Wash Post: Obama postpones meeting with Dalai Lama to avoid upsetting Chinese

[Ed Anger]

A thousand nations of the Persian empire will descend upon you. Their arrows will blot out the sun!

[Eddie Teach]

India doesn't meddle that much in the Mideast. "Regional power" doesn't really say much, South Africa could be considered one.

[Sheilbh]

I think Iran is a regional power in the Middle East.  Ironically they were strengthened by the invasion of Iraq and by the toppling of the Taliban.  I don't think that's too controversial, any more than, as PW says acknowledging South Africa's a regional power.

[Sheilbh]

Why do people love to pick total basketcase loser nations to be regional powers?  I mean the United States may be thankfully less likely to have to put up with the rest of the world's shit in the future but Iran?  What a joke.  At least pick India or China to dominate central Asia not a worthless hellhole with no future.

Well Russia dominates most of the Stans.  The exception is Afghanistan which historically has always been caught between two regional conflicting streams of interest, the Indian and the Persian.  That continues to this day the Pakistanis through cultural and religious identification backed the Taliban, the Iranians supported the Northern Alliance.  It's partly for that reason that India's got very good relations with Iran, they're an opponent of Pakistani influence.

I don't think you can really deny Iranian regional influence given that they're a major player in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq - as well as Afghanistan.  The only similar regional power (excluding Israel because they're slightly different) is the Saudis.  Egypt, the only other nation in the Middle East is sort-of moribund and hurt by recognition of Israel, though they've some clout in North Africa.  I think Egypt has the potential to be really scary when Hosni dies.

[Berkut]

I think Iran is a regional power in the Middle East.  Ironically they were strengthened by the invasion of Iraq and by the toppling of the Taliban.  I don't think that's too controversial, any more than, as PW says acknowledging South Africa's a regional power.

But that isn't what he said - he said Iran would "emerge as a MAJOR regional power", which is clearly stating that Iran would become the major power in the region, presumably in contrast to the US ability to project power.

And I don't buy that the invasion of Iraq made Iran more powerful. How could it? Did it allow them to build more troops, exercise more control, create more wealth for them, give them greater regional credibility?

If anything is going to turn Iran into a major regional power, it will be them developing nukes and the ability to deliver them, which is likely to happen since nobody has the balls to do anything about it. It won't have anything to do with Iraq or the Taliban though. I suppose that will be a convenient way to pin the blame on the US though. Lord knows nothing ever happens anywhere that doesn't end up on our conscience.

[Sheilbh]

And I don't buy that the invasion of Iraq made Iran more powerful. How could it? Did it allow them to build more troops, exercise more control, create more wealth for them, give them greater regional credibility?

They used to have an enemy on their western border, they now have a friend, the same, broadly speaking happened on their eastern border too.  Regional influence isn't solely about troops or even wealth though both are part of it of course.

[Berkut]

And I don't buy that the invasion of Iraq made Iran more powerful. How could it? Did it allow them to build more troops, exercise more control, create more wealth for them, give them greater regional credibility?

They used to have an enemy on their western border, they now have a friend, the same, broadly speaking happened on their eastern border too.  Regional influence isn't solely about troops or even wealth though both are part of it of course.

SO them having friends on their borders, whereas before they had..."enemies" that they were in no danger of fighting with suddenly makes them a "major regional power" when they were not before?

Not buying it. I think this is simply looking at something that has happened or is likely to happen, then retrofitting a reason to it so everyone can comfortably say "See - when the US interferes, the result always sucks! Way to go turning Iran into a 'major regional power', assholes!"

Does not haveing Saddam on the border suddenly mean that Iran can redelpoy a bunch of troops to their....what other border? Does it mean they can decrease the size of their military? Nope - not likely, since the primary purpose of their military hasn't been to defend themselves from a militarily impotent Iraq or desperately poor tlaiban led Afghanistan

So what? How does Iraq no longer being led by Saddam, but instead led by a US backed guy suddenly make Iran a "major regional power"? I want some specifics - granted, power is not all about troops or wealth, so tell me what objective measure it is about otherwise, and tell me how Iran has greatly increased it as a result of the fall of Saddam and the Taliban.

[Queequeg]

I'd suggest that Berkut recognize that he is arguing from ignorance with someone who knows something about the area, but that's never stopped him before.

I think Iran had a chance of being a major regional player, and was rapidly becoming one, before the election.  It will spend far too much of their time desperately trying to keep their hands on power in Iran, rather than spreading their influence.  And when the Clerical regime falls, which it will, I think Iran's priorities will shift more towards internal development rather than Venezualan/Russian-style Sturm und Drang.

[Berkut]

Ahhh, the ad-hom is always a great sign of the posters confidence in his argument. Couple it with a false appeal to authority, and you have quite the impressive opening thought!

Funny part is that you follow that up with a paragraph that I actually agree with, and alluded to in my post, which you probably missed.

[Queequeg]

Funny part is that you follow that up with a paragraph that I actually agree with, and alluded to in my post, which you probably missed.

In retrospect it appears that I might have leapt to an inappropriate conclusion about your post.  I'd agree with most of it, even if I think that Iran's advantageous position before the election was obvious, as they tacitly support the two most important player in Iraq and most of the important Tajik, Hazara and other Shi'ia groups in Afghanistan, who are interestingly often our best allies.

[Eddie Teach]

If anything is going to turn Iran into a major regional power, it will be them developing nukes and the ability to deliver them, which is likely to happen since nobody has the balls to do anything about it. It won't have anything to do with Iraq or the Taliban though.

The US excursion in Iraq pretty much gave the Iranians and NK free reign to develop their nuclear programs as we spent too much political capital, willpower and material resources. Without having done so, Bush would have had a freer hand and somebody as dovish as Obama couldn't have gotten elected. Also, Saddam's government was a major rival of Iran while the government we leave behind will be weaker and more friendly to them. In hindsight, it was a huge misstep.

I agree though that it's not the US's fault Iran's getting nukes; nobody else is trying real hard to stop them either.

[Sheilbh]

SO them having friends on their borders, whereas before they had..."enemies" that they were in no danger of fighting with suddenly makes them a "major regional power" when they were not before?

They were a regional power before.  They had influence in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria as well as Afghanistan.  Their influence has since increased in Afghanistan and they're now a very close friend of the Iraqi government.  The relatively assertive Shia politics of the last few years - primarily because of the removal of Saddam - has helped Shia in the Gulf too, which further develops Iran's claim as the power of the Shia world and a major player in the Middle East.

Not buying it. I think this is simply looking at something that has happened or is likely to happen, then retrofitting a reason to it so everyone can comfortably say "See - when the US interferes, the result always sucks! Way to go turning Iran into a 'major regional power', assholes!"

I don't think you can blame the US for it.  It was an unexpected consequence of American policy.  So the question isn't one of blame but whether the policy was right or not.

So what? How does Iraq no longer being led by Saddam, but instead led by a US backed guy suddenly make Iran a "major regional power"? I want some specifics - granted, power is not all about troops or wealth, so tell me what objective measure it is about otherwise, and tell me how Iran has greatly increased it as a result of the fall of Saddam and the Taliban.

Okay.  The Iraqi leadership, while backed by the US, spent a number of years in Iran during Saddam's regime.  They are led by a party that was founded in Iran at a ceremony presided over by Ayatollah Khomeini.  The Iraqis have deported a pretty large number of Iranian dissidents that Saddam had sponsored and are closing down an unusual armed group of dissidents that had attacked Iran before and were based in Iraq.  Saddam's Iraq invaded and fought the Iranians for 8 years.  They were their biggest opponents and they're gone.  As well as that the reassertion of Shia rights in Iraq has led to a return to cultural links that had died out in Saddam's regime.

Now imagine that translated into Cold War terms a government led by exiles who spent many years in Moscow and political parties founded there and so on.  Fifty years ago Iraq would be getting couped.

Power isn't objective, that's why you can argue about it.  There are a number of valid considerations that will be weighted differently by different people.  For example does Iran accrue more by supporting Hezbullah and thus making Lebanon a semi-client state and being able to attack Israel?  Or does it get more from the regional kudos they get from the impression of opposing Israel while decadent Arab regimes do nothing? 

[Sheilbh]

I think Iran had a chance of being a major regional player, and was rapidly becoming one, before the election.  It will spend far too much of their time desperately trying to keep their hands on power in Iran, rather than spreading their influence.  And when the Clerical regime falls, which it will, I think Iran's priorities will shift more towards internal development rather than Venezualan/Russian-style Sturm und Drang.

I think there's a lot to this.  One of the interesting things about recent protests in Iran on Qods Day was that they explicitly protested the Iranians spending so much time and money in Lebanon and Palestine.

[Berkut]

If anything is going to turn Iran into a major regional power, it will be them developing nukes and the ability to deliver them, which is likely to happen since nobody has the balls to do anything about it. It won't have anything to do with Iraq or the Taliban though.

The US excursion in Iraq pretty much gave the Iranians and NK free reign to develop their nuclear programs as we spent too much political capital, willpower and material resources. Without having done so, Bush would have had a freer hand and somebody as dovish as Obama couldn't have gotten elected. Also, Saddam's government was a major rival of Iran while the government we leave behind will be weaker and more friendly to them. In hindsight, it was a huge misstep.

I agree though that it's not the US's fault Iran's getting nukes; nobody else is trying real hard to stop them either.

I don't agree with the claim that

1) Having a friendly neighbor makes you a regional power - presumably all of Iraqs neighbors are probably a lot more friendly now that Saddam is gone. Is Kuwait suddenly going to be a "major regional power"? Did getting rid of Saddam make Turkey weaker? Power is a relative thing - how does geting rid of Saddam make Iran more powerful at the expense of the other contenders?

2) Saddams government after GF1 was not a major rival to anyone.

A semi-democratic Iraqi state is almost by definition a safer state to all its neighbors. I don't accept the idea that this uniquely benefits Iran. If there is an argument that it does, could you perhaps tell me how in some kind of objective form?

Iran is not wealthier.
Iran is not more secure, in fact it is almost certainly less secure since there are vastly more US forces in the area, and vastly more Western attention.
Iran does not have any more regional credibility.

Irans primary security concerns have always been internal, and they spend vast amounts of funds and energy (successfully) dealing with that. Has that changed? Of course not - in fact, it has gotten worse, and many experts think it will continue to get worse.

A nominally democratic, successful free state of Iraq next door, even if the government is somewhat more friendly than Saddam was, is going to make their largest security concern (internal dissent) worse. Which is why they worked pretty hard to destabilize that government through their little adventure into Basra - which failed. How does that make them a greater power?

You could argue that Saddam and sanctions helped them by decreasing the amount of oil for sale - so would that not suggest that a functional Iraq hurts them in that manner? Another large oil producer?

I am just not seeing how Iraq and Afghanistan has had such a profound effect on increasing Iranian regional power, much less elevating them from *a* regional power to *the* regional power.

[Berkut]

SO them having friends on their borders, whereas before they had..."enemies" that they were in no danger of fighting with suddenly makes them a "major regional power" when they were not before?

They were a regional power before.  They had influence in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria as well as Afghanistan.  Their influence has since increased in Afghanistan and they're now a very close friend of the Iraqi government.  The relatively assertive Shia politics of the last few years - primarily because of the removal of Saddam - has helped Shia in the Gulf too, which further develops Iran's claim as the power of the Shia world and a major player in the Middle East.

Not buying it. I think this is simply looking at something that has happened or is likely to happen, then retrofitting a reason to it so everyone can comfortably say "See - when the US interferes, the result always sucks! Way to go turning Iran into a 'major regional power', assholes!"

I don't think you can blame the US for it.  It was an unexpected consequence of American policy.  So the question isn't one of blame but whether the policy was right or not.

So what? How does Iraq no longer being led by Saddam, but instead led by a US backed guy suddenly make Iran a "major regional power"? I want some specifics - granted, power is not all about troops or wealth, so tell me what objective measure it is about otherwise, and tell me how Iran has greatly increased it as a result of the fall of Saddam and the Taliban.

Okay.  The Iraqi leadership, while backed by the US, spent a number of years in Iran during Saddam's regime.  They are led by a party that was founded in Iran at a ceremony presided over by Ayatollah Khomeini.  The Iraqis have deported a pretty large number of Iranian dissidents that Saddam had sponsored and are closing down an unusual armed group of dissidents that had attacked Iran before and were based in Iraq.  Saddam's Iraq invaded and fought the Iranians for 8 years.  They were their biggest opponents and they're gone.  As well as that the reassertion of Shia rights in Iraq has led to a return to cultural links that had died out in Saddam's regime.

Now imagine that translated into Cold War terms a government led by exiles who spent many years in Moscow and political parties founded there and so on.  Fifty years ago Iraq would be getting couped.

Power isn't objective, that's why you can argue about it.  There are a number of valid considerations that will be weighted differently by different people.  For example does Iran accrue more by supporting Hezbullah and thus making Lebanon a semi-client state and being able to attack Israel?  Or does it get more from the regional kudos they get from the impression of opposing Israel while decadent Arab regimes do nothing? 

Nothing in your posts says anything about how a "friendly" democratic and free Iraq makes Iran stronger. I don't doubt that they are glad Saddam is gone, but there isn't anything there suggests that Iran has suddenly transfmored themselves from one of many regional power into the major regional power, and you are rather assiduously ignoring the many problems (for Iran) that came along with the removal of Saddam.

Finally, Saddam's Iraq was no threat to Iran after GF1. None whatsoever. They fought a war in the past, but after Saddams invasion of Kuwait, and the Western response, there was zero chance of them fighting another one. I rather doubt there was much chance anyway. It's not like the first war worked, and there wasn't much reason to imagine another one would, unless Saddam did get away with taking out Kuwait.

And this isn't the Cold War- that is a rather gross over-simplification. There are not clearly delineated sides such that a government "formed in Moscow" would obviously be opposed to Washington, and hence clearly the fact that they are firendly to Iran means they are somehow our enemies. In fact, I think it is rather odd that you are ignoring that the Baghdad government is rather friendly to the US in addition to being friendly to Iran. I think this is probably a rather good thing for everyone, in fact. If the government was not on at least somewhat friendly terms with Iran, we would likely see a lot more effort at destabilizing it from Iran.