Iran’s Bid for Regional Power

Jibbe:
The United Satan and its minion devils were dirt-poor when they set out to beg, rob, steal, loot and plunder the Indian, and Chinese and Islamic civilisation ,`` the magnificence & grandeur of the likes of which the world has yet to see``(speech by the CEO of Hewllet-Packard)

These bunch of thugs with their bible-rifle-title missionary-mafia has plagued the entire world and their demise, inshallah, is not far-off. The soviet union with all its roti-kapRRa-makan social-issues is no more. When Man tries to fancy himself as the provider and sustainer , he is the greatest mushrik of all. Be it as a dictator, a king, a democracy Demon, or as a Priest. The world does not need social-engineering or this socio-poli science crap. The greates good is done when the govenments are only bus condutcors & drivers but never the decision-makers for destinations.

Those who subscribe to the ``advanced`` ideas of infanticide( abortions), no-children, laundaybaaz-marriages, haraamkarees, and such very `modern` practices[ The Pharoahs, Nimrods, and Caligula era --progress list of the ist century not 7th) are helping to hasten the demise of these Demons.

Every effort must be made by all to develop arsenal for defence only. The rest of the work is being done by these `advanced` ones themselves.

I have a question for the author or other readers: I noticed that the title here is : Iran’s Bid for Regional Power, not Iran’s Bid for Regional Hegemony.

There is no mention of hegemony, except for one reference to American hegemony. Haven`t read all the interacts, but did any of you mention Iran`s (bid for) regional hegemony?

How do you guys distinguish between a bid for regional power from a bid for regional hegemony?

Would very much appreciate.

malik99 - you said:
Imagin if Iraq was armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons as well as long range missiles that could hit Israel. Were that the case, Iraqis would not be having the ``social issues`` that they are having now. In fact, just yesterday there was a major ``social issue`` - 47 Iraqis died and 200 were injured from the sharpnels of the exploding issue.``

well its not as if Iraq didnt have social issues since before this invasion or the prior gulf war in 91.
lets be fair for just a second, saddam was a dicatator and he had taken his country to war with iran.....the rest is history. my point isnt that everything is great outside of iran, but im saying that if these arab/iran countries can get their countries working towards the right direction....before then exploiting their stability to take it one step further and become nuclear power - then the repurcssions would be less felt.
its like jumping from grade one to grade four, the point being the new kid wont last long.

just a thought to ponder on......i do understand where you are coming from, but its a double edged sword really.

American hegemony over the middle east keeps the oil flowing. Resource poor third world countries , like India, need the oil, to industrialize. A few crazed middle eastern mullahs , can destroy india`s economy. Look at this way, and one has to be thanful to Israel and the Yanks, for putting the fear of god into the mullahs.

``as a matter of fact the girls never tire of telling me that i am ``the coolest abu in the whole wide world`` (and, by the way, all their paki friends agree even though their parents panic and start reciting the ayat-ul-qursi and laholaywalaquwat when they see me coming) ``

Why am I not surprised. LOL!!

Regime Change in Iran is ineviteble. It is a matter of when and not if. The key however is that Regime Change should and will come from within. If the Iranians could get rid of the Shah and his SAVAK inspite of the support of the United States, no reason the Mullahs cannot get the same treatment.

There is also the aspect of nukes. Iran, unlike Pakistan, does not have a national identity based on religion. Iran is the successor nation of the Persian civilization and it has more than a millenia of history as a cogent and coherent country. Thus, whether the Islamic regime stays or goes is irrelevant to the issue of nukes as percieved, I suspect, by the Iranians themselves.

The Iranian desire to access nuclear technology as well as weaponization is due to its legitimate needs to defend itself against external aggression. The US specifically has nothing to lose with Iran gaining access to nuclear technology. Iran has no territorial conflict with the US and has never behaved irresponsibly unlike Iraq. Tthey have supported Hizbollah but that is on the same level as India supporting LTTE at one time and Pakistan`s support of Laskar etc.

The only country that has legitimate grounds for concern is Israel. If Israel does make a strategic attack on Iranian nuclear installations it should be prepared for retaliation. They therefore have to make their own strategic calculations.

