.jpg)
THE
IRANIANS' PRIMARY GOAL IS
REGIME PRESERVATION
By George Friedman via Stratfor
A deal between IRAN and
the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus GERMANY)
was reached. The Iranians agreed to certain limitations on their nuclear program
while the P-5+1 agreed to remove certain economic sanctions. The next
negotiation, scheduled for six months from now depending on both sides'
adherence to the current agreement, will seek a more permanent resolution. The
key players in this were the UNITED STATES and IRAN. The mere fact that the
U.S. secretary of state would meet openly with the IRANIAN foreign minister
would have been difficult to imagine a few months ago, and unthinkable at the
beginning of the Islamic republic.
The U.S. goal is to
eliminate IRAN'S nuclear weapons before they are built, without the UNITED
STATES having to take military action to eliminate them. While it is commonly
assumed that the UNITED STATES could eliminate the IRANIAN nuclear program at
will with airstrikes, as with most military actions, doing so would be more
difficult and riskier than it might appear at first glance. The UNITED STATES in
effect has now traded a risky and unpredictable air campaign for some
controls over the IRANIAN nuclear program.
The IRANIANS' primary
goal is regime preservation. While Tehran managed the Green Revolution in 2009
because the protesters lacked broad public support, WESTERN sanctions have
dramatically increased the economic pressure on IRAN and have affected a wide
swath of the IRANIAN public. It isn't clear that public unhappiness has reached
a breaking point, but were the public to be facing years of economic
dysfunction, the future would be unpredictable. The election of President
Hassan to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the latter's two terms was a sign
of unhappiness. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei clearly noted this, displaying a
willingness to trade a nuclear program that had not yet produced a weapon for
the elimination of some sanctions.
The logic here suggests
a process leading to the elimination of all sanctions in exchange for the
supervision of IRAN'S nuclear activities to prevent it from developing a
weapon. Unless this is an IRANIAN trick to somehow buy time to complete a
weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six
months. An IRANIAN ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also
demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites
and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies.
The IRANIANS would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky
they might be and putting IRAN back where it started economically. While this
is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.
TWO
“ARCH FOES” ALLIED IN OPPOSING IRAN DEAL?
While the unfolding
deal involves the UNITED STATES, BRITAIN, FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA and GERMANY,
two countries intensely oppose it: ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA.
Though not powers on
the order of the P-5+1, they are still significant. There is a bit of irony in ISRAEL
and SAUDI ARABIA being allied on this issue, but only on the surface. Both have
been intense enemies of IRAN, and close allies of the UNITED STATES; each sees
this act as a betrayal of its relationship with Washington.
Comment by
Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:
As mentioned
numerous times on this blog, mainstream media and to some extend even
alternative media report that IRAN presents the most serious threat to ISRAEL,
and that IRAN’S nuclear threat should be a concern for the entire world is
mainly a convenient bargaining tool for both, ISRAEL and IRAN. In most likelihood
the behind the scene scenario looks rather different. Like with AZERBAIJAN,
ISRAEL may conduct secrete wheeling and dealings with the PERSIAN state, a
scenario not at all impossible, since ISRAEL’S new political doctrine fosters
geopolitical as well as economic alliances with non-Arab Muslim stated. After
all the two countries, in the not too distant past, had not always been arch
enemies. See:
ARE IRAN AND
ISRAEL REALLY ARCHENEMIES, OR IS IT JUST A FACADE?
IRAN SOFTENS
TUNE ON ISRAEL
AZERBAIJAN'S
ISRAEL DIPLOMACY TESTS IRAN
ISRAEL’S IRAN
“WARMONGERING RHETORIC’S” ARE DECEIVING TACTICS FOR A GREATER CAUSE
THE VIEW FROM SAUDI
ARABIA
In a way, this marks a
deeper shift in relations with SAUDI ARABIA than with ISRAEL. SAUDI ARABIA has
been under BRITISH and later AMERICAN protection since its creation after World
War I. Under the leadership of the SAUDS, it became a critical player in the
global system for a single reason: It was a massive producer of oil. It was
also the protector of Mecca and Medina, two Muslim holy cities, giving the SAUDIS
an added influence in the Islamic world on top of their extraordinary
wealth.
