It's going to be Iran for sure. It just might take a while. I don't see anyone else with both natural resources of their own, and close proximity to locals with resources that they can conquer. They just need a half-way decent government.
Well Iran (Persia) was a superpower in 3 completely different historic periods: 1st Persian Empire from 648 BC to 330 BC ( Achaemenid Persia ) 2nd Persian Empire from 170 BC to 650 ( Parthian and Sassanian Persia ) 3rd Persian Empire from 1500 to 1747 ( Safavid and Afsharid Persia ) All Iran needs is a decent form of government ( a secular democratic republic ) and the country will change within 25 to 50 years.
Although I am agnostic, I regret that those Iranians who are like minded so misunderstand their own country. Yes, a growing segment of our population is adding to the numbers who could be rallied behind secular slogans. But they are still a minority. Besides, Iran cannot be a "leader" of an ideology which has more authentic flag bearers. And without that type of a leadership, it can never aspire to be a great power with reach beyond its own borders. There is a void in the Moslem world - a void for a democracy that is authentic yet tolerant, which charts a path that others can emulate and accept without feeling they are adopting a totally alien ideology. We need an Islamic reformation, which is actually taking place as we speak in Iran's seminaries, and which brings the now inconsistent threads in the religious and democratic aspirations of Iran's people to a union -- one that willl also be comfortable enough for secular Iranians, agnostics, as well as religious minorities. That is all possible. It just requires a few important changes, even if they are difficult to achieve. Even if the prospects for such changes don't look all that promising now. I have drafted a proposed, revised, constitution for the Islamic Republic of Iran, looking forward to the day when the reform movement can once again find the promise it offered. I drafted this constitution, not looking for just the kind of society I aspire to in every detail, but looking at what my country's historical, social, and political traditions can accommodate. And how that can be accommodated without throwing the country in chaos and destruction.
When I say a "secular republic" I don't mean an anti-religion secular republic like Turkey I mean a state where religious/liberal reformers like Ganji, Abdi and their likes can participate in the political process. There is nothing wrong with religious politicians but there is something wrong with religious politics. You can't reform Iran with a "Supreme Leader" still in charge.
I don't want to come across as an Iran-basher, but I don't see how anybody would think they are a prime candidate. Having natural resources isn't even close enough, and the days of out-right imperialism as the way to world supremacy are over, at least for now.
When I read that question, I immediately thought, I'm not really sure which nation, but I'm sure it'll be in Latin America. All the nations close to it are there. Mexico is a good bet. I hope this doesn't get me slammed, but they import aLOT of capital from the US via Western Union. A common story is a guy makes enough money to open a store, or build up a plumbing business back home. There's gonna be some Mexican Bill Gates who goes home and capitalizes on some innovation and bootstraps his whole state, thence the whole nation. I would also keep an eye on Kenya. It'll be in the next wave. Nairobi is the hub of East Africa, and their gvt. now seems to be helping and not hurting the nation.
I obviously agree that the prospects of reforms are seriously hindered by the despotic powers of the so-called "Supreme Leader". In fact, real reform would be about taking away most of those powers, even if you allow some mostly symbolic (and democratically accountable/impeachable) alternative such as "Spiritual Leader" to remain. The current "Supreme Leader" won't live forever. If the people had shown patience, and if foreigners with bellicose talk and exiles with ludicrous ideas had not confused the picture, the reform movement would have found enough inroads to eventually find the necessary reforms in that regard as well. Enough pressure, coupled with enough carrots to assure those in power that they would not be losing their life and money along with their powers, could have seen the reform movement come to fruitioin one day. Of course, the challenge was not an easy one. If it was going to be easy, Iran would not be so much in need of reform in the first place. That said, while the obstacles on the path of reform were serious, the ones in front of more ambitious projects are greater. We don't have a group with enough pull to unite the people and their diverse ideologies and backgrounds, absent the kind of demands that rallied the majority of Iranians behind the reform movements. Besides, the costs and the dangers of a revolution are prohibitive, making many Iranians only fall into apathy, allowing in their absence for the regime mafia to consolidate their power, ill gotten gains, and other privileges while directing Iran in the wrong path.
I think the "super" should be dropped from the premise. Then I wouldn't have a problem with most of these choices, if we're just talking about the next country to emerge as a power, which I define as a major player in world affairs. A 'superpower,' IMHO, needs to dominate, not just make it's presence felt.
Propably gaining power will be: Europe China Russia India Iran/Islamic world South America/Brazil The US will loose some power predicition: We'll see a fight with changing alliances (the most stable being EU/US) and about world domination... most deadliest opponents should be India, Islamics and China, so Kashmir is the region not to be then ;-)
But I wasn't wondering about the next power, I was wondering about the next superpower. The next country to be dominant to the extent that all the great empires of history have been (and in recent times the US). What happens when the US recedes to the comparative influence of (say) Spain or Italy? Who's the next unilaterally dominant force on the international political landscape?
bridgefootball, I meant to address your comments on Iran, where I found some of your premises curious to say the least. To be sure, that is not to say that my proposition is inevitable or all that self-evident. However, the following objections that you raised seemed questionable to me. 1) Economic Interdependence. Vast economic ties between the US and some other countries, such as China, preclude the latter from totally acting in a way that would engender hostility from the US. That doesn't mean the reverse is not also to some extent applicable, although the US has far greater weight in this regard than any of its trading partners individually. The US is the biggest market for many of them, and while they will voice their displeasure and disagreement with the US on a number of issues, when push comes to shove, they know the point beyond which they cannot pass. The US is not going to allow a challenge to its predominant position in world affairs without raising the costs of such challenge for these countries. And at every point, the costs of standing up to the US will appear greater than giving into what will be mostly tangential and speculative concerns. In those instances where a nation, such as was the case with France viz a viz the Iraqi adventure, chooses to genuinely challenge America's claims to preeminence in world affairs (as opposed to merely abstaining or gently voicing opposition), worries about American reaction will see them eventually tow the line. 2) Iran and its Sphere of Influence You are right that as a predominately Persian, Shia, state, Iran would not appear at first glance to have much reach outside regions with similar affiliations. But, in fact, even the Arab states are yearning for a leader to emerge from outside their own ranks, as they have become disillusioned with themselves. To many of them, Iran is familiar enough to fill that void, which largely explains why in a period where the Iranian regime is at its lowest in terms of domestic popularity, it had reached the height of its appeal in the region. But the Sunni Arab world is in any case a small part of the picture. From the Caucasus, to Central Asia, to even the Indian subcontinent, as well as the Shia strongholds in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf states, Iran is seen with a curioius mixture of respect and support, even if some apprehension as well. Except for the sunni extremists and their ilk, most other Moslem countries have shown quite susceptible to Iranian influence, which is why many governments in and around the region have blamed Iran for all their domestic troubles even when Iran is really not behind it. 3) Iran's Resources and Industrial base Iran is not a "one commodity" country. It is a largely industrialized state, rich in a host of natural resources, straddling the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, as well as the Indian Ocean. It is the second largest exporter of oil, as well as second to Russia in natural gas reserves. It has large uranium reserves as well and is largely self-sufficient in many agricultural and industrial products. It also has a young, educated, population. There is enough there to add to its innate "imperial ambitions" for another regime to seek the kind of status that all Iranian regimes eventually seek.
Actually I remember watching a feature by Chris Cuomo on ABC Nightly News like three years ago, and it was about a growing population of American-born Chinese moving to China because they got easier job opprotunities over there than in the US.
The EU will be the world's largest internal market, will be the world's largest economic power over the next 20 years...as a body dedicated to waging peace, it will act, and be seen to act, as a tangential weight to the military ham-fistedness of the US. Twenty years, it will be the best place on earth to be, then the demographics set in with a vengeance, and the EU, even with sustained immigration (which it is not something the EU is used to doing on a mass scale), will likely become an old folks' home, and the efforts and hopes and dreams of the Erasmus generation, that first EU generation that sees itself, among its dense layers of connectedness and identity, as European FIRST, will drown in that which is tantamount to a civil, generational conflict. In that gap, that vacuum, another power, most likely China, will step in and extend its regional sphere of influence worldwide. If the game at that time is still about oil, watch out.
When Brazil finally overcomes the legacy of centuries of Portuguese corrupt system and mentality, the giant will awake and finally achieve its destiny.
Can't be worse than the US and AQ helping each other to remain as powerfull... (don't take it to serious, but think about it ;-) )
India huhh? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041127/lf_afp/afplifestyle_india_041127185348 If they were to get past the superstitions they might gain more power, but for now and the next 200 years I'd bank on the United States of America to actually grow. Difficult to envision a country like ours, with so many nuclear bombs, losing power in the world. Except to the aliens with superior technology that come down and overtake everything. I can't see the Islamic states ever coming to an agreement amongst the members. One would want to be king and the others wouldn't let them.
Brazil already is the world's only superpower in the mind of all the Brazilians who live in their own world.
Other than actually using such weapons, there is no greater act of terrorism than to threaten a nation with nuclear weapons. Such weapons by their nature kill indiscriminately. Except as a means to deter such attacks, they are the ultimate expression of terrorrism.