A New Iranian Empire is rising

In this essay, I consider the dramatic rise in Iran's influence and power in the Middle East over the last few years and how that impacts on future developments in that region. I discuss the possible scenarios regarding such a resurgent Iran in the context of the Syrian conflict, IS and the conflict in Yemen (where a Saudi-led coalition is fighting the Iranian-supported Houtis).

The last few years have seen a spectacular reshaping of the Middle-Eastern political landscape. Although most commentators focus on the rise of IS (Islamic State), whose cruelty has grabbed the headlines, in my view the really important event is the dramatic rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East. Suddenly Iran has become a much more assertive player in that region, which leaves the other major powers like Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Turkey very uneasy.

In this essay, I consider the reasons why Iran has been able to expand their influence so dramatically as well as the implications that this has for the future of the Middle East. The issue over Iran's nuclear program is now overshadowed by the enormous power that they have gained in the period while the talks lasted. Even if Iran would never build a nuclear bomb, their power has grown to such an extent that all future geopolitical analysis would have to include them as one of the major players - even as the most important one (Israel excluded) - in the Middle East.

Iran's growing influence and power in the Middle East

Over the last few years, the Iranians have extended their hold on power all over the Middle-East - in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. In this regard, they have empowered all the Shiites or related groups across the Middle East (like the Syrian Alawites to which the Assad dynasty belongs). At first, they merely supported the Assad regime in Syria. When their partners, the Lebanese Hezbollah, became involved in the Syrian civil war their influence grew to such an extent that Iranian generals now lead the Syrian-Hezbollah-Shiites in some areas in their conflicts with the Syrian rebels.

In Iraq, the Iranian influence has grown due to the threat posed by IS. Many of the Shiite militias that sprang up in Iraq are now coordinated as a single group, called the Popular Mobilization Committee (Hashid Shaabi), by the Iranians. They are led by Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, right-hand man of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, who is head of the Quds Force, a part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. In the battle for Tikrit Soleimani became openly involved as the leader of those groups. In Yemen, Iran's partners, the Shiite Houthis, have become the de facto rulers after taking over most of the important parts of the country, including the capital Sanaa. Their southward push toward the city of Aden, last bastion of Yemen's elected President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi (who fled to Saudi-Arabia), resulted in the intervention on 26 March of the Arab states under the leadership of Saudi-Arabia in that conflict. The primary reason for this Saudi intervention is to counter the enormous growth in Iranian power in the region.

What we see is that the Iranians with their alliance partners, Hezbollah, the Assad regime, the Iraqi Shiites and the Houthis are now in control of a large part of the Middle East stretching from Iran to the borders of Israel and Saudi-Arabia. Even though they do not officially control all these countries, their partners have strong military forces that are not subjected to the national armies (and can operate as they please). They are indeed in a very powerful position and it is very possible that they would in future become an even more powerful force. As one can expect, this leaves the other Middle Eastern countries very nervous and uneasy about these developments.

The role of the Obama administration

How did this happen? This Iranian projection of power is primarily due to the manner in which the Obama administration handled the situation in the Middle East. First, they did not provide any significant support to the moderate Syrian rebels which allowed IS to become the dominant force in eastern Syria and north-western Iraq. It seems that they did not want to upset the Iranians who are involved in that conflict and with whom they were in talks regarding their nuclear enrichment program. When the US-led coalition became involved in the fight against IS, they even had to accept Iran's involvement in Iraq against IS [1]. In fact, according to newspaper reports president Obama sent a secret letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in which he suggested the possibility of US-Iranian cooperation in fighting IS once a deal regarding its nuclear program has been reached. It seems that the whole US strategy against IS has to some extent become reliant on Iran.

Irrespective of the eventual outcome of an agreement with Iran, the space which the Obama administration allowed Iran to occupy in the Middle East cannot be easily reversed. Iran has dramatically extended its influence in the Middle East at the cost of the other countries. It might be that this was in fact from the beginning an important aspect of Iran's strategy during the nuclear talks, namely to play for time while they extend their power in the Middle East! This expansion of Iranian power has brought them to Israel's borders where Iran is involved in the fighting between the Assad-regime and the rebels at Israel's Golan border where they (Israel) some time ago shot down a helicopter leading to the death of an Iranian general and various Hezbollah military commanders. In this Iranian offensive, the divisions in the ranks of the US's Middle Eastern partners, namely between those who represent the counter-revolution after the Arab Spring (Saudi-Arabia, the UAE and Egypt) and those who support Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who gained momentum through the Arab Spring (Turkey and Qatar), have played into Iran's hands.

