Best products from r/geopolitics

I've got to say, I would very much discourage people from trying to read the early books on geopolitics, or any subject, for that matter.

Those books are aimed at people who are already academics and who lived in a vastly different world, with vastly different cultural references and ways of speaking to us.

The elements of Sea Power is a a great example of this. Was it hugely influential in the early 20th century? Yes! It hugely influenced Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policies in the USA as well as Bismarck in Germany.

But all you actually need to know about the book is its basic premise, i.e. that navel power is the ultimate way to ensure independent and even global dominance. You don't need to know the specifics, because that view of geopolitics very quickly becomes outdated. I mean, for starters, this book was written before the invention of planes. That revolutionised the way power is exercised and very quickly naval power become relatively unimportant in comparison to one's ability to control land instead of sea. That's why we call this geopolitics, and not waterpolitics or something like it. This lecture on 'what is geopolitics?' goes into more detail.

---

But surely I'm just criticising for criticism's sake? Not at all. I'll offer an alternative.

I think that you should start not by reading the early books, but by reading introductory books. I actually think that this lecture I linked is a pretty good introduction to a lot of core themes. But that's not really enough. So more what I think you should look for are things entitled 'introduction to:..." and also just general text books. For instance, I have one on my shelf called 'The Globalization of World Politics' by Baylis et al. It's a good book. Andrew Heywood's 'World Politics' is also quite good.

Reach the relevant chapters and then go from there. Every chapter will include either references or a 'further reading' list (or both). Baylis's book is good because it provides a pretty good description of each of the books in the further reading list at the end of every chapter and what its useful for. So you can read a chapter on Neorealist approaches to International Relations and from there it will direct you to other interesting geopolitical figures, including Kenneth Waltz, who's probably the main guy you should read if you want to understand conventional geopolitics and international relations, as it is practiced by most (western) governments (although whether or not conventional IR theory is good or not is another question which you will undoubtedly learn more about if you look into these text books).

---

edit; apart from that, good post. Especially the recommendations about reading widely and especially about the recommendation to read authors who do not consider themselves to be security studies or international relations analysts.

Look at George Friedman's The Next 100 Years.

This is a good starting point on how one should be predicting which countries might become great powers and which will decline. His actual predictions don't really matter here, however; the takeaway is that long-term analysis of geopolitics relies a holistic and multidisciplinary approach and situational awareness of world events rather than simple linear extrapolations. Projections of population and GDP and other metrics are not going to give you anything close to the complete picture, even though they deceptively lead you to believe they do.

Anyway, predictions:

• India is not going to be a leading power for quite some time. I have been there - there are so many social and environmental issues that I don't even know where to begin. It is extremely overcrowded and polluted, whatever infrastructure it has is under immense strain from overuse, and its technological base is impressive but thinly spread out over a large country with over 1.3 billion people. It has a lot of talent, resources, and potential, but even in the best case scenario, most of that is going to be focused inward on solving those problems rather than projecting power and influence outward.
  
• China is already one, but it has many of the same issues that India has, and whether it is going to overtake the US as the leading hegemon is a question that is completely up in the air. The US' current stance is one of containment - control of the island chains surrounding its major trade lines is a central component of that. Provided that internal economic and demographic issues do not catch up, China will largely be focused on dislodging the US from its littoral either through diplomatic or military means.
  
• Russia is a power in terminal decline.
  
• Japan is in managed decline.
  
• Korea has potential, should it be unified.
  
• Southeast Asia will be contested ground between Pacific powers.
  
• Europe is in slow decline, and strictly speaking is not a proper power in its own right. The main power centers of Europe are Germany and France. In the absence of any significant shifts in foreign policy, their international stature is not likely to change significantly but perhaps decline over time. Poland is interestingly resurgent and will likely become a bigger player as time goes on.
  
• The Middle East is the region most likely to change over the next thirty years. The only countries truly capable of becoming major power centers there are Turkey and Iran, but only one of them, and the former is currently dealt the better hand. Saudi Arabia is an honorable mention.
  
• Sub-Saharan Africa will continue to see Chinese investment but remain largely peripheral to world affairs. However, countries there will become much more capable of confronting internal and regional issues.
  
