to war. Using this, I would like to take apart the current situation between Iran and Israel (the biggest threats to peace in the Middle East).
There is definitely a territorial dispute between the two states -- Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, we all know the story. There are alliances that are at odds with each other: Israel, EU and US, Iran and most of the Arab world. The deal with alliances is that, simply put, it makes the other side jittery that it will be attacked. It makes it look like the other side is stronger, and then the other begins making their own alliances. The build up of alliances leads to shows of force and the emboldening of each respective side, creating a potentially dangerous situation. The fact that there is a rivalry between Iran and Israel is not even questionable. Both sides have hardliners in power right now. Netanyahu is a hardliner in Israel and Ahmadinejad is serious hardliner in Iran. We all read the news and know the relationship between these two sides.
Finally, I would like to address the most recent development of arms build ups between both sides. Israel already has nuclear weapons, although it is not officially considered a nuclear state. Iran has the potential to create nuclear weapons, and recently tested missiles that can reach Israel and potentially deliver WMD warheads. This recent development is the reason why I am more than sure that the assumption I stated at the beginning of this article is correct.
There is commercial value for Israel and its dominance in the region. Their companies, through partnerships in U.S., can gain access to resource extraction and delivery, in that way gaining political leverage. That is the concept of territoriality, for there has to be value placed on the land for there to be a dispute. In today’s world, China is too dependent on the rest of the world for most its economy. It will not risk losing its hegemony in its sphere of influence as long as the other great powers stay out of its political life.
North Korea is nothing but a hollow shell. It has no potential and will not act unless provoked. There is nothing really in North Korea, and there is no danger there. Russia will not engage in a large war anytime soon. The disorganization within its military is too great and the weaponry itself is increasingly obsolete with each passing year. The United States cannot engage in another conflict. It is already stretched too thin in two unpopular wars. There is nothing in Africa and Latin America to spark a large conflict right now. Europe is too peaceful and has too much to lose at the moment to get mired somewhere in the world in a costly and unpopular war.
This leaves the Middles East. Most of the Middle Eastern countries are unable to support large military operations. Arabs will not fight Arabs. That was proven when the U.S. went into Iraq. None of the Arab countries sent soldiers to fight alongside Americans. I know that some readers will mention the Iran-Iraq War, but that is a separate case that will not be repeated anytime soon.
That leaves Israel and Iran to spark a conflict. Following that, it is depressing to think about the chain of events that may take place – which sides will get involved, who will take advantage and start their own conflicts, and what the toll will be on the economies of the world and whether or not WMDs will be used.
This is my opinion and everyone is free to debate my stance on the subject. Be respectful of others’ opinions. I truly hope that my prediction is wrong and that nothing of the like will ever happen. My opinion is based on personal observation of events, consideration of political science theories being discussed in academia, and the opinions of other political experts. I hope that no one takes offense at anything stated in this article, and that everything will be debated in a respectful fashion.
Show comments (10)
26 September, 2009, 01:58 Stop Sanctioning Iran
permalink
Iran’s nuclear aspirations are not a secret. Iran wants to have nuclear capabilities and an option at developing nuclear weapons. Iran’s defiance of the world leaders’ attempts at thwarting its nuclear goals have been futile, to say the least. Iran has not stopped developing nuclear facilities at all and is actually moving in a direction of making more uranium enrichment facilities.
World leaders are beside themselves. They constantly gather at the most famous institutions and issue statements and other such nonsense that is really not going to get their attempts to stop Iran anywhere. Recently, an article in the Wall Street Journal gave a detailed account in proving that Democratic U.S. Presidents have not been able to close nuclear proliferation treaties with Russia, except on only a couple of occasions. On the other hand, Republican U.S. Presidents have been able to muster up and get Russia to sign about eight different nuclear-control treaties. Why am I bringing this up? Because the concluding point of that article is that the U.S. Democratic Presidents that have made nuclear proliferation a major point in their campaign are way too eager and ambitious in accomplishing nuclear disarmament and that for Russia it has been seen as a point where they can have more political leverage.
