U.S. and Iranian Realities

[Muzh]

Geopolitical Weekly
Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 04:00

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani last week in the first such conversation in the 34 years since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The phone call followed tweets and public statements on both sides indicating a willingness to talk. Though far from an accommodation between the two countries, there are reasons to take this opening seriously -- not only because it is occurring at such a high level, but also because there is now a geopolitical logic to these moves. Many things could go wrong, and given that this is the Middle East, the odds of failure are high. But Iran is weak and the United States is avoiding conflict, and there are worse bases for a deal.

Iran's Surge

Though the Iranians are now in a weak strategic position, they had been on the offensive since 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. They welcomed the invasion; Saddam Hussein had been a mortal enemy of Iran ever since the 1980-1989 Iran-Iraq War. The destruction of his regime was satisfying in itself, but it also opened the door to a dramatic shift in Iran's national security situation.

Iraq was Iran's primary threat after the collapse of the Soviet Union because it was the only direction from which an attack might come. A pro-Iranian or even neutral Iraq would guarantee Iranian national security. The American invasion created a power vacuum in Iraq that the U.S. Army could not fill. The Iranians anticipated this, supporting pro-Iranian elements among the Shia prior to 2003 and shaping them into significant militias after 2003. With the United States engaged in a war against Sunni insurgents, the Shia, already a majority, moved to fill the void.

The United States came to realize that it was threatened from two directions, and it found itself battling both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. The purpose of the surge in 2007 was to extricate itself from the war with the Sunnis and to block the Shia. It succeeded with the former to a great extent, but it was too late in the game for the latter. As the United States was withdrawing from Iraq, only the Shia (not all of them Iranian surrogates) could fill the political vacuum. Iran thus came to have nothing to fear from Iraq, andcould even dominate it.This was a tremendous strategic victory for Iran, which had been defeated by Iraq in 1989.

After the Iranians made the most of having the United States, focused on the Sunnis, open the door for Iran to dominate Iraq, a more ambitious vision emerged in Tehran. With Iraq contained and the United States withdrawing from the region, Saudi Arabia emerged as Iran's major challenger. Tehran now had the pieces in place to challenge Riyadh.

Iran was allied with Syria and had a substantial pro-Iranian force in Lebanon -- namely, Hezbollah. The possibility emerged in the late 2000s of an Iranian sphere of influence extending from western Afghanistan's Shiite communities all the way to the Mediterranean. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had fairly realistic visions of Iranian power along Saudi Arabia's northern border, completely changing the balance of power in the region.

But while Syrian President Bashar al Assad was prepared to align himself with Iran, he initially had no interest in his country's becoming an Iranian satellite. In fact, he was concerned at the degree of power Iran was developing. The Arab Spring and the uprising against al Assad changed this equation. Before, Syria and Iran were relative equals. Now, al Assad desperately needed Iranian support. This strengthened Tehran's hand, since if Iran saved al Assad, he would emerge weakened and frightened, and Iranian influence would surge.

The Russians also liked the prospect of a strengthened Iran. First, they were fighting Sunnis in the northern Caucasus. They feared the strengthening of radical Sunnis anywhere, but particularly in the larger Sunni-dominated republics in Russia. Second, an Iranian sphere of influence not only would threaten Saudi Arabia, it also would compel the United States to re-engage in the region to protect Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Russians had enjoyed a relatively free hand since 2001 while the Americans remained obsessed with the Islamic world. Creating a strategic crisis for the United States thus suited Moscow's purposes. The Russians, buffered from Iran by the Caucasus states, were not frightened by the Iranians. They were therefore prepared to join Iran in supporting the al Assad regime.

The problem was that al Assad could not impose his will on Syria. He did not fall, but he also couldn't win. A long-term civil war emerged, and while the Iranians had influence among the Alawites, the stalemate undermined any dream of an Iranian sphere of influence reaching the Mediterranean. This became doubly true when Sunni resistance to the Shia in Iraq grew. The Syrian maneuver required a decisive and rapid defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Syria. That didn't happen, and the ability of the Shiite regime of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to resist the Sunnis was no longer guaranteed.

Iranian Ambitions Decline

In 2009, it had appeared extremely likely that an Iran loosely aligned with Russia would enjoy a sphere of influence north of Saudi Arabia. By 2013, this vision was shattered, and with it the more grandiose strategic vision of Ahmadinejad and his allies in Iran. This led to a re-evaluation of Iran's strategic status -- and of the value of its nuclear program.

