I find it bizarre that Huntington's thesis is so often misconstrued. His central point, of course, is that with the collapse of the bipolarity of the Cold War, underlying differences between civilizational groupings have resurfaced. Based on this straightforward analysis he proposed that world order would henceforward depend on the core states in those civilizations. Those who reject this thesis on the basis that it somehow identifies the clash of civilizations as something which can be avoided entirely miss the analytic point.
If our government didn't routinely lie about the reality of atomic power--that it is heavily subsidized, uneconomic, and constitutes unacceptable risk, especially in an age of terrorism (cough*FUshima*cough)--it would be in a better position to insist that Khamenei accept as a substitute for civilian atomic power the new wave of solar technology, which within a decade will make even fossil fuels less competitive, let alone atomic power.
Russia is being seriously hurt by the combination of sanctions and lower oil prices. Even worse than the loss of tax revenue, which is significant, is that lower prices undermine the rationale and financing for projects aimed at harder-to-reach oil reserves.
Mr. Abedin is over-reacting. Of course the US military has plans for an attack on Iran. It develops plans for a wide range of eventualities. It has plans to stop a tank advance across the northern European plains which hasn't been a realistic prospect since the 1940s. Having plans does not mean the US has any particular desire for another war in the ME.
I find it bizarre that Huntington's thesis is so often misconstrued. His central point, of course, is that with the collapse of the bipolarity of the Cold War, underlying differences between civilizational groupings have resurfaced. Based on this straightforward analysis he proposed that world order would henceforward depend on the core states in those civilizations. Those who reject this thesis on the basis that it somehow identifies the clash of civilizations as something which can be avoided entirely miss the analytic point.
If our government didn't routinely lie about the reality of atomic power--that it is heavily subsidized, uneconomic, and constitutes unacceptable risk, especially in an age of terrorism (cough*FUshima*cough)--it would be in a better position to insist that Khamenei accept as a substitute for civilian atomic power the new wave of solar technology, which within a decade will make even fossil fuels less competitive, let alone atomic power.
Russia is being seriously hurt by the combination of sanctions and lower oil prices. Even worse than the loss of tax revenue, which is significant, is that lower prices undermine the rationale and financing for projects aimed at harder-to-reach oil reserves.
Mr. Abedin is over-reacting. Of course the US military has plans for an attack on Iran. It develops plans for a wide range of eventualities. It has plans to stop a tank advance across the northern European plains which hasn't been a realistic prospect since the 1940s. Having plans does not mean the US has any particular desire for another war in the ME.