This piece is a thought piece.  It is not meant as a prediction or a scenario.  Eight years ago Iraq was not a problem and the US still had some tall buildings.  In the past eight years the world has changed dramatically.  Predictions made on energy, foreign affairs, budgets, the rise of McCarthyism and the challenge to US military superiority seemed like foreign subjects as Bush and Gore debated.  Gore was concerned primarily with Racial Profiling.  Debating non issues in 2000 seemed dull.  Today everyone is activated.  Problems face the US and the world are as great at any time of crisis – or at least it seems.

 

Using the “Long Wave” it was simple to predict these changes – but it was difficult to identify how they would unfold.  Now the US and possibly the world are at another cross roads.  Globalization has taken hold as never imagined and traditional government structures are being challenged.  The upswing of the “Long Wave” coupled with new innovation from the unfolding Juglar Cycle promises to usher in yet another period of great prosperity. 

 

Reading the day to day news we get a negative view of the future.  A declining dollar, high oil prices, a never ending war in Iraq and huge deficits all make it as difficult to imagine a beautiful day ahead as it was to imagine a decline in US military superiority at the height of the Dot Com Boom.  Yet the doomsayers of the time were wrong in believing a Dot Com crash would bring on a major depression.  The Long Wave as our guide allowed us to rule out such a possibility.

 

Now here I want to concentrate on Geopolitical concerns.  As a parallel, when Eisenhower took control he settled immediately what seemed both like an escalating war in Korea against all of China and the collapse of fledgling governments in Europe.  Like today, the US stood alone, mired in perceived mistakes.  The impossibility of the solutions daunted the imagination and made discussions of increasing US infrastructure systems impossible to entertain.  Yet in a short time Eisenhower settled the Korean question, pushed back in Europe and embarked on massive projects with the Interstate Highway System and NASA.  Indeed Truman’s mistakes redounded to the benefit of Eisenhower.  Perceived policy failure became Ike’s lever to bring change and find solutions that worked.

 

In the end, can we say Truman was wrong to invade Korea?  There were many at the time that believed as with Iraq it was best just to abandon Korea – let the commies have it.  Korea was the place where if Asia needed an enema one would stick the tube.  Not to be severe or crude but to many in the 1950s this was common thinking.  The war came at a high price, but a line in the mud in Korea defined Asia going forward.  No one likes and few agree with my parallel of Korea to Iraq, but this piece is not about agreement, but about pushing out our imagination to see a possible future – a possible opportunity for a smart leader – one with the best interests of the US rather than a few cronies at heart. 

 

We often speak of political stability.  The US Dollar like the Pound before it is the standard of the world.  Today displaced by the Euro, the Dollar still remains a symbol of stability.  Yet, what is stability?  Leadership in the US changes every 2 to 8 years.  While a vast government of institutions remains in place, the US and other democratic societies are really in constant flux – in a state of constant change.  Not so with Cuba.  While he was in office, Castro out lived five US presidents.  Talk about stability.  One leader ran the country for almost 50 years.  Such is the case with most dictators.  Yet we consider Cuba, Jordan, Iran and even Saudi unstable. 

 

The truth is the most stable of governments is a dictatorship – usually backed up by the military.  It is virtually impossible under such circumstances for dissent to bring about change.  The dissidents are simply jailed or shot.  Change is a constant of life.  Yet when rules and government are frozen there are two guarantees.  One the internal economy will decline and two change will only come after a dramatic shock. 

 

The US has been dancing around conditions in the Middle East, well before wasting time and money with Kissinger’s Shuttle diplomacy.  Kissinger accomplished nothing because he could not force change.  As ugly as the situation the US attack on Iraq to enforce the Kuwait treaty is, it is the first significant change in the region since Israel was created.  I know I have written this before, but it is the heart of change.  Lets move some players around on the board and see what happens.

 

First lets look at the leverage the next President has.

