In response to the recent Congressional approval of new US sanctions on Iran targeting its oil shipments, on December 27, the country's vice president warned that any such measures could lead it to close the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait is a vital shipping lane for oil. The price of oil spiked and then reportedly settled when the Saudi government said it would make up for any shortfall from an Iranian blockade. Some experts believe that Iran's rhetoric was simply for effect and it would not risk confrontation with the US. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has reportedly suggested it has a "plan" for keeping the Strait open. A spokesperson for the US 5th Fleet (sic) warned on the 28th that "anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated." She added that the US Navy is “always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."
This latest confrontation between Washington and Tehran comes as the US and Israel are reportedly also developing military options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Israelis consider such a possibility an existential threat.
The enmity between the US and Iran goes back three decades, since the Iranian Revolutions and the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran. The recent difficulties are coincident with the international effort - led by the US - to limit Iran's nuclear capability. The argument is that Iran is likely to use any such capability to threaten stability in the region and support radical (Shia) Islamic movements, could lead to further proliferation (and perhaps to radical groups gaining access to nuclear bombs) and allow Tehran to blackmail anyone that might seek to intervene against Iranian interests or the regime itself.
Perhaps it's worth taking a closer look at this argument before heading into an another Asian war?
There is little doubt that Iran - even without nuclear weapons - is aggressively seeking to further its interests in the region, including by seeking to mobilize the various Shia populations in an intra-Islamic contest with the Sunni. The Iran-Iraq War was a Sunni-Shia confrontation. Saudia Arabia - ruled by a Sunni dynasty - has long fought a "cold war" against Shia and Iranian influence using the somewhat conflicting strategy of alliance with the US while supporting radical Wahhabism. The US has repeatedly blundered through this internal Islamic feud by supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, by toppling Saddam and thus ushering in a Shia government of Iraq, and by supporting "friendly" Arab regimes until they were overthrown through popular reaction putting power into the hands of Islamic movements. Meanwhile, our unquestioning support for the Saudis and Israel left us in the cross-hairs of an radical Sunni terrorist group called Al Qaeda.
Do we really have a dog in the Shia-Sunni fight? Is it up to us to protect Saudi Arabia and what have we gained in our "war" against terrorism by so doing? Would it be better for the various countries of the region to work out there own way to religious tolerance, modernism and democracy? It might be ugly but as Lord Harlech once put it: "Every country has a right to its own War of the Roses."
What about the danger of nuclear proliferation? Well, the first question we might ask is who is left to proliferate to? The major powers have them, India and Pakistan have them, North Korea (and probably Israel) has them. There's really no one left that could that would. Would Tehran give them out to radical movements? There is no record of nuclear powers sharing so indiscriminately (not even Pakistan). States with nuclear weapons become status quo powers. They check and balance each other. In the case of "rogue" states (i.e., North Korea), we mollify and look to powerful neighbors to place limits on the regime. Isn't the possibility of a nuclear Iran more an issue for China and Russia than the US? And would Iran actually risk annihilation by threatening to attack Israel?
An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would have more leverage against external threats. This is how nuclear weapons have always worked. Looked at from Iran's perspective, the use of sanctions to stop it from developing a nuclear capability may well look like an attempt at regime change or an effort to preserve the option of regime change. The Iranian leadership - the clerics and the crazy president - is a nasty piece of work. But would it not be better to back off and let the internal dynamics work without outside pressures or interference? South Africa developed nuclear weapons and then, after it achieved full democracy, gave them up.
Maybe the tough exchange of words about the Straits is just talk. But the sense that Iran must be prevented from achieving a nuclear capability at all costs is dangerous. Unleashing war to prevent war is a very risky business. Maybe its time for the US to back away a bit and let those folk work things out themselves while we defend the homeland and rebuild our economy?
This latest confrontation between Washington and Tehran comes as the US and Israel are reportedly also developing military options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Israelis consider such a possibility an existential threat.
The enmity between the US and Iran goes back three decades, since the Iranian Revolutions and the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran. The recent difficulties are coincident with the international effort - led by the US - to limit Iran's nuclear capability. The argument is that Iran is likely to use any such capability to threaten stability in the region and support radical (Shia) Islamic movements, could lead to further proliferation (and perhaps to radical groups gaining access to nuclear bombs) and allow Tehran to blackmail anyone that might seek to intervene against Iranian interests or the regime itself.
Perhaps it's worth taking a closer look at this argument before heading into an another Asian war?
There is little doubt that Iran - even without nuclear weapons - is aggressively seeking to further its interests in the region, including by seeking to mobilize the various Shia populations in an intra-Islamic contest with the Sunni. The Iran-Iraq War was a Sunni-Shia confrontation. Saudia Arabia - ruled by a Sunni dynasty - has long fought a "cold war" against Shia and Iranian influence using the somewhat conflicting strategy of alliance with the US while supporting radical Wahhabism. The US has repeatedly blundered through this internal Islamic feud by supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, by toppling Saddam and thus ushering in a Shia government of Iraq, and by supporting "friendly" Arab regimes until they were overthrown through popular reaction putting power into the hands of Islamic movements. Meanwhile, our unquestioning support for the Saudis and Israel left us in the cross-hairs of an radical Sunni terrorist group called Al Qaeda.
Do we really have a dog in the Shia-Sunni fight? Is it up to us to protect Saudi Arabia and what have we gained in our "war" against terrorism by so doing? Would it be better for the various countries of the region to work out there own way to religious tolerance, modernism and democracy? It might be ugly but as Lord Harlech once put it: "Every country has a right to its own War of the Roses."
What about the danger of nuclear proliferation? Well, the first question we might ask is who is left to proliferate to? The major powers have them, India and Pakistan have them, North Korea (and probably Israel) has them. There's really no one left that could that would. Would Tehran give them out to radical movements? There is no record of nuclear powers sharing so indiscriminately (not even Pakistan). States with nuclear weapons become status quo powers. They check and balance each other. In the case of "rogue" states (i.e., North Korea), we mollify and look to powerful neighbors to place limits on the regime. Isn't the possibility of a nuclear Iran more an issue for China and Russia than the US? And would Iran actually risk annihilation by threatening to attack Israel?
An Iran armed with nuclear weapons would have more leverage against external threats. This is how nuclear weapons have always worked. Looked at from Iran's perspective, the use of sanctions to stop it from developing a nuclear capability may well look like an attempt at regime change or an effort to preserve the option of regime change. The Iranian leadership - the clerics and the crazy president - is a nasty piece of work. But would it not be better to back off and let the internal dynamics work without outside pressures or interference? South Africa developed nuclear weapons and then, after it achieved full democracy, gave them up.
Maybe the tough exchange of words about the Straits is just talk. But the sense that Iran must be prevented from achieving a nuclear capability at all costs is dangerous. Unleashing war to prevent war is a very risky business. Maybe its time for the US to back away a bit and let those folk work things out themselves while we defend the homeland and rebuild our economy?
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments on this Blog are moderated to maintain civility and anonymous comments no longer allowed.