As far Indian strategic calculations are concerned, Iran`s possesion of nukes has some positives and no negatives. The posession of Nukes by China and Pakistan basically eliminate the need for India to have any concerns of proliferation. On the positive side, multiple Islamic states possesing nuclear weapons eliminates the advantage Pakistan currently has as far as nuclear status is concerned. It also gives Iran additional muscle to influence developments in Afghanistan where its interests have coincided with India.

Ralph:

What a silly question!!!

Israel, India, US, Great Britain = Hegemony

Islamic Nations, China = Power.

…the issue is not who rules iran and whether they rule over iran from tehran or qom…

… the primary issue is nuclear proliferation…the US would like to do its best to curb it …all else is academic...

...wonder if the US has the will or the resolve to do it...judging by this and past adminstration`s whimpering over puny north korea...i don`t know...

Love to state that Iran is a progressive state in many ways , regardless of the regressive elements trying to control Iran. However some of their actions border on racism of a different kind - religious.

Also have to thank the Iranians who decided to expel the ancestors of the modern day Parsis of the subcontinent , they have certainly been worth more than their numbers would suggest.

Thanks to all of you, who have commented on this article. Let me first try to answer specific questions raised by Arjun and Ralph.

#9 Arjun_M
The Americans have encircled Iran from 3 sides, Iraq, Afghanistan and the sea. Aerial attacks are not enough to subdue a country. You need to put boots on ground to achieve results. One must keep in mind the American objectives to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, not the ostensible, but the real objectives: to control the Caspian Sea/ Central Asian oil and gas resources as well as the Middle Eastern ones. And secondly to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq to Israel. I wont go into the subsidiary objectives. After Iraq it was to be Iran and Syria. But the well-planned resistance by the Iraqis foiled the Grand Strategy of the Americans. They have lost time and credibility to fulfill their agenda. But make no mistake, the agenda is still on the table. The observers or comentators who think that the Americans would withdraw from Iraq a` la Viet Nam, Somalia or Lebanon are wrong. This war (in Iraq) is not a mere colonial war. America cannot afford to withdraw from Iraq. Bucause this is a war of global hegemony through the control of resources and the denial of the same to the competitors

---

in this case China and India. You just need to look at the world map to discern this. The Americans deployed their forces world-wide in 64 new bases within 18 months of 9/11, and they expanded NATO eastwards, touching the borders of Russia. The map will show you that the American deployment coincides with the present or potential routes of oil/gas pipelines, especially in Central Asia.
The point of the afore-going is, that had the Iraqi resistance not thrown in a spanner in the US plans, Iran and Syria would have been in the US crosshairs

---

remember the Axis-of-Evil?
So Iranian security is very much in jeopardy. Then there is the Israeli factor too. Presently, Iran is the most serious threat to Israel. And Israel has gone public with its intentions to take off the Busher Nuclear plant.
Presently, the conditions are not conducive for the Americans to take on Iran, because of their miscalculations and the force co-relationship in the region. But a pre-emptive Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear installations is very much a likely scenario.
#18 Ralph
Iran is in no position to exert hegemony anywhere. But it certainly is trying to project its power in the region to promote its strategic interests. Its area of key interest is Iraq, where it dreamt for the last decade to have a pro-Iranian Shiite government. But due to the recent events in Iraq it has lost a lot of leverage there. But than thats another story, requiring a seperate article. It is trying to assert itself in Afghanistan, in cahoots with the Pansheri junta, but the recent loss of Herat governor Ismail Khan is a blow to Iranian interests. It is also competing for influence in the ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia. It has a good strategic equation going with Russia, and a reasonable degree of rappo with China. It also wields influence in Lebanon through its proxy Hizullah. Syria has become closer to Iran in strategic terms, because of the commom American threat.

I read some comments about regime change in this forum too, well the most clear-cut candidate for a regime change is the US. The ruling Neo-con junta is a threat to world peace. Period.
Regime change in Iran is inevitable, the mullahs have screwed-up on the economy and failed to deliver on the social and political fronts. But the point is, that no country has the right to impose a regime change in another country.

About the question of Iran acquring nuclear weapons: Every country has a right to determine its defence needs. But nuclear weapons by themselves do not bestow any strength per se; you need to have the political will to use them. Please consider the misconception by Pakistan regarding the nuclear deterrence vis-a-vis India. After detonating its nukes, Pak went for Kargil, but the nuke-deterrence did nt work. Why? Because it was predicated on the US-USSR deterrence model, which was anomalous in Pak-Indian context.
So Long!

malik #16,

i agre, the iranians can ``get rid of their current rulers if/when they get sick of them``........... but like the oppressed people of east europe they need some reagenesque help - totalitarian regimes can last a long time and continue to oppress their people because they own all the guns ............ i will gladly give up a few tax dollars to help the right people in iran

Dear Naeem

I have some interest in Iran but I know very little about it. In my post, I was just having some fun at your expense, of stuka #23 kind. Please don`t mind.

Being igonorant of the issues here, I will now keep quiet. :)

.... bomb the madrassas !

``the real objectives: to control the Caspian Sea/ Central Asian oil and gas resources as well as the Middle Eastern ones``

........ can someone explain to our latest expert in geo-politics and economics why america does not have to control its biggest sources of oil - canada, mexico and nigeria ........ and while we are at it, can somone explain it to our new genius that a barrel of oil is simply a barrel of oil when it hits the market and it doesn`t say ``made in iraq``.......... also iran and iraq did not stop selling oil to the us, it was the us that refused to buy it .........

.......... this oil theroy crap reminds me of the ``hinterlad`` theory and the ``strategic depth`` nonsense that was taught to us by the khaki clad idiots at kakul ............... this points out the basic problem with the ummah - sheer sutpidity aggravated by the lack of good education ............ bomb the madrassas !

hamidm mian!!

One must appreciate your dedication to the USA. You speak more eloquently than any well-motivated red-blooded apple-pie eating American from Sattelite Town, Rawalpindi that I have ever met. Bush and Kerry must never forget their Sattelite Town votebase......

But why are you bent upon causing trouble for poor American soldiers? There are a couple of things you should consider:

1. Superpowers do very well in taking out secular westernised leaders and regimes, in Muslim countries. But they tend to get their butts kicked by maulvis. Everytime a superpower invades a Muslim country, the end result is the superpower running away with its tail between its legs, the seculars migrating to Freemont, California. And the maulvis taking over.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. They killed 1 million Afghanis. But the Mujs kicked their asses. And eventually the Taliban ended up taking over Afghanistan. American bombed the same Talibans who were its allies. However, now the Taliban are again preparing to take over.

America invaded Iraq. The secular Saddam fell like a deck of cards. But now the maulvis with their molotov cocktails have completely destroyed the reputation of the kevlar-clad, mic-equipped M-16-armed 400 billion dollar mighty US Army. To the point that West Point trained American Generals have to negotiate with madrassa-trained 30 year old Sadr in one city, and his uncle 80 year old Sistani in another.

The same thing will happen if the Americans invade Iran. The maulvis will kick ass, and then strengthen their control on Iran.

So in a superpower vs. maulvi contest, I have learnt to put my money on the maulvi.........

2. I have some acquitences in the US military. And they are under a lot of family pressures, due to Iraq. One poor American Lt. Col. went to Iraq to serve his country. The guy has had a tour of over a year, fighting in limited air-conditioning in the deserts of Baghdad.

His wife, in her mid-thirties is quite a sight: The face of Cindy Crawford and the body of Anna Nicole. Well, lo and behold, while Colonel Sahib was away fighting, Begum Sahib just could not control herself any longer. Her threshold of control, like most Western liberated lolitas, did not go beyond six months. So somewhere along the line, Begum Sahib, decided to, as we say politely in military-speak, ``climb the turret, cruise the missile, ride the sidewinder, dock the submarine`` (if you know what I mean).

Now it is one thing to go to cool forests of Vietnam, get beat, and then return to protesting students who spit on you. All soldiers can handle that. But it is something else to go fight an unpopular war in the blazing heat of Arabistan, against fanatic maulvis. And then return home, after a year to find out that your significant other decided to, as we say politely in military-speak, ``climb the turret, cruise the missile, ride the sidewinder, dock the submarine`` (if you know what I mean).

