The unintended hegemon
28/6/12 19:52![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOK, my turn for an exercise in geopolitics. And this one's gonna be about Iran. Nowadays Iran is in a sort of a paradoxical situation, at least from a first sight. What's unique in its situation is that a predominantly Persian country, the only non-Arab state in the Middle East, and a Shia rather than Suni state at that, is on its way to assuming the leading role in the region. Despite all of the West's efforts to achieve just the opposite. Ironically, this uniqueness is probably helping Iran more than hindering it as it used to. And it wasn't that long ago when with the help of Saddam's Iraq, Shiite Iran was almost locked from access to the rest of the Middle East. And the Wahhabi Saudi princes in the 90s would give just an arrogant smirk whenever they heard the name of the Shiite ayatollahs being mentioned.
Today, the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia who's been seen as the banner carrier of Suni domination in the Middle East, is trembling of paranoia from its own Shia minority (15% of the country's population), who they fear are closet supporters of Iran. Not to mention the Shia majorities in Iraq, Bahrain and the significant Shia community in Lebanon. And the King of Jordan has started using rhetoric about "a Shia crescent", an Iranian conspiracy in the Middle East. He has included this in his repertoire for a decade now. And sure, the reasons for concern among the Arab monarchs are pretty many. Moreover, the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities is giving them many sleepless nights.
At the moment Iran is moving into a position where they'd have no real competition in the Middle East. And not just because the Arab spring by definition couldn't become Persian spring. There were actually some shy attempts to prompt one or two such springs in Iran, and they failed. Now the regime is more capsulated than ever.
Saudi Arabia, USA's BFF in the region, although rich in oil, is weak in the geo-strategic sense. The kingdom has lots of internal problems. And yes, these include the Shia group as well. It's mostly concentrated in the eastern provinces (at times exceeding 95% of the local population). And that's the region that has a special strategic significance, as it's a major source of oil and it's where the US military bases are.
Pakistan may have nuclear weapons in the hands of undisciplined, poorly controlled authorities, and a rather fluid border with war-torn Afghanistan, all things that make Pakistan's regional ambitions very shaky; but what about Iran? The largest non-Persian minority there are the Azeris. Their share of the population and their concentration in the north-western regions of Iran is comparable to that of the Kurds in Turkey. But is it a country within the country? I wouldn't be so sure.
The occupation of Iraq and the continuing bloodshed on both sides of Iran has put both its neighbors on the brink of collapse. Many analysts have spilled tons of ink talking about Western-style liberal democracy and its export to the region - how democracy would transform the post-Saddam Iraqi society and the post-Taliban Afghani society. In reality, what we've got in result after a decade of war is a system where Shia Iran has become the most influential regional power without even moving a finger. "Mission accomplished" sounds pretty funny in this sense, I'd say.
Egypt? It's shaking of a political crisis, the Muslim Brotherhood is gradually seizing control (we wanted democracy there, right?), and they certainly neither like "our buddy" Israel nor would they welcome US aid in exchange for peace the way Mubarak did. And the alternative for Egypt is reverting to a dictatorship, but this time a military junta. They'd be a bit friendlier to us, I'd bet. But what about democracy then? And would the Egyptian people tolerate that this time? So... forget about Egypt in this game, at least for a long while.
Generally speaking, in a very ironic twist of fate, the revolutions of the Arab spring, inspired by Western democracy, have ultimately shaken the traditional domination of Sunism in the Islamic world, and opened huge gaps for Shia inroads and potential shift of the power center to Iran. Right now Iran is fully capable of swinging the evolution of the region in this direction or the other. The regime of the ayatollahs is capable of effectively influencing Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Eastern Saudi Arabia. It's active in Lebanon, North Caucasus and Central Asia through proxies, and potentially Eastern Turkey as well. Hezbollah and Hamas are funded by Iran. Iran holds the keys to the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and could potentially bring the whole oil supply down. It's Iran who ultimately decides exactly how much oil would pass through the Strait of Hormuz, if any. And at the same time it has its heavy word in the Caspian basin - one of the oil- and gas-richest places on Earth. And last but not least, Iran's been stepping up its activity in the Horn of Africa, another crucially important region.
