Michael Klare describes what he calls a new "Thirty Years' War" stating that now it is building up again. He further goes on and says that the developing war has features that are similar to those of the conflict that took place between 1618 and 1648. During that time, the whole of Europe was engaged in a series of intense and very brutal conflicts. It was a struggle between the emerging nation state and the imperial governance system. It was until 1648 that the war crystallized in the treaty of Westphalia, which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War.
At the moment, the new war is a developing, and there are some similarities as well as differences between it and the original Thirty Years' War. The first similarity is that the new conflict might also last for thirty years. Namely, this is how long it will take the tentative energy systems, like wave power, cellulosic ethanol, and hydrogen power as well as the advanced nuclear reactors, to leave the confines of the laboratories and reach the full-scale industrial development. This is one very striking similarity. Another similarity is that it is considered to be a war because most of the world's powerful corporations will be at risk.
Considering the giant oil companies, it will be a battle for survival since they will be forced to adapt to the new economic models in order to capture new markets. By the way, there will be a high risk of collapsing or absorption by more powerful competitors. New companies will rise and they will rival with the giants of the oil industry. Actually, this will resemble a real war, which is another similarity. The state of nations will be at stake because there will be competing on technologies and the acquisition of energy supplies. This is another stunning similarity. The only difference is that there will be no such bloodshed as it was in the past.
I totally agree with Machiavelli's idea that the Prince should be parsimonious rather than generous. I totally support this form of leadership style with regard to American foreign policy towards Iran. Machiavelli points out the qualities that should be possessed by the Prince in order to maintain the throne. For example, he states that the Prince should not be generous because it exhausts the resources and ultimately makes the country lose respect accorded by society. If the Prince is munificent, he will not be appreciated. Although Machiavelli does not necessarily imply that generosity is ineffectual, he argues that an exceptional incident of generosity exhibits more worth to the people. I agree with this because America has to deal harshly with Iran and should not be generous at all.
Secondly, Machiavelli goes on and says that it is better for the Prince to be feared rather than loved. Such a principle is used by Machiavelli to establish a solid reputation. He says that if one has a power and the ruler is a beloved ruler, then people will not be afraid of him. It means that the power is stripped away and the authority loses its sense. Hence, the title of the Prince becomes irrelevant. Therefore, it is advisable for the US not to be loved by the Iranians in order to be able to exercise its power and authority in its relations with Iran. Uprisings, war, and dysfunction can result from too much clemency. In order to avoid societal destruction, a leader may need to invoke a sense of cruelty. In effect, according to Machiavelli, spitefulness may lead to a more stable, loyal, and balanced society. Machiavelli also supports the use of force when it is inevitable. He also supports the idea that a leader should be deceitful like a fox since it plays a vital role in the political life of a ruler. It is also important to use the force only in extreme cases, for instance, in case of Iran. The Prince must also maintain a transparent appeal.
According to Robert Keohane, he strongly contends that terrorism is carried by globalization. On the contrary, the other authors express a thought that terrorism is all about foreign policy and culture. I support the use of Keohane's phrase "informal violence" as an alternative to the word "terrorism". Informal violence can replace terrorism because it is not wielded by formal institutions and formal states and is not announced in advance. The term "informal" is used to show that the violence is spruced up by the non-state actors, which capitalize in secrecy and are laid in ambush. Their main goal is to inflict the greatest possible harm with the help of violent actions.
The phrase "informal violence" is a useful substitute for the term "terrorism". Terrorism has become too politicized to be used as an analytical term. This is because it is associated with a big number of negative connotations. Even the United Nations Security Council has passed many resolutions against terrorism despite the fact that it is very hard to clearly define the meaning of the word "terrorism".
Therefore, due to the fact that the term "terrorism" is very insightful and not quite clear, Keohane uses the term "informal violence". The word "informal" signifies that it comes not from the legal and official sources, but from the informal and unknown ones. It is, therefore, advisable to use the term "informal violence" instead of terrorism, as highlighted by Keohane.