Back to the 80s, a new Cold War for the 21st Century?

Hey China, welcome to the 1980s in missile tech:

News first emerged of the planned ‘super missile’ from defence industry bible Jane’s Defence Weekly last week, according to South China Morning Post.
It apparently claimed that a Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), had been fired in testing last month by the PLA’s Second Artillery Corps.
This third-generation missile, US military sources told Jane’s, contain multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) – effectively multiple warheads – meaning they would be almost impossible for current US defences to take down.
This sounds a whole lot like a Minuteman III or some such from the height of the Cold War, and by itself is nothing to get exercised about, despite flying in the face of current Arms Control agreements. What this sort of rumour/announcement really signifies (if you somehow missed the rest of the signs) is that China has plans to expand.
The Americans have of late finally noticed this, and will hopefully allow the Arabs etc. to kill each other in the Middle East and concentrate on something which actually threatens their position in the world (almost as much as the current system of government). Mitt Romney, presently the de facto Republican Presidential nominee, has just pushed out a plan for North American energy independence which is a step in the right direction, but he has to a) be elected and b) actually follow through on the plan for it to make a difference.
I really don't know what China intends with this; that sort of a missile is a threat to both the US and Russia, overkill against India (or less likely, Pakistan), but doesn't materially change the deterrent of either of the major powers. Likely it's for internal political consumption and it's possible they're not even seriously pursuing it, at least not as an ABM-busting strategic weapon.
In any event, the world is re-aligning, and China is doing itself no favours in the international community by backing places like Iran and Syria. The truth of the matter in the South China Sea is that without the US Navy none of the smaller regional actors have a chance against China, and everyone knows it. In order therefore to defend its' broader national interest (e.g. global trade) the USA needs to get its' house in order by boosting it's economy in real terms.
A rational energy and regulatory program will help that a lot, another four years of Obama binding the country up in red (green?) tape and having an indefinable foreign policy will not help at all. Romney et al might be an improvement, but the system is now so ponderous and corrupt that I have my doubts that anything short of armed rebellion will make much of a difference. Note that none of this is an endorsement of such an uprising (Canada can't absorb that many refugees if nothing else), but I will for what it's worth say that I see Romney as the best of a bad lot.
The next five years or so are critical to the trajectory of the USA and of China, and whatever happens it'll affect the whole world. The big question seems to be: new Cold War, or a Hot one?

They could make a lot of glass with all that sand...

America has always feared that a nuclear Iran would lead to a Middle Eastern arms race. Speaking at a regional security forum in Riyadh earlier this week, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki Al-Faisal (former ambassador to the US and intelligence chief) stepped up the pressure. The NYT reports:

Prince Turki said at the forum on Monday that an Iranian quest for nuclear weapons and Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal might force Saudi Arabia to follow suit…
“It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these weapons,” Prince Turki was quoted as saying.

In case anyone had any lingering doubts about the characteristics of America's fade from the World Policeman role, this will give an indication. It is however the logical result of previous and current US and international policy toward hard-case regimes around the world.

North Korea figured this out a long time ago, and the mere suspicion that they might have (lot of qualifiers here) functional nukes will keep the merely pushy or adventurous away from military action. Libya cut a deal a few years back and relinquished "all" their WMD, particularly the nuclear aspects. We can see how well that worked for Qaddafi, and for Saddam Hussein before him, and the lesson to Iran was clear: proliferate or die.

Iran's nuclear program has taken some knocks of late, but nothing short of a massive and carefully targeted air attack and/or a suicidal Special Forces attack on the tunnel complexes that hide it will stop it in the medium term. In the long run anything can be rebuilt, but it's pointless to worry about that with the current problems we face.

I didn't predict the Saudis wanting nukes, but it didn't surprise me when I read it. The Saudis want them for standard deterrence purposes, so they don't fall into my "despot fail safe" pattern above. The US still has their back, but that too could change and the Saudis play the Monarchical long game. If things go totally off the rails and we see a Mid East nuclear arms race, I REALLY can't predict where that will go. Not that I can usually predict anything in particular; if I could do that I'd be getting paid for this.

Pakistan is falling apart, and you can be sure the Americans won't get all of their nukes when the centre completely fails to hold. There are a number of places with money who could buy some through existing contacts, and I would be shocked if feelers were not already extended.

It will never happen, but an ideal stop-gap deterrence for the Saudis already exists: Israel. It would be domestic politics suicide for the House of Saud, but I'm sure the Israelis could (for significant financial inducement) "rent" an extension of their nuclear umbrella against a common foe. Israel is already strategic depth for the Saudis whether it's intended or not, regardless of what the Americans may guarantee the Saudis in the future.

Here's my AotF strategic calculus to get that result. Iran's government and a good slice of the population hates Israel, (for no good historical reason, but no matter) and Israel takes this seriously. I am assuming a great deal with this next bit, but if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, I can't see Israel standing idly by. This would likely take the form of opportunistic attacks on Iranian targets through Saudi airspace. The reason this might happen is that Saudi is the closest thing Israel has to an ally in the region since Turkey flaked out. There is some affinity with the Kurds, but that isn't going to be a strategic asset to Israel in the near future.

Conversely, if Iran nukes Israel the Saudis will have lost a de facto ally and it will be completely up to the (now) unpredictable Americans to save Saudi bacon from Iran. This is the strategic depth I was taking about; the advantage to the Saudis in keeping Israel around is that they have a lot of skin in the game, whereas the Americans could decide they don't care what happens between Iran and Saudi.

Even two years ago it would be unthinkable that the Americans would abandon the Saudis, but perceived National Interest can change quickly. For the time being, anyone attacking Israel can count on the Americans lining up against them, but that isn't eternal either. Egypt is getting some sort of Islamist government as I write this, so Israel is now the only proxy the US has in the area.

Pulling back to the Mediterranean, yes the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is suddenly not to be relied upon, at the same time that Turkey is rattling its destroyers around the joint Cyprus/Israel gas projects in the eastern Med. Syria is destabilizing further by the day, and Hezbollah is making a play at a coup (again) in Lebanon. The latter is unlikely to succeed as Hezbollah's hostage "allies" in the country are starting to see daylight between Syria and Hezbollah and are getting brave now that they might have a chance.

Holy flashpoints Batman! I know I've left some things out, and I'm sure I'm missing some other stuff that going on, so it's at least this potentially messy. I don't know whether adding more nuclear weapons to the mix will make things more stable or less, but the best case is some sort of multi-sided Mid East Cold War. That certainly sounds like fun, but whatever I can imagine is a small slice of the possibilities the unpredictability of human interaction provides us with. As always, watch and shoot.