The Realpolitiks of Iran

[Pangloss]

I'm starting to wonder if the situation with Iran is becoming a matter of realpolitik -- a situation which transcends partisan bickering and standard diplomatic approaches, and requires thinking along the lines of what's realistically possible and/or likely to happen.

 

I see a lot of people speculating about Iran, but a lot of that speculation centers around how (specifically) President Bush will handle it. That's understandable, of course, but it also strikes me as somewhat... off. For one thing, the situation is just not analogous to that of Iraq. It's more like that of 1930s Europe. An emerging power, highly motivated to solve its problems against the grain of diplomatic pressure, and coming into the possesion of the necessary physical might to do so.

 

It almost doesn't matter if there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. If we reach a this point (and I know there's a lot of "ifs" here, but bear with me a moment):

 

- Iran has nuclear weapons

- Iranian leadership expresses a willingness to use them

- Deployment/delivery systems are objectively assessed and determined to be "up to the task"

 

Then doesn't war become inevitable, regardless of who happens to be in charge in which country?

 

Isn't the situation more like that of 1930s Europe than 2003 Mid-East?

 

As for countries refusing to sanction Iran, that seems analogous to Never-Chain-Berlin, does it not? It took a while for many countries to come around to understanding the real situation then as well, did it not?

 

I don't mean to predict doom and gloom -- in fact I think the situation is very salvagable. What concerns me, however, is that attention is being paid to the wrong issues. This is not and should not be a platform for Bush-bashing. Nor should it be a reason for justifying Iraq or the War on Terror. Those may be factors in what motivated Iran to follow this course, but in the end Iran is hoisting itself by its own petard. Nobody made them do this.

[aguy2]

- Iran has nuclear weapons

- Iranian leadership expresses a willingness to use them

- Deployment/delivery systems are objectively assessed and determined to be "up to the task"

 

Then doesn't war become inevitable' date=' regardless of who happens to be in charge in which country?

[/quote']

 

It would be a 'pre-emptive war' on the basis of what they might do. If that kind of criteria where in vogue during the Cold War we probably wouldn't be here.

aguy2

[john5746]

Edited next post.

[john5746]

Then doesn't war become inevitable' date=' regardless of who happens to be in charge in which country?[/quote']

 

No. We are not at war with North Korea.

 

If we assure them that they will be destroyed upon using nukes, they more than likely will not use them, except self-defense.

 

Isn't the situation more like that of 1930s Europe than 2003 Mid-East?

 

Maybe Italy? Iran is no where close to "world domination"

[Saryctos]

It would be a 'pre-emptive war' on the basis of what they might do. If that kind of criteria where in vogue during the Cold War we probably wouldn't be here.

aguy2

It's that kind of policy that allowed the Cuban missle crisis to occur.

[Jim]

It's that kind of policy that allowed the Cuban missle crisis to occur.

 

I can't tell if you are being critical of the USSR's decision to construct nuclear missile installations within ninety miles of Florida or of JFK's response?

[Saryctos]

Not so much the response, but more the defensive policy that allowed for such a last minute dicision debacle*. When dealing with nuclear arms, you cannot wait until the moment where there is a problem, you have to position yourself so that problems do not arise.

[Sisyphus]

So what should have been done differently?

[Pangloss]

No. We are not at war with North Korea.

 

If we assure them that they will be destroyed upon using nukes' date=' they more than likely will not use them, except self-defense.

 

Maybe Italy? Iran is no where close to "world domination"[/quote']

 

Well if you want to get technical, neither was Germany. Spinning my words is not a rebuttal.

 

You might want to consider current events. Yesterday the Iranian government pledged $50 million to Hamas on the same day that it refused to denounce, and even spoke in favor of, a suicide bomber attack on Israeli citizens.

 

Do I need to draw some sort of Junkers-dive-bombing-Jerusalem analogy in order to see the comparison here, guy?

[john5746]

Do I need to draw some sort of Junkers-dive-bombing-Jerusalem analogy in order to see the comparison here' date=' guy? [/quote']

 

I think dive-bombing of Tehran is far more likely.

 

I don't see Iran as being nearly as powerful or potentially powerful relative to its neighbors as Germany or Japan was prior to WWII. Israel is more than capable of defeating them and we as usual can slaughter them.

 

What would make this scenario play out to a WW situation is if you start getting Allies behind BOTH sides. We do not want that to happen.

 

The thought that war is inevitable is very pessimistic. It takes diplomacy right off the table. Who wants to talk to someone who is planning their attack already?

 

Unfortunately, one of the big costs of the Iraq screw up is that World opinion is against the US. Even with Iran's nutcase at the helm, no one is in the mood to hear war rhetoric from Bush again. This is the real deal, but we will have to be more patient.

[Pangloss]

I think if you limit the lessons you allow yourself to learn from history to exact representations only, then you'll never learn the lessons of history at all.

[john5746]

I think if you limit the lessons you allow yourself to learn from history to exact representations only, then you'll never learn the lessons of history at all.