• Australia will assert an increasingly independent foreign policy.
  
• The US will still be powerful but is likely to remain in (relative) decline. Internal political/economic issues will probably start mounting as the boomers die off. Mexico will be in much better shape on the other hand. This combined with the large Mexican-American population may become a genuine source of tension at some point - perhaps much sooner than Friedman expected, if Trump's presidential campaign was any indication.
  
• Brazil will remain, as always, the country of the future.

I only know something about Africa, and even then it's hard to find exactly what you are looking for, but these sites might be of interest:

Congo Siasa - a blog by Jason Stearns (author of the excellent Dancing in the Glory of Monsters), mostly focusing on the Congo and the Great Lakes region.

African Arguments - not exclusively geopolitics, but a lot of in-depth analysis on political and other contemporary African developments.

The Africa section of the Daily Maverick - an interesting critical and independent South African magazine. Not as in-depth as some of the other sites here, but with pretty regular features.

John Campbell's blog on CFR: Africa in Transition - the most important political, security, and social developments occurring in sub-Saharan Africa.

LSE's Africa blog - particularly the Conflict section.

African Futures at the Social Science Research Council - The digital forum African Futures explores protest movements and resistance to authoritarian rule across the African continent, with particular attention to the oft-neglected democratic currents south of the Sahara.

Also at SSRC - Kujenga Amani - a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on peacebuilding in Africa.

This irregularly updated blog calling itself a new online journal dedicated to the exploration of fresh ideas to understanding peace and security issues in Africa.

http://allafrica.com/conflict/ is a useful African news aggregator, although you really have to scrutiny the article sources.

That should keep you occupied for a while. I'll add to it if I can think of any more.

>Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.

Reality: All claims have been sourced.

>Allow me to educate you a bit.

>https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

Reality: Linking books from one international lawyer's opinions does not constitute a specific response to any claim made.

>The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

Reality: True, and uncontested in any post.

>The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries)

Reality: True, and uncontested.

>had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

>EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses

Reality: True, and uncontested. The original claim made was that military sites must be opened for inspection on suspicion of violation of safeguards even under the NPT, making Iranian refusal of any grounds for inspection appear threatening to Saudi Arabia, rightly or wrongly.

>which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

Reality: Misleading, at best.

Reality: A 2011 IAEA report noted that the IAEA can verify non-diversion of declared material, but due to Iranian non-cooperation, cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran (p. 10). The IAEA therefore said it could not verify that Iran's program was "entirely peaceful". This is contrary to the goal of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement concluded with Iran, which states in Article 1:

>The Agency shall have the right and the obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied, in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, on all source or special fissionable material in all
peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of Iran, under its jurisdiction or carried out under its
control anywhere, for the exclusive purpose of verifying that such material is not diverted to nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Reality: The IAEA could not undertake this function because Iranian noncompliance made it impossible to have "credible assurance" of Iranian use of nuclear material solely for peaceful purposes.

>So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense

Reality: All claims are sourced.

>http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Reality: Does not contest any point directly. Unclear response.

>Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there

Reality: Hezbollah won 2 additional seats. Hezbollah's allies made significant gains, but are not Iranian-backed groups with military presence. Hezbollah retains 13 seats in a 128 seat Parliament.

Reality: Hezbollah's political clout does not change its terrorist status. The group remains a terrorist organization in the eyes of the liberal world. Hezbollah continues to plan and organize attacks targeting civilians for political purposes.

>Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist

Reality: Source required.

>and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

Reality: This has been contested heavily, but the only allegations relate to allegations of an Israeli offer of sale in March 1975. This would be prior to the Iranian Revolution, and therefore could not physically be during the time you claim that Iran was backing Nelson Mandela, unless you are referring to the Shah backing Mandela.

>And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

Reality: False. The Saudi government has, in the past, cracked down on private financiers. It has not done this regularly, but there is a separation that has turned towards crackdowns in recent years, despite prior ambivalence or tacit support.

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Reality: Article is from 2008. This is highly misleading. Afghan officials do not allege mere arms transfers. US intelligence does not allege mere arms transfers, but also funding. RAND think-tank reports describe this in further detail historically.

