http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100403262.html
Excerpt:
QuoteIn an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks...
The U.S. decision to postpone the meeting appears to be part of a strategy to improve ties with China that also includes soft-pedaling criticism of China's human rights and financial policies as well as backing efforts to elevate China's position in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. Obama administration officials have termed the new policy "strategic reassurance," which entails the U.S. government taking steps to convince China that it is not out to contain the emerging Asian power.
Before a visit to China in February, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said advocacy for human rights could not "interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis" -- a statement that won her much goodwill in Beijing. U.S. Treasury officials have also stopped accusing China of artificially deflating the value of its currency to make its exports more attractive.
Ok, is Obama just a bad President or simply the first post-cold-war President to acquiesce to the fact (about which so far the US administration had been in denial) that the American Hegemony is over?
That's CdM's cue to start tell us how the Chicoms really arn't so bad after all.
Quote from: Kleves on October 05, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
That's CdM's cue to start tell us how the Chicoms really arn't so bad after all.
Yeah, this should be interesting to see. How can Seedy reconcile his man-love for Obama with his infinite contempt for the Chi-coms?
Incidentally, I read a very interesting interview with Emmanuel Todd in the Polish edition of Newsweek today. I hope I can get hold of an English or a French translation. Essentially, he is claiming we are seeing the fall of the American Empire and that the emergence of Iran as a major regional power (following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq) will be a final nail to its coffin.
The great thing about predicting that something that doesn't exist is going to fall is that it becomes really easy to claim you were right.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 09:39:52 AM
The great thing about predicting that something that doesn't exist is going to fall is that it becomes really easy to claim you were right.
America has been an empire since at least 1945, perhaps a bit earlier. It has dominated the world politically and economically ever since. Now, he blames the fall of the global markets and American dominance specifically on the negative effects of the second phase globalisation - i.e. that unlike previous developments of capitalism, this one is actually leading to the decrease (or at least not a sufficient increase) of the average wage (because companies move jobs to offshore locations or work to cut wages at home), which results in demand deficit, which in turn means that the only way the increasing supply can be met with demand is through increasing debt.
It's a shame that many European commentators cannot tell the difference between a hegemon and an empire.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 09:43:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 09:39:52 AM
The great thing about predicting that something that doesn't exist is going to fall is that it becomes really easy to claim you were right.
America has been an empire since at least 1945, perhaps a bit earlier. It has dominated the world politically and economically ever since.
That is an interesting definition of "empire".
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 09:55:44 AM
That is an interesting definition of "empire".
Hey, I'm sure Europeans will help step up to defend the liberal, democratic vision of the world, right?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 05, 2009, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 09:55:44 AM
That is an interesting definition of "empire".
Hey, I'm sure Europeans will help step up to defend the liberal, democratic vision of the world, right?
Are you implying that this is what America has been doing so far? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 10:28:42 AM
Are you implying that this is what America has been doing so far? :lol:
Not at all. Look at all the dictatorships we set up in Western Europe.
Prioritizing the strategic relationship with China over human rights concerns has been US policy since Nixon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2009, 11:02:08 AM
Prioritizing the strategic relationship with China over human rights concerns has been US policy since Nixon.
Of course - that doesn't mean we haven't simultaneously pressured China over human rights concerns. It's not like you can only do one or the other, although it seems like the Obama administration is clearly signalling that the pressure is off.
The sad thing is that it won't work. Of course, I am not sure the pressure ever worked either. They seem pretty impervious to that kind of thing.
What the point of coming right out and telling them we don't care anymore is rather beyond me. More of the careful and mature foreign relations we have come to expect, I imagine.
What does Obama gain by meeting with some two bit theocratic dictator for life?
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 11:05:24 AM
What the point of coming right out and telling them we don't care anymore is rather beyond me.
?
They are just postponing the Tibet meeting until after the China meeting. Experience has taught that visting China shortly after meeting the Dalai Lama results in being cold shouldered and nothing getting done. And the US has some urgent business to take care of with China right now.
The legit question to ask is how this schedule arose in the first place.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2009, 11:02:08 AM
Prioritizing the strategic relationship with China over human rights concerns has been US policy since Nixon.
Of course - that doesn't mean we haven't simultaneously pressured China over human rights concerns. It's not like you can only do one or the other, although it seems like the Obama administration is clearly signalling that the pressure is off.
The sad thing is that it won't work. Of course, I am not sure the pressure ever worked either. They seem pretty impervious to that kind of thing.
What the point of coming right out and telling them we don't care anymore is rather beyond me. More of the careful and mature foreign relations we have come to expect, I imagine.
