Will the Iran standoff lead to a new Cold War?

[BrainGlutton]

From “Kennan’s Comeback,” by James Pinkerton, in Tech Central, 2/22/06 – http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2896:

But if we do bomb, nobody can know what the Iranian reaction might be. Some reports hold that Ahmadinejad looks forward to “the creation of chaos on Earth”, perhaps because he yearns for martyrdom, perhaps because he looks forward to unleashing asymmetric warfare on the West. But eventually, after they get bombed enough, with or without Ahmadinejad, the Iranians will sober up and realize that they need a Big Friend, to protect them from us.

What Big Friend? Maybe Pakistan, where everybody in that country of 145 million who is not named President Pervez Musharraf seems to regard Uncle Sam as an enemy. And by the way, the Pakistanis have nukes—and they are broke. So oil-rich Iran might have the wherewithal for a deal that would obviate the need for all that iffy nuclear R&D.

Speaking of nuclear-rich and cash-poor, there’s also Russia. Today’s Muscovite regime is a shadow of its Soviet or Tsarist predecessors, but Putin has political ambitions equal to any Kremlin leader, and he seems perfectly willing to work counter to US and Israeli interests—to wit, his decision to welcome Hamas to Moscow.

And the biggest potential Friend of all is China. The Chinese aren’t poor anymore, but they are thirsty—thirsty for oil, including Iranian oil. At the same time, the PRC continues to soup up its nuclear arsenal.

Already, the possibility of a pro-Iranian combination of these countries—Pakistan, Russia, China—is coming into view. Looking ahead to possible United Nations Security Council action against Iran, one US Senator, Sam Brownback of Kansas, says flatly that the Iranians have “bought” the vetoes of Russia and China.

Of course, as America proved in 2003, we are willing to go to war against an “I” country without the go-along of the Security Council. But if, in the indeterminate future, America simply bombs Iran, as opposed to occupying it, it’s likely that soon thereafter, the surviving Iranian government will call in a Big Friend to come to its aid. The self-interest of the Iranians is obvious enough, but so is the interest of the Friend. No other great power, not even the EU, is going to feel good about the US completely dominating the Middle East and Central Asia, which account for perhaps half the world’s oil and natural gas; throughout the history of power politics, as one country achieves hegemonic status, a counter-coalition has always sprung into being. Enter Pakistan/Russia/China—and we can’t forget India, either.

And that’s how Hot will become Cold. That is, the recent spate of American hot wars in the Middle East will end, as a New Cold War begins. The US might well take its best air-power shot against Iran in the next few years, and then the Iranians will decide that enough is enough. So they swallow their pride and bring in a “senior partner” who will protect their country, implicitly or even explicitly, from future American attack. That is, if the US comes to realize that Iran’s target zones are cluttered with foreigners, and possibly foreign, er, equipment, we would know that we couldn’t strike Iran again without risking a world war.

Is this outcome probable?

[Der_Trihs]

Quite possibly; it may even be a Republican goal, to create a new bogeyman when people weary of terrorism being waved in their faces.

[Marley23]

I’m not sure what’s in it for Iran’s “friends” in that scenario.

[BrainGlutton]

@Marley23

I’m not sure what’s in it for Iran’s “friends” in that scenario.

Oil.

[Marley23]

@BrainGlutton

Oil.

I’m not sure that’s enough to explain all the bellicosity and risk involved. Doesn’t Russia have a fair amount of oil on its own?

In the end, I don’t think China is going to want to lose the US as a market for its goods, so I doubt it would position itself on the opposite side of a Cold War. Pakistan has problems with Islamic militants that make me doubt it would ally itself with Iran. Russia? Who knows. Ultimately, I think those countries would be taking a very lonely position, and oil alone probably wouldn’t make it desireable.

[BrainGlutton]

@Marley23

Doesn’t Russia have a fair amount of oil on its own?

Yes, but it needs money.

[Marley23]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, but it needs money.

Then “oil” isn’t the answer to that part of the question (although I see where that’s all going). Like I said, I just I don’t see those countries - especially China - following a path that will alienate so many other nations.

[Der_Trihs]

@Marley23

Like I said, I just I don’t see those countries - especially China - following a path that will alienate so many other nations.

It doesn’t seem to bother America; it might not bother them as well.

[BrainGlutton]

@Der Trihs

It doesn’t seem to bother America; it might not bother them as well.

But we have not yet alienated a major trading partner.

[Marley23]

@Der Trihs

It doesn’t seem to bother America; it might not bother them as well.

Very few countries supported the Iraq war, but in almost all cases, the leadership of those countries didn’t care enough about Saddam to say or do anything about it. Supporting Iran would be a much more divisive move.

[Gladstone]

@James Pinkerton

… throughout the history of power politics, as one country achieves hegemonic status, a counter-coalition has always sprung into being. Enter Pakistan/Russia/China—and we can’t forget India, either.

This is ridiculous. All these armchair politicos see everywhere they look are great big phantom alliances springing up all over the place. India would never be in a serious diplomatic or military “alliance” with Pakistan. Any alliance that included Pakistan and China would almost by definition be to the detriment of India since it is not in either China or Pakistan’s interest to increase India’s share of global influence or military power in any way.

Pakistan isn’t likely to enter into an alliance with Russia because it hasn’t had much of a relationship with it before. Pakistan’s military primarily buys its weaponry from the US, Western Europe, or China - unlike India which has had a long relationship with Russia and buys a good deal of Russian arms and ships. Further, the de facto reason for Pakistan’s military to even exist is to either defend from/attack India. Pakistan is a regional power only, in much the same way (albeit with a far larger population) as South Korea is, since its military is primarily purposed for defending against a North Korean attack.

While Russia and China have a long-standing relationship, both diplomatically and commercially, Russia would squarely be on the losing end of any broad alliance with China whose goal was to directly confront the US. Any Chinese victory in a serious military confrontation would immediately result in Russia losing further sway over its central Asian satellites, as they looked to China for leadership and protection. Further, Russia also heavily depends on its trade links with Western Europe and is certainly aware of the precarious position of its enclave in Kaliningrad. Russia might be willing to team up with China diplomatically, as it has in the past with all the friendship treaties they’ve signed, but Russia’s position economically and geo-politically is not strong enough to weather a sustained anti-US, anti-Western Europe diplomatic and military stance.

[BrainGlutton]

@Gladstone

This is ridiculous. All these armchair politicos see everywhere they look are great big phantom alliances springing up all over the place.

Well, if you’ll read the whole article, Pinkerton is drawing a parallel between the current situation and that at the end of WWII – when we had just defeated one enemy but a new potential enemy loomed on the horizon. At that time, there were three schools of thought: “Conciliators,” such as Henry Wallace, who wanted friendly relations with the Soviet Union; “Rollbackers” such as James Burnham, who wanted to fight the Soviets; and “Containers” such as George F. Kennan, whose thinking was the basis of U.S. strategy in the ensuing Cold War: Don’t fight them directly, just maneuver and block and outspend them. Which ultimately succeeded. WRT Iran, Pinkerton is comparing modern neocons to the “rollbackers” – and I think we can imagine how a total war with Iran would turn out (Iraq multiplied several times, in cost and body count); and arguing that a “containment” strategy would be most effective in the long run.