At the moment, we find ourselves in the middle of a turbulent phase of the global evolutionary cycle which commenced in the 1980s and is projected to end by the middle of the XXI century. In the process, the US is clearly loosing its hyperpower status…
Estimates offered by experts from the Russian Academy of Science show that the current period of severe instabilities should end roughly in 2017-2019 with a crisis. The crisis will not be as deep as those of 2008-2009 or 2011-2012 and will mark the transition to an economy built on a novel technological basis. The economic revival will, in 2016-2020, likely entail serious shifts in the global power balance and serious military-political conflicts involving both the global heavyweights and the developing countries. The epicenters of the conflicts will supposedly be located in the Middle East and the post-Soviet Central Asia.
The century of the US global military-political dominance and economic primacy appears to be nearing completion. The US failed the unipolarity test and, bled by permanent Middle Eastern conflicts, currently lacks the resources retaining the global leadership would take.
Multipolarity implies a much fairer distribution of wealth across the world and a profound transformation of the international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. At the moment the Washington consensus seems irreversibly dead and the global agenda should be topped by the task of building an economy with much lower uncertainty levels, tighter financial regulations, and greater justice in the allocation of revenues and economic benefits.
The centers of economic development are drifting from the West, which counts the industrial revolution among the main accomplishments on its record, to Asia. China and India should be preparing for an unprecedented economic race in the process against the backdrop of the wider competition between the economies employing the state capitalism and the traditional democracy models. China and India, the world’s two top-populous countries, will define the directions and the pace of development in the future, but the main battle over global primacy is going to be played out between the US and China, with the choice of the XXI century post-industrial socioeconomic model and political system at stake.
The question arising in the context is how the US is going to react to the transition?
* * *
It has to be taken into account that any US strategy proceeds from the assumption that loosing the global primacy is unacceptable to the country. The linkage between global leadership and the XXI century prosperity is an axiom for the US elites regardless of political details.
Mathematical modeling of the global geopolitical dynamics warrants the conclusion that a victorious large-scale war fought with conventional warfare is the US only option to reverse the fast meltdown of its unsurpassed geopolitical status.
It is an open secret that occasionally non-military methods of pushing rivals off the stage – as in the case of the collapse of the Soviet Union – also work, and the corresponding technologies are being permanently polished in the US. On the other hand, up to date countries like China or Iran evidently prove immune to external manipulation. If the current geopolitical dynamics persists, the global leadership change can be expected by 2025, and the only way the US can derail the process being to ignite a major war…
The country facing an imminent leadership loss has no option but to strike first, and this is what Washington has been doing over the past 15 years. The US specific tactic is to pick as a target not an alternative candidate for geopolitical primacy but countries engaging which appears affordable at the moment. Attacking Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the US sought to handle purely economic or relatively minor regional problems, but a bigger game would clearly require a more significant target. Military analysts hold that Iran plus Syria and the non-Arab Shia groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah face the greatest chances of getting hit in the name of a new global redistribution.
The redistribution is in fact underway. The Arab Spring spun off and managed by Washington created the appropriate conditions for a merger of the Muslim world within a single caliphate. The US plan is that this new formation will help the waning hyperpower maintain its grip on the world’s key energy resources and safeguard its interests vis-a-vis Asia and Africa. No doubt, the challenge prompting the US to compose this new type of arrangement is the swelling might of China.
Getting rid of Iran and Syria which stand in the way of the US global dominance would be Washington’s natural next step. Attempts to topple the Iranian regime by means of inciting civilian unrest in the country failed fabulously, and military analysts suspect that an intervention scenario akin to those implemented in dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan eventually awaits Iran. The plan has serious chances to materialize even though as of today even the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan presents the US with considerable problems.
The implementation of the Greater Middle East project – along with appreciable damage to the standing of Russia and China – would be the key prizes the US hopes to win by fighting a major war… The design became widely known in the US following the publication in the Armed Forces Journal of the notorious Peters map. The motivation which loomed behind the artifact was to muscle Russia and China out of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, to cut Russia off the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and to disconnect China from its most important energy suppliers.