Reality: Article quotes NATO refusal to name Iran as source of IED materials. NATO's head in 2016 explicitly named Iran as a funding source for the Taliban. Your information is outdated.

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

Reality: Incorporate above response. Also note article date of June 2007. US SecDef Gates said less than two weeks later that intelligence did tie Iran's government to the shipments.

Reality: US SecDef Gates reiterated that Iran was supporting the Taliban in 2010 under President Obama.

Reality: You are misrepresenting the information presented with misleading and outdated sources.

>British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Reality: Article is also from October 2006. Please incorporate above responses.

Reality: In 2008, British special forces uncovered evidence of Iran funding the Taliban.

Reality: In 2007, the British Army reported Iran supplies of missiles to the Taliban for use on British troops.

Reality: In 2011, British forces seized shipments of Iranian weapons bound for the Taliban.

Reality: You distorted and misled once more.

>Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Reality: Note article date of February 2007. Incorporate above sources.

Reality: Note article relates to arms to Iraqis, not Taliban.

Reality: In April 2007, two months after your article, Gen. Peter Pace stated that Iran was sending weapons to Iraq.

>Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

Reality: Note article date is January 2007. Incorporate above points, which thoroughly rebut argument.

>The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

Reality: True, but uncontested and unrelated to above points.

>Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

Reality: True, but uncontested, and unrelated. Bin Laden's fourth son, a middling operative, was not a high-value target as well.

Reality: Your own sources have all stated Iran funded, aided, and abetted Taliban and Iraqi militia actions. The 9/11 Commission Report and Bin Laden files confirm that Iran has assisted Al Qaeda. Iran has assisted Hezbollah. Iran has assisted Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Iran has at times not complied with IAEA Safeguards Agreements credibly, and is required under these agreements to open military sites for inspection upon suspicion per former deputy director-general of the IAEA Olli Heinonen and the Agreements and the IAEA Board of Governors, but refuses to open any military sites for any reason. This has, for good reason or not, led to fear by the Saudis, who have thus withdrawn their support for the JCPOA.

POLITICS:

• • For something a bit more specific, to get a feel for what Chinese politics can look like in all it's specificity, I'd recommend The Politics of Compassion by Bin Xu. It's fascinating look at one of the worst natural disasters so far experienced this century; the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. One of China's poorest provinces, it was the least prepared to deal with the kind of disaster which befell it. Over 90,000 people died. In it's wake, a massive, national movement to assist the survivors swept into the province alongside state officials. Different groups and peoples from across the country worked hand in hand. It was not just China, but humanity at it's best. Soon, however, uncomfortable questions started to get posed. How could so many buildings simply collapse? Why was the initial response so fumbling? As the issue of corruption started to rear it's head, and civic activism started to appear like civic opposition (and under the conditions of a massive economic crisis, no less), the CCP moved to quash the political reverberations. Xu's account is told with great humanity and an even hand, and is half sociological analysis, half narrative.
  
  
• • I know this is getting pretty damn long, so the the final book I'll recommend is A Death in the Lucky Holiday Hotel by Pin Ho. If you want to read one book about elite Chinese politics, read this one. Basically, it's a look at the rise, and fall, of Bo Xilai. Bo was a handsome princeling in the style of JFK, the son of Revolutionary hero, former mayor of a hardscrabble city in that northern Rust Belt I'd mentioned. He then went on to become Secretary of Chonqing province - a sprawling megapolis in Southwest China which had seen exceptional economic growth. Chonqing was the poster child for the growth story of the 2000s - once irrelevant, then home to a massive complex of American auto manufacturers, which shocked the city's economy into life - Bo's new turf was promising for an ambitious politician. Bo Xilai himself was a neo-Maoist, championed by the Chinese New Left, who gained national prominence by using the funds from the '08 stimulus for systemic reforms (the so-called "Chonqing Model") and a bare-knuckles campaign against the powerful Triads who effectively ran large swathes of the city (not to mention the web of corruption around them). He was one of the 7 on the Politburo Standing Committee, and had a national base of support cultivated via his natural charisma and savvy use of the internet. But then it all came crashing down. In a byzantine factional struggle between Bo and Xi Jinping, a scandal broke which would end Bo's political career; it involved illegal capital flight, the murder of a British business man, and the vagaries of the Chinese court system. From the perspective of today, it appears as the first shot in Xi's ongoing anti-corruption drive - which is spilling over into global financial markets today.
  
