Stratfor has published an exercise in geopolitical theory by George Friedman.
These are the main points:
The diplomatic approach is unlikely to work. There is only one sanction that could be effective – blocking imports of gasoline. Iran imports 35 percent of the gasoline it consumes.
The Chinese will not join in. They get 11% of their oil from Iran. The Russians may consider sanctions down the road, but not now. Without Chinese and Russian cooperation, gasoline sanctions would not inflict significant pain.
As to the military option, Friedman enumerates the risks. Even if attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities succeed, the question of what would happen after remains wide open. Iran has a highly effective terrorist organization at its disposal, Hezbollah. Moreover, Iran has the ability to use mines and missiles to close the Strait of Homuz. If they did so, it would drive global oil prices through the roof.
Since neither the diplomatic nor the military option is acceptable, it is necessary to find a third choice – a deal.
As long as the problem of Iran is defined in terms of its nuclear program, the U.S. is in an impossible position. The chances for a speedy regime change are slim. Tehran handily crushed the recent demonstrations. The idea of waiting for a revolution justifies inaction.
Iran is the most powerful regional military force in the Persian Gulf. Turkey is more powerful but it has other pre-occupations at the moment and is far from the Persian Gulf. This means that the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq.
While Iran may not be able to impose a pro-Iranian state on Iraq, it has sufficient influence in Baghdad to prevent Iraq from emerging as a counterweight.
This, not nuclear weapons, is the fundamental issue between Iran and the U.S. Iran wants to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq so that Iran can assume its place as the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. wants to withdraw because it faces challenges in Afghanistan – where it will also need Iranian cooperation – and elsewhere. But it can’t without making it possible for Iran to increase its influence in Iraq unduly.
The nuclear issue is simply an element in this broader geopolitical problem.
The U.S. has a history of redefining problems that involved creating extraordinary alliances with mortal ideological and geopolitical enemies to achieve strategic U.S. goals. F.D.R. made an alliance with Stalin to block Nazi Germany and Nixon made an alliance with Mao to counterbalance the Soviet Union.
Consider the American interest in adopting a Third Strategy – a deal with Iran.
1. The U.S. must maintain the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
2. It must keep any one power from controlling all the oil in the Persian Gulf.
3. While the U.S. is involved in a war with elements of the Sunni Muslim world, it must – for economic reasons among many others – reduce the forces devoted to that war.
4. It must deal with Iran directly. Europe will go as far as sanctions but no further.
Consider the Iranian interest in a deal with the U.S.:
1. Regime survival.
2. Only the U.S. can prevent Iraq from ever again becoming a threat.
3. A deal would increase its influence in the Muslim world against the Sunnis.
Now consider the overlaps:
1. The U.S. is at war with some Sunnis. They are Iran’s enemies, too.
2. Iran does not want the U.S. troops on its eastern or western borders. Nor does the U.S.
3. The U.S. does not want an interruption in the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Nor does Iran.
4. The Iranian government understands that only the Americans are an existential problem for it. The U.S. understands that resurrecting the Iraqi counterweight to Iran is not an option. It is either continued U.S. forces in Iraq or accepting Iran’s unconstrained role.
The choice is a nuclear Iran outside some structured relationship with the U.S. or within it.
An intelligent solution. It would be a lot easier if that complete moron George Bush hadn’t started a useless war with Iraq. Jean Chrétien looks smarter every day and that’s a tall order. Has anyone read Ghost by Robert Harris? It deals pretty harshly with Blair. Now a major motion picture, as they say on book blurbs.
I, too, like the logic of the argument. Which does not mean that I would act accordingly if I was president.
I must say that is pretty much the way I feel. It coincides also with the views expressed by Fareed Zakaria who is very knowledgeable about that area. I don’t really know whether I prefer Shia to Sunni, but that may be my ignorance. I suggest you E-mail your blog to the White House.
Well, thank goodness we have a solution at last. A deal!! What a great idea! How can we thank Friedman enough?
Once upon a time there was a centipede who was most unhappy because he had arthritis in his knees. So he consulted wise old Dr. Owl, who suggested that if he turned himself into a mouse, 96% of his problem would go away.
The centipede said “A solution at last!! What a great idea! How can I thank you? … Oh, by the way, how do I do that?”
And the Owl said: “Sorry, I only do policy.”
I’d be more impressed if someone could flesh out the details – i.e., how we do that – rather than admiring a superficially attractive policy line.
Could not agree more. But we need OWLS.
It is a intelligent solution. Some how solution is arrived at last. Deal will raise the influence of iran.