I was wondering, if we’re entering a situation where the US and Iran enter a Coldwar style standoff, the economics of the situation are quite different from the era of Communism, and Iran will have a way of sustaining itself. I want to know how successful the Iranian economy is, the political structures, and how they’d be brought down and collapsed like we did with the Soviets.
Like “we” did?
I doubt Iran has a self sustaining economy, I imagine they’re quite dependent selling their oil to outside countries and using the proceedes to import things they can’t produce on thier own. The wikipedia article on Iran’s economy seems to support this. So in the event of a embargo from the EU, US, Russia, India and China, I’d imagine they’d go down pretty fast. It’s also worth noting that most of their neighbors don’t like Iran very much (and the US is in control of its two most immediate neighbors), so they would be unlikely to make up the difference using neighboring countries as a third party to conduct trade with the wider world. If they had a few allies, that would be different, but then that would make it a wider conflict then the one your describing.
I’m not sure this is very analogous to what happened with the Soviet Union though (did we even have a blanket embargo against communist countries?). The Soviet block was certianly large enough to produce everything it needed and trade amonst it’s own members, and I think that Russia actually subsidized the economies of its less well off but strategically useful members (Cuba). It’s economy went under more because of structural problems with its economy (read, communism) rather then because of outside pressures.
I’m not sure you were suggesting that such an embargo is likely or even possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine all of those countries agreeing one. Unless, of course, Iran were to lob a nuke or two at one of its neighbors. So I don’t see their economy collapsing in any realistic scenario. And don’t underestimate the willingness or the ability of dictators* to let their countries’ economies stagnate in order to keep a hold of power.
*Let’s not pretend that Iran is any kind of real democracy here. It’s a dictatorship wrapped in the thinnest trappings of democracy.
Then what can be done to bring it down?
Why would you want to? Removing locally affluent people not tied to the theocracy seems like a bad idea if your goal is to bring about a democratic nation.
Besides, crush the Iranian economy and you’ll wind up with refugees fleeing to Iraq. How able do you think Iraq is for dealing with thousands of displaced people when it can barely stay on its knees?
How to we destroy the dictatorship then? How do we get that middle class to rebel against them, rather than comply to satisfy their own concerns, such as a job, making money, than democracy, free elections?
I think almost everyone agrees that invasion is out. Not enough troops, not enough money, Iraq’s already enough of a pain in the butt, etc.
From the article I linked to before, here is a list of exporters to Iran:
Germany 11.5%, France 9%, China 8.8%, Italy 8.5%, Switzerland 7.1%, UAE 7.1%, Russia 4.6%, Japan 4.3% (2003 est.)
Obviously the EU has fairly substantial econmic leverage over Iran. They are currently trying to use that leverage to force Iran to abandon U enrichment. Should that effort be successful, using further trade deals and a possible WTO membership as carrots and sticks to goad them into further economic and political reform. Also a successful Shitte democracy in Iraq could provide a good example to their co-religionists in Iran, so it’s certainly in our interest to see that the new gov’t of Iraq is sucssesful.
Maybe, and if the Mullahs are willing to take the N. Korean route and drive thier country into the ground to prove a point, there probably isn’t much we can do. But Iran has shown a strong desire to be a “regional power” and not an isolated loony bin country, and I think they are willing to deal when push comes to shove and make concessions to increase the economic power and presitige of thier country. Of course, leaning on the EU and Japan to make and follow up with serious threats against Iran maybe easier said then done.
You damn well learn patience. You want an evolution not a revolution in Iran, particularly if you’re looking to keep all the nasty weapons from leaking out.
I’d say integrate them into the global economy to pump up the percentage of affluent non clerics. While doing that fund the democratic movements through 3rd parties. Hell, let the French launder the money from the US. You’re not looking for points here you’re looking for results. That and you need to minimize the perception that they’re being targeted by a superpower. Few things bring people together like a perceived enemy, and that kind of stick is one that tyrants love to use to crush opposition.
Also note that Iran’s oppresive gov’t and Iran’s nuclear ambitions are two seperate problems. Both the hardline clerics and the reformist parliment are united in their desire to continue the U enrichment program. If Iran declares free elections and a liberalized economy tomorrow, it will be unlikely to stop its nuclear program.
That’s a very important point that people seem to forget. Perhaps an Iran fully integrated into the world economy and with a REAL democracy in place would be easier to negotiate with over the nuclear issue. And it would probably be easier to verify what nuclear efforts were underway at any given time, too.