Iran can easily consolidate its power. Even if they do not build a nuclear bomb, they now have a very powerful base from which to consolidate and expand their power. Even though the division in the ranks of the Sunni states weakened the Arab response, this dramatic rise in Iran's power has forced them to find common ground. The GCC (the Gulf Cooperation Council of Arab countries) has recently decided on a unified military command and at the last Arab League meeting at the end of March in Egypt they decided to form a joint military force of willing countries.  

Saudi-Arabia was also able (on short notice) to put together a coalition of nine countries to fight the Houthis and to enforce a no-fly zone in Yemen (i.e. Saudi-Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan). Turkey also expressed their support for this action. The new Saudi king, King Salman, who is more pragmatic than his predecessor, may eventually succeed in overcoming the divisions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood which would unite the Sunni block (which may include Turkey) in any military confrontation with the Shiite alliance led by Iran.

The larger geopolitical game

On the surface, it is difficult to understand the Obama administration's decisions which are the most important reason why Iran ended up in this powerful new position. Why would the US allow Iran to use the period of the nuclear negotiations to expand their power so dramatically? It seems to me that a possible answer may lie in the larger geopolitical picture which also involves Russia's role in the Middle East.

When we compare the Obama administration's handling of the Ukrainian crisis with their handling of the Syrian crisis, they are much more decisive in the first situation. Whereas the US takes a more confrontational position against Russia - who has also expanded their own sphere of influence in annexing the Crimea and supporting the rebels in eastern Ukraine - they were much more reluctant to do anything in the Syrian situation so as not to affront Iran. The US played a major role in the sanctions that have so far been installed against Russia whereas they allowed the Iranians to spread their sphere of direct involvement up to Israel's borders.

Why this difference in approach? It is possible that the US is trying to win the Iranians over from a possible Russia-Iran-China axis. In this regard, the US may think that a future world in which these countries are aligned would seriously limit their own sphere of interest - comparable with the Cold War period when the balance-of-power in the world was quite evenly balanced between the USSR and the West. We may compare the Obama administrations' move in this regard with Henry Kissinger's China "card" - when he went in secret to China in 1971 and convinced them to enter into more friendly relations with the US. The result was that the USSR was left isolated in its conflict with the West. This was part of the containment strategy that eventually led to the fall of the USSR. As such, flipping Iran would also leave Russia quite isolated - especially regarding its geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East. In this context, the successful conclusions of the negotiations with Iran may be viewed not merely in terms of Obama's legacy or resolving the nuclear issue for some time, but as an effort to change the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.

There is, however, another possible outcome to this approach that may not be so positive. We can compare beleaguered Iran with Russia at the end of the Cold War. In contrast with the aftermath of the Second World War when the main enemies of the West, namely Germany and Japan, were effectively defeated and then incorporated in the Western sphere of influence, Russia was treated as an equal after the collapse of the USSR. The West did not assert their victory (they could not effectively do that due to Russia's nuclear weapons) but treated Russia very much as an equal. At first, it seemed that Russia would accept Western values and become a democracy - but that is not what happened in the end. Russia is rising again as an opponent of the West and commentators now talk of a new "Cold War".

What would Iran do? In my opinion, this approach will not result in Iran becoming part of the Western sphere of influence. In spite of any agreement with the P5+1 countries (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, i.e. the US, Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany), Iran will assert their own (new-found) position and try to extend their influence even further. The only way in which Iran would become included in the Western world is when they are defeated in war (as was the case with Germany and Japan). If this does not happen, they would take exactly the same route as Russia after the Cold War. They would take care of their own interests - which would be to consolidate their position.

Since Iran is not as powerful as China, the China-card option will not work with them - they know that any distance between them and Russia would leave them vulnerable to future Western demands and actions. One can, therefore, expect that Iran will not allow the West to drive a wedge between them and Russia. They would rather try to consolidate their new role as one of the most important players in the Middle East.

The war scenario

One possible scenario is that the Middle Eastern situation regarding Iran is defused by an agreement between Iran and the P5+1. This would effectively mean that the other Middle Eastern countries (grudgingly) accept the new hegemony of Iran over large parts of the Middle East. This may mean that some agreement between the moderate rebels, whose power has been significantly reduced by the al-Nusra and Syrian regime forces, and the Assad regime has to be reached. If Iran can achieve this, they would be able to further consolidate their power. They could, for example, enhance the military capabilities of their partners - which would put further pressure on Saudi-Arabia and Israel. They have already deployed heavy weapons, including missile systems, in the conflict in Iraq (Fajr-5 artillery rockets and Fateh-110 missiles are mentioned). If this process continues unchecked, Iran's offensive capabilities in the region may eventually overshadow that of the Sunni block (such a change in the balance of power in the Middle East may also upset this peaceful scenario).

