Congressman West
There are millions of Americans who are totally unable to
define, let along distinguish between, communism, socialism, liberalism,
progressivism and governmental activity in any area whatsoever. In their minds, government support of
education, health care and environmental protection, for example, is no
different from government control, financing and ownership of the means of
production and distribution of everything created in our economy. Government is evil in their eyes, whatever it
does. Sure, while those socialists and
communists who are still around probably back government support of education,
health care and environmental protection, that does not make others who support such measures, be they
Democrats or even Republicans, members of whatever groups today’s socialists
and communists (there is a difference) belong to.
Pathetic Congressman West cannot grasp this difference and is to be
pitied, but not so much as those gullible enough to vote for him.
Iran is in the headlines these days, and with that in mind, a
Stratcor piece on that nation’s strategy follows. It is pretty heady stuff, and I don’t buy
everything he says, but it is worth reading.
Your comments are invited.
Finally, a short story by Harvey Sage is included. It is so timely that it takes place a year
from now.
George Friedman is head of Stratcor, Inc., a private intelligence
gathering organization which provides information to many individuals,
foundations, businesses and even some in government. Some of their reports, such as the one below,
are available at no cost to the general public.
To receive them, go to www.stratfor.com. Full credit for this report goes to them. (If you don’t feel like reading the entire report, I have
highlighted parts of it in red which more or less summarize it.)
Iran's Strategy
For centuries, the dilemma facing Iran (and before it, Persia) has
been guaranteeing national survival and autonomy in the face of stronger
regional powers like Ottoman Turkey and the Russian Empire. Though always
weaker than these larger empires, Iran survived for three reasons: geography, resources and diplomacy. Iran's size and mountainous terrain
made military forays into the country difficult and dangerous. Iran also was
able to field sufficient force to deter attacks while permitting occasional
assertions of power. At the same time, Tehran engaged in clever diplomatic efforts, playing threatening powers off each other.
The intrusion of European imperial powers into the region
compounded Iran's difficulties in the 19th century, along with the lodging of
British power to Iran's west in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula following the
end of World War I. This coincided with a transformation of the global economy
to an oil-based system. Then as now, the region was a major source of global
oil. Where the British once had interests in the region, the emergence of oil as the foundation of industrial and military power made these
interests urgent. Following World War II, the Americans and the Soviets became the
outside powers with the ability and desire to influence the region, but
Tehran's basic strategic reality persisted. Iran faced both regional and global
threats that it had to deflect or align with. And because of oil, the global
power could not lose interest while the regional powers did not have the option
of losing interest.
Whether ruled by shah or ayatollah, Iran's strategy remained the same: deter by geography, protect with
defensive forces, and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers. But underneath this reality, another vision of
Iran's role always lurked.
Iran as Regional Power
A vision of Iran -- a country with an essentially defensive posture
-- as a regional power remained. The shah competed with Saudi Arabia over Oman and dreamed of
nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad duels with Saudi Arabia over Bahrain, and also
dreams of nuclear weapons. When we look beyond the rhetoric -- something we
always should do when studying foreign policy, since the rhetoric is intended to intimidate, seduce and
confuse foreign powers and the public -- we see substantial continuity in Iran's strategy since World
War II. Iran dreams of achieving regional dominance by breaking free from its
constraints and the threats posed by nearby powers.
Since World War II, Iran has had to deal with regional dangers
like Iraq, with which it fought a brutal war lasting nearly a decade and
costing Iran about 1 million casualties. It also has had to deal with the
United States, whose power ultimately defined patterns in the region. So long as
the United States had an overriding interest in the region, Iran had no choice
but to define its policies in terms of the United States. For the shah, that
meant submitting to the United States while subtly trying to control American
actions. For the Islamic republic, it meant opposing the United States while trying to manipulate it into taking
actions in the interests of Iran. Both acted within the traditions of Iranian strategic subtlety.
