Some Perspective On Iran
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, The World
Fareed Zakaria gives us something to chew on after listening to alarmist talk about the Iranian threat:
Iran does not even rank among the top 20 economies in the world. The Pentagon’s budget this year is more than double Iran’s total gross domestic product ($181 billion, in official exchange-rate terms). America’s annual defense outlay is more than 100 times Iran’s. Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous, but its program is not nearly as advanced as is often implied. Most serious estimates suggest that Iran would need between five and 10 years to achieve even a modest, North Korea-type, nuclear capacity.Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tallâ€â€?and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA’s wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives’ more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA’s lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politiciansâ€â€?most prominently the Cox Commissionâ€â€?doubled the estimates of China’s military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein’s capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weaponsâ€â€?and because he was a madman, he would use them.
Does this mean that Iran isn’t a threat? Absolutely not. But from my perspective, they’re more a threat to the global economy because they control a fair amount of oil.
But concerning the nuclear threat, why would ANY Islamic country in the Middle East risk the complete extermination of every single person in their country by actually striking against Israel with a nuke? Why? Nobody has been able to answer that question for me yet, and “Well, they’re crazy” is not an adequate answer.
Personally, I don’t think people like Ahmenijad are crazy. I think they’re actually quite smart. They know which buttons to push so they get the attention of the world, but I don’t believe that they’ll ever be buttons launching nuclear missiles at Israel.
And some parting thoughts from Zakari:
The United States is far more powerful than Iran. And, on the issue of Tehran’s nuclear program, Washington is supported by most of the world’s other major powers. As long as the alliance is patient, united and smartâ€â€?and keeps the focus on Tehran’s actions not Washington’s bellicosityâ€â€?the odds favor America. Ahmadinejad presides over a country where more than 40 percent of the population lives under the poverty line; his authority is contested, and Iran’s neighbors are increasingly worried and have begun acting to counter its influence. If we could contain the Soviet Union, we can contain Iran. Look at your calendar: it’s 2006, not 1938.
Well said.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 4th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 4th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
ok, how about if we replace “because they’re crazy” with “because they are sincere religious people, who believe God is on their side and will protect them in their war against the Infidel, and even if they die, they are rewarded for dying in combat.”
Honestly, don’t assume that everyone in the world thinks the way you do…
September 4th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I believe it is Bush who thinks God is on his side … and lets not forget that it was Bush who openly declared that nuking Iran was an “option”…and it is the US’s official position (declared in the Nuclear Posture Review) to use nukes on a first-strike basis against even non-nuclear armed states. In fact that’s why the US is developing user-friendly “mini-nukes”. So while we can scaremonger a lot about Iran’sambiguous “nuclear ambitions” which the IAEA has inspected and found no “weapons”, the real honest-to-goodness nukes are in the hands of Bush and the Israelis (note how much they cared about civilian lives in Lebanon)
Oh, and there’s the little matter of how the US armed Saddam with chemical weapons and Rumsfeld was shaking his hands while he was busy gassing the Kurds….
So I have to wonder out loud: who is the real threat to the world?
September 4th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
What about the complete annilhilation of an entire country by nuclear strikes from the US, Israel, the UK, etc.? What about that? Are you telling me that Iran would seriously go through with its big talk even though they know it’ll bring down a firestorm on their heads?
Islamic extremists are the real threat. It’s true that our foreign policy decisions and execution of those plans don’t engender much faith, but please don’t confuse the two.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
There’s a one-paragraph cartoon history of the Cold War for you. I’m sure liberals find it instantly convincing because it paints the crazy neoconservatives as the villians. And everybody knows that the communists fell because the anti-Western left hugged them to death.
Iran’s poverty and political instability, when combined with Islamism, make it more dangerous, not less. By the way, how does the economic power of the Iraqi insurgency stack up against ours?
This gets back to Zakaria’s fantasy history of the Cold War, which is totally false. Nobody ever accused the Soviets of wanting to unleash a nuclear weapon, or even of being irrational. Ahmenijad is exactly the nightmare that anti-proliferationists have been dreading all these years.
He’s right that diplomatic pressure can bring Iran around – unless people start soft-pedalling the vile Ahmenijad the way they did Saddam Hussein. Hussein could have been brought to heel if Europe and the UN had not flatly refused to do so, because he stroked their anti-Americanism. And their wallets.
September 4th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
The real question for me has usually been, “Is Iran bold enough to arm Hezbollah with nukes?” (And similarly, “Is there anyone in Pakistan fanatical enough to gift Al Qaeda with a nuke?”) I agree that Iran would probably never attempt a missle attack on Israel, but I’m not anywhere near as convinced that they wouldn’t attempt a nuclear attack by proxy.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Bob is right – Iran would maintain the fig leaf of plausible deniability (”no, we didn’t nuke tel aviv, but we think the people who did are great”), but make no mistake, their rhetoric is not only figurative – when they talk about wiping Israel from the map and forcibly converting the USA, they mean it literally.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Hear, Hear to Bob. Besides, Islamic Radicals always seem to find a grievance they consider provocation requiring a response; They may start some conventional military campaign or unprecidented wave of terrorism, drawing the world into a larger conflict and threatening nukes as leverage, othen find some way to justify using them.
We invaded Afghanistan to destroy the terror state there and to change the regime into a terror-fighting one. That would be impossible to do against a nuclear-armed Iran. They would be able to harbor a thousand Osama Bin-Ladens.
We can ignore Ahmadinajad when he says he would, “sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,” or brush aside his apocalyptic ravings about how the messiah will come in 2 years. We can all play Justin’s game where we think we know more about Amad’s motivations than he does, but isn’t that just crossing your fingers?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I have to ask, did Ahmenijad just finish picking his nose when this picture was taken. He sure looks like he’s admiring his handiwork.
As for Zakaria’s article, I also think he’s playing down Iran’s ability to be disruptive too much. Whether it’s Ahmenijad or the Mullahs calling the shots, Iran is using oil money and proxies to destabilize things in the Middle East already. Adding nuclear weapons to that mix is a scary proposition because, at a minimum, it renders Iran “invasion proof� and it gives then the means to extort the West more effectively. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are poor comparisons because their aims were more immediate. Iran’s leaders are in it for the long haul.
I agree with the conclusion though. We can contain Iran if we’re patient. Responding to them with (empty?) threats only strengthens their position domestically and in the Islamic community.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Kevin said: “I have to ask, did Ahmenijad just finish picking his nose when this picture was taken. He sure looks like he’s admiring his handiwork.”
LOL Kevin. I agree with you.
Iran certainly is a problem. But, instead of arguing about whether it is a small, medium or large problem, why not have a discussion about how we handle it. I know that size does matter in determining the best solution, but not that much, unless they are going to be able to nuke someone in the next few months.