How to Solve All of the World's Problems

Great Debates
1

There’s an interesting article in the current Esquire which discusses ways for Mr. Bush to create a legacy regards Foreign Policy. Now, please, please, please, just for now, put the partisan crap aside. The author, Thomas P.M. Barnett, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, has put together some provocative ideas on how we can take where we are and make it work for us. I can’t find a link to the article, so I will outline here the major themes. There are three, which I’ll put out one at a time, as my time permits. What I’d like is a nonpartisan discussion on the concepts, not a discussion on Bush.

1. Iran and Peace in the Middle East:

Thesis: Iran is critical to peace in the Middle East

Proposal: We’ve shown that we’re not afraid to go to war, regardless of world opinion. Use that threat, plus Iran’s eventual nuclear capability, to our advantage.

What’s in it for them: Let Iran have the bomb, take them off the Axis of Evil hit list, re-establish diplomatic and trade ties.

What’s in it for us: In return, Iran must end support for the insurgency, cut sponsorship and ties with Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, help us get Syria out of Lebanon, recognize Israel and help us guarantee a permanent Palestinian state.
Why it could work: Iran becomes the dominant Islamic player in the Middle East. The Mullahs get economic relief that takes domestic pressure off of their backs. Israel gets a major Muslim ally that is a nuclear equal (mutually assured destruction, anyone?)

Bonus: Iran is the gateway to India and China, who are becoming major players (whether we like it or not). Stability in Iran helps both countries feel secure about their energy flow.

Sidenote: check out this issue at your newstand or library. Barnett does a lot better job of stating his case than what you’ll get in my synopsis, and Scarlett Johansson is gorgeous on the cover.

2

It’s potentially interesting, but I don’t buy that Iran is quite the keystone the author implies. At the very least, it’s theocratic government is inherently unstable, bending to the whims of whatever mullah has proven himself the most charismatic and/or ruthless. Turkey or even a postwar Iraq has greater potential for being a stabilizing influence in that region.

I don’t know about “letting” Iran have the bomb. If they want it badly enough, they’ll get it. The biggest wildcard is Israel, who might just take violent steps to slow Iran down.

In any case, even normalizing ties with Iran is no gaurantee they’ll cut off the insurgents or crack down on terrorists or anything, really. So long as anti-US rhetoric plays well to the Iranian masses, I’ve no doubt that terrorist cells and training camps will continue to operate in that nation.

It’s unclear to me how Iran serves as gateway to much of anything. I can imagine, maybe, that better relations with Iran might make for better relations with Pakistan and whatever government eventually forms up in Afghanistan, but China and India? Do either of them care in the least about Iran? If the U.S. wants better relations with either of these economic powerhouses, they could just open the door to more trade. Heck, I can picture India and China greatly increasing their use of nuclear reactors and whatnot. If either of them decides they need more oil, I rather doubt they’re going to wait for the U.S. to “stabilize” the region.

3

Every time we try to set up a country that is favorable to us, we fuck it up. Half the people we fight nowdays are people we installed in the first place. Perhaps we ought to try not micromanaging the world for a while.

4

Psst…Buddy. Come over here. Yeah, you. You look like a smart fella. How’d you like to get in on this real estate deal I have cooking? I just need some seed money, say twenty-five grand…

But on the other hand, ShibbOleth, I like your imagination. :smiley:

Stranger

5

I’ve got a better idea for peace throughout the Middle East: secularization. Build an infrastructure capable of giving them jobs and disposable income.
A lot of the miscontent in the Middle East comes from the poverty in which the people live. Sitting on the richest natural resources in the world, their lives are little different than that of their great-grandparents’.

Simply put, once a society becomes focused on consumerism, religion loses its place as the center of people’s lives. Before you know it, their young people will be drinking Pepsi, dancing to Britney Spears, and yakking on cell phones. I know it’s not quite that simple, but things would change within a generation or two.

6

And the other half are the people who kicked out the people we installed in the first place. Remember, we were backing the Shah with almost exactly the sort of plan ShibbOleth is proposing before he went like a thief in the night, leaving us with an embassy full of hostages to cope with. Nation-building hasn’t been too successful of an occupation for us, but then, the French, the English, the Belgians, and the Spanish have all had their own difficulties in the matter as well, so it’s nothing to be terribly ashamed of, as far as has-been superpowers go. :smack:

There aren’t any simple, straightforward, or even conceivable solutions for a lasting peace in the Middle East, until all the superstition, religious schism, petty bickering over who killed whose prophet, et cetera gets washed out.