  Seems like enough rant for today lmao. Hope that helps

It's a bidding process. Usually the government assigns exclusive rights to access those natural resources inside a given area to a private company, which pays the government for the rights to do so and often forms a joint partnership of a sort to share some of the profits with either the state or some domestic private companies.

In the ideal case, the government opens the given area up for competitive bid and then chooses the one which maximizes public value. Because the government doesn't have the capital (or capacity) to extract the resources competitively or via its own private sector, allowing a large multinational company with expertise to do it instead makes a lot of sense for both parties. The resource extraction is usually paid for by the company (especially infrastructure, such as rail lines, building towns, etc). The state then benefits from increased taxation and its profit share of the resource extraction. As this is the ideal case, the state would also do something to mitigate the so-called "dutch disease" resulting from this windfall. As a result, everyone ends up happy. The resources are extracted, some of the profits go back to the people, and domestic industry advances as spillovers propel growth.

In the more common case, at least in underdeveloped resource-rich countries such as DRC, big companies pay bribes to local officials to buy support for their bids, then do the extraction without much local benefit being seen (because the money went to politicians, and wasn't distributed). Several of the worst offenders of this type today are Israeli and Chinese, although if you go further back you'll see Exxon, BP, Rio Tinto, and other Western companies doing some really "interesting" stuff. Today, because US anti-bribery laws apply to all foreign activity done by any US company, they aren't doing the really dirty stuff anymore, generally speaking. Or if they are, they're doing it good enough to not be caught.

For the ultimate example of the dirty type, peruse this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beny_Steinmetz. You might be interested in reading The Looting Machine, which I thought was fantastic. It focuses on Africa primarily and how foreign companies come in, swamp locals with money, and get filthy rich in the process.

Interesting analysis.

Yet I'd like to challenge the fundamental argument : both authoritative and centralized states like Russia and the more pluralistic nation like the US, Canada or UK do not directly act to benefit their people. In all nations a governing elite forms as well a a civil service bureaucracy - and these two groups always act in ways that first and foremost benefit themselves.

There was a famous study of the US (by Harvard researchers iirc) that showed less than 1% of decision by US congress were consistent with what is perceived to be the public benefit or interest - rather it was shown that congress votes according to sectoral interests 99 out of 100 times.

All governing elites in all nations act with such similar selfish interests - but often enough these interests will also benefit the rest of the nation, it's not the intent but it is a byproduct. for example: big trade interests (corporations, share-holders, however you choose to define them) in the US want to keep the south-china seas open for trade because they profit billions off of it (as does the government/civil-service/bureaucracy - indirectly) - the benefit to American citizens in contrast is a secondary by-product.

Situation is similar in Russia: taking over Crimea is something Putin perceives as an interest for his regime but indirectly this is also in the interest of Russians because as you mentioned having Ukraine integrate with western economy weakens all of Russia - thereby worsening the economic situation and the quality of life for all Russians.

Now I am not claiming there are no difference between the western democracies and the Russian democracy (and I believe it is some type of democracy or pseudo-democracy - even if different than the "western" models) - but at the end of the day the fundamental core difference is how big the beneficiary elite is - in Russia it's tiny and in the west it's much bigger.

I believe the book "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" does a good job explaining this idea - that ultimately the difference between a centralized/pseudo-totalitarian state and less-centralized democracies is only the relative size of the ruling elite - that's still a big difference but it's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one - as we might like to think.

It's one of their biases, though it's not anti-china as much as its not pushing to legitimize China's claims on the East Asian Sea/South China Sea. But save that comment for later this week, as I'll post a (hopefully on monthly or bi-monthly basis) discussion Friday regarding critical analysis of a certain publication/source's short-sight and biases. From there we would cycle through the most common publications posted, offering great opportunities to pool our communal perspectives (Fact-check, etc).

