The Bill for our Iranian Blunder
I alleged last year that America was paralyzed before the growing Iranian threat by the risk of retaliation against our military personnel:
The chairman of President Barack Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, admitted as much in a March 16, 2009, interview with Charlie Rose: “What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region. It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn’t predict.”
The matter may be out of American hands. The so-called Arab Spring has brought the Sitzkrieg with Iran to a point of crisis. If the Syrian crisis drags on indefinitely and the low-intensity civil war between Saudi-backed Sunnis and Iranian-backed Alawites continues, regional confrontation may be the result. Despite its earlier pretension of engaging all sides, Turkey has had to choose the Sunni side, in part for confessional reasons, and in part because it needs the Saudis urgently to finance its enormous current account deficit (as bad as that of Portugal or Greece).
My old mentor, Norman A. Bailey, a Special Assistant to President Reagan for national security during his first administration, points out that intervening in a Sunni-Shi’ite conflict is nothing new to the United States. One of the “untold stories” of the Reagan administration, he reports, is that America used its influence to prolong the Iran-Iraq war until exhaustion forced both sides to an armistice. If Reagan were president, we would know how to manage this. Of course, if Reagan were president, we never would have gotten into this mess in the first place.
After all our blunders in the Persian Gulf, the best we might expect from the next several years is a low-level standoff between a Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Iran, with manageable levels of violence in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen (the venue for a Saudi-Iranian proxy war during the last several years). But there is no guarantee that violence will remain at a low level. Iraq may have a full-dress civil war, Turkey might intervene in Syria, and a dozen other things may go wrong.
If the US wants to exert leadership, it will have to deliver a preemptive blow to Iran. Given the utter fecklessness of the Obama administration in its posture towards Libya and Syria, this is unimaginable for the next year and a half. So we are in for a bumpy right. And the security of oil supplies will be at risk and along with it the fragile health of Western economies.
Interesting. But what will really happen Spengler, since we know the US will not just attack Iran (there isn’t the stomach for that now to deal with the consequences. our elites are more likely to encourage immigration of 100% of the middle east to America rather than attack Iran):
- The American elite will continue to support the Arab-spring in hopes that democracy will lead to nice things in general
- The Arab Spring will become more and more a pan-national movement. There will be calls for Islamic laws to become standardized from place to place. Islamic Scholars will talk more and more openly about how the Islamic government should come increasingly to resemble a Caliphate. Western elites will support this in hopes that the Islamic energy can be devoted inward and also as a hedge against Iran.
- An additional item that will increase calls for a Caliphate and Islamic law is the Islamic prohibition against usury. Part of the original success of Islam was the discharge of the onerous debts that people in Byzantium had incurred (and the much lower taxes under the newer Islamic system). You can see why these things would look pretty good to people today.
Also – please post you economic stuff here as well if you don’t mind. I find it insightful since you seem to know what is going on and aren’t just talking your book like most econ/finance commentators.
The only question I have is what happens between the Turks, Iraqi and the Kurds in Iraq? Do the become the enemies of their enemy Iran or not? If they do the Iranian government’s days are numbered. As it would not survive another Iran-Iraq type war.
Well, the Iraqis are free – and if Iran does require a land invasion or other presence, we now have a foothold on its border. Iraqi militant attacks in Iraq may also provide the pretext for American invasion. What’s not to like?
Iraq was originally going to be another Marshall Plan – establishing a beachhead for democracy in the heart of the Arab world. As such it represents the only official American recognition of the truth: we are engaged in a massive clash of cultures, not just a police action against one thug or another.
Unfortunately Bush – fearing a fickle modern populace with a short attention span – did not sell it as a generational, Marshall-Plan type committment. And the Left successfully spun it as a debacle.
But it was the proper response to Arab aggression against the West in general, and the US in particular.
This article assumes that if we weren’t in Iraq, Iran would have kept to itself – but a glance at Syria and Lebanon shows that is not true. The three-way grudge match between Iran, Turkey, and the Saudis is well established.
