Tom on VOA

VOA had a cool piece that prominently featured clips of Tom: Iran Seeks Greater Role in Middle East. This link includes a link to the mp3 of the piece that ran on VOA as well as a transcript. The main parts with Tom:

Political analyst Thomas Barnett, author of the book Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating, in which he offers his vision for U.S. military strategy, says that for many years Iraq helped divert international attention from Iran's nuclear program. “Saddam was the big counterbalance to Iran for the last 25 years and he had a significant force. And as long as Saddam was around, not only was he a potential counterbalance to Iran's ambitions in the region, but he also attracted the vast majority of outside interest because of his actions. So what we basically did was we got rid of Saddam and we got rid of the Taleban, the two entities that were easily Iran's worst enemies in the region,” says Barnett.

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq resulted in a shift of power from the Sunnis who had waged the 1980's war against Iran to the Shiites who make up the majority of the population in Iran as well as Iraq. Thomas Barnett says that by removing Iran's adversaries the U.S. helped Iran become the biggest military power in the region after Israel. However, he adds, Iran's fear of an attack from Israel or an invasion from the West has also increased. This has made Tehran determined to become a nuclear power. But Thomas Barnett says Tehran is more interested in creating a strong deterrent than in producing nuclear weapons.

“I think what they want to achieve, first and most obviously, is some sort of guarantee - however achieved - whether it's through negotiations over an entire array of possible security regimes connected to the weapons themselves, or their facilities themselves, or whether it just forces some sense of alliance between Iran and enough countries to include possibly the United States itself. They want some insurance that we are not going to invade them,“ says Barnett...

Alternative U.S. Strategies for Iran

Many analysts say bombing Iran would not eliminate its nuclear program because most of the facilities are deep underground and scattered around the country. And they warn that a U.S. attack could produce some unwanted results.

“It won't have much effect other than it will make us feel good. It will knock their program back a bit. They can always jack it up at that point. It will unite the Iranian people against us, which will be a shame because this is the population that actually likes us. It's the government that we have problems with. But the population overwhelmingly likes America, wants connectivity with America, does not want violence with America and really wants to engage the outside world,” says political analyst and author Thomas Barnett . He adds that instead of trying to isolate Iran, the United States should tap into the desire of young Iranians to be connected with the rest of the world. The majority of Iran's population, about 70 percent, is under the age of 30.

Barnett says, for example, the United States might accommodate Iran on its nuclear ambitions if Tehran recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced its support of terrorist groups.

The piece closes with fear. Am I reading this right that VOA, as an official mouthpiece of American foreign policy, has to be sure to leave us with the party line?

Comments

[Dan]

You intend to "co-opt" Iran.

Can you name several historical instances where a power has allowed itself to be co-opted in the manner you propose. If you can't name several, or if it would take too long, could you just identify one.

Britain intended to co-opt Germany during the '30s, so as to provide a strong teutonic bulwark against the Bolshevicks. That "blueprint" didn't work out so well though....

But if your proposals are enacted regarding Iran, and if despite their devotion to shariaa, and if despite the historic dead hand of jihad that lies heavy on Iran, if somehow, someway we actually "co-opt" them, will that co-opting be an historical first?

And lastly, where does the shariaa figure in your prognosis for the mideast?

[GrenfellHunt]

It's very difficult--read impossible--to imagine the current Iranian regime being talked out of its determination to get nuclear weapons.

"Iran's fear of an attack from Israel or an invasion from the West has also increased. This has made Tehran determined to become a nuclear power. But Thomas Barnett says Tehran is more interested in creating a strong deterrent than in producing nuclear weapons."

That might all be true, but it doesn't mean that Tehran doesn't ALSO want nuclear weapons for reasons of national pride, theological obligation, the ability to threaten and intimidate its enemies, and also to USE those weapons as instruments of jihad. The Iranian statements that Israel should be wiped off the map, the statements that using nuclear weapons against Israel would be a net gain for Islam--these statements need to be taken with total seriousness. Rightly or wrongly, Barnett gives the impression that he thinks the Iranians don't really mean them. That could be a castastrophic miscalculation.

"It won't have much effect other than it will make us feel good. It will knock their program back a bit."

a) Knocking their program back (and repeating the bombings if necessary) would gain added time, and that would be constructive.
b) Making it clear that Iranian meddling in Iraq has real consequences would also be constructive.
c) Making it clear to other Arab nations that the US will bomb nations that are determined to produce nuclear weapons would have a sobering effect on other extremist regimes in the region and globally.
d) Making us feel good isn't a bad idea either: the bombings would likely be strongly supported by the American people, and strengthening the national will to resist terrorism would be very constructive at this point in the war on terror.

Does all this mean that the US should go ahead and launch airstrikes on Iran? Not necessarily. But if the only options are air strikes or letting Iran go nuclear, then air strikes are the most compelling option. Moreover, if this administration becomes convinced that the only alternative to air strikes is letting Iran go nuclear, then the high probability is that air strikes will be ordered.

Quite inadvertently, posts like this will only strengthen the side of those within the administration who look to military force to solve the Iranian problem.