Wal-Mart Can Stop A Nuclear Iran (WEEKEND THREAD)

 

Well there's a title you don't read every day! What's the connection? Simple, tell China, that Wal-Mart will shift merchandise production to competing low-cost manufacturing countries, if it doesn't support a UNSC resolution, stopping Iran from going nuclear. After all, a nuclear Holocaust is also bad for business in China.

Make no mistake, Wal-Mart has that kind of purchasing power: Over 10% of all Chinese exports to the U.S. are bought by Wal-Mart, that's well over $20 billion.

"More than 70 per cent of the products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. If Wal-Mart were a separate nation, it would rank as China’s fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain."

The good news is, the threat would remain just that, for China would yield, we'd continue saving $100 billion each year and the Mullahcracy would have to abandon their expansionist ambitions, which they are planning to extort through nuclear blackmail. There was a time, when 'corporate' diplomacy supported the greater good.

Be that as it may, we know only too well, the time has passed when debating foreign policies was about observing facts on the ground or about calm analysis of actual events, and not about scoring ideological points.

The polarization between, what could ostensibly be called, 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' factions and their respective need of constant and forceful validation, whilst at the same time passionately deriding the opponent's stance, is but complete. Or so it would seem to an alien observer, oblivious to both fact and fiction.

Let's examine the latest political and diplomatic battlefield, unfolding before our very eyes over the Mullahcracy's determination to present the world with a nuclear Iran.

The 'pro-war' members exhaust themselves to expose, highlight, reveal and unmask the already patently obvious intentions of the Iranian Mullahcracy. After all, the Islamofascists are going out of their way to make their goals abundantly clear to all who wish to listen. Ever since the Iran hostage crisis in '79, they have backed-up every word by innumerable barbaric deeds.

In response, the 'anti-war' camp diverts attention away from the messy details and supports its charge of 'fearmongering', by airing mock assassinations and by comparing Bush policies to both Hitler's 'policies' on his path to power and to those of a "clearly insane" Teddy Roosevelt, resurrecting his "menace of peace" tomb.

Clearly, the debate is not about what is actually happening in Iran, what the Mullahcracy are doing, nor what should be done to prevent Thug-In-Chief to, at best, hold the West hostage again and, at worst, to start a nuclear Holocaust. If it were, we'd be able to press on and debate constructively the way ahead:

Sanctions could indeed be designed in such a way as to hurt Iran. While the country has a lot of oil, it doesn't have a lot of refineries, meaning that it imports massive amounts of gasoline from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, it relies on Western know-how as it begins expanding its own refinery network. "Sanctions in this sector would slow down the country's economic development, not to mention cause a sharp increase in unemployment which is already some 40 percent."

But a long-term solution to the problem has to take into account Iran's foreign policy goals [...]. The 1980s war with Iraq -- which cost the country 1 million young lives -- traumatized the country, as did Saddam Hussein's gassing of 50,000 Iranian soldiers. "'Never again' has since then become the motto of the country's deterrence and retaliation strategy." And Iran's foreign policy has become focused on expanding its influence in the region -- especially among neighboring states. And, of course, acquiring the bomb. Which means, [...] the best way to counter Iran is for the US to offer it security guarantees and convince Iran that it's not in the process of turning Iraq -- or Israel -- into an advance military base. "The 'Great Satan' has to break open the regime by using its own logic."

China holds the keys, but only for so long as American and Japanese consumers are buying their goods. It's time we remind them.

UPDATE: Pastorius @ Cuanas has an interesting commentary on my post:

However, this is not to dismiss the idea outright. Certainly, it is the foundation of a very good idea. During the course of WWII America was fully mobilized in its war efforts. This means there was maximum open cooperation between all components of government and the business world. If government asked a manufacturing plant to retool to make bombs, for instance, they say, "How big an explosion do you want?"

We are not fully mobilized as a nation at this time. If this war gets worse, as I fully expect it will, then there is the likelihood that we will once again go into full-mobilization mode. At that point, the government could sit down with a company like Wal-Mart and strategize on how to best beat our enemies.

Comments

[Tim]

Hey, this reminds me of Asimov's Foundation novel series where they used economic market pressures as instruments of their foreign policy. Essentially, they ended a war, when the other side capitulated when the products they got used to buying were no longer available....

[igout]

GD:

Brown Bess was the nickname for the flintlock musket used in the American Revolution. I had thought it referred to the kentuckly long rifle, kept over the mantle in every pioneer home. My mistake. Anyway, I think it's the duty and the right of everyone reading this to possess firearms and be ready to use them, in case Barnett's hopes don't pan out.
I'm putting my money on a return to the 17th century. If we're to be stuck with another 30 Years War, hopefully we'll at least get another Bach and Newton out of it.

