Two interesting articles on Iran in Today’s London Times. One by Anatole Kaletsky, The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat as can be see from the title, a counter view to my recent Blog. And also an Article by Bronwen Maddox, the Times Foreign Editor, The power is real - but so are the fears about how the Iran nuclear debate is developing on the International Front.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Simple International Politics
After reading Francis Fukuyama, After the NeoCons, America at the Crossroads, (Profile Books, 2006), I have summarised after reading a few chapters that in modern scene of International Politics has three theories on how the system is run, we have realist, Neo Conservative and Internationalist or Liberalism. I will use past references as Fukuyama does to explain how the three theories are used in International Politics and from there to look at the present international system, for a more detailed history of highly recommend by Views the above Book. The realist school of thought sees International Politics as a matter of self interest by states and how each states deals with that issue, thus we have the historical case of the Soviet Union and its role in the International system. In the realist view, it was important to deal with the Soviet Union and to keep peace within the international system, thus we have the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT of the 1970s. In the realist corner we have Presidential Administrations of Nixon, Ford and their National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. In this perspective the powers had self-interests and it was important to deal on various issues as both sides gain from these agreements. The aggressive polices of the USSR in the 1970s destroyed this idea; these agreements had a might opponent in the shape of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had a simpler view, the Western Democracies had to win and the Soviet Union had to lose and how the Soviet Union dealt with the World Community was based on her suppression of her own people and her Satellites. Thus to recall Reagan’s “ Evil Empire” remarked in the early 1980s. There could be only one winner, it has been argued that in theory there was nothing wrong with the theory of Karl Marx, about the suppression of the workers by the those that run business as to make more money. It has one flaw, its rubbish, business needs well paid workers to buy its goods, more goods sold, more profits, the better paid the worker they will spend more on luxury items beyond just living. As more goods are needed, more workers are needed, thus more workers are hired and they are paid which creates more economic development. In essence the Soviet Union entire economic make up was based on a rubbish idea and developed by Communists for the purpose of self wish rather than real economic facts, it was noted by academics in the 1970s that the population growth of the Soviet Union was more in the Third World. They system was dieing on its feet. By the Mid 1980s the economy was a basket case as stated my President Reagan on many times. By the end of the Reagan Presidency the Cold War was at end. In retrospect it has been argued that Reagan was a Neo Conservative, but this in an interesting argument and one I will come back to later. In this perspective Views was a Neo Conservative after watching the film Nicholas and Alexandra; released late mid 1970s; the film on the final years of the Tsar. At the end of the film I recall saying to myself, they have to go, that being the Communists and didn’t really care how they where got rid off either.
On the International front argument, the structure of the International system is base on International Law and the United Nations, this group tended to be for the Nuclear Freeze of the 1980s, against SDI, or Star Wars in their view, the arming of Space and also wanted talks with the Soviet Union and Saw Reagan as the problem not the solution to the Cold War.
The past few years we have had the problem of Iraq, Francis Fukuyama in the above mentioned book, looks at the historical development of NeoCons and how this has effected American Foreign Policy in the 1990s and in the Bush Administration from 2001. It looks at the history of NeoCons and its development of Policy after 9/11. As it deals with a Current Foreign Policy it hard to see where Iraq will be in the next six months never mind by the end of the Bush Administration. Thus this brief essay will look at the case of Iran and what policy the United States should follow should Iran fail to agree to stop it military nuclear development.
The Iran nuclear dispute, allows us to look how future developments in the dispute can be seen from the perspective of the above theories. At present we are in the International frame, the United States and Europe is working through the UN, much good it seem to do, the government in Iran is banking on the fact that with the USA and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drain on the military that the main Super Power and her ally would rather have a deal. In some respects this is a fact, but on the other hand no American President is going to allow Iran to become a nuclear threat not after the constant threat to Israel from its President. Thus we come to sanctions, as China and Russia have important economic links with Iran, think France and Iraq and you get the problem, thus soft sanctions nothing that would really damage their economic investment. The United States and the UK thus have a problem, allow Iran to become a nuclear power or to do something. The something is a problem, it should be noted that Reagan was placed by in the Neo Conservative group by Francis Fukuyama but Reagan was willing to talk to Iran, he thought he was in discussion with Moderates, but in the end this was an illusion, the generic population might want peace with the West but the powers behind the government don’t, Iran is an Islamic run nation, and its been a major problem for the West since the 1979 Revolution, which removed the Monarchy. It should be recalled that after the 1917 revolution in Russia, that in the end for communist regimes only started in 1989 after decades of a Cold War. Reagan in the end bankrupted the communists system and since the foundation was weak it was finished by 1991 with the break up of the Soviet Union.
