PDA

View Full Version : Greater Iran



tARoPINOS
November 4th, 2007, 02:15 AM
The US, Europe and Israel have their collective knickers in a knot on what to do with Iran. A show down seems to be looming over Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the whole thing is to my mind playing out S.Huntington's 'clash of civs' paradigm. The West + Israel vs Iran (Islam)...though the consequences of a military clash with Iran could be truly catastrophic, to the region of course, and more widely as the global tension between the West and Islam could explode as Muslims rally to an antagonized [potential] "Core-State".
Policy makers may need to step back an analyze the situation thus...

Inter-civilizational wars/tension are ultimately unresolvable (especially in the long term) if one is simply beaten into submission by the other but not utterly destroyed (as in genocide). And thus likely generate conflicts on a more regular basis (especially over the long term).

Intra-civilizational wars/tensions are ultimately more likely to be resolved (especially in the long term) but are less likely to generate conflict
externally, as they divert resources away from inter-civilizational conflict.

The Idea of a greater Iran is interesting because it is Shiite and Iraq (historically part of Persian Empires) is over 60% Shiite-the other 40% being Sunni....and 90% of the worlds Muslims are Sunni.

So if (realpolitik) the US pulls out of Iraq, lets the nascent civil war inflame (remembering it is a resolvable intra-civ conflict as opposed to a more likely unresolvable inter-civ conflict), and 'negotiates' Iran into a position where it feels compelled as an Islamic (Shiite) 'core-state' to intervene in Iraq and resolve the civil war militarily, one is left with a group of outcomes that in the medium term are beneficial to the West...

1. Iran takes over the burden of Iraq and is subsequently weakened in its ability to threaten inter-civilizational conflict
2. The intra-civilizational conflict of Sunni vs Shiite would wean Muslim attention away from the global inter-civilizational tension between Islam and the West.
3. The US could use the resulting Islamic intra-civ period of conflict to fast track the Israeli-Palestinian issue by in effect calming Iranian-Israeli tensions with the carrot of a (geographically) Greater Iran and the 'flashbang' of the initial military engagement. The resultant 2 state outcome would further mitigate tensions between the West and Islam (though it's difficult to say by how much, given that, Israel plays a fairly unilateral hand amongst its neighbors)
4. The West through NATO could offset Iranian geopolitical gains by mandating Turkey's right to fight 'terrorism' in northern Iraq (with troops on the ground) and by continuing to provide the Kurdish autonomous zone with a NATO (US) umbrella, using Turkish bases (hopefully), Turkey being another possible future contender for the title of Islamic 'core-state', will in the medium term at least provide a buffer to larger Persian expansion.
5. There may be the possibility that the Iran that emerges from an intra-civilizational war, larger, responsible for a greater region, may be less inclined as an emerging 'core-state' to engage in direct conflict and then again it may not...it is however unlikely that the geopolitical/economic benefits of empire making in Iraq would sufficiently energize Iran to catapult into major power status (at least in the medium term) and would allow for less confrontational negotiations and solutions in the short term at least - say dollars to build empire = give up W.M.D programs

6.Iraq would be no democracy but one gets the feeling that in the medium to long term that particular system of government is not really middle-eastern in nature anyway...

So as they say in debating...

"This house would unilaterally pull out of Iraq and facilitate the rise of a greater Iran"

:afro:

tARoPINOS
March 11th, 2008, 07:48 AM
He turns his attention to a long unchecked line...82 nibbles but no takers...the bait remains.

FruitandNut
March 11th, 2008, 11:58 AM
If Iran took over 'the burden of Iraq' I can just see how the Kurds might not like that, and as for the Sunni Iraqis and the neighbouring mainly Sunni states, well I reckon we might end up with an even greater hassle, expense, and interruption to the area's oil supplies. Of course anything that blew up in this regard would be blamed on the Americans and the Brits - in this case for pulling out and letting Iran muscle in.

The fact is that Iran is a very real and not easily resolved knotty problem (short of nuking them or such). As for any action, Uncle Sam and whoever else, is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Squatch347
March 11th, 2008, 06:26 PM
Hmm a US pull out of Iraq would of course lead to quite a bit of chaos there (though in about a year from now I think a military pull out is very feasible). However, an official Iranian entry into Iraq would necessitate a Saudi and Turk introduction into their spheres of influence. From there I think the consequences are disastrous and clear.

Squatch347
March 12th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Prince if you are going to neg rep me atleast have the guts to put down your thoughts in public.

BlueT
July 6th, 2008, 05:49 PM
I think Iran is very brave to stand against US. They have a brave leader too. As you can see the UN is planning to stop their nuclear development, but its hard. I think with all that oil resources involved in this issue, US might have to listen to Iran.

Bobson52
July 6th, 2008, 10:35 PM
I think Iran is very brave to stand against US. They have a brave leader too. As you can see the UN is planning to stop their nuclear development, but its hard. I think with all that oil resources involved in this issue, US might have to listen to Iran.

Are you nuts. President Ahmadinejād is nuts. He openly called for a new holocuast while denying the old one. All the while he continually persecutes his people while calling the US a "evil". The US doesn't get any of its oil from iran. most of it comes from canada and suadi arabia.

-------------------

When the US pulles out iraq will fly into three pieces. this is almost certain. I doubt iran will really try to reunite all of iraq. just the shittes. the turks take kurdistan and the suadis take the sunni's. The us can't afford a war with iran. hell it can't even afford the war it is in now. it owes like 9 000 000 000 000 bucks.

Ibelsd
July 16th, 2008, 01:54 PM
The US, Europe and Israel have their collective knickers in a knot on what to do with Iran. A show down seems to be looming over Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the whole thing is to my mind playing out S.Huntington's 'clash of civs' paradigm. The West + Israel vs Iran (Islam)...though the consequences of a military clash with Iran could be truly catastrophic, to the region of course, and more widely as the global tension between the West and Islam could explode as Muslims rally to an antagonized [potential] "Core-State".
Policy makers may need to step back an analyze the situation thus...

Inter-civilizational wars/tension are ultimately unresolvable (especially in the long term) if one is simply beaten into submission by the other but not utterly destroyed (as in genocide). And thus likely generate conflicts on a more regular basis (especially over the long term).

Intra-civilizational wars/tensions are ultimately more likely to be resolved (especially in the long term) but are less likely to generate conflict
externally, as they divert resources away from inter-civilizational conflict.

The Idea of a greater Iran is interesting because it is Shiite and Iraq (historically part of Persian Empires) is over 60% Shiite-the other 40% being Sunni....and 90% of the worlds Muslims are Sunni.

So if (realpolitik) the US pulls out of Iraq, lets the nascent civil war inflame (remembering it is a resolvable intra-civ conflict as opposed to a more likely unresolvable inter-civ conflict), and 'negotiates' Iran into a position where it feels compelled as an Islamic (Shiite) 'core-state' to intervene in Iraq and resolve the civil war militarily, one is left with a group of outcomes that in the medium term are beneficial to the West...

1. Iran takes over the burden of Iraq and is subsequently weakened in its ability to threaten inter-civilizational conflict
2. The intra-civilizational conflict of Sunni vs Shiite would wean Muslim attention away from the global inter-civilizational tension between Islam and the West.
3. The US could use the resulting Islamic intra-civ period of conflict to fast track the Israeli-Palestinian issue by in effect calming Iranian-Israeli tensions with the carrot of a (geographically) Greater Iran and the 'flashbang' of the initial military engagement. The resultant 2 state outcome would further mitigate tensions between the West and Islam (though it's difficult to say by how much, given that, Israel plays a fairly unilateral hand amongst its neighbors)
4. The West through NATO could offset Iranian geopolitical gains by mandating Turkey's right to fight 'terrorism' in northern Iraq (with troops on the ground) and by continuing to provide the Kurdish autonomous zone with a NATO (US) umbrella, using Turkish bases (hopefully), Turkey being another possible future contender for the title of Islamic 'core-state', will in the medium term at least provide a buffer to larger Persian expansion.
5. There may be the possibility that the Iran that emerges from an intra-civilizational war, larger, responsible for a greater region, may be less inclined as an emerging 'core-state' to engage in direct conflict and then again it may not...it is however unlikely that the geopolitical/economic benefits of empire making in Iraq would sufficiently energize Iran to catapult into major power status (at least in the medium term) and would allow for less confrontational negotiations and solutions in the short term at least - say dollars to build empire = give up W.M.D programs

6.Iraq would be no democracy but one gets the feeling that in the medium to long term that particular system of government is not really middle-eastern in nature anyway...

So as they say in debating...

"This house would unilaterally pull out of Iraq and facilitate the rise of a greater Iran"

:afro:

You have said a lot and I don't have the time for a lengthy point by point rebuttal. So, let me try to summarize what I believe you have said;
Pull out of Iraq. Shift the burden of dealing with Iraqi turmoil onto Iran, weakening them in the short term. Use that period to stabilize the Israel/Palestinian clash. Hope that the Iran which emerges feels responsibility for maintaining stability having emerged as the ME's main power.

Ok, assuming I have the above correct.... I think your conclusion is based on hope rather than realpolitik. Plus, you are breaking one of the cardinal rules of international relations -> You never cede power to an enemy. This is Machiavelli 101. While it may be beneficial to your interests in the short term, such mistakes almost always backfire.

I think your analysis also has a second flaw. Your expectation is that we can use the period of Iranian distraction to mend the issue between Israel and Palestine. I refer back to your own quote:

Inter-civilizational wars/tension are ultimately unresolvable (especially in the long term) if one is simply beaten into submission by the other but not utterly destroyed (as in genocide). And thus likely generate conflicts on a more regular basis (especially over the long term).


You have provided yourself with the realpolitik solution. Either the Zionists or the radical Muslims in the region must be destroyed. Giving Iraq over to Iran provides Iran with a huge new source of revenue, another staging area closer to Israel, and more human capital. In other words, your solution seems like it would be a monumental blunder.