World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Swift Sword · 12-19-2005, 11:02 AM

Unless I am missing something, I am just not seeing it the way some of you do.

Here is my take on the matter and I am willing to entertain critique and possibly change my mind:

It seems to me that whatever happens in Iran, the Russians are the ultimate winners as long as nobody else wants to engage Tehran constructively.

By building up Iran slightly, the Russians put pressure on the Europeans viz. Iran's enormous gas reserves (the second largest in the world). Too, a stable Iran favors the Russians as Central Asia does amount to a "soft Islamic underbelly" in many scenarios.

The Europeans are a growing market for natural gas and their dependence on Russian exports is already giving the Russians leverage. The Russians have the world's largest proven reserves, (and, incidentally, Qatar has the third and you should see what is going on in Qatar these days!)

China is already dependent on Iran for 15% of its petroleum imports and given the vast reserves in the CIS, the Russians appear to be the only people who can be ramped up to supply this need if Iran is blown off the map tommorrow.

India and Pakistan are again expressing interest in Iranian natural gas and are talking about a pipeline. Same situation as China: if Iran is out of the picture those resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is North.

The Japanese are another peoples who have gone to Tehran hat in hand and given the import projections for natural gas into the United States out till 2025 (EIA Reference Case) Washington might want to seek a more productive course of action than it has already demonstrated.

Ultimately, the solutions for Iraninan nuclear and geopolitical ambitions are the same as any others: co-op or kill.

Killing is possible but difficult and it introduces uncertainty into the equation as well as bolstering strategic competitors and hurting friends and allies.

Co-opting is possible and probably less difficult though it is time consuming. Co-opting introduces degrees of predictability and accountability into the equation and allows for emerging competitors to be managed while bolstering the security of friends and allies.

Outside of OIF style regime change in Iran, some of the various military options mentioned here could be called militarily low risk but even a small bombing camaign targetting a few Revolutionary Guards targets as a warning may carry substanial geopolitical risks.

Best guesses as to what a credible baseline air campaign against Iran at a strategic level that I am inclined to believe call for 300 targets to be bombed over five or so days and I suspect that the IAF could not do that.

Furthermore, any countries that the IAF would have to overfly would become combatants, albeit passive ones, once they gave permission and I suspect that many nations in the region consider that an unsavory prospect. Given the distribution of Shiite's in critical areas around the region and their second class status in many areas, I am sure a few of the local potentates have reservations about giving the Iranians an excuse to proselytize their own restive masses (and with 40% of the World's daily petroleum needs flowing out of the region, a wider war or blowback would not be conducive to stability).

Outright invasion of Iran as a preemptory move combined with forcible regime change strikes me as far fetched at this point as Iraq is not put to bed yet and it represents a much lower bar.

Some robust sanctions against Iran are probably in order at this point if the situation does not change but without the Chinese and Russians on board I suspect it is not worth burning the diplomatic and political capital on such an initiative.

So, this brings us back to square one: take military action or allow the Iranians to continue along the course they are on and end up with a heavy water reactor which gives them bomb capability or a reactor and the bomb proper. None of these options seem very attractive viz. US policy in the region.

This situation regarding Iran very nuanced so there is wiggle room for sure. Bombing is possible but there are repercussions that might cause a failure of wider US intiatives in the Middle East and Central Asia and getting used to the idea of the Iranians with a nuclear program over which the US has no sway is not such a hot prospect.

What are the other options?

12-19-2005, 11:02 AM	#77 (permalink)
Swift Sword *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-23-05 Location: Carl Perkins' Cadillac Posts: 779	Unless I am missing something, I am just not seeing it the way some of you do. Here is my take on the matter and I am willing to entertain critique and possibly change my mind: It seems to me that whatever happens in Iran, the Russians are the ultimate winners as long as nobody else wants to engage Tehran constructively. By building up Iran slightly, the Russians put pressure on the Europeans viz. Iran's enormous gas reserves (the second largest in the world). Too, a stable Iran favors the Russians as Central Asia does amount to a "soft Islamic underbelly" in many scenarios. The Europeans are a growing market for natural gas and their dependence on Russian exports is already giving the Russians leverage. The Russians have the world's largest proven reserves, (and, incidentally, Qatar has the third and you should see what is going on in Qatar these days!) China is already dependent on Iran for 15% of its petroleum imports and given the vast reserves in the CIS, the Russians appear to be the only people who can be ramped up to supply this need if Iran is blown off the map tommorrow. India and Pakistan are again expressing interest in Iranian natural gas and are talking about a pipeline. Same situation as China: if Iran is out of the picture those resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is North. The Japanese are another peoples who have gone to Tehran hat in hand and given the import projections for natural gas into the United States out till 2025 (EIA Reference Case) Washington might want to seek a more productive course of action than it has already demonstrated. Ultimately, the solutions for Iraninan nuclear and geopolitical ambitions are the same as any others: co-op or kill. Killing is possible but difficult and it introduces uncertainty into the equation as well as bolstering strategic competitors and hurting friends and allies. Co-opting is possible and probably less difficult though it is time consuming. Co-opting introduces degrees of predictability and accountability into the equation and allows for emerging competitors to be managed while bolstering the security of friends and allies. Outside of OIF style regime change in Iran, some of the various military options mentioned here could be called militarily low risk but even a small bombing camaign targetting a few Revolutionary Guards targets as a warning may carry substanial geopolitical risks. Best guesses as to what a credible baseline air campaign against Iran at a strategic level that I am inclined to believe call for 300 targets to be bombed over five or so days and I suspect that the IAF could not do that. Furthermore, any countries that the IAF would have to overfly would become combatants, albeit passive ones, once they gave permission and I suspect that many nations in the region consider that an unsavory prospect. Given the distribution of Shiite's in critical areas around the region and their second class status in many areas, I am sure a few of the local potentates have reservations about giving the Iranians an excuse to proselytize their own restive masses (and with 40% of the World's daily petroleum needs flowing out of the region, a wider war or blowback would not be conducive to stability). Outright invasion of Iran as a preemptory move combined with forcible regime change strikes me as far fetched at this point as Iraq is not put to bed yet and it represents a much lower bar. Some robust sanctions against Iran are probably in order at this point if the situation does not change but without the Chinese and Russians on board I suspect it is not worth burning the diplomatic and political capital on such an initiative. So, this brings us back to square one: take military action or allow the Iranians to continue along the course they are on and end up with a heavy water reactor which gives them bomb capability or a reactor and the bomb proper. None of these options seem very attractive viz. US policy in the region. This situation regarding Iran very nuanced so there is wiggle room for sure. Bombing is possible but there are repercussions that might cause a failure of wider US intiatives in the Middle East and Central Asia and getting used to the idea of the Iranians with a nuclear program over which the US has no sway is not such a hot prospect. What are the other options? __________________ Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?