Another scenario is that the situation in the Middle East is not defused even when an agreement is reached. Although the Obama administration may confirm the outcome through a UN resolution, this may not dissolve the tension that Iran's increased projection of power in the Middle East has caused - it could even increase such tension if the Sunni block (and Israel) feels that their core interests have been compromised. An increase in Iran's power in the Middle East may force a future US administration to become more aggressively involved to counter the Iranian influence - especially insofar as Israel, Syria and even Yemen are concerned. That may mean that an agreement with Iran may eventually be regarded in similar terms than the Munich Agreement of 1938 which led the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to proclaim "peace for our time", but which ended in World War II. In that case, Obama would be remembered in the same way as Chamberlain (in fact, Obama referred to Chamberlain's words during his last inauguration speech).

The scenario that is especially dreadful, is the one that ends in another great war. The greatest potential for escalation in this regard is probably in the context of the Syrian civil war (although the Yemen situation is also escalating fast). The US has belatedly decided to start official training of moderate rebels - to assist in the fight with IS (but not against the Assad regime). Although the Obama administration would probably try to keep it at that, the possibility is not excluded that they would at some stage have to support such forces against the Assad regime (both the Turks and the Saudis strongly support military engagement against the Assad regime). That could lead to a dramatic escalation in the conflict.

The reason why the conflict in Syria has the potential for such escalation is that Iran is so deeply involved. Once the US-led coalition decides to include the Assad-regime with IS as a target for attack (maybe under the next US administration), this will bring the US and its Arab partners in conflict with Iran and even Russia. (Although the conflict in Yemen may escalate in that direction, this would not involve Russia as long as it is contained to that area). Iran would try to disrupt such an effort against Assad, using their partners to destabilize other parts of the Middle East. At this point, the conflict can easily escalate into a war between the Iranian led Shiite-axis and the Sunni block supported by the US (and even Israel). One of the reasons why the US tries to stabilize Iraq (over and above improving their ability to fight IS) is to prevent that country from being used as a mere proxy of Iran. But even if the Iraqi army becomes a powerful and neutral force in the country (as we find in Lebanon), Iran would still be able to call upon the powerful Popular Mobilization Committee - at the very least to provide soldiers for battle.

Such a Middle Eastern War could escalate to include other important countries in the same manner that happened during the Vietnam War. In this regard, one can expect that an Iran-Russia-China axis could come into being. This will bring NATO into the picture. Even without going into detail, one can imagine that this could change our world for good [2]. One outcome would be that the EU would become much more integrated - even developing a clear military dimension far beyond the current coordination. Another may involve a weakened but resurgent Iran - similar to Germany after the First World War. One thing is sure: Iran's rise has changed the Middle East for decades to come.

A new Persian empire?

At this point, we should consider the current growth of Iranian influence in the Middle East in historical context. We should remember who the Iranians are. Although post-revolutionary Iran is a newcomer on the world scene, the Iranian people have a long and distinguished history. During a visit to this great country, one does not only see the ruins of the palaces of the great Iranian rulers of the past; one also finds a proud nation who remembers those days. Any visitor who leaves without a beautifully illustrated copy of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh - The Epic of the Kings - have truly missed out.

The Iranians did not only give the world a few great empires throughout history; they also constituted a formidable enemy to the Western nations and their empires. The great Persian empires embodied the most important opponents of both the Greeks and the Romans. East and West first met each other when Darius the Great, ruler of the First Persian Empire (539-312 BC), invaded Greece but was halted at Marathon (490 BC). Later Xerxes again invaded Greece (480-479 BC) in the first great confrontation between these powers which eventually led to the formation of the Athenian Empire (448 BC). Later the Parthian empire (250 BC - 224 AD), which included Persia, stopped the eastern expansion of the Roman Empire. This was followed by the Sasanian Empire (also called the second Persian empire; 224-651 AD).