[Alexandra]

Garvin,

Of course they are never going to do it, but that still does not make it a good enough reason not to discuss it, and put the idea out ... I may be right leaning but I am still a libertarian, so no, it is not ironic at all. However, if I started to agree with your "several years" snuggled deep in one of your sentences as if though the 'evils of capitalism' started and ended with the present President, then one might think the "ironic" may become appropriate.

The more we spend, the more China (and I'm sure Middle-Eastern countries) own our future.

Now you are talking ... my point was that the answer to disarm Iran heavily depends on China and India, who in turn heavily depend on our and Japan's consumers; a 'hint' that we may buy elsewhere, would go a long way to focus their minds of what is important to us; but, as you say, virtually impossible to implement. Greed will always in the first instance get in the way of progress in the true sense.

[Garvin]

How ironic. A right blog says Walmart could stop Iran's nuclear aspirations by vowing to cut China off. Walmart built the "buy cheap" paradigm -- and have built a reputation of price roll backs. How did they do it? They went from being a company that "Buys American" to a company that buys from a country with obscenely low wages, and even lower labor standards.

Walmart will never do it. China = Cheap Stuff. China = Huge Emerging Market. While Walmart is plastered with red, white, blue, and with stripes and stars, it's all about money. Walmart has been building stores in China. You can pretty well replace their white, their blue, their stripes, and their stars with green. Other than that, Walmart is red-green color blind. No matter what crayon you use, it's all about cash.

You're asking Walmart to turn it's back on the country that made it what it is today -- a cheap retailer that is expanding its markets even into the countries that make its cheap stuff.

Good luck with that Walmart embargo. Instead, maybe you should be urging consumers to avoid Walmart. Ain't no "Buy American" thing going on there anymore anyway. Given your suggestion, I would expect you to do so when you realize that Walmart will continue to "Buy Chinese". Heck, they might be using "Buy Chinese", like they used "Buy American" as a slogan in China as we speak.

Our economy, national debt, exports, imports, foreign policy, and more things I cannot fathom are so intertwined with China, it's a little late to extract ourselves. Imagine a few trillion dollars in debt recalled tomorrow. Someone got us into this crap. It's been several years, but I seem to remember a time when we were flush and we were reducing the national debt.

It's scary to realize, but it seems that the SS trust and Americans willing to buy Treasury Bonds are no longer enough to underwrite our deficit. The more we spend, the more China (and I'm sure Middle-Eastern countries) own our future.

Garvin

[Ghost Dansing]

Yippie...it's an ATB FREE FOR ALL! :)

Capitalism is not a form of government...it is an economic engine that can be grafted to nearly any governmental architecture:

Check out Iran's (a "Free Trade" Theocracy) Free Trade Zones:

http://www.salamiran.org/Economy/FreeZones/index.html

2003: Presenting Chabahar as an attractive business destination, the Advisor to the Chairman of the Port Trust, Mr. Saeed-uz-Zakerin, said that the state-of-the art infrastructure in the trade zone could provide all the necessary inputs for a flourishing trade. Besides, Chabahar had two jetties one of which could handle 35,000 tonnes.

He added that Chabahar could also be a gateway for exporting goods to the countries around the Persian Gulf, Russia and other CIS countries.

Check out the Chinese (Commie Free Trade Zones) Free Trade Zones:

http://my.tdctrade.com/airnewse/index.asp?area=AR1&ct=02&st=0206

China's entry into the World Trade Organization will not mean the end of its 15 free trade zones but a chance for their improvement and perfection, according to an official with the administration of Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone.

Feng Zhijiang, deputy director of the administrative committee of the free trade zone, said, "Free trade zone is still a popular thing in the world, and it will play a more important role in China as the country completely opens up to the outside world."

About 50 kilometers from the city of Tianjin and 170 kilometers from Beijing, the seven-square-kilometer Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone has developed from a bleak sea shore to a lucrative home to about 4,000 domestic and overseas enterprises in 10 years.

Even the Hermit Kingdom has its own little commie FTZ:

Najin-Sonbong Free Trade Zone

It is historically clear "capitalism" and "dictatorship" are not mutually exclusive. They co-existed quite well in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Indeed, the capitalists were quite helpful to the Nazis to power.

Capitalism is operant within most of the world's kleptocracies...

Captitalism has no intrinsic morality...drug dealing, arms sales and running a chain of Tasty Freeze soft ice cream vendors are all capitalist activities... with valuations applied by the societies in which the activity occurs, manifest in governmental Laws, Regulations and Public Policy.