When they became our primary debtors as well as a major trading partner it was probably impossible to apply any worthwhile pressure. We are locked in an economic death embrace.
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 09:45:04 AM
It's a shame that many European commentators cannot tell the difference between a hegemon and an empire.
That requires a better historical education than the world deems appropriate today...
As for Obama's decision, Minsky has raised an excellent point as the fact that the scheduling should never have happened in the first place.
However, once the scheduling had been made, changing it expresses weakness. I am getting more and more of a vibe of "Obama the appeaser" from his foreign policy decisions of the last couple of months. Sometimes that works, but sometimes...well, we all know what you get the rest of the time.
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2009, 11:34:39 AM
What does Obama gain by meeting with some two bit theocratic dictator for life?
Oh my god, I'm agreeing with Fate. :cry:
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2009, 11:34:39 AM
What does Obama gain by meeting with some two bit theocratic dictator for life?
Didn't he meet with the Pope?
Quote from: Fate on October 05, 2009, 11:34:39 AM
What does Obama gain by meeting with some two bit theocratic dictator for life?
Richard Gere's vote is IMPORTANT. :mad:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 05, 2009, 11:40:29 AM
When they became our primary debtors as well as a major trading partner it was probably impossible to apply any worthwhile pressure. We are locked in an economic death embrace.
Guess what percentage of Treasury debt is held by the Chinese.
Quote from: Berkut on October 05, 2009, 09:35:13 AM
Quote from: Kleves on October 05, 2009, 09:32:31 AM
That's CdM's cue to start tell us how the Chicoms really arn't so bad after all.
Yeah, this should be interesting to see. How can Seedy reconcile his man-love for Obama with his infinite contempt for the Chi-coms?
Quite frankly, I've been growing increasingly more disenchanted with Mr. Academic as the weeks and months have gone by.
Bush may have driven the foreign policy into the guard rail, but at least it was still on the fucking road. Mr. Academic has the left blinker on, slowing down at yellow lights, going down the wrong exit ramp with the parking brake locked.
Very disenchanted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2009, 11:02:08 AM
Prioritizing the strategic relationship with China over human rights concerns has been US policy since Nixon.
There's a substantial difference in allowing the Chinese to save face with their little fetishes, and then there's taking it up the Tiger Penis Soup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 05, 2009, 11:40:29 AM
When they became our primary debtors as well as a major trading partner it was probably impossible to apply any worthwhile pressure. We are locked in an economic death embrace.
Guess what percentage of Treasury debt is held by the Chinese.
5%
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 05, 2009, 11:40:29 AM
When they became our primary debtors as well as a major trading partner it was probably impossible to apply any worthwhile pressure. We are locked in an economic death embrace.
Guess what percentage of Treasury debt is held by the Chinese.
Depends. You talking real money, or politically driven artificially undervalued money?
Chinese internal migration is rapidly making Tibet a moot point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2009, 05:29:57 PM
Chinese internal migration is rapidly making Tibet a moot point.
Chinese
colonisation is rapidly making Tibet a moot point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2009, 05:29:57 PM
Chinese internal migration is rapidly making Tibet a moot point.
Yes, much like the endangered species of big cats, elephants, rhinos and sea turtles they insist on eradicating for pelts, ivory and voodoo "traditional medicines", the Chinese will make sure Tibetans are extinct in our lifetime.
Enjoy all those "Grandpa, what was a Tibetan?" conversations with your grandchildren.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:32:54 PM
Chinese colonization is rapidly making Tibet a moot point.
Fixed. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2009, 04:40:04 PM
Guess what percentage of Treasury debt is held by the Chinese.
Over 10 percent I think. Plus China is one of the main foreign buyers of agency securities which are also guaranteed by the US govt.
Ten percent is pretty significant when you start to think about concepts like who is the marginal buyer. Perhaps the Chinese can skip a few auctions, but if they stop buying altogether, that demand has to come from someplace else. And were they to dump their whole portfolio, it would crush the market.
Mao was a community organizer.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2009, 08:01:15 PM
Mao was a community organizer.
He swam through the people like a tuna does the mackerel.
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2009, 08:01:15 PM
Mao was a community organizer.
So were Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison . . .
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
Incidentally, I read a very interesting interview with Emmanuel Todd in the Polish edition of Newsweek today. I hope I can get hold of an English or a French translation. Essentially, he is claiming we are seeing the fall of the American Empire and that the emergence of Iran as a major regional power (following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq) will be a final nail to its coffin.
