Quantifying Global Power

NATO+ versus Eurasia.

There are 193 countries recognized by the UN. To assess quantify their relative power, mere population is not a sufficient measure. Countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, and Bangladesh have a very small global impact, despite being in the top 10 by population.

One theory of global power assumes that global power proceeds from resources. This cannot be the case for Canada or many countries in Africa, which are rich in resources but not influential. The greatest resource is resourcefulness — that is, the intellect of the population, multiplied by the total population.

Utilizing intelligence as a measure of power per capita is not dependent on a hereditarian hypothesis and is not affected by critiques of IQ. IQ cannot be a mere measure of "Eurocentric cultural affiliation" given the high IQs of east Asians. However, IQ could be fairly critiqued as merely "calculative or analytical intelligence," as opposed to emotional intelligence, or some other mental power. Utilizing IQ is not dependent on IQ being a "fixed quality" by genetics. IQ still has relevance to assessing current power dynamics, even if it is bound to change in the future. IQ is used rather than GDP, because GDP may be suppressed by war or religious or political fanaticism, and is not a true measure of a country’s power. GDP is a product of power, not its source.

Assuming a global population of 7.75 billion, the average global IQ is 85.8.¹ By population, the top five countries are China, India, the United States, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

NATO+

One problem with assessing the power of each country has to do with alliance systems. For example, take Israel. Israel's population, military, and economic capacity should not include the occupied Palestinian territories. The population of those territories is a liability for the Israeli government, and not an asset. On the other hand, Israel's influence on the region includes the utilization of its important allies, including America.

The most extensive alliance systems in the world include NATO and the European Union, as well as the "dollar zone,"² or those countries which conduct trade using American dollars. It may also be possible to include countries which are pegged to the Euro as part of its zone of influence.

Taken all together, these three alliances can be labeled "NATO+." I also included Pacific nations such as the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia. In calculating the power of NATO+, I have excluded Hungary from the EU, given that country's affiliation to Russia, in order to prevent any overestimation.³

Besides looking at population and IQ, fertility is another factor which is significant for a country’s potential power. This is partially because fertility correlates with the size of the fighting age and working age population. Low fertility is a huge liability in terms of military and economic projection.

The average IQ of NATO+ is 95.6, the total population is 1.4 billion, and the total fertility is 1.72. Multiple IQ by population, and multiple it again by fertility, and this produces a number proportional to the total working age, intellectual capital of a country. Divide that number by the global average IQ (86), total global population (7.7 B), and global average fertility (2.3), and this is the "proportion of global power." This product is "IPF" (IQ, population, fertility).

The top countries by IPF are "NATO+" (15.2%), India (14.4%), China (14.0%), Nigeria (4.4%), and Pakistan (4.3%). Despite Russia being seen as an important strategic partner for China, Russia is number 14 on this list, at 1.4%. This seems to invalidate IPF as a valid way of ranking the power of countries, at least intuitively. How could this be explained?

One explanation is that general IQ, while very important for personal income, is less important than verbal IQ.⁴ Furthermore, there is an "IQ threshold," below which a country becomes irrelevant.

Why is verbal IQ more important than general intelligence? In the case of billionaires or business owners, attracting investors, coordinating workers, building a social network, and uniting systems are all a function of verbal IQ. On the ground floor, general intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence, and mathematical intelligence are crucial components. Software engineers, chemical engineers, electrical engineers, and industrial engineers are all extremely important parts of most successful companies. However, beyond a certain threshold, these skills do not lend themselves to management, administration, leadership, or networking, which are crucial skills for power projection.

Low intelligence is subject to "self-negation." Below a certain IQ, individuals are not able to contribute to a developed country more than they take out in social services. It is possible that libertarian or segregationist policies could help alleviate this, although in the antebellum America South, economic development and growth was far below that of the North. Having a large population of low intelligence workers actually drags down GDP growth, even in a highly racist or segregationist system. This is partially because high quality labor is the best pressure for creating new innovations to help lower the cost of labor.

