Barnett and Iran

Below is a recent gmail conversation I had with my friend about a Thomas Barnett piece...

The Barnett Piece: KnoxNews Columnist

Julian's comments:
The most worrisome thing about this for me is that Barnett is no dove by any stretch of the imagination. And he has a lot of contacts inside the Pentagon...

My response:
It's not unfathomable. It seems to me a full scale strike on Tehran will only hurt Israel. Any support by Israel of an attack on Iran will lead to an increase in attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon/Syria. Such attacks will push the destablized conditions in Beruit and Lebanon even further from reconstruction of a stable government and a potential Middle Eastern haven for grassroots reform.

Saudi may privately speak of removing their regional nemisis Persia from rising power, but publicly they will never be able to stand behind an American attack, especially if it becomes an American-Israeli attack. If there is a hated regional nemesis vilified more than Persia, it's the Israelis.

I don't think it's out of the question that Bush will do something as he leaves office to hand a steaming pile off to the next president in the event that it's a Democratic president-elect. Hopefully this time Congress will have the intelligence and testicular fortitude to tell the President "no."

Julian's comments:The fact that the Israelis and the Saudis would both like to see Tehran knocked down a few pegs, but can't get away with trying it themselves may mean, as I think Barnett was arguing, that even now they're both privately pushing the US towards doing it for them. How anyone on Earth could think anything the Israelis or Saudis come up with vis-a-vis Iran is likely to be a good idea is beyond me; however, I doubt it's beyond Cheney and Bush.

What really worries me is that all of the major Democratic presidential candidates are on record as saying that Iran MUST NOT be allowed to get atomic weapons. They probably need to say that in order to be politically viable in the general election, but it could also back them into a corner regarding our policy towards Iran during this next obscenely long year and a half.

My response:
All UN reports I have read state the Iranian program is years away from actualizing the threat of nuclear weapsons. Thus, by the time Bush leaves they - in theory - won't be armed. I understand that we can't wait until they are armed to respond, but do you really think that the Bush adminstration will use "they have the potential of creating weapons of mass destruction" as a justification for invasion? Given the fallout of the last war based on the lack of WMD, a doubt public support will be high for another invasion based on the same justification.

I don't think the view that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons necessiates invasion. Perhaps the answer does lie in Riyadh; more Arab pressure may be the answer. Western pressure (I include Israel in this) isn't going to solve anything. Western military pressure will only increase the public support for the jihadists in the area. While the Sunni and the Shia may have bad blood, Saudi pressure could lead to the Arab league pressuring Iran to curtail its weapons program.

I am of the opinion that Iran should be able to develop nuclear power for non-military purposes if they so choose. I understand the line is very thin between non-military programs and being able to nuke Tel Aviv; yet continuing to treat the Arab world as if they are children and can't police themselves isn't going to further relations or allow them the ability to regulate themselves. I seriously doubt that 70 milliion Iranians want nuclear war with Israel. I seriously doubt the Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrains, and Jordanians truly want nuclear fallout on their borders. Let Tehran have their nuclear power, if the Israelis have it why not let the Iranians have it. The Israelis are just as trigger/missle happy as the next guy; yet we trust them with the bomb. Let Iran prove that will do as they say. Closely monitor them, hell allow China and Russia to have a say in it which will allow them to maintain their energy interests and still maintain an open door policy.

If we want Iran to reform, invading is the worst possible option.

Julian's comments:You're preaching to the choir on all of those points. Actually, I'd go as far as to say that Iran and Israel could probably handle Mutually Assured Destruction as well as India and Pakistan have. Hopefully cool heads will prevail, but the nuclear issue is potentially quite inflammatory. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Your response??