Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - a ham radio operator and the us-iran antagonism

roachboy · 01-16-2008, 02:04 PM

there are maybe three basic ways to look at us relations with iran at the moment

a) following some residual neo-con realpolitik, the plan could be to erase the political damage done by the iraq debacle domestically by extending it into a new, and far more difficult, war. but that would be lunacy.

b) the bluster is mostly about generating a pr trail that is linked to efforts to prevent iran from too overtly benefitting from amercan-generated chaos in iraq. concerns about the simple fact that, in this chaos, iran stands to benefit regionally, in political terms and maybe in economic terms, are self-evident, and it hardly matters which side of the political micro-spectrum you fall on/into to see it. a rational assessment of this geo-political situation would have under most circumstances militated against bushwar to begin with---particularly given the abundant information that the un sanctions regime has, in fact, done what they were supposed to do. trying to figure out why the neo-con war happened, given this, tends to push me (personally, as someone sitting in a chair trying to figure this stuff out) back toward thinking that the wolfowitz "strategy" really was the american strategy, and that, if it had (1) been coherent in the first place (which it wasn't) and (2) had worked, maybe these consequences could have been avoided. but it wasn't and it didn't.

c) aspects of the situation outlined as (b) still obtain, but as boundary conditions--in other words, they shape the overall tactical situation--but the posture of the bush people in pr terms is shaped entirely by political expediency. this one dovetails with the interpretation that host has been outlining in this thread. it would also explain--maybe--some of the ineptness with which this game has been played.

if (b) obtains but (c) is the operative logic, the consequences of it are very strange indeed--the american public posture has---and continues--to work to prop up the present iranian regime. why that would be a desirable goal so far as the bush people are concerned is anyone's guess, frankly.

my suspicion is that the administration is flying by the seat of its collective pants on this one.

they are concerned about the longer-term advantages that the chaos in iraq will give to a country that is imprinted in the reagan-eer imagination as an Enemy, the "manly" addressing of which explains something of the reasons there was a reagan period at all---remember how "nightline" got started? every night, first thing, a graphic would present the number of days that had passed in the "hostage crisis"...

so my theory is that they know that most outcomes over the longer run to the administration's absurd war in iraq are going to play out in ways that are counter to the strategic interests of the americans as the neo-cons define them--which center on oil supply, but which are not limited to that (i still maintain that if you center oil too much in your thinking about this region, you cant understand what the neo-con idea was, no matter how fucked up its implementation has made things.)

maybe the calculation is that it is to the american tactical advantage to do what they can to maintain ahmadinejad BECAUSE he is politically weak inside iran and so is maybe not in a position to do a whole lot to exploit the tactical advantage that the iraq debacle has handed him...

i am not sure what to make of reports that there has been iranian aid to various milita groups within iraq--i dont doubt that there are linkages, but so far as i have seen (mostly not in the american press, of course) this is INFORMAL, in the sense that there are "elements" within the iranian military which MAY be diverting SOME resources into iraq. but i dont have enough detailed information to know which, how much or even why, really, given the legacy of the 10 year war between iran and iraq. and i dont think it's at all a foregone conclusion that there exists any "natural" affinity between shi'a groups, huntington thesis nonsense notwithstanding.

so it's not a huge problem to generate a more complicated picture of what might be happening behind the screen of the administrations "public diplomacy"--but even so, it's still pretty difficult to work out much in response to the question "what the hell were these people thinking" when it comes to the shabby absurd video that was released and the resulting brouhaha.

01-16-2008, 02:04 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are maybe three basic ways to look at us relations with iran at the moment a) following some residual neo-con realpolitik, the plan could be to erase the political damage done by the iraq debacle domestically by extending it into a new, and far more difficult, war. but that would be lunacy. b) the bluster is mostly about generating a pr trail that is linked to efforts to prevent iran from too overtly benefitting from amercan-generated chaos in iraq. concerns about the simple fact that, in this chaos, iran stands to benefit regionally, in political terms and maybe in economic terms, are self-evident, and it hardly matters which side of the political micro-spectrum you fall on/into to see it. a rational assessment of this geo-political situation would have under most circumstances militated against bushwar to begin with---particularly given the abundant information that the un sanctions regime has, in fact, done what they were supposed to do. trying to figure out why the neo-con war happened, given this, tends to push me (personally, as someone sitting in a chair trying to figure this stuff out) back toward thinking that the wolfowitz "strategy" really was the american strategy, and that, if it had (1) been coherent in the first place (which it wasn't) and (2) had worked, maybe these consequences could have been avoided. but it wasn't and it didn't. c) aspects of the situation outlined as (b) still obtain, but as boundary conditions--in other words, they shape the overall tactical situation--but the posture of the bush people in pr terms is shaped entirely by political expediency. this one dovetails with the interpretation that host has been outlining in this thread. it would also explain--maybe--some of the ineptness with which this game has been played. if (b) obtains but (c) is the operative logic, the consequences of it are very strange indeed--the american public posture has---and continues--to work to prop up the present iranian regime. why that would be a desirable goal so far as the bush people are concerned is anyone's guess, frankly. my suspicion is that the administration is flying by the seat of its collective pants on this one. they are concerned about the longer-term advantages that the chaos in iraq will give to a country that is imprinted in the reagan-eer imagination as an Enemy, the "manly" addressing of which explains something of the reasons there was a reagan period at all---remember how "nightline" got started? every night, first thing, a graphic would present the number of days that had passed in the "hostage crisis"... so my theory is that they know that most outcomes over the longer run to the administration's absurd war in iraq are going to play out in ways that are counter to the strategic interests of the americans as the neo-cons define them--which center on oil supply, but which are not limited to that (i still maintain that if you center oil too much in your thinking about this region, you cant understand what the neo-con idea was, no matter how fucked up its implementation has made things.) maybe the calculation is that it is to the american tactical advantage to do what they can to maintain ahmadinejad BECAUSE he is politically weak inside iran and so is maybe not in a position to do a whole lot to exploit the tactical advantage that the iraq debacle has handed him... i am not sure what to make of reports that there has been iranian aid to various milita groups within iraq--i dont doubt that there are linkages, but so far as i have seen (mostly not in the american press, of course) this is INFORMAL, in the sense that there are "elements" within the iranian military which MAY be diverting SOME resources into iraq. but i dont have enough detailed information to know which, how much or even why, really, given the legacy of the 10 year war between iran and iraq. and i dont think it's at all a foregone conclusion that there exists any "natural" affinity between shi'a groups, huntington thesis nonsense notwithstanding. so it's not a huge problem to generate a more complicated picture of what might be happening behind the screen of the administrations "public diplomacy"--but even so, it's still pretty difficult to work out much in response to the question "what the hell were these people thinking" when it comes to the shabby absurd video that was released and the resulting brouhaha. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-16-2008 at 02:06 PM..