Meanwhile the Iraqis are free – and if Iran does require a land invasion or other presence, we now have a foothold on its border. Iraqi militant attacks in Iraq may also provide the pretext for American invasion. What’s not to like?
Iraq was originally going to be another Marshall Plan – establishing a beachhead for democracy in the heart of the Arab world. As such it represents the only official American recognition of the truth: we are engaged in a massive clash of cultures, not just a police action against one thug or another.
Unfortunately Bush – fearing a fickle modern populace with a short attention span – did not sell it as a generational, Marshall-Plan type committment. And the Left successfully spun it as a debacle.
But it was the proper response to Arab aggression against the West in general, and the US in particular.
The evaluation of the merit or demerit of our nation building in Iraq is to be done on a generational time scale: 20 years from now, it is the children of this war who will constitute the main thrust of the Iraqi electorate. Which way will they go? Tradition or modern governance? Look at Japan: Their embrace of democracy was less than enthusiastic, but they are not about to repudiate it, either.
Basically GWB forced the issue of middle East oppression by thugs vs. open governance, which is a big issue for the Arabs to resolve by themselves, if they can find the space to do it. This is nothing short of a revolutionary choice. If it happens, it will take generations, not merely years. It was a long term investment, for better or worse transcending our own electoral rhythm.
Mr. Goldman: please correct your place of American troops bottom of page 1 – they are in Iraq, not Iran.
I agree with you that Bush43′s Iraq war was a mistake, even if my reasons are different. However, I supported the ‘surge’ because, by then, we had a moral obligation to try to at minimum try to stop what was turning into a civil war, and the under-reported tragedy of Iraqi Christians.
We are where we are. I have long prayed, in my agnostic way, for Teheran to finally get the massive earthquake that city will one day have, being the #1 location in the world for a seismic disaster. Instead, the big earthquakes keep striking Chile, New Zealand, and Japan. One really can start questioning what is on G-d’s mind.
As to US military action against Iran? It is too risky, but all t would take is an Iranian provocation like an Iranian fighter plane buzzing the USS George HW Bush, the current carrier in the neighborhood.
At this time, I think Israel has her hands full along her own borders.
Let the Sunnis fight it out with the Shi’a. I assume the Saudis have Pakistan ready to roll – Pakistan is the ultimate client state of the Saudis.
And then there is the ethnic demographics of Iran, with less than 60% Persian. Baluchis in the east, Kurds and Azeris in the north, Arabs in the west.
I never rule out how easy it can be for these minorities to wreak havoc…
I think I will continue to pray for that Teheran earthquake, and for Iraq’s Moqtada al-Sadr to reveal he is the 12th Imam.
The only way to deal with Iran is internally. We MUST get the Iranian people to overthrow their regime. This is not impossible and not as difficult as one may think. The riots after the “elections” of 2009 show how unhappy the Iranian people are with the government, espcially with the mullahs. Obama missed a golden opportunity to overthrow the government then and there, if we had only supported the protesters with everything we had. But Obama was too scared and too much of a coward to seize the moment and change the entire situation in Iran. After all, whatever came after the mullahs certainly could not be as bad as the mullahs.
But there is still hope. There are still many groups inside Iran that want to overthrow the government. We are also lucky that we have friends in Kurdistan who would actually help us in funneling supplies and weapons into Iran through Kurdistan. The CIA and Special Ops forces should be doing everything in their power to support any Iranians that are willing to overthrow the mullahs, including bribing generals in the military (not the Revolutionary Guard) to join the rebels. So there is still hope. But I doubt Obama will do anything before the elections. He messes around with a stupid little civil war in Libya, a country that isn’t important to us, and ignores the real threat to the entire Middle East, Iran. Can’t wait to get rid of this empty suit in 2012.
‘That means the worst is yet to come’
If the U.S. set of an EMP over Iran ,that would distract the Iranians for a while.
Some years ago I read a report that Iran had tested an EMP delivery missile aboard a ship in the Caspian Sea.
