Josh Marshall has a rather good post about this on TPM.
For an analysis on what an attack on Iran might cause see John Robb's AN ATTACK ON IRAN = CATALYST OF CHAOS.
For my money, the first wave and most parts of the second wave Robb talks about are near certain, with the third wave being more speculative, but definitely possible.
Here again, Hersh's article is useful. It is laden with comments that indicate that the air power intensive operation I laid out in my "Collapsing Iran" brief will be selected. For example:"The Air Force is hawking it to the other services," the former senior intelligence official said. "They're all excited by it...
"The Air Force is hawking it to the other services," the former senior intelligence official said. "They're all excited by it...
"The lesson they took from Iraq is that there should have been more troops on the ground"--an impossibility in Iran, because of the overextension of American forces in Iraq--"so the air war in Iran will be one of overwhelming force."
Although I am bearish on the future of conventional war between states, I am bullish on the potential for states (the legacy platforms in this struggle) to accelerate the dissipation of their remaining cohesion through mistakes (akin to the mistake the monarchies made during World War 1).
Now aside of reading Robb's blog and some newspaper articles on it I don't know this theory directly, so I don't know exactly how Robb's thinking fits in. Basically, though, you can see there being roughly three or four determinants of the decline and fall of the nation state.
The first, about which I'm not really sure, is failing primary loyalties. This is an ideological issue, but it doesn't exist everywhere (it does exist more in the third world than in the first).
The second and main determinant is technological change. It's ever easier for people to get access to tools with which they can exercise, project & coordinate force.
The third issue is the global capitalist system. Nation states rely on its functioning for their economic growth. However, the system (by unconscious (hidden hand) design) has a very low degree of resilience because it has a high level of interrelation coupled to a low level of redundancy. (We've had discussions on this topic on ET before, IIRC)
The fourth would be tactics. Because of their open source structure the global guerrillas function better in the current information environment.
What comes after the nation state depends upon how drastic the consequences of their collapse are. So, you can design various scenarios and speculate.
For instance, if the collapse of the nation state is not accompanied by a dowfall in economic activity of more than 30-50%, I'd say that it is quite probable that in America and Europe we'll see something much like the anarcho-capitalist dream becoming reality (privatisation of force, justice for those who can afford it, the poor out-lawed and excluded). In much of the third world there will be a reversion to tribalism mixed with mercenary armies, resource theft and piracy at sea as continual agents of chaos blocking the (re-)emergence of nation states.
If the collapse is bigger, then the level of technology will also fall and the set of circumstances that favoured the collapse of the nation state (the way that power/force is distributed and structured) will no longer exist. So after the population is much diminished we'll see the re-emergence of nation states.
But this situation in the Middle East might be familiar to Yugoslavia in the beginning of 1990's: it looked so quiet there for decades, communism has just collapsed, and then... nationalistic wars, genocide. The Middle East might indeed be a dynamite that George W. is fussing. Even if he would be immediately excluded (due to impeachement or so), the Middle East might be about to enter a hell beyond anyone's imagination.
Can anyone tell how these plots are real?
It's no coincidence that the Iran/Hezbollah/Syria axis decided now was the right moment to openly challenge the western-leaning democratic government in Lebanon. [...] If Syria goes with Iran then Lebanon is toast and Israel will look to Jordon and Egypt to join with them in a joint defense of Lebanon against Syria and, if necessary Iran as well. Because for Israel, a Syria and Lebanon controlled by Iran would be unacceptable. The Iranians clearly see that scenario as a real possibility, which why they are racing to get a working nuclear weapon - to make Israel think twice before taking a swing at them. More clues emerged last week when King Hussein of Jordon announced that he'd like his country to begin its own "civilian" nuclear program - like Iran's. Why? Because he too sees something awful his way comes. And let us not forget those Ottoman Turks of WW I. They are still around in todays Turkey. During WW I they tried to exterminate the Armenians. This time they will try to itch another scratch that's been bugging them for decades, the Kurds. Turkey would love to get rid of separatist Kurds once and for all. The Turks caught the Armenians by surprise and with the upper hand in WW I. The Kurds will not go quietly or as easily. That fight will be particularly bloody. Turkey is a member of NATO, meaning some generals in Belgium are going to face some hard decisions. Internally Turkey itself will be torn to pieces by those who, on one side want to become part of Western Europe and those on the other side whose hearts are with their ancient Muslim roots. Turkey will not likely emerge from such a war as we know it today.
The Iranians clearly see that scenario as a real possibility, which why they are racing to get a working nuclear weapon - to make Israel think twice before taking a swing at them.
More clues emerged last week when King Hussein of Jordon announced that he'd like his country to begin its own "civilian" nuclear program - like Iran's. Why? Because he too sees something awful his way comes.
And let us not forget those Ottoman Turks of WW I. They are still around in todays Turkey. During WW I they tried to exterminate the Armenians. This time they will try to itch another scratch that's been bugging them for decades, the Kurds. Turkey would love to get rid of separatist Kurds once and for all.
The Turks caught the Armenians by surprise and with the upper hand in WW I. The Kurds will not go quietly or as easily. That fight will be particularly bloody. Turkey is a member of NATO, meaning some generals in Belgium are going to face some hard decisions. Internally Turkey itself will be torn to pieces by those who, on one side want to become part of Western Europe and those on the other side whose hearts are with their ancient Muslim roots. Turkey will not likely emerge from such a war as we know it today.
There was a shred of evidence that even George W. Bush may have an inkling he's created a mess that could envelope the whole world. Last week he authorized doubling the size of our strategic oil reserves. Good idea George, but not nearly enough. We need to go the rest of the way. A fierce storm is brewing. Now is the time to secure all loose gear and batten down our own hatches. Raise taxes, enact standby procedures for mandatory energy conservation. And no "duck and cover" BS. We need to start doing real things to prepare the kind of real shortages that will occur when oil supplies are disrupted. It took two catastrophic world wars before Europeans got it all out of their system. Hopefully middle easterners can settle it with one.
Good idea George, but not nearly enough. We need to go the rest of the way. A fierce storm is brewing. Now is the time to secure all loose gear and batten down our own hatches. Raise taxes, enact standby procedures for mandatory energy conservation. And no "duck and cover" BS. We need to start doing real things to prepare the kind of real shortages that will occur when oil supplies are disrupted.
It took two catastrophic world wars before Europeans got it all out of their system. Hopefully middle easterners can settle it with one.
In some earlier columns by the same author, there are concerns of Bush sanity. But he had an earlier analysis of other world players as well. When you cannot tell or make sense of anyone's (in)actions, that might be not for good.
Prof. Joan Cole is more concerned with Bush' motivations.
Any leaders of a failing war effort are always tempted by a strategy of escalation.
