There is a theory that initial reverses in the Boer War exposed British military weakness & caused it to seek alliances thus ending post-Napoleonic 'splendid isolation'. This isn't true. After the Fashoda incident (clash with France over Sudan) the Brits started negotiating with Germany for an alliance. This happened a year before the Boer War began. Britain's first alliance was with Japan in 1902, to check Russia. The Royal Navy, though bigger than all its rivals combined, was overstretched, while the British Army was half the size of the German army. However, if they mobilized their reserves, the ratio fell to one sixth. My point is that the UK would have sought allies even if there was no Boer War. Haldane continued the work of Caldwell & Childers neither of which was prompted by a military debacle.
The truth is, the Boer War was brutal, but successful. Britain had displayed its financial and naval might as well as its ruthlessness. The clear message was sent that Imperial pro-consuls- Curzon, Milner, Cromer etc.- would take the lead and anyone who objected would see their families perish in concentration camps. Sadly, Britain didn't really want pro-consuls. Curzon came a cropper in his bust up with Kitchener who also advised Smuts to yield to Milner & then get everything back when the Liberals came to power. Egypt, initially, appeared a different story. The 'Veiled Protectorate' appeared to be becoming more solid as the economy boomed. Then, Britain defeated the Turks. Would it become the hegemon of the Arab lands under a Hashemite puppet? No. After 1917, it was obvious that the age of multi-ethnic Empires was over. As women & the lower working class gained the vote, Imperialism ceased to be a vote winner. 'Geddes axe'- cuts to the military budget- concentrated minds. Crushing the Iraqi revolt cost 40 million pounds & the deployment of 100,000 troops. Had Gandhi, in India, not unilaterally surrendered in Feb 1922, the UK would not have had the troops to garrison its expanded Empire. Thus Egypt (on Allenby's insistence) & Ireland & Afghanistan all got independence in 1922. The Imperial game wasn't worth the candle. The Royal Navy remained important but the Air force would be Britain's first line of offence & defence. Meanwhile, South Africa had become a reliable ally because the Boers were in the driving seat.
Larry Elliott writing for the Guardian takes a different view
Iran could be the US’s Boer war:
i.e. the US will turn it into a valuable military ally & source of economic profit for the next sixty years
a hollow victory
British victory wasn't hollow. South Africa was very profitable. But appeasing the Boers turned out to be a good idea. Smuts became a British Field Marshall. Had Churchill been killed, he would have been appointed head of the Imperial Defence Council.
that marks the beginning of the end of empire
The fall of the Tzar did that. True, Britain retained a 'King Emperor' but the Settler Colonies were effectively independent by the end of the Twenties. India could have got formal independence in 1924, when Labour formed a coalition government. But it would keep a British admiral till 1958- in other words, the Commonwealth would retain an incentive to cooperate with the UK.
US leaders anticipated a walkover.
No. They overestimated the chances of a popular uprising if the regime's high command was taken out with surgical strikes. Otherwise, this was just a case of what the Israeli's call 'mowing the lawn'.
Now they’re embroiled in a conflict that could hasten the end of US economic dominance
Conflicts don't affect economic dominance or subordination. That has to do with productivity & dependence on particular imports or export markets. But if you are innovative enough, the latter isn't a binding constraint. Thus, only relative productivity matters.
Nobody gave the Boers a prayer when the war in South Africa began in 1899.
They lost. Get over it.
It was farmers ranged against the might of the British empire,
once the wives & kids of those farmers started dying like flies in Concentration Camps, the farmers gave up. Smuts, a barrister, didn't want to even though he alone, among the Boer leadership, knew that defeat was a foregone conclusion. That's why Kitchener had a soft spot for Smuts. It is worth conciliation a man of that calibre.
and the expectation was that resistance would quickly crumble.
The expectation was that the guy who won the First Boer War would also win the second. The problem was, there was no First Boer War. There had been a bit of skirmishing. That is all. About five years later the discovery of gold meant that the Transvaal Republic could begin importing superior German artillery & Mauser guns. That's why they were able to inflict high casualties at the start of the war. But Britain was very very much richer & was bound to take an ample revenge.
Eventually, might did prevail. Britain won the Boer war, but it was a hollow victory that took the best part of three years to achieve and came at a high cost.
A cost the UK could easily afford. Income tax went up from 8 pence (there were 12 pennies in the shilling) to 1 shilling & 3 pence (there were 20 shillings to the pound). In other words, the tax rate was about five percent. The benefit to the UK from South African gold & diamonds etc. was so much greater that most tax payers were better off as a result of the War.
The blow to British prestige –
The Brits had shown their ruthlessness. This raised their prestige. When it comes to gold, don't mess with 'a nation of shopkeepers'. They have the capital to pay for the annihilation of their enemies. What was truly cool was their willingness to watch Boer women & children die like flies. Some American Irish people turned up to fight for the Boers. That was fucking hilarious.
coming at a time when its global hegemony was under threat from fast-growing countries such as the US – was severe.