This is the main problem facing the US soldiers, who have been gone for months to years. Sadr and Sistani being secondary problems. So if you keep up your cheerleading and rhetoric for an attack on Iran also, after Iraq, I am worried that the above-mentioned Colonel Sahib and his Sargents may track you down on Murree Road or near Ghakkar Plaza as you are eating Karim kay somosay, and have their way with you. And we wouldn`t want that to happen, would we.............So I suggest you may want to reconsider being holier than the rabbi, and neo-er than the neo-cons........

P.S. There is something to be said for the chained and suppressed lolitas of Pakistan, who spend decades waiting aimlessly for thier husband to return, when informed he is missing in action. The stupid ladies never even look at another man for thirty years. But, at least, if through some miracle, their husband does return, the poor guy will not have to go through what Colonel Sahib had to face.................

#29 by hamidm2
Dear Hamidm2,
I make no claims to be an expert or a genuis, I commented on an issue according to my lights; as you have an equal right to comment on or critize my views. So let us eschew snide and derogtory tune and have a mature discussion.
Now coming down to the specific points you raised:
1. Yes the US has got access to the Canadian oil, its own oil in Alaska and other sources; not to mention the ecological and cultural havoc the Western oil companies are creating in Nigeria.
2. The US interest in Darfur/ Sudan imbroglio is due to oil.
3. The dispatch of the US forces in Ivory Coast with the French collaboration, ostensibly for peace-keeping chores was actually for oil.
4. In the aftermath of 9/11, the US has stationed forces even in D`joubiti and Equatorial Guinea, only for oil.
5. Oil is depleting fast and is expected to last only uptill 2025 ( at the present estimates).
6. The US is not touching its own oil, and keeping it as a reserve.
7.The Chinese and the Indian economies are both expected to overtake the American in the next 25 years. Oil is the life-blood of the modern economy; therefore retaining access to the diminishing oil resources and denying the same to the potential competitors is the name of the game.
8. From the historical point of view, after the 1973, oil embargo, the US decided to physically control the oil at the source, so as to obviate a recurrence of 1973, which was highly devastating to the US economy. The string of geopolitical events including the Iran-Iraq War, the two US-led wars against Iraq, including the stationing of the US troops in Saudi Arabia are the result of that American ambition; and the geopolitical dimension of the US energy policy initiated by James Baker about a quarter century ago; and now implemented with blind gusto by the present neo-con junta in Washington.
#28 Ralph
Dear Ralph,
We are all here was learning through mutual dialogue and exchange of views. And we all are ignorant, thatz why we need to learn from each other

---

if only some of our more exuberant collegues should realize it!
You comments are more than welcome.

So Long

#29 by hamidm2
Dear Hamidm2,
I make no claims to be an expert or a genuis, I commented on an issue according to my lights; as you have an equal right to comment on or critize my views. So let us eschew snide and derogtory tune and have a mature discussion.
Now coming down to the specific points you raised:
1. Yes the US has got access to the Canadian oil, its own oil in Alaska and other sources; not to mention the ecological and cultural havoc the Western oil companies are creating in Nigeria.
2. The US interest in Darfur/ Sudan imbroglio is due to oil.
3. The dispatch of the US forces in Ivory Coast with the French collaboration, ostensibly for peace-keeping chores was actually for oil.
4. In the aftermath of 9/11, the US has stationed forces even in D`joubiti and Equatorial Guinea, only for oil.
5. Oil is depleting fast and is expected to last only uptill 2025 ( at the present estimates).
6. The US is not touching its own oil, and keeping it as a reserve.
7.The Chinese and the Indian economies are both expected to overtake the American in the next 25 years. Oil is the life-blood of the modern economy; therefore retaining access to the diminishing oil resources and denying the same to the potential competitors is the name of the game.
8. From the historical point of view, after the 1973, oil embargo, the US decided to physically control the oil at the resource, so as to obviate a recurrence of 1973, which was highly devastating to the US economy. The string of geopolitical events including the Iran-Iraq War, the two US-led wars against Iraq, including the stationing of the US troops in Saudi Arabia are the result of that American ambition and the geopolitical dimension of the US energy policy initiated by James Baker about a quarter century ago,; and now implemented with blind gusto by the present neo-con junta in Washington.
#28 Ralph
Ralph,
We are all here was learning through mutual dialogue and exchange of views. And we all are ignorant, thatz why we need to learn from each other

---

if only some of our more exuberant collegues should realize it!
You comments are more than welcome.

So Long