Thursday, July 10, 2008
What Iran Wants
1) Iran wants a nuclear weapon. It is clearly for defensive purposes; however, depending upon one's view of Iran's religious fanaticism, it may serve offensive purposes as well.
2) Iran wants to assert regional hegemony viz. its Arab neighbors and Israel.
These core strategic objectives could be pursued by both a secular regime and a theocratic regime in Iran. However, because Iran's theocracy is revolutionary, expansionist and apocalyptic, Iran's strategic objectives are especially threatening to her neighbors.
Since her neighbors are not devoid of resources, Iran's actions will trigger conflict and, likely, a strategic arms race.
Iran has larger global objectives as well, particularly as it relates to the spread of Shiite Islamic idealogy. Her objectives cannot be met, of course, because they put Iran in conflict with essentially the rest of the world. However, this has not stopped fanatics from engaging in irrational, self defeating behavior throughout history, and no one should conclude Iran is in this sense any different.
Iran's current apocalyptic pronouncements regarding Israel, her missile tests and threats toward shipping in the Persian Gulf are, to me, confirmatory of her extreme objectives.
If Iran had more manageable goals, would it not make more sense for her to quietly build strength and wait for the US to elect its next President? Why launch intermediate range missiles that could threaten Europe, the Arabian pensinsula and Israel now, while the Bush administration remains in office? It strikes me that bellicose talk from Iran encourages US voters to vote more conservatively. Even moreso, active conflict increases the likelihood of a conservative vote in November.
An alternative conclusion might be that Iran would be willing to shut down its military nuclear program and co-exist with the West. That strikes me as completely antithetical to the diplomatic pronouncements of Iran since the revolution. I don't believe Iran would be so willing.
Finally, it can be argued that the US should be willing to live with a nuclear Iran. After all, we live with a nuclear Pakistan. Let me distinguish for a moment between Iran and Pakistan. First, Pakistan is not governed by an Islamic theocracy. And second, even if it was, it is bordered by a much larger and more powerful India, which is prepared to decimate it with nuclear force.
Iran, by contrast, happens to be at least the equal of any local power save for Israel. The closest physical rival to Iran in the region would likely be Turkey, today not a nuclear power. And of course, Iran is governed by a fanatical Islamic regime. That is a highly toxic combination. In the wake of a nuclear armed Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would immediately seek nuclear arms as well.
In the end, is any of that in the US interest?
The answer to that, in my judgment, is no. And I would speculate that most of the American electorate feels the same way. So I can only conclude by Iran's bellicosity, that in addition to seeking nuclear capability and regional dominance, Iran is also casting a vote for John McCain.
23 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Jul 10, 04:01:00 PM:
I am a bit confused by the notion of a nuclear weapon used for defensive purposes. Since you have, in my opinion, correctly positioned Iran as the putative hegemon of the area, what would they be defending against?
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 04:03:00 PM:
Iran declared war on the United States in 1979. We ignore their saber rattling at our peril. The Iranians might believe that Obama is their ally, but if elected, he will probably listen to the generals more than the moonbats. At least, we should hope so. On the other hand, we know McCain wants us to win.
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 04:22:00 PM:
"a nuclear weapon used for defensive purposes"
I imagine that it is the ultimate ace in the hole that will allow it to continue to wage asymetrical war with less fear of a conventional attack. It would also make regime change a bit dicey, too.
Will its neighbors then seek nukes also? Without question. The more out there in the hands of unstable governments, the greater the chances are that one will actually go off.
Not a pretty picture.
a. moral
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 04:49:00 PM:
What many forget or never learned is that in early 1979, Carter was very conciliatory towards Khomeini. See what that got Jimmah and the US!
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 05:21:00 PM:
But why would Iran be casting a vote for John McCain? It can't be that the mullahs believe he'll be more concilliatory than the present alternative.
I rather suspect some faction in Iran is actually itching for a confrontation, believing it will survive, gain even more power, and henceforth proceed from a position of renewed internal support for the revolution. The aftermath of any attack would present the ideal opportunity to put down all internal dissent, likely with overwhelming public approval. At least that is what the likes of Ahmadinejad hope and think, and who is to say that presumption is wrong?