Capitalism is a great thing...it's just not the "only" thing, and if you allow capitalism to run wild, laissez faire, without regulation, you end up with Corporate Plutocracy as your governmental form (at best), and at worst you end up with black market thuggery run by mafias.

The Libertarian has a common set of insights with Liberalism. They do, however, make one serious mistake...that is that "government is the problem", and it is only "government" that can attenuate individual liberties.

Ironically, governmental forms in which government is by the people, and for the people, is the only hedge against governmental forms that simply facilitate exploitaton of the people by economic power blocks.

Captitalism has a long history, and has been heavily refined over the years...many corrections to laissez faire have been made, and most successful modern governments are ideologically hybrid combining the benefits of the Capitalist's economic engine, with other human concerns such as the rights of labor and environmental issues...these types of concerns are alien to laissez faire capitalism, are not intrinsic to its logic which ultimately has only profit as its rationale.

Oh...this is a fun read:

"Monopoly in the 18th century was attacked by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, but his concern was state-sponsored monopoly under the precepts of mercantilism. Nascent capitalism was seen by kings and princes as a threat to their power to dispense privilege and position. Since America did not have a royal tradition, a classical laissez-faire view of competition and acceptance of models of imperfect decentralization prevailed until the end of the 19th century. When the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was passed, most economists were opposed to it. Economist George Gunton, in 1888, writing in Political Science Quarterly, argued that concentration of capital does not drive small producers out of business. It "simply integrates them into a larger and more complex system of production, in which they are enabled to produce wealth more cheaply for the community and obtain a larger income for themselves." Other economists feared that anti-trust laws would diminish the efficiency advantages of combinations or trusts. Combinations were seen as a necessity to generate financial strength sufficient to sustain enterprises through downturns in the business cycle.

In railing against the "robber barons," the trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt set the tone for a century of governmental activism. In the early 1900s, the Justice Department went after GE, Westinghouse, Allis-Chalmers, and others for price-fixing relative to heavy electrical equipment. In 1962, reacting to a price increase by U.S. Steel, President Kennedy was quoted as recalling that his father had said, "All businessmen were sons-of-bitches, but I never believed it till now." The President forced the giant corporation to roll back prices.

President Richard Nixon in 1971 ordered a freeze on wages and prices. In 1974, the Justice Department sued AT&T, claiming that the company had used its monopoly power to shut competitors out of the markets for equipment and long distance service. The "Baby Bells" were born on January 1, 1984, as Ma Bell was broken up by governmental fiat...

The classic view of perfect competition as a state of static long-term equilibrium is not real world. Reality is a process of rivalry over time as Adam Smith observed, an ever-changing "gale of creative destruction" according to economist Joseph Schumpeter. Profit drives the innovator and it is profit that drives the imitator. Without this "invisible hand" the laissez faire model of decentralization will collapse. The very dominance of Microsoft has led to a host of competitors seeking to copy success and go Bill Gates one better."

http://www.onwallstreet.com/article.cfm?articleId=1028

[brian]

You're welcome Alexandra, anytime. That difference between China and Iran is crucial in the debate about Barnett's work, at least to me. We better not forget that radical shia islam isn't really the same as the cold war struggles of the past. Half of Iran is worth taking Isreal off the globe? Soviets were strange in a lot of ways, but they never said AYTHING like that! Only "We will bury you."

[Michael van der Galien]

China isn't 'communist' anymore. It's much better described as 'fascist' or 'Chinese fascism', whatever. Why? The government now encourages people to become rich. As should be obvious to anyone, that's not exactly 'communist teaching'.

Did you know, for instance, that the love for money, is one Chinese words these days?

More about China:
here and here

There is only use in talking to businesses if the US government is willing to do something back. Businesses act solely out of self-interest, better said, financial interests. This means that the government must 'give' something to them. I don't know what it is those businesses want, if anyone can tell me great.
Then the question will the American people back it up? No they probably won't. At least, not if it's not communicated well enough. This means that, if the government would do such a thing, it should immediately and thoroughly explain the plan and its necessity to the public.

But when talking about probability... no, not now. I have to agree with Pastorius. Wal-Mart will only do that, when there truly is a great war going on.

[Alexandra]

Pastorius,

I think your point regarding 'full-mobilization mode' is a valid one. However, the mere hint for a Wal-Mart to relocate $20 billion worth of manufacturing would certainly have a seismic effect in a country were nothing is said outright and everything achieved by, well, carefully phrased 'hints'. Just imagine the impact, when China hears via the grapevine, how rival countries ready themselves to compete for newly issued Wal-Mart tenders on a massive scale, directly encroaching on existing capacities.

