Ok, this might be a stupid question, but....
So I was thinking the other day about all the assinine rumors that're flying out here that Bush's going to invade Iran, and the argument that he'll do it to "guarantee stability" in the middle-east because otherwise Iran will have nukes. This got me to thinking, I don't know what the Iranians would do with nuclear weapons if they had them, but I doubt they'd use them offensively (no-one wants to be seen as the first "nuclear aggressor" since the diplomatic position would be so weak). Without the nuke issue, people still seem rather nervous about Iran thanks to their funding of nasty groups, but what I was wondering was, if stability is really the goal, why not let Iran get stronger? From what I've read, apparently the Saudi's and the Iranians see each other as mortal enemies; do we have anything to lose by letting them have at each-other?
My first thought was "yeah, Israel". But since neither side could ever admit to propping up Israel, that means that there's no way for a proxy war there, so....
My second thought was "yeah, oil", but the last thing either regime can afford to do is to destabize the oil market, because their cash-cows are then toast....
My last thought was, "yeah, but what about all the work in Iraq". My assumption has been that once a sufficiently strong party in Iraq emerges, the other Iraqis will say "oh well, what're ya gonna do". Maybe Iraq could end up being a proxy-war location, or maybe such support would simply lead to a faster federalization there.
I've had this largely half-formed thought in my head for a week, but my only conclusion is that I really don't know jack about how to weigh these kinds of situations out.
Opinions anyone?
8 comments:
The only problem with your outlook is the "nutjob" category. Iran probably won't try anything with them. But there are some loons in power who just might try to slip one to someone who would try to go after someone they didn't like.
The thing is its a pretty big IF. Some folks are crazy enough to try it, but not dumb enough. Some that are dumb enough couldn't because the not so dumb people who don't want to chance the tracing back to them would stop them.
So you have to get the planets to align to get enough crazy people together to make it work. That is a tough one. Now, the threat thing is a whole other story.
Oh boy, you're asking me to bag off ad nauseaum! :)
I'm starting to look at this as the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation/problem.
Iran wants to be a Shia powerhouse and the rest of the Sunni world wants them to stay quiet and down, viewing them as heretics at best and mortal enemies at worst. Some of this is also the age old Arabs vs. Persian issue, but the internal conflict, I think, boils down to the internal schism in Islam that still needs to be settled.
So the Sunni governments are cozying up to the US because they don't want Iran/Shia governments to be in power and have more influence over Islam than they do. At the same time they don't like us, but political situations make strange bedfellows.
No matter how this pans out, we can't sit out - Isolationism has not worked for us and it definitely won't work now with how entangled we are economically with all these countries. Maybe, just maybe, if we are able to switch to another non-oil powersource 20-30 years from now we could disentangle, but with the way the economy has become truly global, I doubt we'll ever be able to truly stay away from this mess.
So - if Iran gets Nukes, the rest of the Arab world will want Nukes to protect themselves from Iran to show that they are still the leaders of the Arab world. Then Israel will get nervous and increase its stockpile and everyone else nearby will as well....and so on. Hopefully it will all end up the same way our cold war with the USSR did - arms race and eventually the other side falling apart and old enemies decide to just let each other be. However - we have to pick a side in all this, and either we side with the Sunni or the Shia. In Iraq in 2003, the Shia were on our side (I don't know if they are now) and the Sunni were not. This may change again and we could be jumping back and forth - because one day our friend becomes our enemy and our former enemy becomes our friend - making us the real pawns in the Middle East as Sunni and Shiite faiths battle for dominance.
Neither side is our "friend". They use us and we use them. Sad but true.
Alex: you assert that we have to pick a side, but you don't back it up. Why must we pick a side? Why not let the Sunni and Shia duke it out? The false-stabilization of petty tyrannies installed after WWII isn't in our interest, so if the status quo isn't helping out much, why not let them work it out organically (aka, let them slit each others' throats) then figure out how to work with the victor?
A few comments..
1. I wouldn't be surprised if one of Iran's first actions upon obtaining nuclear weapons is to attempt to nuke Israel. Several of the current leaders of the mullahocracy have stated that very intention in the past (the govt has distanced itself from it without condemning it), stating that while the retaliation would greatly hurt the Muslim world, it would be worth it to annihilate the Zionists once and for all.. The common Persian would be horrified, but they have little control over the situation..
But more importantly:
2. "why not let them work it out organically ... then figure out how to work with the victor? "
Not to draw too broad a parallel, but isn't that exactly what Europe tried to do in WWII, only to find that the victor had become too powerful and insane to deal with?
Suppose we do let them duke it out and Iran ends up the winner with a boatload of nukes and all of their and Saudi Arabia's oil? Then what? All they have to do then is link with the soon-to-be-nationalized oil of Venezuela and halt all sales to the U.S. and our economy would hit a wall.. Sure it would hurt them too, big time but who knows what they'd do in the meantime.. China wants tons of oil and a lot of people will pay a lot of money for nuclear armaments..
Of course, I've long advocated a Rainbow Six style solution to Iran, not a bombfest..
Jim,
Some of the comments above support my comment - we have to pick a side because we're entangled economically. Piss off the Sunni and we may run out of oil. Piss of the Shia and we may run out of oil. Yes we do have other sources for oil outside Sunni and Shia sources, but not enough for our current demand. Only when there is no resource in a particular area do we stay out - sadly this is why we (and no one else for that matter) have done nothing on Darfur. Ultimately Islam is too big a religion to ignore and so we're involved, like it or not.
I agree with Superbiff: the average Persian isn't in power... but if the average "Persian in Power" can be convinced to play the modernity game on economic grounds, Iran's power suddenly flips into our side of the line as a (mostly) unvarnished asset.
Worth trying for.
Agreed.
And, honestly, I'd be shocked if either of the two sides, who support their massive social spending with oil revenues, could afford to take their oil off of the market without instantly creating uprisings. Neither government is exactly popular....
Post a Comment