He discusses the dominant position it may achieve in the region with the American withdrawal from Iraq, while also noting the flash points that exist on both its eastern and western flanks: its saber rattling regarding closing the Straits of Hormuz, as well as the deteriorating situation of Iran's ally Assad in Syria.
It is an interesting read, although -- bearing in mind the usual caveat that Friedman is a well connected analyst while I'm just a blowhard blogging whatever pops into my head -- I still wonder if he isn't underestimating the problems from the Iranian point of view.
For example, I've read that Hamas and Iran have had a bit of a falling out -- with Hamas backpedaling from Iran because of Syria and Iran cutting off its funding to Hamas as a result. Also, it strikes me that if Syria goes pear-shaped on Tehran, then Hezbullah becomes a puddle of Shitism in a Sunni sea.
Regardless, it is an interesting article and you should be sure to read it.
As for its Hot Stratfor Babe I once again went to the reservoir of my vast knowledge of Iranian actresses and, after a Google search, came up with Nazanin Boniadi for the honor.
Ms Boniadi was born in Iran, but she was raised in Britain because her parents immigrated there when she was an infant. She later moved to the U.S. where she earned a BS in Biological Sciences from Cal Irvine.
However, she soon soon jumped into acting when she landed a role on the soap General Hospital. From that start she's done more daytime TV, and eventually moved onto prime time TV and films. Perhaps her best known movie role was in Iron Man.
She's also been active with Amnesty International, primarily concerning herself with the plight of her fellow Iranians under the current regime.
Considering a U.S.-Iranian Deal
By George Friedman, January 24, 2012
Last week, I wrote on the strategic challenge Iran faces in its bid to shape a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Beirut on the eastern Mediterranean coast. I also pointed out the limited options available to the United States and other Western powers to counter Iran.
One was increased efforts to block Iranian influence in Syria. The other was to consider a strategy of negotiation with Iran. In the past few days, we have seen hints of both.
Rebel Gains in Syria
The city of Zabadani in southwestern Syria reportedly has fallen into the hands of anti-regime forces. Though the city does not have much tactical value for the rebels, and the regime could well retake it, the event could have real significance. Up to this point, apart from media attention, the resistance to the regime of President Bashar al Assad has not proven particularly effective. It was certainly not able to take and hold territory, which is critical for any insurgency to have significance.
Now that the rebels have taken Zabadani amid much fanfare -- even though it is not clear to what extent the city was ceded to their control, much less whether they will be able to hold it against Syrian military action -- a small bit of Syria now appears to be under rebel control. The longer they can hold it, the weaker al Assad will look and the more likely it becomes that regime opponents can create a provisional government on Syrian soil to rally around.
Zabadani also gives outside powers something to help defend, should they choose to do so. Intervening in a civil war against weak and diffused rebels is one thing. Attacking Syrian tanks moving to retake Zabadani is quite another. There are no indications that this is under consideration, but for the first time, there is the potential for a militarily viable target set for outside players acting on behalf of the rebels. The existence of that possibility might change the dynamic in Syria. When we take into account the atmospherics of the Arab League demands for a provisional government, some meaningful pressure might actually emerge.
From the Iranian point of view, this raises the risk that the sphere of influence Tehran is pursuing will be blocked by the fall of the al Assad regime. This would not pose a fundamental challenge to Iran, so long as its influence in Iraq remains intact, but it would represent a potential high-water mark in Iranian ambitions. It could open the door to recalculations in Tehran as to the limits of Iranian influence and the threat to their national security. I must not overstate this: Events in Syria have not gone that far, and Iran is hardly backed into a corner. Still, it is a reminder to Tehran that all might not go the Iranians' way.
A Possibility of Negotiations
It is in this context that the possibility of negotiations has arisen. The Iranians have claimed that the letter the U.S. administration sent to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that defined Iran's threats to Strait of Hormuz as a red line contained a second paragraph offering direct talks with Iran. After hesitation, the United States denied the offer of talks, but it did not deny it had sent a message to the Iranian leadership. The Iranians then claimed such an offer was made verbally to Tehran and not in the letter. Washington again was not categorical in its denial. On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a meeting with the German foreign minister, "We do not seek conflict. We strongly believe the people of Iran deserve a better future. They can have that future, the country can be reintegrated into the global community ... when their government definitively turns away from pursuing nuclear weapons."
From our perspective, this is a critical idea. As we have said for several years, we do not see Iran as close to having a nuclear weapon. They may be close to being able to test a crude nuclear device under controlled circumstances (and we don't know this either), but the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon poses major challenges for Iran.
Read the rest of Considering a U.S.-Iranian Deal
No comments:
Post a Comment