The View From Olympus: China and Iran

President-elect Donald Trump’s choices for cabinet positions have reassured his supporters that change will be real. However, for his presidency to begin successfully, there are two countries where change is needed in his approach. Those two countries are China and Iran.

As always, to see how we should relate to any state we must begin with our own grand strategic goals. The most important of those goals should be forming an alliance of all states to confront the threat Fourth Generation war presents to the state system itself. Obviously, we want that alliance to include China and Iran; all states means precisely that. China is one of three genuine Great Powers (Britain and France have that title by courtesy). An alliance of all states is possible only if it begins with an alliance of the Great Powers. Otherwise, Great Power rivalry will undermine it from the outset. Iran is an important regional power whose cooperation against 4GW elements in the Mideast is important. At present, Iran is playing a central role in upholding the state in Syria.

This grand strategy reminds us that in any situation, the worst possible outcome for our interests is the disintegration of another state and its replacement by a stateless nursery for more 4GW elements. The U.S. foreign policy Establishment has given us that outcome in Iraq, in Libya, and, in part, in Syria. A Trump administration should do its utmost not to add to that list of failures.

In this context, Mr. Trump’s initial actions vis-a-vis China, including receiving a congratulatory phone call from the leader of Taiwan, do serve to strengthen his bargaining position with Beijing. But it is important he accept the “one China” policy, with which both the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang agree. Taiwan is an existential issue for China because of China’s history of centrifugal movements. If one province can become independent, so can others, and China would be heading back to a situation of “warring states”. That is the nightmare of every Chinese.

Because any movement of Taiwan toward independence has this implication for China, Taiwan has the highest potential for bringing about a war between China and the U.S. Such a conflict would be a disaster for both parties. But from the United States’ standpoint, it would be a lose-lose scenario. In the unlikely event the U.S. lost the war, our Great Power status would be called into question. If China lost, the result could be even worse. A defeat might destroy the legitimacy of the current Beijing government and with it the Chinese state. China could disintegrate into warring states in a huge victory for 4GW elements. We need China to be a center and source of order in the world. A defeat followed by disintegration would turn China into a vast source of disorder.

As China resumes her historical Great Power status, we should not merely allow but encourage her to take over the job of preserving peace, order, and commerce in a growing portion of the world. China must agree that is her role, but Chinese culture puts high value on order and harmony so that should not be too difficult. In that context, if China wishes to take over the job of protecting freedom of the seas in the South China Sea and is able to do so, we should welcome it. We should have no desire to be the world’s policeman. China, like Russia and the U.S., should have her sphere of influence, again and always in the context of upholding order and the state system.

Much the same is true of Iran on a regional basis. If the U.S. and Iran were to go to war–and Mr. Trump was elected in part because he opposed avoidable wars in the Middle East–an Iranian defeat might lead to the break-up of Iran, where the Persians are not a majority of the population. As has been the case in Iraq and Libya (thank you, Hillary), a disintegration of Iran into stateless disorder would be far worse for our interests than is the present Iranian state.

From this perspective, we should accept the Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration. It may not be ideal in its terms, but if we tear it up, we will be on course either to accept a nuclear Iran in the near future or go to war with Iran, with all the dangers therein described above. Of these three alternatives, the present deal is clearly the least bad.

The foreign policy opposite of the neo-con/Jacobin “idealism” of Hillary and President Obama is realism. It is reasonable for those of us who supported Mr. Trump to expect realism will be the basis of his foreign policy. Realism often means accepting arrangements that are less than ideal. Realists do accept them because the other plausible alternatives are worse.

In the 21st century, the worst outcome of all will be destroying another state. Whenever and wherever the question of war against a state comes up, our thinking must begin with the realization that “victory” may, indeed is likely to, yield that outcome. We, and China and Russia and Iran and all other states face real enemies in the form of non-state opponents. Let us join together in confronting those enemies rather than pursue obsolete conflicts with each other.

3 thoughts on “The View From Olympus: China and Iran”

  1. w
    I see another possible bi-polar world developing. Perhaps Trump and his advisers are not as Putin-supporting as we thought they were. Trump and his advisers may think of Putin as having done the dirty work ridding Syria of ISIS, while they go about trying to form a Western block between the U. S., Israel, and the Sunni states, which probably would inevitably go against an Eastern block of Russia, Iran, and China, depending on how cooperative Putin wants to be regarding Syria. I suppose Putin could then turn around and support Shia Islamic fighters and Iran who hate the West, and then support fourth generation warfare against the West. Putin’s Traditionalist School intellectual, Dugin, would probably not mind joining with Islam, Shia or otherwise, against the hated West, but Putin might not, so he could be trapped. Then the West and Israel would figure some way to get rid of Assad in Syria.

    This would mean another bi-polar world, which could bring harmony or disharmony. One big difference from the
    past will be determined by how much Trump is devoted to real American economic nationalism and whether he stops going abroad in search of monsters at the behest of the super-rich manipulators of globalism.

  2. I hear the whole “alliance of states against 4th generation opponents”. But how far do you want to take this “life without a state is nasty brutish and short” philosophy, to bend over to the will of a murderous totalitarian state that screws us economically.

    We’ve done nothing but build their manufacturing base for the past 15 years under the guise of “if we trade with them they will become more freedom-loving and open their markets to us. Instead they have taken us for a ride. The evidence of organ harvesting of millions of executed Falun Gong is strong. This is not something to go to war over, but it is unacceptable to be trading partners with a state practicing this sort of barbarity. At some point we have to stand up for our own economic interests, and our moral values as a nation.

    I’m not a human rights absolutist, but there’s something disgusting about standing by and saying nothing to a regime as souless as the Chinese Communist Party. I don’t think we should provoke military conflict, but we need not keep whoring ourselves economically to them and staying silent.

    Even if it makes my stuff at walmart cost 30% higher, we should not be trading with partners unless they play fairly and have the most basic standard of human dignity. Internment camps, forced relocations are one thing and sometimes necessary to preserve order in a society. But imprisoning and executing people who are basically practicing yoga as enemies of the state, this is the stuff of Pol Pot. Here’s a thought experiment. If Pol Pot was still in charge of Cambodia would we be their trading partner? It’s the economically efficient thing to do, and we need to ally with all states against 4GW, after all.

  3. Why do you care about the “human rights” record of China? You don’t know those people and they don’t care about you. Mind your own tribe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *