Lee Malatesta: The article was an interesting read: I found three of Rosen\'s points the most interesting.

1. Since the war, radical Islam has strengthened in Iraq. Hamas won in Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood gained strength in Egypt.

On the one hand, Rosen merely points out the correlation. On the other hand, I had the feeling that he was trying to imply that the US led invasion is the cause. While I would be willing to give more than a cursory look to an argument that the Coalition of the Willing is the direct cause of this animosity, I don\'t think it very clear that this is actually the case. Under the Ba\'athist regime, dissent was brutally put down. Now that Freedom is on the March, dissent is encouraged. Since the US is perceived to be The Man, most of that dissent is focused on the US. This will be especially true in countries where dissent against the ruling government forces is still put down by the state. Anti-Americanism is sometimes the only form of dissent that won\'t result in a beating or worse.

2. We are now going to have a new generation of young fighters experienced in jihad from Iraq. They\'re going to lead the fight for the next 20 years.

This, I think it the so-called elephant in the room. The way that the Coalition has handled the post-war occupation has turned Iraq into a training ground for Jihadists complete with live fire exercises. Just as Soviet involvement with Afghanistan formed Osama bin Laden, it is quite likely that US involvement with Iraq is right now forming his heir.

3. The Iranians have been speaking about a dialogue of civilizations for a long time, and Washington has responded only with threats and enmity, really. I think increased business ties would certainly strengthen the U.S.-Iranian relations.

Some thirty years after a group of fifty US businessmen went on a trip to the Soviet Union to resume some very limited business ties under the direction of the Eisenhower administration, the Soviet Union fell apart. While I\'m not so naive to think that business ties with the west was the only reason, I do think that it was a contributing factor. Likewise, liberalization of trade with China is likely to be part of the cause of liberalization of Chinese politics. For example, I don\'t think that the China of the late fifties would have the same ``hands off\'\' approach to Hong Kong as the China of the eighties.

So it is a mystery to me why the US continues to embargo Iran and Cuba. It seems to me that such actions only serve to cement the culture of isolation that allows the governments of Cuba and Iran to maintain control. To my knowledge, the only times that economic sanctions or boycotts have been effective in helping to bring about changes in the political policy of some country has been those boycotts that targetted countries with a strong and dominant middle class such as the boycott of South Africa that played a bit part in ending Apartheid. When the government is dependent on the middle class for its revenue and pressure is put on that middle class to change the government, changes usually follow.

I should also mention that I think the point Rosen brought up that you highlighted is dead wrong. It seems to me that the only leverage the US has over Iran is US military superiority of several orders of magnitude. One thing that the US embargo of Iran has succeeded in doing is to reduce Iranian military capacity. Their military technology is little better than Vietnam era aircraft (modified F5s and a few home grown fighters that appear to exist only as prototypes). Despite its abundance of natural resources, Iran does not seem to have been able to mobilize a strong industrial base to produce the tools of war and now that neither the US nor  most European nations is selling them arms, they are struggling to keep up their armed forces.

Certainly, Iran could start supporting the various Shi\'ite militias in Iraq, but to what effect? I\'m not convinced that the US wouldn\'t just say ``we gave them the opportunity to be free, and they chose tyranny over democracy\'\' and walk away. The only think to worry about is that the conflict might spread. But I think that worry is overblown. While it is a very real consideration, it is also true that a tremendous number of other factors would have to fall into place just right for the conflict to engage the other countries of the middle east.

cam: Iran:

So it is a mystery to me why the US continues to embargo Iran and Cuba. It seems to me that such actions only serve to cement the culture of isolation that allows the governments of Cuba and Iran to maintain control.

I agree totally. Trade has the potential to be transformative in many areas. I am for a (Bush|Nixon|Whitlam?) goes to (Iran|China) . It should have been done before Iraq.

The Iraqi insurgents are the first of the internet era guerillas too. So not only are they getting constant training to hone their abilities, processes and practices, they also have a global communications reach. Bit different to some guerilla group fighting away in a jungle in Central America.

The cause which binds them is a global one too. So it will have global repercussions. Adding fuel to the fire is the large number of youth in the Middle East (IIRC 50% are under age 25), which will mean the Middle East will be a hotspot for probably a generation to come.

One thing that the US embargo of Iran has succeeded in doing is to reduce Iranian military capacity.

What does a conventional military matter when Bin Laden showed you can use systems disruption to make a super-power notice you. The US could invade Iran, but it would just mean we have a Shiite insurgency on our hands in addition to a Sunni one. Hussein was not a military threat either. Troop carriers were taking out his 1980s Soviet tanks.

The biggest stick the US carries now is its economy and its ability to for American consumers to spend money on products and goods from other countries. Most of the others ones have been used up, are ineffective, or no longer domestically palatable.

I mainly drew notice to that quote as I believe in the 1990s, Australia and Iran were the two nations best placed to innovate liberal democracy to the nest level and recreate the dialog on freedom. Both nations blew it.

I reckon with a bit of help and prompting, we might have got Iran to the point of having a go at it.

cam

Lee Malatesta: Both nations blew it ...: ... with a little help from their friends.

With regards to the US miltary being the lever that the US has on Iran, consider how effective a continued embargo would be without the US Navy to enforce it. Iraq is an excellent example, the US effectively kept Iraq from rebuiling both its military and its industrial capacity through use of the military to (1) blow stuff up and (2) blockade all sorts of goods from entering Iraq.

cam: US Navy didnt stop the AWB: sending off $300 million in bribes to Hussein though. Iraq was probably a kleptocracy anyway, but a blockade didnt change that.

cam

Lee Malatesta: How much money gets into the country: ... doesn\'t matter if it can\'t pay for goods coming into the country. Three hundred million USD worth of land mines could have made the US invasion quite nasty. Three hundred million USD stuffed inside the mattresses at the presidential palaces, not so much.

cam: Still not convinced: blockades may cause military success, for instance I consider the victory in WWI to be due to the Royal Navy blockading Germany (and the Frnech Army holding their line), but it doesnt cause political change. Hussein was contained anyway, when he stepped outside his borders into Kuwait he got a massive international slapping. His neighbours joining in as well, with Saudi Arabia and Japan paying for it all.

But they dont cause political change. If anything we have seen it just collapse more power into the central government. Which is only aided by the kleptomacy that can go on. AWB being a good example.

Indonesia was not blockaded, despite causing numerous problems, including Australia and Indonesia under-going Konfrontasi - a kind of low intensity conflict. They adopted the Japanese/Singaporean style of Asian capitalism before the Indonesian people over-threw Suharto through an election. That is the weakness in these despotic regimes. They seek legitimacy through elections. Iraq held elections when Hussein was in power.

I agree with your original suggestion that we should be trading with these places and somehow using the coercive power of the international community to try and enforce fair elections rather than seeking military outcomes.

cam