Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Istakhr]

I actually think that in some respects, Iran presents a great opportunity for the US, because they have had an Islamic Republic for thirty years, and a lot of Iranians are sick of it. With some actually effective diplomacy, I think that Iran might be able to become a functioning democracy in time. And (ideally) the experience they've already had with having a religious state might inoculate the public against voting that way in the future. Admittedly, that is a best case scenario, but there isn't a whole lot going right in the Middle East these days.

In a way I agree. On the one hand the experience of islamic republic has really caused the population to mature politically and I have little doubt that given an idealistic free choice a plurality of the population would choose a liberal democracy even today.

But on the other hand the last thirty years has caused a growing cultural fissure in Iranian society. A process that started with the upper class even before the revolution, but now has been deepened into other parts of society. Today, middle and upper class iranians are divided into two almost absolutely incompatible cultures and in my pessimistic view if things continue as they are, this cultural fissure is going to divide the lower class in 20-30 years. Then you'll have two diametrically opposed Iranian nations who have nothing in common besides the language and can't even acknowledge the existence of each other occupying the same country. Something that can only end in unimaginable bloodshed and human suffering.

[jarl the climber]

I suspect that if it really a decision made by subordinates, Assad has since taken steps to prevent that from happening again.

Is that idea too similar to what happened with Iraq for the U.N. to even consider it? Because as you said, it seems to go to the heart of the entire concern. Eh, I'm just hoping (vainly, I know), that Obama will come up with something that doesn't involve us launching a few missiles just for appearances sake.

I'm not really knowlegdgable about Syrian regime politics but isn't one of Assads brothers a hard line military type? Perhaps he ordered the use for internal political reasons. Perhaps Bashar is being put to the side and is losing his grip on power. He is becoming more dependent on foreign support and troops in oreder to stay in power.

I think most of Obamas foreign policy has been about appearances and lacks substance.

[DanteGabriel]

Is that idea too similar to what happened with Iraq for the U.N. to even consider it? Because as you said, it seems to go to the heart of the entire concern. Eh, I'm just hoping (vainly, I know), that Obama will come up with something that doesn't involve us launching a few missiles just for appearances sake.

To be honest, I don't know. When I say it's unlikely for the offer to be made, I'm operating off my general belief that anything that makes that much sense is just not going to happen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think most of Obamas foreign policy has been about appearances and lacks substance.

I don't want to make this Obama bashing, but a friend of mine emailed me and said:

You don't send people to their death, nor do you use them to kill other people (some of whom will be innocent) because you want to feel "credible." That's not a good enough reason.

I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but I do think he has cornered himself into that mindset.

[Maithanet]

Not quite. The Islamic Revolution was a mass-populist uprising, led by the religious fundamentalists but crucially supported by a wide swathe of the population (including secularists and those who supported democracy). The Shah was regarded as an unelected dictator who had to go. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the historians of a hundred years hence regarded it as the early foreshadower of the Arab Spring (and the crushing of the 2009 protests possibly as indicative of its failure). A great deal of the enmity between Iran and the USA that followed was a result of the Americans backing the Shah - the unelected dictator - over the populist uprising even after it became clear that the Shah had lost. That doesn't excuse the Iranians taking hostages and so on, but it does explain a great deal of the tension that arose. From that point on the USA was regarded as the enemy, a feeling that was mutual: hence the USA arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Really feel like you are being unfair if you just focus on the end of the Shah's regime. The Shah wasn't a dictator who the US chose to ally with, he was put into power by the CIA for the express purpose of fighting the communists and selling us cheap oil. But I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about a coup from the 50s.

But on the other hand the last thirty years has caused a growing cultural fissure in Iranian society. A process that started with the upper class even before the revolution, but now has been deepened into other parts of society. Today, middle and upper class iranians are divided into two almost absolutely incompatible cultures and in my pessimistic view if things continue as they are, this cultural fissure is going to divide the lower class in 20-30 years. Then you'll have two diametrically opposed Iranian nations who have nothing in common besides the language and can't even acknowledge the existence of each other occupying the same country. Something that can only end in unimaginable bloodshed and human suffering.