What is the axis of self-negation? In other words, what is the precise number of IQ above which self-negation does not occur? Looking at the Danish social surveys on immigration,⁵ it seems that while IQs of 100 are a net benefit to the economy, IQs of 92 and below are a net drain. While an IQ of 92 may not be the exact axis of self-negation (it may be slightly lower or higher), it is a useful rough estimate.

Countries with IQs below 92, no matter how populous, no matter how high their fertility is, will always be "self-negating." That is, they will always be playing catch up, attempting to develop their country, fighting crime, corruption, pollution, poor sanitation, poor sewage treatment, lack of education, teenage pregnancy, religious fanaticism, tribal discrimination, ethnic conflict, failing infrastructure, and other frictional forces that plague low IQ populations.

If average IQs below 92 make a country unable to effectively project power, then the world looks very different. The only countries in the world able to project power are as follows: NATO+, China, Russia, North Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Hungary, Belarus, Cyprus, and Vanuatu. Belarus and Russia could be consolidated, as well as North Korea with China. Taiwan will either be integrated fully into NATO+ or reintegrated into China, and Hungary will either be reabsorbed into NATO+ or into Russia. Ignoring Cyprus and Vanuatu, this leaves only four possible powers: NATO+, China, Russia, and Israel. These are the four axes on which global power revolves.

If IQs are declining 0.16 point per year, then this situation may quickly change.⁶ NATO+ and Russia are both subjected to mass migration, with NATO+ receiving migration from Africa, the Middle East, and South America, and Russia receiving half that quantitative rate from central Asia. Because both NATO+ and Russia have IQs of 96, IQs will dip below 92 as early as 2048. In China, IQs will remain above 92 until 2096. In Israel, IQ is 92, which means that, according to the hypothesis of self-negation, Israel will not be able to project power beyond this decade.⁷

One of the great problems in this analysis is the lack of data on verbal IQ. However, given the Dulion data set,⁸ it is possible to make some speculative guesses.

The verbal IQ of Slavic countries tends to be 4-6 points below their general IQ.⁹ Russia and Slavic countries outperform their expected achievements in math and engineering. Russia is famous for its mathematicians and hackers. On the other hand, Slavic countries have lagged behind the European average in terms of global power projection. During the period from 1492 to 1921, Russia was able to expand into central Asia and Siberia, but never able to challenge or exert influence on Europe, Africa, or the Americas.¹⁰ This is also true not just of Russia, but of Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria.

One explanation for the lack of global colonial expansion as a result of a lack of port cities. However, Finland and Sweden a much greater proportional influence on global colonization, despite having a similar amount of access to the Atlantic as Poland and Russia.¹¹ The grand exception to Russian parochialism, which was the communist period from 1922 to 1979,¹² may have been due to the influx of Jewish leadership, which declined precipitously after Stalin's death.

Although China is not contained in the Dulion data set, other east Asian countries can be used as a proxy.¹³ The results consistently suggest that east Asian verbal IQs are at least 2 points and at most 8 points lower than their general IQs. In this analysis, the lower figure of 2 was used, for a Chinese verbal IQ of 102, although the higher figure is possible, which would be as low as 96.

India, on the other hand, has a higher verbal IQ than general IQ. Whereas general IQ for India is 76, verbal IQ is 81. In NATO+, Germany has a slightly higher verbal IQ than general IQ (102 vs 101), as does the United States (98 vs 97). Israel has a verbal IQ of 94, compared to its general IQ of 92. Adjusting the scores by verbal IQ would subtract 2 points from China, add 5 to India, 2 to Israel, 1 to NATO+, and subtract 6 from Russia.¹⁴

After making these adjustments, the estimation of total "power" comes out to NATO+ at 15.4%, China at 13.7%, Russia at 1.3%, Iran at 1.0%, and Israel at 0.18%.¹⁵

Regarding the future developments of power:

1. Mexican immigration into the United States will create a stronger political, economic, and cultural bond between America and Mexico. If Mexico was integrated into NATO+, this would add 1.29% to NATO+, which is equivalent to the country of Russia.

2. Iraq will either choose to ally with Saudi Arabia, and therefore Israel, or it will be further drawn into the orbit of Iran. This would double the power of Iran, and make it more powerful than Russia.