Read more
Same goes for Iran. Heavy sanctions and other attempts to thwart Iran’s efforts presented by the Obama administration are not going to bring many feasible results. If anything, Iran will, in the end, give up a little bit to make the opponents of Tehran’s nuclear program claim a small victory but, actually, lose the war on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In addition, the Obama administration is quite similar to current EU leaders, who are just as eager to see Iran halt its nuclear program. The only clear thinking country, out of the whole G-20 crew is Russia (I am excluding China for the reason that it does not voice an opinion on the matter and does not want to mingle in this meaningless, for them, affair). Russian diplomats have stressed that sanctions are a last resort because they don’t bring results. Sanction need to be used as a last resort because there are a lot more useful diplomatic tools.
And how can we leave out Israel out of this? Israel is one of the most important players in this theater. If anything, Israel has been the motive for Iran to have to go through with a nuclear program in the first place. Israel has nukes – that’s a fact and for one reason or another the United States or the EU does not consider that dangerous. Israel has been involved in more conflicts with a lot more neighbors than Iran has for the past half century and is then more prone to conflict and a potential use of nuclear weapons than anyone else in the Middle East, statistically speaking. Iran is a rising power in the Middle East with more and more support of the Arab world going to Tehran, Israel sees Iran as a rising counterbalance to its grip on the Middle East. Anyone who has been mustering forces strong enough to pose a threat to Israel has been swiftly taken care of either by Israel itself, if it concerns its immediate borders, or by the hands of Washington.
Iran has seen what happened to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon. It knows that Israel will use force if necessary. The only way to counter that is to build up a formidable force that will have Israel be reluctant to try anything, for the time being. Arms races are considered one of the driving forces behind conflicts, and because Israel has one of the most combat-efficient forces in the world, Iran sees that as a threat. One way to counter Israel’s potential attacks is to have a nuclear deterrent. That option is one of the best left for Tehran.
In conclusion, in order to deter Iran from building nuclear weapons, sanctions are not attacking the reason for this problem in the first place. The problem is Israel’s nuclear capabilities that put at risk Iranian security and Israel’s constant threat to use force. Hardliners are also a driving force for conflict in most cases. The sanctions that have been imposed on Iran have brought nothing but a greater motive for Tehran to go through with their nuclear program. The problem needs to be identified at the core and then dealt with in a respectful and decisive manner. Stop sanctioning Iran – it will do nothing but shake air and create headlines for the press.
Show comments (3)
21 September, 2009, 15:34 How the Georgian army was financed
permalink
Following the annihilation of the Georgian Army during the South Ossetian War, NATO and other allies of Georgia have promised Georgia to help rebuild its full military potential. Recently, Ukrainian sources are beginning to admit to the fact that they sent weapons and modified equipment to the Georgia military.
Captured Georgian military equipment
The Russian military officials have reported that they captured around 150 military units, 65 of which are tanks. Forty-four tanks have been brought back to Russia, the rest were destroyed because they were either unfit for use or were of old modifications. Georgian Armed Forces had 230-240 tanks in use before the conflict started. Most of those tanks were modified by the Israeli firm Elbit Systems into T-72-SIM-1. During the fighting, the Russian troops also captured five anti-aircraft missile systems 9K33 “Osa”, 15 BMP-2, numerous 122mm D-30 towed howitzers, American armored personnel carriers, Humvees, and artillery systems of Czech design.
Read more
The West has condemned the Russian military for moving into Georgian territory, primarily into the port of Poti and towns of Senaki and Gori. The Georgian military completely abandoned their military bases in all of those cities. Saakashvili raised panic and evacuated civilians out of those areas, saying that the Russian and Ossetian forces will kill the civilians as a form of revenge for what the Georgian military has done to Tskhinval.
The goal of the Russian military operation was not to destroy the Georgian economy, which was not good before the war to begin with. The goal was to demilitarize the Georgian Army and to thwart Georgian military potential in the region. A lot of the captured military equipment the Russians took from Gori. Fifteen T-72-SIM-1 tanks, dozens of armored fighting vehicles, and artillery systems along with their ammo were captured. Part of the arsenal found in Gori was destroyed, part was taken to Russia.
From the military bases in Senaki, Russian troops captured 1,728 assault weapons. 764 American M4 carbines, 28 M-40 machine guns and 754 various modifications of the AK. Western media sources also say that the Russian military also captured 15 Georgian vessels, among them torpedo boats.