It would be a hell of a gamble for China to assume that Wall-Mart is bluffing, given the fact, that there would be no particular rush. My guess is, that, as I have said in my post, the threat would remain just that, for I believe China would yield.

Plus, we are just beginning to comprehend the effect North Korea's sable rattling is having on Japan's post war generation. Hawkish Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister Koizumi's likely successor, wants to revise Japan's pacifist constitution, which bans the use of military force and strengthen an alliance with the United States, taking a tough stand against North Korea. Now, China can forget its growth ambitions without manufacturing for both Japanese and American consumers.

Brian,

Hoping to draw ideological parallels between a 'Communist', but utterly materialistic China and Iran's Mullahcracy will be the root-cause of our doom. And many well-meaning Democrats are setting themselves up for this fatal mistake. Thanks for the links btw.

[brian]

Professor Thomas P.M. Barnett Books:

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century

Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating

These are the amazon links and the full titles. Enjoy!

[brian]

Nice to see I'm not the only one here who has read Tom Barnett. He's a Democrat, but Rumsfeld hired him into the " Office of the Secretary of Defense for Force Transformation". That stint as a Pentagon advisor is behind him now, so he's taking his "big idea", in the form of an ever-evolving 3 hour brief, to the public.

I've got both his books, and a C-SPAN DVD of his brief, though it's a couple of years out of date. He's good as a presenter, and all the upcoming flag officers in our military are now familiar with his basic view of the world as we find it today. Very interesting stuff, and I recommend it highly.

Some may disagree with him on some minor points, but his layout of the strategic landscape is very useful for the types of discussions that break out in the ATB threads.

I think he's a little pollyannish about the true nature of the Iranian regime, while he argues that Iran could be the lynchpin ally in the Middle East, he jumps into something like his China position on Iran. Transform them with people to people connectivity, and the freedoms we take for granted will creepingly appear there.

Seems to be working like a charm with Commie China over the years, but Iran is a different case entirely. The regime will react to the freedoms creeping in on them pretty violently, as we have seen already. I'm much more pessimistic about Iran than he, but his vision is not discredited by such minor differences.

I think Mr. Armegeddonjihad will need to meet our friends in the U.S. Air Force and Special Operations Command eventually. Not something that's pleasant, but I think the Mullahs won't let us avoid it.

[Pastorius]

Actually, I don't think this would work quite as well as Alexandra thinks it would work. It would be rather easy for China to simply call the bluff. A business is dependent on its suppliers to stay in business, just as much as the supplier is dependent on the buyer.

China delivers for Wal-Mart. China delivers because it is efficient. Many of the other "competing low-cost manufacturing countries" are less successful precisely because their track record on delivery is not as good as that of China.

However, this is not to dismiss the idea outright. Certainly, it is the foundation of a very good idea. During the course of WWII America was fully mobilized in its war efforts. This means there was maximum open cooperation between all components of government and the business world. If government asked a manufacturing plant to retool to make bombs, for instance, they say, "How big an explosion do you want?"

We are not fully mobilized as a nation at this time. If this war gets worse, as I fully expect it will, then there is the likelihood that we will once again go into full-mobilization mode. At that point, the government could sit down with a company like Wal-Mart and strategize on how to best beat our enemies.

For the government to make such a request at this point would be considered an overstepping of authority. And, until the government had such authority, Wal-Mart will have no reason to take such a risk.

[Alexandra]

John,

Despite looming FDI restrictions, isn't it ironic, that of all countries, China has this fall revised its history books to focus on "economics, technology, social customs and globalization" instead of previous communist indoctrination, whereas EC-membership aspirant, Turkey, who used to take pride in its secular achievements during the last century, is taking a giant step back towards the dark ages:

Pinocchio, Tom Sawyer and other characters have been converted to Islam in new versions of 100 classic stories on the Turkish school curriculum. [...]

In The Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan is told that he cannot visit Aramis. The reason would surprise the author, Alexandre Dumas. An old woman explains: "He is surrounded by men of religion. He converted to Islam after his illness."

It seems that China's contemporary version of 'Communism' is rapidly converging with US' particular strand of 'Capitalism', based, as you say, on "core classical liberal ideals", and, I'm afraid to say, vice-verca. Wal-Mart's success is only possible because a population of 300 million follows highly homogeneous behavioral patterns - a core socialistic ideal if ever there was one....

[John Sarich]

GD and Igout: You might find an hour or two spent on Howardbloom.net might give you a better perspective of capitalism. He has written an excellent book on the subject and delves not into the usual aspects of capitalism, but on the more social transformative effects of capitalism. And the social connectedness that capitalism requires. Tyrants, dictatorships, communists, totalitarians just don't do well with capitalism because of its reliance on freedom at the individual level as well as the social and governmental level.

