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

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[derspiess]

So were Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison . . .

Yeah, but they each had real jobs as well.

[Eddie Teach]

Leading an army isn't a real job? 

[Valmy]

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?

[Queequeg]

  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. 

[Caliga]

Oh look, it's Spellus championing some crappy-ass hellhole backwater country.  Never seen that before

[Queequeg]

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.   

[garbon]

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).

[Caliga]

 

[Agelastus]

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.

[Warspite]

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.

By this logic, the USSR was not a superpower because it expended large resources on suppressing internal dissent.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[Pat]

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.

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.

Not to mention their impending demographic decline.