Source: National Interest

World War III Cometh: These Are 2020s 5 Most

Dangerous Hotspots

Dr.Robert Farley: is a professor at Patterson School of Diplomacy and International

Commerce at the University of Kentucky.  

The prospect of global conflagration in 2020 is low. Everyone awaits the

result of the U.S. election, and a better understanding of the direction of US

policy for the next four years. Still, every crisis proceeds by its own logic,

and any of Pakistan, India, China, Israel, Iran, Turkey, or Russia might feel

compelled by events to act.

As the United States enters an election year, prospects for global stability

remain uncertain. President Trump’s foreign policy stood at odds with

those of his predecessor, and will likely a central point of contestation in the

election. At this point, several crises might emerge that would not only turn

the election, but potentially bring about a wider global conflict.

Here are the five most likely flashpoints for world war in 2020 (See my

World War III lists from back in 2017, 2018 and 2019).

None are particularly likely, but only one needs to catch fire. Let the wars

begin!
Iran-Israel:

Iran and Israel are already waging low-intensity war across the Middle

East. Iran supports anti-Israel proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and

elsewhere, while Israel feels comfortable in striking Iranian forces across

the region. Israel has taken steps to quietly build a broad anti-Iran coalition

at the diplomatic level, while Iran has invested deeply in cultivating ties

with militias and other non-state actors.

It is hardly difficult to imagine scenarios that might bring on a wider, more

intense war. If Iran determines to re-embark on its nuclear program, or

decides to discipline Saudi Arabia more thoroughly, Israel might feel the

temptation to engage in broader strikes, or in strikes directly against the

Iranian homeland. Such a conflict could easily have wider implications,

threatening global oil supplies and potentially tempting the United States

or Russia to intervene.

Turkey:

Strains between Turkey and the United States have only grown over

the past year. Tensions increased dramatically when the United States

unexpectedly gave Turkey a green light to clear Syrian border areas of

U.S.-supported Kurds, then immediately issued an about-face and

threatened Ankara with sanctions. All the while, an arsenal of US

nuclear weapons, by all accounts, remains at Incirlik Air Force base.

Certain statements by President Erdogan suggested that he has

immense aspirations for Turkey, aspirations which might include

nuclear ambitions.

The state of the relationship between the U.S. and Turkey has decayed

to the extent that some fear for the future of the NATO alliance. No

one expects Erdogan to really go through with an attempted seizure of

the weapons, and even if he did it’s unlikely Turkey could break the

safeguards on the warheads in any kind of reasonable time. But

Erdogan is not known to compartmentalize issues well, and it’s

possible that linkages with other problems could push Washington

and Ankara to the very edge. And of course, Russia hovers on the edge

of the problem,

Kashmir:

Over the past decade, the gap in conventional power between India

and Pakistan has only grown, even as Pakistan has tried to heal that

gap with nuclear weapons. Despite (or perhaps because) of this,

tensions between the rivals remained at a low simmer until steps taken

by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reduce the autonomy of Kashmir

and to change citizenship policies within the rest of India. These steps

have caused some unrest within India, and have highlighted the long-

standing tensions between Delhi and Islamabad.

Further domestic disturbances within India could give Pakistan (or

extremist groups within Pakistan) the idea that it has the opportunity,

or perhaps even the responsibility, to intervene in some fashion. While

this is unlikely to begin with conventional military action, it could

consist of terrorist attacks internationally, in Kashmir, or

internationally. If this happened, Modi might feel forced to respond in

some fashion, leading to a ladder of escalation that could bring the two

countries to the brink of a more serious conflict. Given China’s

looming position and the growing relationship between Delhi and

Washington, this kind of conflict could have remarkably disastrous

international ripple effects.

Korean Peninsula:

A year ago, hope remained that negotiations between the United

States and North Korea could succeed in permanently reducing

tensions of the peninsula. Unfortunately, core problems in the

domestic situations of both countries, along with a puzzling strategic

conundrum, have prevented any agreement from taking hold.

Tensions between the two countries now stand as high as at any time

since 2017, and the impending U.S. election could imperil relations

further.

The Trump administration continues to seem to hold out hope that a

deal with North Korea could improve its electoral prospects in

November. But North Korea has no interest in the terms Trump is

offering, and has become increasingly emphatic about making its

disinterest clear. Recently, North Korea promised a “Christmas

present” that many in the United States worried would be a nuclear or

ballistic missile test. It turned out to be nothing of the sort, but if

North Korea decides to undertake an ICBM or (worse) nuclear test, the

Trump administration might feel the need to intervene forcefully. In

particular, President Trump has a reputation for pursuing a deeply

personalistic foreign policy style, and might feel betrayed by Supreme

Leader Kim, producing an even more uncertain situation.

South China Sea:

U.S.-China relations stand at a precarious point. A trade deal between

the two countries would seem to alleviate some tensions, but

implementation remains in question. Economic difficulties in China

have curtailed some of its naval construction program, just as a

flattening of the defense budget in the United States has moderated

shipbuilding ambitions. At the same time, China has worked

assiduously to assure its relations with Russia, while the United States

has sparked controversies with both South Korea and Japan, its two

closest allies in the region.

Under such circumstances, it seems unlikely that either country would

risk conflict. But President Trump has staked much of his Presidency

on confrontation with China, and may feel tempted to escalate the

situation in the coming year. For his part, President Xi faces the

continuous prospect of turmoil at home, both in the Han heartland

and in Xinjiang. Both sides, thus, have incentives for diplomatic and

economic escalation, which always could lead to military confrontation

in areas such as the South or East China Seas.

What Does the Future Hold for 2020?

The prospect of global conflagration in 2020 is low. Everyone awaits

the result of the U.S. election, and a better understanding of the

direction of US policy for the next four years. Still, every crisis
proceeds by its own logic, and any of Pakistan, India, China, Israel,

Iran, Turkey, or Russia might feel compelled by events to act. Focus on

the election should not obscure the frictions between nations that

could provide the spark for the next war.