Sasanian Empire in 620 AD [3]

Now, after slumbering for a long time, the Persians are back. In this case, they are using the ties between Shiites to project their power. If one believes that history follows certain patterns, you might see this within the context of the current geopolitical rise of the European Union in the footsteps of the great Greek and Roman empires of old. Is the rise of Iran in some manner linked with that of their ancient foes? Are we once again going to see the same great opposing powers of old rising up to oppose each other? Would a more powerful and politically integrated EU rise from such conflict in a similar manner that the old Athenian empire did? Would the geopolitical map of recent history, in which the United States and Russia became important players, again over the next few centuries give way to a world in which the EU and Iran fill the shoes of the great Roman and Persian empires of old?

At this point, one might add an eschatological perspective to this picture. There is a major current in Biblical eschatology that takes the beast of Revelation 13 as referring to the final (Antichristian) empire of this age. This beast is depicted as combining the various beasts mentioned previously in a prophecy in the Book of Daniel (ch. 7), which are taken as referring to the various great empires that would arise throughout history to rule over Israel. These beasts include a lion (the Babylonian empire), bear (Persian empire), leopard with four heads (Alexander the Great's empire and its divisions) and an enormous beast with ten horns on its head (taken as the Roman empire). The fact that all of these are included in one depiction in Revelation 13 is taken to mean that the final world empire would include the geographical area of all those past empires (see [4]).

As such this final empire will include a re-established Roman empire in Europe that rules over all the areas of the other empires, including that of the Persians. This reminds of the empire of Alexander the Great, who ruled over both west and east. For this to happen, the Western forces would have to eventually include Iran in their family of nations. The current overtures of the Obama administration toward Iran may be the first step towards bringing Iran closer to the West. In the light of the discussion above, I can, however, not see this happening if Iran is not dramatically destabilized or even conquered by Western forces and then integrated into the West (like Germany and Japan after WWII).

This prophecy seems to imply that Iran will never be able to grow a nuclear arsenal which will make such a victory very difficult (but maybe not impossible). The question is when one can expect this prophecy to go into fulfilment if this interpretation is correct? In my view, the world may very well be moving in that direction, but it will take many years for it to come to pass. We also do not know if such a war or wars with Iran lie in the near or distant future. What we do see, is that a resurgent Iran is back on the world stage just as in times of old.

Conclusion

At this point, I have to leave the reader to form his/her own opinion. The analysis given above suggests that we are entering a new phase in world history which might involve more conflict than the previous decades combined. I gave various possible scenarios - without asserting that they are the only ones. The dramatic rise in the power of Iran over the last few years during the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program has already changed the world. There is no turning back. What is strange, is that this is the direct result of the policies of the Obama administration. In trying to make the world a safer place in which the Iranian nuclear issue is resolved, they may have actually made it much more dangerous! In allowing Iran to extend its power up to Saudi-Arabia and Israel's borders, they have sown the seeds for future conflict.

Although the relation with Iran may yet be managed in a peaceful manner, it seems to me that the enormous growth in Iranian influence and power in the Middle East has already upset the balance of power in that region. Once the US-led alliance decides to also focus on the Assad regime (and not only on IS) - to cripple the Iranian axis at its weakest spot - this would bring the Shiite axis in direct confrontation with the Sunni block (although such a confrontation may also evolve out of the conflict in Yemen). At this point, things can easily escalate into chaos - and another great war may ensue. Normally peace follows war; in this case, war may follow the peace effort. The white horse of peace might be followed by the red horse of war!

[1] I have previously said (see [2]) that the Syrian situation may force the US to become involved in the Middle East if some unforeseen incidents require that. This happened after IS suddenly conquered large geographical areas in Syria and Iran and the US brought a wide coalition of Sunni states together in the war against IS.
[2] See Is A Third World War Brewing?
[3] Map was taken from Wikipedia
[4] The rise of the final world empire: the different views

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Is A Third World War Brewing?

In this essay, I discuss the possibility that the current situation in Ukraine and Syria would escalate into a third world war. I take the model of war and peace cycles, the current international geopolitical game and the situation in Syria into consideration. I also discuss the when-question.

The year 2014 is both the 100th commemoration of the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 as well as the 75th commemoration of the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. And suddenly talk of war is back in the air. Suddenly, after Russia's annexation of Crimea in Ukraine on 21 March, Europeans and others around the world are considering the unthinkable: war can once more encompass Europe and even the world.

Western leaders have reacted in saying that Russia's actions are a breach of the post-Cold War security arrangements on the continent. The acting Ukrainian prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, has accused Russia of wanting to start a third world war. He told his interim cabinet in remarks broadcast alive: "The world has not yet forgotten world war two, but Russia already wants to start world war three... Attempts at military conflict in Ukraine will lead to a military conflict in Europe".

