Inside the Middle East; Entering a new era.

Finished the book, “Inside the Middle East”. While the book is about more than just Iran, it was the author’s main focus. The author really sees Iran, as an expansionist threat. He discusses at length the Iran corridor; Iran to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, which allows Iran to threaten the Eastern Mediterranean. Also, the Shite crescent: Iran to Yemen, which allows Iran to threaten both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bad el Mandeb strait and the Gulf of Aden. I think there are a couple of things we can know. One is that sanctions aren’t going to ever so cripple the Iranian regime that they come begging for relief. The second, sanctions aren’t going to cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the regime. Least not any more than would want too otherwise. One of the favorite arguments of neo-cons is to make an analogy to the rise of fascism, particularly Nazi Germany. That we could have stopped Hitler early on. But not every two-bit dictator we don’t like is an Adolf Hitler and not every country that opposes us is another Nazi Germany. Germany was a major world power. An economic and manufacturing power. World War One showed their strength. While the author doesn’t make the analogy, a sufficient number of neo-cons do. And to a certain extent Iran’s expansionist policies are reason for caution. But the Iranian corridor didn’t come about because Iranian troops invaded Iraq and toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The US did that, and in their monumental incompetence of the neo-cons it didn’t occur to them that Iran might fill the vacuum. Ditto Iranian influence and expansion into Syria. This didn’t happen because Iranian troops marched like a Nazi Germany over running western European countries. Syria’s civil war created Iran’s opportunity, together with the rise of ISIS. Lebanon came unglued with their civil war starting in the early 70’s. Iranian troops weren’t involved. In Yemen, Iran has shown itself incapable of driving a victory. Iran is not Nazi Germany. Even before the Iranian revolution, at the height of its economic power the Shah couldn’t create even the semblance of a modern state. Towards the end of the book the author makes a comment: “at a minimum, the West must require Hezbollah to eliminate its missile stockpile.” How exactly, would the West do that? Israel tried with disastrous results in 2006. All that happened was it became obvious that Israel couldn’t eliminate Hezbollah’s missile stockpile. Wars just don’t work out the way the neo-cons sell them. But I am extremely conflicted in my opinions on this. I went back and reread some of the articles that came out shortly after the Iran Nuclear deal was concluded to remind myself of the thinking at the time. One article, in the New Yorker by Steve Coll reported Obama didn’t like the deal, but saw the only alternative as war. And indeed, there was a time, if memory serves 2012, when it did look like an attack and possibly war with Iran was eminent. When Trump exited the nuclear deal, I’m sure he was under the influence of Bolton and Pompeo who told him that a childishly sounding sanctions regime of “maximum pressure” would cause Iran to crumble. Iran didn’t crumble and, in the ensuing, escalating military attacks I think Trump saw his advisors were leading him into a Middle Eastern war. Which was something he always consistently said were disasters. Trump, in what was probably the only good thing he did, deescalated the military actions. Absent a new nuclear deal which will provide Iran sanctions relief and probably prevent the regime from failing, what do we think the future would hold? Speaking for myself, another failed or failing state in the Middle East is not necessarily preferable to an underdeveloped state that hates the US. Iran keeps saying it doesn’t want nuclear weapons, but keeps moving closer, I assume in hopes of a deal that will end the sanctions. But Iran can’t continue to get closer to a nuclear weapon, before they actually have a nuclear weapon. I can be wrong, maybe war with an expansionist Iran is inevitable. Perhaps sooner or later the war has to take place to stop Iranian expansion. But let’s this time be honest. What is it realistically going to take to achieve what goals? Obviously, so many US soldiers were killed in the cakewalk that was supposed to be Iraq, that we aren’t about to repeat that mistake and put boots on the ground in Iran. No, this war, will only involve raining death and destruction on Iran from the sky. How many Iranians will have to die? One hundred thousand? Half a million might be a conservative estimate. And what will that achieve? I think we can all know we aren’t going to get a democratic Iran that will be a beacon of peace in the Middle East. What if we require “unconditional surrender”, as in WWII, which is the righteous war hawks always want to emulate? Unfortunately, again without an occupying force we can’t control anything. Like I said, I’m very conflicted, except for this, war is very unlikely to offer a good solution. Or even perhaps the least bad. Just a final note. Not all of the book focuses on an expansionist Iran. A good deal of it also focuses on an expansionist Turkey.