Whether that was true or not they’re serious about knocking out the great Satan while this Empire in decline elected a ditherer in Chief at this most critical hour.
Myself,I can see the handwriting on the wall and am willing to bet that the Iranian will deliver an EMP and worse to us before we deliver one to them.
I’ve got a bad feeling about the 10th anniversary of 9/11,September/October
timeframe for too many reasons,especially with our incompentent,clueless skipper and the equally incompetent DHS Secretary Napolitano at the helm.
Here was the Harry Dent summary from Coast to Coast AM, channeling Spengler:
At least he has some hope for Gen Y.
@MrX, that may be one of several factors in play, along with that idiot in office at the moment (he did not cause the crash, but he sure is greasing the skids), however, fiat money is based on “faith and credence”. The Democrats and the US Left is busy destroying both the country and the industrial base of the US. That destroys the dollar. In addition, the people in Washington discovered that it takes about two years for extra money created to reach the economy and cause inflation, the same idea as kiting checks with a two year lag to “clear the bank”, they decided they could get away with it, and they cover the bad check with another kited check, along with the additional spending they used the check to cover, along with the extra spending that’s being tacked on every year. “Politics is the art of the possible”. The austerity measures required to bring the economy back to health are simply not possible. The system is spinning out of control and is going to crash.
What a mess. Your nostalgic memories of the Gipper’s handling of the Ayatollah are a touch rosy. I seem to recall a delegation of high administration officials arriving in Iran and greeting the obscene old Muslim fanatic with a big cake in the shape of a Bible.
American policy makers need to bone up on the ancient and fixed nature and character of Persians and Medes. The Persians are a brilliant and capable people brought low by a pack of marauding desert scavengers and the pirate code that passes for their treacherous, larcenous and murderous faith. Persian art culture was the treasure of the world and its influence on classical Greece is underestimated. The Arabs destroyed it all, beggaring civilization and all humanity in the process. The burning of the library in Alexandria was nothing to the obliteration of Persian art. That the great Persians have evolved into lickspittles of the Arabs is a vast historical irony.
The Persians are also a subtle, crafty, and deeply stubborn people whose perfidies and cruelties are without limit. Americans are simply not qualified to negotiate with them. The sharpest and most cynical and hard-bitten of American diplomats are way out of their weight class against their Persian counterparts.
So attack Iran indeed. Take the buffers out of mothballs and give the bastards a taste of rolling thunder. Do the entire world a heap of good.
@ 9 — I find Goldman’s insistence that the Obama Admin would never preemptively attack a Muslim country bizarre, considering he just did so in Libya, even if it was done in a half-assed manner.
Always Iraq — one could easily argue that President Bush #1 should have pursued the logical end of Desert Storm and finished off Hussein then; before the starry-eyed flock of chronic Bush-haters could forget the towering infernos of Kuwaiti oil fields and the unprovoked, premeditated invasion of a peaceful, relatively modern, Western-friendly Arab nation. But ya know what? We would have ended up “nation-building” in Iraq anyway, if by that is meant a government roughly resembling the Western model. We managed it pretty well in Germany, Japan, Italy, and a number of other places after WW2. So I’m not sure what the objection is to “nation-building,” other than in a place, at a time, that it all should have been done before.
As for Iran and nukes, I am certain that their bomb program is indeed well dug-in; I am also certain that intelligence is all over it and that there is weaponry deployed more than adequate to take it out if necessary.
My concern is that Iran is much more Israel’s enemy than our own, if by “enemy” you mean “a hostile power posing a credible military threat.” President Ahmahoochie can stand on the balcony and scream fulminations all day long at the Great Satan across the Atlantic, but I doubt he really has the ability, maybe not even the will, to do anything significantly harmful to us. Israel, of course, is a different matter, and Israel is our friend and military ally. That does not mean that our interests are inflexibly mated, nor does it mean that we should stick our necks out and be goaded into doing something irrevocably and irredeemably reckless at Israel’s behest and on her behalf. Israel’s ally? Unquestionably. Her shabbas goy? No thanks.
