[R-G] Wallerstein: "The One Stable State in the Middle East Is Iran"

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

"Bhutto Assassinated in Attack on Rally,"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html>.

Everyone ought to keep in mind that, "at the moment, the one stable
state in the Middle East is Iran" as Immanuel Wallerstein correctly
observes.

<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wallerstein251207.html>
A Major Reversal? The NIE Report on Iran
by Immanuel Wallerstein

The Director of National Intelligence of the United States released on
December 3 a declassified version of a report, called a National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concerning Iran and nuclear weapons.  The
New York Times headlined it as a "major reversal."  It "reversed" a
previous NIE made in 2005.  It signaled a shift in official U.S.
policy.  In 2005, the NIE "assess(ed) with high confidence that Iran
is determined to develop nuclear weapons."  In 2007, the NIE "judge(d)
with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear
weapons program."

Most of the press and public analysis of this report presumes that
this assessment was made by the Director of National Intelligence and
that it is being read by the Bush administration and the Congress who
are only now taking it into account.  Some have even called it a
"coup" against Bush and/or Cheney and the neo-cons.  I do not believe
this sequence for a moment.  I assume that the assessment has already
been discussed within the Bush administration.  After all, the report
is said to have been written as much as a year ago.  I believe that
the report is the outcome of the discussion within the Bush
administration, which made the decision with the knowledge and assent
of George W. Bush that the report should be released to the public.
The report will not lead to a reversal.  It signals that the reversal
has already occurred.

What may we infer from this?  We can infer that the long ongoing
debate between the faction that favored immediate military action
against Iran (Cheney and his friends, the Israeli government and their
friends) has lost out to the much larger faction that, for various
reasons, thought such military action unwise.  I am not surprised at
this outcome, since I have long been arguing that the anti-immediate
war faction was much stronger within the U.S. administration than the
Cheney faction, particularly since the anti-immediate war faction
includes the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What will happen now in relation to Iran?  Probably nothing very much.
 Russia, China, and Germany were already dragging their feet very
obviously on further sanctions against Iran.  There are unlikely to be
further sanctions.  Iran has persisted in its argument that it has the
right to continue the development of its uranium enrichment program,
while at the same time freezing its nuclear weapons development
program.  It will continue to do this for the time being.

The basic fact that we should always keep in mind is that the present
U.S. administration has a full plate -- maintaining its presence in
Iraq, maintaining its presence in Afghanistan, and worrying about the
very real possibility of the breakdown of order in Pakistan. Even
George W. Bush can appreciate that Iran's possible development of
nuclear weapons a decade from now cannot displace these other concerns
as a priority.

The United States will no doubt keep up a verbal facade of criticism
of Iran.  See the President's public comments about the report.  This
rhetoric is similar to the verbal facade of favoring the creation of a
Palestinian state by the end of 2008.  But nobody is paying very much
attention -- not even the presidential candidates in the United States
(of either party).  These statements are just that -- verbal facades.
Bush is falling into a weary pattern of attempting face-saving as he
lives out what will no doubt be an unhappy last year in office.

In the meantime, every one else around the world is thinking of what
they should be doing in the Middle East after 2009, with most probably
a Democratic president in office in the United States.  It should seem
obvious to them all that, at the moment, the one stable state in the
Middle East is Iran.  Iran to be sure has its internal conflicts and
the Ahmadinejad faction may well lose the next elections.  But Iran --
an oil power, a Shia power, a military and demographic power in the
region -- is a major actor that has to be taken into account.
Countries will prefer to have Iran on their side than against them.
Iran is not going to go away.

Iran has over time made several offers to the United States of a deal,
proposing that they work together on Iraq and other issues.  The Bush
administration wouldn't even acknowledge the gesture.  It is now
probably too late for the United States to make such a deal -- but it
is not too late for China or Russia or even western Europe.  It is not
even too late for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the two countries whose
collapse would really unhinge the region in ways that would make the
Iraq fiasco seem a petty annoyance.

Actually at this point I have the feeling that Condoleezza Rice and
Robert Gates understand all this better than Hillary Clinton or Barack
Obama, but maybe not.  In any case, I have the sense that the NIE
assessment is an elegant way of saying: the Bush doctrine, Requiescat
in pace!

Immanuel Wallerstein is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology,
State University of New York at Binghamton.  Among his numerous books
are The Modern World-System (1974, 1980, 1989), Unthinking Social
Science (1991), After Liberalism (1995), The End of the World As We
Know It  (1999), and The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a
Chaotic World (2003).  This commentary was published on 15 December
2007.  (c) Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global.  For
rights and permissions, including translations and posting to
non-commercial sites, contact: rights at agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002
or 1.336.286.6606.  Permission is granted to download, forward
electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact
and the copyright note is displayed.  To contact author, write:
immanuel.wallerstein at yale.edu.  Visit the archive of Wallerstein's
previous commentaries at <www.binghamton.edu/fbc/cmpg.htm>.  These
commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of
the immediate headlines but of the long term.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>