It was in BRITISH and AMERICAN
interests to protect SAUDI ARABIA from its enemies, most of which were part of
the Muslim world. The UNITED STATES protected the SAUDIS from radical ARAB
socialists who threatened to overthrow the monarchies of the ARABIAN PENINSULA.
It later protected SAUDI ARABIA from Saddam Hussein after he invaded KUWAIT.
But it also protected SAUDI ARABIA from IRAN.
Absent the UNITED
STATES in the PERSIAN GULF, IRAN would have been the most powerful regional
military power. In addition, the SAUDIS have a substantial Shiite minority
concentrated in the country’s oil-rich east. The IRANIANS, also Shia, had a
potential affinity with them, and thereby the power to cause unrest in SAUDI
ARABIA.
Until this agreement
with IRAN, the UNITED STATES had an unhedged commitment to protect SAUDI ARABIA
from the IRANIANS. Given the recent deal, and potential follow-on deals, this
commitment becomes increasingly hedged. The problem from the SAUDI point
of view is that while there was a wide ideological gulf between the UNITED
STATES and IRAN, there was little in the way of substantial issues separating
Washington from Tehran. The UNITED STATES did not want IRAN to develop nuclear
weapons. The IRANIANS didn't want the UNITED STATES hindering IRAN'S economic
development. The fact was that getting a nuclear weapon was not a fundamental IRANIAN
interest, and crippling Iran's economy was not a fundamental interest to the UNITED
STATES absent an IRANIAN nuclear program.
If the UNITED STATES and
IRAN can agree on this quid pro quo, the basic issues are settled. And there is
something drawing them together. The IRANIANS want investment in their oil
sector and other parts of their economy. AMERICAN oil companies would love to
invest in IRAN, as would other U.S. businesses. As the core issue
separating the two countries dissolves, and economic relations open up -- a
step that almost by definition will form part of a final agreement -- mutual
interests will appear.
There are other
significant political issues that can't be publicly addressed. The UNITED
STATES wants IRAN to temper its support for Hezbollah's militancy, and
guarantee it will not support terrorism. The IRANIANS want guarantees that IRAQ
will not develop an anti-IRANIAN government, and that the UNITED STATES will
work to prevent this. (IRAN'S memories of its war with IRAQ run deep.) The IRANIANS
will also want AMERICAN guarantees that Washington will not support anti-IRANIAN
forces based in IRAQ.
From the SAUDI point of
view, IRANIAN demands regarding IRAQ will be of greatest concern.
Agreements or not, it does not want a pro-IRANIAN Shiite state on its northern
border. Riyadh has been funding Sunni fighters throughout the region against
Shiite fighters in a proxy war with Iran. Any agreement by the AMERICANS to
respect IRANIAN interests in IRAQ would represent a threat to SAUDI ARABIA.
THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL
From the ISRAELI point
of view, there are two threats from IRAN. One is the nuclear program. The other
is IRANIAN support not only for Hezbollah but also for Hamas and other groups
in the region. Iran is far from Israel and poses no conventional military
threat. The ISRAELIS would be delighted if IRAN gave up its nuclear program in
some verifiable way, simply because they themselves have no reliable means to
destroy that program militarily. What the ISRAELIS don't want to see is the UNITED
STATES and IRAN making deals on their side issues, especially the political
ones that really matter to ISRAEL.
The ISRAELIS have more
room to maneuver than the SAUDIS do. ISRAEL can live with a pro-IRANIAN IRAQ. The
SAUDIS can't; from their point of view, it is only a matter of time before IRANIAN
power starts to encroach on their sphere of influence. The SAUDIS can't live
with an IRANIAN-supported Hezbollah. The ISRAELIS can and have, but don't want
to; the issue is less fundamental to the ISRAELIS than IRAQ is to the SAUDIS.
But in the end, this is
not the problem that the SAUDIS and ISRAELIS have. Their problem is that both
depend on the UNITED STATES for their national security. Neither country can
permanently exist in a region filled with dangers without the UNITED STATES as
a guarantor. ISRAEL needs access to AMERICAN military equipment that it can't
build itself, like fighter aircraft. SAUDI ARABIA needs to have AMERICAN troops
available as the ultimate guarantor of their security, as they were in 1990. ISRAEL
and SAUDI ARABIA have been the two countries with the greatest influence in
Washington. As this agreement shows, that is no longer the case. Both together
weren't strong enough to block this agreement. What frightens them the most
about this agreement is that fact. If the foundation of their national security
is the AMERICAN commitment to them, then the inability to influence Washington
is a threat to their national security.
