Barnett,  BigThink,  Economics

A rogue Core

Subadei has some interesting thoughts on the possibility of a new and hostile Core (shortly defined as a group of connected, interdependent nations) involving Iran, Venezuela. However, I think there is not much to be worried about. Assuming they do create/evolve into a second core, they would have enough incentives/core-like attributes not to do so.

I guess that raises the question, can there be two Cores? Wouldn’t the opportunity cost of maintaining the divide between the two Cores? Wouldn’t the opportunity cost of maintaining the divide between the two Cores become too costly for the divide to be sustainable?

:Edited for clarity


  • subadei

    Counter-core is likely a better term as states like Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc. find common ground in resisting the Core and (should it come to fruition) Sysadmin. Thanks for the comment and the link.

  • Steve

    But does creating and maintaining a counter-core ever become viable though? Seemingly once the network is established it becomes unfeasible to maintain a barrier.

  • subadei

    It’s certainly unfeasible until one entertains the fact that the two lead Gap states I outline are also instrumental resource “allies” to both the US (the Core lead) and China (the new Core lead)in as much they provide a lions share of oil to both.

    This leverage can be defined in both the seemingly appeasing relationship between the Saud royalty and the US as well as China’s adherence to the Sudanese government.

    In light of Barnetts optimistic solution this common bond will be short lived.

    However, in light of real events (the continued marginalization of both Iran and Venezuela as rogue states and the blatant ignorance of, say Zimbabwe) it’s not only viable but it’s happening in a political sense.

    Thanks for the counter-point. I like hashing this stuff out.