Although talking heads point out that a majority of the population was born after the revolution and want more freedom, this argument has been trotted out many times over the years, at this rate the population with be Old Age Pensioners before they react and remove the government themselves, but then they have something to fear. Iran is not San Francisco; if you step out of line they have enough prisons and worse. Thus the people of Iran are in the same position as those people in the Soviet Union for the early decades of the Cold War. The next option, the use of CIA and SIS to create local opposition and to arm them, possible, the Americans have enough bases around the area and regimes that don’t want a powerful Iran. But can the West wait and the regime develop nuclear weapons. Thus we come to the Neo Conservative option and to strike before Iran becomes a major problem.
This option has of course pro and cons, the USA – UK has military commitments already can it afford another long and costly mission in Iran. Should the Allies go with or without their European Partners and the blessing of the UN. The pros of such an operation is that, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, thus what ever the cost, massive bombing of all places of interest, nuclear, chemical, military, Intelligence, security services, in essence cut the leadership head off and allow the people the chance to raise against the government. It could be argued that the people under such a massive and constant attack would support the government. It would depend on the damage, keeping it to the above targets, making sure maps are up date and making sure no hospitals or any other public building are hit would allow the people to see that it was the government that the West was after. But those critical of military action have pointed out Iran could cause havoc in Iraq, either by supporting the insurgents or even should the West strike, invading, the Iran/Iraq war took up most of the 1980s. Any military action in Iran would come at a cost in men and machinery, as the latest action in Lebanon has shown, air power alone does not work, there has to be troops on the ground, either as in Afghanistan working with local opposition too help air strikes or a heavy military present for invasion. Thus this is the reason that all options when it comes to Iran are bad or worse.
In the end is there an answer to Iran that does not cost the use of military firepower. The first is of course the use of the UN, it’s a talking shop lets use it as such, it is a matter of finding what both sides can live with and what they cant lose in public. The United States can not seem to fall in to the trap that it did in the mid 1990s over North Korea, an agreement that fails and is seen overall as to made things worse in the end, Iran wants civil power and more access to world community. It really depends to use the old phrase where is the line in the sand, the USA and the UK will not tolerate Iran with Nuclear weapon, the threat is just too much, but they are willing for civil nuclear power and more economic development. It really depends what Iran wants, if she wants civil Nuclear power that is great and more access to the world economy that is also great but if she wants a nuclear weapon then the world will have another crisis. It could be argued that the West should give One month for talks with Iran, if Iran will or cant talk to the West, the should blockaded Iran, freeze her assets, support the opposition and the get the CIA in to have another operation Mongoose, if all that does not work, then give Iran a deadline. If by a certain date, the government of Iran will not place itself under the UN, in other words the UN would take over Iran and the Powers would run her like West Berlin during the Cold War and the old League of Nations Mandates. If this did not happen all force should be used to remove the regime once and for all and start from the start with Iraq and Iran and while at the start, set a firm framework for peace between Israel and Palestine.
On the International front argument, the structure of the International system is base on International Law and the United Nations, this group tended to be for the Nuclear Freeze of the 1980s, against SDI, or Star Wars in their view, the arming of Space and also wanted talks with the Soviet Union and Saw Reagan as the problem not the solution to the Cold War.
The past few years we have had the problem of Iraq, Francis Fukuyama in the above mentioned book, looks at the historical development of NeoCons and how this has effected American Foreign Policy in the 1990s and in the Bush Administration from 2001. It looks at the history of NeoCons and its development of Policy after 9/11. As it deals with a Current Foreign Policy it hard to see where Iraq will be in the next six months never mind by the end of the Bush Administration. Thus this brief essay will look at the case of Iran and what policy the United States should follow should Iran fail to agree to stop it military nuclear development.
