Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

To portray Iran as a former client state that has turned on the USA is an interesting posture. Since the Revolutionary Islamic State of Iran is far from the same "State" as the Shah's Iran, referring to the two "States" as the same is a category error. The government is not the country. Such a simple confusion, yet so common, particularly among governmental operatives. The government is not the country.

Give it up Tom. Your entire theory hangs on the mullahs being rational human beings. You have no evidence to prove that. They have erected the presumption that that they are the insane clown posse.

Personnaly, I have no problm with bombing them back to the stone age and doing the same to anyone who objects.

It may not bother you personally, but "bombing them back to the Stone Age" is going to have serious negative repercussions in Iraq, internationally, and even domestically. If you bomb Iran, whether its "strategic" bombing of specific targets or a regime take-out strike, the Iranians are obviously going to consider that war. Since they won't be able to attack the US mainland directly, they'll just funnel plenty more resources next door.

What do you tell the British when their casualties skyrocket? Do we really want a return of the Shitte insurgency of 2004, where we had roughly around 5-10 US troop deaths per day? Except this time around you can expect them to be even higher because it'll last longer than a few months. Do we really want to throw away the (admittingly small) progress we've made in Iraq, along with the enormous investment in both financial capital and American/Iraqi lives lost? Is wasting all this worth enough to delay Iran's lust for a nuclear weapon a year or two (assuming it can even be accomplished in the first-place)?

I think Iran's recent comments (sharing nuke technology) is just bluster aimed towards gaining support among various Gap countries, sort of an us vs. the US argument like Tom mentions so often. I don't think they'll actually share the technology however, and if they do, more harm will probably come to them than it would us. Look at the loud anger in the Middle East whenever US/Iraqi forces crackdown on Sunni insurgent groups, then compare that level of anger towards the car bombings in Iraq in which dozens of (mainly) Shiites are blown to smithereens daily, and you just may hear a few crickets chirping if you're quiet. Many of the extremist groups and more fervent religious factions of the Middle East consider Shiites to be pigs and sub-humans, and some of them even view Shiites as worse than Jews. So I don't really see them handing out nuke technology like candy to unstable nations, putting it within arms reach of many of these groups that despise them.

Even if the Iranians take the risk and do share nuclear technology with select client-states, we should remember that client-states virtually always come back to bite you in the ass. The Athenians, Spartans, Romans, Eastern Romans, European colonial powers, United States, and the Soviets all experienced that first-hand. If Iran wants familiarity with that lesson, I say let's hand them the noose.

Sorry, part of my comment got cut off. I just wanted to add that I agree with much of what Tom wrote above, though one aspect I disagree with is the view of Iranians were on the verge of revolt shortly after the US invasion of Iraq. I've been hearing this for years now (both prior to and after the Iraq occupation), and I think most of this is disseminating from the various Iranian freedom groups. While I believe that many Iranians want change, I also know that a large segment of the population (of those, most probably live in Iran's "Gap") doesn't, or at the most wishes for it to occur slowly. So I don't really envision any sweeping political change in Iran, and I personally think it'll come in a slow, piecemeal fashion as opposed to a revolt. Though I admit I'd rather be wrong than right in this case.

Most telling line:

" Few outside the White House are ready for "all," so we will end up with nothing."

Tom hits it but I think undersells here - IMO, just looking at things and making a PoliSci SWAG few *IN* the White House are ready for "all", either, which makes the bluster all that more empty. One wonders why they're doing it - perhaps to try to focus the minds of our "good, helpful buddies" in Europe, China, and Russia on the issue, but they aren't buying it.

A more system-shock stick that might be believable in Beijing would be to tell them: "look, if you don't really work with us on this, well there's little we can do to stop them from getting the bomb. But Taiwan will too." - but we should use that stick with respect to getting their cooperation on North Korea, more than on Iran (along *with* the carrots, saying "but if you do really put the screws to Kim, then we'd be happy to see a PacRim Alliance with China as a key member").

All the bluster on Iran though is transparently empty.

Robert Schwartz wrote:

"Your entire theory hangs on the mullahs being rational human beings. You have no evidence to prove that."

There is a difference between religious fanaticism and ideological extremism and irrationality, actually. The Mullahs are more than capable of rational calculus, however they give greater weight to things that we don't.