It was Stratfor's view that Iran had less interest in actually acquiring a nuclear weapon than in having a program to achieve one. Possessing a handful of nuclear weapons would be a worst-case scenario for Iran, as it might compel massive attacks from Israel or the United States that Iran could not counter. But having a program to develop one, and making it credible, gave the Iranians a powerful bargaining chip and diverted U.S. and Israeli attention from the growing Iranian sphere of influence. Ahmadinejad's hope, I think, was to secure this sphere of influence, have the basis for making demands on the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperation Council, and trade the nuclear program for U.S. recognition and respect for the new regional balance. Indeed, while the United States and Israel were obsessed with the Iranian bomb, the Iranians were making major strides in developing more conventional power.

Iran's regional strategy was in shambles, and the international sanctions its nuclear program triggered began to have some significant effect. I am unable to determine whether Iran's economic crisis derived from the sanctions or whether it derived from a combination of the global economic crisis and Iran's own economic weakness. But in the end, the perception that the sanctions had wreaked havoc on the Iranian economy turned the nuclear program, previously useful, into a liability.

Iran found itself in a very difficult position. Internally, opposition to any accommodation with the United States was strong. But so was the sense that Ahmadinejad had brought disaster on Iran strategically and economically. For Iran, the nuclear program became increasingly irrelevant. The country was not going to become a regional power. It now had to go on the defensive, stabilize Iraq and, more important, address its domestic situation.

The U.S. Challenge

There is profound domestic opposition in the United States to dealing with the Iranian regime. Just as the Iranians still genuinely resent the 1953 coup that placed the shah on the throne, the Americans have never forgotten the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and the subsequent yearlong hostage crisis. We must now wait and see what language Iran will craft regarding the hostage crisis to reciprocate the courtesy of Obama's acknowledging the 1953 coup.

The United States is withdrawing from the Middle East to the extent it can. Certainly, it has no interest in another ground war. It has interests in the region, however, and chief among those are avoiding the emergence of a regional hegemon that might destabilize the Middle East. The United States also learned in Iraq that simultaneously fighting Sunnis and Shia pits the United States against forces it cannot defeat without major effort. It needs a way to manage the Islamic world without being in a constant state of war.

The classic solution to this is to maintain a balance of power with minimal force based on pre-existing tensions. A weakened Iran needs support in its fight with the Sunnis. The United States is interested in ensuring that neither the Sunni nor the Shia win -- in other words, in the status quo of centuries. Having Iran crumble internally therefore is not in the American interest, since it would upset the internal balance. While sanctions were of value in blocking Iranian ascendancy, in the current situation stabilizing Iran is of greater interest.

The United States cannot proceed unless the nuclear program is abandoned. Rouhani understands that, but he must have and end to sanctions and a return of Western investment to Iran in exchange. These are doable under the current circumstances. The question of Iranian support for al Assad is not really an issue; the United States does not want to see a Syrian state dominated by radical Sunnis. Neither does Iran. Tehran would like a Syria dominated by al Assad, but Iran realizes that it has played that card and lost. The choices are partition, coalition or war -- neither Iran nor the United States is deeply concerned with which.

Threats to a Resolution

There are two threats to a potential resolution. The primary threat is domestic. In both countries, even talking to each other seems treasonous to some. In Iran, economic problems and exhaustion with grandiosity opens a door. In the United States right now, war is out of the question. And that paves the way to deals unthinkable a few years ago.

A second threat is outside interference. Israel comes to mind, though for Israel, the removal of the nuclear program would give them something they were unable to achieve themselves. The Israelis argued that the Iranian bomb was an existential threat to Israel. But the Israelis lack the military power to deal with it themselves, and they could not force the Americans into action. This is the best deal they can get if they actually feared an Iranian bomb. Though Israel's influence on this negotiation with Iran will face limits with the U.S. administration, Israel will make an effort to insert itself in the process and push its own demands on what constitutes an acceptable Iranian concession.

Saudi Arabia meanwhile will be appalled at a U.S.-Iranian deal. Hostility toward Iran locked the United States into place in support of the Saudis. But the United States is now flush with oil, and Saudi attempts to block reconciliation will not meet a warm reception. The influence of Saudi Arabia in Washington has waned considerably since the Iraq war.