According to the representative of the Russian Peacekeeping Force in the Caucasus, there was enough high-caliber ammunition in Senaki to level all the Caucasus. At the Senaki base, during the time of the conflict, the Georgian Second Infantry Brigade was stationed. Georgian forces left Senaki after the Russian Air Force carried out air strikes against the air field by the base.
Anatoly Nagovitsin, the commanding General of the Russian Forces in the conflict said that 4,000 assault weapons were captured, not counting the ones destroyed and other military equipment captured. The American and Georgian governments have requested Russia to return the captured weapons. The Russian officials have said that they have no intent on returning the weapons, as they were captured during military operations.
Foreign investment in the Georgian military
According to the official statement presented by Lieutenant-General Golovchenko, there is written documentation captured by the Russian Forces that the tanks of the First Georgian Infantry Brigade (which played the biggest part in the storming of Tskhinval) underwent partial modifications in 2002 and complete modernizations in 2007 in Lvov and other cities in Ukraine. The same happened with the BMP-2s.
From official statements and reports to the UN from Ukraine, since 1999 Kiev has delivered 150 units of heavy tanks and equipment to Georgia. In the first report in 1999, among 11 other nations, Georgia was also listed as a buyer of a “Konotop” rocket cruiser from Ukraine. Then, there was a four year gap in military equipment sales from Ukraine to Georgia. In 2004, Georgia received six self-propelled 2S3 “Akatsiya” howitzers. In 2005, after Yushchenko came to power and the board of directors of UkrSpetsExport changed (responsible for Ukrainian weapons export), military equipment sales from Ukraine to Georgia increased dramatically. In 2005 alone, Georgia bought 15 T-72 MBTs, 12 BMP-2s, 10 BTR-80 APCs, six self-propelled 2S3s howitzers, six MI-24 “Hind” attack helicopters, and two MI-8 transport helicopters. In 2006 no sales were made from Ukraine to Georgia. However, Georgia still received two air-radar 36D6-M vehicles to control the air space around Tbilisi.
In 2007, Ukraine sold Georgia seventy-four T-72 MBTs, six BTS-5B heavy armored tracked towing vehicles, two self-propelled 2S7 “Pion” howitzers, eight L-39 training aircraft (can be fitted to serve as regular ground-attack planes). In a Georgian official statement to the UN, it says that it bought five units of the self-propelled 2S7 “Pion” howitzers, not two, as Ukraine stated. Also, according to the Georgian version of the document, they also acquired one Anti-Air Mobile System “Buk” and 48 Anti-Tank Guided Missiles “Kombat”. Also. in 2007, Tbilisi said that it bought assault weapons from Ukraine.
Looking at these statistics, how did Georgia finance all of this? Georgian GDP for 2003 was $3.91 billion, its external debt being 1.8 billion, or 40% of its GDP. Per capita income averages $700 per year. So how can Georgia buy these weapons? Simple – financial help from the West.
The biggest contributor to Georgia’s military buildup was the United States. During the period of 2004–2007, Washington officially gave Tbilisi nearly $600 million dollars. In addition to this, Tbilisi made a special fund in 2004 that accepted donations to develop its national armed forces. Donations can be made in full anonymity from private and government organizations, as well as NGOs and non-profit organizations.
The German Controversy
Recently, the German news channel ARD released a statement saying that Georgian soldiers were photographed and noted as using the German G36 assault rifle. Western reporters were actually the ones that took pictures of the Georgian Special Forces holding G36 rifles, made by the German weapons company Heckler und Koch. The director of the informational bureau in Freiburg – Jurgen Gresslin – stated that he had no doubt that the rifles in the pictures were the H&K G36 with the shortened barrel for the special forces.
The German Minister of Economics denied the allegation that Germany sold the weapons to the Georgians, as special documentation that is required for export is not on file and never has been filed. No permission had been given to Heckler und Koch to sell the guns to Tbilisi. Channel ARD, quoting the British Jane’s Defence Weekly, Heckler und Koch directed a request to the German government for sale of 230 G36 rifles to Georgia (200 of them shortened special forces variants, and 30 compact-assault versions). However, H&K’s request was denied. Although no permission was given, because it violates the German policy of not selling weapons to countries involved in territorial conflict, the G36 rifles appeared on the battlefield in South Ossetia. H&K could’ve easily sold the weapons to a third country, who could in turn sell the weapons to Georgia.