If you look at the tranformative effects of capitalism, which at is base relies on some core classical liberal ideals, consider what 30 million capitalists in the middle east would do for themselves, their countries, and their society.

Right now China is in the process of setting some limits on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Currently, you can literally pitch a tent in China, call it a factory, and start making things. In the very short future, that FDI will be limited in amount, used to push economic development into the rural areas of China (to take the pressure off of the mass migration from rural areas to the major cities).

[stdymphna]

If I knew how to do a trackback, I would. However, in lieu of that I simply wrote a post on your idea. It's here:

The Business of America is Peace

I've been reading an old (1985)George Gilder book about capitalists and found it still relevant, even though we hadn't yet gotten to the dotcom bust. The examples he chooses are quite moving, even as he notes that devotion to being an entrepeneur often disrupts or dissolves families, and that those who pursue their passion that vigorously are often compensating for a childhood of losses...

[igout]

GD can't resist foaming and biting at the carpet, but there's sense in his eariler essay. Wonk writing bores me, but if he's saying that the US economy is all gravy and no meat, I agree. WalMart thrives, and China, and the oil nutacracies, because we allowed ourselves to be transformed from citizens into consumers. Buyers instead of makers. No, Walmart didn't do it; that process began well over 100 years ago, but they are the final straw.

So, Alexandra, I find I must stray from my favorite subject, oil, to political philosophy. Basically, for consumers to say 'enough', it would require the return of the concepts of industry, frugality, husbandry, civic and private virtue, things which don't sit well with our pantings for immediate material gratification.

Maybe evil times will make us citizens again. In the meantime, there are nations and regimes and enemies that need to die.

[Ghost Dansing]

Again: I don't think the most salient criticisms about the Bush administration, and modern Republicanism, actually culminate in a desire to "back off" anything except a failed military intervention.

Example:
Terrorism & Security
posted September 1, 2006 at 12:15 p.m.
Polls show opposition to Iraq war at all-time high Sixty percent also say terrorism is more likely in US because of Iraq.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Also:
I don't see a link in part 1, Globalization to part 2.
http://www.apmforum.com/columns/orientseas15.htm
Here are some others: http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2559

There is a lot of talk these days about “neo-liberalism” — most of it critical. But all across the globe, liberalism as such is perhaps the most important feature of successful societies. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of Political Economy at the IMD, a leading business school located in Lausanne, Switzerland, argues the case.

Liberal Arabs

The potential for change is evident even in cultures which are today widely seen as almost a lost cause. Consider the Arab/Muslim world.

liberal tradition — a tradition of sorting through the cultural baggage — does exist in Arabic and Islamic thought.

The Tunisian scholar, the late Albert Hourani, demonstrated this vividly in his magnificent book, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (1968).

Muslim thought

He described how, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thinkers and writers such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani developed a powerful stream of Muslim thought along lines comparable to the evolution of secular and liberal thought in Europe.

And, surprising as that may sound, Al-Afghani’s agenda of reform and liberalism did not prevent him from being a fervent nationalist and anti-imperialist.

Opponents of liberalism in the Islamic world falsely equated liberalism with “westernism”.

[Ghost Dansing]

"And Bush's critics both here and abroad are likewise deluded by the notion that if America simply backs off, the Islamic revival will simmer down when it's just beginning for reasons always beyond our control. Moreover, critics of globalism/globalization see this revival as proof positive that a clash of civilizations is coming, as though this struggle is somehow defined by such huge abstract constructs when in reality this process is fundamentally a domestic-centric, individual-led change phenomenon..."

I don't think the most salient criticisms about the Bush administration, and modern Republicanism, actually culminate in a desire to "back off" anything except a failed military intervention.

Professor Barnett's piece goes along with my argument that Liberalism is alive and well, and not a "bad" thing at all... The "Islamic Extremism" that is spawning this kind of "global insurgency" is in effect a movement against Liberalism... Actually it is against both Liberalism, in the old-sense that has nuance along multiple axis that go beyond "Liberal Economics", which is essentially laisse faire capitalism, and neo-Liberalism that has once again reduced the concepts of "Liberalism" to laisse faire economics on a global scale.

(I will caveat, once again, that understandings of "liberalism" derived from the propaganda of modern-Republicanism are of little use here... modern Republicans, and the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party...the DLC...are neo-Liberals...believe in global "free-markets" employing laissez faire principles.)

I can talk about the values of the more mature understanding of Liberalism, where the foibles of lassiez faire are recognized, but...for another time.

Look at "Globalism", Both Parts one and two...part two discusses Globalism within the context of Liberalism.

http://www.apmforum.com/columns/orientseas14.htm

[Alexandra]

Matt,

There is a huge difference between US Unions and, what you call, 'Communist' Unions. Believe me, the Chinese unions are much more 'pro-enterprise' than even the most moderate unions over here. Plus Wal-Mart would never have to face this kind of nonsense over there.

David,

More than 80% of the 6,000 factories in Wal-Mart's worldwide database of suppliers are in China. Now, from China's perspective, it doesn't matter who the owner of that factory is, as it clearly employs Chinese workers. If the factory moves to India, that revenue is lost in terms of domestic consumption etc etc.

Bob,

Hahahaha nice one. But seriously, why not? Just move it to another 'slave-labor intensive' country, like, India...

Igout,

Exactly my point: China's thirst for Oil and its need to pacify our Thug-In-Chief and deal with his minions, such as Chavez, dries up when our and Japan's orders do. In the end, U.S. and Japanese mass consumers hold the power if they could be moved to vote with their wallets. It's not as utopian as it might sound...(I knew this subject would be right up your street)

John,

Thanks for the brilliant Professor Barnett reference. I subsequently checked a recent post on his blog The power of individuals to lead change certainly adds some very thought provoking pointers to this debate.

Thus, globalization's logical impact on the region is political unrest driven by religious revival, meaning "what comes next" is apparently the exact opposite of what the neocons had hoped for in their mistaken belief that somehow America is running this whole show called globalization. And Bush's critics both here and abroad are likewise deluded by the notion that if America simply backs off, the Islamic revival will simmer down when it's just beginning for reasons always beyond our control. Moreover, critics of globalism/globalization see this revival as proof positive that a clash of civilizations is coming, as though this struggle is somehow defined by such huge abstract constructs when in reality this process is fundamentally a domestic-centric, individual-led change phenomenon

Kurt,

Face the cold co-dependent truth. Iran is holding all the aces in this game.

If your point is that by moving production from China to, say, India, that would just shift the Oil appetite and thus leave Iran unimpressed. Maybe! But it might buy some time to develop alternative energy supplies - China is aggressively pushing such scientific research.

I do however believe, that it is simply too early to judge whether or not sorting out Iraq before Iran was the 'biggest tactical blunder in US history'.

Igout and Roach,

It seems the price of 'enlightenment', doesn't it. Imagine today's US military strength and the current problems threatening our security a century ago - we wouldn't have blinked. Imagine how swiftly a present-day China, equipped with US army capabilities and being threatened as we are, would put the 'Islamofascist' problem to rest.

Ghost,

Wow, that's some macro/micro economic lowdown, but it doesn't always correspond as linearly as you seem to believe. Read the above link to Professor Barnett for a useful overview of the effects of globalization on the interdependent economies.

Crusader,

You may well be interpreting the purpose of Rumsfeld's rather bellicose statements correctly. Who the hell knows nowadays what the hell is going on anymore...

[Ghost Dansing]

"Whistling past the graveyard", weekenderman? :)

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Here's an idea. What if we convince China and Russia that the US is about to invade Iran (well, not really invade proper) and seize the oil. I mean, a quick airmobile brigade operation, followed by securing a landing facility, and beefing up the forces there while Iran gets pounded by US air assets. Not an occupation with a messy and risky democracy-building experiment, just good, old-fashioned seizure of the oil fields.

Now we tell them there are two ways to go about this. (1) the US and its Allies act unilaterally, and they can be left hoping the US fails, which is far from certain. This sort of operation is the only thing left that "we" do well.

Or (2) we'll cut them in on the deal, and the UN security council (basically) divvies up Iran's oil in a fair manner. Everyone of any consequence has the oil they need to keep their economies chugging along (the only thing China really cares about), and the mad mullahs have no more money. And no one left to cry to!

[weekenderman]

Wow, how did I know the post previous to mine was written by the Unholy Ghost? Yawn. Good thing I scrolled past it without wasting my time reading his senseless words . . .

[Ghost Dansing]

"Well there's a title you don't read every day! What's the connection? Simple, tell China, that Wal-Mart will shift merchandise production to competing low-cost manufacturing countries, if it doesn't support a UNSC resolution, stopping Iran from going nuclear. After all, a nuclear Holocaust is also bad for business in China."

"China holds the keys, but only for so long as American and Japanese consumers are buying their goods. It's time we remind them."

It is good that you are contemplating a spectrum of options for America and her allies to pursue regarding Iran. Iran is probably as big a threat on the horizon that you are going to find, with the possible exception of North Korea.