On on a more abstract level publication like "the Diplomat" do provide is an interesting case study of soft power projection from the broader American-lead consensus relating to foreign policy (aka current alliance orientations). Though using words like alliance may sound like 19th anachronism, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the highly influencial book The Grand Chessboard. Terminology he puts forth is often used, particularly as a lens of analysis in the recent Crimean Crisis. Anyways, he describes Japan's role in the US grand strategy as a "vassal". So that might be a rough and ready reason for the publication's particular thematic choices.

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

This field can be very overwhelming and requires digesting a lot of information, so don't feel bad if you have a hard time understanding everything at first. Start by reading up and learning about the foundations of international relations (IR), which will later help you understand geopolitics. Despite the fact that this subreddit is named r/geopolitics, it not focus solely on geopolitical issues and instead looks at international relations as a whole.

---

Begin by reading Jack Snyder's article "One World, Rival Theories". It is a little dated, but it provides a sound overview of the field of international relations, the three primary paradigms of IR, and some examples of practitioners of those paradigms. Alternatively, if you wish to spend a little money, read Dan Drezner's Theories of International Politics and Zombies. It's a more relaxed and humorous introduction into IR through the lens of a global zombie threat.

You can also watch the London School of Economics and Political Science's video International Relations: An Introduction. It's about 10 minutes long and partially an advertisement for the university, but it provides a very simple overview of IR. If you wish to watch something longer and more in-depth, William Spaniel created a International Relations 101 playlist with videos that deal with individual aspects of IR. If you decide to watch it, do it in order so that you do not get overwhelmed by the more interesting-sounding (but much more complex) videos.

Once you feel you have a basic understanding of international relations and its theories, it's time to move to geopolitics. For this, I recommend watching Ronald J. Granieri's lecture entitled "What is Geopolitics and Why Does It Matter?" It's a little long, but it is one of the best explanations of geopolitics. Another video to watch is Robert Kaplan's (the patron saint of geopolitics) lecture entitled "The Geopolitics of the World", which is a little less introductory but provides a decent overview of geopolitics.

After all this, you should have a solid-enough grasp of the field to begin branching off and reading about more specific materials.

---

I am currently working on an introduction to geopolitics and international relations for r/geopolitics as a way to introduce neophytes to the theories and ideas that are the foundation of the field. Unfortunately, it is one of several projects I am working at this moment. Combined with the time commitments to my actual career and crazy personal life (yes, us mods have lives outside of Reddit), it probably won't be completed anytime soon.

>Which reforms?

This one, essentially expanding capital of IMF and increase quote of emerging markets, including China, to align more closely to current GDP shares rather current US and European centric quotas. Similarly WTO Doha round has being stuck for so long, that people have forgotten that it even exists.

> Even when China is found to be in violation of said rules, no sanctions follow.

Not so, all WTO decision carry penalties against companies and industries. The most famous one recently is 78% tariff levied on Chinese solar panels. You can read details here

>Who was hoping for this?

Plenty of people in 90s and into the early 2000s, the idea that the "freer", wealthier and more capitalistic Southern and Coastal China will break away from it conservative, poor and conservative North unless China transition into a democracy and adopt a federal-state government. And it is the most frequent western view I have encountered when I was in China though underground pamphlets and article distributed by pro-democracy activists as well as in Chinese language Voice of America broadcasts. I not sure how widespread this view is actually in the western think tanks at the time, but it is accurately described in senario #3 in this article. However, by the time I really get into this . Hence the use of "in the past" in my previous post. The most recent use this view I know of is Stratfor's George Friedman in his book, The Next 100 Years. While such an event will certainly cause instability around the world, it will however, take care of The Chinese Question once and for all.

>Nixon's opening of China was the first step, and as the US pushed for greater economic liberalization and opened its markets to China, China grew exponentially.

Perhaps you should read Chinese, American history more carefully before entering into this discussion. (Harry Harding's China's Second Revolution and A Fragile Relationship are excelent starts depsite it's age) Not sure where you get this idea from, at the time with US foreign policy under Kissinger and Brzezinski, US-China relationship centered primarily on security and the American establishment was actually surprised at the Rapid demise of Chairman Hua, the scale of Chinese economic reform and the rise of Deng.