The Russian position will be more interesting. On the surface, the Russians have been effective in Syria. But that's only on the surface. The al Assad regime wasn't bombed, but it remains crippled. And the Syrian crisis revealed a reality the Russians didn't like: If Obama had decided to attack Syria, there was nothing the Russians could have done about it. They have taken a weak hand and played it as cleverly as possible. But it is still a weak hand. The Russians would have liked having the United States bogged down containing Iran's influence, but that isn't going to happen, and the Russians realize that ultimately they lack the weight to make it happen. Syria was a tactical victory for them; Iran would be a strategic defeat.

The Iranian and American realities argue for a settlement. The psyche of both countries is in the balance. There is clearly resistance in both, yet it does not seem strong enough or focused enough to block it. That would seem to indicate speed rather than caution. But of course, getting it done before anyone notices isn't possible. And so much can go wrong here that all of this could become moot. But given how the Iranians and Americans see their positions, the odds are, that something will happen. In my book, The Next Decade, I argued that in the long run Iran and the United States have aligning interests and that an informal alliance is likely in the long run. This isn't the long run yet, and the road will be bumpy, but the logic is there.

Stratfor

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

[lordtiberius]

Friedman is often a shill for dictators and tyrants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/world/middleeast/clashes-as-iranian-president-returns-to-tehran.html?_r=0

September 28, 2013


Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest

By THOMAS ERDBRINK
 
 
TEHRAN — Dozens of protesters hurled eggs and at least one shoe at President Hassan Rouhani as he returned to Tehran on Saturday after a groundbreaking phone call with President Obama and other outreach to the West at an annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations.

The protest — coming even as supporters gathered at the airport to cheer his diplomatic outreach — quickly laid bare the political fissures in Iran over whether to engage with the United States, and the challenges Mr. Rouhani and his aides face as they try to have international sanctions over the country’s nuclear program lifted.

Mr. Rouhani was standing in his car, waving through the sunroof as he passed supporters when opponents began to pelt the vehicle. Security guards scrambled to shield the president with an umbrella as other protesters blocked the road by praying on the pavement.

“Long live Rouhani, man of change!” the president’s backers shouted, as a small police contingent struggled to control the crowd of about 200 that seemed mostly to be Rouhani supporters. The hard-liners responded by shouting, “Our people are awake and hate America!”

Security guards eventually pulled Mr. Rouhani back inside his car as it sped off, leaving supporters and opponents behind, some pushing and shoving one another. One protester was almost run over after he threw himself in front of Mr. Rouhani’s car.

Iranians hoping for changes to end their country’s isolation have expressed excitement over the sudden turn of events last week, as Mr. Rouhani and his aides became the talk of the General Assembly.

The president’s more open stance is widely believed to have the support of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — at least for now — but it remains unclear if powerful hard-line factions are ready for better relations with the United States after decades of animosity.

Analysts expressed surprise that the protest at the airport was allowed, given tight controls over public gatherings, and it raised the possibility that some in the country’s opaque political hierarchy were sending a message of displeasure over last week’s sudden turn of events.

“This shows that those factions that do not want diplomatic flexibility and normalized relations with the world have started to organize themselves,” said Farshad Ghorbanpour, a political analyst close to the government.

The demonstrators said their protest was spontaneous, but such gatherings are often orchestrated in Iran and the number of police and plainclothes security guards sent to control the crowd on Saturday was unusually small.

The phone call with Mr. Obama came just days after Mr. Rouhani skipped a luncheon at the United Nations where the two leaders had been expected to shake hands. But a meeting on Thursday between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was described as constructive and led Iranian officials to contact the White House on Friday to suggest the phone call, American officials said.

Mr. Rouhani received the phone call from Mr. Obama as he was on his way to Kennedy Airport on Friday; it was the first contact between American and Iranian presidents since before the hostage crisis more than 30 years ago.

In comments after his arrival in Tehran, Mr. Rouhani elaborated on the call. “Yesterday as we were getting ready to head to the airport, the White House called and expressed willingness to set up a phone call between the American president and me,” the semiofficial Fars News agency quoted Mr. Rouhani as saying.

“A call was made to our ambassador’s cellphone,” Mr. Rouhani said. “The conversation mostly focused on the nuclear issue.”

The Iranian president also addressed the question of why he had not met in person with Mr. Obama.

“A meeting between the two presidents needs some preparation, and since the ground was not prepared, this meeting did not take place,” Fars quoted Mr. Rouhani as saying.