Not to mention the wide economic representation of the Iranian fuel and commodity business interests, which allows Iran to even directly influence the Western powers (especially ever energy-hungry Europe). So we shouldn't play shocked when we see how cautious EU is when it comes to imposing sanctions on Iran, or even formulating harsher statements of rebuke. Or Europe's reluctance to help authorize even an unilateral (bilateral?) US(+Israeli) aggression on Iran. There's a good reason for all that. (As if the US would seem prone to comply with any international law as of late, but anyway).
But all of this is just the surface. The heart of the issue is that China and India are dependent on the steady oil flow from Iran, and Russia has its own geopolitical interests there, too. All of this has turned Iran from a mere US/UK puppet (during the Shah times) into America's "main enemy" in the region - a position it has had for the last quarter of a century. It's now even on the Axis of Evil that Bush Jr proclaimed. China and India are still not on the Axis of Evil, and nor is Russia, but that doesn't stop them from doing business with Iran, because that's of vital importance for them.
What's interesting is that Iran's growing influence is seldom even mentioned by the media. They're mostly occupied with demonizing Iran (often for a good reason, I'll grant you that). Iran's geopolitical position is a "terra incognita" for most people in the West, and so are its relations with other countries. It's just that big evil monster out there, and that's all we need to know. Meanwhile, the media frequently spends lots of efforts to explain various military scenarios against Iran as if it's a done deal already. Every next missile Iran tests, prompts a new chorus of exasperated and anxious voices calling to grab the arms and beating the war drums. There's been a remarkable consistence in this respect, spanning a long period of time, regardless of who's in power.
And no one asks the real question. OK fine, let's say we start military actions against Iran. How exactly are we to conduct them? How do they begin? How to proceed? Where to strike? How much firepower to deploy? Are we sure we know what we're getting into? How would that affect our economy, military, and the international geopolitical order as a whole? Which oil pipeline and strategic hub should we sacrifice? And sure, let's say we ultimately beat'em. Then what. Should we finally build those pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan that we deem so important for us? Would we be able to hold them? And how would China, India and Russia react to all of this? It's easy to go to war. The harder part is what follows after that.
Yeah, all in all the so-called international community can sleep well. It has nothing to worry about. Regardless of all election speeches about doing this to Iran or doing that to Iran, in reality no American politician is stupid and suicidal enough to imagine doing anything to Iran. Having to deal with a quartet like Iran-China-India-Pakistan is a thing worth pondering about, and that'll probably be the reason we'll be forever at the stage of talking. But let's make this clear, "the powers that be" are surely considering the more violent option as well. It can't be off the table. There are always people stupid enough, or arrogant enough, or deluded enough, or just trigger-happy enough to push into that direction, and genuinely believe it's not just the last resort, but the only resort. As we've seen lately.
Meanwhile, a special group at the CFR (half-jokingly called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the World Government) led by no one but Grand Chessboard ideologue and current Obama geopolitical advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and including now former CIA chairman Robert Gates, has called on the US to offer a direct dialogue with Iran on specific issues concerning regional stability. And that happened way ago. Don't mind the sabre rattling and chest thumping on both sides, which tends to get particularly loud, come election time. ;)
Hopes are that the talks between Iran and the Big Six (all 5 permanent UNSC members + Germany) will bring about some sort of political settlement of this Cold-War-esque conflict, and such a dialogue is truly possible to happen sooner or later. Because, let's face it, no one really wants this conflict to become a hot war. Without exaggerating even one bit, it would be a disaster for international order on a massive scale that would pale both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Today, the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia who's been seen as the banner carrier of Suni domination in the Middle East, is trembling of paranoia from its own Shia minority (15% of the country's population), who they fear are closet supporters of Iran. Not to mention the Shia majorities in Iraq, Bahrain and the significant Shia community in Lebanon. And the King of Jordan has started using rhetoric about "a Shia crescent", an Iranian conspiracy in the Middle East. He has included this in his repertoire for a decade now. And sure, the reasons for concern among the Arab monarchs are pretty many. Moreover, the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities is giving them many sleepless nights.