He predicted that in his book 'After the Empire' I believe in 2002. A big chunk of it is based on a decline in child mortality rates in the US - he says it was a similar decline that led him to believe in the late 70s that the USSR was internally doomed. In it he also suggests American power will basically be replaced by a consensual democratic Russia acting in concert with European powers.
I don't really rate him as a great analyst.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 12:34:17 AM
He predicted that in his book 'After the Empire' I believe in 2002. A big chunk of it is based on a decline in child mortality rates in the US - he says it was a similar decline that led him to believe in the late 70s that the USSR was internally doomed. In it he also suggests American power will basically be replaced by a consensual democratic Russia acting in concert with European powers.
I don't really rate him as a great analyst.
I'm having trouble even seeing the logic of that phrase; I would have thought that a decline in child mortality increases your population, which increases your workforce and pool of military age manpower?
Now, that may have been bad in the USSR with its screwed up agricultural system, but I am fairly sure that does not apply to the American system.
Besides, didn't the decline in child mortality coincide with a decline in the birth-rate? I would have thought the latter was a better statistic to base a theory of decline on.
Can you give me some more specifics of his theory, please?
Sorry, I meant an increase in child mortality :blush:
The is a conspiracy afoot between CHinese business interests and GCC groups to replace the dollar as the oil standard within ten years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 06:35:52 AM
Sorry, I meant an increase in child mortality :blush:
There is an increase in child mortality in the US?
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 07:41:31 AM
There is an increase in child mortality in the US?
There was at some point between 89 and 02 when he wrote the book :)
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 07:41:31 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 06:35:52 AM
Sorry, I meant an increase in child mortality :blush:
There is an increase in child mortality in the US?
A quick internet survey does suggest there was a temporary upwards blip in the early 2000s. Perhaps more worryingly for the USA, it appears the mortality rate has stopped or slowed its decline compared to other developed countries. You do have quite a high rate even compared to the UK, which quite frankly surprised me.
Yeah, we had a discussion about this before. There is a very strong racial factor to this - US white infant mortality rates are pretty much in line with the rest of the west (around 5/1000), but black infant mortality rates are more than double that number, which is clearly terrible.
There doesn't really seem to be any good ideas about why though - lots of speculation (obesity, lack of access to healthcare), but the base cause is an increase in pre-term births, which of course have a much higher mortality rate.
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
the emergence of Iran as a major regional power (following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq) will be a final nail to its coffin.
You had me up to this.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2009, 07:57:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
the emergence of Iran as a major regional power (following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq) will be a final nail to its coffin.
You had me up to this.
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.
What you have to realize is that the motivation for articles like this is simple "stick it to the nasty US" bullshit.
Therefore, you ahve to pick an actual enemy of the US to supersede them - makes it ever so much more galling, at least in their minds. Saying that the US will decline and be replaced by an ally like India isn't nearly as insulting, so you have to pick a country like Iran instead.
It really is rather silly, but then, the entire Euro angst over the US always has been.
A thousand nations of the Persian empire will descend upon you. Their arrows will blot out the sun!
India doesn't meddle that much in the Mideast. "Regional power" doesn't really say much, South Africa could be considered one.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2009, 07:57:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:49:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:40:25 AM
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.
QuoteNot 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.
QuoteSo 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?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 06, 2009, 10:46:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 06, 2009, 10:54:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:40:25 AM
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.
QuoteNot 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.
QuoteSo 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.
As for the US forces, I believe the guy was talking about after they leave.
Regional power is, in a sense, a zero sum game. Weakening Iran's neighbors gives Iran more room to maneuver. So even if they haven't grown their economy or military strength(which as you suggested is unlikely- they're gonna get nukes soon), they're still helped by a weaker Iraq. That is speaking strictly externally. It's possible the internal destabilization you posit has increased due to a freer Iraq, but then Western journalists have been claiming Iranians were ready to throw off their government since well before the Afghan and Iraqi wars. I'm a bit skeptical.
I am not at all skeptical.
The problem is that Iran is really good at supressing dissent, and they spend a huge amount of their resources doing so.
That is why I find it odd that people are so quick to proclaim them the great regional power - their primary security concern has not changed a bit, if anything, it will get worse as a result of Iraq, not better. It's not like those dissidents Saddam was harboring where doing anything tangible anyway.
And how is Iraq weaker now than before? Iraq under Saddam and sanctions was completely weak. Their military might was near zero, they had no wealth to speak of, and no regional credibility at all, except as kind of a sad martyr to Western aggression.
And do you really think that once US forces leave, Iran will somehow be free to make a move against Iraq? I would posit that whatever security agreement is finalized between the US and Iraq (or has been finalized already) includes a provision for the US to intervene if an external power invades, or if Iraq asks for our help as a result of external destabilization attempts.
