World War 3.0 (Beta)?
- 18 Jul 06, 06:38 PM
Newt Gingrich's pronouncement that we are "in World War III" has to be seen in the context of American politics. See this for some context: Gingrich has been hammering Republicans for going soft and wants George W (Yo! Blair!) Bush to ratchet up the War on Terror into a full scale official World War III. Watch his Newsnight interview here. But here is how he put it on :
"When you have bombings in India, you have war going on in Afghanistan, you have war going on in Iraq, you have a war going on in Gaza and South Lebanon, you have Syria and Libya and North Korea actively plotting to defeat the democracies, you have Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, saying publicly he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, you have people plotting to blow up New York tunnels, you have Canadians plotting to blow up the Canadian parliament and behead the prime minister... My point is we're in a war!"
When I read that it prompted a few questions...
Like: (i) Hold on a minute... Libya is meant to be on "our" side now; (ii) How does North Korea fit in - if there is intelligence that DRK is actually involved in a strategic global gambit with Iran/Syria I think we should be told what our governments know about that (i.e. if there is a parallel with Pearl Harbor where the US knew Japan was in alliance with Germany). We know of course that North Korea sells Iran missile technology.
For those of you perplexed by the rise of World War III to the top of Technorati's list, I would caution calm. In actual fact Gingrich's comments illustrate the gap between "clash of civilisations" rhetoric and the actual position of the Bush government. Rather than the fantasy global war on Islamism that Gingrich would like the USA to fight, I would be more concerned with the possibility of an actual escalation of this conflict into a regional war.
Here I am thinking a lot about the run up to World War I: there had been a conflict raging in the Balkans that seemed to have died down. Most politicians, labour leaders (important then because their consent was needed for the war effort) and even editors were on holiday. Until 5 days before 4 August 1914 few people thought the Serbian crisis would blow up into war. It was the domino-fall of ultimatum, counter-ultimatum and above all treaty (in some cases secret treaty) that plunged the world into war while Europe's A-listers tried to find their way home from alpine walking holidays and the Riviera.
If the present conflict does flare up how would it happen? Clearly the first domino is any Israeli attack on Syria: we do not know what agreement there is between Syria and Iran, but it has been publicly stated by the Iranian regime that there will be dire consequences should Israel strike Syria. However, the current position of Iran is probably summed up by this :
"Iran supports a cease-fire and calming down the situation but there will be no political or security solution at the expense of the resistance."
OK, but suppose Syria gets hit? The key question then is what does Iran do? Here the question is how many missiles does Iran have, and what can it do with them. Various public sources say the Shahab-3 now has a 2000km range, so could hit Israel, but a smaller payload - 500kg of high explosives, making it more of a military-use missile rather than a WMD. Iran has recently said it can hit Israel. Presuming it did this, one has to assume Israel would declare war on Iran; the question is, are there treaty obligations that oblige the US/UK to do so? Or absent that, the political will.
The alternative to striking Israel would be to close the Straits of Hormuz. But that would be like shooting itself in the foot, because most of Iran's oil goes to (and therefore revenue comes from) China and Japan thru the Straits.
Or does it activate the pro-Iranian forces inside Iraq against what it has previously referred to as "our hostages" - namely the US/UK military forces there? (This incidentally is a real possibility and one reason why UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was probably a bit previous in protesting about the 大象传媒 "dragging Iraq" into the situation this morning. Iran has the ability to drag Iraq into the current conflict and will probably do so in preference to provoking a direct conflict in the Gulf.)
There is, certainly, something distasteful about spelling out what might happen in such coldly logical terms but I have noticed that in the run up to wars there is often a reticence to face the logic of escalation. However you can bet that military planners, global risk analysts and bankers the world over are running through their worst case scenarios for the outcome of this crisis. And rest assured, I hope it all stops tomorrow.