The Islamic republic proved more successful than the shah. It conducted
a sophisticated
disinformation campaign prior to the 2003 Iraq
war to convince the United States
that invading Iraq would be militarily easy and that Iraqis would welcome the Americans with open arms. This
fed the existing U.S. desire to invade Iraq, becoming one factor among many
that made the invasion seem doable. In a second phase, the Iranians helped many
factions in Iraq resist the Americans, turning the occupation -- and plans for
reconstructing Iraq according to American blueprints -- into a nightmare. In a
third and final phase, Iran used its influence in Iraq to divide and paralyze
the country after the Americans withdrew.
As a result of this maneuvering, Iran achieved two goals. First, the Americans disposed of Iran's
archenemy, Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a strategic cripple. Second, Iran
helped force the United States out of Iraq, creating a vacuum in Iraq and undermining U.S. credibility in the
region -- and sapping any U.S. appetite for further military adventures in the
Middle East. I want to emphasize that all of this was not an Iranian plot: Many
other factors contributed to this sequence of events. At the same time, Iranian
maneuvering was no minor factor in the process; Iran skillfully exploited
events that it helped shape.
There was a defensive point to this. Iran had seen the United
States invade the countries surrounding it, Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to
its east. It viewed the United States as extremely powerful and unpredictable
to the point of irrationality, though also able to be manipulated. Tehran
therefore could not dismiss the possibility that the United States would choose
war with Iran. Expelling the United
States from Iraq, however, limited American military options in the region.
This strategy also had an offensive dimension. The U.S. withdrawal
from Iraq positioned Iran to fill the vacuum. Critically, the geopolitics of
the region had created an opening for Iran probably for the first time in
centuries. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union released pressure from the
north. Coming on top of the Ottoman collapse after World War I, Iran now no
longer faced a regional power that could challenge it. Second, with the
drawdown of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, the global power
had limited military options and even more limited political options for acting
against Iran.
Iran's Opportunity
Iran now had the opportunity to consider emerging as a regional
power rather than solely pursuing complex maneuvers to protect Iranian autonomy
and the regime. The Iranians understood that the moods of global powers shifted
unpredictably, the United States more than most. Therefore it knew that the
more aggressive it became, the more the United States may militarily commit
itself to containing Iran. At the same time, the United States might do so even
without Iranian action. Accordingly, Iran searched
for a strategy that might solidify its regional influence while not triggering
U.S. retaliation.
Anyone studying the United States understands its concern with
nuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War it lived in the shadow of a Soviet
first strike. The Bush administration used the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear
program to rally domestic support for the invasion. When the Soviets and the
Chinese attained nuclear weapons, the American response bordered on panic. The
United States simultaneously became more cautious in its approach to those
countries.
In looking at North Korea, the Iranians recognized a pattern they
could use to their advantage. Regime survival in North Korea, a country of
little consequence, was uncertain in the 1990s. When it undertook a nuclear program, however, the United States
focused heavily on North Korea, simultaneously becoming more cautious in its
approach to the North. Tremendous diplomatic
activity and periodic aid was brought to bear to limit North Korea's program.
From the North Korean point of view, actually acquiring deliverable nuclear
weapons was not the point; North Korea was not a major power like China and
Russia, and a miscalculation on Pyongyang's part could lead to more U.S.
aggression. Rather, the process of developing nuclear weapons itself inflated
North Korea's importance while inducing the United States to offer incentives
or impose relatively ineffective economic sanctions (and thereby avoiding more
dangerous military action). North Korea became a centerpiece of U.S. concern
while the United States avoided actions that might destabilize North Korea and
shake loose the weapons the North might have.
The North Koreans knew that having a deliverable weapon would prove dangerous, but that having a weapons program gave them leverage
-- a lesson the Iranians learned well. From the Iranians' point of view, a nuclear program causes the
United States simultaneously to take them more seriously and to increase its
caution while dealing with them. At present, the United States leads a group of
countries with varying degrees of enthusiasm for imposing sanctions that might
cause some economic pain to Iran, but give the United States a pretext not to
undertake the military action Iran really fears and that the United States does
not want to take.