The materialization of the Greater Middle East plan would ruin Russia’s prospects for a peaceful and steady development as the unstable US-controlled South Caucasus would be sending shock waves across the North Caucasus. Since, obviously, the unrest would be detonated by the forces of Muslim fundamentalism, Russia’s predominantly Muslim regions are sure to be affected.
The US is unable to sustain the Washington consensus any longer relying on economic and political instruments. China’s Jemin Jibao painted the picture with utmost clarity when it wrote that the US grew into a global parasite which prints unlimited quantities of dollars, exports them to pay for its imports, and thus buys Americans lavish living standards by robbing the rest of the world. Russia’s premier expressed a similar view during his November 17, 2011 China tour.
At the moment China is pressing hard to limit the sphere of the US dollar circulation. The share of the US currency in China’s reserves is shrinking, and in April, 2011 the Chinese Central Bank announced a plan to completely opt out of the US dollar in international clearances. The blow to the US currency domination will not remain unanswered, obviously. Iran is similarly trying to reduce the dollar share in its transactions: an Iranian oil exchange opened in July, 2011, where only Euro and Iran’s own currency are accepted. Iran and China are negotiating over the supply of Chinese products in return for Iran’s oil, which, among other things, would make it possible to route trade around the sanctions imposed on Iran. The Iranian leader said his country’s trade volume with China should reach $100b, and that would render the US plans to isolate Iran meaningless.
The US efforts to undermine stability in the Middle East may in part be attributable to the reckoning that the reconstruction of the region’s devastated infrastructures would necessitate massive dollar infusions, the result being the revitalization of the US economy. In 2011, the US strategy aimed at preserving its global leadership started to translate into power-based policies as Washington considers depreciating the dollar holdings among the possible solutions to the crisis problem. A major war can actually serve the purpose. In its wake, the winner would be able to impose its own terms on the rest of the world as it did when the Bretton-Woods system came into being in 1944. For Washington, running the world takes being ready to fight a major war.
Can Iran, given the necessary backing, put an end to the US universal expansion? The question will be addressed in the next article.
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation
Pretty bias satire! The people of the U.S. have no interest in a war. The constituency will see to it that there government does not either. Electing responsible individuals who are “hired” for a job can be easily replaced in the U.S. A more supportive role within their circle of allies is more like it. The notion of any contrary consideration is no longer as important, nor takes precedent, over domestic affairs.
I think the article references to much past history. 1944 was a long time ago. Russia was under a totalitarian rule at that time. We should learn from this period in history in order not to repeat its consequences. The people of Russia were only educated under Soviet curriculum which did not allow for international books or teachers outside the U.S.S.R. The U.S. has its own problems with simlar education, however, far less negative of foreign powers today. It is true that western allies did not trust Josef Stalin as far as they could throw him. One can not blame the allies at that time, after they watched Stalin align himself with Adolf Hitler, and then get invaded by him. What a frightening shock for the people who did not know it was coming. Stalin also waited until the war with Germany was over to declare war on Japan. He wished this for his next territorial expansion. This is why the U.S. dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ahead of Stalin’s planned invasion. It was logistically decided to reduce the loss of life, for the war would have continued with losses in the millions.
I do not believe that mainstream Russian people believe his either. They are anxious to trade, travel, and communicate with the west. To be friends. Isolation between the two have gone on long enough. I include Cuba in this identification as well. Antagonizing the efforts of diplomacy is a negative component to those who seek better relations and healthier circumstances. I see absolutely no reason to turn up a teapot, and sit around timing it for its boiling point. If anything, serve iced tea, which cools and refreshes! Life is far too short!
The U.S. economy is slowly gaining ground, however, it has nothing to do with foreign affairs or diplomatic intervention. It has to do with NAFTA, and U.S. corporations outsourcing themselves for cheaper expenditures.It is the capitalist’s bottom line syndrome, to pay back its investors with lavish dividends. This is what has caused economic uncertainty and high unemployment. American’s are used to working until they are 65 years of age, and this too, may change due to global economic influence.
Iran will decay from within. The people of Iran wish a voice, and their cleric rulers refuse to give it to them. In time they will be heard. Their voice is intelligent and has been heard.
