An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Iran’s nuclear program, Israel and the US : buying time after Geneva

Iran’s goal seems to be to bait Israel into quickly making precision attacks on its nuclear installations before diplomatic options are exhausted. Its apparently irrational regime may think the mess in the region will be so great that it will obtain even bigger gains in political influence than those from the debacle in Iraq.

So it is deftly buying time through diplomacy and has received another prolongation of deadlines to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment activities. This concession was won a day ago at seven-nation talks in Geneva, which included the highest level US contact with Iran in 29 years.

The mess following the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has given Iran prominence that it has not had in over 1,000 years. If it manages to acquire a nuclear weapon, it will obtain the prestige currently available to just eight or nine countries and enjoy the hard power required to secure the gains of political influence.

The theocratic regime also wants to expand Shia Islam and secure it against traditional Sunni enmity and dominance. The hard power required to facedown Israel serves this purpose by winning admiration of the Muslim street worldwide, regardless of Shia or Sunni affiliation. That would give Shia Islam the security it has not had in over 1400 years.

A sure way to peacefully pull the rug from under this path to the regime’s ambitions would be a sudden Israel-Palestine peace. That seems unlikely.

In the current situation, the first step to achieving the regime’s ambitions is to tighten control over the Iranian people. This is the agenda underlying Iran’s diplomacy. It wants wider talks on regional security arrangements that leave its regime and regional power intact while freeing it from all sanctions.

If such talks are definitely not on offer, the regime may prefer limited Israeli attacks because it can then stifle the opposition and assert quasi totalitarian rule for decades to come.

The Iran regime would fear an Israeli strike only if there were massive civilian casualties because that would end its rule. However, knowing the precision of Israeli and American weapons, it expects just enough casualties to rouse nationalist outrage causing the people to unify behind it.

The attacks would be a blessing in disguise because the regime is very shaky currently thanks to a worsening economy, corruption, unemployment, poor infrastructure, electricity outages and gasoline shortages. The anger against America in the region would be a bonus.

In a historic change, the Bush administration abruptly moved towards diplomacy by sending William J. Burns, the State Department’s number three official, to attend the Geneva meetings. This came on the heels of reports that Washington might open a US interests section in Teheran. Condoleezza Rice also cooled past rhetoric by saying that any country can change course and the US does not have “permanent enemies.”

But the suddenness has fed into perceptions that the Bush administration is reluctant to run the risk of third war in the region and prefers to push the nettle of Israel’s security onto the next President. So Teheran may think this is not the right time to start serious negotiations.

For its part, Israel seems to think that Sunni Arabs would quietly applaud if it damages Iran’s regional power. In preparation, it has begun to build bridges with mortal enemies like Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas because of the greater existential threat from Iran.

But it may be misreading how much its policies are hated by people on the Muslim street both Sunni and Shia. Precision strikes may undermine Sunni regimes through street protests while helping Teheran’s theocracy to control Iran for another 50 years.

Only widespread devastation among the people caused by Israeli attacks can dethrone the regime. Such preemptive devastation would be hard to justify as self defense especially since the regime is Israel’s enemy, not the people who are mostly their government’s helpless victims.

Postponing attacks has one clear advantage. It gives more time to Iran’s theocrats to dig their own graves through incompetence in bringing prosperity to their people.

In recent years, they survived because of the people’s nationalism after Bush called Iran an “axis of evil” and the war option was put on the table. They will not survive for long if the people are certain that no foreigners will attack their country.

If the fear of American-backed Sunni power and Israel is removed from the equation, the extremists in the current regime may be dethroned well before scientists can deliver nuclear capability. Then, the fear of a second holocaust would disappear forever.

  • [Iran's] apparently irrational regime may think the mess in the region will be so great that it will obtain even bigger gains in political influence than those from the debacle in Iraq.


    You claim the Iranians are irrational, and then proceed to describe what you think is their rational plan for internal and regional domination. Hrmm.
  • DLS
    Actually, this is more like your kind of entertainment, Chris.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121607841801452...
  • runasim
    I think the analysis is very sound, but it depends on a lot of IF's. If the US does this, or not.. If Israel does this, or not. If this happens inside Iran, or not.
    There is no central force in control of all these IFs, however, and we're left with a lot of unsettling possibilities.

    Good post, lots of reasons for nail biting..
    ---------------------

    PS TO CHRIS: Crazy people can make briliantly effective plans , Inquire at any psychiatrist's office for confirmation.
  • jdledell
    Brij - Your analysis is spot on. Good Work.
  • Your analysis is leaving out one option some seem to dismiss out of hand -- win in Iraq and Afghanistan!

    It is a far better option to build up those two regional power balances then it is to attack a nation. When attacked most nations rally around the flag and Iran is no different, regardless of the loss of life.

    However a thriving and strong democracy on both the Eastern and Western boarders, particularly when your under sanctions, can be far more effective at regime or attitude change!
    Daivd
  • runasim
    Life Trek,

    "Winning in Iraq' and "Afghanista' is a fine , inspirational slogan, but neither you, nor anyone else who stands by it ever defines what 'winning' means, in real terms
    No matter what the situation is in Iraq, winning is always something that can only happen in the future.

    Terrorism as a tactic, now that it's been used effectively, can never be put back in the genie's bottle. If 'winning' means the complete eradication of terrorism, then, winning can never happen, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan and not anywhere else.

    Another definition that has been used for Iraq is that it should be 'strong democracy' But what measures does it neeed to meet in order to qualify are never mentioned. On this front, too, winning is always and only possible in some distant future.

    In the meantime, there is the home front to consider. Our natonal interest extends far beyond these two countries, and we are at risk of sacrificing our overall national security for the sake of 'winning' in these two countries. In fact, our getting bogged down in Iraq is a basic causative factor for Iran's new prestige and power.

    While we're destroying our military and emptying our coffers in order to build up the thriving democracies you envisison for these two areas, we are weakening our ability to keep our own going and to react to new situations around the globe.

    As we struggle to deal with current crises, what we really need is an overarching tactical strategy for how to deal with problem spots anywhere on earth as they occur. Getting bogged in any of them is the opposite of maintaing such an overarching strategy. What we need is a clear, realsitic, assessment of what we can do, and also what we can't do, in any of these trouble spots.

    An undefined 'winning' just doesn't measure up as a policy or a tactic.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC