Bloodless Coup

1. Pakistan, 2. (tie) Iran (short term)/China (long term), 4. Saudi Arabia/Egypt (Islamic Fundamentalism), 5. North Korea, 6. Bird Flu, 7. Russia, 8. Indonesia.

Nothing in this hemisphere (Chavez doesn't even make the top ten).

So no Iraq on your list Baltar? I was surprised it ranked so low in The Atlantic poll - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Iraq isn't a threat. We've neutralized the threat that Iraq poses to the US (just as we did in Afghanistan). The threat is a failed state in Iraq combined with fundamentalist Islam (creating a haven for Al Qaeda, as in Afghanistan in the 1990s). If Al Qaeda didn't exist (or, more precisely, if radical islam didn't exist) we could pull out of Iraq tomorrow and not care - a failed state would irritate Iran, but we could bulk up Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Jordan enough not to care. Thus, I put Saudi Arabia/Egypt (the centers of radical islam) ahead of Iraq.

Iraq the nation-state isn't much of a threat. Iraq the failed state certainly might be.

As I argued above, failed states are not a direct threat to us (they might be to regional neighboors, and we would have to evaluate the extended threat to us on a case-by-case basis), except when Al Qaeda can set up shop in them and have a stable area to plan and train. In this sense, Iraq (the failed state) is a threat. However, the center of radical islam is clearly in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, so I put those up higher on the threat ladder.

Which is exactly why Iraq as a failed state could be a threat. It's not the state-i-ness, but the lawless-ness and lack of territorial control-i-ness that could lead to it being a training ground. And, I'm not even really as concerned about it being a training ground for people who seek to harm the US directly, but more in terms of people who seek to attack our (potential) good relations/foreign policy in the region.

But what do I know. I'm just the political economy dork talking to foreign policy and war specialists.

Ah, I see. For the record the failed-state business is why Iraq is so high on my list. The state of Iraq isn't a big threat - but it's extremely weak (for example: we still don't have a government 3 months after elections; the parliament finally met last week for about an hour, did nothing, and even that took banning cars from the streets of Baghdad; who knows who's doing what in the Interior Ministry ...) and I see no reason to think it won't stay extremely weak. Given that, and that radicals can run around the place with impunity in a way they can't in Saudi and Egypt - well, that's why I have it high on my list.

I agree that Iran is first, but where's Syria, and where's Palestine, and where's Israel for what it might do in Palestine or Syria or Iran that would draw us into an escalating regional conflict?

See LGM for a discussion of why Israel is never on that list.

I'm mostly with Baltar, though NK may eventually work their way into being a threat to Japan, which might complicate things (or it may not, given that it would take Japan about 4 minutes to officially join the nuclear club, which would be an entertaining problem, but not so much for the US), and one could work up a colorable argument for downgrading Pakistan a bit simply because US special forces etc. are in the neighborhood and have (one hopes) built relationships and collected helpful info and whatnot.

That said, I read the first sentence ("states") as I was just starting the coffee and my first thought was, "Did the panel rate Massachusetts or South Dakota first?"

I don't know - our military actions in Pakistan have made the populace more anti-US than they were in the first place (which was already VERY anti-US). I don't see how our presence in the region makes them less of a threat. I mean we've got troops around three sides of Iran.

Morris - how on Earth do you see Syria as a major threat to the US? I'm genuinely curious. They're poor, largely isolated, small, brutally suppress internal Islamic opponents, torture people on the US government's behalf (and gave us other info post 9/11), have a military we could quickly decimate, and lack nukes.

Binky,
Thanks for the link. I would agree that there are very persuasive moral (I would say ethical) reasons for supporting Israel, but I guess my criticism hits part of what jacflash was talking about as well. Our greatest threats aren't just coming from other states these days (maybe they've seen the same specials I have on the F-22), most other states are afraid of us, and the single states that are most dangerous are the ones that are most afraid, like North Korea and Iran. But conflicts between other states (like Israel and Iran, Palestine, and Syria; like Japan or China and North Korea; or like China and their rebel offspring) appear to rank higher on the list than many on the list, because we could easily be drawn into any or all of them.

