But Why?

Via Justin Logan, it seems that David Frum has sketched out a non-apocalyptic scenario in which Iran might use or threaten to use nuclear weapons:

The short answer: The world oil market.

In 1986, the US waged an undeclared proxy naval war to deter Iran from attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The US won of course and Iran lacked any effective riposte. This US operation played a decisive role in compelling Iran to accept peace in the Iran-Iraq war.

And it may have prompted Iranian leaders to decide: We need an effective counter-deterrent against the US. The US would have been much more reluctant to protect Kuwaiti tankers against a nuclear Iran. An Iranian nuclear bomb would act as a “Keep Out” sign to frighten the US away from a now truly Persian Gulf.

Justin notes that the U.S. would hardly be standing alone in its disquiet if the Iranians started randomly blowing up Kuwaiti oil tankers, and it's really not clear what a small Iranian nuclear arsenal would let them get away with in the face of what would be uniform hostility from every major power and every country in the region. But beyond that, why is Iran blowing up these Kuwait tankers? In the previous Gulf go-round what happened was that Saddam Hussein launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran, the invasion went poorly, the Iranians launched a counter-offensive, then the U.S. and the Gulf states started organizing to help Saddam.

Whatever you think of that series of events, it's certainly not evidence that Iran has long-standing ambitions to mount unprovoked attacks on the world's oil distribution networks. Most likely, what Iran would like to do is sell oil to oil-importing nations and use the resulting funds to buy stuff.

Comments

Why ask, "But why?"

Posted by Just Dropping By | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Why ask, "But why?"

Posted by Just Dropping By | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Why not?

Posted by blah | April 15, 2008 2:23 PM

Why not?

Is this some kind of oblique RFK reference designed to bait Petey?

Posted by Ryan | April 15, 2008 2:24 PM

Most likely, what Iran would like to do is sell oil to oil-importing nations and use the resulting funds to buy stuff.

Maybe they realize that certain segments in the US don't like them and the stuff they chose to buy they are doing for what they perceive to be their own protection.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Because it's dark, and dirty in there! It's got fleas! And spiders! You'll poke your eye out! Wait 'till your father gets home!!

--Firesign Theatre

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | April 15, 2008 2:30 PM

Why another Hulk movie? I don't know, maybe Ed Norton thought he could do better?

Posted by Clark | April 15, 2008 2:31 PM

Why Ask Why? - Bud Dry

Posted by Tiparillo | April 15, 2008 2:41 PM

Matt is dead. But if you read this post backward and drop acid, certain patterns emerge in the celestial plane that are not visible to lesser minds. Behold, a message from the Ghost of Matthew Yglesias:

------------------------------------------------

Via Justin Logan, it seems that David Frum has sketched out a non-apocalyptic scenario in which Iran might use or threaten to use nuclear weapons:

The short answer: The world oil market.In 1986, the US waged an undeclared proxy naval war to deter Iran from attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The US won of course and Iran lacked any effective riposte. This US operation played a decisive role in compelling Iran to accept peace in the Iran-Iraq war.And it may have prompted Iranian leaders to decide: We need an effective counter-deterrent against the US. The US would have been much more reluctant to protect Kuwaiti tankers against a nuclear Iran. An Iranian nuclear bomb would act as a “Keep Out” sign to frighten the US away from a now truly Persian Gulf.

Justin notes that the U.S. would hardly be standing alone in its disquiet if the Iranians started randomly blowing up Kuwaiti oil tankers, and it's really not clear what a small Iranian nuclear arsenal would let them get away with in the face of what would be uniform hostility from every major power and every country in the region. But beyond that, why is Iran blowing up these Kuwait tankers? In the previous Gulf go-round what happened was that Saddam Hussein launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran, the invasion went poorly, the Iranians launched a counter-offensive, then the U.S. and the Gulf states started organizing to help Saddam.

Whatever you think of that series of events, it's certainly not evidence that Iran has long-standing ambitions to mount unprovoked attacks on the world's oil distribution networks. Most likely, what Iran would like to do is sell oil to oil-importing nations and use the resulting funds to buy stuff.

Posted by Psychic Stoner Dude | April 15, 2008 2:44 PM

Whatever you think of that series of events, it's certainly not evidence that Iran has long-standing ambitions to mount unprovoked attacks on the world's oil distribution networks.

Why wouldn't Iran move to capture Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields if it felt it had a decisive military or tactical advantage? It's what Iraq did, and it's basically what the US and other world powers have done for 60 years.

There's a lot of money buried in them there oil fields.

Posted by right | April 15, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm a little confused. Wasn't there an NIE recently that said that Iran has essentially given up nuclear weapons research? That they're not actively pursuing a program of producing such weapons? I've noticed that recent saber rattling in re Iran has made the claim that they're pursuing nukes. Has more information come to light, or is David Frum full of shit? (I know David Frum is full of shit either way.)

Posted by Gus | April 15, 2008 2:58 PM

If you yell "Boo", they will jump.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 15, 2008 3:02 PM

But Why?

Wow, that post title is meta.

Posted by Al | April 15, 2008 3:14 PM

Leave the heavy existentialism to your father's novels, please, Matt.

Posted by bartkid | April 15, 2008 3:34 PM

I have read (sorry no link at the moment) that Iran's oil/gas is mostly off the world markets-- that it is tied up in long-term contracts with Asian countries.

