- Thread starter
- #41
steve albino
New Member
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Iran Situation[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] by Ahmad Sadri and Foaad Khosmood; February 20, 2005 [/font]
[font=Verdana,]
Ahmad Sadri, currently professor and chair of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at Lake Forest College was born in Tehran and obtained his BA and MA degrees from the University of Tehran and his PhD from the New School for Social Research in New York City. [/font][font=Verdana,]He is an active participant in the intellectual reform movement in Iran and was a columnist for the English Language "Daily Star" of Lebanon during 2004.
[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Foaad Khosmood: What is your view as to the current thinking in the US Administration toward Iran? The rhetoric of Condi Rice (No war plans right now) is almost exactly what the administration proclaimed at this stage of the game with Iraq. Could an ideologically-driven decision for an invasion have been made already? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Ahmad Sadri: The steadily escalating charges of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is indeed reminiscent of the prelude to the Iraqi invasion. Is this all a bluff? Are they playing the good cop to the bad cop of the Europeans? If we go with the bluffing theory then they have not blinked yet and the Iranians seem to take the treats seriously. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Wishful thinkers proposed this theory before the Iraqi invasion as well: they praised Bush for an admirably poker-faced bluff that forced Iraq to submit to international inspections. But the masterful acting turned out to be so effective because it was not acting at all. Now, lets consider the alternative scenario: what if they are not bluffing? This means that they are fully intent to follow through with some kind of military action including selective bombing and attempts at partial or full occupation. A bombing will almost certainly not achieve the goal of hitting all the nuclear sites and at any rate it is sure to spur Iran on a more secretive and effective nuclear weapons program. An occupation would not be feasible given the size and the population of the country and the state of readiness of its armed forces. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Any operation by ground forces would be also unthinkable given the enormous cost and the state of near exhaustion of the American armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these factors would exclude American military action against Iran only if we assume the rationality of the small counter elite that runs the foreign policy of the United States. But what if the thirty or so neo cons who occupy all the key posts in the US government have succeeded in liberating themselves from the concerns of this puny little world that the rest of us inhabit? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]What if they actually believe that Iraq is a “success story” and wish to make more history like that? Now you see why answering your question is not so easy: we are not sure if the American policy makers operate in the universe of normal, responsible politics of the modern world. Ideological politicians don’t see themselves bound by the immediate results of their policies. They expect to be evaluated only on the merits of their long term objectives, irrespective of their costs and consequences. In the short term the strategy is: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]FKh: If a regime change policy is to be acted on, what form could it take other than an outright Iraq-style invasion? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]AS: One of my friends calls the Bush-style “regime change” occubration: occupation and liberation. The claim is that the Americans would first occupy and then liberate the troublesome countries of Middle East one by one. Despite the success of the recent elections in Iraq (a limited victory achieved at an enormous price) we perceive the difficulties yet to be overcome in that land. Those difficulties will be multiplied in Iran. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Will the government be a centralized or a federal one? What political shape would it take? The gamut runs from a limited monarchy to a liberal democracy. What role will ethnic aspirations play in putting back together the humpty dumpty? Wouldn’t, for instance an Iranian Kurdistan wish to unite with its Iraqi counterpart and what would the creation of such an entity mean in the balance of Turkish, Persian and Arab geopolitics in the region? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The unintended consequences of questions such as these are not known to anyone and an external power that would dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East is well advised to ponder these questions.
[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7277§ionID=67
[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] by Ahmad Sadri and Foaad Khosmood; February 20, 2005 [/font]
[font=Verdana,]
Ahmad Sadri, currently professor and chair of the Sociology and Anthropology Department at Lake Forest College was born in Tehran and obtained his BA and MA degrees from the University of Tehran and his PhD from the New School for Social Research in New York City. [/font][font=Verdana,]He is an active participant in the intellectual reform movement in Iran and was a columnist for the English Language "Daily Star" of Lebanon during 2004.
[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Foaad Khosmood: What is your view as to the current thinking in the US Administration toward Iran? The rhetoric of Condi Rice (No war plans right now) is almost exactly what the administration proclaimed at this stage of the game with Iraq. Could an ideologically-driven decision for an invasion have been made already? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Ahmad Sadri: The steadily escalating charges of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is indeed reminiscent of the prelude to the Iraqi invasion. Is this all a bluff? Are they playing the good cop to the bad cop of the Europeans? If we go with the bluffing theory then they have not blinked yet and the Iranians seem to take the treats seriously. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Wishful thinkers proposed this theory before the Iraqi invasion as well: they praised Bush for an admirably poker-faced bluff that forced Iraq to submit to international inspections. But the masterful acting turned out to be so effective because it was not acting at all. Now, lets consider the alternative scenario: what if they are not bluffing? This means that they are fully intent to follow through with some kind of military action including selective bombing and attempts at partial or full occupation. A bombing will almost certainly not achieve the goal of hitting all the nuclear sites and at any rate it is sure to spur Iran on a more secretive and effective nuclear weapons program. An occupation would not be feasible given the size and the population of the country and the state of readiness of its armed forces. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Any operation by ground forces would be also unthinkable given the enormous cost and the state of near exhaustion of the American armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, these factors would exclude American military action against Iran only if we assume the rationality of the small counter elite that runs the foreign policy of the United States. But what if the thirty or so neo cons who occupy all the key posts in the US government have succeeded in liberating themselves from the concerns of this puny little world that the rest of us inhabit? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]What if they actually believe that Iraq is a “success story” and wish to make more history like that? Now you see why answering your question is not so easy: we are not sure if the American policy makers operate in the universe of normal, responsible politics of the modern world. Ideological politicians don’t see themselves bound by the immediate results of their policies. They expect to be evaluated only on the merits of their long term objectives, irrespective of their costs and consequences. In the short term the strategy is: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]FKh: If a regime change policy is to be acted on, what form could it take other than an outright Iraq-style invasion? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]AS: One of my friends calls the Bush-style “regime change” occubration: occupation and liberation. The claim is that the Americans would first occupy and then liberate the troublesome countries of Middle East one by one. Despite the success of the recent elections in Iraq (a limited victory achieved at an enormous price) we perceive the difficulties yet to be overcome in that land. Those difficulties will be multiplied in Iran. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Will the government be a centralized or a federal one? What political shape would it take? The gamut runs from a limited monarchy to a liberal democracy. What role will ethnic aspirations play in putting back together the humpty dumpty? Wouldn’t, for instance an Iranian Kurdistan wish to unite with its Iraqi counterpart and what would the creation of such an entity mean in the balance of Turkish, Persian and Arab geopolitics in the region? [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The unintended consequences of questions such as these are not known to anyone and an external power that would dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East is well advised to ponder these questions.
[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7277§ionID=67
[/font]