One set of voices you are not hearing on the telly, but you can be sure are being heard, is the top investment bankers and central bankers: 100 dollar a barrel oil will, I was told today by one of the big cheeses in this world, definitely provoke recession. I would imagine therefore that most of the business voices are tending slightly in the opposite direction to Newt Gingrich. Because 100$/barrel will be a floor price if any of the above scenarios come to pass.
So: carrying the scenario forward. Not likely that Iran would close the Straits: more likely they would do something in Iraq and also directly reinforce Hezbollah and Syria. Before it comes to this however, Russia and China make their position clear - no UN support for war with Iran/Syria. But does it make any difference?
Finally, if you want weird: click . Lyndon Larouche's website is expounding its own version of how it all began.
If you want sane, and authoritative, re-read Sy Hersh's old stuff on the intra-Bush administration conflict over targeting Iran, . Superseded by events and realignments, but full of insight into the way the USA has been thinking about Iran.
And for more scenario-mongering, go to , where you don't get much unless you pay, but the stuff inside is read by all and sundry.
And Newsnight tonight will be taking a wide-angle look at the potential of this crisis. Hit the comments button now if you want to be heard.
Comments Post your comment
As soon as Israel bombed Beirut airport, I thought "This is the start of WW3". I really didn't think Zindane's headbutt would cause such an overreaction.
To be serious, I am one of those doom-mongers who thinks this IS the start of something huge. I don't understand why Bush is dragging his feet in not condemning Israel's behaviour. The consequences of a prolonged war in the Middle East are not good for the US economy, as you rightly point out.
I can't see how Syria and Iran can maintain an offical 'disinterest' in the Israel/Lebanon conflict for much longer. I hope that somehow the kidnapped soldiers are rescued, and a sort of peace can return.
The short term prospects for peace aren't good, but look to the medium- and long-term and only a fool has anything to smile about.
What worries me most is the revolutionary forces in countries like Saudi Arabia rising up against their Royal Family in support of Iran and Syria. It's long been my opinion that a revolution in Saudi Arabia will be the ultimate cause of the Third World War. Ironically, this is what both Osama Bin Laden and the Washington hawks seem to desire.
Much as I'd like to see democracy reign in the Middle East, the last thing the world needs right now (when a Christian fundamentalist is in the Whitehouse) is an Islamic Revolution in the country that exports the most oil.
WWIII was always gonna be about the scarcity of cheap oil. The current crisis foreshadows what will eventually come to pass.
Complain about this post
But I wouldn't have thought Gingrich would think it is the 3rd World War.
I am going to guess that, like Niall Ferguson, he thought the Cold War was really a hot war so he would be onto WWIV at least - certainly Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis, (Suez?), were a lot hotter than now.
Complain about this post
I'm a little less pessimistic today. I think I'm gonna die of sunburn long before ICBMs rain down on my head.
Complain about this post
Newt Gingrich was the brains behind the Republican Revolution of 1994, which took over Congress and rewarded him with the powerful position of Speaker of the House of Representatives, to which the Speaker of the House of Commons does not provide a parallel. I believe he used to keep the enormous skeleton of a sort of dinosuar in his office. Some years later he fell from grace for political and personal reasons. Since then he has kept himself in the public eye through various far-reaching pronouncements, some of which are deliberately dramatic. I believe he has not ruled out Presidential aspirations, though he is hardly a front-runner at the moment. Mr. Gingrich may not be a scholarly Woodrow Wilson but he has read widely.
Complain about this post
I have read more than Netw Gingrich. I consider the biggest threats to World Peace the Cold War Vestiges of Republicans, Democrats, Communists [Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea] because these three work and collaborate to make our world a terrible place.
These "forces of history" wants to live out their fantasies at the expense of human lives.
My suggestion would be the following:
1. Suspend ALL Aid to the Middle East [including troops in Iraq, Afghanistan].
2. Let the Middle East resolve its own problems without us.
3. For those who say the Straits of Hormuz will be closed: China already has a deal with Central Asian Republics to have their oil and electricity transported to them on pipelines next to what was the Silk Route. The Western World can use Cattle and Human Fecal Matter to generate electricity.
