ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Balance of Power in the Next World Order

Tue May 09, 2006 at 09:38:52 AM EST

Not only is the Next World Order already here, we're already seeing a typical example of how power plays will be executed in it.

Under the fold: lions and tigers and bears, oh my!...

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Last week, the New York Times carried a story by Nazila Fathi titled "Iran Threatens Retaliation if Attacked."

The main story concerns warnings by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran will respond "two fold" to an invasion of Iran. That's the scare noise that makes the story sell (and don't think Khamenei doesn't know that), but the more germane aspect of the Iran situation is at the bottom of Fahti's article.

Iran has been relying on the vote of two its economic allies, China and Russia, at the Security Council meeting, hoping they would use their veto power to stop any punitive measures against it.
Moscow has helped Iran build its first nuclear reactor in the southern city of Bushehr and Iran has extensive oil deals with China.

Earlier in the Next World Order series, we discussed the emerging multi-tiered matrix of major powers, balance powers, regional powers, wild cards, and others. As the Iran nuclear saga unfolds, we see a loose economic and energy coalition forming between a major power (China), a balance power (Russia) and a wild card seeking to achieve the status of a regional power (Iran). Russia stands to profit by assisting Iran in develop its nuclear program. The more Iran can draw on nuclear power as a source of energy, the more it has to sell to China, a nation aggressively developing its industrial and infrastructure base. Russia and China already have a dozen or so other dope deals going on on the side, including a mutual dislike of the idea of the United States dictating terms to the rest of the world on every issue under the sun.

On the other side of the fence we have the declining hegemon (U.S.) that has alienated it's traditional allies in the European Union. Even the prime minister of our traditional balance power friend England has informed Mister Bush that it can not provide military support to any strike on Iran.

Next World Diplomacy

We've thrown the diplomatic process on Iran into the United Nations Security Council, where Russia and China hold all the high cards. All they have to do is say "no." And how are convincing them to play along with us? Vice President Dick Cheney accuses Russia of being a "bully" and young Mister Bush blames China for the spike in oil prices.

And who's our man in the UN we're relying on to smooth all the bruised feelings and broker a bargain? John Bolton. Calling Bolton a "diplomat" is like calling a Doberman a lap dog.

But say, by some miracle, the U.S. manages to convince China and Russia to vote for sanctions against Iran. Iran's already ahead of that contingency: they'll just drop out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Teaty. The treaty contains a provision for signatories to withdraw by giving the UN and other treaty members three months notice.

Then what do we do? North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003, and admitted up front that they had developed nuclear weapons. Iraq still insists that it has no interest in having nuclear weapons. We've promised North Korea we won't attack them. How do we justify keeping an attack of Iran on the table?

The Bush administration could pull the Israel card, citing Iran's bellicose rhetoric regarding the Jewish state. But Iran's threats against Israel are pure trash talk. Nearly a thousand miles separate Tehran and Tel Aviv. Iran is not capable of effectively projecting conventional sea, air or land power that far. There's no conclusive evidence that Iran's new Shabat 3 ballistic missile actually works, or if it does, that it can reach or accurately target Israel. But even if it can hit a target in Israel, what kind of warhead would it carry? An envelope full of anthrax? That will do less harm than a car bomb would. Even if Iran actually is pursuing a nuclear weapon, it won't have one for many years, and if it ever does manufacture one, the consequences of using one on Israel would be devastating.

(And don't buy the nonsense that says Iran's leadership is crazy. They're crazy like North Korea's Kim Jong Il is crazy--like a fox.)

Next World Congitive Dissonance

The greatest failing of the neoconservative philosophy is that we've become so reliant on armed force as our primary tool of foreign policy we're nearly incapable of competently employing diplomatic and economic leverage. And as our expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq have illustrated, military action has become a profoundly counter-effective means of conducting policy. Every time we pull the trigger, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

One hopes that the Bush administration has at long last learned the fallacies of its core ideology. But those hopes could well be in vain. We're already hearing the same kinds of rhetoric from the White House that we heard during the run up to the Iraq. Calling Iran our biggest challenge. Comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler. (Remember when Saddam Hussein was Hitler?) Drawing conclusions about Iran's intentions based on negative proof (they're not telling us everything, therefore they must be developing nuclear weapons.)

