1.png
[Hide] (702.9KB, 1140x1099) Reverse 2.png
[Hide] (103.4KB, 1138x512) Reverse >>56934 (OP)
Attached is a simple three dimensional model to give indication of structural vulnerabilities in the listed countries.
This assumes worst-case Gulf outcome:
>Either Iran is forced to go scorched earth
>Or the US cannot take control of the strait and sabotages the Gulf ("If we can't control it, no one can.")
The dimensions are:
>Energy Security: How self-sufficient is the given country in its Energy Supply.
>Food Security: How self-sufficient is a given country in its Food Supply.
>Coercive Capacity: Can the given country bully other countries and "steal their lunch money" (Like "Force Projection" but broader to accommodate other forms of leverage - trade, maybe fiscal).
It splits Energy Security and Food Security because the outcomes are different:
>If a nation has Food Security but does not have Energy Security, they can "bunker down" and weather a depression.
>If a nation has Energy Security but does not have Food Security, they have bartering power.
>If a nation has neither, they either have to go out and secure it (Coercive Capacity) or otherwise be "propped up", lest they fall into domestic crisis.
Likely posture is determined based on where a country lands in the 2x2x2 (Energy Security:Food Security:Coercive Capacity) grid.
Obviously, this doesn't factor in any kind of nuance, but might give a good first-level analysis of which countries will likely brace or make moves.
Institutional Buffer is not accounted for.
>Rationale: "information velocity" too high with the internet - effective propaganda campaigns could crash institutional authority very quickly (e.g. think of how an Epstein campaign may impact social/institutional stability).
Timelines (e.g. Emergency Reserves) also not accounted for.
>Rationale: Increased complexity where as this is just trying to convey structurally which nations are in a weak position.