Fars reported that the foreign minister would go before Parliament this week to explain the diplomatic process that led to the phone call. Hard-liners are likely to watch closely for who reached out first.

State television had initially been silent on the phone call, but on Saturday it reported that the two presidents had talked.

Mr. Rouhani and his aides spent the week at the General Assembly working to show that they are moderate and reasonable partners. But Mr. Rouhani has yet to offer any concrete proposals publicly on the nuclear program, which Iran insists is for peaceful purposes but many in the West see as a cover for weapons development. Still, Mr. Rouhani emphasized that his government had the will to reach a nuclear settlement within “a short period of time.”

Many Iranians, including many at the airport Saturday, have appeared anxious for some outreach to the West as strict sanctions have crippled their economy.

“Welcome, lord of peace,” read a placard held by a woman in a colorful scarf.

Another woman, a 50-year-old fashion designer who agreed to give only her first name, Vida, said she had come to show support for the president.

“This time our country will really change,” she said. “I am sure of it.”

Her daughter, wearing purple lipstick — Mr. Rouhani’s campaign color during the June elections — yelled, “Long live reforms!”

Down the road, protesters held placards saying, “We will never be humiliated” and “Talks to U.S. will not solve any problem.”

“We are here because we hate America, and Iran will never have relations with America,” said a man who declined to be identified. “Rouhani must listen to us.”

As the president’s car drove off, one man shook his head in despair.

“Why must everything always be destroyed?” he asked. “The whole world is looking at us, and now people are throwing eggs at our president.”

Our policy is regime change and we should fund it.  For this regime is folding like cancer.

[Muzh]

The other seven guys are waiting in the car. Don't you have a show to do in the main ring?

Actually, why are you here? You are moderated here and on the other one for your stupidity and trolling. Not to mention you ask to ban the owner of the forum. Can you be more idiotic? Can't you get a simple hint and waft away like a stinky fart?

Please.

Where's Betsy? In your imagination?

[AnonMod]

Please keep topics civil. 

We are not interested here with the happenings at other forums.

[lordtiberius]

China is interested in Central Asia as well.  A pro-US Iran would further displace Russia as a regional power.

[Muzh]

Thank you Anonmod. 

[mendeleyev]

It is senseless for the United States to have a policy of regime change in Syria. What will follow the fall of Assad is not peace or stability but a Balkanization of Syrian territory. Might as well just name it Afghanistan 2.0 or Pakistan 2.0 at that point because we'll create a new civil war zone that makes this one look like Disneyland and a new base for anti-American terror groups.

The USA needs to return to the days when we helped other countries that needed and wanted our help, and keep our noses out of places where we're not wanted. We were attacked by Japan and responded justifiably. Germany declared war on the USA and it was the right thing to help our friends in Europe. Those are justifiable actions, but much of what we do today is arrogance based on the desire of our military industrial complex.

The USA didn't become a beacon on a hill, a shining light to the world, by plotting regime changes.

We'd consider it a war provocation if another country plotted regime change against us, so what then makes it justifiable for us to do it against other sovereign nations?

[lordtiberius]

Why containment is bad and rollback is good:
http://www.amazon.com/Unthinkable-Iran-Bomb-American-Strategy/dp/1476733929

[mendeleyev]

China is interested in Central Asia as well.  A pro-US Iran would further displace Russia as a regional power.

So we take a country with which we've had a long and mutual (except for 20 years of CCCP) history and downgrade them so that we can promote a Islamic Republic into the driver's seat of that region?

Jeez. I thought that you were more intelligent that that.

LT, I know that as a former Marine it hurts to no longer have Russia as an enemy, but you are too young to see the overarching context of the world in which Russia as a partner with the USA as long as both respect that from time to time each many have some differing interests and perspectives.

So when Russia is defanged and in the midst of a civil war with home Islamic republics and China emboldened to move northward and gobble up vast areas of the East, who are we going to for handouts when we've played right into the hand of the militants who will seek our downfall next?

The USA is bankrupt. Every penny collected goes to interest and so the only way we operate is at the good graces of the Chinese. When the Chinese no longer need to lend us money, we will need every friend available and the Muslim countries will NOT bankroll infidels.

[lordtiberius]

I was in the Army.

And it is good you have joined the swelling chorus of posters who share your view of my intelligence.

I am not going to return the favor, in spite of your quotations of RT and the CBC's view of American history.  I will just simply say that I disagree.

