Kaplan: Go long on Iran, short Pakistan

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:22pm

My CNAS hallmate Robert Kaplan has a good piece in the new issue of Foreign Policy, the mother ship. It is a real feat of globe-twirling, and I think is especially insightful on the futures of Iran (ascendant) and Pakistan (not). Among other things, he notes, geography naturally made Iran a state, and indeed "the ancient world's first superpower," while Pakistan is an artificial and probably doomed creation. 

He does seem to call, between the lines, for a reconstitution of the pre-partition area, re-attaching Bangladesh (or whatever is left of it after global warming) and most of Pakistan. He wants to give the troublesome Pashtuns their own ungovernable state stretching from the Hindu Kush down to the western banks of the Tigris.

He also gets off this impressive three-cushion shot: "when a fear of Munich leads to overreach the result is Vietnam -- or in the current case, Iraq."

getdirectlydown/flickr

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Pashtunistan on the Tigris?

by Walking Wounded on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 2:14pm

I know we American's are weak on geography, but the Tigris is already conflicted, and the Pashtuns already occupy the W. bank of the middle Indus.

While we're reorganizing things, would someone explain why in Clive's name the Kush is called 'Hindu'?

Etymology theories

by Walking Wounded on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 5:08pm

for 'Hindu Kush' seem to include both Persian and sanskrit derivations and corruptions. 'Indus headwaters' seems a good guess, but that's not as colorful as 'hindu killer'. How about 'killer Indus', in memory of Babur's early wildwater adventures?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hindu_Kush
Etymology theories

Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy"

by Fitzhugh on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 2:12pm

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199402/anarchy

From the above article: "Those peoples whose cultures can harbor extensive slum life without decomposing will be, relatively speaking, the future's winners."

So Iran may be a successful slum state, but if Pakistan merges with Bangladesh this new state will be able to balance the rising Iranian slum power. But that might threaten India's dominance. And what would China say to a new slum power? And Israel isn't very slum friendly; look what they did to Gaza. Only Kaplan will be able to answer these questions.

Well, now I have to read it . . .

by arvay on Tue, 05/05/2009 - 9:57am

. . . but I'm rather suspicious of neocons like Kaplan who apparently have yet to learn that attempting to re-order states and peoples according to our wishes is at best a tad difficult and likely to explode in our puzzled faces.

I wonder how he thinks those frisky Pashtuns will be confined to their "ungovernable" state. After all, it will be by definition impossible to control.

Luckily, we don't have the troop strength to make the attempt, and a rational president who probably doesn't see the world as a giant tinker-toy built for Americans to rearrange at will.

pakistan is such an artifice

by Krish on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:30pm

it's own leadership has NO idea of itself. A country can NOT have ONLY GEOPOLITICAL significance. Pakistan is only anti-india. It has NO OTHER IDEAS.

these idiots in the colonial pakistan army have been running this "country" into a hole for the past 40 years. and now they want a few more billion$