-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Persian Prospects and Pretensions
The ups and downs of becoming a regional power.
Iran has constructed a strategy that poses a serious dilemma for the United States and the West in general. Imposing sanctions against Tehran may cause economic pain, but is, as George Friedman has written for STRATFOR, “…a pretext not to undertake the military action Iran really fears and that the United States does not want to take.”
The failure of North Korea’s supposedly improved long-range missile that was to have carried a satellite into orbit is not an error that Iran will make in its own missile development. The Iranian defense scientific team has been very careful not to rush its own long-range missile development and has benefited to a far greater extent from the past failures of their friendly Asian counterpart. It is just this comparatively more careful, less rushed weapon development program of Tehran that keeps the Pentagon planners focused.
The Israelis have planned against missile attacks from the east since their experience with Iraq during Desert Storm. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) war-gamed against Iranian missiles even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Any encouragement the Israeli Defense Ministry gave to the U.S. plans to invade Iraq had to be accompanied by an awareness that America’s ultimate withdrawal from Iraq would place Iran as a principal confrontation state.
Of course there supposedly was going to be a continued American presence in Iraq to counter the ability of Iran to join forces with Syria. It didn’t happen. The Shia-dominated post-war Iraqi government and the Iran/Syria alliance, linked with the increasingly powerful Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, has created an anti-Israeli Shia front all the way west to the Mediterranean.
While the Shia connection between Iran and Syria depends on the Assad family’s remaining in power with their Shia-related Alawite tribal following, there is no reason to believe that the majority Sunni anti-Assad forces will have a different sense of enmity regarding Israel. Iran’s easily adjusted foreign policy certainly can accommodate an anti-Israel position of a new Sunni-ruled Syria. Iranian financial assistance would go far to prolong its existing friendly relationship with a new non-Assad Damascus. This is, after all, the Middle East and Iran’s skill at adjusting to new realities is historically proven.
Becoming a regional power is a clear ambition of Iran’s leadership, even if the focal point of its nuclear weapon development is Israel. While holding itself out as the leading Islamic foe of Israel, Iran’s greatest advantage in “going nuclear” may be in advancing itself ultimately in terms of global influence and thus, effectively, international power. In more simple terms the Iranian clerical leadership desires the same international role sought by the Pahlevi dynasty. The difference is that the Shah was encouraged by American foreign policy to take on this larger role as a regional power.
This irony has not been lost on the sector within Iran’s older clerical community who view Iranian nuclear development as carrying at least as much danger to their own nation as posing a threat to Israel. It wasn’t until after the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini allowed reconsideration of proceeding with the nuclear power program begun by the ousted Shah. What began as a power-generating project not unexpectedly morphed into a weapons project encouraged by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani with the technical assistance of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan. But even that evolution was not inconsistent with the Shah’s own dreams.
The Iranian leadership of today is not unmindful of the fact that the Saudis and Turks will quickly move to duplicate Tehran’s nuclear weaponry as soon as any such project is operational. That’s been a given in regional and global defense scenarios for years. Similarly accepted by Iranian defense strategists is that a future nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia is as dangerous potentially as Israel in that the Saudis have always feared Iran’s ambitions in the Persian Gulf — and are not inhibited by distance. Whether or not the fear is realistic matters less than the fact that it exists.
The mutual fear shared by Tehran and Riyadh was made manifest with the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council’s military wing in 1984. Saudi and Pakistani official cooperation on nuclear matters has been in effect for many years, giving rise to speculation regarding secret plans of Islamabad and Riyadh to expand nuclear weapon liaison as Iran’s advanced armament comes into existence.
It is sometimes overlooked that Iran fears the development of a nuclear weapon capability among its Gulf neighbors. This anxiety was expressed privately years ago by the Iranian ambassador to the U.N. seeking to justify his own country’s claim that they had legitimate reason to fear the capability and intent of the monarchies on the other coast of their shared Persian Gulf. “The weaker party can be counted on to strike first in order to overcome the advantages of the stronger opponent,” the diplomat said. The question exists as to who now is the weaker party? In a potential of nuclear-armed conflict no one wants to wait around to find out the answer.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
John786| 4.27.12 @ 6:25AM
I'm confused. This current confrontation with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weaponisation which even according to Israeli generals does not exist: but everything to do with regime change. Israel should concentrate on making peace, the ayatollahs should concentrate on improving the living standards of their people, the magical kingdom should concentrate on political evolution. And the US should stop meddling and use the money saved on providing healthcare, food, eduction to needy Americans.
Boar Hunter| 4.27.12 @ 9:42AM
Your first sentence was self explanatory. No one need read the rest of your liberal drivel.
Jack in Wi.| 4.27.12 @ 7:50PM
Iran is a peaceful country not making nuclear bombs as all our intelligence agencies have stated. So has our Joint Chiefs of Staff. So has the head of the Israeli military and most of the present, and retired Israeli intelligence heads. All the pro's that do the fighting and dying are against any war which would be a terrible war crime which could possibly lead to WW3.
Iran has attacked no-one in 300 years. It has offered on numerous occasions to hold talks with the USA. We should do with Iran what Nixon did with China. Establish Diplomatic relations, send an ambassador, start negotiations, end sanctions ,trade with, have exchanges with, and get on with life. The price of oil would collapse. Develop our own vast energy resourses and let the Middle East be the problem of China, Europe, Japan and India that actually need the oil. Bring the troops home now. We have no business being there.
Mac Jehoff| 4.28.12 @ 9:00AM
Yo cheesehead, Iran sends materiel and personnel to other countries to fight the Great Satan. IE: Iraq and Afghanistan. To you that is probably a defensive manoeuver rather than an attack in a war by proxy. The "talks" they offer are a ruse to keep our state department wags occupied whilst their scientists crank up the centrifuges. Did you think the yellow cake the Iranians are processing comes from a bakery? Better quit mainlining the Fromage, Jack and get your optical/anal inversion corrected if you can find an arse hole doctor in Wisconsin.
Clint| 4.28.12 @ 12:31PM
Yo Israel Firster Jerkoff,
" Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran and Neither is the United States: Get Used To It
By Barry Rubin
So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way –indeed, the only way Israel has--to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons’ drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don't participate--consciously or as an instrument--in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.
If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. "
Mac Jehoff| 4.28.12 @ 1:12PM
Islam firster bum bandit is Jack's butt buddy from near the main line. Are you huffing the green fromage as well?
Clint| 4.28.12 @ 4:10PM
Call Bibi, Bibi Butt Boy Israel Firster Smear Bund Goebbels Propaganda Coward Traitor Bastard, Jerkoff
Bob K.| 4.27.12 @ 6:58AM
As long as STRATFOR has been mentioned we should note that one major Geopolitical fact is being ignored here: Russia.
It shares the Caspian Sea with Iran and it cannot be ignored in any issue concerning Iran.
Kingofthenet| 4.27.12 @ 11:10AM
Iran isn't actually going to build a bomb, assuming Israel doesn't 'Jump the Shark' and do something per-emtively, there is NO benefit to do something that everyone KNOWS you can do at anytime. Once you have the Nuclear Materials building a bomb is childs play. It's like you KNOWING your enemy has a gun and bullets, does that enemy REALLY need to load the gun and threaten you with it, to have a deterrent effect?
Christopher C| 4.27.12 @ 4:55PM
"Iran isn't actually going to build a bomb"? Isn't it wonderful to encounter pure optimism. It's just that assuming the Islamic barbarians who rule Iran will not go "too far" strikes me as being delusional.
Dick Nome| 4.28.12 @ 7:50PM
Neither are those peace loving North Koreans, right??
Moe Blotz| 4.27.12 @ 5:26PM
Had the Mesopotamian society stuck with their brewing heritage instead of giving it up and following Mohammed, maybe the descendants would be less likely to rage and hate. Without the mellowing qualities of beer the populace has grown ever angrier at the rest of the world.
Kingofthenet| 4.27.12 @ 5:35PM
Well Germans make good beer, and it didn't stop them. In fact Hitler used to plan in German Beer Halls.
Moe Blotz| 4.28.12 @ 8:49AM
Right, but in the end the Germans reverted to character and are now the beer supping society they were before the lunatics convinced the populace they had a better way through socialism. Hitler was an Austrian interloper and did not drink beer.
Dick Nome| 4.28.12 @ 8:41PM
Actually no Mr. KofN . Hitler was a vegetarian and a teetotaler. A Socialist as well as a tyrant. He only was in 1 beer hall and it wasn't for the beer, it was for 'Community Organizing'.
Bob K.| 4.29.12 @ 2:00AM
It didn't matter that much what Hitler drank or ate. It was the people drinking the beer and eating the wursts who supported him and that was virtually everybody in Europe who spoke German.
Moe Blotz| 4.29.12 @ 10:58AM
The German speaking people who supported Der Fuhrer bought into his message of hope and change, unaware that Hitler would become the tyrant that he was. Had Adolph Hitler campaigned on his idiotology and extermination plans for the inferior races, he never would have gotten his foot in the door. Support for the National Socialist Party was not unanimous among the German speaking population of old Europe.
Bob K.| 4.30.12 @ 12:51AM
They continued to support him long after they knew about him and they supported him even more in the early stages of the war when Germany was winning everything and they continued to support him right to the very end. Hell, to this very day, on Hitler's birthday, hundreds of Germans visit his parents grave in Austria to put flowers there because it is illegal to honor him outright. There have been thousands of books written about Hitler trying to figure out what his attraction was for the German speaking peoples.
DRA2010| 5.6.12 @ 5:52PM
I don't understand why anyone is surprised that Hitler and the NASDAP were so popular w/the Germanic people (except of course the Jews and other "untermenschen"). He made these smart, hard-working, talented people feel good about themselves. When you consider what happened to the German civilian population during and immediately after WW1 it makes sense.
The war wasn't won by the actual defeat of the German army - it had just forced the surrender of the Russian army and was relocating to the Western Front. Germany was forced to sue for peace because the British naval blockade of Germany was causing the starvation of the general civilian population. Having so many of her young men off her farms and dying in No-man's Land in France wasn't helping either. After the armistice was signed, having the German treasury looted to pay reparations just made things worse. After the 1929 world-wide financial crash finished off the Weimar Republic, the invigorating speeches of the charismatic war hero (Hitler had won the Iron Cross for his bravery after a gas attack in the trenches) lifted their spirits.
It has been said (well after the fact) that if Hitler had died either during or immediately after the 1936 Olympic games, he would have gone down in history as one of Germany's greatest statesmen (regretfully he survived the games).