Beyond the missile and nuclear-science projects of North Korea that could provoke another crisis in East Asia, what surprises might stress test the Obama rhetoric over the coming months? Consider three possibilities: the economic and financial collapse of Russia, an Israeli decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities and a de facto partition of Pakistan should extremist plots gain traction.

Russia is clearly in economic distress. While it has upward of $300 billion or $400 billion in reserves, this summer preset prices for Russian natural gas will be less than the costs of production. In essence, Russia will underwrite European energy needs -- an ironic twist given the sensitivity of European capitals to Moscow's use of the energy tool to leverage policy. When falling energy revenues force depletion of these precious dollar reserves and put even greater downward pressure on an already weak economy, compression or even economic collapse is not out of the question.

With Iran, Obama has signaled a willingness to improve relations. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has responded positively, raising expectations that diplomacy and discussion might keep Iran's nuclear programs limited to peaceful use. Such an arrangement will not sit well with the new government in Israel, which is fearful if not paranoid about Iran and worried that negotiations will take time during which Iran will develop a real nuclear weapon.

Israel could finally conclude that Iran can never be trusted not to develop and possibly use nuclear weapons in its zeal to destroy the Zionist state. As either a strategic ploy to manipulate U.S. policy toward Iran or a threat to be carried out, an Israeli attack against Tehran's nuclear capabilities would be a nightmare scenario. Whether Israel has the capability for anything more than a symbolic strike is not the issue. Even a handful of cruise missiles or iron bombs falling on Iran would put the region on a footing tinged with catastrophe.

Perhaps the mother of all nightmare scenarios is Pakistan falling under the thrall of a Taliban or other extremist regime. Clearly and tragically, the insurgencies in Pakistan are growing in size and in geographic reach. Given the alternatives, Pakistani President Asif Zardari had little choice except to sign off on the Swat agreement to permit Shariah law to provide justice. No serious student of Pakistan can be happy with this decision. Unfortunately, the other options of redeploying the army or using force would have likely produced even worse results. Similarly, release from house arrest of the so-called Red Mosque cleric was an attempt to mollify public anger.

That said, the Taliban and al-Qaida associates have been turning poor farmers against the rich landowners as a means to provoke violence and ultimately to take power -- lessons from Lenin and Mao. A majority of Pakistanis are already pro-Islamist, anti-American, anti-Indian and conservative. Hence, unless the government can quickly step up economic reforms -- a further stress on an already cash-strapped exchequer -- and adopt a more effective counterinsurgency strategy, a de facto partition of Pakistan, or worse, greater levels of violence and even revolution become increasingly likely. South Asia in flames would be to international politics and regional stability what the American International Group and Lehman Brothers were to the financial meltdown.

Such contingencies are the basis for a great deal of effort within our national-security apparatus in the form of war games, planning and exercises. Yet the Obama administration is already awash in current crises from a still-failing economy to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, for the moment, appear to be escalating again in violence. Why should it consider such contingencies given that time is one of its most precious and scarcest resources?

The unsatisfactory answer is that any White House has no alternative except to examine what could be the more likely game changers -- those contingencies that will have profound consequences, good or bad, for the United States and its policies. And the only place that has the access for such consideration is within the National Security Council and its staff.

As the NSC evolves, having such a contingent authority becomes more essential. As the economic and financial crises struck with such a vengeance and now the relatively minor issue of Somali seaborne gangs vies for attention, we know we will be overloaded with crises and frequently surprised. We may not be able to prevent all future September 11ths. But we need to do far better in trying to anticipate them.

(Harlan Ullman is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council. His last book was "America's Promise Restored: Preventing Culture, Crusade and Partisanship from Wrecking Our Nation.")

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Democracy in the 21st century at TerraDaily.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News