There are no other
guarantors available. ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Moscow,
clearly trying to get the RUSSIANS to block the agreement. He failed. But even
if he had succeeded, he would have alienated the UNITED STATES, and would have
gotten instead a patron incapable of supplying the type of equipment Israel
might need when ISRAEL might need it. The fact is that neither the SAUDIS nor
the ISRAELIS have a potential patron other than the UNITED STATES.
Background
Information:
POLITICAL
DYNAMICS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND IRAN’S PRIORITIES IN THE REGION
ISRAEL
SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH NINE NON-ARAB MUSLIM STATES
ISRAEL’S
ARMENIAN, IRANIAN AND AZERBAIJAN EQUATION
U.S. REGIONAL POLICY
The UNITED STATES is
not abandoning either ISRAEL or SAUDI ARABIA. A regional policy based solely on
the IRANIANS would be irrational. What the UNITED STATES wants to do is retain
its relationship with ISRAEL and SAUDI ARABIA, but on modified terms. The
modification is that U.S. support will come in the context of a balance of
power, particularly between IRAN and SAUDI ARABIA. While the UNITED STATES is
prepared to support the SAUDIS in that context, it will not simply support them
absolutely. The SAUDIS and ISRAELIS will have to live with things that they
have not had to live with before -- namely, an AMERICAN concern for a
reasonably strong and stable IRAN regardless of its ideology.
The AMERICAN strategy
is built on experience in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. Washington has learned that it
has interests in the region, but that the direct use of AMERICAN force cannot
achieve those goals, partly because imposing solutions takes more force than
the UNITED STATES has and partly because the more force it uses, the more
resistance it generates. Therefore, the UNITED STATES needs a means of
minimizing its interests, and pursuing those it has without direct force.
SUNNI
VERSUS SHIA, ARABS VERSUS PERSIANS
With its interests
being limited, the UNITED STATES' strategy is a balance of power. The most
natural balance of power is Sunni versus Shia, the ARABS against the IRANIANS.
The goal is not war, but sufficient force on each side to paralyze the other.
In that sense, a stable IRAN and a more self-reliant SAUDI ARABIA are needed.
SAUDI ARABIA is not abandoned, but nor is it the sole interest of the UNITED
STATES.
In the same sense, the UNITED
STATES is committed to the survival of ISRAEL. If IRANIAN nuclear weapons are
prevented, the UNITED STATES has fulfilled that commitment, since there are no
current threats that could conceivably threaten ISRAELI survival. ISRAEL'S
other interests, such as building settlements in the WEST BANK, do not require AMERICAN
support. If the UNITED STATES determines that they do not serve AMERICAN
interests (for example, because they radicalize the region and threaten the
survival of JORDAN), then the UNITED STATES will force ISRAEL to abandon the
settlements by threatening to change its relationship with ISRAEL. If the
settlements do not threaten AMERICAN interests, then they are ISRAEL'S problem.
ISRAEL has outgrown its
dependence on the UNITED STATES. It is not clear that ISRAEL is comfortable
with its own maturation, but the UNITED STATES has entered a new period where
what AMERICA wants is a mature ISRAEL that can pursue its interests without
recourse to the UNITED STATES. And if ISRAEL finds it cannot have what it wants
without AMERICAN support, ISRAEL may not get that support, unless ISRAEL'S
survival is at stake.
In the same sense, the
perpetual SAUDI inability to create an armed force capable of effectively
defending itself has led the UNITED STATES to send troops on occasion -- and
contractors always -- to deal with the problem. Under the new strategy, the
expectation is that SAUDI soldiers will fight SAUDI ARABIA'S wars -- with AMERICAN
assistance as needed, but not as an alternative force.
With this opening to IRAN,
the UNITED STATES will no longer be bound by its ISRAELI and SAUDI
relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the UNITED STATES has broader
interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that
rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The SAUDIS
will have to exert themselves to balance the IRANIANS, and ISRAEL will have to
wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic
problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which ISRAELI or SAUDI
rigidity can sustain itself.
And
where does the EUROPEAN UNION come in on all the wheeling and dealing about
IRAN?
.jpg)