4. Have those who are the cuase of our problems [Vestiges of the Cold War] be tried before the International Court in The Hague and given Life Sentences.
5. Replace the Republican/Democrat/Communits Oligarchy in America with an American Union [EU Style] from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego [where goods and people can move without restrictions].
6. Replace the Republican/Democrat Ologarchy in Washington [via Peaceful Means] with a Multiracial Multiethnic Libertarian and Green Government.
Complain about this post
Ah Newt, what an idiot. You'll never eradicate Islam with weapons, you'll only feed it. If there's a "war" between capitalism and Islam, it's really a war between brothers. Both are ultimately about domination, whether by economics or military might; and therefore neither can win. The only thing that can defeat Islam is a faith based on peace and love, and that would destroy capitalist America too. So Newt should be careful what he wishes for.
More cynically - the interests behind Newt Gingrich aren't interested in winning, they're only interested in creating war and insecurity so that they can sell more weapons. Peace is the last thing they want.
Complain about this post
For those who are interested in the Libertarian and Green Platform for a Revolutionary New Form of Government [for the USA], please visit the Libertarian Party at lp.org and Green Party at gp.org. Thank You.
Complain about this post
I agree wirh Tom's cynical last paragraph (comment 6).
This is the Military Industrial Complex getting exactly what it wants: More fear, more death, more money.
Conflicts in the Middle East are turning out to be a bigger moneyspinner for the financial backers of the Republican Party than even the Cold War.
Complain about this post
That's right mr Mason, Gingrich is addressing the US audiences, having this fall elections in mind rather than WW III. "I'm a historian. I don't do anything new. I just imitate". That's Newt again, needless to say, and he can sue me for quoting him out of context, ha, ha - I'd really like to see that though I'm not holding my breath in expectation.
The actual war taking place is serious enough though. The ongoing Israeli operation in Lebanon does not appear to be a "drop that fills a cup" kind of spill, but rather it's more like a "playing a long game" routine unfolding almost like a script, from initial assault, to sustained bombardment, to mass evacuation, and even more massive internal displacement of people in Lebanon, it looks like a stage is being set for Israel to settle it square with Hezbollah. This is in fact very much the official line, if I understand Ehud Olmert correctly. The question, was it a drop, or is it a script, is now a rhetorical one, either way the timing is significant. It ties up with American elections this fall, and it does play into Bush's hands. Newt Gingrich is making noise now, only for Dr. Condoleezza Rice, for example, to come later and assure us that the situation is not THAT dramatic, but nevertheless, it's important now more than ever for us to maintain a strong military presence in the region. We may rearrange our forces a bit though, concentrate them on the territories under the former no fly zones in the north and the south, which is accidentally where the goodies are, and we can leave the middle part, the insurgency, to new Iraqi government and their security forces which our civil contractors will continue to train and equip. In this case, Iran would not be inclined to "activate the pro-Iranian forces inside Iraq", quite to the contrary. It would in effect have them fighting a war against British in south Iraq, if you think about it, and I don't think that's what they want.
Israel is broadening the stage on which War On Terror is being fought, or played out, and anyway, we all know that the enemy is a swift shapeshifter, difficult to pin-point or pin-down. That gives Bush more space to manoeuvre. The situation in Iraq certainly got tight and there is no end in sight.
Another important gain for Bush is that he can now undermine the Iranian position in the ongoing nuclear programme negotiations by shifting the discussion back to war on terror, axis of evil rhetoric is in once again. The statement from an Iranian source, "no political or security solution at the expense of the resistance" may soon became a major issue, just like question of recognizing Israel was for Hamas. However, in case of Iran, it's difficult to see what can one do if they stick to their position. Can't pressure them any more effectively on this one than on the nuclear issue. To my mind, that doesn't matter to Bush, he doesn't need to achieve anything specific, disrupting unfavorable developments and processes is just good enough. He may seriously think by now that it's Democrats anyway who will inherit this all.
