Iran is worthless
by tdaxp ~ April 1st, 2007
Barnett, T.P.M. 2007. I expect more reasoning than that. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. March 31, 2007. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/03/the_side_ive_always_been_on.html#comment-14579.
Neither an asset nor a liability
Great thinker Tom Barnett kindly responded to a question I had on his blog yesterday. To his comment that “”I think that if Bush attacks Iran on his watch, he’ll screw up the Big Bang permanently” I asked “Why?” His response, and my follow-up, is below
Are we supposed to bomb by the list?
Tom’s referring to the Index of Economic Freedom (hat-tip to Catholicgauze) which places Iran’s economic freedom in the “repressed” category, between Angola and Republic of Congo (by comparison, the United States is free, Norway is mostly Free, Mongolia is moderately free, and Vietnam is mostly unfree.)
Of course it does not make sense to use war as our only tool. Along with peace, war is one of two tools. But Iran’s disconnectedness (outside of oil) does mean that Iran is not much of an engine of liberty. Destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran is hardly a duty. But nor would it be worse than, say, the loss of Syria or Togo.
Yes, I think pushing the region toward needed change is more important than getting our rocks off on Iran right away. If that doesn’t make me seem tough enough, then so be it
Iran had a great potential to be a source of change, if Tehran and Washington had acted different between 2003 and 2005. In the same way, the Japanese Empire was a potential force for good before the 1930s. But Iranian attacks on Americans these days are as real as Japanese attacks on Americans were then.
Iran has failed as a major vehicle for change. The safety of Tehran is not more important than the destruction of Tehran.
We need to think more effects based and less bombs on target–as in, how about we trigger a revolution in Iran as quickly as possible?
The quiest way to trigger a revolution would be from above, as was the case in Serbia. Whether that would be a good thing is a different question.
Do you think that attacking the regime now will get us that? Or do you think, given past experience with Iran, that such an approach will prove counterproductive?
Look where we’ve pushed connectivity and won: former Soviet Union and China and Vietnam.
Look where we’ve pushed isolation and propped up dictators: Cuba, North Korea, Iran.
And look we’re we’ve perused connectivity through force: Serbia and Iraq. At best, we get a government we want. At worst, we get the sort of violence that already exists in the Afro-Islamic Gap.
My argument has been simple and consistent: topple totalitarian regimes and soft-kill authoritarian ones.
In the absense of other events, this would be a great idea. But we have (wisely) topped authoritarian regimes in the past (Italy and Japan) while out of necessity we have (wisely) soft-killed totalitarian regimes as well (China during Nixon and Mao.
And show some respect for sequencing and load-bearing.
Indeed. And in our quest to overloading through feedback and feed-forward, topping Iran is a wash.
That’s why I’d advocate doing what is necessary to make Iraq work and let Shiite Iraq play Poland to Iran’s Soviet Union.
The problem here is that tyranny does best when the economy relies on exporting raw materials. An Iraq under Iranian domination is even more mattressed by oil. Furthermore, widespread & correct Iranian perception of the backwardness of Arab culture may limit what lessons the Iranians will learn from Iraq.
Grand strategy isn’t just pulling triggers
Nor it it about not pulling them. It’s about pulling them when we should and not pulling them when we shouldn’t. In Iran, it doesn’t matter.
Thanks to Tom for the conversation, and to Curtis and all other commentators as well!
The New York Times uses top 1% of income, not wealth. From the legend:...
April 1st, 2007 at 12:00 am
I don't think that bombing Iran just now is probably the best thing to do.
The British are starting to realize that their European buddies are not all that supportive in their current hostage crisis.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2047472,00.html
If the Brits would like to coordinate with their fellow coalition of the willing partner, it seems that there is a softer path which might actually get their people released and might even lead to the end of the current government.
The first thing that they have to do is get all their embassy staff and any stray Brits out or Iran. As soon as the plane carrying the last of the embassy staff gets over international water, the message should go to pre placed SAS operators to round up all the Iranian agents in southern Iraq.
Maybe the Iranians will agree to trade the British sailors for the Iranian agents. Maybe not. In any event, they won't be running around making mischief.
Next stop the smuggling of gasoline from Iraq into Iran. Do it with roadblocks and do it with UAVs firing missiles at gasoline tanker trucks crossing the border. This is definitely going to piss off some of the people in the Iraqi government who are making big bucks with this trade but it might be popular among Iraqis who have to wait for hours in line to fill up while thieves get rich selling their gasoline in Iran.
Next impose a naval blockade on gasoline going into Iran. I'm sure the US Navy would love to help out on this one. Eventually either the Brits get their sailors back or the Iranian economy collapses. Either one is fine with me.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mark,
Britain is unable to conduct an offensive war against Iran by herself. Likewise, she should assume that at the start of such fighting her hostages may be killed. The purpose of the Iran War would not be rescue.
The incompetence of Iran in recent years is interesting. Being outmaneuvered by George Bush in the United Nations is not something one would expect.
Iran has the ability to make a lot of trouble in Iraq. [1] That's a reason we should have left Iraq a while ago, and why serious thinking about an Iran War should involve leaving Iraq (except for money, guns, and air power).
An Iran War would logically end with the destruction of the ayatollish government [2], and a result less than that should not be accepted. (See what happened to Israel when they ended the fighting before the destruction of Hezbollah).
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/11/leave-iraq-now.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/03/31/winners-and-losers-of-a-violent-end-of-the-islamic-republic.html
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
This would be quite comical were it not likely close to the level of cartoonish adolescent thinking that appears to pass for policy in your current Administration. In which case it is at once sad, pitiful and dangerous. Queer, you people like firing at your toes with shotguns.
As for the strange whankery with respect UK & EU alliance support, well, nice to imagine, these strange self-delusions.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Col,
“This would be quite comical were it not likely close to the level of cartoonish adolescent thinking that appears to pass for policy in your current Administration. In which case it is at once sad, pitiful and dangerous. Queer, you people like firing at your toes with shotguns.”
Could you rephrase?
“As for the strange whankery with respect UK & EU alliance support, well, nice to imagine, these strange self-delusions.”
What are you referring to?
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Lounsbury
Cartoonish and adolescent would be if Tony Blair (or better still, Prince William) were to break in the doors of the Iranian Embassy and personally throw the Persian Ambassador and his minions down a bottomless well. Not a particularly wise or farsighted action but definitely cool.
It would also send a signal to the Iranians that they are not the only ones who can play the Crazy Eddie negotiating ploy.
However, given the realities of British domestic politics, I don't see that as particularly likely. Maybe if the Iranians put the British sailors on trial, it might arouse some sort of passion on the part of the British but I suspect that they are too deeply lost in Bush hatred, anti-Americanism and (unjustified) despair at their own impotence.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“This would be quite comical were it not likely close to the level of cartoonish adolescent thinking that appears to pass for policy in your current Administration”
As compared to utter paralysis and absense of imagination that passes for policy out of 10 Downing Street? The only thing that excites you people these days are the latest shenanigans of the royal family. Pot and the kettle my friend.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mark,
Under Tony Blair, Britain took the calculate decision that it would lose the ability to engage in any offensive action without the United Staets in exchnge for not having to spend as much on defense. This is understandible, if very sad.
Conversely, Australia under John Howard is ramping up to a position of equivalence with her old colonial mistress: Canberra is now able to engage in offensive action, along with the United States, throughout Australasia. This is wonderful.
Johnmc,
Britain deserves praise, from her involvement in Iraq and Kosovo to the leading role she has played, and continues to play, in liberalizing economies around the world. She is a second-rate power, and plays her cards reasonably well.