Yeah it's a bad situation for sure. It seems like the Islamic Republic has been slowly disintegrating for decades, and that means that things are either going to get a lot better, or a lot worse. With all the bloodshed going on in the middle east, it is difficult to be optimistic.

You don't send people to their death, nor do you use them to kill other people (some of whom will be innocent) because you want to feel "credible." That's not a good enough reason.

I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but I do think he has cornered himself into that mindset.

Although, to be fair, if the President is not seen as credible on the world stage, that could have serious consequences, and could cost American lives. I'm not saying that justifies bombing Syria, but just that "credible" is really different from "pride" (which would be just about the worst reason to go to war).

[Istakhr]

Not quite. The Islamic Revolution was a mass-populist uprising, led by the religious fundamentalists but crucially supported by a wide swathe of the population (including secularists and those who supported democracy). The Shah was regarded as an unelected dictator who had to go. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the historians of a hundred years hence regarded it as the early foreshadower of the Arab Spring (and the crushing of the 2009 protests possibly as indicative of its failure). A great deal of the enmity between Iran and the USA that followed was a result of the Americans backing the Shah - the unelected dictator - over the populist uprising even after it became clear that the Shah had lost. That doesn't excuse the Iranians taking hostages and so on, but it does explain a great deal of the tension that arose. From that point on the USA was regarded as the enemy, a feeling that was mutual: hence the USA arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

:thumbsup:

Nice summery of Iran-US relations in the last 60 years.

The problem is that every time a rapprochement has been attempted, it's been fucked up. Al-Qaeda blew up a Saudi hotel complex in the late 1990s and Saudi Arabia told the USA it was Iran, so the USA broke off a peace inititative. After 9/11 there were low-key discussions at the UN between Iranian and American officials, including the Iranians giving the Americans intelligence on Al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda is an enemy of Iran's ideologically, and certainly after they massacred the Iranian mission at Mazar-i Sharif in 1998). This was parallelled by a major - and apparently initially successful - British effort to bring the Iranians on-side in the war on terror. All of the work at that point was undone in one moment by Bush putting them on the Axis of Evil for no readily apparent reason and then invaded one of the other countries on that axis. For some reason, the Iranians thought it might be a good idea at that point to start developing weapons of mass destruction and elected a leader rather hostile to the west.

The Iranians haven't done themselves many favours in all of this either, but the west has also pissed on several golden opportunities to forge a closer relationship with Iran and end the decades of low-key hostility. Rapprochement is still possible - as we saw eventually between the USA and China - but it doesn't appear to be on the horizon any time soon, and of course Iran's hostility towards Israel makes it extremely unlikely in the short term.

The only problem with this analysis is that you are not looking at the Iranian side. As I said enmity towards the US is one of principals of the Islamic republic's ideology. This is what goes to the heart of Iranian politics:

Reformists in Iran would have little problem with rejecting any of the pillars of the Islamic republic.

Principalists correctly see replacing any of the underpinnings of the Islamic republic as hollowing out the whole ideological system similar to what happened in communist china. The difference with china here is without the support of ideological believers in the system and in that case internal infighting against the ideologues can cause the whole system to collapse very rapidly.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The one bit of pushback that I would still give is simply that this is so, so unlikely to be Iraq.

So what? Iraq being bad doesn't make other things good. Attacking another country for no clear reason and with no clear purpose is lousy on the face of it, regardless of how well it turns out for you.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And lets get real on the whole credibility thing here.

If we don't do anything about Syria, what's going to happen? Is Iran going to test their first nuke next week now secure in the knowledge that we won't do anything about it? Is China going to invade Taiwan? Is East Germany going back to Russia? Syria matters approximately not at all on the world stage. No one is going to take the US any less seriously if we don't waste our time on it.

[Shryke]

You know, I'd have a lot more sympathy for that POV if what we were actually saying was "because you have used chemical weapons in a war, your regime has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted. Either turn over your chemical stockpiles to the U.N., or be flattened."

I don't think I'd actually support that either, but at least there would be some coherency and purpose behind acting. You might even get more support than that, because it does leave open the option of no force at all being used.

Seems like a choice who's answer is so obvious, no one is gonna bother with it.

