U.S., Russia, and Iran

[dcmdale]

A few days ago, I was listening to NPR on the way home from work. An analyst was being interviewed regarding Putin’s visit to Iran. The analyst made three points that I thought interesting: (none of these are direct quotes)

1. Putin believes that the United States is in freefall as a superpower and will not remain a factor.
2. Putin believes that Russia is regaining its status as a superpower.
3. Putin believes, based on #1 and #2, that by delaying consideration of sanctions, the U.S. will become a non-player in Iranian nuclear discussions.

I find this interesting on a number of levels.

I tend to agree with the first premise, but I doubt most Americans do. (Agree/disagree?) However, my immediate concerns about the United States are more founded on economics, rather than its ability to project a military force. I see the “credit crisis” as being the tip of a much larger iceberg. However, even if we are in significant trouble economically, the fall of a superpower is not necessarily uniform over all of its capabilities. To f.netters outside the U.S., is there a perception that the U.S. is a dying superpower? (Yes, I know that the credibility of the U.S. is in the toilet—that’s different).

The idea that Russia will rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of the U.S.S.R. as the next great superpower strikes me as a bit delusional, but I would like to hear other thoughts.

The third point strikes me as dangerous. Assuming arguendo that the U.S. is a dying superpower, I think that it becomes both more unpredictable and more dangerous. If diplomatic avenues are being blocked (non-facilitated) by Russia, is it more or less likely that the United States will act unilaterally? The world may be able to wait out the remainder of Bush’s presidency, but I think that they are foolish to assume that whichever idiot follows him will be able to ignore Iran. And if the U.S. feels that the clock is ticking on both Iran getting the bomb and the U.S. being capable of military action, that would seem to increase the danger that the U.S. will feel forced to act.

As to the first point, while I agree, I don’t see that we have progressed to the point of inevitability yet. Nor do I want to predict how the United States will respond if Americans start seeing the U.S. falling. America has always been uncomfortable with the problem of being both the biggest bully on the block and its self-image of wearing the white hat. One way out might be that it embraces its inner-bulliness.

Thoughts?

[Inquartata]

We may well be in decline. But if anyone supplants us as global hegemonic state it is much more likely to be China or India than Russia. Russia's resurgence derives from one thing and one thing only: it's possession of large quantities of oil and gas at a time when demand for them is strong. In other words, it's not unlike Iran itself. Take away that lever and it's ( iron ) curtains for it as a superpower.

Now, the dimension of time is also important. If the US is in decline, it may take who knows how long for the process to work itself out. Meanwhile, other things will also be changing...like world dependence on fossil fuels, for instance.

[chefencer]

Cheney: 'We will not allow Iran' to have nukes

Iran says it can fire 11,000 rockets in a minute

Iran's top nuclear negotiator resigns

Inq, I don't know how you sabre people can stand all that rattling...it's getting on my nerves.

[Gav]

We may well be in decline. But if anyone supplants us as global hegemonic state it is much more likely to be China or India than Russia. Russia's resurgence derives from one thing and one thing only: it's possession of large quantities of oil and gas at a time when demand for them is strong. In other words, it's not unlike Iran itself. Take away that lever and it's ( iron ) curtains for it as a superpower.

Now, the dimension of time is also important. If the US is in decline, it may take who knows how long for the process to work itself out. Meanwhile, other things will also be changing...like world dependence on fossil fuels, for instance.

Not that I disagree with your underlying assertion Inq' but I feel the need to pick you up on your actual reasoning.

Until such time as dependency on oil is demonstrably on the wane it's influence on policy will remain strong (yes; rather like crack addiction). To dismiss oil [Russia's reserves and everyone else's dependency] is a red herring.

A far better reason why Russia unlikely to become a global hegemonic state is it's own instability. It will collapse before it takes over the world.

As for the US being in decline... Only historians will only be able to tell.

I also think that you guys in the US are a bit far "from the action". I have russian friends who assert that Putin is far more clever and reasonable than we might suppose. Apparently we don't understand Russian culture* and that's apparently a big flaw with a lot of the analysis.

* That's what the russians tell me anyway.

[Inquartata]

Well, note that Iran, another unstable state with little to offer the world other than oil, has changed governments, but not collapsed. Saudi Arabia has not done, either. Etc.

But my point was that it may take a long time for even a waning hegemon to fail far enough that it may be supplanted. How long did it take Rome? The British Empire? If we accept the peak-oil thesis, it may not take 50 years before the world is forced to move away from petroleum dependency.

As for being "far from the action", we are also perhaps far enough away from the trees to see the forest.

Chefencer: These days my initial reaction to any announcement by Iran is to remember that it also announced that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

[Gav]

Well, note that Iran, another unstable state with little to offer the world other than oil, has changed governments, but not collapsed. Saudi Arabia has not done, either. Etc.

