Speculations of the Insane

Between the silence in Canada as the Federal governments prepares to deliver the coming year's budget, and the Americans being caught somewhat flat-footed in Israel the news has been somewhat less than inspiring.

However, it appears that in an attempt to recover from the blunder this week that the US made by being 'the odd body out' at the Israeli - Palestinian talks in Egypt, Condoleezza Rice has decided to once again start sabre-rattling in Iran's direction.

Okay - big deal, the US is once again flailing about looking for adversary - preferably one that can distract the world from unfinished work in Afghanistan and the ongoing disaster that is Iraq.

However, one has to ask why would Iran want Nuclear Weapons? The facile response is twofold - first, it's no big secret that Israel has a fairly significant nuclear arsenal; the second is to note that even the suspicion of nuclear arms has changed the US approach to North Korea significantly. In other words it would be mostly defensive.

However, I think that taking those two rather facile explanations at face value is about as useful as taking Bush's allegations about Iraq at face value. First, the Iranians since 1979 have become quite sophisticated players on the world stage - they have shown an ability to learn and be subtle in their dealings. Second, among the Arab states, they are one of the few to successfully govern their country as a theocracy, and achieve measurable economic and political success. Third, Iran can claim to be an anchor point for the successful blending of Islam and the affairs of state - making it a unique social and moral beacon for those in the Muslim world that would like to see more religious governance in the Arab countries.

So...once again, the question emerges, why does Iran want nukes? Largely for deterrance more than anything. Like a porcupine, nobody is too interested in handling something that can hurt you quite easily. The North Korea example is a good model. More significantly, Iran might just have people in its leadership that are seeing an opportunity that just might fly - that of an "Arab Union" a la the European Union. Clearly, this is a process that will be decades in the making. However, there are several things that ideally position Iran:

1. It's easily the "elder brother" of Arab governments - especially those with popular support. (25+ years as an Islamic state, in the face of immense pressure to "democratise" from other nations is no small feat).

2. Having nuclear capabilities, along with SCUD class launch capability gives Iran a reach through most of the Arab nations - making it very able to act as a 'defense' against foreign invasion. This positions Iran as a political stabilizing force in the region.

3. Saudi Arabia is rapidly showing signs of instability internally. In spite of protestations otherwise, counter-government activity in Saudi has clearly been on the rise for the last several years. I doubt that the current US-friendly regime will survive long after the present king dies. (and he's no spring chicken, either). It's not at all clear that what will replace the Saud government will be US-friendly, or for that matter, stable enough to remain an anchor point for Arab economies. (Note also that China is doing a vast amount of big dollar business with Iran...)

4. With the Americans tied up occupying Iraq, it gives the rest of the Arab world a focal point upon which to focus their anxiety and worries that isn't Israel. This could well lead to some thinking that goes beyond old tribal conflicts.

5. If the Iranians have a bit of vision, they can no doubt see various trade blocs emerging that are important entities in their own right. North America is becoming - steadily - a single economic entity; the EU is poised to be an economy much larger than the American economy on its own. An "Arab-Union" trading bloc could easily serve as a serious economic power in the world, as well as providing a 'fostering ground' for other Islamic governments to grow in with relative safety.

6. Although the EU is notorious for its internal squabbling, it does continue to hold together. This is a key point for the Arab countries to observe and work with.

Like it or not, the current Iranian government has a substantial amount of popular support, and although it is not a Western-style democracy it is uniquely stable for a government in the region - especially one born out of revolution. Looking at its situation rationally, Iran may well provide the structure that other Arab countries can move towards both politically and culturally in a gradual and successful manner. I think there is a huge will to change in the Middle East, but I do not believe that Western-style democracy as understood in the US, Canada or Britain is going to succeed - there are simply too many cultural barriers in the way.

A nuclear-capable Iran is uniquely positioned to foster such changes in the Middle East, and it's actually in the Iranian interest then for the US to remain tied up in Iraq for the forseeable future. Not only does it distract others from old disputes, it creates a focal point upon which the players can not only agree, but will see a need to provide a counter weight to. Since it is unlikely that any one nation will provide a military challenge to the US for the time being, the best position to work from is one of relative unity. Although the Arab states may not agree on political or military goals, economics is another thing altogether and a degree of unity may produce results far beyond anyone else's reckoning.

The one outstanding question is this - why is the US so concerned? Simple - a fractured Middle East is relatively easy for the US to retain influence over the resources that it will need in the coming decades. The Bush doctrine (formerly the Wolfowitz Papers) basically states that the Americans will do everything in their power to prevent a rival world power from emerging. Rivals may not be merely political or military in their influence - in fact as we all understand in the capitalist socieities - money talks - often rather loudly.

Of course, this is all highly speculative in nature, but its a fun little scenario to start cooking with. (Besides, if we can't speculate on the motives of the world's leaders, aren't we missing something?)