Bottom Line
Shifting balance of power in the Middle East
IRAN is emerging as a strong regional power, and its potential capacity of possessing nuclear weapons has unnerved the US and the West. Russia and China are watching closely the scenario in the Middle East and are not averse to see the change in the balance of power in the region.
Balance of power from World War I to the end of the Cold War
The word "balance" evokes the image of a pair of scales with weights in either pan of such amounts that the scale is poised in equilibrium. Balance of power is intended to mean a situation in which two states or two groups of states or all states of the world grouped around two centres are conceived to display roughly the same amount of military power. Balance of power is the distribution of power in states, and power is measured against that of the opponent. One is expected to make an assessment of its own power as well as that of a potential opponent. Furthermore, in assessing power, one has to take into account actual and potential power. Standing military forces are the most obvious example of actual power. Potential power is one that will be available at a future date. Power can be tangible or intangible. Tangible power is a resource that is readily countable, such as weapons, standing army and infrastructure, and intangible power is invisible, such as leadership, will power, wisdom and morale. By one estimate, the five-power structure seems to be the ideal number of states keeping a balance of power. Five states will bring a stable balance of power because one state will be able to play the role of a balancer by joining with other states. The 19th century provides an illustration of maintaining balance of power among five European powers, namely Britain, France, Prussia (Germany), Austria and Russia. At first Britain and France were kept apart by colonial rivalry, Britain and Russia by mutual suspicion over Central Asia, Russia and France by monarchy-republican animosities. Napoleon wanted to change the balance of power among five states in Europe, but he was defeated. By 1907, France, Britain and Russia held the balance of power against Germany and Austria. The First World War in 1914 began to change this balance of power, but not because of any ideological fight against each other. It was simply to upset the prevailing balance of power in Europe. During the Cold War, neither the US nor the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons in the knowledge that a nuclear attack by one side would invite immediate retaliatory nuclear attack from the other -- in view of the fact that both had second-strike capabilities. Furthermore, the two superpowers had implicit agreement about their "no-go-areas"-- for example for Moscow in Latin America and for Washington in Eastern Europe. A forced peace prevailed during the Cold War because the two superpowers held the balance of power. Some say balance of terror because each power knew that it could be annihilated if it attacked the opponent. This is a deterrent system, based on sheer terror during the Cold War, and this doctrine was known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In many ways, MAD is currently applicable to India and Pakistan, and many suggest that if Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1971 the War would not have occurred. Shifting balance of power in the Middle East
The Middle East is undergoing a period of fluidity because Israel, that had supremacy of power so long, is being threatened by Iran. Iran's size, population, skills, resources and nuclear potential have posed a threat to Israel. Iran has been able to spread its influence thanks to the mistakes of the Bush administration. In the past, Iran's power was believed to have been curbed by its neighbours -- Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the Taleban of Afghanistan. Since these regimes have gone, Iran has emerged as the regional power in the Middle East, extending its influence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's closest ally, the US, is aware of it, and that is why even the Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton recently said that Iran would be wiped out if it attacked Israel. This statement is partly to entice Jewish voters and partly to demonstrate her resolve to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. The US's goal of marginalising the influence of Syria and Iran in the Middle East has backfired because the "Shi'ite crescent" now runs from Beirut to Tehran. Both Hezbollah and Iran have stood taller before the Arab World after the 2006 July war with Israel. Israel has no chance of destroying Hezbollah, and those who think so are in the wrong side of history. Tehran has now full control of the situation in the region. The Iraqi government currently supports Hezbollah, much to the surprise of the Bush administration. Moqtada Al Sadr of Iraq even threatened to take the war to Israel. Iran's nuclear program is likely to proceed unabated. Even if the UN Security Council imposes harsher sanctions on Iran, it would not matter for Iran as Tehran thinks it is its sovereign rights to generate energy through nuclear reactors. It is noted that France uses nuclear power to generate 77% of its electricity, and Russia produces 20% of its total energy requirements. More than 35 nuclear power plants are currently under construction around the world, 24 of them in Asia including in China. Today, about 12,500 nuclear plants provide safe, clean and cheap energy to about 32 countries. Indonesia, Malaysia and Egypt are to develop nuclear energy. Furthermore, Russia's relations with the US are now characterised by a growing number of disagreements, and Russia does not see events in the Middle East or elsewhere through the same prism as the US does. Russia wants to play its role in the Middle East and cannot be sidelined. Russia has maintained close relations with Iran and supplied the nuclear reactor at Bushehr (Iran and Russia signed the agreement in 2002). Israel's conflict with Hezbollah is inseparable from the struggle for balance of power in the region. What we see today in the Middle East is not a traditional armed conflict but a conflict that is intended to redraw the balance of power in the region. It is a struggle between Israel backed by the US and Iran, implicitly backed by Russia. Imperialist Kipling's "great game" in Central Asia of the 19th century seems to be replayed in the Middle East in the 21st century. No wonder history repeats itself.
