The chances of a war between mainland China and the United States of America (USA) – either directly or by proxies- will substantially increase should President Donald J Trump fail to win re-election in 2020. This is because President Trump has demonstrated sufficient backbone in standing-up to the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) concerning trade policy and in the process President Trump has so far protected the jobs of millions of American workers. Should President Trump lose re-election then the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will interpret this as a signal to ‘walk all over’ the USA when it comes to trade policy under a Democrat US president.
The massive tilt in the PRC’s favour which will ensue should a Democrat president be elected in 2020 will cause such an equilibrium shift which could be so economically disastrous for the USA that there will be a pendulum swing back to a hawkish Republican president in 2024 so that a war between the USA and the PRC could very possibly follow.
Paradoxically, it is therefore in the PRC’s best interests that President Trump win re-election in 2020. For all the Trump administration’s manifold faults, it does know how to negotiate trade deals! At stake is more than reaching a mutually beneficial (‘win-win’) trade deal- what is at stake is whether or not a power equilibrium/modus operandi between the PRC and the USA can be reached so as to avoid the future scenario of a possible Sino-American War.
USA to Iran: 'Don’t Tread on Me’!
Regarding the reaching of ‘win-win’ outcomes, it has to be said that the scope for reaching such a scenario between the USA and republican Iran has probably unfortunately expired. The fault for this state of affairs rests primarily with Tehran, which has, going back to the 1979-1981 Hostages Crisis, considered the USA to be a ‘paper tiger’ to be treated with disdain.
The recent joint naval exercises in the Gulf between Russia, the PRC and republican Iran emboldened Tehran to engineer attacks on the American Embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The American action of consequently assassinating republican Iran’s top general, Qassem Soliemani, was a proportionate response due to the massive disruption which he had masterminded in the Middle East, including the loss of American life in that geographical region.
The question therefore now arises as to whether or not republican Iran’s threatened response will lead to an escalation which will result in an outright war between the United States and Iran? Tehran’s recent forewarned missile attack on American bases in Iraq was a mere ‘slap on the wrist’ which conveyed Iran’s underlying fear of provoking the United States into an all- out war.
The Iranian republican regime should be aware that the United States has historically responded vigorously to attacks on American home soil and transgressions against its citizens abroad, including its armed forces personnel. This inclination on the part of the United States to protect its own goes back to its War of Independence when the motto was emblazed on the 1775 Gadsden war-flag, (which contained a coiled rattlesnake) which read ‘Don’t Tread on Me’!
This American resolve not to countenance aggression was such that the Japanese policy objective of strengthening its negotiating position by initially bombing the American naval base of Pearl Harbour in December 1941 was from the onset, a forlorn hope. Having attacked American territory, the United States was always going to consequently insist upon Japan’s unconditional surrender. Indeed, America’s concerted and wide-ranging responses to Osama Bin Laden’s attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon in September 2001 illustrates how determined and effective the United States’ responses can be to aggression.
By contrast, the US A’s ineffective response during the 1979 to 1981 Iran-America Hostages Crisis was an aberration due to the then strong impact of the Vietnam Syndrome and President Jimmy Carter’s weak leadership. However, even under a Carter presidency, should any of the hostages have been harmed, or killed, then the USA would have engaged in an all-out war against Iran.
Nevertheless, President Trump’s isolationist tendencies combined with the US House of Representatives recent invocation of the (probably unconstitutional) 1973 War Powers Act may create the colossal misassumption on Iran’s part that the United States is a ‘paper tiger’. History however illustrates that these aforementioned potentially restraining dynamics will be cast aside should Iran attempt to either directly or indirectly hit out against the United States in response to General Soliemani’s assassination.
Regime Change in Tehran?
From an American perspective, should war eventuate due to Iranian provocation, a minimum US objective should be to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity. Alternately, a maximum American objective could be to facilitate regime change in Tehran. There is however considerable reluctance in the United States (to put it mildly) to attempt regime change in Iran. This is partly due to the widespread misperceptions that the 2003 American led invasion/liberation of Iraq and subsequent occupation were gross public policy disasters.
However, contrary to popular opinion these above-mentioned actions were ultimately successful due to the invaluable support that the United States received from Iraq’s pre-eminent religious leader, the Iranian-born Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Indeed, His Eminence (or a nominee of his) should be considered to be a prime candidate to lead a liberated Iran as Supreme Leader under Iran’s 1979 Constitution in place of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Ayatollah Sistani has the requisite leadership skill and integrity to take Iran to a full-democracy thereby ensuring that any American-led occupation or Iran is of a relatively brief duration.
The establishment of a fully-fledged Iranian democracy would be giant step forward for peace in the Middle East*. As Margaret Thatcher once observed no two established democracies have ever gone to war against each other. Therefore, the onset of a genuine Iranian democracy would pay huge dividends with regard to achieving world peace.
(*Another giant step for world peace at this critical juncture would be for Iran to allow international inspectors into their country to verify that Tehran is really discontinuing its nuclear weapons programme).
Why the Pursuit of Democracy Requires Follow-Up
There should however be no naïve assumption that democracy will come easily to the Middle East. Eliminating dictators in and of itself is not the solution to the problem- only part of the solution. There has to be follow-up!
Ironically, the champion of democracy in the Middle East is Turkey’s quasi-authoritarian leader, President Racep Erdogan. The Turkish leader knows that that should democratic elections be held in Sunni-Muslim majority nations in the Middle East that Muslim Brotherhood parties, similar to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, will probably come to power. This will consequently expand Turkish influence throughout the Middle East.
Turkish troops are thankfully shortly to be deployed to Libya in defence of that nation’s democratically elected government against the advancing forces of the Egyptian-backed would be dictator, General Khalifa Haftar.
Turkey is an important North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member and as such the Trump administration will hopefully support Turkish led efforts to defend and/or promote democracy in the Middle East, even if there are real politick considerations on Ankara’s part. Similarly, not only would there be a massive security return should Iran be deprived of a nuclear weapons capacity but there would be a needed world peace dividend should Iran eventually became a fully-fledged democracy.