Oh, and a side benefit if the attack comes by way of Israel is confirmation of the need for a means to deal with that pesky little country once and for all.
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jul 10, 05:25:00 PM:
S_s - I think you answered your own question. They want the weapon, they want the fight.
By davod, at
Thu Jul 10, 06:05:00 PM:
"S_s - I think you answered your own question. They want the weapon, they want the fight."
I agree. Now we have cleared the decks, here comes the hard part.
How do we stop them getting the bomb?
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 06:20:00 PM:
They could be aggressively pushing things because they think us weak and indecisive. Israel's refusal, most likely at our behest, to put down Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all play into that perception.
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 07:06:00 PM:
As the poster above noted, you left us hanging: Why McCain?
Qui bono? The hardliners?
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jul 10, 07:49:00 PM:
"They could be aggressively pushing things because they think us weak and indecisive."
They're right.
And I've noticed a pattern to Iran's bellicose behavior... every time the price of oil starts to drop, they do something aggressive.
By Richard Heyn, at
Thu Jul 10, 10:25:00 PM:
I suspect that a large part of the rhetoric from Ahmadinejad is for domestic consumption, particularly in view of the looming power struggle between that whacko and the "moderates" in Iran.
As for "nukes for defensive purposes", have we already forgotten that nukes were used for just that purpose during the Cold War. It was then called "Mutual Assured Destruction" and "Nuclear Deterrent".
The Iranians and, indeed, just about all the Muslim states in that neighbourhood, are concerned about Israel's 150-200 warhead nuclear arsenal. This is particularly so because Israel has always exhibited a willingness to attack its neighbours, based upon actual, perceived or imaginary threats. The Muslim states have learned a valuable lesson from the 1948 Jewish land grab in Palestine and from the expanding settlements in the West Bank. They also know that the US Government will stick its head up Israel's butt and fall into line behind Israel, regardless of whether or not Israel is right. Someone in that neck of the woods needs a nuclear deterrent to keep Israel's finger OFF the trigger.
By , at
Thu Jul 10, 11:02:00 PM:
richard,
And so you're thinking that in a close game the side that has 1 weapon and a mullahcracy versus the side that has 150-200 weapons and a democracy is going to use its weapon as a deterrent? I'm sure that the Israelis are completely cowed by that prospect.
However your statements about Israel's "willingness to attack its neighbours" are, I think, a bit off base. The "Jewish land grab in Palestine" is at best an argumentative proposition. And regardless of its provenance, Israel has for 60 years been recognized by most of the world as a legitimate nation.
Whether you think that when your political colleagues support you they have their heads up your ass, or whether you believe that they are simply your political colleagues is a very, very technical issue
By Escort81, at
Thu Jul 10, 11:07:00 PM:
Richard -
I am not 100% positive, but it is likely that some readers may take offense to the phrases "1948 Jewish land grab," and "the US Government will stick its head up Israel's butt."
Anyway, if you think that another regional power needs a nuke to deter Israel, I must have missed the point in time when Israel pre-emptively nuked one of its unarmed neighbors.
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 12:46:00 AM:
Yes, Iran wants to be primary in it's geographic area. The reason may not be jihad, but a belief that the ancient Persian Empire should take it's rightful place.
The current saber rattling has a clear purpose, to force President Hussein Obama to the negotiating table. The alternative is a post-innauguration attack on the US. That could get messy, not out of fear of Hussein, but of what the Israeli's might do on their own.
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 10:55:00 AM:
They want a nuke. We can sit hear an argue whether they have a legitimate right to one or not till kingdom come. I don’t think they actually know “why” except for the sake of the power it bestows upon them. If Israel had no nukes, do you honestly believe that Iran’s regime would not pursue them anyway? Did Israel start the 9 year war between Iran and Iraq? Did Cuba have a right to nuclear weapons? After all we attempted to overthrow their government (Bay of Pigs). And, we committed another act of war (embargo) to prevent them from doing so.
It’s the consequences of them obtaining this capability that we really need to focus on IMHO. Sorry for being so pragmatic.
a. moral
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jul 11, 11:25:00 AM:
Israel has had nuclear capability for decades.
But it wasn't until it was clear that the Iranians were pursuing nuclear arms that the Saudis and Egyptians began talking about acquiring them.
