ARTICLE: Hit Iran where it hurts, By BARACK OBAMA, August 30th 2007
Decently balanced piece--in most regards--on Iran by Obama.
Still, the knee-jerk to demonize Iran as the greatest threat in a generation is historically sloppy and strikes me as strategic pandering.
The Iranian Revolution went nowhere since 1979, including its failure in Iran. Tehran's reach for the bomb, quite frankly, makes a ton of strategic sense given: 1) our recent wars on its right and left and our avowed talk of regime change and 2) Schelling's historical point that the bomb ends your vulnerability to U.S. invasion (in fact, invasion or attack from anyone--in short, deterrence works, whether you're Tehran or Tel Aviv).
As for Tehran's support to fellow Shia radicals in the region,that's also expected given its new-found influence thanks to America's toppling of two nasty Sunni regimes (Taliban and Saddam) and the enabling of the region's first Arab Shia state (Iraq). That Iran fights us and Israel assymmetrically may distress us, but that's just how weaker powers fight (terror and insurgency and proxies). Over-emotionalizing--with strategic hyperbole--such tactics in the region helps no one.
Meanwhile, America has to grow up a bit and realize that the Big Bang leads to the Shia revivial and that it's only through that path that we'll foster genuine pluralism and less religious extremism in politics. Sure, it'd be cool to jump right to the Tom Jeffersons, but let's be real about what comes next.
Can't have pluralism with the continuation of Sunni authoritarianism and suppression of Shia minorities (the Saudi path that brought us the Taliban and al-Qaida and 9/11), and when it comes to mixing religious fundamentalism with political authoritarianism, it's the Sunnis with their Wahabbism and Salafism and accompanying al-Qaida network that's the bigger problem today, not Iran's exhausted revolution (a failed mixing of Shiism and politics that's historically quite abnormal--unlike in the Sunni world) nor Sistani's "quietism" (that says Shia must rescue faith from politics--the opposite of Khomeinism). [Me, I give Sistani the Nobel for peace every year starting in 2003. His influence and importance remain vastly unappreciated.]
The realistic grand strategist sees more allies than enemies in Shia and puts aside the traumatic memories of 1979. If our new anti-Shia strategy takes hold, we'll be back in the business of bolstering Sunni dictators and mass repression and killing of Shia.
Then again, it's what we know and what we're comfortable with throughout history.
You'd hope for more sophisticated and grown-up talk from Obama, but that's just domestic politics, I guess.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
If Schelling's talk ever gets put on youtube or some kind of TED-like embed format, Sean should post it here.
Tom - while I mostly agree, I think there is an important caveat to getting the bomb - new nuclear powers have often overestimated the leverage that their status gives them, which can lead to miscalculation.
We can start with James F. Byrnes maladroit advice to Truman in 1945 regarding Japan and the USSR and cruise through nuclear history to the most recent Indo-Pakistani standoff in the late Clinton years over Kashmir. Would Tehran, with it's diffuse power structure be immune to that temptation ?
I'm not suggesting that Iran would immediately nuke it's neighbors but that possession of the bomb may very well precipitate some reckless gambling by the pasdaran clique around Ahmadinejad that they might otherwise have not attempted. Or have been constrained from attempting by Khameini and Rafsanjani.
Posted by zenpundit![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 4, 2007 10:14 AM
the only two realistic options,either do the china path,or truley support the mass movements.US has to regain the Iranian trust,by
either open economically and improve the living standards,or directly
and truly(no deals) back a democratic government(like mossadegh).
the unrealistic option; is war. unfortunetly war has been the main
rescuer of the economic down fall in USA.if purle harbor helped to change the people's opposition to going to war(there are good facts
that US intel knew the Japense were coming), 9/11 did the same thing for cheny.militeralizing the economy which had burst the bubble of the clinton era helped turn around the economy.the same
pattern in 1950 the korean war in 1960 jfk started the vietnam war,
all to prevent economic depression.and now the neocons see the
world as a small village and themself as the ruler of this village and
feel in order to open new markets they should turn to militery.
Posted by farhad | September 4, 2007 4:10 PM
Zenpundit,
We have a tendency to take Iran's mullahs at face value and disregard the fairly sophisticated nature of education in Iran.
The big question on Iran is, What do they know about nukes? The lessons of nukes are pervasive and easily obtained.
As for the recent Pak-India close call, nukes were nowhere near the show. IN fact, I would cite that experience as a great example of deterrence being fairly well engrained on both sides.
Posted by Tom Barnett | September 4, 2007 9:20 PM
Tom,
On the other hand, I believe the first Gulf War came much closer than most people realize.
Posted by Dave Goldberg | September 5, 2007 8:23 PM
Dave,
I will tell you from direct knowledge and some participation that your impression on that war is wrong.
Posted by Tom Barnett | September 6, 2007 4:32 PM
Tom,
I hope you are right, but I remember when the first Scuds stuck Haifa and Tel Aviv, the Israelis sortied two fighters upon first reports that they carried chemical war heads. They were promptly recalled when the Scuds were confirmed to have carried conventional warheads.
However, I will defer the point to your more direct experience on the matter.
vr/Dave G.
Posted by Dave Goldberg | September 6, 2007 8:03 PM
it amuses me how much misinformation there is in the west about Iran.first of all if Iran ever goes after nukes(when ayatollah khamenei says we shouldn't no one dares do otherwise!) it is not like it is in someone's pockets that they can use anytime they want. there is a military structure which will be very well protected and managed. the claim that Iran supports shia militants... i don't know but when the US makes the same claim about helping the Taliban it just discredits any info coming outa CIA. the Taliban believe killing 13 shites will send them to heavens. it is very stupid to assume Iran is actually helping them!
Posted by ali, tehran | November 14, 2007 4:18 PM