We're also hearing about hoping to solve the problem through diplomatic efforts through the UN. But as we've discussed, the odds of those efforts are stacked on the side of probable failure.

If they fail, the Bush administration can say, "we tried the diplomatic route," and blame the UN because diplomacy didn't work. That will be a hard position to sell, though, considering that President Ahmadinejad has now sent Mister Bush a letter thought to be an overture for direct Iran-U.S. diplomatic talks.

We'll see what happens, but if the administration is as hell bent for leather to pull the trigger on Iran as they were on Iraq, they're going to pull that trigger. If they do, lamentably, this time, they'll shoot off something far more precious than a toe.

And it may be that end of American neoconservatism will not end with another Watergate, but another Waterloo.

Not with a whimper, but with a bang.

The Next World Order Series

Part I: America's 21st Century Military

Part II: Network-centric Warfare

Part III: America's Military Industrial Complex

Part IV: The Revolt of the Retired Generals

Part V: What Good is War?

Part VI: Body Count

Part VII: Order in the Next World Order

Part VII; The Cost of War and Peace in the Next World Order

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his weekday commentaries at ePluribus Media and Pen and Sword.

Balance of Power in the Next World Order | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

rba... (5.00 / 1) (#7)

I wish I shared your confidence in the administration's capacity to act rationally, but everytime I've thought to myself "surely they wouldn't" they turned around and did.

As to your comments on the US having isolated itself diplomatically, yep. That's largely been the thrust of much of my writing--the neocons leaned so heavily on armed force as an insrument of power that the other instruments of power have been badly damaged.

I remember back when Condi Rice said "Now is the time for diplomacy." I nearly choked. I think I wrote something at the time to the effect that "Then was the time for diplomacy. Now is the time for begging for help."

Best,

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:48:15 AM EST

: We agree (5.00 / 1) (#10)

on the situation. I have no confidence in the administration, but do have some faith in the power of the rest of the nations involved. Especially China.
And I trust the neocons about as far as I can throw an enraged bull elephant.

by rba on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeff (none / 0) (#1)

Excellent as always.

There is an error in your comments, however.

Blair has most certainly not said that he will not support military action in Iran.

1- The report to which you refer was by an unnamed source. I have checked with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and it dismisses the report as changing in any way its position, which currently is almost completely in lock-step with the United States.

2- Even the unnamed source does not say that the UK "will not support any military strike on Iran." It simply says that the UK "will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike." This is a function of simply not having the troops - made daily even more critical by the ever worsening situation in both south Iraq and in South Afghanistan, were British troops are fully engaged.

The best that I can offer you is that yesterday Blair for the first time said that the UK would not support a nuclear strike, when questioned if this was a reason for his dismissal of Jack Straw - who said that the idea was "nuts".

Sadly, even this statement by Blair was forced out of him by the pressure being brought on him to resign and is so specific that conventional war with Iran remains a real possibility of getting support - if not in troops then in diplomatic terms.

by Welshman on Tue May 09, 2006 at 10:03:43 AM EST

Changing their story? (none / 0) (#2)

Welshman,

If I've read this all correctly, this is what Beckett said:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article362991.ece

This talks about what Shaw said:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-05/08/content_584805.htm

This is the story on what Blair supposedly said from the Scotsman:

"TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday."

And

"...But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "'We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike.'"

Timeline wise, I believe the last comment came first. You're obviously in a better position to have followed the development on this. But from here, it looks to me like Blair did say something very much like he was said to have, and then started spinning his way out of it.

Is that your take, or do you have another angle?

Best,

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 10:27:01 AM EST

I think my comments stand. (none / 0) (#4)

The Becket comment that "no-one intended to take military action against Iran," is the standard meme that even George Bush employs. It was used before the invasion of Iraq. It implies nothing in relation to willingness to go to war, either for the UK government or the US government.

Although poorly and misleadingly worded, the Scotsman report merely says that we don't have the ability to provide troops. Period. Nothing more. To read it as being somehow a change in support for Bush is, sadly, a mistake.

The rejection of nuclear strikes was forced on Blair by his precarious political position. If he had said otherwise, he would have been thrown out of office yesterday. I suspect his position on nukes has the full agreement of the White House, who would rather he was still Prime Minister should military action commence.

by Welshman on Tue May 09, 2006 at 10:53:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lost in Translation? (none / 0) (#6)

I'm not sure if we're posting in cross order now, but you bring up something that I think is worth discussing with regard to consuming news and using it as a source for commentary.