The Iran nuclear dispute, allows us to look how future developments in the dispute can be seen from the perspective of the above theories. At present we are in the International frame, the United States and Europe is working through the UN, much good it seem to do, the government in Iran is banking on the fact that with the USA and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drain on the military that the main Super Power and her ally would rather have a deal. In some respects this is a fact, but on the other hand no American President is going to allow Iran to become a nuclear threat not after the constant threat to Israel from its President. Thus we come to sanctions, as China and Russia have important economic links with Iran, think France and Iraq and you get the problem, thus soft sanctions nothing that would really damage their economic investment. The United States and the UK thus have a problem, allow Iran to become a nuclear power or to do something. The something is a problem, it should be noted that Reagan was placed by in the Neo Conservative group by Francis Fukuyama but Reagan was willing to talk to Iran, he thought he was in discussion with Moderates, but in the end this was an illusion, the generic population might want peace with the West but the powers behind the government don’t, Iran is an Islamic run nation, and its been a major problem for the West since the 1979 Revolution, which removed the Monarchy. It should be recalled that after the 1917 revolution in Russia, that in the end for communist regimes only started in 1989 after decades of a Cold War. Reagan in the end bankrupted the communists system and since the foundation was weak it was finished by 1991 with the break up of the Soviet Union.
Although talking heads point out that a majority of the population was born after the revolution and want more freedom, this argument has been trotted out many times over the years, at this rate the population with be Old Age Pensioners before they react and remove the government themselves, but then they have something to fear. Iran is not San Francisco; if you step out of line they have enough prisons and worse. Thus the people of Iran are in the same position as those people in the Soviet Union for the early decades of the Cold War. The next option, the use of CIA and SIS to create local opposition and to arm them, possible, the Americans have enough bases around the area and regimes that don’t want a powerful Iran. But can the West wait and the regime develop nuclear weapons. Thus we come to the Neo Conservative option and to strike before Iran becomes a major problem.
This option has of course pro and cons, the USA – UK has military commitments already can it afford another long and costly mission in Iran. Should the Allies go with or without their European Partners and the blessing of the UN. The pros of such an operation is that, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, thus what ever the cost, massive bombing of all places of interest, nuclear, chemical, military, Intelligence, security services, in essence cut the leadership head off and allow the people the chance to raise against the government. It could be argued that the people under such a massive and constant attack would support the government. It would depend on the damage, keeping it to the above targets, making sure maps are up date and making sure no hospitals or any other public building are hit would allow the people to see that it was the government that the West was after. But those critical of military action have pointed out Iran could cause havoc in Iraq, either by supporting the insurgents or even should the West strike, invading, the Iran/Iraq war took up most of the 1980s. Any military action in Iran would come at a cost in men and machinery, as the latest action in Lebanon has shown, air power alone does not work, there has to be troops on the ground, either as in Afghanistan working with local opposition too help air strikes or a heavy military present for invasion. Thus this is the reason that all options when it comes to Iran are bad or worse.
In the end is there an answer to Iran that does not cost the use of military firepower. The first is of course the use of the UN, it’s a talking shop lets use it as such, it is a matter of finding what both sides can live with and what they cant lose in public. The United States can not seem to fall in to the trap that it did in the mid 1990s over North Korea, an agreement that fails and is seen overall as to made things worse in the end, Iran wants civil power and more access to world community. It really depends to use the old phrase where is the line in the sand, the USA and the UK will not tolerate Iran with Nuclear weapon, the threat is just too much, but they are willing for civil nuclear power and more economic development. It really depends what Iran wants, if she wants civil Nuclear power that is great and more access to the world economy that is also great but if she wants a nuclear weapon then the world will have another crisis. It could be argued that the West should give One month for talks with Iran, if Iran will or cant talk to the West, the should blockaded Iran, freeze her assets, support the opposition and the get the CIA in to have another operation Mongoose, if all that does not work, then give Iran a deadline. If by a certain date, the government of Iran will not place itself under the UN, in other words the UN would take over Iran and the Powers would run her like West Berlin during the Cold War and the old League of Nations Mandates. If this did not happen all force should be used to remove the regime once and for all and start from the start with Iraq and Iran and while at the start, set a firm framework for peace between Israel and Palestine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)