 

1. The US still is the strongest military force in the world.  Between the US and Israel it would take about a week to level the rest of the Middle East.  Look at the impact on Lebanon. 
2. Beyond force the US has demonstrated two things.  Its willingness to take a stand and carry it through.  Even with Obama and Hilary neither are talking about abandoning Iraq to chaos.  The public had a chance to back Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but did not.  The second thing is the US has shown its willingness to spend money even when the outcome is a mess.

 

Ok Lets look at some goals.

 

1. The US after having its bases kicked out of Saudi as a result of bin Laden’s attack needs bases in the region.  The lack of a friendly government is not a deterrent to the holding of a base.  Look for example Guantanamo in Cuba.  Even after the Cuban Missile Crisis the US did not give up that base.  So the US will never abandon bases in Iraq.
2. The US has one ally it will defend to the death – Israel.  Part of the failure of Middle Eastern policy is a result of the US waffling on Israel in favor of balance and oil.  The Israeli lobby will guarantee US support for Israel forever.
3. The US needs foreign oil.  A primary goal is to secure a steady stream of reasonably priced oil. 
4. The US wants to stop spending in Iraq.  How a county the size and wealth of the US with over 300 million cannot control a country the size of Texas with 20 million people suggests there is a lot of fiscal mismanagement.

 

Now lets look at some of the problems.

 

1. In a reaction to the flood of oil money to the region those in charge ushered in fundamentalism.  The US prior to the early 1900s was controlled by a very few families.  The Income Tax with its penalty on spending (until Reagan) encouraged – yea demanded – capital investment creating a broad middle class.  Government structures in place guarantee control of wealth by the few.  To change the Middle East the structure of government must change.  The only way for this to happen is for people to look over the fence and see a better life on the other side.  In the Middle East the first attempt will be to destroy progress.  However the population is young and as we rise up the ramp of the Long Wave it is primed for change.  Any wedge – any possibility of a better life will tear down existing institutions.
2. Oil funding is not being used to build lasting infrastructure.  Even in Dubai wealth is not distributed evenly – especially to those who do the work.  How oil income is used and distributed is critical to change in the region.
3. The Palestinian situation is an impossible situation.  There are too many people for the area and none of the other states want them.  The Arab leaders benefit from the sad state of the Palestinians for propaganda purposes. 
4. Every Arab state, except Egypt, has an open declaration of war against Israel.  None, including Iraq, recognize Israel’s right to exist.

 

The solution to many of these problems, lies in Iraq.  If we take a look at the players in the region by far Iran is the most influential.  They have more people and a greater overall GDP than the rest.  The reluctance in negotiating on the part of the current administration suggests a different agenda which has led to the current failure in the region.  Shooting down Hussein broke the back of the Palestinian effort, but did nothing to destroy or neutralize Hamas.  The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was coordinated by Iran in an attempt to squeeze Israel between the Palestinians and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  The strong response from Israel using US technology show how little would be left on Iran should the US and Israel combine forces against them.

 

As the situation lies today, the US and Israel carry a big stick, but do not know how to speak softly.  Bush’s cowboy tactics leads to the desire of having the situation fit a picture and ends in compromise and in part genocide.  Obama is less likely to compromise, but has the flexibility both in intelligence and due to Bush’s failure to resolve what has been impossible to do until now.  It is ironic that Bush’s stumbling opens the door for positive change – but that is how life works.  

 

In every situation there are trade offs.  The best deal results when all parties perceive they are getting what they want.  Eisenhower’s choice in Korea was to either escalate using nuclear weapons going after Mao or draw a line at the 38^th parallel.  Fear of Russia escalating with nuclear weapons and the reluctance at home was a deterrent for Ike.  With the line at the 38^th parallel daddy Kim got his isolation to create the perfect society and the US got an end to the dying and a buffer zone with a foot hold in Asia.  Korea became a cheap labor source and a secondary source for US bases in the region.  In the end it was a win / win for everyone.  Russia could stop funding North Korea and Mao had a buffer zone as well as a rogue nation from which to stir up trouble.  Politics goes to homeostasis when there is a balance.   The up grade of the “Long Wave” is about stable alliances.

