From the Audience

Today I received comments from reader Paladin regarding the following Newsweek article. Paladin's remarks were too good and too relevant to keep to myself, so here they are, for your edification.

To preface, Newsweek gives military and political reasons for Iran's apparent toning down of bravado and activity lately, but Paladin offers another, far more serious and far-reaching conclusion: at its heart, Iran's capacity to influence the rest of the world is significantly diminished when oil is cheap. Conservation efforts of late, largely forced by record gas prices, have decreased domestic oil demand which caused the recent dramatic drop in crude prices. The message is crystal clear: influence exerted upon US interests from middle eastern countries and oil producers who would do us harm would be greatly minimized if the United States can maintain petroleum demand at low levels. Warfare on Iran's purse, not on a battlefield, is the most intriguing idea I've heard in some time. This is important at depth, and Paladin's insight into the real Iran that goes uncovered by mainstream media injects much more than my simple overview; please read on.

Why Iran is Cooling Off
by Mark Hosenball
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Oct 27, 2008

For reasons that remain unclear to the Bush administration and its allies, the level of violence attributable to Iranian-backed insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan is falling. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell says the trend dates back to an Iraqi-government assault last spring on militants in the Basra region of southern Iraq. After the crackdown, Iranian-supported insurgents (known to U.S. officials as "special groups") fled into Iran, where they have since been cooling their heels.

Still, according to one U.S. counterterrorism official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, some reports suggest that Iraqi militants are still actively being trained inside Iran for attacks on U.S. forces.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, intelligence reports last year indicated that Iran was also supplying terrorist-style arms to anti-American militants there. But the latest intelligence indicates that the level of bombing technology used by the Taliban in recent IED attacks is far less sophisticated than the devices used by Shia militants in Iraq—evidence that Iran is exercising restraint in its dealings with Afghan insurgents.

The question is, why? Another U.S. official, who also requested anonymity, said that Iran may be turning down the heat on American forces in the region in anticipation of a Barack Obama victory in the presidential election. According to this theory, Iran's theocrats fear an Obama presidency would greatly improve American esteem among European governments; the Iranians believe these leaders indulge Tehran now chiefly because of their disdain for President Bush.

A drop in Iranian-instigated paramilitary attacks does not mean that Tehran has ceased making mischief in the region. Recently, Morrell says, Iranian operatives have been actively pressing Iraqi politicians to oppose U.S. efforts to reach a new "Status of Forces Agreement" with the Iraqi government regarding the continued presence there of American troops. He said Iranian efforts have included trying to orchestrate anti-U.S. demonstrations in Shia neighborhoods and funding attempts to bribe Iraqi politicians.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/164510

Paladin's comments:

I am taking the liberty of submitting comments (on the Newsweek article-TEB) about a topic I consider to be of particular importance to the U. S.: our relationship with Iran.

I’ll begin by offering the caution that there is a certain vanity in believing that nations like Iran pursue courses of action solely with the reaction of the U. S. in mind. That is why I always disparaged the post 9/11 question "What did we do to make them hate us so?," since it was blind to the possibility that "they" could hate us on their own initiative, and without any inspiration from us.

But, as for Iran, it is likely that the ruling clergy of the country -- the real power, when they chose to exercise it -- being protective of their perquisites, are concerned that Iran, should it continue to act as a pariah nation, will be isolated by world more willing to cooperate with the U. S. once the latter no longer is led by a President who is so radioactive. The declining price of oil also causes pain for Iran. That country needs oil to be at $90.00 / barrel or above to continue to fund the entitlements that the President has promised the people in order to buy their loyalty, and as badly off as the U. S. may be economically (and as bad as our national debt), Iran is hard pressed to borrow the money it would need to cover its deficit spending.

Finally, the main body of Islamic extremists in the world are “Salafists,” or militant Sunnis, many of whom hate the Shi'a (the dominant sect in Iran) as much as, if not more so, than either the U. S. or Israel. Iran cannot feel comfortable living in the middle of an Islamic world dominated by such types.

So, conditions are bad in Iran. The President arguably is overplaying his hand, but usually is saved by his card-playing opponent, Mr. Bush, who plays even worse. The only question that may be remaining is whether the Iranian President really does have Messianic pretensions, and if so, will he do something absolutely insane in the hope of bringing about the Armageddon some religious fanatics believe is needed to encourage the redemptive return of the Hidden Imam? Fortunately, there have been some recent signs that he may not be that nuts after all, and even if he is, the clergy, not willing to risk the luxurious lifestyles they have created for themselves since the 1979 revolution, are likely to keep him under some control.