Well I think this is a lot of talk and no action. They're trying to scare Iran into submission. The Western economies would certainly go through another hit making it far worse. Does anyone really think after Iraq and Afghanistan, this would turn out any better? And after Obama turned the US's focus on the Far East, how would it look for the election that he let Israel do that and certainly dragging the US into another Middle East war?
Well, this is closest to the way I have been viewing this. For over a decade, we've witnessed this scenario many times over: some "leak" about impending war on Iran, questions about whether the Israeli's will strike on their own, etc. The threats have never panned out. Essentially, all of the "actors" are aware that Iran has become stronger, rather than weaker, as a result of America's twin mis-adventures (Iraq and Afghanistan). The Saudi's, Israel, and others in the neighborhood, have been somewhat upset with the US about this outcome, and now the US has even withdrawn most troops from Iraq, adding the regime in this country to the list of "Iranian influenced" forces in the region. Therefore, for the US there has been, and there continues to be a need to compensate, by piling a ton of pressure, threats, sanctions etc, on Iran.
But there's a new element, this time around, and this is the much advertized American "pivot" to East Asia. The notion that the US is going to effect such a shift to the East, and ALSO have a new war in the Middle East, is simply insane. As for Israel... no, the tail does not wag the dog, and it never has. To me, those rumors about Israeli intrigues to manipulate American policies are simply aimed at leaving the US a way to back out.
This time around, in my view, Obama is not aiming for war with Iran, but for a DEAL. This is why there are rumors about Israeli manipulations, why the US Navy has been rescuing Iranians at sea, and why Obama has been leaving the option of negotiations open. I think the Iranians are aware of this also, and this is why they are being so nice to the IAEA inspectors. Obama even hints that a deal is his objective. However, the deal he is seeking is probably not for Iran to abandon its nuclear research.
The "pivot" which the media has been discussing since the end of last year is actually not new. Already, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review in 2001 called for shifting forces to the arc extending from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan. I don't remember the actual wording, but I took note of the geography! And for some years, the largest part of the US Navy has been
based--though not
deployed-- in the Asia Pacific region. And in 2010 we got a preview of what this could mean, with all of the activity around the Korean Peninsula, and the noise about "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea.
Somehow, the planned "pivot" never seems to pan out. The reason is that, while priorities are rarely actually stated (for the US, at least in public pronouncements, every corner of the earth always seems to be of "vital interest") it is obvious that the Middle East is the key to world supremacy for the US. Therefore, as long as things are not "quiet" in the Middle East, there can be no "pivot" to East Asia and the Pacific. And this means the US has to "resolve" things with Iran in some way, if it is to follow its avowed strategy.
With the upcoming embargo on Iranian oil, and sanctions on its central bank, and with the ongoing onslaught on its ally Syria, Iran is under unprecedented pressure. Yet there is absolutely no reason to think that it will give up its nuclear development. It can survive the embargo, since many countries will still be importing it's oil, and even if it were to lose Syria, well, it has recently gained Iraq and the US is set to leave Afghanistan. The only option for the US is a "RESET" of sorts. The US needs to put the Iranian problem on a back burner, but it needs Iran to agree to this.
We have seen this before. Nothing really changed in the relations between the US and Russia. Missile defense plans continue, and so do Russian strategies with respect to its "near abroad". But the TONE of the relationship has cooled down since the Bush years. Similarly, with Myanmar, we are witnessing a sort of media-event "democratization". We are told "change" is happening, relations improve, and a "rogue regime" is no longer. Facts are not needed; the media obliges. Today, there is even talk in the news about reaching some agreement with the DPRK! Indeed, the "reset" with Russia and the change in relations with Myanmar are both aimed at facilitating the isolation or encirclement of China. So is the current round of wheeling and dealing in connection with Iran.
Alas, things don't always work the way you want them to, and I don't think this will either. In this connection, I find China's response to be rather "on the money". The recent initiatives towards the GCC countries (Wen's recent trip), and also the initiatives towards Israel mentioned in the Bhadrakumar article posted by
delft elsewhere are perfect. The Israelis and the GCC countries will definitely see through any attempt by the Obama administration to present a concession to Iran as a concession FROM Iran. They will not like Obama "playing nice" with Iran, after having put themselves on the line for the US. Nor will anybody else: India, Japan, etc. It seems to me China has moved pre-emptively to take advantage of this displeasure... unless, of course, Obama, once again, postpones the "pivot" to the East.
---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------
The New York Times publishes today a hilarious article about halving the size of the US embassy in Baghdad. (
)
A hilarious article indeed! The accompanying slideshow is even funnier
.