Reagan was a great leader but he made one big mistake regarding Iran. After the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were attacked by Hezbollah, he ordered missle attacks against Hezbollah camps in the Bekaa Valley. SecDef Caspar Weinberger countermanded that order, preventing the counterattack, and Reagan did nothing. Imagine how different thing would be now if Reagan had destroyed Hezbollah in the 1980s.
Thanks for the reponses.
In no particular order:
1. I doubt there will be much left of Iraq a generation from now, and I’m sure there won’t be much left of Japan. We had to bolster our former enemies during the Cold War, and all of these were advanced countries with some experience of parliamentary democracy. As to whhy it won’t work in the Muslim world, read my book, out next month.
2. I don’t think we should worry about Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood. He’s just as bad as they are. But he’s at loggerheads with Iran over Syria and he badly needs Saudi money.
3. You overthrow a regime by showing its vulnerability. I don’t know what we can do to help Iranians topple the regime. Anything we can do, I support. But I know what we can do from the outside.
The general principle is inanition. Reagan deployed this weakening-from-lack-of-nourishment strategy against Russia and Iran-Iraq. It really is easy to do. Just take our hands out of the cookie jar. Iran would fall apart without oil income. Simply accept that Iran’s oil exporting days are over. The Iranian economy is a one-note song, unless you count pistachios. Leave its atomic facilities intact and barter their contents later for a return of their source of income. They cannot hide their oil export facilities from US bombers.
Would this be a painful solution for the West? Nothing Russia would not relish with her economy dependent upon oil exports.
China would be hurt badly, but they have supported Iran to the point of threat even to themselves. Besides the war against Iran is a moral imperative and China can be brought on board for a limited amount of time before her government turns against the US. The US and China suck from each other like chambers in the same heart.
Germany would be badly mauled with the loss of a major trading partner, since the Mullahs transfer oil-dollars to Germany for technology. However, it is Germany and other Western European countries that have assisted Iran in its drive toward nuclear independence. They should absorb some of the responsibility for monster-creation. The image of Dr. Frankenstein in his basement or garage comes to mind.
A crucial question is, “Which countries depend upon Iranian oil more or less directly?” Except for China and Turkey, I cannot answer the question for lack of knowledge. I guess it is an experimental question! We will see when it happens.
The next question is, “How long can the Mullahs hold out without proceeds from oil?” Not very long! As a complete guess, I would judge three months to a year. Again an experimental question.
Unfortunately, right now it is easier for the US government to assign young men and women in uniform to oblivion in Iraq and Afghanistan than to confront the problem head on in Iran. The American military deserves better than a no-win set of battles where our sons and daughters absorb the pain instead of our entire society. I suppose we are not that far from primitive tribes in which children were sacrificed to wooden, stone and golden gods so the crops would grow.
Please folks do not use the word “Iran” when you mean to use the word that we Iranians use in Persian when describing The Party of God namely “Hezbollahi”.
hello. Ron Paul is right. abolish all the nuclear weapons now.
Right, that will work! Just disarm and count on the mercy of barbarians to ensure the peace and prosperity of western civilization. Ron Paul doesn’t know his A@@ from a hole in the ground! That will definitly impress our enemies. Somebody just shoot me and get this carnaval over with! Jeez Louiseez!
Right on piece here. We Iranians have been saying for years and urgently so before taking Iraq’s Saddam out, that IT IS Islamic Regime that need to be taken out and not Iraq. In order to take out the disease of cancer the nucleus need to be taken out, but hey the suggestion and even the thought was too much for our weak politicians to ponder and accept. May be even Britain had a big weight on the issue because Britain after all has been the appeasing Western government for this putrefied regime not mentioning the the main creator and supporter of this murderous regime some 33 years ago.
So here we go, again and again we are following our tail like a mad confused cat and no one seems to be courageous enough and visionary enough to take on this biggest challenge not only to humanity at large but also to the hostaged Iranian nation. When Iranian rose up 2 summer ago, we just watched, tittered and wished the problem gets swept once more under the rug..