At the moment Iran is moving into a position where they'd have no real competition in the Middle East. And not just because the Arab spring by definition couldn't become Persian spring. There were actually some shy attempts to prompt one or two such springs in Iran, and they failed. Now the regime is more capsulated than ever.
Saudi Arabia, USA's BFF in the region, although rich in oil, is weak in the geo-strategic sense. The kingdom has lots of internal problems. And yes, these include the Shia group as well. It's mostly concentrated in the eastern provinces (at times exceeding 95% of the local population). And that's the region that has a special strategic significance, as it's a major source of oil and it's where the US military bases are.
Pakistan may have nuclear weapons in the hands of undisciplined, poorly controlled authorities, and a rather fluid border with war-torn Afghanistan, all things that make Pakistan's regional ambitions very shaky; but what about Iran? The largest non-Persian minority there are the Azeris. Their share of the population and their concentration in the north-western regions of Iran is comparable to that of the Kurds in Turkey. But is it a country within the country? I wouldn't be so sure.
The occupation of Iraq and the continuing bloodshed on both sides of Iran has put both its neighbors on the brink of collapse. Many analysts have spilled tons of ink talking about Western-style liberal democracy and its export to the region - how democracy would transform the post-Saddam Iraqi society and the post-Taliban Afghani society. In reality, what we've got in result after a decade of war is a system where Shia Iran has become the most influential regional power without even moving a finger. "Mission accomplished" sounds pretty funny in this sense, I'd say.
Egypt? It's shaking of a political crisis, the Muslim Brotherhood is gradually seizing control (we wanted democracy there, right?), and they certainly neither like "our buddy" Israel nor would they welcome US aid in exchange for peace the way Mubarak did. And the alternative for Egypt is reverting to a dictatorship, but this time a military junta. They'd be a bit friendlier to us, I'd bet. But what about democracy then? And would the Egyptian people tolerate that this time? So... forget about Egypt in this game, at least for a long while.
Generally speaking, in a very ironic twist of fate, the revolutions of the Arab spring, inspired by Western democracy, have ultimately shaken the traditional domination of Sunism in the Islamic world, and opened huge gaps for Shia inroads and potential shift of the power center to Iran. Right now Iran is fully capable of swinging the evolution of the region in this direction or the other. The regime of the ayatollahs is capable of effectively influencing Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Eastern Saudi Arabia. It's active in Lebanon, North Caucasus and Central Asia through proxies, and potentially Eastern Turkey as well. Hezbollah and Hamas are funded by Iran. Iran holds the keys to the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and could potentially bring the whole oil supply down. It's Iran who ultimately decides exactly how much oil would pass through the Strait of Hormuz, if any. And at the same time it has its heavy word in the Caspian basin - one of the oil- and gas-richest places on Earth. And last but not least, Iran's been stepping up its activity in the Horn of Africa, another crucially important region.
Not to mention the wide economic representation of the Iranian fuel and commodity business interests, which allows Iran to even directly influence the Western powers (especially ever energy-hungry Europe). So we shouldn't play shocked when we see how cautious EU is when it comes to imposing sanctions on Iran, or even formulating harsher statements of rebuke. Or Europe's reluctance to help authorize even an unilateral (bilateral?) US(+Israeli) aggression on Iran. There's a good reason for all that. (As if the US would seem prone to comply with any international law as of late, but anyway).
But all of this is just the surface. The heart of the issue is that China and India are dependent on the steady oil flow from Iran, and Russia has its own geopolitical interests there, too. All of this has turned Iran from a mere US/UK puppet (during the Shah times) into America's "main enemy" in the region - a position it has had for the last quarter of a century. It's now even on the Axis of Evil that Bush Jr proclaimed. China and India are still not on the Axis of Evil, and nor is Russia, but that doesn't stop them from doing business with Iran, because that's of vital importance for them.
What's interesting is that Iran's growing influence is seldom even mentioned by the media. They're mostly occupied with demonizing Iran (often for a good reason, I'll grant you that). Iran's geopolitical position is a "terra incognita" for most people in the West, and so are its relations with other countries. It's just that big evil monster out there, and that's all we need to know. Meanwhile, the media frequently spends lots of efforts to explain various military scenarios against Iran as if it's a done deal already. Every next missile Iran tests, prompts a new chorus of exasperated and anxious voices calling to grab the arms and beating the war drums. There's been a remarkable consistence in this respect, spanning a long period of time, regardless of who's in power.