Conclusion
Ukrainian and Western countries did send weapons to Georgia. That is an undeniable fact and can be seen in videos and pictures that Georgian soldiers themselves took. The statistics of captured Georgian equipment speak for themselves. It is an undeniable fact that Ukraine plays a big part because its leadership truly wants to join NATO and become a bigger part of the US’s foreign policy. It brings revenue to the Ukrainian treasury as there aren’t a lot of other places for Ukraine to generate income. Ukraine played a major role in production of machinery and military equipment in the Soviet Union, and now there are lot of unemployed specialists and engineers. The best way to employ them is to put their skills to use in modifying and upgrading old Soviet equipment. Officially, Kiev will keep denying taking sides in the conflict. It is a matter of holding the Ukrainian and other governments accountable.
Show comments (1)
About author
My name is Alexey Sazonov. I was 11 years old when I came to United States from St. Petersburg, Russia. I have been interested in politics my whole life. I believe in rational thinking, especially when it comes to politics. Political analysis should be unbiased and verified. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and loyalties. However, public news and analysis should be based on multiple sources and facts.
I am currently a student at University of Illinois at Chicago, majoring in Economics, with minors in International Business and Political Science. I believe it is everyone's essential duty to understand the politics of today's world for everyone on this planet is effected by world leaders' daily decisions.
“With words we govern men” – Disraeli.
|
|
|
07 October, 2009, 19:50
Lets see. Russian interest is highest possible oil prices because its income is made from two thirds by oil export. That is a very good reason for a war in Middle East but it is not a reason for direct involvement of Russian armed forces, especially in its current state when only strategic intelligence is able to fulfill its operational duties successfully. USA will not participate in war in Middle East because it is already in two wars and there is no sane reason to go into third one. And we cannot forget Obama. China does not have interest in Middle East, it bases its operations mainly in Africa right now. And European countries have no reason to participate in Middle East war in other role than mediator during peace talks. So, it is possible that some war will occur in Middle East (but I believe Israel-Lebanon is much more probable than Israel-Iran), but no large military power will participate in this war. Maybe some kind of international contingent would be dispatched after war under UN mandate, but nothing else. Especially not Third World War, as You predict - such war would start directly between those military powers because in nuclear age, you have to strike your strongest opponent with everything you got to prevent his devastating counter-attack. My prediction for such war - it would most probably start on Russian-Chinese border. China considers Siberia to be under Russian occupation and it will inevitably try to "re-unite" it with rest of its territory when Russia gets even weaker than it is right now. And it will not be possible for Americans and Europeans to stand aside when this happens.
Ad Israels provocative attitude: What do You mean? Their strike against Gaza when they refused to be under constant rocket fire anymore? Or their strong opposition to Iran armed with nukes and missiles? Or their refusal to give away land they acquired during preventive war in 1967? Can You make it absolutely clear, what exactly do You consider provocative? Term "provocation" is read differently by Russians, for Russian Foreign Minister provocation is to expel their GRU or SVR operatives convicted undoubtedly
from espionage... Truly, what a provocation to not let foreign spies do their work..
06 October, 2009, 22:07
What I am saying is that those powers will not be the ones to start the conflict. It does not mean that they will not be dragged into it or take advantage to militarily further their interests once something big begins. I do state that the conflict will be started in the Middle East and will be the tipping point for a large war to errupt. I also suggest that unless Israel's provocativeattitude is not curbed than it will definetly be the state to cause this. Iran is currently the power of the Middel East that is able to challange the Israeli ambitions. This being said, I see a likely conflict to begin between these two states.
Thanks you all very much for commenting on this topic. I look forward to reading you thoughts on other topics that I cover.
05 October, 2009, 23:53
I do not get it. First, You state that no military power (US, Russia, China and European countries) is able or willing to participate in some kind of war directly and than You predict large-scale conflict with those powers involved?
02 October, 2009, 14:49
This is a well thought and written article. If some fundamental changes do not happen soon, I am afraid you may be right. I do not want to see this either, but without government and political leaders of the world changing this 'bomb first - asking questions later' attitude, we all will be pulled down into a deep abyss. Leonard.
01 October, 2009, 21:35
It must be trigger between India and China.