Although the world is certainly at this stage not even close to a third world war, it is surely in order to consider the possibility of such a war. We have become so used to peace that the possibility of war seems unreal and even farfetched. There is, however, good reason for informed readers to give it serious consideration. Long before the present escalation of conflict in Ukraine I wrote that we must seriously consider the possibility of another great war, comparable with the First and Second World Wars, breaking out in the next few years [1]. I based that on the work of one of the greatest minds in the history of political thinking, namely Professor Nicholas John Spykman (1893–1943) of Yale University.

In this essay, I consider strategic, geopolitical and historical reasons why another great war is a real possibility. In this regard we should not only focus on Russia; we should consider the bigger picture in the world. This picture includes the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts, the standoff with Iran as well as China. We should consider the likelihood of a broad network of strategic alliances being formed between opposing factions without which such a war would not be possible (although regional wars would obviously be possible). Only when all these aspects are integrated into our considerations, are we in a position to evaluate the current threat to world peace.

War and peace cycles

In 1942 Prof. Spykman published a study entitled “America's Strategy in World Politics”, sponsored by the Yale Institute of International Studies. In this, he made the astonishing claim that war and peace follow a cyclical pattern. Although there are many wars in the world, he arranged them (especially those in which the British participated) into a pattern, showing that for the past 150 years (at that stage) all major wars could be classified into three types, with one of these, the truly great wars, somehow adhering to a cyclical pattern. In my own study, I have confirmed that this pattern persisted even after the Second World War and statistical analysis predicts that, if this is true, then the period around 2014 is the most likely date for another great war. This does not mean that such a war will break out this year; rather, it suggests that if there is indeed such cycles of war and peace, then another great war can be expected in the next few years. 

I first discussed these war and peace cycles and the possibility of another great war breaking out in the next few years in my book Die Arabiese Opstande (2011). In early 2012, I posted a more detailed analysis of war and peace cycles on this blog [1]. In that essay I considered the last 100 years in some detail, focusing on the characteristics of both the war and the peace phases of such cycles. In this period I found four war and peace cycles, commencing on average every 25 anew, which adhered to the same characteristics. The great wars during this period were the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War and the climax of the Cold War (which had some unique characteristics due to the fact that the opposing powers both had nuclear weapons). 

In all these wars there were worldwide networks of opposing military alliances which included all the major powers in the world. Britain's participation in such wars was subsequently replaced by that of the Anglo-American establishment, about whom another well-known historian, professor Carroll Quigley, wrote the very informative book The Anglo-American Establishment (1949). This alliance holds to this day and NATO became its military arm. The characteristics of the war and peace phases of these cycles which I discerned in my previous analysis are:

The war phase of the cycle typically commences with a financial crisis, followed by a recession/depression and a period of economic stagnation. Thereafter occurs a great war against one of the most important imperialistic competitors of the Anglo-American establishment. Sometimes the initial crisis is followed by a short period of some economic growth, but eventually, it results in a recession, after which the war starts. During the war, there is a concerted effort (not always successful) to restrict and reduce the power of their most important political and economic competitors and to promote the Anglo-American political-territorial interests. A new balance of power is also established with the purpose of keeping the most important role players in check.

The peace phase starts directly after the war. It is typically characterized by a post-war recession (a “reconversion crisis”), followed by a prolonged period of economic growth and boom. During this period some mild economic downturns may occur, but on the whole, it is a long period of growth. Although it is called a peace phase, some of the other types of war (mentioned earlier) do occur during this period, through which the scene for the next great war is set up. During the peace phase, the objective is to include as many countries as possible in the framework of world trade with the purpose of maximizing the gains of the Anglo-American financial magnates, who pursue a policy of free trade.

In that essay, I came to the conclusion that Iran would be the primary opponent in such a war for the simple reason that it poses a major threat to Anglo-American interests in the Middle East which are closely interwoven with that of Israel. And the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon makes them a soft target. But this does not mean that Iran would be the only country involved in such a war. For it to be a major war, compared with the ones mentioned, other major powers will have to be involved also. In this regard, Russia, with its close ties with Iran, would seem to be an obvious partner as part of the network of military alliances opposing NATO in such a war. Russia's possible involvement, as well as that of other countries such as China, must, however, be considered in geopolitical terms. 

Geopolitics

Another important aspect of the war and peace phases is the play between stability and instability during those phases. The peace phase is characterized by a stable balance of power between the world powers, with the winners of the previous great war dominating the scene. When the war ends without a clear winner among the great powers, such stability rests on the even balance between those powers (for example, after the Vietnam War when the West and the USSR were evenly balanced). Towards the end of this phase, however, some of the other powers become real imperialistic competitors of the Anglo-American establishment. 

During the war phase, which typically commences after a great financial and subsequent economic crisis (these economic crises were in 1907-8, 1929-33, 1957-58, 1980-82, 2008-9), the world suddenly becomes more unstable. The reason for this is that the stable balance of power in which one superpower dominates a mono-polar world (emperial Britain or the US) or two powers are evenly balanced in a bi-polar world (the US and USSR), makes way for a multi-polar world in which various players actively participate in the pursuit of power - when the great powers try to maneuver themselves into positions of power. This happened before all the great wars which I mentioned. It is now happening again with the other powers sensing that the Great Recession has damaged the financial power of the West and with it, its ability to project power. And they are preparing strategies to assert themselves in ways unthinkable a few years ago.

One of the most important factors which determine such actions are geopolitical concerns. This is when countries take geography into consideration in their political ambitions to expand and project their power. Again, in this area, Prof. Spykman is probably the most important thinker of the past century. His theory of "containment" to this day plays a central role in the thinking of all the war strategists of the major powers. I discussed his theory (as well as those of Mahan and Mackinder) in an essay that I wrote earlier this year (posted on 2 February) in which I focused on the present international pursuit of geopolitical power [2]. 

In my discussion of the major players in this game, namely China, the EU, the US and Russia, I mentioned that the eastern expansion of the EU has placed enormous geopolitical pressure on Russia and that the eastern partnership program of the EU, had it been signed with all the earmarked countries (the Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), would have contained Russia beyond the Ural mountains. I wrote that "such a Russia is effectively stripped of all geopolitical possibilities to expand its power". Since Russia is cornered, one should not be surprised by the "strong-armed" tactics of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. No wonder that (shortly after my writing) Russia initiated its program to take control over the Crimea, where its Black Sea fleet is stationed in Sevastopol. This followed directly after the successful uprising against the Russian-favored Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

I will not here repeat the things discussed in that essay (which is now even more relevant than before). In the same manner that Russia is strangled by the expansion of the EU, China is encircled by US allies or partners (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia). In the same manner that Russia has annexed the Crimea, China has also annexed certain reefs in the South China Sea in recent years. In November 2013 China even proclaimed a new air defence zone which includes the Senkaku Islands (called Diaoyu by the Chinese) which belong to Japan. In January 2014 it further announced that it would this year take over control of the Philippine-occupied Pagasa island (the second biggest island in the Spratlys). 

The main difference between Russia and China is that Russia is a declining power, struggling to keep its options for future power projection open, whereas China is a growing power whose strategic interests are coming more and more in direct conflict with that of the US. China's rise would result in it becoming a major sea power (see the mentioned essay) and its projection of power into the East and South China Seas will become more asserted. Both Russia and China are at a paradigmatic moment regarding their geopolitical interests and would use every possible opportunity to take control of surrounding areas which they consider of strategic interest. If they work in concert and initiate sudden moves which do not endanger US core interests, thinking they can get away with it (testing the waters), the worldwide situation can easily escalate towards more confrontation. 

The recent 400 billion dollar agreement between these countries, according to which Russia would supply China with gas for 30 years, must be seen in this context. This can be the beginning of closer ties between these countries against the US and its allies. Russia is clearly preparing for war insofar as its military budget is concerned, which has just surpassed that of the US in GDP terms. For a large scale confrontation with the West, to try and secure its geopolitical interests, Russia would need China; China can gain a lot from such an alliance in its growing confrontation with Japan and other Western allies and partners in that region. 

 The theatre of war

We should not see the events in Ukraine in isolation. Russia is not only under pressure in its own backyard; it is also under enormous pressure in the only other important part of the world where it still has some influence after the fall of the USSR, namely the Middle East. There its partners Syria and Iran are under great pressure. Syria is involved in a civil war and Iran is strangled by sanctions. In a certain sense, the conflict in Syria stands at the centre of the geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West. If the Syrian regime falls, Russia will not only lose its Mediterranean naval base at Tarsus, it will be effectively excluded from the Middle East (except for its relation with Iran). This is why Russia so fiercely defends its ally, both in the UN Security Council and on the ground where it provides the Syrian regime with weapons and even training. 