Here's the Scotsman lead paragraph:

Now, if I read something like that in a major U.S. paper written by a reputable journalist I'm familiar with--WaPo's Dana Priest, for example--I'm pretty sure about a few things.

The journalist has spoken with credible, highly placed government officials who have been authorized to put those words in the head of state's mouth and pass the message along to the press.

If someone like Priest published a statement like that under any other circumstances she'd suffer a serious blow to her credibility and reputation.

Now, I don't know a whole lot about the Scotsman, and I suspect there may be a UK/US difference in shade of meaning between Scotsman's "Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran" and my "it will not support any military strike on Iran."

Now, from my perspective, I have fairly reproduced what the Scotsman reported. Ultimately, the message is that the British head of state told our head of state "Sorry, if you take that route, you're on your own."

I'm not bringing this up to parse language or argue minutia, but to ask if maybe we shouldn't be careful when citing language from non-US sources that may not mean exactly what we think it does, or make assumptions about the "code" that non-US journalists use.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks for suggesting this subject.

Best,

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Welshman (none / 0) (#8)

Something else occurs to me, perception and translation-wise.

I (we) may be making inaccurate assumptions about how your politicians speak/behave.

Here's a grotesque example: Dick Cheney says "I think the insurgency is in it's last throes.'"

Pandemonium. Oops. Wrong message. Wrong thing to say.

Somebody else, either from the administration or the administration friendly media comes back and says "He meant in its last 'throws.'"

So to me, a lot of the subsequent language after the original Blair attribution sounds like SOP to cover the boss's six.

Mistaken assumption?

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 12:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mmmm. not sure (none / 0) (#9)

To my mind there is a huge difference in any language between "Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran" and "it will not support any military strike on Iran." The key being the word "military".

It is difficult to be certain because the bland presentation over here is "we have not exhausted diplomatic options, so the question of our support of the US taking military action does not arise" (My words).

However, you have to look at the argument over the contents of the UN resolution and whether or not sanctions and military action can be included in it or not. The UK, as so do France and Germany this time, support the US that the resolution should include these words. It is exactly what de Villepin - the now failing de Villepin - fought against in the Iraq resolution, I seem to recall.

Wording aside. I do not yet see any division between the UK and US position. I am relying not on Blair to change this but on Labour Party backbenchers and the British public to refuse to support military action when the time comes. I cannot guarantee this opposition - a week is a long time in politics and events can change public perceptions and backbenchers' resolve very quickly.

by Welshman on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A cut and paste problem (none / 0) (#11)

I wrote "To my mind there is a huge difference in any language between "Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran" and "it will not support any military strike on Iran." The key being the word "military".

It should have read: "To my mind there is a huge difference in any language between "Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran" and "it will not support any US military strike on Iran." The key being the word "military" as an enforced qualification on the type of support that can be made available.

Why was this leaked by the undisclosed "source". Maybe the inevitability of this conclusion due to a lack of troops had been agreed with the US and letting it be known would help Blair with his party members without it affecting all other types of support to the US if military action is undertaken.

by Welshman on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: LOL... (none / 0) (#14)

We're playing post tag!
FWIW, I changed the wording in the main post to (I think) more accurately reflect what the Scotsman piece said.
As to the undisclosed "source." This may be where US vs. UK journalistic practices differ. Here, when an undisclosed government source puts words in the mouth of the President or any other high official, it's usually done for a purpose, and only the most tabloidy of journalists would print such a thing if it weren't understood that this was an "official" and condoned "leak."
Are we silly, or what?

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

litotes (none / 0) (#12)

The basis for British understatement? -- that's a question for you Welshman (despite the Celtic backgrounds here).

Litotes are not used much within the American popular language, but they certainly are the figure of speech used much by the Anglos and Saxons... to express the positive via the negative...

i.e. "He was not unmindful."

Probably gets easily misunderstood on quick readings.

by Cho on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trapped semantically by my military background... (none / 0) (#13)

Yes, I see what you mean now. To my military mind, any support of a military strike would be military in nature, even if it were merely logistical. So I meant what the Scotsman said, but bad on me for not catching the semantic distinction.