>non-existent labour laws

Oh, they exist even in the 1990s see here and here. They are quite generous too, for example 98 days of mandatory Maternity leave, retirement at 60 for males and 50 for females, and no fault termination (layoffs) must carry severance payment of at least 3 month of salary etc. However, not well followed outside of SOEs with foreign contractors often being the biggest violators due to price pressure. If you want to be educated about this issue, read this

>Could you explain this, please?

Well, next year we'll have either Trump, Hillary or Bernie as president. And their all take a much more hawkish stance towards China (in addition to many other things, this election cycle is truly wild). The same year, all member of the Chinese Politburo except Xi and Li will retire, and leadership transition will finally complete. If Hu-Wen to Xi-Li transition is any indication; China will shift more hawkish as well.



Well, this took me two hours to write, and I have a day job. So I guess I'll end it here.

This is something that I have been looking into for the past month or so. Here are some good books that I've either read or am currently reading, and seem to have gotten positive reception from academics and experts and etc. Not all of these are specifically about all three subjects you mention, but taken as whole they will probably give you a pretty good understanding of what you want to know about.

• Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (2011)
  
• Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (2006)
  
• Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (2004)
  
• Sectarian Gulf: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab Spring That Wasn't (2013)
  
• Global Energy Security and American Hegemony (2010)
  
• Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States (2011)
  
• The Battle For Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power (2003)
  
  You might also be interested in this journal paper about "McJihad", which goes over the relationship between political Islam and US hegemony, and was converted into a chapter of Carbon Democracy.

There are a couple from the great game period, where Russia and Britain were rivaling each other in the central asia. You'll likely find plenty original intelligence officers as authors in the references of Hopkirk's "The Great Game".

The Great Game is an excellent primer on central Asia and imperial competition. Its effects are still evident today, so it is relevant. The metaphor of the great game is also applicable to US-China relations, IMO.

When I was taking IR classes Thomas Barnett was just starting to get popular in those circles. His book The Pentagon's New Map does a pretty good job explaining how the world works - I've found it made more sense then any of the other theories I learned about in class, especially as far as the intersection between economy and security goes.

Alternatively you could watch his

TED Talk 23:42

The World According to Tom Barnett, pt 1 3:58 (9 parts total)

C-SPAN 2:42:09

From Amazon:

The world is changing in ways most of us find incomprehensible. Terrorism spills out of the Middle East into Europe. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and Japan vie to see who can be most aggressive. Financial breakdown in Asia and Europe guts growth, challenging hard-won political stability.

Yet for the Americans, these changes are fantastic. Alone among the world's powers, only the United States is geographically wealthy, demographically robust, and energy secure. That last piece -- American energy security -- is rapidly emerging as the most critical piece of the global picture.

The American shale revolution does more than sever the largest of the remaining ties that bind America's fate to the wider world. It re-industrializes the United States, accelerates the global order's breakdown, and triggers a series of wide ranging military conflicts that will shape the next two decades. The common theme? Just as the global economy tips into chaos, just as global energy becomes dangerous, just as the world really needs the Americans to be engaged, the United States will be...absent.

In 2014's The Accidental Superpower, geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan made the case that geographic, demographic and energy trends were unravelling the global system. Zeihan takes the story a step further in The Absent Superpower, mapping out the threats and opportunities as the world descends into Disorder.

>You mean modern day Chinese like this ?

To be fair, it's not only the Chinese. It's an East Asian(Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese too) thing since it's in the innate Confucian nature to respect order, progress and authority. The colonial hangover from few hundred years past still lingers because of that.

Older but very relevant book: https://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Privatized-Military-Industry/dp/0801474361

​

Singer is a great author on topics like this. I remember reading this in 2008 and thinking "Yea, thats not good.."

Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard is a great place to start.