Already in December 2011 in an essay on this blog, I predicted that Russia would stand by Syria and that it would not follow the path of the other Arab Spring countries where revolutions had been successful (that is before the counter-revolutions in some of those countries). I also mentioned that Iran would probably become involved and that the Syrian conflict can eventually escalate into a wider Middle Eastern war. Although other neighbouring countries have not thus far become directly involved, Iran did and today the Iranians play a very important role in steering the Syrian war effort with its allies Hezbollah and other Shiites from Iraq. As in the case of Russia, Iran also has a lot to lose would the Syrian regime fall. Not only would the important Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Shiite axis, which allows Iran to project its power all over the Middle East, be broken and its ally Hezbollah be left isolated, it would also make it much easier for the Israelis to attack Iran on its home ground. 

It seems to me quite possible that the conflict in Syria (which includes Iran) could eventually become the theatre where the next great war begins - if it comes to that. Although such a conflict would also play off in other areas of the world (near Russia or China), I think the epicentre would be in the Middle East. It seems very unlikely that such a conflict would ever be fought on Russian soil (because of its nuclear weapons); it is, however, very possible that it would, at least in part, be fought in Syria and Iran. Not only are Russia and Iran already supporting the Syrian regime, the West is slowly but steadily increasing its support for the rebels. Over the last few months funding, weapons and training of certain moderate rebel groups have strengthened their relative power in rebel circles.

In a major foreign policy speech on 28 May at the United States Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama recently announced a five billion dollar “Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund” to train local forces in the Middle East and Africa. Obama reversed his past opposition to large-scale American arming and training of Syrian rebels and said that strengthened moderate rebel groups could serve as a counterweight to radical Islamist groups. The US, Saudi-Arabia and others are already training the rebels for some time in Jordan (at least since 2013) and the CIA played a major role in establishing Brig. Gen. Abdul-Illah al-Bashir, an important leader of the Free Syrian Army, in the Golan town of Quneitra. They have also started providing the rebels with heavy weaponry.

The Syrian conflict and Russia's involvement in Ukraine would probably with time become closely intertwined. The US would try to force Russia's hand in Ukraine with threats of providing the rebels with even better weapons. We can see Obama's speech in these terms. Furthermore, Russia and Iran are not only close friends which are involved in the same conflict in Syria, both are now also under Western sanctions. This would bring them even closer to each other and it is quite possible that Russia (and China) would in future break ranks with the West on Iranian sanctions if the nuclear negotiations do not succeed. Russia and Iran also recently announced a 20 billion dollar oil-for-food deal and they are in talks about another 10 billion dollar energy deal. One can easily see how Iran can become part of a Russia-China-Iran axis of powers opposed to NATO.

When can such a war be expected?

The important question is: If the war and peace cycles and geopolitical concerns suggest that we can expect a major war over the next few years, when will it commence? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, but I can mention some of the factors that would play an important role in this regard. I ranked them from the most to the least importance.

1. The war phase. We can consider the details of the war phase of the cycle more closely to see what precedes the outbreak of such wars. These phases typically begin with a financial crisis, followed by a deep depression or recession and a prolonged period of stagnation thereafter. The present cycle clearly commenced with the financial crisis of 2007 which was followed by the Great Recession of 2008-9 and the period of stagnation (especially in the EU) ever since.

In two of the previous cycles, this involved another recession just before the war starts. Since this did not occur in all the cycles we cannot, in general, take it as signalling the outbreak of war. The average period from the financial crisis to the outbreak of war is 7 years. In the period which preceded the Second World War, it, however, took 10 years (the longest period registered) from the financial crisis in 1929 to the outbreak of the war in 1939. This means, statistically speaking, that the chance for such a war is the greatest over the next three years (2014-17), but it is always possible that it can take even longer before it starts.

2. Iranian nuclear negotiations. Although the present negotiations between Iran and the six world powers are not often described in those terms, they are probably the last effort to avoid direct confrontation between Iran and a US-led alliance (that includes Israel), which can easily escalate into another great war. Without a deal, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and the Anglo-American establishment will not tolerate that. A breakdown in negotiations can, therefore, lead to war with Iran, which in my opinion can easily lead to another great war in the cycle of such wars.

As long as the talks proceed it seems unlikely that the situation in Syria would escalate into direct Iran-US-Israel confrontation. One can furthermore expect all the parties to the talks to do everything in their power to come to an agreement. The problem is that such an agreement must not only satisfy Israel, it must also satisfy the Iranian security establishment. Although the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate, he faces growing criticism at home. A coup against him would change everything and can dramatically escalate the conflict between Israel and Iran. The Iranians have all reason to think that giving up their nuclear deterrent would leave them exposed to Western attack [3]. This would make an agreement very difficult to reach.