Dear Harry:
I guess being an historian you could be more accurate in assessments of the facts of past and present and its future implications.
No one states that the American people needs a war. This is nonsense. There are also a number of reasonable and open-minded polititians inside the US establishment who understand that the current course imposed by the global TNCs and major international banking institutions leads the world to a deadlock with the predetermined solution.
Nothing unique is going on today. The panic of 1907 (have you ever studied its triggering mechanisms?) eventually lead to the creation of Federal Reserve and, shortly, the outbreak of WWI. I hope you will not argue that the collapse of four great Empires (Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Othoman) brought unprecedented advantages to the British crown and still young United States. It was so brilliant success that even the prompt restoration of the Russian empire in Soviet form in 1922 did not look catastrophic. Nevertheless the failure of the Wall St.-backed ‘Trotsky project’ in Russia by 1928 and Stalin’s assertion was the real challenge. It became evident to the bankers that the goals of the WWI were not reached. Immediately after Trotsky was expelled they started investing into Hitler to set this barking dog against Soviet Union (you can read more details of this story here: http://orientalreview.su/2010/12/28/episode-6-leon-trotsky-father-of-german-nazism-iv/). Chronologically the Great Depression was the direct consequence of the decision by the owners of the Federal Reserve to unleash another World War. They wanted the American nation to be consolidated and hungry on the eve of that colossal ordeal. In this context your statement about Stalin’s ‘alignment’ with Hitler is doubly ridiculous. I can’t help laughing at the Western ‘historians’ symptomatically forgetting every time about e.g. 1938 Munich Pact which the Czechs call Munich Dictate or Munich Betrayal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement. While reading repeatedly in Western sources about the ‘fight of two totalitarian regimes’ during the WWII I just wander if there is still some room for honest historical research and consideration or Western historiography has definitely fallen into political prostitution?
By the way, the heirs of the Federal Reserve initiators have lost the WWII. Yes, they created Bretton Woods, but Soviet Union survived and even got reinforced despite astonishing human losses, still challenging the banking spider. Only in 1991-92 when the degrading Soviet bureaucracy delivered the financial sovereignty of the USSR/Russia to the IMF and other supranational institutions managed by the Wall St, they have got an opportunity to raise the glasses. Their mission was the global dominance with the nation states fulfilling the role of local administrations. They failed again. Could they achieve it in the current international configuration? Hardly. New Russia is coming back. China and Iran have their own world perspective and fascinating cultural and philosophical heritage. Even in the West unbiased and open-minded people start understanding that they are just pawns in somebody else’s vague game.
We want a balanced, fair and developed world. We support international trade, travel, friendship and communication (what are we doing now, btw?). But what we strictly oppose are the baseless Messianic ambitions of few golden bugs and their greedy yearning for total control over global resources, hearts and minds when singing the sweet carols about ‘democracy’, ‘freedoms’ and multi-color ‘revolutions’.
Finally: please, avoid challenging Soviet education. Perhaps we lacked some sources (doubtful statement anyway). But we were acquiring a methodology of versatile analysis and comprehensive worldview. Once we got access we understood many things. Are you ready for the same disclosure?
Pingback: Can Iran Defeat the US in a Major War? | Oriental Review
Mr. Harry Blanton has correctly identified that the people of the US have no interest in war but the fact of the matter is that the people are so manipulated by the media (owned by those in power) that they are tricked into voting for the candidate the media chooses.
The US is behaving no differently than other empires in the past.The best book I’ve ever read is “Are We Rome? The Decline of an Empire and the Fate of America”. The author has brilliantly compared the two great empires. Yes, for sure the US as an empire will shrink to its borders as a nation as had Rome (Italy). For every Goliath there has been a David. For the Goliath US, lurking in its shadows is either David Iran or China. Both Iran and China have a common goal — to check the expansion of the empire. If they don’t then certainly they too will be swallowed.
The only weapons that Iran and China possess are oil and dollars. Unlike the Arabs who’re tribal (and thus can be easily divided), Iran is a homogenous nation and are most unlikely it can be divided.
Pingback: Why the US Needs a Major War [Viewpoint Russia] « Wonders of Pakistan
Pingback: Today,s Thought