Israel, however, must take a different view of Iran's weapons
program. While not a threat to the United States, the program may threaten
Israel. The Israelis' problem is that they must trust their intelligence on the
level of development of Iran's weapons. The United States can afford a
miscalculation; Israel might not be able to afford it. This lack of certainty
makes Israel unpredictable. From
the Iranian point of view, however, an Israeli attack might be welcome.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons and may be following the North
Korean strategy of never developing deliverable weapons. If they did, however,
and the Israelis attacked and destroyed them, the Iranians would be as they
were before acquiring nuclear weapons. But if the Israelis attacked and failed
to destroy them, the Iranians would emerge stronger. The Iranians could retaliate by taking action in
the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, which ultimately is the guarantor of
the global maritime flow of oil, might engage Iran militarily. Or it might
enter into negotiations with Iran to guarantee the flow. An Israeli attack,
whether successful or unsuccessful, would set the stage for Iranian actions that
would threaten the global economy, paint Israel as the villain, and result in
the United States being forced by European and Asian powers to guarantee the
flow of oil with diplomatic concessions rather than military action. An attack by Israel, successful or unsuccessful,
would cost Iran little and create substantial opportunities. In my view, the
Iranians want a program, not a weapon, but having the Israelis attack the
program would suit Iran's interests quite nicely.
Iranian nuclear scientists, Ayatollah Khameini (who calls the shots) and the "front man," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iranian nuclear scientists, Ayatollah Khameini (who calls the shots) and the "front man," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The nuclear option falls into the category of Iranian manipulation
of regional and global powers, long a historical necessity for the Iranians.
But another, and more significant event is under way in Syria.
Syria's Importance to Iran
As we have written, if the Syrian regime survives, this in part would be due to Iranian support. Isolated from the
rest of the world, Syria would become dependent on Iran. If that were to
happen, an Iranian sphere of
influence would stretch from western Afghanistan to Beirut. This in turn would fundamentally shift the
balance of power in the Middle East, fulfilling Iran's dream of becoming a
dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. This was the shah's and
the ayatollah's dream. And this is why the United States is currently obsessing
over Syria.
What would such a sphere of influence give the Iranians? Three
things. First, it would force the global
power, the United States, to abandon ideas of destroying Iran, as the breadth of its influence would produce
dangerously unpredictable results. Second, it would legitimize the regime inside Iran and in the region beyond any legitimacy it currently has. Third, with
proxies along Saudi Arabia's northern border in Iraq and Shia along the western
coast of the Persian Gulf, Iran
could force shifts in the financial distribution of revenues from oil. Faced with regime preservation, Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf states would have to be flexible on Iranian demands, to say the
least. Diverting that money to Iran would strengthen it greatly.
Iran has applied its strategy under regimes of various ideologies.
The shah, whom many considered psychologically unstable and megalomaniacal,
pursued this strategy with restraint and care. The current regime, also
considered ideologically and psychologically unstable, has been equally
restrained in its actions. Rhetoric and ideology can mislead, and usually are
intended to do just that.
This long-term strategy, pursued since the 16th century after Persia
became Islamic, now sees a window of opportunity opening, engineered in some
measure by Iran itself. Tehran's goal is to extend the American paralysis while
it exploits the opportunities that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has created.
Simultaneously, it wants to create a coherent sphere of influence that the
United States will have to accommodate itself to in order to satisfy the demand
of its coalition for a stable supply of oil and limited conflict in the region.
Iran is pursuing a two-pronged strategy toward this end. The first
is to avoid any sudden moves, to allow processes to run their course. The
second is to create a diversion through
its nuclear program, causing the United States to replicate its North Korea
policy in Iran. If its program causes an
Israeli airstrike, Iran can turn that to its advantage as well. The Iranians
understand that having nuclear weapons is dangerous but that having a weapons
program is advantageous. But the key is not the nuclear program. That is
merely a tool to divert attention from what is actually happening -- a shift in
the balance of power in the Middle East.
BACKLASH
By Harvey Sage
He was the most hated man in America. Bobby T’s
face was plastered by the media on the Internet, TV, newspapers, and magazines.
Who hadn’t seen his face. He was a wanted man with a bounty on his head. Bobby
was not a typical man to be hated. But on a rainy night he killed a teen age
boy, and unarmed boy, a black boy. Within a few days there were marches and
demonstrations from coast to coast. The killing of Devon Walker stirred up more
of a hornet’s nest than when Trayvon Martin had been shot a year earlier, and
the resounding buzz concentrated its venom on Bobby T. He sat across from
Officer Lance who asked him, “how did this happen?” Bobby squirmed from the
tightness of the handcuffs and answered.