Iran is NOT Russia. I wish you could understand that.

But my point was that it may take a long time for even a waning hegemon to fail far enough that it may be supplanted. How long did it take Rome? The British Empire? If we accept the peak-oil thesis, it may not take 50 years before the world is forced to move away from petroleum dependency.

I terms of time we agree. I noted that only historians will ever be able to tell if we are seeing the decline of the US.

What happened with Rome is that it's influence waned and it became something else. In fact "Rome" went through many changes in its life and it remained an exceedingly important place through most of them. You may find that the US becomes something else yet remains important (in whatever manner that means).
However I think it's somewhat optimistic to assume that as oil production has peaked (and it seems it has) suddenly oil will not be in demand... I don't know why you think that might be the case.

For the good of us all I hope we move onto something better soon or "Iraq" will be but a minor skirmish in what is to come. As it's written: we are alive in "interesting times".

[dcmdale]

I also think that you guys in the US are a bit far "from the action". I have russian friends who assert that Putin is far more clever and reasonable than we might suppose. Apparently we don't understand Russian culture* and that's apparently a big flaw with a lot of the analysis.

This gets to one of my big concerns. I get the impression that the Russians think that they are giving a message to the Americans (first privately, now publicly since they are getting anywhere in diplomatic channels) that they think is very clear and direct. I don't think that Americans, including the analyst that I originally paraphrased and certainly including myself, are understanding clearly. I think that the Americans are saying something that they think is very clear and direct. I am not sure that the Russians are understanding our message either. That is dangerous.

Part of what I think that I am hearing is that the Russians assume that if there is a military strike, it will be to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability and they are saying that such an activity will be a failure. I think that the Americans are saying that we aren't going to waste our time on a such a limited attack: if we are force to go into Iran, it will be a naked projection of American military capability with the intent of eliminating Iran as a destabilizing factor to world peace. It will be to say that we are not going to accept the development of regional superpowers contrary to us. It will be to say that we are not going to go back to cold war politics. As far as this administration goes, I think that it says, "If multinationalism can't deal with something as blatant as a country like Iran may be getting the nuke, then multinationalism is an abject failure and the rule will be 'Pax Americana--like it or lump it!'" I am not saying that I agree, but that is what I think Washington is saying. I'm not sure that is what Moscow is hearing.

But my point was that it may take a long time for even a waning hegemon to fail far enough that it may be supplanted. How long did it take Rome? The British Empire?

I terms of time we agree. I noted that only historians will ever be able to tell if we are seeing the decline of the US.

Agreed. The U.S. may very well be on its way out, but we won't know it for sure until after the fact. Building a foreign policy on the potential collapse of your adversary doesn't sound smart. Frankly, building a foreign policy that assumes either that the Bush administration will act rationally or that the Bush administration is incapable of significant military action isn't smart either.

[dcmdale]

It would be easy to see how some Pentagon analysts would be of the opinion that any road out of Afghanistan and Iraq will go through Iran:

• Iran is seen by the United States as a destabilizing force in Afghanistan/Iraq. If part of the American goal is to leave behind some form of a functioning government (and I think that it will be--for any president), Iran's presence and influence frustrates the attempt to leave.
• Establishing a new government in Iran has at least some factors that might make it easier than Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was already a failed state. Eliminating the Saddam and his government in Iraq removed just about anyone with any governmental experience or claim of legitimacy. With Iran, there can be a claim of restoring the Peacock throne, which will resonate with at least some Persians as a restoration of the lawful government. The Crown Prince, at least outwardly, would seem to be the kind of person that the U.S. would like to restore. He is a USC graduate in political science who seems to be a political realist, favors a secularized Islamic state, has been trained as a fighter pilot by the U.S. military, etc. He is young enough to tackle the job of forming a government.
• Likely strings that would be attached to restoring the Crown Prince would almost certainly include provision for long term military bases to allow U.S. troops to move out of Iraq/Afghanistan as those areas stabilize (reducing U.S. deaths) while assuring the U.S. the ability to intervene at will.

[Have At You]

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._exit_strategy

[Gav]

if we are force to go into Iran, it will be a naked projection of American military capability with the intent of eliminating Iran as a destabilizing factor to world peace

There is a lot of irony in this sentence. It oozes out everywhere. Re-read your paragraph.

[dcmdale]

There is a lot of irony in this sentence. It oozes out everywhere. Re-read your paragraph.

Well, I did write it the way that I did so that the irony would be obvious. <smile>

[Gav]

Well, I did write it the way that I did so that the irony would be obvious. <smile>

Well that's alright then!

[dcmdale]

As you know, however, irony, and often even logic, often doesn't matter in international train wrecks.

