Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Reality Principle

He doesn't quite formulate it this way, but it's reasonable to conclude from Gawdat Bahgat's article in the latest issue of Parameters that the price of stability in the Persian Gulf and Middle East is an acceptance of Iran's recent strategic gains and enhanced influence in the region.

Now, this makes a lot of sense to me as a policy prescription, but also as an insight into why the Bush administration Iran hawks are so deadset against diplomatic engagement. Because the last thing they want is to concede the shift in strategic advantage that has taken place in the region over the last four years. What's odd about that, though, is that Iran's recent strategic gains and it's enhanced regional influence are both very real. Refusing to concede them is simply a state of denial.

What's also obvious to anyone who's been paying attention is that brandishing the military option, far from being a sign of American strength, is a testament to the weakness of our current position. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranians came to us with offers on the table because they feared the combined threat of American military capability backed by the legitimacy of global support. If they are playing hardball now, it's because they've accurately assessed that their relative position has been greatly strengthened, and ours weakened, by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and southern Lebanon.

The refusal to accept that the regional balance of power has shifted is not surprising, given the logic that underlies the neocon vision: America should defend its global hegemony by preventing its geopolitical rivals from developing into threats. It's an inherently comforting vision, suitable for a static world where we do in fact control all the outcomes. Accepting reality, though, works better for the world we actually live in.

Reality now demands that we choose between another five years of high-intensity warfare followed by twenty to forty years of massive garrisons in the region -- with no real guarantee that we'll achieve our goals and a certainty that even if we do, China will have taken full advantage of our folly to leapfrog us as global superpower -- or else reaching an accomodation with Iran.

That accomodation doesn't necessarily have to be a friendly one. It might even be based on the US serving as guarantor -- in the form of offshore, sub-launched nuclear warheads -- of a regional "mutually assured destruction" deterrant. But it's our best option for preserving our longterm strategic interests both in the region and the world.

Posted by Judah in:  Iran   

Comments (0)

e-mail  |  del.icio.us  |  digg