3. Central Asian states like Uzbekistan are positioned between Iran, Russia, and China, and are likely to be drawn into one of those three orbits. Similarly, Mongolia will be forced to side with China or Russia.

4. Vietnam, in opposition to China, will develop closer ties with states like Japan and the Philippines, drawing closer to NATO+. Most other south east Asian countries are more likely to integrate with China.

Eurasia

By aggregating Iran, Russia, and China into a single Eurasian block, Eurasia has an IPF of 19.2%, while NATO+ has an IPF of 15.4%. In this case, the role of India is decisive and crucial. India has been clearly friendly with Russia, but at the same time has been antagonistic towards China. If India joins NATO+, this will create an IPF of 30.7%.

With the exception of India (and excluding countries with an IQ below 79), the total IPF of "non-aligned" countries is 5.3%. If India joins NATO+, this will not be significant enough to grant Eurasia an advantage. However, if India remains truly neutral, then this 5.3% would become very significant, as this would close the gap between NATO+ and Eurasia.

One of the key concepts throughout this thought experiment has been the importance of IQ in terms of determining power projection as a result of the "self-negation" of low IQ. Countries like Pakistan and Brazil, by a simple combination of IQ and population, should be more powerful and influential than Russia, but this is not the case, and can be explained by the fact that those countries are affected by problems of "self-negation." Essentially, the high IQ portion of those populations are too busy solving the problems of the low IQ portion. They do not have the intellectual resources to dedicate to power projection. This is similar to an intelligent person affected by mental illness, who is unable to be financially successful in the job market, because too much of their energy is sapped by their internal problems.

China’s Eurasian Problem

Despite the influence of mass immigration, the NATO+ alliance, at the elite level, is still more culturally, politically, and genetically cohesive when compared to the Eurasian alliance. The Eurasian alliance would be overwhelmingly dominated by China, but China has no history of power projection beyond its borders (possibly related to verbal IQ). Furthermore, China's history with Islam might eventually alienate Pakistan, and its history with Russia is extremely antagonistic.

The NATO+ approach towards Pakistan has been to develop ties through foreign aid, which so far have prevented Pakistan from becoming aligned with Iran. On the other hand, the NATO+ approach toward Russia has been extremely antagonistic through the Ukraine War. "India First" politicians like Vivek Ramaswamy have advocated an alliance with Russia in order to counter China. They have criticized the Ukraine War as a waste of money, which has emboldened China. Whether or not Vivek is correct, the American war in Ukraine has not been a success, partially due to western hesitance to back Ukraine fully.

Had America been successful in Ukraine, the theory goes, the Russian military and economy would be depleted (as the result of successful sanctions), and would be vulnerable to an internal coup (similar to the attempted Wagner coup). This would result in a Russian Civil War, and the country would either be broken up into factions, or else the western backing of a Navalny-style faction would deliver Russia into the arms of NATO+.

At this point, those outcomes seem unlikely. However, no matter how terribly the war has been handled, China will still experience extreme difficulty in maintaining an alliance with Russia, with whom it has long standing cultural, political, ethnic, and geopolitical rivalries.

The political fragility of both Russia and China lie in their dependence on not just single-party rule, but single-man rule. Both Putin and Xi have consolidated power around themselves, and the problem of the succession of power always presents opportunities for change. The single-point failure of the Chinese system, throughout history, has given way to apocalyptic civil wars, including the Chinese Civil War of 1945, which caused over 3 million casualties, and the 1850 Taiping Rebellion, which killed up to 30 million people. Russia's political instability is due to the fact that since the fall of the Soviet Union, it does not have a clear ruling political or religious ideology. The stability of Russia prior to communism came from Orthodox Christianity, but that force is in terminal decline.¹⁶

Critics of NATO+ will point out that western democracy is also degrading. Feminism, LGBTQ, mass immigration, drug use, suicide, infertility, and effective asexuality have been correlated with serious polarization and mental illness. However, these issues (with the exception of mass immigration) can be represented best by a single number: fertility. The groups with the highest fertility in the west are religious and conservative. Liberals and leftists who embrace sexual liberation and drug use have low fertility. Immigration complicates this picture, but overall, high fertility is correlated with a positive life outlook, whereas low fertility is correlated with a negative life outlook. Examples of this include the Amish, and the fact that Israel has the highest fertility rate in the developed world.