What is the opinion of your Russian friends? If Bush is (publicly) screaming a Putin that he is pushing the United States into a position where preemptive action by the U.S. might be "needed," it is because:

1. As the analyst in the original post says, because he thinks that Bush/the U.S. is too weak to actually do it, or,

2. Because Putin is smart and his real intent is to get the U.S. to take out a potentially bothersome neighbor without Russia being implicated?

3. ????

[Slim]

If we were to strike a military installation, it would not be a failure in the sence that we are capable of hitting a target; but the failure might come later with retaliation. We would have to consider nuclear fallout and how it would travel globally - following the jet-stream and

Maybe a nuclear winter would offset global warming.

[Miglin]

I think that over the last 7 years (can you guess why?), our nation has practically sabotaged itself politically and economically. We are, barring massive and immediate policy changes, on our way out of being the superpower we once were.

Go to Europe and see first-hand what the rest of the world thinks of America these days, it will definitely open your eyes.

[Slim]

I think that over the last 7 years (can you guess why?), our nation has practically sabotaged itself politically and economically. We are, barring massive and immediate policy changes, on our way out of being the superpower we once were.

Go to Europe and see first-hand what the rest of the world thinks of America these days, it will definitely open your eyes.

You obviously were not around during the Carter administration.

[Teme]

[*]Putin believes that Russia is regaining its status as a superpower.

Global or local superpower?
The thing with Russia is that it wants a 'secure' neighborhood (pretty much like any country does). That means governments with, if not cordial, at least friendly stance towards Moscow. Can you name one neighbor of Russia that hasn't been flirting with, or turned into, a 'pro-Western' (as in 'anti-Russia') -- usually with strong support (political and/or material) from Washington? Thought so...

So, if we understand 'superpower' as having a sphere of influence around it, then surely Putin is aiming at Russia returning to a superpower. But if we for some reason understand it as global superpower, I believe he knows it's way, way beyond Russia's reach (or anybody's, for that matter). It matters only to the extent that pushing Russia's influence further away, say into Iran, Russia can force USA out of Russia's close proximity. Other than that, I'd say they just like to be heard in matters considering global developments, and their opinions taken into consideration in matters within their sphere, and definitely have influence in security (from their point of view) of their neighborhood.

[Inquartata]

Iran is NOT Russia. I wish you could understand that.

Well, these days even Russia isn't Russia.

Seriously, though, all analogies can be dismissed with this sort of ease, because with all pairs of unlike things one can focus on the differences and object that they are more important than the similarities. Really, you seem to be recommending that we stop using analogies. I doubt that it's in the cards. The technique is too useful.

I noted that only historians will ever be able to tell if we are seeing the decline of the US.

Well, they are the only ones who will be able to prove that they were right. Anyone can predict it, and they MIGHT be right. We just can't confirm it yet.

The big money is to be made by the latter, though...assuming they are in fact right.

What happened with Rome is that it's influence waned and it became something else.

Indeed. Actually, it waxed and waned and waxed and waned ( etc. ) and THEN changed into something else ( several times, eg Republic to Empire to Byzantium ). I agree with your point, though, and with the outcome you posit for the US. After all, in more recent history the British Empire did the same. It yielded the position of global hegemon, but scarcely became irrelevant...and the City seems now to have surpassed New York as international financial capital, so maybe it's even waxing again...

However I think it's somewhat optimistic to assume that as oil production has peaked (and it seems it has) suddenly oil will not be in demand... I don't know why you think that might be the case.

Oh, it'll still be in demand. It just won't be the 800 pound gorilla in the room any more. ( It won't be the gibbon, either. )

What drives the current world distribution of power with respect to oil is its primacy as energy source. At some point it will become too expensive to be so used any more, and at that point it'll become more of a boutique commodity, like, I don't know, tungsten or diamonds. Tungsten and diamond producing nations don't wield disproportionate influence in world affairs and commerce, and one day oil producers will not, either...

[Lemonaide]

I wonder if there isn't oil in Russia? Can we make deal?

[dcmdale]

There is a lot of irony in this sentence. It oozes out everywhere. Re-read your paragraph.

Of course, the real irony is that much of the support for attacking Iran comes from the God-is-an-American, hyper-patriotic, pseudo-fundamentalist groups who, in part, freak at the notion of anything that sounds like it is moving us into the "end times." The irony is that if the plan they advocate was successful and the following occurred:

1. The U.S. unilaterally attacks Iran while occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.
2. The attack is successful at regime change leading to an American occupation of Iran as well.
3. The net impact on central Asia is that those governments don't want to cross the U.S.
4. Europe responded with stronger unity.

If this plan were to succeed (reasonable opinions may vary on the likelihood), they actually would have accomplished a fulfillment scenario of Daniel 7-8 -- with the U.S. in the role of the "Little Horn," the prophetic "worst nation ever."