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 12:44:00 PM:
What does Iran Want?
I think more than anything to be able to defend their country. Iran wants the same things as Israel, security. Who can they trust?
They remember 1979; Arabic nations who supported Iraq against Iran. The integrated financial, technical, and armaments that were provided by many Arab countries to support Arabic Iraq against non-Arab Iranians was responsible for death of about 500,000 Iranians ad injury of several millions. They remember our financial and technical support of Sadam Hossein to use chemical bombs against Iranians.
Please read Persian Paradox [http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/PersianPardox.htm]. What would you do if you were president of Iran?
http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/PersianPardox.htm
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 03:48:00 PM:
"Iran wants the same things as Israel, security"
Not quite. Iran wants to destroy Israel, and Israel would prefer not to be destroyed. If Israel really wanted to destroy Iran, it would have happened by now.
"What would you do if you were president of Iran?"
I wouldn’t paint a large bulls-eye on my country by developing nukes. How secure are the Iranian people going to feel when Saudi Arabia and Egypt develop their own nukes in response? How about when the other nuclear powers begin retargeting some of their missiles towards Iran? Not exactly a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The question is when regime change comes to Iran, will they politely turn over the keys to the nukes? Will they sell them off? Or even decide to go out in blaze of glory?
If you care about the people you are supposed to serve, then nukes are the wrong way to go. If you are only looking to retain power/leverage, that’s another matter.
a. moral
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 04:23:00 PM:
Reply to anonymous: "... Iran wants to destroy Israel".
Iran has been the protector of Jewish people; please read the Bible. Iran had the largest population of Jewish people in the region before 1947, still is home to the second largest number of people with Jewish faith.
Please read my post "The United States, Arabs, Israel and Iran: Crimes"
[http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2007/11/olmert-throws-in-towel-on-iran.html].
Would you provide any evidence to prove that Iranians are anti-Jewish?
I suggest a solution to make Israel more secure in the Middle Eastern region:
The two state model for Palestinian and Israeli is not working. Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.
We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.
Both Jewish and Palestinians have paid a high price for a failed system to consider the human side of the Israeli-Jewish struggle for a lasting peace.
I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jul 11, 05:40:00 PM:
"Iran has been the protector of Jewish people"
Are you actually using the *Bible* as proof of Iranian goodwill to Israel? Perhaps you're right, the Iranians are merely acting defensively. Perhaps the Iranians are merely afraid of having their national defenses torn down.
The way Joshua handled those walls around Jericho was amazing.And slaughtering all those Cannanites? Chilling.
"still is home to the second largest number of people with Jewish faith. "
No. That would be the United States. Perhaps this would enlighten.
"Muslim 98% (Shi'a 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%" - CIA World Factbook
"Would you provide any evidence to prove that Iranians are anti-Jewish?"
'Iran's president has stood by his call to wipe Israel off the map, calling Western reaction to his remarks "invalid."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended an annual anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday. About 200,000 demonstrators attended the event, which comes at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan and marks Iranian support for the Palestinians.
Some people chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America," while others burned or trampled Israeli and U.S. flags.'
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/28/iran-president051028.html
200,000 people? Hmph. Imagine that.
And the *only* way a Federal state is going to be established in Palestine is if the Israelis forcibly take over everything and impose one.
Congratulations on your new membership in the world Jewish conspiracy.
By , at
Fri Jul 11, 09:00:00 PM:
Reply to Dawnfire82:"still is home to the second largest number of people with Jewish faith. "
The reference was for the Middle East. Thank you.
By Leif, at
Sat Jul 12, 04:31:00 AM:
The Iranians regard the US election as a "win-win" scenario for them. If McCain wins, then they believe that the likelihood of a US attack on Iran increases, thus enabling them to wave the bloody shirt and divert attention from the government's corruption woes. If the more pusillanimous Obama wins, then they can claim that their aggressive strategy frightened the war-weary American public into a de facto capitulation.
T.F.I. '91
By Gary Rosen, at
Sat Jul 12, 02:17:00 PM:
"Would you provide any evidence to prove that Iranians are anti-Jewish?"
Does promoting Holocaust denial count?
"We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby"
Evidence that it's not only the Iranians who are anti-Jewish.
