Sunday, September 30, 2007
Iran: A 9/12 War?
In two recent posts, "You're right. Both Tel Aviv and Riyadh play us like violins" and "The other Tom's Sunday column," Tom Barnett appears to lay the groundwork for supporting, or at least being indifferent to, a war on Iran. I don't mean to say that Tom has a secret agenda, or even that he embraces the logical result of his thinking. Nonetheless, the conclusion that naturally flows from his writing is a command to opponents of offensive operations against Iran: take it easy.
Working backwards, Barnett seconds New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's call for a 9/12 President. The 9/11 emergency, so goes the argument, is over. This is because emergencies are ruled by terrorists, but policy is ruled by states. We are in this for the long haul. This means getting back to normal, and letting the American system that works so well in generating wealth and happiness function. National security will take care of itself, as it always has, because we are the biggest and best country on the block.
But earlier, Tom notes that the Israeli and Saudi governments are manipulating our policy towards Iran. While the Jewish and Wahabi States are not fans of each other, both fear the rise of Iran more than they fear each other. So both advocate, using whatever means they can, for an American strike on Iran.
What a 9/12 President would do is obvious: attack Iran.
Barnett has opposed war with Iran before on the grounds that it would wreck the "big bang effect" caused by the Iraq War. I assume, that when Tom appears to endorse ludicrous ideas (like Friedman's line of "I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans"), Barnett is actually America's governmental infrastructure (especially when it comes to national security) is sufficiently readjusted to the point where just playing for time makes sense. (America famously used the playing-for-time strategy in the Cold War.)
But if we are now playing for time, that means allowing the instability in the middle east to unfold as it will. It means that we no longer need a president who focuses on those problems, but one who allows our response to do the work for him. The rise of Iran surely is a consequence of the take-down of Iraq, as is the push-back from Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Of course, it was dysfunction in the Sunni Arab world that led to 9/11. But Iran's been deeply involved in the Sunni Arab system since 1980, at the latest. The Iranian government is just as much part of that violently dysfunctional systems as Iraq's Saudi Arabia's, or Syria's. A "9/12" President would treat the middle east as just another part of the world, and if our two closest allies in any region are threatened by a rogue enemy, would he act as an ally does or think deeply about what that means for transformative, systemic, change?
The former, of course.
Dan, this seems to be a change for you.
Are you proposing that we should have a 9/12 president who should attack Iran; or that it is just logical to assume that a 9/12 president should attack Iran.
Posted by: PurpleSlog | Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thanks for the comment (and the close-reading!).
I'm indifferent-to-sympathetic for a war with Iran (our partnership now seeming to be off the table). But this point really is what it says it is: an attempt to take Tom's posts to their logical conclusion.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, September 30, 2007
I think you're projecting here. You're indifferent on the level of consequences.
WRT to our military, I am not. I don't think we'd get the outcome desired, and that we'd look bad as a result.
I like my wins a little more certain than that.
Posted by: Tom Barnett | Sunday, September 30, 2007
I think closest allies is a bit of a stretch as well. The Israelis are capable of doing anything we would be likely to do (i.e. a series of air strikes) and we benefit from a a stable Saudi Arabia, not a happy one.
Posted by: Steve French | Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thanks for stopping by.
Would it be fair to say that a 9/12 President would and should view an Iran war in strategic terms (our gains, our losses, etc.) rather than in grandstrategic terms (keeping the big bang rolling)?
In the middle east we also have Egypt and Turkey, both even less likely to help us out in times of need.
We bring a scale to any conflict that Israel is unable to.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, September 30, 2007
The sino-saudi alliance, its connection to cartels, coups, 9/11 is given by eyewitness testimony here.
Posted by: GeoK | Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thanks for the link to the conspiracy theory video. Obviously, I disagree, but it seems to be well put together.
I think you will enjoy "National Security Strategy," the presentation Tom (who commented above) gave some time ago [1,2]. Tom's speech is bracing, and while I'm sure he also disagrees with the 9/11 truth movement, some points it raises (the US spending way more on defense than it would if its goal was homeland security, etc.) are true.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, October 01, 2007