This helps divert attention from Guantanamo as well. You can't keep people there indefinitely, you can't just let them loose neither, and an ordered repatriation involving UN and Red Cross, for example, is also not something Bush would want to see happening under his watch. He is borrowing time. That will say, nobody is exactly planning to attack Iran and/ or Syria, they only need be involved, especially Iran, implied, distracted, pressured from different sides.
I think that markets understand this, and won't over react, even in case of a freak strike on Syria, or on "a target on Syrian territory", as Israel would probably qualify it. Such an incident is entirely possible, but it's not likely to trigger an immediate response from Iran. And as long as Israel does not feel threatened on Golan Heights, it won't have any reason, or a great desire, to go to war with Syria. Syria could swallow a few punches, but these could also knock Assad down, and that would be tricky, so, no strikes on targets in Damascus..? Well, I wouldn't bet my mony on it. Clearly, there are quite a few who benefit from this situation, but I don't think anybody fully controls any aspect of it, let alone the whole equation. There is a strong element of uncertainty present, a genuine quantum setup. Indeed there is one Schrodinger's cat in the region, too.
Which brings me back to those markets which in fact I don't quite understand. I assume that they are less volatile then what they may appear to be on the face value of it. I assume that they don't just drift along, merely responding to unfolding events on a day-to-day, or for that matter, minute-to-minute basis. There certainly is a level of coordination between economic, political, and military aspects of any situation such as the current one in Lebanon, and in general. Too much of shared interests are at stake for it to be left to blind forces, a freak accident. In that sense, what would "100$/barrel floor price" signify? A complete breakdown of market's confidence in US government's ability to manage the situation? Or could they accommodate it? China would be hit hard, they are big consumers of oil, but they are also looking for ways of slowing down their economy. This may not be their choice of means, but how would that play with other economies affected by high oil prices? Can somebody shed some light here? In any case, the markets are not exactly panicking, and there appears to be a broad agreement in the West that Israel can go on with it's campaign for the time being.
What Israel has to gain? In my opinion, they are trying to disrupt a certain process triggered by election of Hamas. Had Hamas booked any significant success as a government, it's example could had been followed in Lebanon by Hezbollah, and Lebanese would be encouraged to vote Hezbollah, and to trust them in government. I do believe that there was a genuine opportunity there, for a brief moment, to shift an emphasis in the (peace) process, and move it from military to a political playground. Clicking on the link for the "weird", provided at the end of Paul Mason's text, and scrolling all the way to the bottom of Lyndon Larouche's article, there is an extended quote from Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, from his op-ed published in the July 11 Washington Post. Read it. Now, Hamas had mastered just enough soft power to write a good op-ed, but not enough for an efficient and sustained diplomatic initiative. But Israel has noticed a trend, a potential, and they acted swiftly. For if you read that op-ed carefully, it's all fairly and squarely within the internationally recognized legal and political framework, and there is a number of questions there that Israel has no answer to. The return of Palestinian refugees is one of them. Mahmoud Abbas kind of agreed not to press on it, but nobody gave him a mandate to trade those people off. Hamas wanted a comprehensive settlement rather than piecemeal negotiations, but they didn't quite know how to spell it out. The Quartet didn't like their tune neither. Israel took it's chance. The timing though.
Complain about this post
In 1933, many people did not now who they were to vote for......the same is true across the western world now.
The Arab world does not matter. The level of violence is less than in the 1930's. The Arab world has contributed nothing to the world of science, politics or humanitarianism for the last 1000 years.
Prediction:
Within 5 years no Arab state will have any significance.
Within 5 years, there will be a man of no background who instigates war amongst the important nations....