[sToNED_CAT]

The Shah was regarded as an unelected dictator who had to go. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the historians of a hundred years hence regarded it as the early foreshadower of the Arab Spring (and the crushing of the 2009 protests possibly as indicative of its failure). A great deal of the enmity between Iran and the USA that followed was a result of the Americans backing the Shah - the unelected dictator - over the populist uprising even after it became clear that the Shah had lost. That doesn't excuse the Iranians taking hostages and so on, but it does explain a great deal of the tension that arose. From that point on the USA was regarded as the enemy, a feeling that was mutual: hence the USA arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

Americans didn't really back Shah in 79. In fact one of the reasons why he lost control of country was that Carter pressured him to release political prisoners. His administration wanted Iran governed by moderate politicians supported by army. All USA did was that they provided him with healthcare after he was ousted.

And after revolution US tired immediately to establish links with new government. Iran was american ally for pretty long time and the country didn't want to be included in Soviet sphere of influence. So if mullahs wanted good relations with US, it was possible before hostage crisis.

[Shryke]

The problem is that we still seem a little fuzzy on whether the Syrian government ordered the use of chemical weapons, or if it was parts of the military. Granted, I don't think it's any more comforting to have the Syrian military deciding on their own to use chemical weapons than if Assad ordered them.

The thing is, I'm not sure how this is any argument against intervention.

Hell, it seems like a stronger argument for it. If Assad can't even control his own chemical weapons stores and their deployment, shit is alot worse then initially thought.

[Istakhr]

Americans didn't really back Shah in 79. In fact one of the reasons why he lost control of country was that Carter pressured him to release political prisoners. His administration wanted Iran governed by moderate politicians supported by army. All USA did was that they provided him with healthcare after he was ousted.

They tried to stage a military coup, but at first many army generals were scared/reluctant, and very soon army started disintegrating.

[Shryke]

I don't want to make this Obama bashing, but a friend of mine emailed me and said:

You don't send people to their death, nor do you use them to kill other people (some of whom will be innocent) because you want to feel "credible." That's not a good enough reason.

I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but I do think he has cornered himself into that mindset.

1) Credibility is actually quite important. Don't make threats you don't follow through on is like the first rule of discipline. US credibility on the international stage is a huge source of diplomatic power.

2) I think it's silly to regard this solely as a matter of credibility because that framing requires that you believe this is only happening because Obama drew the red line, which implies the US doesn't actually believe in limiting the spread and use of chemical weapons in the first place. Which is just really silly.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

1) Credibility is actually quite important. Don't make threats you don't follow through on is like the first rule of discipline. US credibility on the international stage is a huge source of diplomatic power.

In what way does not intervening in Syria damage our credibility?

2) I think it's silly to regard this solely as a matter of credibility because that framing requires that you believe this is only happening because Obama drew the red line, which implies the US doesn't actually believe in limiting the spread and use of chemical weapons in the first place. Which is just really silly.

In what way does US intervention limit the spread and use of chemical weapons?

[Shryke]

In what way does not intervening in Syria damage our credibility?

If you don't think it does, then it would seem that the Obama Admin is only concerned with the spread of chemical weapons and the arguments about his rhetoric backing him into a corner don't even make sense anymore.

In what way does US intervention limit the spread and use of chemical weapons?

In that it implies military consequences to deploying them. So, you know, the same way nuclear proliferation and use is curtailed.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If you don't think it does, then it would seem that the Obama Admin is only concerned with the spread of chemical weapons and the arguments about his rhetoric backing him into a corner don't even make sense anymore.

I'm asking you, who is positing that our credibility is damaged to please explain with whom it is damaged and in what way.

In that it implies military consequences to deploying them. So, you know, the same way nuclear proliferation and use is curtailed.

Military consequences how? We have already said we don't want regime change, we don't want to help the rebels, we don't want to help Assad. What are the actual consequences being threatened?

[Shryke]

I'm asking you, who is positing that our credibility is damaged to please explain with whom it is damaged and in what way.

I already explained how it was. Threats that aren't followed through on damage your credibility by definition.

Whether you think credibility matters is a whole other story, but apparently many feel it does considering all the articles about it over the past while re: Obama and his Red Line.

Military consequences how? We have already said we don't want regime change, we don't want to help the rebels, we don't want to help Assad. What are the actual consequences being threatened?