When I say pro-American Iran, I mean a return of the Shah.

http://www.rezapahlavi.org/details_article.php?english&article=52

Not the current President's pick, that lame duck's goose is cooked.   

America is paying a price for electing and listening to the wrong people but when she's back.  Watch out.  You have been too busy running down my country, I think you have forgotten that.  We're still the best

[mendeleyev]

I am not going to return the favor, in spite of your quotations of RT and the CBC's view of American history.  I will just simply say that I disagree.

Sometimes you stun me, as I know that you are of above average intelligence despite what others here may think.

As for the RT and CBC, sometimes it is me and not just quotations of someone else there. I'd have to know specifically which stories you reference.

However as to Iran, the Shah was our CIA chosen guy and part of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union in that time period. The USA would be better off developing a closer friendship with Russia than trying to reestablish a friend dictatorship in Iran.

Btw, I salute your service in the Army. Sorry for the mistake.

[lordtiberius]

I like Putin.  The Pope likes Putin.  But is America's friendship really in Russia's national interest?  Can we really trust Putin?  I share your opinion about our current President and do not begrudge anyone for anyone's hostility to America given what we did to Qadaffi.  IMHO - both Obama and McCain are war criminals and should be prosecuted at the Hague.  But the Russo-American relationship has been on the outs with the expansion of NATO.  Maybe NATO would include Russia.  I don't know.

Romney is right.  Russia is our greatest geopolitical enemy.  I don't know how that changes.  With Putin wanting to stay in as long as Stalin and until the President from the great state of the Muslim Brotherhood leaves, nothing changes.  Am I wrong?

[SANDRO43]

When I say pro-American Iran, I mean a return of the Shah. http://www.rezapahlavi.org/details_article.php?english&article=52

You're quoting an article dated January 3rd, 2002. Not much seems to have happened according to Pahlavi Junior's wishful thinking over these past 11 years in Iran . I frankly doubt that many contemporary Iranians, most young enough (over 50% of the population) to have no idea of what the Shah's regime was like until 1979 (34 years ago), are now pining for its return.

You have been too busy running down my country, I think you have forgotten that.  We're still the best

Another rather outdated reference: Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech was published in the February 20, 1943 issue of The Saturday Evening Post - quite a different USA, 70 years ago.

Are you still living in the past ?

[lordtiberius]

Do you deny the Islamic regime is in decline?

[SANDRO43]

Do you deny the Islamic regime is in decline?

I assume you're addressing me (a long-established Forum courtesy implies clarifying that in answering posts).

Hard to say, considering their very firm hold on power . It'd probably take another revolution to oust it - are you going to finance it, as in Mosaddeq's times (1953), when his democratically elected government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA (Operation Ajax) for different reasons (oil/Tudeh Party support)? 

Mohammad Mosaddegh

[mendeleyev]

LT:

Maybe NATO would include Russia.  I don't know.

Thanks to Bush Sr, and I mean those thanks sincerely, Russia has an advisory seat on NATO. But there is no voting or decision making power.

Lets us imagine however the shoe was on the other foot and China invaded much of South America. Soon South and Central American countries were being recruited into an anti-American alliance, named CAD. Our leaders meet and agree that CAD will proceed no further than Peru. Soon however CAD has included Brazil and Ecuador. Next joins Columbia joins and then Venezuela join CAD.

All the time we're expressing our concerns with China only to discover that behind our backs China has signed a deal to include Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize and Honduras. Then China announces that Mexico has agreed for China to install missiles along the border with the USA under the pretense that the missiles are aimed at someone else.

Would you flippantly say that maybe the USA should join CAD? I doubt it. Unfortunately that is what we've done to Russia.

It would actually be much more simple if the USA simply returned to the country that it used to be and spoke both quietly and truthfully. LT, the only reason there is friction between Washington and Moscow is that people like Mitt Romney are still living in the past. There are some Russians like that too, VP being one of those at times.

Romney would have made a much better leader from the economics standpoint and he probably knows how to spell economics without a teleprompter. The problem with Romney is that he hasn't visited all 57 states and he didn't do seminars during his college days promoted by pamphlets inviting college students to come listen to an exchange student from Kenya. But I digress.

We need a new generation of leaders who will concentrate on downsizing the obscene spending of money we don't have and who will forge friendships with countries that would like to be our friends. Iran doesn't quality and neither does Syria. We have historic relationships with nations like the UK and the rest of Europe, Russia, etc. We should choose those Asian and African countries who want to have mutual relationships and simply allow the rest to return to the 7th Century if that is what they wish.