I have no problem for a liberalised free population obtaining nuclear weapons.
The simple answer is that we don’t. Just like we didn’t destroy the Soviet dictatorship, or the Chinese dicatorship, or the North Korean dictatorship, or the Libyan dictatorship, or the Khmer Rouge dictatorship, or the Burmese dictatorship, or the Pinochet dictatorship, or the Castro dictatorship, or the Saudi dictatorship, or the Egyptian dictatorship, or the East German dictatorship, or the Syrian dictatorship.
This is a common failing I see on the left and the right. Everything in the world is controlled by the US, either for bad or for good.
Sure, we toppled one dictatorship in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq’s dictatorship was deemed to be uniquely vulnerable. A pariah state. An indentifiable blood-soaked dictator for a bad guy. An enslaved population. A degraded military. An economy dependent on one export. Sizable ethnic minorities (majorities actually) opposed to the central government. Multiple UN resolutions against them. And we’d kicked their ass 10 years ago.
The Bush administration thought the Iraq invasion would be easy, and they were partially right. But Iran isn’t the same kind of low hanging fruit, even if we weren’t bogged down in Iraq.
We have almost no influence on internal Iranian politics, and any attempt to influence Iranian politics is likely to make things worse instead of better. So the best strategy is to sit back and hope for the best.
Watch those elections returns in Iraq. If Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s coalition maintains its current lead, we’ll see a religious Shiite government in Iraq which may get a lot chummier with Iran. Which would put the US in an…interesting…diplomatic position.
I don’t think so, number one
The Shia in Iraq are arab, and plenty of them fought and died against the Iranian regime.
Number two,
The Shia has to accomdate the other ethnic minorities to produce a stable political environment, if it implements theocracy, I don’t see this happening.
Number three,
The fact the religious establishment in Iraq regards the theocracy in Iran as a bad example to rule.
On an interesting development though,
If a Shia leadership does get chummier with Iran, but respects the democratic process, I think this would be actually detremental to the Iranians as it would show a serious rival to the theocratic system.
Religious parties don’t necessarily equate themselves with dictatorship and subjigation. These people want a religious government, let them vote them in again and again, whilst respecting the democratic process.
RL: I think you’ve got it right. There isn’t any significant indication that the Iraqis or their religious leaders want an Iranian-style theocracy. I don’t have much hope that Iran will liberalize due to what’s going on in Iraq, but I do think that possibility is much more likely than Iraq mimiicking Iran.
Oh, I don’t think there’s much risk of Iraq trying to mimick Iran’s theocracy either. Ali al-Sistani has been pushing for elections in Iraq even harder than the United States. By “religious Shiite government” I just meant a ruling majority heavily backed by Shiite clerics (I could have been clearer, I admit).
But I do think it’s possible such a government may decide to have stronger ties to Iran than, say, a government run by Allawi, which would make Iran less isolated from its neighbours than Malodorous was suggesting.
Really?? I suppose I’d rather have a democracy possesing nuclear weapons then a dictatorship (though one should note both wartime uses of nuclear weapons in history were by the democratic US, while totalitarian China and Soviet-era Russia have never used theres), but I would think that most people would agree that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, regardless of the character of the gov’t that has them. Democracies do stupid things to, after all.
Should Iran turn to a liberal democracy, I feel confident that they’ll still hate Israel about as much as they do now. I’d think national security would in fact be better served by having a non-nuclear totalitarian Iran then a democratic nuke full Iran constantly squabaling with nuclear power Israel all the time.
How did us non-preemptive-invading, non-butting-into-other-peoples’-affairs lefties get roped into this?
al-Sistani comes from a Shia tradition that says the clergy should stay out of secular affairs. That’s why you don’t see him in photo-ops with politicians. He strongly believes in a secular Iraq. Furthermore, the political slate that he has endorsed is a coalition slate that contains many different groups.
I think it’s more likely that a free Iraq with a strong Shiite population that mixes with the Iranian population is the BEST weapon against the mullahs. The Iranian people want freedom. They are young, pro-western, modern people. They hate the mullahs. There is a largish minority, made up largely of old people, that support the Islamic state, but if there was a free vote tomorrow, Iran would become secular.
Having a free Iraq next door is bound to put pressure on the Iranian regime. And getting rid of Saddam removed a big threat to Iran and possibly gave them an excuse to liberalize.
Other than that, the best you can do is what Bush did the other night - announce solidarity with the people who want freedom, let them know you’re on their side, then wait for them to do something about it.