Those are the presence of territorial disputes (proximity of states does not matter), alliances, rivalries, arms build ups, and hardliners.
All this exsist between two.
01 October, 2009, 16:37
@ R John, Blair is a war criminal and his place is in the ICC in Hague.
I disagree with Alexey’s predictions. The only danger to world peace is the US. They cannot get out of the debt they have and there will be consequences. They will therefore look for situation to create chaos and use it as excuse to write off the trillions of debt. Conflict may be sparked by someone else but the evil will be behind it.
01 October, 2009, 15:58
"The world today does not want to see war, necessarily. However, the veterans of World War II are dying out. They are the ones that have seen how devastating and brutal a world war can be, and how even the most civilized countries are ready to kill civilians and demolish whole cities in order to gain a simple ability to sell something that is located in a different land."
"Commerce is the name of the game, and those that have the most resources have the best commercial ability. Commerce is power and leverage. It is control of whole economies. The United States has been very discreet about imperial aspirations. The basics of empire expansion are control of resources for a purpose of selling them. Not everyone has the power to expand in such a manner, and most take the old-school route -- that is, guns blazing and bombs flying, with tanks sweeping in and destruction in the armies’ path."
01 October, 2009, 13:32
A very interesting article. “If” there is a grand plan then a vital piece on the chessboard will be in play very soon. The EU will, if the Irish vote too ratify the Lisbon treaty, elect its first President; this person will give the union one voice and will act to co-ordinate Europe’s position on the world stage.
The man almost certain to be nominated (within weeks), is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, A man who has the respect of not only the American political elite but also the American people. For the US the election of Blair will be greeted with joy he is their trusted friend and partner. He will act to bolster American influence within Europe creating an even stronger EU/US alliance.
The election of Blair will not be good news for Russia. This is the man who in 2006 told British business, that Russia can’t be trusted, and advised they invested elsewhere, recommending Poland / Ukraine. Blair is sympathetic to both Ukraine and Georgia becoming members of the union and may well try to use his powerful position to push this process along. All in all probably not the man Russia hoped for.
30 September, 2009, 19:48
Alexey,
you are definitely onto something. Definitely. The conflicts are the tests of diplomatic and economic strength and influence. And they are getting markedly consistent.
I fully agree that the conflict is between Iran and Israel. But the conflict is also a proxy struggle. It has its cheerleaders and bystanders. And nobody knows what the collateral damage will be, and what kind of world will emerge beyond.
Israel is forced into a proxy situation, while instinctively being nervous about its position. US is backing Israel to the hilt. Hillary Clinton would "obliterate" Iran, should it attack Israel. Yet, Israel has nuclear weapons, and has a strategic goal of dominating Middle East. But Israel's dilemma is not small. It can attempt to "go alone", and force the hand of US, or follow US lead, risking that US may have to negotiate away some of the Israeli interests in order to protect US interests.
On the other side, Iran is having the initiative. The defiance of "world community" is staged and deliberate. It is purposeful. It makes Israel look impotent, and US weak. But would Iran do it without having some assurance of support? Of course not. Iran knows the importance of its territory to Russia and China. Central Asia, China and Russia coordinate and harmonize much of their goals through SCO. The fact that SCO is so low key, should not lull anyone into a complacency. I firmly believe that Iran gets support from that corner. Arab world is divided. Leading elites never supported Iran historically. Iran is a potential regional force, and the Arab states of the Levant and Arabian Peninsula are no match for Iran's demography, potential economic prowess and even ideology. On the other side of Suez, things are muted. But the popular support for Iran is growing, and the ruling elites are in trouble. EU will make decisions solely on the basis of impact to its economy. They fear, more then anything, worsening of the standards of living. EU populace may not be able to take it.
In this context, N. Korea is just a side show. It is there for two reasons. One, to distract US from Iran, and to show the messy state of US foreign policy. The other to show to Japan and S. Korea that US cannot afford to focus on their affairs. The country that has nuclear weapons is treated with kid gloves, while the one that is producing energy-level uranium, is in the eye of the storm.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has now become internationalized. And that is what US never wanted.
US virtual empire has ended with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is when US, having decided that thing were not progressing fast enough, decided to put boots on the ground in Iraq with the objective of controlling the conflicts there, and Afghanistan, with the objective of moving into Central Asia, that is, the interests of Russia and China.
