A new analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security attempts to answer that question, the Washington Post reports.
A military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would probably only delay the country’s progress toward nuclear-weapons capability, according to a study that concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran’s resolve to acquire the bomb. The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran’s uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected — and, in some cases, concealed too well — to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country’s nuclear program could be quickly repaired.
Moreover, Albright told the Post, Iran would likely emerge more intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He said that:
an Israeli or U.S. attack would result in broader popular support for Iran’s ruling clerics and could lead Tehran to sever ties with the U.N. nuclear watchdog. “Iran would likely launch a ‘crash’ program to quickly obtain nuclear weapons,” Albright said in an interview. “An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up with international inspectors and nonproliferation treaties, and more determined than ever to obtain nuclear weapons.”
Writing recently in the Washington Post, UN drug official Antonio Maria Costas warned of another threat to African stability: a growing cocaine trade targeting Europe via West Africa.
The region is particularly vulnerable due to several factors:
- It is poor and without resources: no radar to spot smugglers’ planes, no navies to chase their boats, etc.
- Poverty and corruption means that it is easy to compromise the area’s governments.
- “Unemployed and desperate youths are vulnerable to being recruited as foot soldiers for criminal groups,” Costa writes.
Already tattered by years of warfare, West Africa is perhaps more likely than any other region to see the emergence of full narcostates, in which the state is totally compromised by drug cartels.
The gathering conflict between Georgia and Russia suggests a couple of larger issues:
- Self-determination: South Ossetia illustrates the fact that there simply are no rules for self-determination–when and how one place is allowed to separate from another. And no country consistently advocates a particular set of rules: as is the case with Abkhazia, South Ossetia would appear to have as much right as Kosovo to leave its parent state, and has been separate for years longer than Kosovo, but countries take opposite approaches to the two issues.
- NATO: The US wishes to extend NATO membership to Georgia. That Georgia could end up at war with Russia over a strategically trivial and morally muddy issue suggests some of the potential problems with that course. It would potentially subject the alliance to a clash with Russia without any key interests at stake (at least for NATO). Alternately, and more likely, it would extend NATO promises that would not ultimately be kept, as members would likely (and sensibly) balk at aiding Georgia in many scenarios, risking turning NATO into another hollow CENTO or SEATO.
FutureAtlas.com now has a section on the future of Canada, including:
In the issue that comes out next week, Foreign Policy magazine will cover some work I did at the consulting firm Social Technologies on mapping the speed of change.
Foreign Policy writes:
How swiftly or slowly life changes in particular countries is the subject of the Speed of Change Index, which measures changes in urbanization, literacy, GDP per capita, civil liberties, and access to a telephone, TV, and the Internet in countries during the last 15 years…. The index reveals where citizens’ needs are rapidly changing, new markets are opening, and the risk of instability runs high.
Image courtesy Social Technologies.
An NPR reporter in Cuba suggests that change — at least of a kind — is underway.
Writes NPR, “There are signs in Cuba that Fidel Castro’s power is truly waning, despite that many Cubans have a hard time believing that his rule is really over.”
The reporter’s findings suggest a “Fidelismo without Fidel” scenario, but with hints of “The China Option.”
The Atlantic recently asked its panel of 40 foreign policy experts about prospects for democracy, publishing the results in March.
One question–do you believe the proliferation of democratic government is inevitable in the long run?–yielded these results:
Skeptics’ comments included these:
- “We seem to have forgotten that democracy is an organic phenomenon–that … it is the outcome of specific histories, cultures, ethnicities, and events.
- “New models quite far from Jeffersonian democracy (China’s ‘Market-Leninism’) could begin to catch the imaginations of transitional societies.”
Someone in the “yes” camp offered this remark:
- “Despite the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, people who are free to choose (as Mrs. Thatcher said) do choose to be free. And the information revolution enables more people to see lives in free countries.”
Image: Racoles (Flickr)
The Washington Post reports on how little will there is to deal with the causes of Japan’s projected demographic collapse.
The article notes that the country may lose 70% of its workforce by 2050, at the same time it is faced with supporting a massive population of seniors.
The oncoming problems could be alleviated with immigration and a higher birth rate, but these are impeded by social malfunction:
- Japan’s strong sense of ethnic unity makes immigration a non-starter: “the issue is too politically toxic for extensive public discussion.”
- The low birth rate has a lot to do with how women are treated in the workforce and at home, but Japan seems to lack the will to do much to change this. The article reports renewed calls for “enlightened government intervention” on the issue, but those have gone and gone before.
Japan does not seem to face a disastrous implosion, like some socially malfunctioning societies of the past — see the Greenland Norse in Diamond’s Collapse — but it may choose diminishing strength, relevance, and perhaps prosperity over change.
See Futureatlas for more on this issue.
Image: usable with link and credit to Futureatlas.com
NPR today offered a rare focus on Abkhazia, the region that broke away from Georgia in the 1990s.
It is a curious mirror image of Kosovo: Russia, adamantly opposed to independence for Kosovo, supports Abkhazia’s freedom (at least from Georgia), while the US favors subjecting the Abkhaz to Georgian rule, though they appear to have much the same case as the Kosovars for independence.
The parallel is not lost on the Abkhaz, who have poor relations with the Georgians:
Abkhazia’s leaders say the West has so far refused to listen to their arguments, but they cite the precedent set by Kosovo. One day, they say, the international community will have to realize the only way to avert war over Abkhazia is to recognize its independence.
Angus Reid polling explains why Bolivia’s constitutional troubles are “more likely to split the nation in two” than to bring it peace.
As the indigenous Andean majority assert their newfound political power, the wealthier, more Hispanic lowland areas such as Santa Cruz are growing restive, and there is talk of separation. Angus Reid reports that “General Luis Trigo Antelo, the Bolivian Armed Forces’ commander in chief, has warned Santa Cruz and other departments seeking to call similar referendums on autonomy that the army will ‘not allow separatism.’”
The article concludes with this warning: “the fragile stability could break in the following months, as the stand-off between the rich and poor departments heightens the possibility of military action.”
Image: Mabel Flores (Flickr)