The whole thing is like a Monty Python skit gone really, really wrong.

Stranger

7

From my Iranian friend (yes, yes, hardly an authoritative stance!) it seems that the West has a rather skewed view of Iran. It is a country of enormous hypocrisy and contradiction, where the cogs and gears of fashion and democracy jam up against religion and culture so strongly that it’s a wonder that the machine plods along at all.

Many of the youth live so close to the edge that they make 70’s rock stars look like mullahs themselves. My friend went to a party organised by cellphone where half an hour in, eveyone was guzzling spirits, taking heroin and pairing off to go and fuck each other - they were even a little surprised when he declined, asking “Don’t you do this in Britain all the time?”.

Iran, or at least Tehran and the major cities, is in many ways a far more sophisticated and 21st century place than I think Westerners realise. Reform continues slowly but steadily, seeking whatever compromises it can, while Iranians shrug off whatever cognitive dissonance those contradictions in their societies cause and simply get on with their lives. Just let it be, for crying out loud.

8

Thanks for that SentientMeat, my sentiments exactly.

9

Wow. I agree with SM. Let it be. It’ll topple or change all by itself given a little time. Before the revolution it was one of the most secular countries in the region (I personally know six Iranians – all of the atheists). Apparently as little as 1% of the younger generation attends Mosque or describe themselves as believing Muslims. The Iranians are probably the most pro-western country in the Middle East. The Mullahs have little support among the masses. And any agreement with them will only help to entrench their grip on power and prolong their unwelcome stay. And anyway they’re as about as trustworthy (and agreeable) as Social-democratic politicians. You cannot make deals with them and expect them to be kept.

When the Iranian themselves kick out the idiotic mullahs, the Iranians will have been thoroughly inoculated against religious rule and ready to be the lighthouse of democracy and secularism in the Middle East that Iraq never will.

Of course there’s the little matter of the bomb before that.

10

It’s a good idea, and the way that I’d like to approach things with Iran. The problem is the Israel thing. Iran has too much at stake in the image department to just up and cut ties with Hamas & Hezbollah and make peace with Israel before the Palestinian situation is resolved. They have repeatedly said that they will continue to support the Palestinians in their struggle, until a solution has come that has the support of the Palestinians themselves.

So they’ve talked themselves into a rhetorical corner. In order to maintain influence in the Arab states, they can’t be seen to cut and run - they have to wait for Israel and Palestine to make some serious strides before they can make peace with Israel.

11

I don’t think the Israelis are going to be impressed by the US giving Iran the bomb. hven’t they already bombed one set of such facilities?
What if Iran backs out of the deal (e.g. following a change of religious leadership)?
Is the US going to invade Iran then?

12

I don’t think the Israelis are going to be impressed by the US giving Iran the bomb. Haven’t they already bombed one set of such facilities?
What if Iran backs out of the deal (e.g. following a change of religious leadership)?
Is the US going to invade Iran then?

13

Sorry about the double post.

I got so fed up waiting for the ‘quick post’ option, that I tried to cancel it and post again.

14

I don’t see Iran accepting Isreal as an ally. In everything I have heard (mostly on NPR, granted. I have no cites), the leadership of Iran has proclaimed - loudly, constantly, and often - that they are for wiping that country off the face of the earth. So I don’t accept the OP’s premise that this would be something good for us.

15

I’m in agreement with SentientMeat and Rune…let them be. Like SM I’ve actually been to Iran and have several Iranian friends. A lot of people there think the '79 revolution was a huge mistake now, and that people just got swept up in the thing without really thinking it through due to being pissed off at the Shaw. There is a growing number of people who are dissatisfied with how things are there. A little democracy goes a long way, and its slowly erroding the death grip the Mullah’s have on the nation (IMO). Eventually you are going to start to really see the cracks.

I think attacking Iran in anything but surgical strikes at their nuke programs (I don’t think its wise to simply let them have the bomb) would be a huge mistake…they will get there on their own. And when they do they will be better for having done it themselves. And unlike Iraq, I think the Iranians are really close to being fed up…it could be the Berlin Wall all over. Suddenly and unexpectedly a huge change.

As for the OP, I think Iran should continue to be isolated and hounded about their nuke program…and otherwise left alone. Let the forces at work below the surface continue to do their thing. I wouldn’t approach the current government and try and re-establish ties…and I certainly wouldn’t use them become a nuclear power as a bargining chip…not with as unstable as they are. Turkey and perhaps Iraq (well, eventually) are better choices for what you are proposing IMO.

-XT