[lit-ideas] Re: Iran and Realpolitik
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:11:04 EDT
Perhaps we should rename this list-serve "Geopolitics and the Realpolitik"?
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Iran and Realpolitik
Date: 5/4/06 12:14:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time From: _omarkusto@xxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE04Ak03.html
May 4, 2006
Two can play the game of politics
By Ramzy Baroud
When the deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy
Agency, Muhammad Saeedi, said recently that his
country is willing to allow "snap inspections" by the
International Atomic Energy Agency, he conditioned his
country's concession on excluding the United Nations
Security Council from any involvement in inspecting
Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
Quite properly, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said Iran was "playing games" with the international
community. Indeed, Iran is playing games - in the
sense that it is repeatedly testing
US resolve to find out how far the Bush administration
is willing to go to escalate the conflict.
Ironically, the "games" that Rice was protesting
against are called "realpolitik", where practical
matters are weighed, considered and taken into account
based exclusively on statistical, cost-effective
analysis, and where ethics and law carry little
weight. It's ironic, because no Middle Eastern
government comes even close to the US and the
so-called EU-3 - Germany, France and Britain - in
exercising realpolitik. After all, the term
Realpolitik ("practical politics") was coined by a
German writer describing the attempt to balance the
powers of European empires in the 19th century.
True, Iran is no empire and is unlikely to
metamorphose into one. Moreover, no real balance of
power is possible between Iran and its Western
nemesis, considering the US military might, especially
if combined with that of its "willing allies", no
matter how hard Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad
labors to build a fearsome aura around his nation's
military force. But thanks to other factors -
precisely President George W Bush's low ratings at
home and his embattled military in Iraq - Tehran is
finding itself in a much more comfortable position
than that of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein
prior to the US invasion.
Some are rightfully observing that Washington's
rhetoric concerning the Iranian nuclear-enrichment
matter is almost an exact replica of that employed in
the lead-up to the Iraq war. First, there was the
exaggeration of Iraq's military might, which was seen
as a "threat" to its neighbors - most notably Israel -
and US regional interests. Then came the sanctions,
formidable and suffocating, meant to "contain" the
Iraqi regime and "impede" Saddam's alleged incessant
drive for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Then there was the muscle-flexing and awesome military
deployment. Finally came the showdown: war, forced
regime change, and occupation.
The Bush administration and the war enthusiasts in the
US Congress - and they are many - sound equally
gung-ho for another Middle East showdown, with Tehran
its new target. Once again, it's not respect for the
law - since Iran's nuclear enrichment does not violate
its commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Nor is it democracy, for Iran is much closer
to having an actual democratic system than many of the
US-favored, yet corrupt and authoritative, allies. Nor
can it be human rights, since the US, as the effective
ruler of Iraq, is the region's top human-rights
violator. Rather, it's realpolitik.
Iran alone provides 5% of the world's total oil
exports. At a time when access to and control of
energy sources translate into political power and
strategic affluence, and in an age of uncertain oil
supplies and fractious markets, Iran is an enviable
prize.
But realpolitik alone can hardly justify the seemingly
irrational readiness to expand the battlefield for an
already over-stretched US military. That's where the
infamous pro-Israel, neo-conservative warmongers are
most effective. The same way they managed to concoct a
pro-war discourse prior to the disastrous war on Iraq
- using the ever-willing mainstream media - they're
working diligently to create another false doomsday
scenario required for a military encroachment on Iran.
If all of this is true, then why is Iran "playing
games"?
While Iran is no match for an empire, it also
understands that it has great leverage through its
significant influence over Iraq's Shi'ite population
and its leaders. While the invasion of Iraq has
disaffected most of the country's population -
regardless of their sectarian affiliation - the
Shi'ite leadership has yet to demand a US withdrawal,
and for strategic reasons are not yet ready to join
the blazing insurgency. Using its influence in Iraq,
Iran could significantly alter the equation, a
decision that would not likely suit long-term US
interests in occupied Iraq.
But Iran has even more cards to play. When the price
of a barrel of oil recently reached US$75, the Group
of Eight rich nations sent out terrible warnings of an
impending global economic crisis. Imagine if the price
hit the $100 mark? Or even $120 according to some
estimates? How will already fractious energy markets
treat such a possibility, keeping in mind the already
vulnerable Nigerian oil production, the less
accommodating - read more independent - Venezuelan oil
supplies? "Unexplained" acts of sabotage against
Iraq's oil production facilities and export pipelines
will likely add fuel to the fire.
All of these outcomes exclude entirely the implausible
likelihood that the US military is in fact capable of
leading a ground war or maintaining a long-term
occupation of a country that has not been weakened by
years of debilitating sanctions and is several times
the size of Iraq.
As optimistic as it may sound, one can, to an extent,
allude to the idea of a "balance of power". Wherever
such balance can be struck, realpolitik and its
associated "games" can also be found in profusion.
While the US wishes to maintain the posture of the
uncompromising, hard-headed party, ready to execute
its many military "options" at the stroke of an
executive order, Iran is calling the bluff by
confidently trumpeting its various options,
notwithstanding military ones.
Iran in 2006 is certainly not the Iraq of 1990-91, or
2003, the year of invasion. Some major changes to the
political map of the Middle East have taken place, and
serious challenges are appearing day after day to the
astonishment of the beleaguered US government and its
president.
Whether it still genuinely believes in military
options as decisive retorts to its many global
challenges, the Bush administration must learn to deal
with new political realities, and it must also accept
that playing politics is no longer restricted to
empires alone.
Veteran Arab-American journalist Ramzy Baroud teaches
mass communication at Australia's Curtin University of
Technology, Malaysia Campus. He is the author of
Writings on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A
Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press,
London). He is also the editor-in-chief of
PalestineChronicle.com.
(Copyright 2006 Ramzy Baroud)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
