Iran, Iran, and Iran–and the West
It’s becoming more and more clear that Iran is the prime mover right now in the Middle East. As columnist Mark Steyn points out:
…these territories [Gaza and Lebanon] are now in effect Iran’s land borders with the Zionist Entity. They’re “occupied territories” but it’s not the Jews doing the occupying. So you’ve got a choice between talking with proxies or going to the source: Tehran. And, as the unending talks with the EU have demonstrated, the ayatollahs use negotiations with the civilized world as comedy relief…
Once upon a time, it would have been Egypt and Jordan threatening the Zionist usurpers. But these countries have been, militarily, a big flop against the Zionist Entity since King Hussein fired Sir John Glubb as head of the Arab Legion. So after ’73 they put their money on terrorism, and schoolgirl suicide bombers — the kind of “popular resistance” that buys you better publicity in the salons of the West. And one result of that has been to deliver Palestinian pseudo-“nationalism” away from Arab influence and into hard-core Iranian Islamist hands.
Omar at Iraq the Model connects the Iranian dots between what’s been going on in Iraq and the current crisis in Lebanon, as well as the ways in which the international community has been “played”–and will continue to be played–by Iran:
The key point in this strategy is to keep the half-solution alive. This method proved successful in keeping the despotic regimes in power for decades and these regimes think this strategy is still valid. What makes them this way is their interpretation of international comments which came almost exactly as they always do; calls for restraint and urging a cease-fire which they (Iran and her allies) think will mean eventually going back to negotiations which they know very well how to keep moving in an empty circle.
The common denominater here is not just Iran. It’s Iran and the cooperation of the “useful idiots” of the West–some of them well-meaning–who mysteriously fail to recognize the nature and goals of the Iranian regime.
I have a different opinion: Israel is the prime mover.
Of course you do LOL
Iran is the fountainhead of Islamic totalitarianism, and has been in a cold war with the US since 1979. There is nothing new here, except that the neocons have failed to identify our enemy (Islamic totalitarianism) and so naturally have failed to envision a strategy for defeating it. Regime change in Tehran has always been the most important goal in this war. It should have been done immediately after 9/11, and some people even said so:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635
I would be against emphasizing too much that Iran is the “prime mover” or weapons supplier, Brad. For example, Israel made a huge strategic mistake yesterday when they repeatedly kept highlighting the fact that the missile [which hit an Israeli boat] was made in Iran, as proof of Iran’s involvement in the Lebanon war. Why is emphasizing this to the media so much is stupid as a media tactic? Well, since almost all the missiles that killed Lebanese over the past four days were made in the USA, this might give the Arab media ideas and the Arab media might start countering and inflaming the Arab street by highlighting that the Israeli weapons are US-made.
In war, you have to be clever and tactical about what you say to the media. You don’t want to hand your opponents a good opening on a plate.
Iran is the center of the eye of the storm in the Middle East because we decided to remove the Iranians’ most hostile counterbalance, other than ourselves. We made their ascendency inevitable.
What exactly were the neocon visionaries…envisioning for Iraq? Did they seriously think the result of the invasion was going to be a pro-Western democracy that was still an effective buffer against Iran? Is it paranoid to suggest that that was too naive and reality-blindered to be true? Is there some occult model in which a more robust Iran is actually a plus for Western interests? I’m not seeing it. What I’m seeing is amateurish military execution and failed geopolitics.
The Middle East has been a tangled knot of counterbalancing powers — an ugly, shifting but stubborn stasis — since the end of the Cold War. Stasis is philosophically unsatisfying to behold, but it works to keep nations from annihiliating each other. The Iraq invasion was the first permanent-looking rip in that web. The secular powers in the West are not going to like the results in the long run.
Democracy? Possibly — the Palestinian kind. Islamic people, given the genuine right to vote for their own leaders, are going to tend to vote Islamic. Often, that will mean anti-Western and yes, pro-Iranian ‘stans — not exactly the neocon vision, but democracy in action.
I believe some sort of new stasis will emerge eventually, but the end result will be a much stronger Iran, possibly enlarged (maybe literally) by the assertion of Shi’ite majority identity in Iraq. Nothing short of another, much larger war will diminish Iran in the next couple of decades, and that simply is not going to happen, no matter how many cheerleaders it has in places like this. Stasis is going to get tenser, angrier and a lot more expensive for Israel, and the Saudis.
The Iraq invasion was glamorous; it made good television and it appealed to a popular ideology. But it was a sucker bet. A losing bet.