The response was asymmetrical. Ever since the announcement by China on the New Year's eve, 2007, that it was starting to diversify its foreign currency reserves, the changes were visible on economic front, as well as geopolitical. Iran and N. Korea alternatively competed for the nuclear news. Both shielded by Russia and China. The scolding rhetoric notwithstanding, both Russia and China keep strong economic and military ties with Iran. The theater of UN and other "sanctions" is here to keep the pressure on. All sides are maintaining their posture. Latest Russian "support" for sanctions is nothing but a good media story that suits Obama as well as Medvedev. But it is not much more. If the deal is ever cut, it will be at the expense of US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the expense of Israel. Israel's threats of going alone --- not improbable --- are fought with danger to US. Zbignew Brzezinski has shown the nervousness that such a scenario brings. He suggested that US should shoot down Israeli planes! Why is he so determined to stop Israel? It is geopolitics, stupid! His entire theory on US domination of he world rest upon the premise that the Muslim world, primarily Arab world, will be made to fight against Russia and China. With both countries having a sizable Muslim minorities, such a conflict would tear those countries apart from within. However, any unilateral Israeli move would for many generations make Arab world the enemy of the US. Today, US is still hoping that Arab world will "let the bygones be bygones", forget Abu Graib, bombing and other such small matters, and be friends with US again. They are being asked to let go of their "reflexive anti-Americanism", and forget and forgive in a nanosecond. This is why Israeli unilateral action could spell the end of the compliant regimes in Middle East, with unknown consequences.
Georgia's proxy war against Russia had the purpose of testing the perimeter. Current "resurgent" Taliban, flush with US taxpayers money has materialized itself all of a sudden in North-West Afghanistan, once the province of Northern Alliance. The testing of Central Asian borders will soon start through infiltration of professional extremists into those countries.
I believe that India-Pakistan will be tightly managed by US. This is a problem US does not want on its plate. Should anything go wrong there, US will be in an entirely too vulnerable position. Too many fingers in a breaking dike --- that is a picture that comes to mind.
The empire has too many set backs. Financial crisis, loss of confidence in US in Japan and Latin America, loss of influence in Africa. In Europe, financial meltdown has severely tested the ties that bind, and things may be up for grabs. It all now depends on the new alignment in Germany.
Middle East, narrowly speaking, will be the trouble spot. Naturally, one can expect other flames to be lit, like Uigur, Tibet, Caucasus or even some Central Asian spark.
Much of it now depends on US. Listening to the messages now going to Russia and Arab world, all drumming the need for "letting go of anti-Americanism" , it appears that US is looking for a way to release some steam from the pressure cooker, as it does not have a plan. But it does not look like it will get it. It is more likely that US needs to reevaluate its national interest priorities. That has not been done in a long, long time. Now, with the absence of cash, and too many "priorities", something will have to give. That would be a rational way to go, but the hardliners will not like it.
US can get the assurances that Iran will not develop nuclear bomb, provided that Israel opens up its nuclear arsenal for IAEA inspection. SCO and US will have to be the guarantors of the deal. Iran and Afghanistan should join SCO economic zone, and Russia and China guarantee Iran's safety. US withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq. US should guarantee Israel's security. US can force the two state solution, and can get other countries to support that. Middle East needs to be eventually demilitarized, becoming a free economic zone, protected by everyone, but dominated by no one power. Set up similarly to ASEAN.
This may look like to lot for US to loose, but if one considers the Pacific, South America, as well as the position in Europe, this may be a very small price to pay.
Yet if the extremists in US get an upper hand, there will be shooting war in the middle east. Population in the Middle East must be aware that it is their annihilation that is at stake, and their leaders better not continue to play wishy-washy politics. With all the naval assets in the region, US can be a sitting target as well. Any preemptive attack on Iran may suddenly result in many Middle Eastern militaries to find themselves "under new management", and the US may find itself under attack from many directions in the Middle East. Again, each and every scenario would put an end to the ambitions to control the "Eurasian landmass", as Brzezinski puts it, as the millions of muslims would not be willing armies helping US to achieve the world domination.
30 September, 2009, 01:34
In my oponion the most volatile region from where a sudden spark will flash and whole world including Russia will engulf is India-Pakistan, and before 2014.