If this is true, then plans to disrupt world oil distribution for financial gain would not benefit Iran for some time.

Posted by Edoc | April 15, 2008 4:31 PM

Just to be clear: Iraq was involved in the tanker war too. Some might say that Iraq started it with an attack on Karg Island and tankers filled with Iranian oil thereabouts. The USS Stark was hit by exocet missiles fired from Iraqi warplanes.

Posted by milo | April 15, 2008 5:33 PM

To clear up Gus's confusion, nothing has changed. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. There is NO evidence except a questionably sourced (read: Mossad and/or Iranian dissident scam) laptop that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program.

The notion that Iran would attempt to counter US naval power in the Gulf with the threat of a nuclear counterattack is ridiculous on the face of it. Nobody in Iran's government on the level of control of strategic weapons would be so stupid as to believe that nuking a US fleet would not result in the total destruction of Iran, including his own ass.

This concept does however get close to the heart of the REAL issue over Iran: the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would take regime change off the table for the US and Israel.

And that is unacceptable to both the US and Israel - especially Israel.

The only country likely to use nukes in anger in the Middle East is Israel. It has the largest arsenal, it has no enemies with nukes, and it has numerous enemies (essentially everybody outside of Israel). This is why the Israeli nuclear arsenal should be dismantled under order of the UN and enforced by the international community. It is THE biggest threat to peace in the Middle East (unlike Powell's nonsense about Saddam in the '90's.)

It is also the most likely source of a stolen nuke to be used by terrorists.

As for whether Iran would attack Iraq to seize its oil fields, it hardly needs to do so. Iraq under a Shia government - even one run by al-Sadr - would be happy to deal with Iran on very accommodating terms. The point is that Iran has had plenty of opportunity to be militarily expansionist in the last thirty years - let alone the last century - and has shown no signs of being interested under any of the governments it has had. Not to mention that since Iraq's last expansionist move in 1991 didn't turn out too well, Iran is not so stupid as to believe it could do the same even if it had nukes. Even if Saddam had developed nukes in the '90's, he couldn't have used them effectively against anyone without being crisped by the US arsenal.

The whole concept is ridiculous, and merely points up the desperation of the right wing to come up with ANY scenario to justify another pointless war to seize a country's oil or benefit Israel, no matter the cost to the US military or economy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 6:22 PM

Indeed, Iran's economy is desperately dependent upon exporting oil and they are in the same position as the US in the 1970s (when they were first sold nuclear power by the Ford administration) looking at the peak in their oil. They also have an exploding population. They could be net importer of oil inside a decade.

Nuclear weapons make very little sense to Iran; being much closer to a nuclear weapon--that is another matter. But that is exactly what the anti-proliferation framework (NPT) guarantees. It all works if the nuclear weapons powers don't menace the non-nuclear weapons powers with their nukes. Which is as it should be. By far the biggest threat--a mortal threat--to the non-proliferation framework is the US, which seems to want to destroy it and establish a nuclear hegemony instead. The Iranians make a great scapegoats for this. (For more read the articles by Porter and especially Prather at antiwar.com)

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 15, 2008 6:39 PM

Frum is an idiot. The Iran-Iraq war was not a US proxy war. The US did not engage Iraq as a proxy against Iran in any meaningful sense, Iraq attacked Iran for its own purposes.

The US did provide Iraq with certain aid. But they stopped after the tanker war began. From the Iranian perspective the tanker war was entirely successful.

During the tanker war Iran attempted to enforce the embargo with small craft. They did not get good at it, but they did not need to. In fact it might have been counterproductive to make it too apparent that the US was being forced to capitulate.

Since then closing the Straits of Hormuz has become a cornerstone of their defense policy and they have the second largest fleet of missiles in the developing world. They can certainly close the straits if they choose. And they will certainly do so if the neo-cons manage an unprovoked attack on Iran.

Posted by PHB | April 15, 2008 7:23 PM

"...sell oil, and use the resulting funds to buy stuff."

Exactly, Matt. What stuff?

Posted by Robert Powell | April 16, 2008 5:51 AM

Careful, Mr. Powell. If you start pimping an Iran War, you're going to have to come up with a way to connect it to the Great Sacred 1991 Gulf War Which Justifies Everything. How far does that 'restore peace and stability to the area' clause you love so much stretch?

Posted by Anonymous | April 16, 2008 9:15 AM

No chance, Anon. I consider the idea of attacking Iran to be among the most stupid ever proposed. Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't attacked any of its neighbors in centuries, has a relatively modest record in terms of UN Resolutions, and has demonstrated a rather pragmatic, if troublesome, leadership. Moreover, Iran has a political system in which its at least conceivable that its citizens may be able to exert some influence. Currently most evidence points to an Iranian population that's significantly fed up with the regime, and pretty well-disposed towards the US. This, along with a reasonably democratic and pro-Western Shi'ite dominated Iraq, is our best long-term card in this evolving relationship.

That said, nations that are sitting on top of the world's second and third largest proven oil reserves have a lot more capacity for getting up to mischief than others.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 16, 2008 12:36 PM

Well okay then. Glad to hear it.

nations that are sitting on top of the world's second and third largest proven oil reserves have a lot more capacity for getting up to mischief than others.

I'd say that's also true of nations sitting on top of the world's Xth largest oil reserves, where 'X' is the U.S. ranking.

(Sorta joking, sorta not.)

Posted by Anonymous | April 16, 2008 1:30 PM