ANALYSIS: Luttwack argues for break-up of Iran 
Written by Randy Talbot 
Thursday, 08 March 2007 
http://www.ufppc. <http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5888/35/>
org/content/view/5888/35/

The First Post, which fancies itself "Britain's sharpest online 
magazine," posted a disturbing article Friday in which a significant 
U.S. strategic thinker argued against détente with Iran and for the 
encouragement of Iran's break-up.[1] -- Edward Luttwack argued 
that "Viewed from the inside, Iran is hardly the formidable power 
that some see from the outside. The natural outcome of increasing 
popular opposition to extremist rulers, of widening ethnic divisions, 
and bitter Sunni resentment of Shia oppression is the break-up of 
Iran." -- Edward Luttwack wrote his best known book at the ripe old 
age of 26: Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook. -- At 65 he remains a 
significant figure in the stable of U.S. national security state 
intellectuals....

THERE IS NO NEED FOR DÉTENTE WITH IRAN
By Edward Luttwack 

** Viewed from the inside, Iran is hardly the formidable power that 
some see from the outside — There is no need for detente with Iran — 
America should encourage the country's break-up from within ** 

First Post
March 2, 2007 

http://www.thefirst
<http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1189>
post.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1189 

Almost everyone in Washington agrees that Iran is the big winner in 
the Middle East power competition and the United States is the big 
loser. 

Instead of the hostile Taliban, Iran now has a friendly Afghan 
government on its eastern border; instead of having to face Saddam 
Hussein's regime, which inflicted huge casualties on its ragged 
armies, Iran has nothing to fear from an Iraqi government dominated 
by its friends and obedient clients, many of whom lived as protected 
exiles in Iran for 20 years or more. 

The U.S., having crushed Iran's enemies, now finds itself under 
attack by Iran's rulers, who no longer have to focus on defending 
their own borders, and can instead challenge American interests all 
over the Middle East, and as far away as Venezuela. Meanwhile, the 
building of Iranian facilities to process, gasify, and enrich uranium 
continues without interruption. 

For some, all this is a compelling argument for negotiations with 
Iran, in the hope that its mighty rulers can be persuaded to stop 
arming and inciting the insurgents who are attacking American and 
British troops in Iraq. 

Now there is even talk of a détente with Iran, that being the 
standard diplomatic method to deal with a hostile country too 
powerful to be intimidated or defeated, with which one must simply 
coexist on the best terms that can be had. In this case, it would 
necessarily mean coexistence with Iran's continued support for Hamas, 
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and three different Iraqi militias, as well 
as Iran's nuclear program. 

Detente cannot be rejected when the realities of power allow no 
better choice. But back in the 1970s, détente with the Soviet Union 
was bitterly criticized on the grounds that it actually propped up a 
regime that was in irreversible decline. In the 1980s, the critics of 
that détente, led by President Reagan, had their opportunity to 
challenge the Soviet Union. Before the decade was over, they had 
succeeded. 

Iran is not the Soviet Union and certainly does not have even a 
fraction of its military power. But it too is a multinational state, 
in an age when nations are everywhere asserting their separate 
identities. Not only regime spokesmen but also many Persians in exile 
continue to speak of an Iranian state inhabited by "Iranians", who 
are said to be very nationalistic even if they oppose the ayatollahs. 
This is often repeated to argue that there is universal support, or 
near enough, for Iran's nuclear program. 

But this does not remotely correspond with Iran's ethnic realities: 
Persians account for no more than half of Iran's population, and the 
other half includes many different nationalities that are 
increasingly resentful of Persian cultural imperialism. Kurds, for 
instance, account for some nine per cent of the population, and their 
nationalism is Kurdish not Persian, having been much strengthened by 
the successful example of virtual Kurdish independence in Iraq next 
door. 

If Iran's economy were strong, ethnic divisions and even religious 
resentments would matter less. As it is, with at least 20 per cent 
unemployment and an annual inflation rate of 30 per cent, Iran's 
economy is scarcely a unifying force. 

Viewed from the inside, Iran is hardly the formidable power that some 
see from the outside. The natural outcome of increasing popular 
opposition to extremist rulers, of widening ethnic divisions and 
bitter Sunni resentment of Shia oppression is the break-up of Iran. 

There is no reason why Iran should be the only multinational state to 
resist the nationalist separatism that destroyed the Soviet Union and 
Yugoslavia, divided Belgium in all but name, and has decentralized 
Spain and even the United Kingdom. 

As with the Soviet Union, there is a better alternative to détente 
with a repulsive regime -- and that is to be true to the Wilsonian 
tradition of American foreign policy by encouraging and helping the 
forces of national liberation within Iran. 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to