3. The Obama administration. I have previously discussed the strategic interests of the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia regarding the situation in Syria [3]. Since the US is the leader of the Western nations, they will not go to war without her. The Obama administration, however, will do everything to avoid war. They are nonetheless under enormous pressure in the US because of the perception that the enemies of the US are taking advantage of Obama's reluctance and even aversion to war. It seems, however, that Obama will not easily take the US into another war. If they are not overtaken by events, it will probably fall to the next US president to decide on this. But remember President Woodrow Wilson, who promised peace and then took the US into World War I.

4. Oil and gas supplies. One can expect that a great war with its epicentre in the Middle East will have a dramatic impact on the oil price and can destabilize the world economy. This will count in Russia's favour, which is a major oil and gas exporter. Also, Russia is in a strong position because of the EU's dependence on it for its fuel. The EU imports about 39% of its gas and about 33% of its oil from Russia. Since the Ukraine crisis, the EU has been actively exploring other options. They have access to other fuel resources but some of these are also under pressure, for example in Libya.

There is, however, a very important change in world fuel production in progress which would impact on the situation. Gas-fracking has changed the fuel market beyond recognition. The US is already self-sufficient and will probably start exporting in the near future. The EU leaders have even talked to President Obama about getting fuel from the US. He mentioned that this is subject to the successful conclusion of the free trade agreement between the US and the EU. One expects that the Western nations would try to solve this problem before deciding to go to war.

5. The US-EU free trade agreement. For some readers, it would seem strange that I mention this point. I, however, think that this is an important issue which will decide whether and when such a war breaks out. The reason is that such a great war would generate a common enemy for the EU on a scale not seen before. This will propel the EU into further integration in the same manner that the economic crisis did. Such a war, which includes Russia as the aggressor on its eastern border, will bring the EU nations together and allow the Euro countries to proceed with further integration. Those right-wing groups who have done so well in the last EU election, and who view President Putin as the hero, will come under enormous pressure to be "patriotic" and loyal to the EU. The reason why the US-EU trade agreement is important is that the US would not like to see the EU become so powerful if it is not safely embedded with them in one economic zone. The US would probably want to see at least substantial agreement on trade issues before going into a large-scale war.

In my opinion, the Vietnam War in important aspects provides our best precedent for the current situation. Both then and now we see a proxy war which escalated (or can escalate) into a war in which all the major world powers participated (or participates). In that case, the conflict between the Viet Cong and the government of the anti-communist South began in 1955. The US sent the first support troops in 1961 and became directly involved only in 1965. The current Syrian conflict started early in 2011 and the US has only recently announced that they would become more actively (but not directly) involved. One can expect that particular incidents would serve as the reason for deeper participation, but that is obviously impossible to predict. I do not think that we can take the timescales of the US involvement in the Vietnam War as the basis for projections (one example cannot count as statistics), but I do think that the present situation can follow at least that pattern in the run-up to such a war.

Conclusion

There has recently been talk about a "third world war". Leaders often engage in such talk for reasons of their own. In this case, however, it seems that there are reasons to think that the present situation in Syria and Ukraine can easily escalate into a major war which involves the major powers around the globe (if not The Third World War). The most important reason why I think that such a war could very well be on hand is that the present circumstances fit perfectly with my model of war and peace cycles. The events in Syria and Ukraine are not isolated instances; they are closely connected in the geopolitical game currently underway in the world. An analysis of the geopolitical situation shows that more such conflicts can be expected and that it can easily escalate even more. Of central importance in this regard is that Russia, China and Iran are moving closer to each other. Their short-term goals are closely linked and they all experience some form of Western containment which strangles them.

When would such a war break out if it comes to that? This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I have mentioned various factors which are important in this regard. On the whole, it seems that the West is not yet ready for war. Although the situation can change fast, it seems that such a war will not easily start under the Obama administration (but remember President Wilson!). The most important factor which will determine what will happen and when is the nuclear negotiations with Iran. We can take it as an important barometer regarding a possible future war which could include not only Israel and Iran but also the other major powers.

[1] Click on Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles
[2] Click on The pursuit of geopolitical power in an emerging multi-polar world
[3] Click on War-clouds darken over the Middle East

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also: A New Iranian Empire is rising.