Germany mattered. The US was importing capital from the UK to the tune of 100 million or so (the Boer War cost twice that). It was in the American interest that the pound remain backed by plentiful South African gold.
Far from highlighting the extent of Britain’s power, it exposed its limitations.
No. Winning a war highlights the fact that you have lots of money & can afford to spend it killing women & children & farmers with hunting rifles.
Britain's alliance with Japan turned out to be a master-stroke. Few thought a bunch of rice-eating peasants could defeat an European super-power. The big mistake made by the Germans was not to ally with Britain. Partly, this was because the Kaiser hated his Uncle Teddy.
A century and a quarter later, the US risks being embroiled in its equivalent of the Boer war.
Fuck off! It got embroiled in Iraq but failed to make a profit there. They aren't going to make the same mistake in Iran. There will be no 'boots on the ground'.
What should have been a walkover threatens to become a prolonged conflict.
No. Either there will be a negotiated peace or Israel & the US will 'mow the lawn' for a month of so every year.
The Iranians are using guerrilla tactics, just as the Boers did, with much success.
No. There is no occupying army. The Iranians are firing off missiles just as Saddam did during Gulf War 1. He was left in place for a dozen years, though there was 'mowing the lawn' from time to time.
There is little doubt that, in the end, superior US and Israeli firepower will prevail, but at what price?
A price both can afford- in America's case because it is rich, in Israel's case because the alternative is death.
The oil market tells its own story.
The 2008 peak was 200 dollars (in current terms). Iran says it can send prices back to that level. Futures markets don't believe the Iranians. They think 100 is likely short term but it will fall to 60 or 70 by next year.
However, there are other commodities which may be impacted- e.g. fertilizers.
The war in Iran has spilled over into the wider Middle East
No. Israel has upped its aggression in Lebanon but that was always on the cards after Gaza simmered down.
and shows no sign of ending anytime soon. Fears of a global recession are growing – and they are justified. Oil and gas facilities in the Gulf states have been hit by Iranian missiles. Tankers are unable to pass through the strait of Hormuz. The price of a barrel of Brent crude has risen by 50% since hostilities began. Gas prices are up by a similar amount.
All this has happened before on a bigger, more consequential, scale. We think Trump will declare victory in a couple of weeks so as to focus on mid-terms.
We have been here before. The long postwar boom was brought to an end by
the 'Nixon shock' which in turn meant that OPEC would want a better deal. The problem with the 'Golden age of Capitalism' was that Capitalists weren't getting much benefit relative to workers. That couldn't last. Capitalists are sneaky bastards. They soon got plenty of money recycling petrodollars. This is a good reason to support Israel. Wish I'd bought Defence stock in 2022. Share prices have doubled.
the quadrupling of oil prices that followed the Yom Kippur war in 1973, and every subsequent sustained surge in the cost of crude has had serious knock-on effects.
There are no sustained surges.
The pattern is clear. The initial impact of rising energy prices is on inflation, with the hit to growth coming later. Ultimately, oil shocks cause recessions.
Recessions reduce demand for oil which results in a price fall. But Covid had the same effect. In 2020 oil was at 20 dollars.
Unless the conflict ends quickly, it will be the same this time.
Maybe. AI might be a bubble. Alternatively, everything which isn't AI may be a bubble. If have both cost-push inflation plus a Stock Market crash (due to the Wealth effect) you could have a full blown Depression.
Despite the increased use of renewable energy, oil remains vital to industrial societies. The effects of the conflict are already evident in the price of petrol, aviation fuel and fertilisers. Dearer transport costs will push up food prices. Businesses will lay off workers as they struggle with a combination of weaker demand and rising energy bills.
The US is a net exporter of oil. Why should it worry? Russia, it is true, benefits but the US has no real beef with that country.
The idea that the attacks by the US and Israel would be relatively risk-free was based on a series of assumptions, all of which have proved to be questionable. The theory was that Iran would have no answer to a lightning air war.
It could fire off missiles at Saudi etc. just like Saddam did. But that would lead to pushback.
Even if the regime in Tehran clung to power, it would have no choice but to sue for peace.
Only if it has something to trade. Otherwise it should just de-escalate & let Trump declare victory.
Either way, any disruption to the global economy would be short-lived. Oil prices would quickly revert to their prewar levels.
That's what futures markets believe. Will Larry mortgage his house to bet otherwise?
Financial markets had one further reason to take comfort – namely Donald Trump’s record of backing down at the first sign of trouble on Wall Street. So regular have the U-turns become that there is even an acronym for them: Taco, short for Trump always chickens out.
Nothing wrong with that. You don't want the guy with the nuclear football to have a death wish.
Things, though, have not gone according to plan.
I think Trump took a gamble on taking out the top leaders. It was theatrical & reminded voters of Duby and his 'pack of cards'- i.e. senior Iraqi Ba'athists on his hit list. Otherwise, the thing was just 'mowing the lawn'. American tax payers want to know that bombs they paid for are finding a good home.