The easiest way to determine who is really your friend is to turn the money spigot off.

[lordtiberius]

You're one of if not the smartest guy on the forum.  But you have to acknowledge the corn that Communist Russia was not a good guy - even if you look at just how it treated its own people. 

If America walked around with the historical baggage that Russia has, I'd agree with you

[lordtiberius]

We need a new generation of leaders who will concentrate on downsizing the obscene spending of money we don't have and who will forge friendships with countries that would like to be our friends. Iran doesn't quality and neither does Syria. We have historic relationships with nations like the UK and the rest of Europe, Russia, etc. We should choose those Asian and African countries who want to have mutual relationships and simply allow the rest to return to the 7th Century if that is what they wish.

The easiest way to determine who is really your friend is to turn the money spigot off.

Don't disagree with you, but our dear leader is only 50.  How old should the next leader be?  12?  Maybe an improvement in our country

[mendeleyev]

A fear in the back of my head is that this reincarnation of Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter 2.0 as I'm now inclined to think, would wish to stay around a little longer to finish his agenda. With his own military leadership in place and the militarization of America's police forces, whether it is he or a leader down the road, at some time in the future an American leader will attempt to seize the reins and I hope that such a day does not come for a long time. The current situation between Congress and the Executive makes such things ripe for the picking.

Sadly our educational system has purposely dumbed down the American citizen. Most Americans can neither identify all 50 states (57 for Kenyans) nor can most name their governor, senators or local congressperson. The average citizen is too out of touch to realize that the government has shut down 19 times since the early 80s, and 12 of those under Tip O'Neill (D) alone.

Ask most Americans under 45 to identify just one Canadian province...then weep with shame at our collective ignorance. Outside of Hispanics, I doubt that most Americans under 50 can name just one Mexican state, our long time neighbor to the south. This is troubling for our own future and incidentally it is disrespectful to our closest neighbors.

Uneducated voters is not the recipe for future security. It reminds me of the old Soviet era joke:
Q: "Why do the KGB operate in groups of three?"
A: "One can read, one can write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals."

Age of a future prez? If Hillary gets the nod, she'll be the final dried up old raisin. There will be no more senior statesmen leaders. The new crop of voters love their crack and that don't jive with a old person at the helm. Plus old folk tend to understand math and know how to run things, from large companies to states to countries. The new voter wants stuff, Obama phones, free college, subsidized home mortgages, and more stuff. The scales are tipped by the upper end of the old farts who have grown fat on benefits far beyond what they contributed in their working years and they're going to vote for whoever will continue the obscene handouts.

So LT, we're focked as a Republic.

Our future reminds me of another Soviet joke:
Gorbachev and Reagan are stranded on an island and find a bottle. They open it and out comes a genie. He says, "I will give you one item, but I must warn you that you will die on this island". So they both decide they want a newspaper from 15 years in the future.

Poof, the paper appears in the sand. Gorby grabs the paper and turns to the financial page and begins laughing while reading, "your Reaganomics have plunged the USA into the deepest recession ever!"

Reagan grabs the paper and turns to the international page and scratches his chin and states, "hmm, I see there are skirmishes again on the border between Germany and China."

Hopefully the Chinese will be kind to Americans when they take over.

[lordtiberius]

Tell us what you really think Pollyanna.

So you think Obama will be an American Ferdinand Marcos, eh?  It's possible - very possible.  I don't want to argue that with you.

But let's assume he's behind bars where he belongs and America elects you or some other pro-Russia American as President and let's say Putin decides to change careers and becomes a US matinee idol for men who are sick of metrosexuality - and Russia elects Navalny or some true democrat to lead Russia.

Wouldn't Russo-American affairs be fraught with conflict and on a collision course?  If American influence expands, its not - it is contract.  But if it expands, China is expanding, and let's assume that Russia is expanding, Russia's influence expansion must be equal to or greater than China or/and America. 

Russia is intervening in the Middle East and Latin America.  But the real flashpoint is Central Asia is it not?

[mendeleyev]

Russians should turn the page or cover their ears at this point.

China is growing and will continue their population growth. At some point expansion will no longer be a future option, it will be the only option.

Russia is contracting and that is one reason for the big push behind the Customs Union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. If Russia doesn't succeed in creating this vital economic and defense alliance, then someday we'll colour Siberia to the East in yellow to reflect the new Chinese border.