Iraq will be (and already is) stronger after we got rid of Saddam, not weaker.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2009, 11:17:50 PM
So were Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison . . .
Yeah, but they each had real jobs as well.
Leading an army isn't a real job? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
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.
In what sense is South Africa a regional power? They basically do nothing and exert little influence that I can see.
Iran is one of the biggest countries in the neighborhood but I guess I fail to see them dictating to other countries around what they should do or not do.
Or is simply being a country in the area and being large all that is needed to be a major regional power?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
The exception is Afghanistan which historically has always been caught between two regional conflicting streams of interest, the Indian and the Persian.
This is a gross oversimplification. Afghanistan has had far more influence on its neighbors than the reverse going back to the Rigveda and the Aryan conquest of India. I think one could say that Afghanistan is between three great centers of Eurasian culture, the Iranian*, Indian and Steppe, but I don't think it is fair to say that it has "always been caught between two regional conflicting streams of interest", as I can think of only one native Indian dynasty that ever managed to project its power deep in to Afghanistan, while "Afghans" come out of the Kyber Pass every two centuries and conquer all of Aryan India, and occasionally the whole thing. Interestingly, I think the Taliban are a continuation of this, though obviously their superior organization and élan are rendered useless in the face of tanks and cruise missiles.
*This is complicated by the fact that Iranian civilization could probably be broken down into three sub-civilizations, the Median-Azeri, the Persian and the Khorasani, with Western Afghanistan being the greater part of Khorasan.
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
By an Anthropologist's standards, I'm really not that bad. I am only vaguely interested in Native Americans, New Guineans, Aborigines and the Khoisan.
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
Would country be the right word for his depiction? Seems more like region (with hints of culture).
:cool:
Berkut, I think you are focussing to much on Post-GW1 Iraq for your perception of Iran. Most of the monarchical Gulf States provided extensive support to the nominally antagonistic Ba'athist regime in Iraq for the simple reason that it shielded them from Iran. Until Saddam invaded Kuwait, Iran was their main threat and long term fear.
Let's look at the Gulf, still one of the world's key oil regions.
As of 2008:
Iran: Population 71 million, Economy $820 billion
Rest of Gulf region*: Population 79 million, Economy $1260 billion
Defined as Arabian peninsula plus Kuwait and Iraq.
Iran has 90% of the population of the rest of the region combined, plus an economy 2/3 the size of the rest of the region combined. That's more than sufficient an imbalance to create a nascent regional power, absent external influences.
Since GW1 Iran has had to contend with an American presence on its doorstep. Since 9/11 that has evolved into a large military presence on its western and eastern borders. That's a bad thing for Iran's ambitions, I can't disagree.
On the plus side, they have gone from a situation on their borders of a Sunni dominated Iraq (the Ba'ath party) and a Sunni dominated Afghanistan (the Taleban) to one where Shia parties, influenced by Iran, have strong to dominant influences in the governments of the two states. Assuming the USA is successful in the long term in both Iraq and Afghanistan, simple demographics in Iraq should deliver them a friendly neighbour and potential ally against the Gulf States. The situation is more complex in Afghanistan, but they should still retain influence.
In fact, I cannot understand why Iran feels it needs to play the nuclear card so strongly. If it avoided antagonising the USA at this point, in ten or fifteen years it would be in an ideal position to establish itself as the regional hegemon without having to risk any military conflict at all. That's been Iran's ambition since the days of the Shah.
Either its internal issues (which I suggest recent evidence actually indicates has been overstated by the west) or a somewhat irrational fear of the American presence on their borders that is pushing them down the path of unneccessary confrontation.
QuoteThe problem is that Iran is really good at supressing dissent, and they spend a huge amount of their resources doing so.
That is why I find it odd that people are so quick to proclaim them the great regional power - their primary security concern has not changed a bit, if anything, it will get worse as a result of Iraq, not better. It's not like those dissidents Saddam was harboring where doing anything tangible anyway.
By this logic, the USSR was not a superpower because it expended large resources on suppressing internal dissent.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 06, 2009, 10:52:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 10:49:04 AM
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.
In retrospect, it's because you're a douchebag.
Iran is not/will not be a major regional power because:
+They are shi'ite theocrats and hence suspected by the Sunnis
+They are an economic pygmy that cannot even produce remotely enough gasoline for its not exactly hard driving population despite sitting on some the world's most massive hydrocarbon reserves.
They are a significant regional player because of the raw resources and the ability to make a nuisance of themselves through their connections with various terror groups abroad, but that is it.
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
I found it an interesting read, much more interesting than most things that are posted here.
