A Tale of Two Leaks

Stratfor:

One of the most important and disturbing reports this year (Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis, Oct. 5). Stratfor is very helpful as a source of analysis missing from daily newspapers.

- Nicholas Carter
Milton, Massachusetts
United States



Stratfor:

I disagree with the article’s assertion that there are only two options in Iran — war and sanctions. While I do believe that sanctions are inevitable, I think that a real possibility would be to engage the opposition movement in Iran in an attempt to bring about change in the regime. Iran has only been an Islamic Republic for 30 years, and has a much more rich history of Persian heritage. If the West concentrates on this legacy in its appeal to the Iranian people, there is a greater possibility of making headway.

Over the past two administrations, Americans have been given the options of supporting sanctions or war. I feel that it is a false choice. There are other actions that can be taken while still not seeming to back down to the Iranians. The current regime is aware of the challenges it faces and would probably be willing to play ball. Some might say that us getting involved in internal Iranian politics would offer an excuse for the regime to consolidate power (i.e., a crackdown on dissidents). I disagree, because I think the Revolutionary Guard would have a hard time fighting against normal Iranian citizens who are in the street to protest. The Basiji militia won’t have a hard time doing so, but we have seen that their membership numbers are inflated and could be defeated by a concentrated and centralized effort.

I encourage your analysts to examine this issue in more detail before presenting only a two-choice option to readers.

-Mark Schloemer
Washington, DC
United States



Stratfor:

Putting together this information and other recent material from Stratfor, this is my take on war in the Mideast.

Israel: Can’t win a war with Iran by themselves and may not even destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. However, any preemptive strike will bring the U.S. in. Timing: the sooner the better. However, they don’t need a war otherwise and would suffer from the economic consequences of having to fight one, especially since Palestine and Lebanon would become a second front.

Iran: The U.S. lost in Vietnam, has not won in Iraq and appears to be losing in Afghanistan. Why should the Iranians fear the U.S.? A war created by a preemptive strike from the U.S. or Israel would be a wonderful unifying tool in the country. Leaders who feel led by God are the ones to be truly feared. They would suffer huge economic harm but would survive to be an enemy another day.

U.S.: Obama desperately needs to appear strong, decisive and in control. He desperately needs something to drive the economy now that the stimulus measures are wearing off and the consumer is not coming back. Wars are great for this. He has no reason to attack Iran, but a preemptive Israeli strike could be the entry point he needs if Iran threatens shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Involvement in Afghanistan, then, must be his biggest problem. The U.S., however, cannot afford a new war — not that this would stop it.

Russia: A Mideast war would be ideal. They could experience a net economic benefit through the sale of arms while suffering no direct cost themselves. It further ties the hands of and occupies the U.S. and drains its resources. At the same time, it sets back a traditional enemy — the Iranians. It would seem then the sale of the S300 air defense system would be a logical step for them. It would increase the pressure to act on the U.S. and Israel. I would think they are smart enough not to let a good war go to waste.

- Ian Nunn
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada



Stratfor:

I found this article to be very good and penetrating, just like the one you wrote regarding the enormous cost of a war with Iran if the negotiations fail. In your latest article, you seem more pessimistic about the inevitability of war. I just can’t understand how 60 percent of U.S. citizens would approve war with Iran when the great majority voted for Obama mainly because he was very honestly working to avoid the former role of “first shoot, then negotiate.” With the enormous cost of not losing face in Afganistan, I can’t understand them wanting to bomb Iran and fight in the Persian Gulf.

- Alonso Ojeda
Madrid
Spain



Stratfor:

In the post 1945 era America has replaced Britain and France as the world’s dominant reactionary power. We continue to spend trillions of dollars and incur hundreds of thousands of casulties in a vain effort to preserve the boundaries and nation-states created by our Western European predecessors. Whether South Vietnam, Kuwait or Iraq our failure is preordained by the lack of validity of the supposed state we are “defending.” Now we are about to fall into the same trap in Iran. Ethnic Iranians make up less then 65 percent of the population. The only viable solution is the same one used to dismantle Yugoslavia into its proper ethnic divisions. The creation of Greater Kurdistan as well as plebiscites in Arabic Khuzsistan and Baluchistan can resolve many of the issues we confront in this region. ANY government in Tehran will be an obstacle to peace as long as Iran is allowed to rule the oil rich southwest (Khuzsistan) and the strategic northwest (Kurdistan). Support of the nationalist aspirations of Iran’s minorities is more effective then any bombing or blockade and will have more permanent results. Washington must learn to think outside of the reactionary box if we are to achieve any meaningful results. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia demonstrated the futility of Anglo-American “nation creation.” Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are Middle Eastern examples of entities created in Paris and London and only kept alive now by massive amounts of American treasure and lives. Only by redrawing this map will we find a lasting solution because 19th century boundaries will NOT work.

- Richard Stoliker
Bridgeport, Connecticut
United States



Stratfor:

It would be no surprise if Iran was developing WMDs, considering that Israel has them. Why don’t you focus on the problem posed by Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel hasn’t joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This is a double standard.

- Philippa Winkler
Flagstaff, Arizona
United States