The word "balance" evokes the image of a pair of scales with weights in either pan of such amounts that the scale is poised in equilibrium. Balance of power is intended to mean a situation in which two states or two groups of states or all states of the world grouped around two centres are conceived to display roughly the same amount of military power. Balance of power is the distribution of power in states, and power is measured against that of the opponent. One is expected to make an assessment of its own power as well as that of a potential opponent. Furthermore, in assessing power, one has to take into account actual and potential power. Standing military forces are the most obvious example of actual power. Potential power is one that will be available at a future date. Power can be tangible or intangible. Tangible power is a resource that is readily countable, such as weapons, standing army and infrastructure, and intangible power is invisible, such as leadership, will power, wisdom and morale. By one estimate, the five-power structure seems to be the ideal number of states keeping a balance of power. Five states will bring a stable balance of power because one state will be able to play the role of a balancer by joining with other states. The 19th century provides an illustration of maintaining balance of power among five European powers, namely Britain, France, Prussia (Germany), Austria and Russia. At first Britain and France were kept apart by colonial rivalry, Britain and Russia by mutual suspicion over Central Asia, Russia and France by monarchy-republican animosities. Napoleon wanted to change the balance of power among five states in Europe, but he was defeated. By 1907, France, Britain and Russia held the balance of power against Germany and Austria. The First World War in 1914 began to change this balance of power, but not because of any ideological fight against each other. It was simply to upset the prevailing balance of power in Europe. During the Cold War, neither the US nor the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons in the knowledge that a nuclear attack by one side would invite immediate retaliatory nuclear attack from the other -- in view of the fact that both had second-strike capabilities. Furthermore, the two superpowers had implicit agreement about their "no-go-areas"-- for example for Moscow in Latin America and for Washington in Eastern Europe. A forced peace prevailed during the Cold War because the two superpowers held the balance of power. Some say balance of terror because each power knew that it could be annihilated if it attacked the opponent. This is a deterrent system, based on sheer terror during the Cold War, and this doctrine was known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In many ways, MAD is currently applicable to India and Pakistan, and many suggest that if Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1971 the War would not have occurred. Shifting balance of power in the Middle East
The Middle East is undergoing a period of fluidity because Israel, that had supremacy of power so long, is being threatened by Iran. Iran's size, population, skills, resources and nuclear potential have posed a threat to Israel. Iran has been able to spread its influence thanks to the mistakes of the Bush administration. In the past, Iran's power was believed to have been curbed by its neighbours -- Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the Taleban of Afghanistan. Since these regimes have gone, Iran has emerged as the regional power in the Middle East, extending its influence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Syria and Lebanon. Israel's closest ally, the US, is aware of it, and that is why even the Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton recently said that Iran would be wiped out if it attacked Israel. This statement is partly to entice Jewish voters and partly to demonstrate her resolve to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. The US's goal of marginalising the influence of Syria and Iran in the Middle East has backfired because the "Shi'ite crescent" now runs from Beirut to Tehran. Both Hezbollah and Iran have stood taller before the Arab World after the 2006 July war with Israel. Israel has no chance of destroying Hezbollah, and those who think so are in the wrong side of history. Tehran has now full control of the situation in the region. The Iraqi government currently supports Hezbollah, much to the surprise of the Bush administration. Moqtada Al Sadr of Iraq even threatened to take the war to Israel. Iran's nuclear program is likely to proceed unabated. Even if the UN Security Council imposes harsher sanctions on Iran, it would not matter for Iran as Tehran thinks it is its sovereign rights to generate energy through nuclear reactors. It is noted that France uses nuclear power to generate 77% of its electricity, and Russia produces 20% of its total energy requirements. More than 35 nuclear power plants are currently under construction around the world, 24 of them in Asia including in China. Today, about 12,500 nuclear plants provide safe, clean and cheap energy to about 32 countries. Indonesia, Malaysia and Egypt are to develop nuclear energy. Furthermore, Russia's relations with the US are now characterised by a growing number of disagreements, and Russia does not see events in the Middle East or elsewhere through the same prism as the US does. Russia wants to play its role in the Middle East and cannot be sidelined. Russia has maintained close relations with Iran and supplied the nuclear reactor at Bushehr (Iran and Russia signed the agreement in 2002). Israel's conflict with Hezbollah is inseparable from the struggle for balance of power in the region. What we see today in the Middle East is not a traditional armed conflict but a conflict that is intended to redraw the balance of power in the region. It is a struggle between Israel backed by the US and Iran, implicitly backed by Russia. Imperialist Kipling's "great game" in Central Asia of the 19th century seems to be replayed in the Middle East in the 21st century. No wonder history repeats itself.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments