POWER VERSUS POWER
Like it or not, that is the world of geopolitics. Actually it is the world of domestic politics as well. And for sure, because “war is politics by other means” military power comes into play WELL BEFORE WARS EVER START. If you disagree with that view, then read no further because you sure won’t agree with anything else I write herein.
“Gentle persuasion” is in itself Power, the power of gentle persuasion, the power of pointing out right and wrong, gains and losses, or other “gentle” discussions of going one way or the other. Parents, good parents, do so all the time and so do countries in their diplomatic outreach to other nations. Many problems around the world are solved, geopolitically, in such a manner, but of course such never makes the headlines or even the “back page” of news or TV. It is simply routine, and thus boring, diplomacy.
But sometimes gentle persuasion, showing understanding and respect, as in a parenting (or diplomatic) situation is not enough. Diplomatically “discussions” move to “frank discussions” and the temperature in the rooms around governments involved goes a few degrees higher.
Once at that point when disputes are involved, a more aggressive form of power comes into play. Everyone at the table, parents or diplomats understand already how “big” the other party might be in terms of power available, at least on a macroscopic level. If the United States becomes involved with say Yemen, everyone there knows who the “big guy” is. But how much power the “big guy” will exert becomes the big question. And the game moves upward to test those limits.
How important is the issue, how far will one side go before giving up a few options, what is the bottom line for each side, that is when no further options be given up all become important questions. Diplomats and good parents know quite well how to read those signs from another country or a stubborn/angry child.
But of course sometimes frank discussions fail to resolve the issue. Particularly in geopolitics both sides simply leave the table and await further developments. That usually does not happen between parents and kids however. In such a case the matter is brought to a head and parents lay down sanctions. OK, fine you are grounded. End of discussion and the POWER of that sanction determines the outcome in the parenting dispute.
Not so geopolitically, most of the time. In fact I have never heard of one country telling another that they are grounded. I don’t think that is in the diplomatic dictionary. But sanctions sure are in that dictionary and sometimes they are used, usually gradually applied in hopes both sides can return to “frank discussions” a step back from more intense confrontation.
Consider all the “frank discussions” going on in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But when they became of no use to the United States, JFK slammed down a big sanction called a naval blockade. And it worked. Time was of the essence and he did not “fool around” with milder forms of sanctions, like we won’t send Cuba any gasoline or whatever. Nope, he leapt into the breech so to speak and there we were on the brink of war.
Consider the Soviet position in the approach to our imposition of a naval blockade. EVERYONE in the build up KNEW we had the naval power to do so, impose a blockade on Cuba. As well EVERYONE knew the Soviet Navy could not overcome that blockade. The only question at the time is would the U.S. USE that power.
AFTER we applied that power the only question remaining is how far would the Soviets choose to go to make us back off. Many options were open to them, particularly in Europe where THEIR land power dwarfed NATO land power at the time. But they chose not to escalate further and the crisis was resolved. POWER versus POWER and in that case we “won”. But for sure it was scary and not a time to “blink”.
Well folks that is exactly where we are today vis a vive Iran. We are at the point of POWER versus POWER and right now we are applying more POWER, economically. For several decades we have tried the diplomatic approach and failed time and again to achieve a level of even “frank discussions”, much less gentle persuasion.
Thus some years ago we, along with our allies and even the UN got out a noose and put it around the neck of Iran. It was first a very loose noose and no one became too worried about harming anyone. But over the years, in a bipartisan manner we have tightened the noose around the neck of Iran and it is really starting to hurt and cause real harm, economically to Iran.
Now why did we choose to “get out a noose” years ago in the first place. The first reason as I recall was over the Iranian “exporting of terrorism” into other Middle Eastern countries. And of course they are still doing so, even more so today. Look at Bahrain, Yemen and now Syria today while recalling what still goes on in Lebanon today and many yesterdays ago. In fact many observers believe that is the BIGGEST STICK that Iran has in its bag of POWER, applying covert, terrorist type pressure on other countries.
In a sense that is the Iranian noose around the western neck, so to speak and they are doing all they can to tighten that one. Again, POWER versus POWER. And of course we have escalated our use of POWER, though most used to refer to it as “peaceful power”, because we and our allies do not want Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons. For years we have said we would do so, use economic sanctions, and now we are doing it so it really hurts.
For sure there is very little power, economically, that Iran can apply to the western powers. As well they are fairly isolated diplomatically with only Russia and China standing somewhere behind them. But NO ONE is sure how far behind or close those two might be standing today. Potential power versus actual power might be that situation.
So here we are today in our POWER (economic, military, diplomatic) versus their POWER (terrorism and military). And our noose is much tighter than theirs at this point. So what next we all ask and wonder?
Well in the extreme case, Iran could “go nuts” and try to apply its own military power to break the stalemate in escalation. Their threatened next step, clearly stated is to close the Straits of Hormuz. That is an attempt to use MILITARY power to apply economic disaster to the west (No more oil from the Persian Gulf).
In a sense such a crazy military move would be akin to the Soviet Union trying to impose a naval blockade on the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet navy could never make such military be effective however. As well, Iran on its own can no more close the Straits of Hormuz and KEEP them closed for more than a week or so IF WE choose to respond with our current naval and airpower alone (no land power needed). Iran knows that and we know that.
So what next, again?
Right now President Obama has called their bluff regarding the threatened closure of the Straits. Right after they issued the threat he sent an aircraft carrier and one cruiser right past their noses in those Straits as a “show of force”. Obama did not in any way blink when Iran made their threats of closure.
And now every arm chair diplomat, economist or military tactician is wringing their hands over “what next”. Obama has also for now at least NOT backed off on the current tightness of his noose. Sanctions are proceeding as planned so far. But many are now questioning that approach, keeping the noose tight.
Well guess what, folks, IF we now loosen our noose, even a little, that is a big BLINK in a POWER versus POWER situation. Blink now, by loosening current or proposed sanctions and we go right back to where we began this latest confrontation, lesser power versus lesser power, but still with HUGE Power available, later on to Iran. That new and later power is of course NUCLEAR power, something no Middle Eastern country (except Israel) has ever achieved and we are trying to prevent.
Iran has nowhere near the power to pull a “Hitler” (invade Poland). At least before even attempting such an armed excursion outside of its territorial limits (even Iraq), Iran would have to pull another “Hitler” and sign a treaty with Russia or China to bring them (at least one of them) to stand by their side, not behind them. I don’t think that will happen, do you, an alliance of sorts, including military power, with Russia and/or China, and Iran. Not for a long while in my view.
Now remember all you folks calling for “peaceful” means to urge Iran to come into the fold of the international community and not try to gain nuclear weapons. We have been using such “peaceful” means for a long while now. And THIS President, not President Bush, has gone further in a “peaceful” attempt, but still a tighter “peaceful choke hold”, to achieve western objectives.
The loudest cry against such longer term U.S. application of power (NOT REAL POWER), is from a GOP Presidential candidate saying our efforts to prevent Iran from going “nuclear” make no sense and we should just stop trying and let Iran do as Iran sees fit in terms of having nuclear weapons.
Some people, maybe a lot, agree with that complete change in U.S. efforts over several decades to “contain” Iran. But I don’t think any next President will heed such advice.
To me it seems we have three choices at the moment. We could loosen the noose” on proposed sanctions and return to the status quo before this last round of sanctions was negotiated. In other words, “blink”.
We could just keep the tightness of the noose as now agreed upon by our allies and let Iran make the next move.
Or we could escalate even more by tightening the noose even further, in many different ways, some suggested by Gingrich in particular. No, he is NOT saying go to war now with Iran or “bomb” Iran’s nuclear facilities. If you listen carefully you will hear him call for more “peaceful” but “covert” things like flooding Iran with cell phones. My, my. Would Iran go to war if we gave all the citizens of Iran an Iphone to communicate with the outside world? Generate a little “Arab Spring” like POWER on the Iranian government.
How about providing some satellite “power” into Iran to allow greater worldwide internet access? Is such possible? I don’t know but it sure sounds like an idea to consider.
And then of course there is the real covert activity of which we are quite capable. Someone is doing it right now in Iran by killing nuclear scientists. I seriously doubt we are behind such at the moment but who knows of sure. Is it an option, you bet it is? Did not Iran just try a similar but unsuccessful attempt in DC not long ago except the target was a Saudi, a country that will do all it can to eliminate Iran as a power broker in the Middle East.
So a Saudi, Israeli, maybe even Iraqi motorcycle rider attaching bombs to passing cars today? Who knows but should we be raising Cain over such actions, today? I think we should sit quietly and watch what happens next. My point of course is we can play the covert power game just as well or better than Iran if they choose to fight in such a manner. And un-American as it sounds, we can say, “WHO US?” when Iran accuses us of such deeds.
Remember it is POWER versus POWER and both sides can do so.
So there, in my view, is where we are today and the various and many options available to us for the future. Now why do we have such options? Well simply stated, is we have developed and sustained the POWER, diplomatically, economically and militarily to still prevail when challenged. Right now all it takes is the vision and will power to achieve our goals.
I would also suggest that President Obama has a wealth of power, of all sorts, today, because BUSH (and others) gave it to him on Jan 20, 2009. Thank you President Bush, and others for providing us the power today. Hopefully we will not diminish it in the near term so the next President no longer has all the options currently held by President Obama.
But let Obama does as now he seems to be proposing a la cuts in the military, well good by Straits of Hormuz at least in about 10 years if his views prevail. Sure hope we are no longer dependent on Persian Gulf oil at that time!!
We are seeing a real geopolitical power struggle encompassing far more that Iran and the United States. Much of the world’s current supply of oil is at stake. The balance of power between Sunni Arabs and Persian Shias is also at stake. How the Arab Spring turns out is at stake. And relations between the United States, Russia and China are at stake. It is geopolitics on a grand scale, perhaps not seen since the lead up to WWI and WWII.
And in particular, like before WWI, there are “trip wires” all over the place. Tensions are now high enough that a simple error or act could cause escalation to the actual point of war, a relatively small and quick war at sea in and around the Straits or Hormuz, or something much larger.
Oh, that is too dangerous many in America now say. And such geopolitics is not the way America wants to conduct foreign affairs as well. Well folks the Cold War was an even grander scale of global geopolitics and we won that one.
And please don’t forget why we chose, in a bipartisan way, to proceed down this road with Iran. First stop their export of terrorism, which we have not done, and now stop their acquisition of nuclear weapons. If we decide to now back off in our pursuit of such objectives, consider the consequences ten years from now. Iran will still be exporting terrorism on an increasing scale AND they will have nuclear weapons to hold us at bay.
Consider what Saudi Arabia might do with such a change in the balance of power in the Mideast if the above were to occur.
Equally as well, in ten years if President Obama has his way with defense cuts, we will not have the naval power to keep the Straits of Hormuz open in any case.
At that point the POWER versus POWER calculations become almost upside down from today it seems to me. Bottom line is the country must listen very carefully, to Ron Paul and his way, the President’s current path, or changes to the current path one way or the other for a GOP President.
Simple domestic politics should NOT be the deciding factor in such a complex problem and one should NOT take one minute sound bites as facts to make a decision. It is too complex for such trivial discussion to dominate American decisions at a critical point in time, geopolitically.
For me, I take the view, for now, that we keep the noose at its current level of “choking”. As well we should continue to “show the flag (or SEA POWER) that have and must maintain in the region. Then sit back and let Iran take the next step. We KNOW what we have in terms of POWER and so do they.
All they can really do at this point is hope that we “blink” and back down with the POWER already being applied. Or they can “go crazy” and hope we double blink and hide. Hitler did exactly that (he made England blink over Austria) and look what happened a year or so later.
As a final comment, I hope you note the lack of the use of the word Israel in most of this essay. This is OUR fight right now and we are not so engaged simply to protect Israel. Nope, the stakes are much higher than simply Israel right now.