 

So how does this work in the Middle East.  To each system there is a critical juncture.  Identify the critical juncture and systems alter outcomes easily.  Here are the critical junctures to the Middle East.

 

1. The first intelligent thing for the next administration is to back away from Saudi.  While the Saudi Princes may be good friends of Bush and Cheney, they are not friends of Israel or the US.  Lost on most is Saudi being the home port of the terrorists both for 911 and during the insurgency in Iraq.  Blockade the border between Iraq and Saudi, stop giving Saudi military hardware and now the US has little independence on Saudi oil declare them a hostile terrorist group.
2. Open the door with Iran.  The US needs help in Iraq.  No other country is jumping to help.  Trade the Shiite South of Iraq to Iran for a number of things.  First access and a discount for oil to meet US needs – Say at a 25% discount to the world price.  Remove the sanctions against Iran and let US companies build refineries.  Demand in exchange that Iran publicly recognize Israel’s right to exist, they dismantle Hezbollah giving the names and locations of the Hezbollah top brass to Israel. The incentive is great enough the Iranians will sell out.  No it won’t be smooth or completely honest, but it opens the door.  Iran will also have to turn over their nuclear facilities to a world nuclear governing body for operation and management.  The Iranians are the most capable and best educated people in the area and have a large population that does not embrace the Fundamentalists.  Make the incentive strong enough and they will move.  Besides they need US protection against Pakistan.
3. Give the Kurds a homeland – autonomy.  The exchange is Turkey gets oil revenue from the Kurdish controlled wells and a bump up for EU membership.  Spread the wealth.  The Kurds agree to a join operation to clean up the rebels.  The Kurdish area of Iraq is the most independent and organized area.  Iraq as a country never defined its natural borders.  Those borders were drawn by outsiders.  Like Iran the Kurdistan has to recognize Israel’s right to exist and open trade agreements to Israel.  This is already happening but on both sides it is against the law.
4. This leaves Baghdad.  As long as Shia occupy Baghdad there will not be peace.  Here is where the problem gets to be sticky and the solution has to be radical.  The only solution is to buy people off with money and new land.  The growth of the early US was built on generous land deals supported by government.  The temptation of free land caused many to risk their lives to cross the ocean and the country for a better life.  The Shiites with Iran in control have to be given incentives to encourage the Shia in the north to move south.  Part of this can come from redistribution of oil revenues ala Alaska.  And part from security.
5. Finally, there is the Palestinian problem.  The right of return, old borders and many other arguments are worthless and only prolong a situation that does not work.  There will be great leverage in the region if Iran and Iraq both recognize Israel’s right to exist.  The US can use this leverage on the more moderate states to fall in line including Kuwait, Jordon and eventually Saudi.  Egypt is already there.  In truth, the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is to move these people somewhere else.  Proximity is the problem as are divided lands.  In any other war the loser makes concessions.  Why not this one.  The Palestinians lost.  Already Hamas is offering a bogus 10 year peace agreement which will not last.  It is time to apply a big stick and a very large carrot to the situation.  Offer those willing to move to Iraq, Jordon, Egypt, Saudi and other Middle Eastern countries lots of economic incentive.  Free education for their children, land they can own and even a bit of an income from oil revenues.

 

None of the above will stop the killing.  Like Europe prior to WW I the various groups will continue to feud.  Displacement will cause edge friction and suicide bombing will continue.  However, improving economic conditions, against a younger population, affords change over time.  The area, like pre WW I Europe will never be peaceful unless the kingdoms are over thrown, a market driven economy is developed and Theocracy declines.  Yet Europe made the transition in a short 60 years and like South Korea is peaceful and prosperous.  No society is 100% settled and peaceful, but take away the major irritants and things smooth out.

 

Fall Out

 

There are some issues that get resolved as a result of any one of these changes.