They certainly did a better job in negotiations with the enlightened, secular-rational Europeans did over the nuke thing. And they're certainly playing their diplomatic cards better than we are right now. And they have always made a rational calculus of just how the "International Community" would react (or not) to each outrageous act they've taken. To the point where they can put up a frothing-at-the-mouth front-man as President, instigate just the right amount of mischief in Iraq, flout all sorts of international standards (not just the nukes thing, that just has everyone's momentary attention), and still have hyper-moderate rationalist theorists seeing in them a bunch we can work with, urging us to cut favorable deals with them and make them a regional pillar (again).

And the whole nuke thing was very rational for them, domestically. Tom mentioned the incipient rebellion against them. Well, about the only thing a majority of the Persian people agree with the Mullahcracy on anymore is that Iran deserves to be a respected member of the nuclear Great Power club.

These dudes have managed to checkmate and hornswaggle the "international community", rally a discontented population around them, and increase their ability to project their power (idological and violent) without interference (read=intervention) in the future (which should be *great* fun if you liked the last 25 years of Iranian Foreign Policy). Pretty shrewd for a bunch of "irrational" Mullahs.

"To portray Iran as a former client state that has turned on the USA is an interesting posture. Since the Revolutionary Islamic State of Iran is far from the same "State" as the Shah's Iran, referring to the two "States" as the same is a category error. The government is not the country. Such a simple confusion, yet so common, particularly among governmental operatives. The government is not the country."

Helen, exactly. Tom mentioned Iran was a client state, and now is not. You respond by saying that was a different government. But the government is not the state, so the point's tangential. Tom is correct.

I recommend you spend a little time reading The Persian Puzzle. While Americans focus on the "hostage crisis," Iranians focus on the overthrow of Mossadeq. Iran-Contra further conflicts the relationship as it sent a clear message that the US will say one thing in public about Iran while doing the opposite. Combine that with a rather large number of Iran-Contra figures that were hired by this administration and it makes a reasonable person wonder if we're going to see some new Iran-Contra scandal hit the fan.

The only way to understand the twenty five year confrontation between Iran and the United States is to know the history of the relationship. Contained in that history are all of the elements of our current impasse. Most Iranians know that history - or some warped version of it - all too well. Most Americans know it too little. To a certain extent, that is the first of many profound differences that lie at the heart of our belligerent stand-off.

Personnally, I have no problem with bombing them back to the stone age and doing the same to anyone who objects.

Planning to attack Iran has to take into account a shutdown of Gulf oil traffic and $1000/barrel oil. All of that traffic has to pass the Straits of Hormuz. Much of that passage is within artillery range of mountainous coastline. How much has already been dug in, or buried in advance? What will happen to global trade if oil skyrockets to $1k/barrel? Will the world run out of supertankers before we can stop rubber speedboats armed with RPGs shooting off rudders and disabling supertankers in the Straits of Hormuz? Just how many antiaircraft missiles did Russia sell to Iran? Just how many antishipping missiles did China sell to Iran? Just how many silkworms have the Iranians built after China sold them a factory to build antishipping missiles? Could we afford to shop in "big box" stores? Will those stores have products when shipping containers across the Pacific becomes unprofitable? How many people will end up out of work when the retail and shipping industry starts to implode? How long can walmart and target keep stores open with empty shelves? Will every core nation collapse into the gap as their source of food, clothing and energy becomes unaffordable by the even the middle classes? Just how much of what you buy at the supermarket travelled over 1,000 miles to your store? A reasonable plan would consider such things. You will have to search very hard to find any of the chest thumping over Iran to even remotely consider such stuff.

All the mullahs have to keep poking at is portraying the US as Yazid. That strikes an emotional cord at the heart of every Shiite, and at what it means to be a Shiite.

Emotionally, I hate the lack of obvious options. However, I dont think Dr Barnett is wrong from a logical view point.

The Iranians seem to have found an exploitable chink in the PR armor, a big one. The term rope a dope seems to apply. I believe we are acting like the dope. Not only are we getting no where with Iran, we are submitting to European "permissions" to act, forcing Russia and China to set up against us and getting politically chewed up by the democrats at home (never mind what happens if it all screws up).The outcome isnt seemingly bright.