The excesses or negative consequences of leftism have already been "factored in" through using fertility as a variable. NATO+ has a higher fertility than Eurasia (1.7 vs 1.6). Brazil, a supposed bastion of machismo, Bolsonaro, Catholicism, and anti-feminism, only has a fertility of 1.8. Russia is even worse, at 1.5. Ethnic Russkiye have a fertility of 1.4, lower than any other Russian ethnicity.¹⁷

While NATO+ is suffering the effects of mass immigration and the demographic decline of its founding ethnic stock, so is Russia. China, so far, has refused mass immigration, but its demographic decline is much, much worse.

One common mistake made when analyzing NATO+ and its enemies is to view problems in isolation, rather than in relative terms.  Yes, the west has abortion — so do Russia and China. Yes, the west has low fertility — so does Russia and China. Yes, the west has a declining core ethnic stock — so does Russia.

Putting things in quantitative, relative terms helps us make accurate predictions about current and future power projections. With this in mind, outside of "the west," the following 8 countries have the highest IPF, while also having an IQ above 88:¹⁸

1. China

2. Russia

3. Vietnam

4. Iran

5. Iraq

6. Myanmar

7. Uzbekistan

8. Israel

Why is Vietnam higher on this list than Iran? Why is Iran such an important player in global geopolitics, but Vietnam seem irrelevant?

The principle reason is that Vietnam is in a neighborhood of potential superpowers. China, Japan, South Korea, and the presence of the NATO alliance in Australia and the Pacific islands makes Vietnam a second-rate power. If the entire Vietnamese population was deported to the Middle East, it would become an extremely important country — but because power is often relative, it remains irrelevant.

As a metaphor, consider Ganymede. Ganymede is a moon of Jupiter, and has a radius of 1,635 miles, making it larger than Mercury and Pluto. So why is Mercury a planet, but Ganymede is not? Well, Ganymede exists within the orbit of a much bigger planet, and thus orbits Jupiter. In the same way, Vietnam “orbits” the gravitational field of much bigger players, like China, Japan, and NATO+.

By contrast, Iran, even though it has less IPF than Vietnam, is considered a big, important regional player in the Middle East. This is firstly because Iranian IQ is leagues above the Middle Eastern average, and secondly because Iran has the fourth largest population.

Excluding Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, and North African states, what remains is a future conflict between Sunni-allied Arab states called “Super Israel” and Shia-allied states called “Super Iran.”

The average IQ of Super Iran would be 85, above all Sunni Arab states. The average IQ of Super Israel would be 80. Super Iran would have an IPF of 1.9, while Super Israel would have an IPF of 2.3 (both around the size of Brazil). The position of Iraq between the two factions is crucial, with Iraq contributing an IPF of 0.8.¹⁹

Summary

Countries are influential when they are planets, rather than moons. Although Iran has a low IPF compared even to Vietnam, it is at the center of its own orbit. Iran’s future depends on the role of Iraq, as well as the neutrality of its neighbors, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. While “Super Israel” seems like a pipe dream, mostly depending on Egypt, “Super Iran” is much more realistic. Outside of the Middle East, the main axis of conflict is NATO+ vs China. While the loss of the “Russian opportunity” has been viewed by many, including Vivek Ramaswamy, as a crucial blunder by America, India will likely play a much larger role than Russia in the future.

While many geopolitical commentators focus on the role of natural resources, from a quantitative standpoint, there is little correlation between resources and power. Countries with small populations, like Canada, or low IQs, like those in Africa, are not able to utilize their vast resources. Instead, like South Africa or Zimbabwe, they squander these resources by driving away business, unable to keep the lights on. Alternatively, in the case of Saudi Arabia, resources can enrich the country through trade, but these states become puppet states, proxies, or protectorates of more intelligent and populous powers. There are few states which owe their influence to natural resources. Instead, power determines how resources are used, and who uses them. Even states which nationalize their resources, like Venezuela, will find it useless if they are not able to trade or use them domestically. And countries without resources, like North Korea or Japan, will still be able to influence global affairs due to their IQ. This was also true in the classic case of 19th century Prussia. Resources don’t make use of the nation — nations make use of the resources.

Finally, American dissidents, Catholics, and other third-worldists have claimed that the West is doomed because of leftism, open borders, low fertility, LGBTQ, wokism, cultural Marxism, or some other social issue. However, when this issue is looked at objectively and quantitatively, China and Russia are barely better off, and in some cases have an even worse social or demographic problem.

Data on foreign-born residents could quantify the costs of mass immigration.

China has 1.4 million non-Chinese residents, 12 million Uyghurs, 3 million Tibetans, 6 million Mongolians, and 33 million Hakka, totaling 4% of its total population. India is 12.37% Muslim, and Russia has 4.09% non-citizens. America, touted as having a huge foreign born population, has 13.52% non-citizens. The EU has a foreign born population of 13.7%, but given that many of those are migrants from one EU country to another, the number of residents of non-EU origin is 9.8%. Nigeria is evenly split between Muslims and Christians. Mexico is only 60% Mestizo, with the remainder belonging to distinct identity groups. Even Japan, which is touted as homogeneous, still has a 2.58% foreign born population. Vietnam, which is not thought of as being “filled with foreigners,” is 13% non-Vietnamese. Turkey is 20% Kurdish. Out of EU countries, Germany had the most, at 18% foreign born. Iraq is 61% Shia. The Bamar, largest ethnicity in Myanmar, only make up 68% of the population. In summary, more countries are extremely heterogeneous. That doesn’t prove that “diversity is good for the west,” but it does prove that diversity is not unique to the west. Taking the top 20 examples, the average country is only 64% “majoritarian.”

Although America is only 14% foreign born, if America and Europe become “minority white,” while leaving all other countries at their present levels, the effect would be to cut the IPF of NATO+ in half. Still, a combined force of India and NATO+, even in this “doomsday scenario” (which is still decades away) would overpower China.

More variables and factors can be added. From this analysis, at least, it is not evident that China will take over the world, or that America will lose its superpower status. Rather, American political, cultural, and economic dominance will largely depend on its ability to utilize and unite with India as a major power, in the same way as its rise in the 20th century was largely dependent on its ability to intervene in Europe and form the NATO alliance.

1. The source I use for IQ is the 2006 Lynn data set, which can be found almost anywhere. Where there were obvious flaws in the set, alternatives were found. The lack of good data is a major problem with this article, but an attempt was made: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

Haiti was listed in the Lynn data set as having an IQ of 82, but other sources state 67. Getting better data sets will also be crucial to assessing national relevance. I am also suspicious of the Cambodian IQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/askasia/comments/139cd80/why_do_cambodians_have_higher_iqs_than_thais_or/

2. The "dollar zone" includes Puerto Rico, Ecuador, El Salvador, Zimbabwe, Guam, The Virgin Islands, The British Virgin Islands, Timor-Leste, Bonaire, American Samoa, The Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Panama, and Turks and Caicos. Some of these countries, due to their small size, were not included in the data set. It's worth mentioning here that in the event of a naval conflict, the "dollar zone" is mostly made up of Caribbean and Pacific Islands, and have immense value as naval bases. Zimbabwe was not included due to its political instability.

In addition, many country’s currencies are pegged to the dollar, including Aruba, Azerbaijani, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Cayman Islands, Cuba [this is bizarre given the “sanctions” but was instituted in 1993, Djibouti, Eritrea, Hong Kong, Jordan, Lebanon, the Maldives, the Dutch Antilles, Oman, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

3. The nations of NATO+ are as follows: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. I forgot to include some countries such as Estonia, but I don’t think that will change the totals significantly. It will have to be redone.

4. Throughout the article, I take verbal IQs from here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

5. https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration

6. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3922608-american-iqs-rose-30-points-in-the-last-century-now-they-may-be-falling/

7. Israel, being the smallest country, with the greatest amount of internal social, political, and religious diversity, has the greatest ability to change its IQ of any country. Israel already conducts widespread genetic testing to prevent genetic disorders, and this practice could be expanded in scope to halt or reverse the decline of intelligence. If Israel continues to move toward the political right, continuing the trend of the last 30 years, it may move to expel populations with lower average IQs.

8. Throughout the article, I take verbal IQs from here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

9. Slovenia has a general IQ of 99, but a verbal IQ of 95. Croatia has a general IQ of 96, but a verbal IQ of 90.

10. Russia’s brief colonization of Alaska and California was short-lived and proportionately insignificant given its large size.

11. The Swedish South Company, founded in 1626, founded the settlements of Wilmington, Philadelphia, New York, and Albany. Because Finland was a part of Sweden until 1809, Finland can be included as playing a part in this effort. In 1655, Swedish settlements were annexed by the Dutch West India Company. The Dutch then lost these territories to the English in 1674. Sweden also captured colonies in Ghana (1652–1658), the Caribbean islands of St. Barts and Guadeloupe (1783-1878), and attempted to build a colony in India in 1733 which was destroyed by French and British opposition.

12. 1979 is used here rather than 1989 to indicate that the 1980s were a “lost decade” for the Soviets, in part due to their successful neutralization under Nixon and his dealings with China. The Afghanistan War is symbolic of this decade of “Soviet irrelevance,” despite Reagan claiming otherwise.

13. Hong Kong verbal IQ is 100.5, with a general IQ of 105.4. Japan has a verbal IQ of 98.5, with a general IQ of 106. South Korea has a verbal IQ of 99.5, with a general IQ of 102. Singapore has a verbal IQ of 103, and a general IQ of 106.

14. Mexico scored 87 on verbal, below its 88 general IQ. Turkey scored 90 on verbal, as opposed to 87 on general IQ. Iran also scored 84 verbal, as opposed to 80 general [Lynn, 2006]. However, an Iranian led study on Iran's verbal vs general IQ indicates that the verbal IQ is likely lower than its general IQ. [Estimation of Mean Intelligence Quotient with Wechsler Scale in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425765/]

One of the most striking changes was in Morocco, where the general IQ was 67, but the verbal IQ was 85. The high relative verbal IQ of middle eastern countries was also shown in Lebanon (86 verbal vs 82 general), but not in Iraq (87 verbal vs 89 general). Lynn's estimation of Iranian IQ as 80 is far lower than the Iranian study which showed an IQ of 97. There was also significant variation in the IQ of Indonesia, listed by Lynn at 78, but elsewhere estimated at 94.]

15. Cambodia has an average IQ of 100 [Lynn 2006], but possibly due to the traumatic influence of the Khmer Rouge, it does not seem to have the influence of others on this list, despite having an IPF of 0.25%, higher than Israel. Cambodia is the only other country besides Israel and Iran with an IQ above 92 which does not fit into NATO+, China, or Russia.

16. A study of Russian religion will prove this, despite claims to the contrary by Orthodox Christians and Russophiles. That is for another article.

17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_subjects_of_Russia_by_total_fertility_rate

All Russian citizens are considered "Russian" (rossisky), but the ethnic group which forms the core of the Russian nation is "Russkiye." Russian nationalists, who try to bring attention to the demographic decline of this founding stock, have been imprisoned by Putin, who prefers a multi-ethnic, pluralistic Russia: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-komi-minoroty-language-ivanov-court-russky-rossiisky-navalny-putin/31108182.html

18. Hungary, North Korea, and Taiwan have been ignored due to geography — they have no ability to project power, since they are sucked into the orbits of others. Vietnam has the option of strategic ambiguity, and I was surprised to see it above Iran. Part of the reason why the IPF of Vietnam does not translate into an obvious or well-known regional power status is due to the effects of the Vietnam War.

19. Why did Iran perform so poorly in the Iran-Iraq War? It is due to the fact that Iran was under new sanctions by America (without much time to adjust), was an enemy of the Soviet Union and America, had no support from China, and the fact that Saddam won support from both America, the Soviet Union, as well as Sunni Arab states. The war was, in fact, Super Arabia versus a diminished Iran. America cynically supported both sides in an effort to cause the maximum amount of bloodshed and prevent either side from winning.