I like this thread to focus discussion on the ramifications of the US-Iranian rivalry on the future political map of the Middle East. By that I mean, whether the rivalry will divide the region broadly into a pro-Iranian block on the one hand, and a pro-US block, on the other? Whether sectarian, as well as political differences, being stoked by the US as a means to 'counter Iranian influences' are going to engulf much of the region in a wider civil war? Whether that rivalry will ultimately result in a wider war in the region? Or, conversely, whether that rivalry can be settled on mutually acceptable terms, so that a better future emerges for the region as a result? While the arena of the emerging US-Iranian rivalry is not confined to the Arab world alone, and similar dynamics are at play elsewhere in the region in the Caucasus, in Central Asia, even in the Indian subcontinent, and traces are felt in attempts by Iran to forge closer relations with nations far away from it including not just in Africa but even in Latin America, this Washington Post report nonetheless frames some of the issues involved. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012902090.html
Actually, it's a notorious leftist rag so yes, propaganda is accurate. And for the record, the word "propaganda" is used when ANYTHING is posted by IM.
Read the Jan/Feb edition of "Washington Report" about the Pro-Israeli's tactics and methods on how they wage war against anyone right here at home, let alone other countries. War must be brought to them if they seek another one so badly.
I have posed the following 4 questions for discussion in this thread. I will provide my own brief answers in quotes to each of them, while others here are free to counter my 'propaganda' with their version of the 'truth' (1) Will the rivalry will divide the region broadly into a pro-Iranian block on the one hand, and a pro-US block, on the other? (2) Will sectarian, as well as political differences, being stoked by the US as a means to 'counter Iranian influences' engulf much of the region in a wider civil war? (3) Will the rivarly between the US and Iran ultimately result in a wider war in the region? (4) Or, conversely, can that rivalry can be settled on mutually acceptable terms, so that a better future emerges for the region as a result?
Well, I don't think it requires a propagandistic approach to see that US actions inadvertently led to Iran's ascendancy. Whether you agree with US actions in the region or not, removing Hussein to the west and the Taleban to the east and replacing them with inherently weaker regimes clearly contributes to an ascendant Iran. Next, it is clear that whereas the US did not create sectarian differences in th region, our actions certainly released pent up anger. So, it comes as no surprise that people such as the scholar quoted in the story conclude this: ""The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. "There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region." The upshot of blaming/crediting the US and its allies for the situation: an acknowledgement that Iran did not set out to acheive this through any particular strategy.
oh please, Iran has a bigger chance of winning the World Cup than waging a successful war against Israel. Little dogs always bark the loudest.
When Israel manages to handle hezbullah then talk trash but why talk trash ? this is war and war causers a lot of death and distress for ordinary people but I am sure you wouldn’t care about that
trash talking? I commented on a stupid post of Rostam. I am not bragging about Israel's might, I'm saying that Iran sure does a lot of tough talk, but really cannot back up those words. And nice straw men there.
Really? Ahmadinejad wants Israel pushed into the sea? I am sure that on top of his to do list and I am sure that’s why he was elected .
The Bush administration has already spurned similar recommendations by many people within and outside the US, including notably the Iraqi Study Group (aka the Baker-Hamilton Commission). However, this latest call comes from people with strong ties to Israel, the latter the principal opponent of any engagement with Iran. As I post this report, I like to know what do you think. Will stubborn Bush and the neocons finally realize they ain't going to accomplish anything trying to bully Iran? Will they realize the possibilities that exist if the US came to negotiating table with Iran with no preconditions? Or are we destined to see another cold war like rivalry, this time between the US and Iran? Or, worse yet, a war that neither side should relish and which would leave both sides suffering and weakened considerably? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070131-1307-kissinger-albright.html BTW, let me translate Dr. Kissinger for those who might have missed his point. I have followed his comments on Iran closely. Essentially, what Kissinger suggests is for the US to offer Iran a deal that would guarantee Iran a strong position, particularly over its own sphere, while stabilizing the relations between Iran and the US with Iran accepting US dominance over the other areas of the Middle East. Essentially, under the Kissinger formula, which for obvious reasons he cannot spell out in detail, the region will be divided into spheres of influence. Each side would recognize the proper sphere of the other, with neither side attempting to undermine the other in their own sphere. The two sides would instead then try to develop their commercial, cultural, and diplomatic interactions to bring the themselves closer to one another in the long run. Within the framework and context of such a deal, Iran's need for nuclear weapons would lessen, while US distrust of Iranian capabilties on this front would reduce as well. That is essentially the deal I believe can be worked out with Iran, even if some of the details will need to be worked and a few of them might prove contentious.
I can't stop thinking back in history and find parallels. Going back to late 6th century, for long, the Persian Sassanid Empire was quite busy fighting the Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantines) and both empires drained of resources paved the way for the Arabs to highjack the spiritual power of Islam to wage war against Persia and later the cities of Byzantine, and eventually became a major power as "moslems". Even though there is no military war against the US and Iran but both sides for decades have spent a great deal of resources trying to keep each other in check from each side's own version of "exceptionalism". I hope the politicans see these similarities with the exception of the new emerging power is still up for grab. In short, both have a great deal to lose if this kind of atmosphere is maintained, let alone if there was a direct conflict. I hope the Neocons don't go too crazy cuz they will also have a lot at stake.
I just don't see the Bush administration initiating negotiations unless Iran suspends enrichment. They won't back down from that precondition. So it's either rivalry or war. Many of the recent US actions are an attempt at countering Iranian influence -- support for anti-Hezbollah forces (overt and covert) in Lebanon, support for Fatah, even opposing sales of Iranian natural gas to Georgia. Did you catch Dr. Rice's comments a few weeks ago when she was in the region? She said: I suspect her comments were at least partly aimed at Iran. When the Bush team says "we only negotiate from a position of strength" it means they don't start talking to you until they've thoroughly twisted your arm behind your back even if the negotiation is in the national interest (allowing Israel to pursue the talks with Syria that Haaretz revealed would have potentially improved the US position vis-a-vis Iran but I suspect the Bush administration nixed the idea because it too closely resembled a land for peace deal, i.e. giving in to "terrorism"). You write that a few of the details would be contentious in an attempt to divide the region up into American and Iranian spheres of influence. With the Bush administration I imagine all the details would be contentious. If the US doesn't even want Georgia to get some of its natural gas from Iran what will it allow? The Caucasus is even more important to the US now than it was five years ago because Russia appears to have returned to viewing all interactions with the US as a zero sum game. The GCC is precious not just for its energy supplies but also for the $1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, many of which get pumped back into the US economy and help keep long term interest rates down (the housing bubble is just slowly deflating now, any spike in rates and it pops for sure). Where is there room for Bush to compromise with Iran? Lebanon? Iraq? Palestine? Afghanistan? None of those for sure. The Kissinger idea is a good place to start. But it's not the Bush place to start. We'll have to wait until 2009 and then President Hagel can solve the mess.