 

You can look back in history and find various things to support every viewpoint. Allowing Hitler to build up an arsenal wasn't a good thing, but not starting a war with the Soviet Union - who vowed to "crush" us was a good thing.

 

I think we have some time to try to work on Iran. I want to wait for the next President, who hopefully can bring some diplomacy. This President can't even get along with his own party!

[Jim]

You can look back in history and find various things to support every viewpoint. Allowing Hitler to build up an arsenal wasn't a good thing' date=' but not starting a war with the Soviet Union - who vowed to "crush" us was a good thing.

 

I think we have some time to try to work on Iran. I want to wait for the next President, who hopefully can bring some diplomacy. This President can't even get along with his own party![/quote']

 

Somehow, I had missed this quote:

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.

[Severian]

I must confess to being at a loss over Iran.

 

On the one hand, Iran has huge oil reserves so their insistance that they need a civil nuclear program is clearly just a lie. and we do not want them to have nukes.

 

On the other hand, the US (and the west generally) has recently aggressively invaded their two closest neighbours (on either side) in order to get at their oil. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Iran to feel threatened by the US. And the best way to stop the US invading them is a nuclear deterent (it seems to work with N. Korea). I think this entire mess has been engineered by western forgein policy.

[Pangloss]

I think this entire mess has been engineered by western forgein policy.

 

I actually agree with this point, but this is actually a perfect opportunity to me to refresh the underlying subject of this thread, which is realpolitiks.

 

It's important to keep in mind that we didn't just beam down from a spaceship in 2003. Iran has been intimately familiar with US foreign policy as a primary and central point of focus for all of their government policy-making decisions (foreign and domestic) for nearly three decades. They probably understand the motivations and goals of US foreign policy better than our somewhat scatterbrained State Department does, at least in terms of how it pertains to them.

 

So this is actually a perfect example of what I meant by the "realpolitiks" of Iran -- the fact that many foreign governments, such as Iran, "play the politics game" a LOT better than the US does these days. They've made a huge investment not only in nuclear technology, but in a protective infrastructure, as well as socio-political analysis. We're only just now coming to see the fruition of a project that probably dates back most of that three decades.

 

It's quite a coup, really. They've completely bearded the lion. Heck, Tom Clancy's probably irate for not having thought of it himself.

[Jim]

I actually agree with this point' date=' but this is actually a perfect opportunity to me to refresh the underlying subject of this thread, which is realpolitiks.

 

It's important to keep in mind that we didn't just beam down from a spaceship in 2003. Iran has been intimately familiar with US foreign policy as a primary and central point of focus for all of their government policy-making decisions (foreign and domestic) for nearly three decades. They probably understand the motivations and goals of US foreign policy better than our somewhat scatterbrained State Department does, at least in terms of how it pertains to them.

 

So this is actually a perfect example of what I meant by the "realpolitiks" of Iran -- the fact that many foreign governments, such as Iran, "play the politics game" a LOT better than the US does these days. They've made a huge investment not only in nuclear technology, but in a protective infrastructure, as well as socio-political analysis. We're only just now coming to see the fruition of a project that probably dates back most of that three decades.

 

It's quite a coup, really. They've completely bearded the lion. Heck, Tom Clancy's probably irate for not having thought of it himself.[/quote']

 

Can you describe some of Iran's better political plays other than developing nukes covertly?

[Bettina]

On the other hand, the US (and the west generally) has recently aggressively invaded their two closest neighbours (on either side) in order to get at their oil.

 

Do you have any valid links that would support that remark? Its not what I've learned in class, not in any news bulletins, any magazines I've read, or anywhere that says we went into afganistan, for example, to "get their oil".

 

Also, I don't think you know anything about the reasons we went into afghanistan. Somehow, I believe that star under your name does not apply here.

 

Bettina

[Jim]

I must confess to being at a loss over Iran.

 

On the one hand' date=' Iran has huge oil reserves so their insistance that they need a civil nuclear program is clearly just a lie. and we do not want them to have nukes.

 

On the other hand, the US (and the west generally) has recently aggressively invaded their two closest neighbours (on either side) in order to get at their oil. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Iran to feel threatened by the US. And the best way to stop the US invading them is a nuclear deterent (it seems to work with N. Korea). I think this entire mess has been engineered by western forgein policy.[/quote']

 

We could look back 50, 100 or 1,000 years for causes of Iran's current nuclear ambitions. With respect to the US invasions of Iraq, those were both directly related to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Of course we defended Kuwait because of their oil resources. That is hardly unknown and shouldn't be controversial.

 

Ahmadinejad, or someone like him, could have advocated the annihilation of Israel and demonized the west by appealing to past Arabic humiliations without any US invasion of Iraq. Given his hatred of Israel, I do not see why he needed an incentive to develop nukes.

 

Although I do not see in what sense the West "engineered" this "mess," the question is what to do now.

[Severian]

Do you have any valid links that would support that remark? Its not what I've learned in class' date=' not in any news bulletins, any magazines I've read, or anywhere that says we went into afganistan, for example, to "get their oil".

[/quote']

Huh? Are you asking for evidence that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you asking for evidence for why we invaded? The former seems rather easy, but short of paying a trip to the pentagon in my ninja pyjamas, the latter may be a little difficult.

 

To me, it seems pretty obvious why we invaded Iraq. Iraq didn't do anything more hostile or unpleasant than many African countries have done recently, but we are not invading Africa because they have no oil. We invaded Iraq for what is sometimes refered to as 'oil security' - not just for the oil in Iraq itself, but to try and keep the oil producing areas (ie. the middle east) stable to allow US firms to operate there. I actually think this is a fairly valid reason to invade too.

 

For Afghanistan, I don't think there is much (any?) oil there at all, but it is a little bit coincidental that they are right on the route of the proposed oil pipeline from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. At the moment, all the oil from there goes through Russia, which is obviously not good for the US. Have a look at the date of this article - they didn't waste much time.

 

You didn't believe all that 'war on terror' crap did you?

 

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what the causes of the wars were. The important thing (with regard to my comments earlier) is what Iran thinks were the causes of the war, and whether that makes them feel more or less threatened by the US. What do you think - does Iran feel feel more or less threatened by the US then before?

[aguy2]

Has anyone seen what Thomas Freidman has to say about the 'realpolitiks' of the current situation. In essence he is saying that if we have to depend on our current Rumsfield/Chaney/Bush team of incompetent losers to do something constructive, we better except a nuclear Iran as a done deal.

aguy2

[Bettina]

Huh? Are you asking for evidence that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you asking for evidence for why we invaded? The former seems rather easy, but short of paying a trip to the pentagon in my ninja pyjamas, the latter may be a little difficult.

Its surpising to me that you don't tie in the invasion of Afganistan as a response to the world trade center destruction (Bin Laden, the Taliban, etc) since most people do and this response included all NATO countries. You should read more about that. Do you think that the WTC was a Bush plot too?

 

To me, it seems pretty obvious why we invaded Iraq. Iraq didn't do anything more hostile or unpleasant than many African countries have done recently, but we are not invading Africa because they have no oil. We invaded Iraq for what is sometimes refered to as 'oil security' - not just for the oil in Iraq itself, but to try and keep the oil producing areas (ie. the middle east) stable to allow US firms to operate there. I actually think this is a fairly valid reason to invade too.

I agree with you here.

For Afghanistan' date=' I don't think there is much (any?) oil there at all, but it is a little bit coincidental that they are right on the route of the proposed oil pipeline from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. At the moment, all the oil from there goes through Russia, which is obviously not good for the US. Have a look at the date of this article - they didn't waste much time.

This was not the reason for the invasion as stated above.

You didn't believe all that 'war on terror' crap did you?

Yes, I do because I see it every day. The beheadings, the suicide bombings, the targeted killing of little kids and women. The stoning, the blowing up of schools, killing teachers, etc etc. All this is terror.

Anyway' date=' it doesn't really matter what the causes of the wars were. The important thing (with regard to my comments earlier) is what Iran thinks were the causes of the war, and whether that makes them feel more or less threatened by the US. What do you think - does Iran feel feel more or less threatened by the US then before?[/quote']

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and for it to be removed from the map. He condones suicide bombings and has called for the worldwide advancement of Islamic teachings and lifestyles. He is sending millions of dollars to palestine to be used in operations against Israel, and now, wants to build a nuclear weapon.

 

Yes, Iran feels threatened and rightfully so, because I would never let the religious mullahs get their hands on a nuke no matter what the cost.

 

Bee

[Jim]

Has anyone seen what Thomas Freidman has to say about the 'realpolitiks' of the current situation. In essence he is saying that if we have to depend on our current Rumsfield/Chaney/Bush team of incompetent losers to do something constructive' date=' we better except a nuclear Iran as a done deal.

aguy2[/quote']

 

I have not read this piece. What does Freidman contend is the proper policy towards Iran?

[Pangloss]

Can you describe some of Iran's better political plays other than developing nukes covertly?

 

I don't understand your question. Depending on how I parse that, I seem to have either answered it already in my earlier post, or it seems like you're asking me to defend something I haven't claimed.

 

Maybe I'm just not following you, though.

[Jim]

I don't understand your question. Depending on how I parse that' date=' I seem to have either answered it already in my earlier post, or it seems like you're asking me to defend something I haven't claimed.

 

Maybe I'm just not following you, though.[/quote']

 

 

You said:

 

So this is actually a perfect example of what I meant by the "realpolitiks" of Iran -- the fact that many foreign governments, such as Iran, "play the politics game" a LOT better than the US does these days.

 

That seemed a broader point than just referring to Iran's nuke project. So, I asked if you could "describe some of Iran's better political plays other than developing nukes covertly."

 

If I missed where you described this in earlier posts, my apologies.

[Pangloss]

I don't know of any other examples of Iran playing the politics game better than the US recently. Nor does that refute my point. If you like I'd be more than happy to give you examples of other countries that have, which would support my statement.

 

Please tell me you're not deliberately misconstruing my point. I'm going to be very disappointed if you did that on purpose. That's a Rush Limbaugh or RevPrez thing to do, not a Jim thing to do.