|
|
The Persian Problem/Paying the Piper
Posted by Stephen Green · 16 January 2006
How in the world did Iran get the idea that we'd rather pay them tribute and talk it out than fight? That's an easy one: We taught them that. Tehran took over the American Embassy – an act of war - in 1979, and President Carter quickly responded months later with a half-assed military operation which failed completely. Three years later, Iran's proxies in Lebanon killed hundreds of Marines, and President Reagan responded by forcefully withdrawing the survivors back to the homeland. When the first President Bush was presented a golden opportunity to depose a Middle East dictator, he instead sold out the future (and Iraq's Kurds and Shiites) to the brutal status quo. Faced with 18 dead American soldiers in Somalia, President Clinton, taking his cue from Reagan*, caved in. And the list goes on. But it's fair to say that before 9/11, this country only rarely took Terror States with the seriousness they deserved. By retreating when we should have advanced, by sitting on our hands when we should have been decisive, and by ignoring acts which cried out for attention, we gave the Mullahs the balls they needed to take us on. It's true I've been harsh to four American presidents – two Democrats and two Republicans. But I'm about to get really harsh on some other folks. There are certain people who would tell you that we should never have invaded Iraq, because now we have too many troops tied up there, keeping us from dealing with Iran. That's a bullshit argument, and it's about time somebody called them on it. If Iran were really the peaceniks' first concern, why weren't they calling for us to invade that country in 1979? Or in 1982? Or when Iran first got serious about getting nukes ten years ago? The fact is, if we'd have invaded Iran three years ago, they'd be bitching about how we were too tied up there to deal with Iraq.
One more thing. Congressman John Murtha can kiss my ass. If he thinks we're suffering in Iraq, imagine trying to pacify Iran – a country five times as large with triple the population. Not that I'm advocating that we invade Iran – from our Iraqi bases or anywhere else. What I'm about to say might sound paradoxical, but bear with me. Iraq in 2003 was far less ready for democracy than Iran in most any year. In my mind, that made Iraq a better candidate for democratization. Nearly three years ago, when Iran seemed ripe for revolution, I wrote that The most important thing is what we don't do. Don't send letters to President Bush, telling him to point Third Infantry Division east towards Tehran. First off, we more than have our hands full already in Iraq and elsewhere. But more importantly, let's not try to turn their revolution into our occupation. Iranians are a proud people, and rightly so; this is their country, their fight, and their future to win. The Iraqi people had no such possibility; they required some outside power to lend them one. And our own security required that we give someone, somewhere in the Middle East just such a chance. The Iranians, I think, can still make their own chances. However. Iran is now three years away, maybe less, from building nuclear weapons. They already posses the means to deliver those weapons to Israel and even parts of Europe. Yes, the people of Iran still have a chance to throw off the Mullah's yoke. But now that nukes are in the equation, along with specific threats to us them, we have to grade their chance on a curve: A three year curve at most. There has been talk of "letting" Israel settle the problem – using their own nukes. With 300 nuclear weapons sites scattered across Iran, that solution is problematical at best, and morally reprehensible in any case. What that means is, we do have to start thinking, quite seriously, about regime change in Iran. However, our thoughts should take into account Iran's organic tendencies towards democratization. Fortunately for you (and the Bush Administration), I offered just such solutions way back in 2004: There are countless, and relatively cheap, ways to do so. We could promise ten billion dollars in cash and material aid to any provisional government willing to forswear nuclear weapons. We could funnel weapons to Kurds and Sunnis and Azeris on the Iranian side of the Iran-Iraq border. Slightly more fantastically, we could abandon Iraq's Sunni Triangle to the civil war they desire, while setting up a pan-Shiite nation and government in the region around Basra. There are all kinds of things we could do to encourage the population of Iran to revolt. We have practical options far short of outright invasion or using nuclear weapons of our own. We're also about 27 years late in pursuing any of them. It's high time we did.
Comments
Can't we just give them Jimmy Carter and call it even?
It seems to me that any revolution or civil war in Iran would be violent, bloody, and take too long to prevent them from finishing their research. Perhaps anonymously nuking Tehran with a nuclear suitcase might actually save lives in the long run? Since the physical evidence would be destroyed, the damage could be blamed on an accident in their own nuclear research program. I know this comment is ripe for flaming, but I'm not sure how it differs from the moral calculus people do to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Posted by: Just have to ask at January 17, 2006 12:50 AMNot that I'm advocating that we invade Iran – from our Iraqi bases or anywhere else. If the local pro-democracy types don't overthrow the mullahs, that's what it's going to come down to. Airstrikes may delay the Iranian nuke program, but they're not a long-term fix. The only way to assure they won't just resume the program- in deeper bunkers this time- is to get rid of the people who are telling the underlings to build the things. Unfortunately, the mullahs seem to be more competent at oppression than the Shah was. Posted by: rosignol at January 17, 2006 12:56 AMJust have to ask: As Stephen says, nobody wants war with Iran, but we're up against timelines here. Which is why even "ineffectual" UN sanctions may be more useful than at first sight; they may not bother the mullahs but combined with other measures could help to stimulate revolt. The first priority in the next year or two is to consolidate Iraq, then remove the Syria/Lebanon card from the mullahs hand. Posted by: John F at January 17, 2006 02:36 AMIn reality, the Iranians are helpless kittens should we actually decide to do something. It's the decision to do something that's the tough part, though, since that means cruise missiles and smart bombs for about six months just to crater the various nuke sites in Iran. Iran is a paper cougar. Getting the right politicians to admit this to themselves, and then to take action, is what counts. As I note here, the left can march down the street with puppets for all I care. Posted by: William Young at January 17, 2006 06:31 AMThe Syria/Lebabnon card is actually the Hizbullah card. Iran owns Hizbullah, Syria is just the landlord. Posted by: rosignol at January 17, 2006 06:31 AMGood essay. However I have to disagree with one part of one of the comments above, "even "ineffectual" UN sanctions may be more useful than at first sight." I don't think that the UN security Council will impose any sanctions against Iran no matter how toothless because they would be vetoed by Russia or China. China is Iran's biggest customer at this time. I agree that the best solution is internal. On that note recently there was an assasination attempt on Ahmadinejad. It failed but several others were killed. Was it foriegn sponsored or purely homegrown? Your guess is as good as mine. The one thing that is clear though, to any thinking person anyway, is that we cannot ignore this or go back to treating this and all the related issues as 'law enforcement' matters, or problems that can be dealt with diplomatically. Diplomacy only works if you are backing it up with a big stick. Maybe it is time to start offering the Russians that Persian Gulf port they have desired for so long. A joint operation with them from the NE and us from the west and we could roll them up rather quickly. Actually, I think they'd cave at the outset of the troop build-ups and some softening up by the Air Force. But, putting my alpha male aside for a bit, I think the best course of action here is to support regime change from the inside. We'd have to provide that support out in the open and take our lumps from the peaceniks for that, but in the end I think it would save many, many lives. Posted by: Jim Y at January 17, 2006 09:10 AM"Can't we just give them Jimmy Carter and call it even?" Are you insane?! Good essay. I have kind of stayed away from discussing this very much. I kind of have a personal stake in this since my son is deploying to Iraq for his second tour shortly. I never thought I would do this, but I am going to provide a thought in Jimmy Carter's defense, and it covers Reagan as well. To start any sort of major military action in Iran from 1979 to 1991, would have invited the Soviet Union to the party. Soviet troops were pretty close in Afganistan to the east, and obviously north of the Black sea. Now I have to wash myself, because I feel dirty. Posted by: Chris Van Dis at January 17, 2006 10:19 AMIs the west hamstrung or is this part of a ploy by Bush/Blair to discredit the Chirac/Schroeder approach to terrorism? The EU3 have attempted to negotiate a satisfactory solution. They have failed. The US has remained quiet so nobody can point to American bluster as the reason talks failed. Bush will never stand for election again. He's got nothing to lose except his party's control of Congress. By acting before it is too late Bush will avoid a nuclear Iran and, depending on the perception of the American people, may strengthen his party's position. I would expect a resolution authorizing the use of force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons sometime in the next couple of months. Posted by: MMDeuce at January 17, 2006 10:26 AMDon't believe for a minute that Russia or China will support a resolution that authorizes force against Iran. They are talking out of both sides of their face. They have too much at stake in this party to want to put the mullahs on notice like that. I expect a weak resolution calling on Iran to live up to it's international obligations, but with no muscle behind the request. And things will be status quo for the mullahs. They'll continue to want to talk, but only on their terms, and will continue to develop whatever nuclear capability they want. Then and only when they have a viable warhead and delivery system will they really want to sit down and talk. But it'll be too late by then. They've had years of psuedo-talks with the EU and where has that gotten us? Well, now we're talking about military options aren't we. But that assumes that Russia and China will allow it; remember who is the biggest consumer of Iranian OIL! They'll not stand for any option that disrupts the flow of THEIR OIL. While the west can afford higher fuel cost due to a disruption of Iranian oil, I don't believe that either Russia or China can at this point. Posted by: Jim Y at January 17, 2006 11:47 AMThe timing on any move on Iran is dependent on our ability to secure and rampup Iraqi oil production and with it, protect tanker traffic in the middle-east. This will take time. Destablizing Iran would likely involve the elimination of it's oil from world markets and attempts by Iran to block any other shipments from the middle-east. The Chinese care not a wit about Iran except as a source for oil. But Chinese economic health depends more on the US (for an export market) than Iran. Iran is only valuable for it's oil exports to world markets. There are substitutes. We should by now recognize that our economy can handle oil price spikes much better than oil embargoes or the loss of significant oil supplies from world markets. Destablizing the world's economy via a premature reduction of the Iranian supply without a replacement from Iraq is what is in play. Posted by: Gary B at January 17, 2006 01:31 PMLet's worry about something really important: American Islamic Leaders Warn Of Anti-Muslim Backlash Following Next Month's Nuking Of Tel Aviv I might get sick if I read anything more about the UN. THEY ARE WORTHLESS!!! The situation in Iraq, regarding oil exports, security, and political progress is moving forward, albeit VERY slow, it is moving forward. I pray for some type of national unity government to form in Iraq. Once that happens, forget about the EU3 or whoever. How about Iraq at the negotiating table? I think the world is going to be blown away by Iraq's ability to solve problems in that region once they are capable. This includes Israel. Posted by: Aaron Hood at January 17, 2006 02:49 PMI just posted on this. It's simple really, we do what we have to take out the nukes, and then seize the oil fields with a NATO force. Will give them back when someone sane is running the country. Posted by: Pursuit at January 17, 2006 06:42 PMOne other thing about the "We Shoulda Invaded Iran First" meme. Exactly where would the US have staged from? Kuwait has big ports, highways to Iraq, and lots of hardpacked desert to drive tanks across. Pakistan wasn't about to let us stage 2 divisions, Afghanistan doesn't have the infrastructure for shipping materiel and driving it to the Iranian border. Airlifting all that stuff into Turkmenistan? If you think Haliburton made out well, wait 'til you see the FedEx bill for that one. Iran wasn't logistically a good idea. Iraq was a more realistic choice. The EU3 didn't keep Iran as busy as the Blue Team probably hoped, but Iraq clearly improved our hand in 2 areas: Iran is definitely our biggest foreseeable foreign problem now. I have written extensively on it on my blog. Interestingly enough, many Iranians are sick and tired of mandatory prayers and the religious police. The current government in Iran is baiting the United States through the nuclear problem in order to provoke world reaction and gain popular support for the regime. The problem for us is that the Iranians don't have to win a war against us. If they build a nuclear weapon they will enjoy independence the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians can only dream about. Posted by: Frank Sarsfield at January 17, 2006 10:34 PMI think Reagan made a terrible mistake in Lebanon but he had his eye on the main problem of that era, the Soviet Union. We should have been supporting an Iranian revolution since 1979. It may be too late, but I think it's still the best choice. Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 18, 2006 04:14 AMCan we just start decapitating the heads of the hydra? If we kill off the Mullah Mullahs and the leading theocrats with attacks won't that destabilize enough so the people can revolt? |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"...Groomed like Kerry, smart like Krauthammer, wry like a good kosher bread."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