“As a boy I loved cowboy movies and war movies.
I was weaned on gun smoke. Dad took me hunting and to the target range. I
became a good shot and loved hand guns. I joined the NRA and bought my first
S&W revolver when I was 18.”
Lance listened intently as Bobby continued.
“Let’s face it. We live in a violent society. People are always getting
murdered. The news blasts us constantly with stories of death and destruction,
especially when blacks are involved. I became paranoid. I saw a black kid
approaching me at night on an empty street and I figured him to be up to no
good.
“In this state I had no problem buying a
concealed weapon, a double tap 9mm derringer. What a beautiful gun. A Heizer. Holds two shots in chamber and two in the
grip. Fits in the palm of your hand. I bought the titanium model. Cost me five
hundred bucks.”
The Heizer Double Tap
The Heizer Double Tap
The officer seemed unduly interested. “Is this
the gun you used to kill Devon with?”
Bobby T looked at the proffered weapon and
smiled. “That’s my baby.”
“And you have a permit to carry it as a
concealed weapon.”
“My license to kill.” Bobby smiled.
“Sense of empowerment. Right?”
“Better believe it. Do you think I’d have
confronted that black bastard if I didn’t have my baby and my license to kill?”
Officer Lance leaned forward to whisper. “Have
you ever thought of joining the KKK?
Bobby T smiled. So this was what it was all
about. The separate area for interrogation. The absence of cameras and other
officers. Was he being recruited? Lance told him “You fit the description of a
white knight. You are willing to kill. We need you Bobby.”
Bobby T felt proud. He would be part of the
invisible empire, armed and ready to defend America from the infestation of
black bucks. Lance continued, "We’ll have a special lawyer for you. You’ll
plead justifiable manslaughter, citing the Castle Law which says that you
don’t have to retreat when you feel threatened. You saw a man approaching you
on a deserted street He was black. Blacks are criminals who mug whites. You’ll
be declared innocent by the state’s attorney and our own judge.”
Bobby was beside himself. He never realized the
KKK had infiltrated law enforcement. They certainly didn’t publicize it. But
from the way they acted, it made sense. No wonder they hadn’t arrested him.
A month later Bobby T was a free man who never
even had to go to trial because of the Castle law. He joined some of his new
KKK friends for a celebration at a local bar. Afterwards he walked toward his
home, a happy and content (and slightly tipsy) man who’d gotten away with
murder. The KKK were now his brothers and he was to be officially initiated.
Up ahead Bobby saw a figure loitering in the
shadows. He placed his hand on his gun. Was the guy black? How lucky could he
be. He’d be a hero if he bagged another one.
As he got closer he saw the young man had light skin. Bobby felt a tinge
of disappointment. No points for shooting white people. He smiled at the man
and said “Evening, brother.”
He’d taken his hand away from his gun and was
perplexed when the man produced a small revolver and spoke. “Don’t give me none
of your ‘brother’ crap. Back off or I’ll take your life.”
Bobby told him “Wait a minute here. We’re
brothers, fellow white folks. We got to stick together. Don’t you recognize me?
I’m Bobby T. I killed a black man and now the KKK wants me to join.”
The young man peered at him. “Yeah. I recognize
you, you stupid dude. You used that Castle Law to beat the murder.”
“Right,” Bobby smiled. “It gives us white folks
a legal right to shoot coons.”
Raising the gun the young man spat “Too bad for
you. I’ve got a lot of black friends.”
Bobby was found with a surprised expression on
his face. The shooter was never brought to trial. Citing the Castle Law he
claimed he’d felt threatened by this gun toting killer on a lonely and dark
street.
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears. If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by contacting me at Riart1@aol.com.
Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.
Our family of web sites includes: www.computerdrek.com - www.politicaldrek.com - www.sportsdrek.com - www.healthdrek.com.
Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.
Additional new material will continue to be posted on www.politicaldrek.com until the Presidential election. New material will resume being added to the other three “drek” sites after November of 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment