In 1913, a young Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in a private letter that a war among the major European powers would be so deadly and destructive that it could not be imagined. In 1914, he learned differently.

There are so many historic examples of war being so unlikely, so terrible in its prospect that it just "could not" happen. And yet it did.

That is why, in the large sweep of history, people who want to see peace should never underestimate the potential for war. Even those, like the mistaken Roosevelt, who feel rising prosperity is an antidote to conflict.

For centuries, the Silk Road of central Asia was a long and difficult, but valuable, pathway between the eastern and western worlds. Today, analyst [Afshin] Molavi says, a new Silk Road runs through the emerging economies of China, India and the Persian Gulf.

"The new Silk Road is largely the result of the confluence of China's and India's economic growth and high oil prices," said Molavi, a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington.

"Key 'caravan posts' on the new Silk Road are regional economic 'winners' or rising stars: Dubai, Beijing, Mumbai, Chennai, Tokyo, Doha, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Riyadh, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi," Molavi wrote in The Washington Post. "The old Silk Road civilization centers such as Persia (Iran), the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) and Mesopotamia (Iraq) lag behind."

Vast real estate and industrial construction projects are under way along the new Silk Road, with Chinese, Korean, Indian and Japanese companies competing feverishly for business. While Molavi noted that American officials are busy with the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should not miss the significance of long-term development along the new Silk Road.

Is prosperity an antidote for conflict?

"Security in the Persian Gulf is now as important to Beijing and New Delhi as it is to Washington. China will no longer be content to perch under America's security umbrella, and the Indian navy now more assertively patrols the Arabian Sea," Molavi argued. "What's more, China and India have far more influence with Iran than we do - and less tolerance for a disruptive war. Many of the (Iranian) Islamic republic's political elites are also business elites, eager to find a way out of conflict."

Perhaps, as Molavi argued, a Western strategy of seeking to engage the volatile regimes of Iran and China into an emerging new Silk Road economy will have a moderating impact on their policies. But good behavior and economic prosperity don't always go hand in hand.

Look at China's aggressive military build-up in a region where it has no realistic security threats. Look at Iran's nuclear ambitions and deranged threats to eradicate Israel from the map.

Economic engagement is important in itself, and as a secondary security strategy. But we should not make the same prediction young Mr. Roosevelt made almost a century ago.

For more on this story, please visit The Advocate web site.