Friday, December 16, 2005

My "vision" for the future "Pax Islam"

Preamble
This is more prediction than what I believe ought to happen or be made to happen. It is based on my theory that the net effect of people acting selfishly is fairly immune to "brute force" courses of action which try to change the world. It is also resistant to "self-fulfilling prophecies" and self-defeating ones, where the prediction itself can change the course of history. That is only because nobody will actually take much notice of my predictions due to my lack of qualifications in this regard.

The predictions are based on my own "thought experiments" based on elements of game theory and the political dynamics, at least the bits which show a non-random pattern. The initial precept is that Israel-Palestine will not reach lasting peace until Iran and Syria stop financing terror against Israel. This will not stop until these countries become democratic and peace-loving. Therefore, a lasting peace treaty there will be the last thing to happen in my prediction. I foresee "Pax Islam" not as a threat or a country swallowing monster, but as just another multi-country institution competing with all the others. If the constituent countries are all democratic. Israel will no longer be besieged.




This is my rough outline of order of significant events.
1) Presidents of democratic Iraq and Afghanistan sign a "peace and co-operation" agreement.
2) Popular revolt in Iran overthrows the council of clerics - a new constitution is drafted and voted for in a referendum - replacing Shi ite doctrine with more generalised mandate to not make laws contrary to Islam.
3) Syria becomes democratic in a process which involves incalculable casualties.
4) Iran's new president signs on its country to the "peace and co-operation" treaty, and gives it a name - say "Pan-Islam peace and free trade treaty" renamed to "Pax Islam" for short - you heard it here first.
5) Saudi Arabian royal family, under pressure from their population, re-writes constitution to allow democratic progress, then step down as supreme leaders.
6) With most surrounding Islamic countries now democratic, a US sponsored peace treaty in Israel becomes not only realistic, but guaranteed.

4 comments:

Dr. Clam said...

There are a couple of opinion pieces on game theory applied to the Israel/Iran possible nuclear standoff in the Jerusalem Post today... I am too lazy to post the links, but you might be interested.

I don't believe you will get Shi'i and Sunni together in a confederation based on Islam for many generations- based on some other common interest, sure. But historically they have never sat side by side in amicable brotherhood: one sect has to be boss. I still see an Iran-Iraq-Gulf Coast Shi'i union under authoritarian rule as much more likely...

Marco said...

I stand by my prediction. Democracy changes historical conflicts, and democratic constituencies focus on what is common with a neighbouring democracy with which it is at peace. The country-build which is in progress in Iraq and Afghanistan is in there for the long haul. I see this as a democratic "pincer movement" to Syria and Iran. Already, citizens of those countries are preferring the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, to the issues they have with their leaders. This will make their countries unsustainable as non-democracies in the long run.

Dr. Clam said...

Nifty link about Alawites...

Dr. Clam said...

Pish tosh your democratic pincer! Here is a llink which is more consistent with my previously articulated vision... there is a real clash of civilisations, but the West is just sitting on the sidelines watching it.