Our USA policy should be drawing us into to support Russia in this effort because it is one of the ways we can help keep a lid on Chinese expansionism. Uzbekistan and other neighboring nations should be encouraged to join, not used as pawns to frustrate Russia. We have a common security interest with Russia when it comes to China.

The other potential flashpoint is India. A strong India and a strong group of Russian aligned nations in that part of the world will reward that region with stability for generations to come.

Russia is indeed moving into Latin America. Do you understand why? It is a direct response to our actions of NATO expansion right up to Russia's borders. We didn't think that Putin would have the balls to challenge the Monroe doctrine.

Here is another thing most American's don't know: the Monroe doctrine, especially part two.

Part One: We declared that no European nation would be allowed to influence affairs of any North and South American country. (Some Americans remember part one.)

Part Two: In return, the USA promised that we would not influence affairs of any countries on the European continent.

[lordtiberius]

We should check Chinese expansion into Russia's sphere of influence.  That should lead us cozier relations.  No offense, but what's in it for us?

[mendeleyev]

What is in it for us?

First a stronger trade relationship with Russia and a European thinking ally. If China expands and the Middle East explodes then we'll be dealing with Middle Eastern countries instead of European Russians. We are natural allies.

China sent a strong message to Washington today, basically saying it was "stupid" to to raise the debt ceiling and spend more money. I doubt anyone in the Obama administration has the intelligence to understand what it means when your largest debtor calls your unchecked spending as "stupid" and says this loudly to the world community. I view that as serious and an indication that China, who at some point simply has to fear for our inability to pay her back, may at some point decide to step in and dictate some changes.

Also given population growth rates it is in the best interests of everyone to keep China from someday overrunning her neighbors. A strong and friendly Russia helps the world community to maintain stability in the region. To do that however means we must allow and encourage Russia to have a different take on things from time to time. One of Washington's shortcomings is that we try to cultivate servants rather than friends.

[lordtiberius]

What is in it for us?

First a stronger trade relationship with Russia and a European thinking ally.

Russia doesn't have anything that we want.  It is more in their interest to trade with us than it us for us to insinuate ourselves into a crony capitalist economies.  And before I get an earful of intellectually dishonest comparisons that lack historical depth, severity and numbers, we already have crony capitalist economies in Latin America and Eastern Europe, why would we want another one?

If the choice is between China and Russia, given your latest performance, that's a no brainer.  I can go to Walmart and pick things I want from China.  What does Russia have to offer except more headaches?

Why does Russia trade with China?  It seems it has more in raw materials that China wants - in terms of a growing economy.  China is going to Africa what it would easily get from Russia.  You people are buddies, aren't you?   

If China expands and the Middle East explodes then we'll be dealing with Middle Eastern countries instead of European Russians. We are natural allies.

China sent a strong message to Washington today, basically saying it was "stupid" to to raise the debt ceiling and spend more money. I doubt anyone in the Obama administration has the intelligence to understand what it means when your largest debtor calls your unchecked spending as "stupid" and says this loudly to the world community. I view that as serious and an indication that China, who at some point simply has to fear for our inability to pay her back, may at some point decide to step in and dictate some changes.

China needs us more than we need them and they have always known it.  China has to grow at 9% per year for the country to stay somewhat stable and even George Freidman and the hacks at Stratfor acknowledge China's internal instability.  The fact is the world is getting richer and Russia and some Eastern European countries (Ukraine) are getting left behind.

Also given population growth rates it is in the best interests of everyone to keep China from someday overrunning her neighbors. A strong and friendly Russia helps the world community to maintain stability in the region. To do that however means we must allow and encourage Russia to have a different take on things from time to time. One of Washington's shortcomings is that we try to cultivate servants rather than friends.

That's your ally.  You made your bed with them.  At least we are getting something out of it. 

The difference between servants and friends is that you get what you pay for when it comes to servants.  And let's not be silly, Russia has had plenty of experience with servants . . .

[mendeleyev]

That's your ally.  You made your bed with them.

Sure. The ally that nearly threw me out after the war with Georgia and then threatened again after my reporting from the year of street protests.

LT, I do have a long term view of the world and in the end would rather us have normalized relationships with Russia than Saudi Arabia and China.

China will play a very important role in the final undoing of the USA. The Good Book warns that the borrower is slave to the lender.