I am general administration supporter. However, I am disappointed in the lack of present immagination. They really did have a future vision I shared, but I fear they are in need of new spectacles to keep looking forward.

I find I am really coming over to the Barnett theory of a Eastern 'NATO". The time seems to be now. Bush needs to go to China, befriend on the basis of common needs/desires and create a friend we can do the "soft kill" on...

It is interesting that we seem to not be able to distinguish Persian history from Arabian history or either from the history of exploration and development of oil. The world is complicated. Individual countries can have complicated geographies and politics. It is interesting how little in the West has been written about current Persian/Arab attitudes towards each other. Or the degree of cooperation and collaboration between those two warrior nation/cultures histories. Again, the world oil situation is complex. Very little real data is available to either the US Governemnt (even the CIA) about the true status of oil production, refining and supply. A vision limited to "oil" could lead us to disaster and is really too simplistic for the current status of a world headed towards 30 ballistic missle capable, nuclear armed states by 2030. What is crucial to understanding is wherein lies the US vital interest and national security. Some very hard tradeoffs are going to have to be made. The Bush Administration can't really muster the energy or competence for one last charge internationally no matter how much the Secretary of State plays the piano. The rest of the administration should be spent not posturing or even doing but assessing long term strategy and options. It is clear that policy formulation with the Democrats is completely bankrupt. Given national confusion over the meaning of Vietnam, and the Democrats being appropriately blamed for that fiasco, they name a candidate who still cannot make up his mind about that era and thus fails as a candidate. We now know that draft dodgers are likely to become Presidents in the boomer generation. So let's present the next one who is most likely to become President the real options. This will take very hard work and will multi-disciplinary effort and be non-partisan. We must start now because time is running out on US hegemony, money, political will, and apparently intellect committed to the reality of the world as it will exist in 2030. For example, maybe we should let Europe take responsibility for itself and see if they can pull their weight. Perhaps statehood for Great Britain 9redeeming that great strategic error of Britain in the 18th Century) or even statehood for Cuba after Castro, or for the northern tier states of Mexico shold be debated. That might be enough to keep our footprint in Euro geo-stategy. I like Tom's writing and analysis but perhaps the old game of "Risk" is more likely. Basically, powerful bastions being established in the various continents and hemispheres with each isolated diplomatically from the others but sharing on almost a barter basis trade relationships. The fiscal system in place is breaking down, it just has not been recognized yet. Those who argue true globalization has ended have many strong points in their favor. This is going to definitely be the Chines curse "May you live in interesting times."

Iran is not ten feet tall. It is playing a very risky game and is constrained as much as liberated by PRC protection. The chinese don't care much about two factions of barbarians beating their gums at each other but if it comes to shipping containers not going to customers, they'll care because no exports means that the PRC goes under and the CCP leadership is personally in danger as salaries stop getting paid and all those dollars sitting in their reserve vaults crater in value.

Tom clearly thought in the past that Iran's system was not united and that Ahmadinejad was being kept on as short a leash as Khatami was before him with Rafsanjani being the guy put in charge of bringing him up short. There goes that theory. I'm not sure whether the earlier fighting was real or a case of "good cop, bad cop" played out to see how many suckers could get roped in. It's difficult to tell from this distance.

Robert Schwartz - The mullahs may be crazy or they may be playing at crazy. It's hard to tell. Nixon used that gambit to good effect during his presidency. Ahmadinejad may be playing the same game. In any case, the mullahs are not unitary so you need to differentiate between the internal factions to get a good read on what's really going to happen. I don't have access to that kind of intelligence so I'm a bit more nervous but less despairing than most americans.

Porphyrogenitus - I have consistently advocated the idea that there are other alternatives between invasion/bombing and sitting on our hands. Imagine a letter from Ayatollah Montazeri to Ayatollah Sistani asking to visit Najaf and the Iraqi government facilitates it by organizing a liberation team to get him out from house arrest in Qom. That's not a legitimate casus belli but it's very destabilizing to the Khomeinist regime. There are plenty of very respected clerics in jail and under house arrest who are anti-khomeinist. Freeing them and highlighting Iranian religious persecution inside their own faith is not going to be an acceptable reason to close the straits of Hormuz.