But that leads us down another path in logic. If Blair and others are saying that Britian is not capable of militarily supporting a military strike because of other committments, etc., they're not quite telling the truth. If they really wanted to stand four-square behind Bush, they could offer at least a token of naval or air support.

This was the sort of thing we saw in Kosovo.

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As of now.. (none / 0) (#15)

...they almost certainly will.

"We can't send boots on the ground but we can offer a lot of other types of support." As Germany is rumoured to have done during the Iraq invasion.

Unnamed sources are used here much as they are used in the States - to get information out to affect opinion without having to answer awkward follow-up questions like those that you have raised!

by Welshman on Tue May 09, 2006 at 02:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Yes... (none / 0) (#17)

"Unnamed sources are used here much as they are used in the States - to get information out to affect opinion without having to answer awkward follow-up questions like those that you have raised!"
Okay, I think we're on the same page now. Like I said, my impression was that that para wouldn't have wound up in a reputable paper unless it was intended to.
And like you said, it was a test ballon around which modifiers could be hung after the reaction was measured.

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 02:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, here's the Scotsman link... (none / 0) (#3)

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=577092006

Again, you're in a better position to have a feel for what actually was said, but from here it looks like Blair said "we can't support a strike," let somebody leak the comment to the press, then thought better of it.

But whatever actually happened, I'd say the message is sent that if the US strikes Iran, it does so on its own without the concurrence of anyone else.

Ironically, such a strike would be an overseas incursion that would launch a sort of neo-isolationism.

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 10:52:25 AM EST

Maybe (none / 0) (#5)

Part of the difference between then (Iraq) and now (Iran) is in the total loss of any latent goodwill and sympathy for the U.S. post-9/11, and the administration's total lack of credibility here and abroad. They have overplayed the situation, and this time neither the domestic nor global press are rolling over.

The game is being played in plain sight, with an intact, credible government of an independent nation, pressing their case through official channels within the structure of the UN.

Ambassador Asefi:

"Concerning claims of US President George Bush in defending democracy, he said, "We believe that the US president talks more about democracy, given his intention to conceal the way he himself was elected."

At each stage of this dance, the Iranians have managed to stay ahead of the administration in the publicity wars. More importantly, they have not strayed one inch from their verified claims of domestic nuclear energy production, and compliance with IAEA mandates.

As the larger picture of the failures of this administration to truly protect America come into focus, their support will continue to erode among their faithful. Further, as Hersch noted any military action will result in more general staff walking out.

I don't see the need to lose too much sleep over this. A month ago, yes. Today? No.

by rba on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:20:26 AM EST

While we're on the subject... (none / 0) (#16)

There's also the matter of translating between civilian and military speak.

Remember when Operation Swarmer was announced as an "air assault" and so many people thought that meant we were bombing a town to rubble? Well, to an insider, it's very clear that an air assault is a vertical insertion of ground forces by helicopter, parachute, what have you. Bombing is referred to as an "air strike."

Now, there's also a big difference between a "strike" and an "invasion." An invasion is what we did in Iraq. A strike is what we did to Khadafi a couple decades ago. These two words are getting used interchangably in the rhetoric on Iran, and when I hear one or the other being discussed, I'm never sure if the speaker is aware of the proper use of the term.

Khamenei, for example, is reported to have to referred to a "two fold" response to an "invasion," but is that what he really meant? Were his reported remarks translated? Did the translator understand the differences, did the reporter writing the story understand the differences.

It might make a big difference if Khamenei was specifically referring to an invasion rather than a strike. But I tend to think it was just meant to be a generic term for "any kind of preemptive military action." We'll probably never find out for sure, but for the purposes of this piece I didn't think it was necessary to go into that kind of detail.

But going back to the unattributed Blair attribution, if he was really saying that the UK "can not"--as in "is physically unable to"--support a strike on Iran with military force, that is an untrue statement. As I said earlier, if Blair wanted to, he could contribute at least a token of air or naval power, and the people at the top of his international audience know that.

Okay, enough lashes on this horse. Fascinating, though, picking away at the nuances of political speech and use of the media to send direct/indirect, official/unofficial messages.

Best,

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Tue May 09, 2006 at 02:11:38 PM EST

Balance of Power in the Next World Order | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!