QuoteIran is not/will not be a major regional power because:
+They are shi'ite theocrats and hence suspected by the Sunnis
+They are an economic pygmy that cannot even produce remotely enough gasoline for its not exactly hard driving population despite sitting on some the world's most massive hydrocarbon reserves.
They are a significant regional player because of the raw resources and the ability to make a nuisance of themselves through their connections with various terror groups abroad, but that is it.
Not to mention their impending demographic decline.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2009, 06:22:22 PM
Iran is not/will not be a major regional power because:
+They are shi'ite theocrats and hence suspected by the Sunnis
+They are an economic pygmy that cannot even produce remotely enough gasoline for its not exactly hard driving population despite sitting on some the world's most massive hydrocarbon reserves.
They are a significant regional player because of the raw resources and the ability to make a nuisance of themselves through their connections with various terror groups abroad, but that is it.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2009, 06:22:22 PM
Iran is not/will not be a major regional power because:
+They are shi'ite theocrats and hence suspected by the Sunnis
+They are an economic pygmy that cannot even produce remotely enough gasoline for its not exactly hard driving population despite sitting on some the world's most massive hydrocarbon reserves.
They are a significant regional player because of the raw resources and the ability to make a nuisance of themselves through their connections with various terror groups abroad, but that is it.
Bingo. If they had some kind of reasonably ideology that was not totally irreconcilable with education (beyond literacy, the Koran and the Shahnameh, that is) and free-market reform, and to be honest maybe if they were a bit bigger (if they didn't loose Azerbaijan to the Russians, dk what else) and had more natural resources than oil, but I see Iran becoming less important in the medium term, not more so. The inevitable revolution could be fairly chaotic, and there is a chance they'll lose Iranian Azerbaijan, Kermanshah and there will be instability in Baluchistan. During the election the military attempted to secure Kermanshah and the west as rapidly as possible just in case the situation started to spiral out of control, which it almost did.
EDIT: Interestingly, that situation could be really bad for Armenia. Azerbaijan would be twice as big, maybe more so, and Armenia is right now playing off Iran, Turkey and Russia in a delicate game that would make Bismarck proud. Crap. :(
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
I didn't know he was a big fan of Kentucky.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2009, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM
Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country. Never seen that before ^_^
I didn't know he was a big fan of Kentucky.
I kind of am. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Hunter)
Quote from: miglia on October 06, 2009, 07:11:49 PM
I found it an interesting read, much more interesting than most things that are posted here.
My needling of Spellus is permitted to occur irregardless of the individual value of any of his posts. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2009, 07:44:45 PM
I didn't know he was a big fan of Kentucky.
Same to you sucka.
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2009, 07:44:45 PM
I didn't know he was a big fan of Kentucky.
Same to you sucka.
I've been to Kentucky. It doesn't compare to Missouri. Here, we even walk upright and don't drag our knuckles.
Quote from: miglia on October 06, 2009, 07:11:49 PM
I found it an interesting read, much more interesting than most things that are posted here.
Of course, it would have been more relevant if he'd mentioned the more recent examples (1700s forwards), rather than reaching back into ancient history. As it was, it lacked punch.
Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2009, 09:24:29 PM
Of course, it would have been more relevant if he'd mentioned the more recent examples (1700s forwards), rather than reaching back into ancient history. As it was, it lacked punch.
o rly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire)
Of course Afghanistan was a plaything of Empires in the 19th Century. The entire world outside of Europe north of the Donau and west of the Oder was. Afghanistan just happened to, unfortunately, be a recent playground of empires, rather than one in the relatively distant past.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 06, 2009, 10:50:40 PM
o rly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire)
Perhaps you would like to re-read my post:
Quoteit would have been more relevant if he'd mentioned the more recent examples
aka, there are examples but he didn't mention them.
Quote from: Warspite on October 06, 2009, 04:06:39 PM
QuoteThe problem is that Iran is really good at supressing dissent, and they spend a huge amount of their resources doing so.
That is why I find it odd that people are so quick to proclaim them the great regional power - their primary security concern has not changed a bit, if anything, it will get worse as a result of Iraq, not better. It's not like those dissidents Saddam was harboring where doing anything tangible anyway.
By this logic, the USSR was not a superpower because it expended large resources on suppressing internal dissent.
1) I never said Iran was not a major regional power because they have internal security issues. I said that Iraq no longer being a threat doesn't make them MORE of a regional power, because Iraq was never their primary security concern anyway, so them being more friendly isn't that much of a help.
2) Iran != USSR. Seriously, why even bother making such a patently ridiculous point as that?