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.

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.

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.

"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."

@ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.