What about Indigenous geopolitics? Might I recommend:

• Secwépemc People, Land and Laws – Detailed info about one land/country and its peoples: Secwepemcúl'ecw
  
• A Rightful Place - Overview of Indigenous–Crown relations of Australia from the Original Peoples' sides
  
• Unsettling Canada - Secwépemc elder telling it how it is in Canada
  
• Through Indian Sign Language - Rare insight into the most important language/tool on this continent
  
  If you want to go dark and depressing, but factual and informative:
  
  
• An American Genocide - Just the California genocides in graphic detail
  
• American Apartheid - Information about the ongoing Apartheid State that the United States upholds

Drezner's Theories of International Politics and Zombies can be an enjoyable introduction to International relations. If you're interested in something more academic you can start by reading Morganthau's Politics Among Nations. And there's always the wikipedia route.

I was a fan of The Dictators Handbook.

Kissinger's On China was also very good.

It's definitely something you see across the literature. Many aspiring Imams and Mullahs would head to places like Karbala, Najaf, and Qom, and study from the various teachers there. Then, many would head off to various localities, often acting as a community leader with religious legitimacy. You can see some of this happening here:

Roy Mottahedeh - The Mantle of the Prophet: https://www.amazon.com/Mantle-Prophet-Roy-Mottahedeh/dp/1851686169

The Dictator’s Handbook

This is a great book for understanding why governments do what they do.

The Absent Superpower by Peter Zeihan would be a good start. He's also got a "sequel" coming out early next year called Disunited Nations which should go into even more detail. There are also plenty of recorded speaking events on youtube you can check out to get a general gist of his analysis. Here are the two most recent:

Keynote - Peter Zeihan 2019

The New World (Dis)Order - Peter Zeihan - 72nd CFA Institute Annual Conference

Uh oh, someone is pretending to be an international arms control lawyer on reddit and doesn't know who he's talking to.

>ocol. Iran's Safeguards Agreement from 1974 included a provision in Article 73 that allows the IAEA to inspect any site if they believe Iran's explanations and information furnished does not meet the standards of honesty and accuracy required





Ummm please stop making up total BS and acting like you know what you're talking about when you quite obviously do not.



This is not at all the case and you have nothing to back such a bs claim.



Allow me to educate you a bit.

https://www.amazon.com/Irans-Nuclear-Program-International-Confrontation/dp/0199377898

The NPT and the IAEA are two separate things. The IAEA is not a nuclear weapons police force in charge of finding hidden nuclear weapons programs, it is just another international organization in charge of promoting nuclear power by setting stadnards etc.

The NPT requires signatories to maintain safeguards with the IAEA (the one Iran signed in 1974 was the standard as that signed by other countries) and under the terms of this safeguards agreement you cited -- had you actually read it and understood it you'd see this -- the role of the IAEA is

EXCLUSIVELY to measure the amount of nuclear material and compare it to the countries declarations to ensure that there has been no diversion of nuclear material to non-peaceful uses which the IAEA has certified to be the case in every single IAEA report on Iran, ever.

So I suggest you educate yourself before spouting total nonsense


http://lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/index.htm

Iran supports Hezbollah, a legitimate Lebanese political party that won massive support in parliamentary elections there
Iran backed Nelson Mandela when the US had labeled him a terrorist and while Israel was trying to sell nukes to tthe racist apartheid regime in S Africa, so what's your point?

And ps there's no distinction between "private financiers" and the Saudi officials when it comes to state money there.

As for BS claims that Iran backed the Taliban or militias in Iraq

>"There were parts coming from Iran, there was parts also coming from other countries" said Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche. "I cannot say from what I see on the ground that Iran is behind that." http://www.ctvnews.ca/top-general-says-no-evidence-iran-behind-ieds-1.269717

Even US Sec Def Gates said he didn't have proof implicating Irans' govt in arming the Taliban

>"We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it is smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSFLE35878420070604

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html

Top US General: No Evidence Iran Arming Iraqis http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17129144/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-general-no-evidence-iran-arming-iraqis/

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq Arms link http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/23/world/fg-iraniraq23/2

The US even refused Iranian cooperation over Al Qaeda

>Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested ... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-us-help-on-al-qaeda-after-9-11/

Iran even offered to give BinLadin's son to the US but the Bush admin refused

>http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html

You mean modern day Chinese like this ?

Pair it with Drezners book on Zombies and International Relations and you got some educational beach reading!