OP-ED: “Iran’s Economic Crisis: President Ahmadinejad isn’t bringing the oil money ‘to every dinner table,’” by Amir Taheri, Wall Street Journal, 9 May 2007, p. A17.
This piece shows why Friedman's Petropolitics law has rather short legs, historically speaking. Demography, among other things, can quickly overwhelm its explanatory power.
Condi’s got to do more, as does the USG in general, to bypass the leadership and get the economic connectivity flowing below. As this article indicates, Iran is dying on the vine because its current economic connectivity is so narrowly focused on oil and Ahmadinejad is preaching and practicing some stupid version of economic autarky a la Kim’s juche in the DPRK.
The big difference, of course, is that some real connectivity exists, thanks to the oil and gas.
Instead of asking India and China to boycott Iran alongside us, which will never work, we need to be working with them on how their economic infiltration can open up Iran.
This is a country ripe for the economic taking, but as is so often the case, we focus on killing weeds instead of growing some lawn. Détente is all about the latter, isolation and containment all about the former.
Killing weeds has its time and place, but that time and place isn’t with Iran right now, not with our current mess/tie-down in Iraq.
No, not when Iran’s this weak. That sequencing has been one of our own choosing, but Bush and company refuse to live by their choices.
Excellent piece by Taheri, who is superb on Iran.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
I read Taheri's column and found it quite interesting. I do have three Comments:
1. I was really blown away by Ahmadinejad's placing the breaks on Iran becoming a member of the WTO. A definite decision to stay out of the Core. The regime in Tehran must be deathly afraid of unfrettered economic ties with the Core.
2. I have family in Iran and they all mention that land prices are skyrocketting. I guess this is a result of the "investment class" expecting regime change and looking for safe places for their cash.
3. Wouldn't the U.S just prop up the Regime by opening economic ties with Iran? All deals fatten the pockets of the Mullahs - What's to prevent the US to be tainted by its dealings with the Mullahs when they do fall?
Posted by Kevin in Dallas![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 11, 2007 4:04 PM
I don't mind propping up the regime for a while if the end result is marginalization of their power over the economy.
Doing it fast, like the Shah or Yeltsin, tends to get you the just-as-fast blowback. No one wants to own that Iran, so the infiltration route, where leaders change over time, is most welcome.
Posted by Tom Barnett | May 13, 2007 10:07 AM