The answer is, as far as I can think of, is nothing, and there is pretty much everything to lose.
This is why I reacted to the report that Iranian boats had “provoked” US ships in the Strait of Hormuz with a “WTF????”. Let’s look at a few things here, just to make heads or tails of things.
- Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003, and there is no evidence that they are much closer to developing a weapon anytime soon.
- Ayatollah Khamenei recently indicated that he would be willing to restore diplomatic relations with the US in the future.
- There were recent reports that Iran was cooperating with the US in Iraq with respect to the decrease in violence.
- Iran has recently divested from the US dollar – a move that is more threatening to the US than many of the items that we have been hearing for years.
- To further keep its independence from the US (and strengthen its own position in the global economy), Iran has recently made deals with China on oil, has been cozy with Russia for a number of years and has been making trade deals with Nicaragua – not to mention potential deals with Venezuela as well.
So what is the common thread here? Well, pretty much all of these are a threat to US economic interests, not to mention partially avoidable had this administration acted differently back in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Additionally, all of this has happened despite (or as a response by the global community) the saber rattling that Mister Bush, Dick Cheney and the other neocons have been doing for the past few years.
The US economy is getting rapidly worse – pretty much by any metric. The Iraq occupation is an unmitigated disaster, with the only “success” being a decrease in violence to an already unacceptable level, while there is no political success in any way, shape or form. Afghanistan is getting worse, as is the situation in Pakistan. The Taliban and al Qaeda are stronger than ever (but being Sunni, there is really no reason for the Shiite Iran to cooperate with them to begin with).
In short, the US foreign and domestic policies are miserable and with miserable but predictable results. Another parallel is the fact that this is election season, and with republicans getting slammed left and right by an apathetic (at best) population, it is about time for the “tried and true” fear card to be played yet again.
And if this is “provoking”, as Mister Bush (or an unnamed and anonymous official says it is), then what about this action from May 2007 when the US sent nine warships through the Strait, along with 17,000 Marines and sailors in what was called a ”show of military force”? How is that NOT a threat or “provoking” Iran?
This makes absolutely no sense for Iran to take action. But with the other actions taken by Iran over the past few years that threatens US economic “might” and our ability to pull the strings in the global economy – but even if these actions were designed to strengthen Iran’s position or to weaken the US’s position – it is not a threat that required lies about weapons parts, nuclear weapons programs or whatever else has been conjured up about Iran being a direct and immediate threat (or growing and gathering threat as Iraq became) to the US.
As with the convenient bin Laden tapes that always surface at opportune times, we should be very mindful of the timing here, as well as what else is going on that is damning or damaging to the republicans or the Bush administration. Could it also be that by sending 9 ships and 17,000 servicemen and women to the Strait back in May that could be construed as a “provocative act” or that the Bush administration was threatening Iran then? And couldn’t the continued presence of US military ships in the Strait, along with the tough words, lies and threats coming out of Washington at least every week be construed as “provocative” or “threatening”?
Now, I am not the only one, surely, that has figured out what looks like the obvious here. The editors at Foreign Policy had this to say::
There’s no story yet, but I think it’s a safe bet that hardliners in the Guard are seeking to create an incident on the eve of U.S. President George W. Bush’s visit to the region. Why would they do that? Well, it makes for good distraction from their sinking popularity ahead of March’s legislative elections. It forestalls the admittedly dim prospects of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. It complicates Bush’s efforts to buck up the United States’ Arab allies (though depending on how they react to this news, it may simplify his mission). And as an added bonus, it’ll probably send oil prices upwards for a short while. We can’t exclude the possibility that some Guard higher-ups are speculating in the oil markets and turning a tidy profit from these sorts of incidents.
So, back to my original question – what does Iran really have to gain by doing something like this? And what does Iran have to lose by doing something like this? On the flip side, who does gain from a report such as this?
It seems pretty obvious here, and the timing is doubly suspicious in light of Bush’s visit to the Middle East, his approval ratings, the rise of Obama and the general apathy and implosion of republicans in general.
So, back to my original question – what does Iran really have to gain by doing something like this? And what does Iran have to lose by doing something like this? On the flip side, who does gain from a report such as this?
Hi, clammy!
Check my current entry and you’ll see why a diversion is needed.
The Israelis now agree with the NIE.
saw it over at ePluribus and it is a good post. I agree wholeheartedly, and it is shameful of the shameless media to go along with this like lapdogs.
I was getting a cup of tea earlier and this story was on CNN at the time. There were 3 or 4 others in the room and I said “this makes no sense for Iran to do” (and all people turned their heads at me)…..
It’s important to remember that Iran is not a passive entity in the great American drama. The Iranians have objectives of their own, as do the great powers behind them (China and Russia). It’s true that Iran is not capable of winning a sustained war effort against the United States, but the United States is not presently capable of such an effort.
It’s also worth remembering that Iran’s arsenal of Russian-made Moskit and Chinese-made C-802 anti-ship missiles are probably capable of doing severe, possibly crippling, damage to the American warships in the Persian Gulf. And the Iranians were, until the NIE, living under the imminent threat of American attack. If you were an Iranian general, you would be remiss not to at least consider launching a pre-emptive attack against the US Navy, rather than risk the neutralization of your ASM assets in the event of a pre-emptive attack by the Americans. Those missiles, after all, are specifically for us — no one else with a navy has any inclination to attack Iran.
Certainly, Russia and China would be the major beneficiaries of an Iran-American war and the subsequent decline of American power in the region. Don’t forget that Vladimir Putin, who is busy trying to finalize his plunder of Russian state finances, could use a distraction as much or more than Bush, and China, which lacks Russia’s oil reserves, knows that it must sooner or later come to blows (military or otherwise) with the US over the apportionment of middle eastern oil. And, of course, Israel wants war between Iran and America so they don’t have to launch one of their own. The Sunni powers in the region are probably not entirely opposed to seeing the US blunt the power of Shia Iran.
The only thing still missing is a firm resolve in Tehran to initiate a war. Jerusalem, Washington, Moscow, and Beijing are, to one degree or another, looking forward to it.
When the peace rests on the sanity of the mullahs, we are in a world of shit.
this is a great comment, and your last line is very telling as well….
‘When the peace rests on the sanity of the mullahs, we are in a world of shit.’
What an odd assessment of all this.
When the peace rests on the sanity of the Bush bunch, we are in a world of shit.
Remember the Maine!
Well, their actions do keep the price of oil higher based on Middle East Tensions. And that helps W’s oil buddies, no. You think if W cared about the American Consumer all these incidents would be kept quiet so we do pay more for a barrel of oil.
The always astute http://www.juancole.com/ has a good assessment:
When I saw the articles, I just about laughed for the same reasons you pointed out. It makes no sense that Iran would provoke the US because they have nothing to back it up. I read the articles and laughed. For my cynical mind, the article was planted, just like the articles in fall ’01 about Saddam, as a trailmarker. So that in summer or fall, Bush can say, “Remember how Iran threatened our ship in January?”. It’s all part of the buildup. Build up to what is the question.