Its hard to believe, but tensions reached new heights between the West and the Iranian government over the weekend. The French have warned the world that an Iranian bomb will mean war, and it appears that the Germans are supporting this rhetoric. The two European nations are currently working on economic sanctions; a quote from the French foreign minister:
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing ... to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that"
Some commentators have noted that the Iranians are already at war with the US, but are hamstrung by domestic politics and the threat of a massive response from the Americans.
What about that massive repsonse by the Americans? Oh, the plans have been drawn up at the Pentagon, and are simply waiting for implementation.
There is still room for diplomacy here, so I'm not going to say that war is imminent. I really don't think the Iranians have any choice here but to suspend their nuke program. An American airstrike would likely wipe out all of the regime's power and would effectively end their control of the country. Threats from the Iranian leadership to shut down oil shipments from the region and strike targets abroad are mostly implausible. For the West, the aftermath of an airstrike will not be pretty (as we have found in Iraq, lots of people with no government and no infrastructure doesn't work very well). Clearly diplomacy is the best route, but its not clear how much longer this will be an option.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tensions Rise In Middle East
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm not sure the Iranians are the ones backed into a corner. Aren't we the ones risking having to fight three wars, on three separate fronts, with a military force that doesn't have enough critical supplies (e.g. body armor), after we our biggest mercenary force left the region?
Its highly unlikely that any regular US troops would invade Iran in the event of an airstrike.
It appears that the only goals of the administration would be to destroy the Iranian nuclear program and to destroy their ability to strike back at oil production/shipping in the region and Israel.
Luckily for the administration, the Air Force and Navy are just sitting around looking for things to do at the moment. Also, international troops might be introduced to the region to quell any unrest.
I don't think this will be as clean an operation as many of the current commentators seem to think, but it probably can be done and it will certainly be better than the Ahyatolla having a bomb.
Oh, also, a war in Iran would magically turn our 2 front war into a 1 front war spread across the entire middle east! Hurray for subtraction by addition!
Let's go back to the original post:
"An American airstrike would likely wipe out all of the regime's power and would effectively end their control of the country. Threats from the Iranian leadership to shut down oil shipments from the region and strike targets abroad are mostly implausible."
If the threats are implausible, then is there really a threat? Do you think the Ayatollah would really use nuclear technology to destroy oil production, which (like it or not) benefits us and the countries supplying oil and would be an ecological nightmare for all involved? (And which way does the wind travel in the region? Tehran's not that far away, relatively speaking, if a nuke were detonated one or two countries over.)
Moreover, if an American airstrike would end the regime's power, then why do it? Just as fighting the (then) Soviets in Afghanistan made room for the Taliban, and deposing Sadam H. led to what we have now (a civil war that will end in a dictatorship, probably worse than before), do you really think essentially destroying the Ayatollah's power base would improve the quality of Iran's government and lead us to better relations with Iran and the region generally? Iran may be a republic, but who do you think the Assembly of Experts would choose to be the new Supreme Leader: someone who's friendly with us or not? Likely someone not pleased with us.
And what does this mean for Russia, who's been selling the Iranians air defense/missile systems? They likely won't be too happy with us, France, or Germany if we cut off their buyers.
What would happen in European countries with a high Iranian immigrant/guest worker population? Would treatment for those persons change? Would there be more immigrants from Iran seeking work, asylum, a new place to live if the regime toppled? Or would most stay since Iran is a republic, and they have the power to elect some leaders?
This won't be clean. And it cannot end well.
And a war in Iran would still mean at least three fronts. The mountains between Iran and Afghanistan are so treacherous that those two contiguous countries might as well be on opposite ends of the globe. Hurray for uneven territory, unpredictable weather, and more caves than you can shake a stick at!
The main problem here is an Iranian bomb, the West just cannot let that happen. Not only is it likely that the Iranians would use it in some irresponsible way (ie, bomb Israel, as they have stated they will do), but it will also encourage other states in the area to pursue their own nukes to defend themselves from the Iranians. Strategically speaking, the Middle East is the most important region in the world at this point, and having it chock-full of apocolyptic cultists and their nuclear weapons isn't good for anyone.
As far as the Iranian threats being implausible, I meant that their threats to respond to a US attack are implausible; I have no doubt that they could do somethings now and in the near future that would significantly harm the Western world. The Iranian president has stated that he believes that the 12th Imam will return to earth at some point, and he can help hasten his return be creating chaos in the region. I'm not sure that I fully trust this rhetoric, but I feel like we ought to take him at his word just in case.
Oh, and screw the Russians, they benefit from higher oil prices (driven by war in the Middle East) because of their huge stocks of natural gas. They won't do anything rash because they will always need markets to sell their oil on.
I totally agree that this won't be clean, but the US and Iran have been at odds for almost 30 years now. This situation has been building ever since the current regime illegally invaded the US embassy in Tehran and held US citizens as hostages. At this point, there isn't going to be a nice and neat solution that will make everybody happy and prevent loss of life. The best decision is the one that leads to fewer deaths and more stability in the long run. I think going ahead with airstrikes now is the right decision in this context.
Hello, again, dear.
I completely agree that having nut jobs running around with nuclear weapons is a poor plan. But given the missile defense systems that they already have (and have had for years), and have been threatening us and other nations for years, I'm not convinced that Iran will actually act on gaining this new technology, rather than just having a brand new threat.
I have no doubt that our military could go in and decimate the Iranians. My main concerns are fears of the following: unnecessary loss of life, a new Iranian revolution where a REAL extremist replaces the current supreme leader, terrorist attacks in response to our airstrikes, which will likely lead to an invasion to quell the inevitable civil instability that will follow airstrikes toppling the government.
I don't think the Russians will do anything rash. My main concern is that by starting airstrikes, we'll alienate them and other members of the European diplomatic community. And I'm not convinced having French support--with all due respect--really means that much unless they commit resources and troops. Same thing with the Germans, though their massive Iranian guest worker population will likely not be pleased with their stance.
And not to question the validity of the threat, yet again, but remember: the most recent terrorist attack in American history didn't invlove nukes. A dozen people with boxcutters killed over 5,000 people, not with a nuke. I think we should be more afraid of small terrorist cells funded by the Iranians rather than the Iranians themselves actually doing anything.
And again, how are we to fund a three-front war?
Post a Comment