Whatever the US decides to do. The same way Iran has been threatened with military consequences for their nuclear program. That have been taken seriously. And all without implying regime change there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

1) Credibility is actually quite important. Don't make threats you don't follow through on is like the first rule of discipline. US credibility on the international stage is a huge source of diplomatic power.

That's an argument for not making such threats in the first place, not an argument for proceeding with a bombing that has a fair chance of killing innocent people, and therefore backfiring on our national interest.

In any case, just because we don't follow through with one threat doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to suddenly believe that we won't ever protect ourselves or our allies, or will never follow through with any threats in the future. But this is one reason why, if we were to decide not to bomb, I think we should pointedly blame those who refuse to give us even moral support.

To do that, the Administration would simply punt this particular action to the U.N. FIrst, by waiting to see the results of the investigation and get the report. We don't lose credibility by waiting for the evidence, right? Then, if the investigation says "yup, they did", then we publicly push in the U.N. for authorization to act, saying that because it is not us or one of our allies who has been attacked, we would like U.N. authorization. Which we of course won't get.

What your argument really boils down to is that it makes more sense for us to engage in a bombing campaign that the vast majority of the world believes to be morally wrong, than it does to retract the thread and blame the U.N.. Loss of credibility is not the only thing we risk losing if we make the wrong decision.

2) which implies the US doesn't actually believe in limiting the spread and use of chemical weapons in the first place. Which is just really silly.

The point is that what Obama is apparently contemplating does absolutely nothing at all to limit the spread of chemical weapons. That's a major part of the objection. And I don't really see the use of such weapons not directed against us or our allies, on this scale, to be so much worse than convention weapons that it justifies us involving our own military forces in a war that is not ours. For the first time in my life, I actually agreement with my former congressman, who said that we'd essentially be acting as Al Qaeda's Air Force.

[Shryke]

That's an argument for not making such threats in the first place, not an argument for proceeding with a bombing that has a fair chance of killing innocent people, and therefore backfiring on our national interest.

Except that not making such threats in the first place just achieves the result of making the ban on chemical weapons look utterly toothless.

The point is that what Obama is apparently contemplating does absolutely nothing at all to limit the spread of chemical weapons. That's a major part of the objection. And I don't really see the use of such weapons not directed against us or our allies, on this scale, to be so much worse than convention weapons that it justifies us involving our own military forces in a war that is not ours. For the first time in my life, I actually agreement with my former congressman, who said that we'd essentially be acting as Al Qaeda's Air Force.

Well, international law vehemently disagrees with you seeing chemical weapons as no worse then conventional weapons.

And you can feel it's not gonna do any good, yes, but that's not at all what you said in the post I was responding to here. The point is that they obviously feel they can do something about it and thus this isn't just about credibility but about stopping chemical weapons proliferation and use. Which is, of course, why they made the red line in the first place that is the source of the whole "credibility" argument. Which is why attempting to make this just about credibility makes no sense.

As a general point, I think you should substitute "nuclear" for "chemical" in this case and think about how everyone would react then and I think most actions here become alot clearer.

[Kouran]

In what way does not intervening in Syria damage our credibility?

In what way does US intervention limit the spread and use of chemical weapons?

Tormund,

First let me say that I generally agree with you on most topics; however, having said that you are dead wrong here.

First if we dont back up what our president says is a "red line" we are in serious deep shit in world politics. No matter how much we might not want it to be this way this is a world where real politik rules. Our word needs to not only be good, it needs to be fucking scary. When we say we will bomb your camel humping ass back in to the stone age they need to be scared shitless. If we dont back up our word then whats to stop all the little shits of the world from running around like they can do what ever they want regardless of what it is. The day and age where a nation state can just willy nilly murder their citizens without consequences should be over.

Second any US intervention doesnt stop the spread of chemical weapons, lets get real chemical weapons dont take a lot of industry to make. With about 500 dollars in starting materials I can make a steady amount of phosgene per day in a small room. If you want to make industrial scale chemical weapons you can do it in just about any chemical plant on earth with little effort. This is one of the primary reasons why after WW1 everyone got together and banned chemical weapons. They cost almost nothing to make, take little in the way of industry, are hideously effective and in some cases can be lethal for years after being used.