Peter - $1000 barrel oil is hyperbole, right? You do know we can make diesel fuel from coal for $32/bbl equivalent using proven technology and paying the price in somewhat higher pollution levels, don't you? The precedent's been set with Katrina when pollution controls were relaxed somewhat to allow more gasoline to enter the market. if we were to build sufficient GTL capacity to replace Iran, the oil markets wouldn't even hiccup if Iran were turned into a parking lot.

Tom,

I believe we can handle the "eyepokes." Right now, saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing. I've heard estimates that Iran's bomb will be ready anywhere from a fortnight from now to a decade - that's when the actions will really count.

Right now, we just need to provide the nuts at the top of the gov't enough rope to hang themselves with. Persia will flip on the "mullahcracy" in a much more unified way than Iraq. The death cult holds sway, but only until opportunity dawns in Iran. When it does, the well-educated, yet fearful fans of "Reading Lolita in Tehran" will slide snugly into Persian-style Western opportunity.

The problem under the Shah was that Western opportunity was reserved for the social elites. The problem under the '79 revolution is that Western opportunity is reserved for the religious elites.

Remove or soften the towers of the elites, and the book reader-merchant class of Persia will have their way.

I do disagree that we used up our "go-it-alone" card in Iraq. We'll always be able to "go alone" when we have to. I just don't think Iran is a reasonable "go-it-alone" nation. Everybody hates them right now, so going it alone would be a waste of natural alliances and international resources. Iraq was go-it-alone by necessity: the Russians, Germans and French were pretty heavily compromised.

Oh one more thing - We've got a Cuba picture in our heads over Iran. i.e. Bad, amoral pseudowestern-dictatorship supported by the U.S. overthrown by a horrific communal/Marxist totalitarian dictatorship. We need to replace that with a picture of Afghanistan - Bad past, bright future...with more prospects. Iran is a great, great, great opportunity. We just need to navigate past this current nastiness.

Dan

PS - Loved PNM. Its principles have actually helped me to strategize improved family relations with my own personal "gap" relatives!

The million dollar question isn't "how crazy are the Iranians?" it's "how crazy are the Americans?" I wouldn't discount the irrationality of America's government with the baby boomers in charge and a citizenry charged up by fear and loathing. Not this administration, but the next one might get all cockeyed if the public mood keeps getting uglier. Then we'll miss the days of the sane, moderate George W. Bush. (Well, some of us - others will be gleefully foaming at the mouth at the images of burning Muslim cities.)

We do have a hard kill option in Iraq. We could certainly smash their military forces and destroy their economic infrastructure. The problem is that they export a significant fraction of the oil that keeps the Chinese economy growing which keeps the Chinese rulers in power.

If we cut off one of China's major oil sources by smashing Iraq flat, the Robert Kaplan scenario would become a whole lot more likely. The Argentine Generals didn't have any really good reason for seizing an island off their coast, but their economy was tanking and they figured it would distract their population. Hmmm, do the Chinese have any islands off their coast that they might consider siezing in order to distract their population from worstening economic conditions?

If the Chinese could be brought in with the promise that they would own Iran's oil production, they would be excellent candidates to occupy Iran after the US has destroyed the Iranian conventional military force and taken over. Instead of thinking about Mossadegh in 1953, let the Persians remember Nishapur in 1221.

The theory of a divided Iranian top leadership doesn't go anywhere yet TM. You live too much on headlines.

Tom Barnett - Actually, I'm more trying to figure out what your theory is. Internally in Iran, they're either united or divided. My own theory is that things are *very* complex and there's a lot of negotiation going on behind the scenes between factions. Some divisions are real, others are put out for show to draw us into error.

It's tough to tell from outside the regime so the best strategy is to figure out a way to win irrespective of whether the leadership is divided or united. This reduces the solution set both in terms of bombing them back to the stone age and fully embracing them with connectivity that poisons their more destructive impulses.

Clearly, destabalization is called for but it can't just be the destabilization of bombs. That has too high a chance of firmly entrenching extremists. But the mullahs sit astride every major connectivity point. They play the role of mediating and managing connectivity and profit handsomely. They are both the regular and implicit villains of the society. This makes it hard to pulse disruption through connectivity because there's a mullah in the middle that can stop whatever they perceive as being disruptive.