Mark my words
Phoenix
Complain about this post
Hello
Some nice comments related to the substance and definition of WWIII and yes just like the run up to WWII, factiosn were reluctant to consider the obvious in many countries until it was too late.... where even then combatants were clearly drawn within soverign country lines.......today's conflicts float in the shadows which makes it all that much harder to define clearly.......but the threat is not less real. These islamo-facists mean to take down the WEST in all its forms and we are fools if we let them intimidate us and play the press and media games they seem so well to do.
We must maintain our resolve and keep a strong miltary presence to win this completely with force, not fancy words that mean nothing to these people who live in the 11th century while we the rest of us, are in the 21st century promoting freedom, peace, economic development, and democracy all concepts unknown in the 11 century as i might remind the audience.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Complain about this post
WW III - candidates
The West versus whom?
1. Heavy weight candidates - Russia? China? - not until resources start getting really scare, then perhaps.
2. Middle / Light weight candidates - Iran & North Korea are main protagonists at present *
* making up with radical agenda, aggressive polices & vocalisation - what they lack in military & economic might.
North Korea - who will side with them & their mantra & go to war for them (risk of nuke exchanges etc) - answer, non one
Iran - the biggest threat given:
- the current regime & religiously inspired mantra.
- their race secure to Nukes.
- enemies they have declared (US, Israel, elements of The West)
- enemies they attack (Israel & coalition forces in Iraq & internal racial groups - using own forces & other people/groups as proxy weapons)
But unlike North Korea, Iran is the most dangerous because of its ability to manipulate & attract domestic & foreign opinion with religions mantra.
Q. will people rally to the Islamic flag/cause in this way?
Interpretations of Islam is both the strength & weakness in this case.
The key will be can those interested in a fight from Sunni & Shia nations in ME put their historical & current bloody/violent differences aside & also galvanise foreign community support, to tackle their declared common 'enemies' wherever they exist.
Though all above (esp those with oil producing economies) will have to square up to the question - when the oil runs out (30+ years) plans for regional/world domination rather go out of the window :)
By then alternative vehicle & engine power sources will most likely emanate from progressive first world nations - wonder if they will be mindful to who gets access to such technologies given whats going on now?
vikingar
Complain about this post
This whole Israel war is totally out of control even if there is a ceasefire but what i can't understand is why the USA/UK seem to side with Isreal when they are ones occupying a foreign land and have invaded another country.
I don't think war should be an answer to anything and I certainly cant condone killing on either side but it looks to me like self-defence from Hizbollah as far as I can see. The media calls them terrorists but in fact they sound more like freedom fighters to me.
All you have to do is watch George Galloways interview on Sky News to actually hear the real truth that none of the media seem concerned with reporting.
The link is
It may not be there long so watch it while you can.
Complain about this post
(2nd post attempt - trying to work the balance ref moderator interpretation of free speech - rational for removing posts shoudl be given)
WW III - candidates
The West versus whom?
1. Heavy weight candidates - Russia? China? - not until resources start getting really scare, then perhaps.
2. Middle / Light weight candidates - Iran & North Korea are main protagonists at present *
* making up with radical agenda, aggressive polices & vocalisation - what they lack in military & economic might.
North Korea - who will side with them & their mantra & go to war for them (risk of nuke exchanges etc) - answer, non one
Iran - the biggest threat given:
- the current regime & religiously inspired mantra.
- their race secure to Nukes.
- enemies they have declared (US, Israel, elements of The West)
- enemies they attack (Israel & coalition forces in Iraq & internal racial groups - using own forces & other people/groups as proxy weapons)
But unlike North Korea, Iran is the most dangerous because of its ability to manipulate & attract domestic & foreign opinion with religions mantra.
Q. will people rally to an interpretative of the Islamic flag/cause in this way & be thus manipulated?
Though all above (esp those with oil producing economies) will have to square up to the question - when the oil runs out (30+ years) what to do :)
vikingar
Complain about this post
going to war with, iraqi was really a mistake, in the side of allied forces,she was not the treat to the world peace,iran is the treat. and she has to be stop.
Complain about this post