 

1. The most obvious is Pakistan.  Musharraf is on his way out.  This leaves Pakistan as a nuclear arms terrorist threat.  During the Afghan campaign the Iranians aided the US in fighting the Taliban.  Iran as an ally brings more to the table for the US and industrialized world than any other alliance.  With Iran on the side of the US and allies, Pakistan is caught in the middle.  Pakistan is capable of self government, but they need help with the rebels.  This is tough territory, but the Northern Pakistani tribes are responsible for the production and supply of many of the weapons (AK 47s and Rocket Lunches) so commonly seen on TV.  This area supplies a great deal of the terrorist weapons and is well funded.  Using an alliance backed on one side by Iran, on the other by the US in Afghanistan and bounded on the bottom by a new Pakistani government the US can do a great deal to stop much of the killing in Africa.  With pressure on Saudi the US can stop the funding as well.
2. The next piece is a little more radical, but also one who’s time has come.  The US must stop this stupid war on drugs.  Drug addiction is a medical problem.  Part of creating a comprehensive medical system in the US has to begin to address illegal drugs.  Emergency rooms in the inner cities are flooded with drug cases as is much of the rest of the Hospital system.  Only by legalizing – or de-criminalizing drugs can the US begin to get a handle on the problem.  Yet Drug policy is also foreign policy.  The return of poppy farming in Afghanistan is an economic issue.  The farmers grow poppies because it is the most profitable cash crop.  The terror network in northern Pakistan, Iran and through Burma is fueled by the drug trade.  Supply of drugs will continue to increase as long as there are exceptional profits.  Taking the profit out of drug trafficking reduces US medial costs – probably by as much as 10% and removes the funding for the criminal networks in the Middle East.  This goes deeper because often the support of criminal behavior is through local bribes.  Remove the profits to the local officials on the ground and honest people are able to gain more control.
3. Moving Iran’s nuclear program under the auspices of a world body that sets a standard for other countries to develop nuclear power.  It provides income for a global agency for the operation, management and protection of nuclear materials.  Create a Nuclear NASA style agency that is responsible for research, operation and management of nuclear materials.  Only though a global agency can the world have safe nuclear power.  Such an agency can also start to dismantle the former Soviet arsenal.  As this agency gains in size and power it puts a wedge between those countries who want to develop nuclear weapons and the rest of the world.  Suddenly sanctions become a powerful tool for change.  Part of having nuclear power then becomes a requirement for a stable government with democratic input.  The cost benefit from a well run nuclear program provides cheap clean power for any nation state wanting to emerge into the industrial world.  Such policy also preempts area like Latin America from erecting power blocks as Chavez is attempting in Venezuela followed I am sure by weapons build ups and even nukes.

 

Remember this document is meant as a through experiment.  A way of breaking what we see now as a world locked into terrorism, war and intractable politics.  There will be a few of my readers who scoff at such a possibility of a peaceful and progressive Middle East.  But there were those who were vehement against the EU. There were some radicals who believed a united Europe marked the beginning of Armageddon.  Instead as Kondratyev proved the long irreversible trend moves mankind ever higher in organization, quality of life and prosperity.  The next US leader is handed on a silver platter a golden opportunity for change.  Never has the world been so positioned by demographics, technology and need.  Just by leveraging a few simple and critical junctures vast positive change can be accomplished.

 

What I have tried to do above is outline a path way that such change might follow.  We do not know the future – none of us.  But by looking at the pressure points, analyzing the limits to growth and looking at vulnerabilities it is possible to see where the world eventually has to move.  Just as the people and leaders in the Soviet Union and now Cuba and North Korea looked over the fence and realized what they were doing is not working, the incentive to change the Middle East will come from the positive gains and economic prosperity brought by the US and Israel.  Adding Iran to the prosperous in the region changes the balance of power and thus will change the Middle East.  Add in the good possibility the US is ready for a comprehensive energy independent policy with the possibility of new sustainable energy sources and the pressure grows for change.  One more point – Iran as an ally also draws Russia closer to the US given the Russian government less leverage in a three party game.