Treating Iran as logical swing asset
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 7:12AM OP-ED: "Two Alliances: U.S.-Sunni versus U.S.-Shiite," by Edward Luttwak, Wall Street Journal, 10 January 2006, p.A17.
Great piece by Luttwak exploring how sometimes (in Iraq) we need to be pro-Shiia and not be afraid of making Sunni states nervous and sometimes (in Lebanon vis-a-vis Syria) we need to be pro-Sunni and not worry about making Shiia leaders (Syria, Iran) nervous.
To me, that comes a lot closer to playing the board instead of having the board play you and--in effect--keeping the Big Bang alive (which Luttwak suggests is happening).
That's a key point we often forget: just because Iraq goes south doesn't mean the Big Bang dies. The BB is about shaking up existing orders and making others possible, and to me, that includes being realistic about what comes next, which is Shiia revivalism, to use Nasr's term.
That's a helluva useful thing to put into play. Scary to some, but--again--let's be realistic about two things: 1) Tom Jefferson ain't the next guy who'll show up when you topple the typical dictator (that's just too big a leap) and 2) that development gets us back in the business of competing directly with Osama (we both want to destabilize corrupt authoritarian regimes in the region, we just want different outcomes).
Now, where Luttwak doesn't go is where I'm dying to go: play Iran more as a scary balancer. The more we dialogue (none yet) with Iran on Iraq, the more we freak the Saudis and the easier it becomes to splinter Syria because we're basically playing prisoner's dilemma with both Damascus and Iran--as in, who's gonna bite first because we'll go harder on the other next.
Beyond that, I also advocate talking direct to Iran on the nukes issues, playing them like a USSR on missiles by linking carrots of connectivity with greater assurances that we'll not invade, thus giving rising pragmatists and moderates inside Iran something to reach for besides perceived humiliation in caving in to the Americans. Ahmadinejad's just been "thumped" on the mid-term elections, with Rafsanjani clearly resurrecting. We need to exploit that dynamic to our own, soft-kill ends.
But instead, we play the Big Bang 3-D chess game on just one level--hell, mostly just one square called Baghdad!
And that's too bad. A serious Henry Kissinger-James Baker type would be shuttling like mad, playing angle off angle. Instead we have talking-point Condi and just-say-no Cheney letting all the sacrifice for, and early momentum of, the Big Bang go largely to waste.
Again, it's a fundamental lack of strategic imagination.
Reader Comments (12)
I say 'taunt' Iran with the success of our economic system to cause revolt of youth in Iran. It amazes me that we can spend billions in military expense and don't get the carrot and stick with Iran and other players in region.
I'd also go with Newt and Friedman on HUGE tax benefits for alternative energy sources which if enacted would reduce filling Iran coffers which subsidizes it broken economy.
Cheers.
You are right on again with your comment about VP Cheney and Sec. Rice. Cheney is a hard-nosed politician. But credibility is not his strong suit. Rice, however, may be worse than useless in the Middle East.
You previously mentioned that Gen. Petraeus uses T.E. Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom as a reference. One point that Lawrence made was that people in the Middle East have little respect for institutions. They do respect other people, especially the strong and the credible. Sec Rice’s prior experience as a junior NSC staffer and Provost at Stanford, do not speak of strength. Nor was her “leadership” at NSC anything to be proud of. Her credibility has long been self-destructed with her failure to recall her meeting with George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black in July of 2001. Had she ever had a more important meeting? She was also on record that the US does not deal in torture despite all the evidence to the contrary.
We need an Acheson, a Dulles, a Baker or a Kissinger now. Rice should go back to academia. Maybe Bob Jones U needs a Provost.
Please forgive.
Joe
Anyway, my point wasn't to argue the virtues and vices of different dead white guys so much as to point out reality. As bad as Jefferson or Hamilton may have been, there are people in the gap who are worse. If a hypocritical intellectual or a corrupt power broker is the best we can find, then we have to live and work with that fact.
Then feel free to come over to my blog. I will publish your comments in full. I think I speak for most of my fellow American citizens, when I say we are tired of of these martial expeditions. There hasn't been a President since WW2 who's been well loved by the public after committing us to some adventure. Truman, LBJ, GHWB, and GWB all have had terrible poll numbers near the end of their administrations. I would dearly like to see Tom talk about sending a military force near the border of Mexico. I could support that. Our country is being used as some sort of armed zombie to benefit a select few. Anyway I wish I could smoke a joint as Tom had brought it up, but I am too scared of the polizei. What is this about spreading democracy and human rights all over the world? I don't have Habeus Corpus at home. Don't the Iranians have existence of their own outside of being a swing asset to us? I ready to be moderated now. Hope I don't sound too much like a party pooper.