ForeignPolicyAfter911

U.S. Planing for Iran Contingencies

The Financial Times' Guy Dinmore reports that

"Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the marines told the FT the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the central Islamic government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq US intelligence experts suggested the marines' effort could represent the early stages of contingency plans for a ground assault on Iran . Alternatively, it could be an attempt to evaluate the implications of the unrest in Iranian border regions for marines stationed in Iraq , as well as Iranian infiltration. Others suggest it simply highlights competition between the various US intelligence organisations.Whatever the motive, the survey will add to Iranian anxieties about Washington's intentions."For the entire article, go to http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a8ab27ba-a4da-11da-897c-0000779e2340.html

Iran and Nuclear Weapons

The foreign policy consensus is that Iran must be stopped in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Realists don't accept that conclusion.  See my interview with Kenneth Waltz who makes the argument that even if  Saddam Hussein had had them he could have been deterred. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html In the New York Times, Barry Posen of MIT argues the same is true for Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27posen.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Time to Move On

William F. Buckley, one of the founders of the conservative movement in the United States, has written an op ed piece that argues that Bush's goals in Iraq are not achievable. http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp  This admission is a powerful demonstration  that President Bush is now losing the backing of his own supporters on the Iraq War.  Buckley wants Bush to see this reality so that the Wilsonian principle that informed the intervention (democratization brings freedom and peace) will be preserved. Will Bush heed the advice? Or will he interpret Buckley to mean, "Good by Iraq, Hello Iran?"  That reading of Buckley would imply that Bush is both incompetent and out of touch. 

"Answered Prayers,"

The Middle East is the centerpiece of the Bush adminstration's foreign policy.  See the Conversations with History interview with Jonathan Clarke http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Clarke/clarke-con0.html  Under the influence of the neo-conservatives, this region becomes the testing ground for a commitment to democratizing the world. The region also is a testing ground for using military power to achieve this goal.  Bush's most articulate speech in this regard was his second inauguaral address which called for democratization of the region if not the world.  Recent elections in the Middle East suggest the policy is not working.  Bush's prayers are being realized but not with the consequences he envisioned suggesting that Garth Brooks was right to "Thank God for unanswered prayers."  This article from the Washington Post addresses the consequences of the Bush vision for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701562.html For a discussion of the consquences of democratization in the Middle East generally see this article from the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113836301014058138.html?mod=home_whats_news_us