Towards fresh disaster in Iran
What has possessed the Bush administration to pursue its grievances against Iran when it can’t cope with the wars it is failing to wage, let alone win, in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan?
By Alain Gresh
Le Monde Diplomatique
There’s a substantial difference between declaring that the third world war has begun and identifying the new Hitler. Since 9/11 President George Bush’s enemies have included al-Qaida, the “axis of evil”, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and Islamic fascism. But now Iran is public enemy number one, as incarnated in its provocative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
According to the US under-secretary of state, Nicholas Burns: “Our beef with the Iranian government is not just about Iran; it’s about what Iran is doing in the broader Middle East. With the Middle East occupying the great majority of the time and attention of our administration and Congress – I want to set the problem of Iran in the larger context of what we are doing in the Middle East and in the world. Our view is that Iran is a generational challenge. It is not a challenge that is going to be episodic or fleeting; it will likely be on the front burners of our foreign policy in 2010, and 2012, and probably 2020” (1).
Iran is a leading oil-exporting nation, but is it really an evil monster (2)? Its military expenditure has risen considerably since 2000, but the army is still under-equipped. Iraq’s fragmentation has increased the relative importance of Iran, but whose fault is that? A transnational Shia clergy may be an advantage: some Iraqi and Lebanese Shia are loyal to Iranian ayatollahs. But it could equally prove to be a weakness since many Iranian Shia are loyal to Iraqi and Lebanese ayatollahs. The Shia clergy is divided, not least over one of the present Iranian government’s basic tenets, velayat-e faqih (guardianship of jurisprudence), which gives absolute power to the Supreme Leader – once Ayatollah Khomeini, now Ayatollah Khamenei. Aside from the religious aspect, there are divisions in Iranian politics that do little to strengthen the regime.
(Continued here.)
By Alain Gresh
Le Monde Diplomatique
There’s a substantial difference between declaring that the third world war has begun and identifying the new Hitler. Since 9/11 President George Bush’s enemies have included al-Qaida, the “axis of evil”, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and Islamic fascism. But now Iran is public enemy number one, as incarnated in its provocative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
According to the US under-secretary of state, Nicholas Burns: “Our beef with the Iranian government is not just about Iran; it’s about what Iran is doing in the broader Middle East. With the Middle East occupying the great majority of the time and attention of our administration and Congress – I want to set the problem of Iran in the larger context of what we are doing in the Middle East and in the world. Our view is that Iran is a generational challenge. It is not a challenge that is going to be episodic or fleeting; it will likely be on the front burners of our foreign policy in 2010, and 2012, and probably 2020” (1).
Iran is a leading oil-exporting nation, but is it really an evil monster (2)? Its military expenditure has risen considerably since 2000, but the army is still under-equipped. Iraq’s fragmentation has increased the relative importance of Iran, but whose fault is that? A transnational Shia clergy may be an advantage: some Iraqi and Lebanese Shia are loyal to Iranian ayatollahs. But it could equally prove to be a weakness since many Iranian Shia are loyal to Iraqi and Lebanese ayatollahs. The Shia clergy is divided, not least over one of the present Iranian government’s basic tenets, velayat-e faqih (guardianship of jurisprudence), which gives absolute power to the Supreme Leader – once Ayatollah Khomeini, now Ayatollah Khamenei. Aside from the religious aspect, there are divisions in Iranian politics that do little to strengthen the regime.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
My view is that we may be closer to engagement now that Nick Burns leaving the State Department even though
he may advise on Iran. Any thoughts from Mr. Maertens ?
Post a Comment
<< Home