ISTM – and this seems to be consensus of foreign-policy commentators I’ve read – that what Iran wants – what goal endures through changes of regime – is only what Iran thinks it is historically entitled to: Not actual territorial expansion, but simply to be a regional power with the kind of recognized-as-legitimate hegemony in its immediate neighborhood – Greater Iran (a phrase not invented by Iranian expansionists) – that the U.S. always has claimed in the whole Western Hemisphere.
It occurs to me that if Iran’s current government weren’t crazy-theocratic etc., it wouldn’t be such a bad idea just to let them have that. Would it? Who says America gets to be the only regional hegemon in the world?
First, off, I’m not aware that anything in my morality requires me to adhere to some kind of “geostrategic” fairness doctrine. I want the U.S. to dominate the world because it’s in my interest to do so, and I make no apology for that. I also think it will help the world as a whole (and has actually done so, perhaps being the first Great Power since Rome to actively improve the place), but apart from that, power is a neccesary evil in this world.
Second, HELL NO. Iran doesn’t do nasty things becaue their theocratic. The plain fact is that it’s a cruel dictatorship and likely would be even if it weren’t a theocracy. I would prefer the Shah over the Ayatollah, but that doesn’t mean I consider the Shah nice, just the best of two bad options. A theoretical free democracy would be beter, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards at the moment.
Likewise, India, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia might have a few things to say. And a few bullets to supply postage for the message. And a few nuclear missiles as a parting gift if neccessary.
<princess bride>
A really nice mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They’re so perky, I love that. </pb>
All of what you said would have a merit if the first thing you do is dismantle Saudi Arabia.
However, the whole post strikes me as quite irrational as you probably seem to not care for your own sake or the sake of your countrymen for the price that one pays.
From this post I can figure that, for example, you don’t se anything wrong with torture - and not for your ethical reasons but strictly from apparent lack of strategic thinking. For that reason, the reference to Rome is predictably poignant as you do not belong to Empire builders but rather those who contribute to its decline.
Kindly remind me which of us began talking about the United States’ hegemony, please? You asked, I answered. If you wanted a better reply, you’ll need a better question.
… Right. Whatever.
I’m sorry, where exactly did you get this?
Yeah, I loves me some tortue. That’s why i don’t want Iran expanding its influence - torture! And all that stuff enough wanting to pass up on opportunities for more bloody wars - I really want torture!
Apparently I do. I subject myself to the Straight Dope often enough.
Hegemony does cost us a lot of tax money, and how does it really make Americans any safer, or richer?
I doubt Iranian regional hegemony in Greater Iran would make Iranians much safer or richer, either . . . but I suspect this is just a phase they have to go through. National pride. That’s a force working throughout the MENA, right now. At least it is not, now, always directed against the West.
Is it? I mean, Russia is the regional hegemon in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses and Central Asia, and China is the regional hegemon in East Asia. If it weren’t for the religious nutbaggery, dictatorial tendencies and their insistence on talking trash to Israel, I wouldn’t mind if Iran were a regional power. They’re certainly more worthy of the title than Saudi Arabia. We could do business with Iran.
However, at the moment Iran isn’t interested on making nice with anyone. Dictatorships need enemies to justify their existence, theocracies need enemies to justify their fervor; theocratic dictatorships can’t be peaceful, outgoing countries out of fear of collapsing under the weight of their own bullshit.
-To defend itself from another invasion by its Sunni dominated neighbors. To paraphrase what I said in the other Iran thread, the Iran-Iraq War was one of the most deadly wars in history despite the relatively small populations of the combatants, it destroyed Irans infrastructure and GDP, it went on for a decade, its easily within living memory and its part of Iran’s founding myth. Its their Revolutionary War, WWII and Cold War all wrapped up into one, and much of the current ruling class came of age during the thick of it. I think foreign commentators overlook how big a role the Iran-Iraq war plays in Iran’s conception of itself or its security.
Their first priority is preventing the possibility of another Sunni or Western funded invasion.
-To help Shia in Sunni dominated countries and export the Islamic revolution. This is their main reason for funding Hizbollah, the reason they hate the Saudis, etc. They don’t seem to be pushing exporting theocracy very hard lately (they seem alright with Iraqs current Shia dominated but not formally theocratic gov’t, for example), but they certainly still see themselves as the protectors of oppressed Shia.
-Minor regional stuff like controling oil in the Caspian, Keeping the Kurds in other countries down, etc.
Simplicio, I thought the main reason offered was that nukes were one of the best guarantees Iran could have of not having to suffer an invasion by Western forces.
No, China historically has been that and wants to be again, feels so entitled; which has led to occasional friction with the U.S., etc., and Japan still needs to be shown its place . . .
Not sure exactly what your responding to (“offered” by whom? I don’t think any Iranian officials admit to seeking nukes, so I don’t think they’d be offering any explanations).
But I agree with the statement, except I think its just a general guarantee against invasion, not just against western powers. Iran has several strong neighbors who are either hostile (Saudi Arabia), have a history of being bellicose (Russia, Iraq), or are unstable enough that while they aren’t hostile now, they might be so in the future (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq). And Allah only knows what the ex-Soviet states will look like in another decade or two. So I don’t think its just the US and its allies they feel they need to hedge against. They might be able to fight these countries off in a conventional war, but it wouldn’t be a sure thing and even a victory would leave Iran in rough shape, as happened in the 80’s.
If your a small regional power, nukes are a pretty good investment. They deter just about everyone, while a conventional army won’t do much to stop developed countries and even your neighbors will have an even chance of beating you. The downside is you get slapped with some sanctions for a while, but Iran was already pretty well sanctioned before it drew the ire of the IAEA, and if Pakistan and India’s example mean anything, the sanctions due to developing nukes only last until the US wants something else from you.