We’ve shot off a couple of toes; let’s hope we can salvage the rest of the foot.
The Iraq invasion was glamorous; it made good television and it appealed to a popular ideology. But it was a sucker bet. A losing bet.
Remember “shock and awe” ??
Israel is also trying out “shock and awe from the skies” right now. But once the boots on the ground have to go in (as they inevitably have to, in order to win the peace after the war has been “won”), that’s when the quagmire usually begins…
Has Israel learned anything from the US experience in Iraq? Preliminary indications are that it has not.
Well, since almost all the missiles that killed Lebanese over the past four days were made in the USA, this might give the Arab media ideas and the Arab media might start countering and inflaming the Arab street by highlighting that the Israeli weapons are US-made.
Fortunately this won’ make a difference because it’s perfectly okay to make and sell weapons — the core of the problem is to make and sell weapons for the intent of using them to start and facilitate a war. This is vastly different from using such weapons to fight back aggression. The MSM by and large will not dig this deeply into the question, that why I prefer news analysis like what we have on Foxnews.
What I’m seeing is amateurish military execution and failed geopolitics. People like you never do do they?
Sorry, nyo? Never do what? Not following you — are you saying there is a way building Iran up benefits US interests?
How exactly do you characterize “people like me”?
‘People’ in “people like you…” are people on the far far Left who have been indoctrinated [or self-indoctrinated] to espouse the sorts of view you have. I was exactly the same kind of Leftist iconoclast once myself and formulated my opinions not by analyzing a question in a pursuit of truth or logic, but by simply counter-claiming the designated opposition.
I see. And where are you getting this insight into my closed mind?
As I said, ‘personal experience’ — I just happen to run across this quote at Frontpagemag.com and thought it was fitting:
It is in the nature of Stalinism for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying – and not only to others but first of all to themselves – a fundamental part of their lives. It is always a mistake to assume that Stalinists do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically. For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous that it cannot be assimilated into the ‘ideals’ that govern the Stalinist mind, which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.
– Hilton Kramer
That’s nicely crafted. Absolute nonsense when applied to a complete stranger whose logic you haven’t bothered to evaluate except by contrasting the stranger’s words to your own dogma. But a nicely wrought and very useful quote. Bet you wish you had it in you to have said it yourself.
I would be against emphasizing too much that Iran is the “prime mover” or weapons supplier, Brad.
I wasn’t emphasizing that, I was pointing out Iran’s decades of ideological leadership for the fantasy of Islamic totalitarianism which makes them worthy of being our #1 target. Our war against “terror” will not be won until Tehran is defeated. But the neocons hope, year after year, for a perfect storm of pressures to mount upon Tehran until there is regime change there. Does anyone think this strategy of hope is working to date?
w/e
there is a way building Iran up benefits US interests?
The gross military imbalance between Israel and its neighbours is the root
cause of the current instability and misery in the Middle East. If the Palestinians or any of the neighbouring states had the capacity to “proportionately” threaten and inflict the same degree of destruction on Israel’s infrastructure and civilian population, the chances of a lasting regional peace would increase correspondingly. While others – including the well-intentioned – might disagree, the development of an Iranian nuclear deterrent would be a positive rather than a negative development for the region. Far from further destabilizing it, it would redress the military balance and be the most effective means of forcing the Israelis to make peace
with Palestinians. To the extent that peace in the middle east is in the US interest, a nuclear Iran is, therefore, very much in the US interest.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/07/18/ostrich-syndrome-continues-on-the-left/
Painer, I don’t think it would be wise to goad the Palestinians and Israelis into a war that kills the last man, woman, and child simply because you believe that peace only comes when both sides get tired of fighting a never ending war between balanced forces.
Nyo should read that link above at bookworm for some relating background info.
the current instability and misery in the Middle East. If the Palestinians or any of the neighbouring states had the capacity to “proportionately” threaten and inflict the same degree of destruction on Israel’s infrastructure and civilian population, the chances of a lasting regional peace would increase correspondingly.
Disarm Hezbollah and Hamas and you have peace. Disarm Israel and you have war until the last Israeli hits the dirt.
Okay I’ll check out the link — I just noticed it.
Panier Man 0 points
Nyomythus 2 points
Your Iranian balance of power is laughable. If they ceased attacking Israel, there would be peace. Thus, there will never be peace because Hamas and Hezbollah will not quit.
Jordan is the Palestinian Arab homeland but the Hashemites prefered to use them as pawns back in 48.