However, I would note that the dialectic is not strictly between "pro-war" and "anti-war" factions... There is at least one other point of view, and that is the point of view of those who judge on the basis of effectiveness. The American People, in particular, have a way of forgiving what is perceived as wrong-headedness by some, if in fact a positive end is achieved within the cost-to-benefit calculus.

The American Military, and its allies have been using a number of acronyms to show the matrixed dimensions for the uses of National Power in order to influence adversaries.

Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic (DIME) / Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information (PMESII) / Military, Intelligence, Diplomatic, Law enforcement, Information, Finance, and Economic elements (MIDLIFE)

In fact, all military actions occur within the context of these other areas of leverage... and coordination of all of these areas in wartime or wartime-like environments is required for competent use of military force.

Currently, we are experiencing the consequences of a number of disconnects in this area...specifically with respect to our goals in Iran.

I'll discuss the Diplomatic and Economic aspects, because those are the ones you are touching on, and show how our Diplomatic and Economic posture limits our ability to have a positive influence on Iran at this point in time... I've already discussed how it is that the Iraq fiasco has put us in a poor position to threaten Iran militarily, or back-up our allies like Israel, when they choose military options.

But first, lets look at the conditions after several years of Republican dominance in America:

Al Qaeda is metastasizing and plotting. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria knitting closer, celebrating a “victory” in standing up to Israel, the U.S. and Britain, and mocking W.’s plan for a “new Middle East.” The North Koreans luxuriating in their nuclear capability. Chávez is becoming the new Castro on a global scale.

Great job so far.

Economics: Actually, our fragile economic state has a lot to do with our relationship with China... We can kinda think of China as the Bank that issues our Credit Cards... the ones we've been running up a tab on at record rates for a number of years.

The $725.8 billion deficit, announced by the Commerce Department in February 2006, was a 17.5 percent leap from 2004's then-record deficit of $617.6 billion. The 2005 trade deficit equaled 5.8 percent of this country's gross domestic product, up from 5.3 percent of GDP in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003.

The United States hasn't had a trade surplus since 1975.

Last year's imbalance was caused by the sharp rise in imported petroleum products and increases in textiles, clothing, manufactured goods and food from abroad, the Commerce Department reported. Even the U.S. farm sector, traditionally a net exporter, recorded a $4 billion deficit in 2005.

In many ways, China and the US are reverse images of an imbalanced global economy. The US is the great consumer and borrower.

"We are so rich as a country," says Robert Lawrence, a Harvard University economist. "We're borrowing, we're running down our assets, but we're very wealthy." He wouldn't be surprised, though, to see the gap shrink eventually.

Other nations (like China) may at some point decide they don't want to invest so heavily in US dollar-denominated assets, from Treasury bonds to businesses. That could weaken the exchange rate of the dollar, which in turn would help US exporters. And America may have to pay higher rates of interest to lure foreign financing, such as borrowing to cover growing federal budget deficits.

Essentially, due to our economic policies, we are not in a very strong position internationally...we are massive debtors, and China, in particular, could put the squeeze on us, a lot more than we could squeeze her at this point.

The Republicans are living high on Credit Cards and tax cuts at this point, but eventually we'll all pay for it, and our posture doesn't give us a great advantage to apply Economic levers in the Diplomatic arena.

Diplomacy: According to a UPI, with which I agree: "From the point of view of Washington and Tel Aviv, Tehran's latest offer of "serious talks" on nuclear matters is not being taken seriously. Iran's cat-and-mouse game over its nuclear project continues and the deadline of Aug. 31 for Iran to stop enriching uranium is just a week away.

But from Tehran's point of view the diplomacy is going rather well, despite (or perhaps because of) Iran's evident role in the dangerous brinkmanship that its client Hezbollah has staged this summer in Lebanon. The fact that Hezbollah seems to have got away with it and Israel has been discomfited has boosted Iran and left the Bush administration looking even less capable of directing the affairs of the Middle East.

A detailed new report issued this week from Britain's top foreign policy think tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, says "Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the United States, and is increasingly rivaling the U.S. as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia."

Moreover, the report says, the Bush administration has directly helped strengthen Iran to become a major regional power.

"The war on terror removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- Iran's two greatest regional rivals -- and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so," it says, adding that "Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against U.S.-led policy."

Iran's role within other embattled areas in the region like Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely, says the report, which was prepared with considerable input from British officials and diplomats, as well as academics and regional experts.

"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds," says Nadim Shehadi, one of the report's authors and a fellow of the Institute's Middle East department.

The report stresses that the Bush administration and its allies have yet to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing -- a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West. As a result, the U.S.-led agenda for confronting Iran is "severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region.""

I've highlighted the incompetence with which the Republican hegemon has governed extensively in the past... However, I will say again, it isn't always only "pro-war" versus "anti-war" factions that are in dialogue on the issues, but also those who soberly judge effectiveness. An extensive testimony to incompetence can be provided along all the dimensions of DIME/PMESII/MIDLIFE... it is not only the military dimension in which breathtaking incompetence has been shown.

[RunningRoach]

Hi Alexandra,

I've been folowing your posts daily but have been too busy to comment.

Nuke em! That's my answer. The Mullahs are well past their usefullness, as is their Pres. Adjem..... Whatever. We need their oil as well as China, or anyone else. Why should we suffer the results of the madness that these idiots want to pursue. Take control of their oil and hold the rest of the world hostage....before they do that to us. We will have Iraq and Iran oil and tell the Sauid's that they are next. Let all these Isalamocracies fall apart. I'm an equal opportunity pacifist. Nuke Em!

My best regards,

JCC

[igout]

I'm loving this discussion; thanks Alexandra for starting it.

Iran is holding all the aces in this game.

Oil is their strength and their vulnerability. It shouldn't be that impossible to organize a coalition of the oil-hungry to forcibly pacify the region. The more insolent Iran becomes, the easier they make this job.

[Kurt]

China needs Iranian oil as much as it needs Wal-Mart's trade. Wal-Mart needs Iranian oil to ship their goods and keep the US economy afloat as much as is needs China to build the crap they sell. Face the cold co-dependent truth. Iran is holding all the aces in this game. As the sabers rattle Iran makes even more money as the price of crude rises.

Bush/Rummy/Cheney have made the biggest tactical blunder in US history. They pushed the US military into attacking the wrong country. Iran has WMDs. The Iranian goverment is openly supporting terrorism. Iran is no doubt a threat to Israel and wants to destroy the "great Satan". Iran is everything the Bush administration claimed falsely that Iraq was.

[John Sarich]

Actually, Alexandra, your headline isn't that far off. I don't know if you ever read Thomas P.M. Barnett but he has made that position for quite some time. Professor Barnett is a defense guru having had a career in the DoD as well in the private sector. He is very much in demand at the Pentagon and the various military acadamies and schools. What the good professor says is that the whole of the middle east and much of the Asia Pacific region are struggling with how to get connected to the "core" - North America, Europe, Oceana and Japan and Korea. China is almost a core country as well.

If you take Friedman's book (The World is Flat) and put it alongside Barnett's thesis then you get the idea that the war with Iran, should be fought largely with economics, technology, and political measures. We need to get better at "playing the board" as he puts it. We should understand the self interests of Russia, China, Europe (old and new), and India and work to find the incentives that will enable each to get what they want. His concept is that shooting part of wars is necessary but should be limited. The major part of war fighting is the System Administration that must come in to create the political landscape and social infrastructure. His idea is that the future military actions from the US should be more like the way the army dealt with our own wild west 150 years ago, and less like WW2.

So, the Walmartization of the middle east isn't that far fetched. The problems today with Islam have a lot to do with globalization and the resistance within Islam to modernize and become part of the global community.

[igout]

With or without nukes Iran is the dynamic and powerful Islamic state. As I've said earlier, martyrdom is ok for the peons; the bosses there enjoy earthly power and lots of it. They want their caliphate, and unless history is on pause, will doubtless try their luck as so many peoples and civilizations have before them. Nothing new here.
So should Walmart prove to be a lever to nudge China over to our viewpoint (and like the others here I have my doubts), hell, why piddle around with their nuke installations? Kill the regime. Share the oil fields with the other countries, like a good international citizen. "'Now who will help me eat the bread',said the little Red Hen. I will! I will!... "

[bobdevo]

You can't really think that Wal-Mart is going to betray its shareholders and screw up its cozy dealings with the slave-labor intensive communist government of China just to head off possible terrorist nuclear strikes from Iran can you?

Wal-Mart probably plans to sell a majority of the home-clean up kits people will be stock-piling once Iranian nukes have worked their way down to garden variety terrorist cells throughout the Quad Cities greater metropolitan area.

[david foster]

It's not clear how the 10% number is calculated...for example, if WMT sells GE's Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs, and GE either makes these itself in China or subcontracts the manufacturing to that country, is that transaction included in the 10%?..or only when WMT buys directly from a Chinese company? My guess would be the former. Which would mean WMT's leverage would be less than it looks like at first glance.

[madmatt]

But China is also a huge market for walmart...if they are willing to let COMMUNIST UNIONS into their stores there they are obviously willing to sell out any principles they pretended to have. We should force them to unionize in the US now!