Bro,
Happy Birthday!
But to answer your question, if Syria and Israel were to get in a row (sorry, too much Harry Potter lately), more than the usual skirmishes, I think it would be political suicide for the Iranian leader to stay out of it, given his political power base. He might even be tempted to organize it. And somebody might bring a nuclear weapon to the party, and the retaliatory nuclear strike isn't likely to hit Syria even if they start the conflict because as you say they are not likely to be the one bringing such weapons to the table. So Syria could see Israel lose big by starting a fight with Israel that a third party will finish.

Uh .... ok. That is indeed a hypothetical scenario - but where is any evidence to show that's likely to happen? Even remotely likely to happen? I'm with you on that point you made to Binky - disputes between other states are hugely important to our security, and that's one of the reasons why I wish we'd put Pakistan/India relations, Kashmir and that region's terrorism near the top of our security interests and concerns. But I follow the region extremely closely and I haven't seen any sign of Syria even begining to think about launching an attack at Israel. I mean even when the Israelis bombed positions deep within their borders they didn't do much more than complain. There's not much reason to like Syria - but I don't see them as a threat to us or Israel.

And of course the only state that could bring a nuke to "the party" is Israel.

*sniffle*

lately, i've read two or three distinct sources opining that north korea soon will collapse and be absorbed (more or less) into south korea, unifying the peninsula under a less repressive government. is this hogwash? just thought i'd stop in at my favorite IR bar and ask. :-)

That's definitely one opinion that's out there, and I suppose it's the hope of that (and the dread of it not happening) that's the reason that NK's not higher on my list.

I still do find it astonishing that Bush let that repulsive original member of the Axis of Evil go nuclear YEARS AGO - and has done very little about it since. Maybe the info they've got is that it is indeed soon to be absorbed into South Korea. We better hope so.

The question asked "which states pose a threat to the US" not "what possible conflicts/scenarios pose a threat"; thus, my answer was couched mostly in terms of states (I cheated a bit by hooking Saudi Arabia/Egypt to "fundamentalist islam" and sticking bird flu in there). If I had to do a list of most threatening events to the US, I'd certainly have a somewhat different list.

Moon, I haven't heard anything about a NK collapse, though it has been discussed for quite a while; economic conditions are fairly horrific there, and not likely to improve without foreign intervention (which is why South Korean attempts to have joint ventures with NK make US attempts to isolate them fairly useless). That being said, I think almost everyone believes that South Korea will absorb North Korea at some point. The questions are "when will that happen" and (more importantly) "will North Korea collapse softly (like East Germany) or much more violently". If a North Korean collapse is likely to be violent, that scares China and Japan (who could get hit by a missile or twelve in the collapse).

jacflash; I don't think the US has any influence over Pakistan. One of the clear points made by Steve Coll in "Ghostwars" (WaPo reporter who wrote the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner on the US covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan) is that Pakistan severly limited US actions/personnel in Pakistan. Essentially, the US gave Pakistani intelligence money/arms at the border, and Pakistan did what they wanted with it (arm islamic fundamentalists, mostly). Thus, even post 9/11, I doubt the US has any real influence within the country.

South Dakota and Utah are significantly more of a threat than Massachusetts.

I wasn't thinking of formal influence so much as intel (etc) that might be preemptive, but I haven't read that book so I defer.

As for MA vs SD, that would depend on (and reveal, of course) the perspective of the panel, which was my point. Given that I'm writing this from the Diesel Cafe in Davis Square, my own perspective seems clear.

Belgravia Dispatch (here) has an interesting discussion going that is near to the subjects discussed here. Djerejian is asking whether Bush's focus (in the recent National Security Strategy document) is too centered on radical islam, and neglects the larger-but-longer-term problems of China, Russia, etc. Worth a read.