Nations fall when they put a blind eye to their difficult challenges and choose to ignore their enemies!
Remember Hitler and the Nazi regime anyone?
Exactly what the US needs to do. Start a third ME war with a country, Iran, with more than twice the population and three times the land area of Iraq.
Add an additional trillions of dollars per year to the US debt, again with nothing to show for it, all for the sake of a supposed ally. With friends like these . . .
I did not propose to invade and occupy Iran but rather to disrupt the regime through air strikes.
With the same great effect it has had in Libya?
Many here are critical of exactly the same NATO action in Libya.
Bombing will
1/ Cause civilian casualties and hardship unifying the population against those doing the bombing, as it has invariably done since WW1.
2/ Make the Iranians further harden their infrastructure. Infrastructure that is already hardened against bombing according to your own article.
So what is it you then propose to bomb instead?
Civilian power stations, industrial sites, and hospitals?
Innocent civilians in major population centres?
3/ Fail and eventually lead to a US invasion of Iran.
4/ Help speed the US on it’s current road to ruin.
Doggy Balls,
1. Ahmadinejad’s thumb-sucker O killed thousands of civilians in Iran already.
2. Bombing nuclear and military infrastructure will soften Iran up for a long time.
3. The war’s on already; we either win it or lose it.
4. We lose it, we’re ruined.
Doggy Balls,
1. Obama’s inaction killed thousands of civilians in Iran already.
2. Bombing nuclear and military infrastructure will soften Iran up for a long time.
3. The war’s on already; we either win it or lose it.
4. We lose it, we’re ruined.
@ 18
1. Obama’s inaction let A’jad kill many thousands of civilians in Iran.
2. Bombing nuclear and military infrastructure will soften Iran up for a long time.
3. The war’s on already; we either win it or lose it.
4. We lose it, we’re ruined.
“Wannabe Armchair General” wrote:
“1. Obama’s inaction let A’jad kill many thousands of civilians in Iran.”
So now POTUS Obams is also responsible for the internal affairs of Iran?
“2. Bombing nuclear and military infrastructure will soften Iran up for a long time.”
Goldman has pointed out the the Iranians have hardened their targets.
“3. The war’s on already; we either win it or lose it.”
Don’t recall Congress or POTUS (as is the norm recently) stating that the US is at war with Iran.
“4. We lose it, we’re ruined.”
So the future existence of the one remaining military superpower depends on who is in power in Iran?
This is nothing more than paranoia.
Obama is hopelessly out of his league. This is by design. All those foreign contributions to his campaign were supporting the disabling of the US. When we read that there were offices in Gaza shooting contributions to his campaign, they were not being sent to ensure the election of the next Washington, it was to elect the next Carter.
For twenty years the west has let the barbarians kill our people without retribution. The 911 commission felt Iran might well have been involved 15 of 19 attackers came through their territory and arch Iranian henchman, Imad Mugniyeh, was reported to be on planes with al Qaeda folks.
Bottom line, the war that began for us on 911 is far from over. It will not be over until the clerical regime is defeated. Hitting them in their oil exports is the bloodless way to create economic chaos in the country and trigger the revolution.
Democrats and far leftists who derailed Bush from attacking Iran in 2007 with their specious report that their nuclear program will one day be called to account how they spared a malignant enemy who will, if they are not stopped, do us great damage.
THERE IS A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TERRIBLE TUNNEL:
the corrupt and unpopular mullah regime collapsing from within. Spengler forgets that the vast majority of Iraqis (Shia and Sunni) are hostile to Iran and won’t tolerate a Persian takeover of their country. Could be we’re seeing the start of a second Iran-Iraq War sparking a wider regional conflagration. Such a conflict would totally bankrupt the regime in Tehran and finish it off.
Enriching uranium requires electricity. That is the choke point. Bomb the countryside. Every month. If you have the guts for it.
Don’t forget about imports. 2/3 of Iran’s high technology imports each year come from Germany, 1/3 from Italy. Take care of those, and you’ve taken care of Iranian nuke/missiles programs.