And no one asks the real question. OK fine, let's say we start military actions against Iran. How exactly are we to conduct them? How do they begin? How to proceed? Where to strike? How much firepower to deploy? Are we sure we know what we're getting into? How would that affect our economy, military, and the international geopolitical order as a whole? Which oil pipeline and strategic hub should we sacrifice? And sure, let's say we ultimately beat'em. Then what. Should we finally build those pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan that we deem so important for us? Would we be able to hold them? And how would China, India and Russia react to all of this? It's easy to go to war. The harder part is what follows after that.
Yeah, all in all the so-called international community can sleep well. It has nothing to worry about. Regardless of all election speeches about doing this to Iran or doing that to Iran, in reality no American politician is stupid and suicidal enough to imagine doing anything to Iran. Having to deal with a quartet like Iran-China-India-Pakistan is a thing worth pondering about, and that'll probably be the reason we'll be forever at the stage of talking. But let's make this clear, "the powers that be" are surely considering the more violent option as well. It can't be off the table. There are always people stupid enough, or arrogant enough, or deluded enough, or just trigger-happy enough to push into that direction, and genuinely believe it's not just the last resort, but the only resort. As we've seen lately.
Meanwhile, a special group at the CFR (half-jokingly called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the World Government) led by no one but Grand Chessboard ideologue and current Obama geopolitical advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and including now former CIA chairman Robert Gates, has called on the US to offer a direct dialogue with Iran on specific issues concerning regional stability. And that happened way ago. Don't mind the sabre rattling and chest thumping on both sides, which tends to get particularly loud, come election time. ;)
Hopes are that the talks between Iran and the Big Six (all 5 permanent UNSC members + Germany) will bring about some sort of political settlement of this Cold-War-esque conflict, and such a dialogue is truly possible to happen sooner or later. Because, let's face it, no one really wants this conflict to become a hot war. Without exaggerating even one bit, it would be a disaster for international order on a massive scale that would pale both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:27 (UTC)I don't mean to imply attention is a commodity, but I do admit that I am often disappointed when really good posts get overshadowed by energetic wank.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:34 (UTC)If they will get nuclear weapons, other countries that can be threaten by Iran and have enough money to afford it (Arabia and Israel) will develop it as soon as possible.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:37 (UTC)Politicians may speak crazy things in front of their constituents, whether to keep them in line or to garner more support among their populace. But when it comes to real actions, things begin to look different. Iran may be many things but it is not suicidal. And neither are any of its neighbors.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:21 (UTC)But on the other hand, the fact that Pakistan has a nuclear weapon is not without the consequences. Rumors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#North_Korea_and_Iran) circulating that Pakistan sold some of their top secrets to North Korea. And North Korea is EVIL. And if countries such are Saudi Arabia and Iran will get the NW, it can lead to new big problems and endless cold wars.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 02:37 (UTC)Only for a supercold war.
(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 02:58 (UTC)But North Koreans for example look crazy enough to use the NW in a desperate situation. Thus non-proliferation plus education plus economical development of poor countries is the key for preventing the nuclear war forever.
(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 03:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 10:44 (UTC)I know that people are prone to acts of aggression "by design". But also I think that our global society is changing. The morality of Zeitgeist bears more love and tolerance, and the world becomes to appear more prosperous and peasant place to live despite temporary oscillations, caused by inevitable stupidity and incompetence of governments and institutions. And the exponential growth of economics, the Fear of M.A.D., the cultural boost of internet - are yet to be estimated and measured. The modern society is a new, yet unseen in history, phenomenon.
Reason is stronger then genes. And if elites are meritocratic and if society is enlightened enough to understand what elites are trying preach - it is possible to distinguish between the rational and the rationalization on a national level.
Unfortunately in some regions most people including elites are ruled by their superstitious beliefs based on faith and not on reason. But I hope such a mindset will turn into fossils soon.
(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 17:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 18:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 21:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/6/12 21:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 06:15 (UTC)I asked if they got pie. They didn't.
(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 04:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 05:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/6/12 06:14 (UTC)