To be sure, the US and Israel have demonstrated their military superiority, but Iran is still fighting back.
Is it though? Firing missiles at third parties was Saddam's signature move. But he was as stupid as shit.
Its attacks on neighbouring Middle East countries have led to cuts in oil and gas production. It knows that the longer the war goes on, the greater the economic damage will be.
It is spreading the pain- sure. But it is still getting the lion's share of it.
As the economist Freya Beamish notes, it takes two to Taco.
Nope. It just takes one dude who looks at the Share price index to chicken out of sticking with a stupid program.
And Iran is currently not prepared to dance to Trump’s tune.
Grass doesn't dance to our tune. But we can mow the lawn well enough.
It is not just supplies of energy at risk from the effective closure of the strait.
Which is why it makes sense to help the US defeat & defang Iran.
Qatar
used to be a great pal of Iran which is why Saudi & UAE tried to strong arm Doha during the 2017–2021 Gulf blockade. Iran came through for Qatar back then but now the relationship has completely collapsed. It turns out even your friends don't like it when you fire missiles at them.
is one of the world’s leading exporters of helium – used in products such as semiconductors and electric vehicles – and sulphur, used in fertilisers, chemicals and batteries. Supply chains will be affected by bottlenecks, adding to upward pressure on inflation
Quite true. Maybe the UAE & Saudi Arabia will work with Israel to establish a rail or pipeline route to the Mediterranean (e.g. the so called 'Peace Railway,” that would connect Abu Dhabi to the Israeli port of Haifa through Saudi Arabia & Jordan).
The short-term costs of the war can be mitigated if central banks cut interest rates,
Coz pushing on a string is very effective- right?
but in the longer term, the war in Iran reinforces the message from the Covid-19 pandemic: global supply chains are inherently vulnerable.
No. It reinforces the message that Islamists be kray kray. Supply chains aren't vulnerable or at risk of sexual abuse or cyber bullying. Poorer people dependent on particular supply chains are vulnerable- more particularly if they start dropping dead.
The conflict in the Middle East makes the strongest possible case for greater self-sufficiency, especially in renewable energy.
Because becoming dependent on China for Solar is a great idea. They are very sweet and lovely people and wouldn't dream of twisting our arm to handover 'dissidents' or people who say Chairman Xi looks like Winnie the Pooh.
It is always unwise to write off the US, a country with a seemingly endless capacity to reinvent itself.
It is wise to write off anything published in the Guardian.
But the warning signs are there. China is comfortably the world’s leading manufacturing power and poses a growing threat to US economic hegemony.
It is its equal. Trump speaks of the 'Group of 2'. In military capacity, the US is at least a decade ahead. It makes sense to 'use' your military superiority before you lose it.
There is no guarantee that the US dollar will remain the world’s reserve currency for ever.
There is more non-dollar bilateral trade. To be frank, countries like India are relatively sheltered from arm-twisting based on 'exorbitant privilege'.
At the dawn of the 20th century, London was at the heart of the global economy.
London was twice as big as Paris which was bigger than New York.
Free movement of capital was based on
gunboats being able to take over Customs Houses till the capital was repaid.
the gold standard – underpinned by sterling –
The pound was convertible into gold as was the Franc & the currencies of Japan & Germany etc.
while the Royal Navy ensured trade routes remained open.
What was important was that it could close trade routes & try to starve Germany into submission.
But Britain’s days of unrivalled supremacy were numbered,
Not really. It remained the biggest Naval power till 1942.
and a new era of protectionism, nationalism
The US was protectionist & nationalist since the late Eighteenth Century. Germany adopted 'Listian' policies in 1879. France did so three years later.
and war was about to dawn.
Sadly, Imperial Cousins liked fighting with each other. But war was no longer the 'sport of Kings'. The victor was the one which had the better industrial proletariat.
So Trump faces a tricky choice.
Not really. If the war lasts longer than 4 or 5 weeks, he loses the mid-terms. His life turns to shit because there will be a new impeachment hearing every other week. His entire administration, including himself, resigns so as to get a pardon from Vance. Sadly, if Vance resigns, the Democratic speaker becomes President. Vance is fucked. That's why people say he isn't happy with Trump.
He can end the war now and claim the US has achieved its war aims, though that would mean leaving the regime in place in Tehran.
No. The leader is somebody different. Give him time to mess up & then go after him the next time you 'mow the lawn'.
Or he can prolong the conflict, thereby increasing the risks of economic pain – and a political backlash – at home.
Fuck that. He loses the mid-term. He has to resign to get a pardon from Vance. His life turns to shit because there will still be civil suits & investigations
The former is the better option, though even then it would be a pyrrhic victory,
Mowing the lawn isn't a pyrrhic victory. It's just a chore like any other.
demonstrating both the US’s strengths and its weaknesses.
The US upgrades to the most powerful brand of lawn-mover every year. Meanwhile, Iran is running out of grass.
No comments:
Post a Comment