Iran and the Balance of Power

Email Print posted by randall 07/10/2008 12:52:26 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
The US’s inconsistency on what deters war

The term “Balance of Power” (BOP) is a very old and a very common one and maintaining it has been the United States’ stated policy with regard to potential adversaries for decades.  In fact, the term is so old and so engrained into our collective psyche that most just throw it around oblivious to the fact that in reality BOP is merely a theory of how humans behave at the nation-state level.  And just like every theory, it has a hypothesis:  Nations are less likely to engage in war when they are at parity with one another.  And as with most old theories, BOP is a degenerative one (i.e., it is changed around when empirical data challenges it – like when nations that are at parity with one another go to war anyway).  Finally and again with most old theories, BOP has competition in the form of newer theories that produce better results with fewer specifications. 

OK, so what you ask? 

It has been widely reported that Iran has test-fired a number of missiles capable of striking Israel.  And being election season, Senator McCain wasted no time in repackaging his characterizations of Senator Obama as naïve for suggesting direct negotiation with Iran into characterizations of Senator Obama as having a weak commitment to Israel’s security. 

Here is what I don’t get:

For decades the United States has justified the ungodly amount of money we’ve spent on maintaining huge conventional and nuclear arsenals by appealing to the BOP theory with the wholehearted belief that it was necessary in order to keep the peace with our adversaries.  In fact, we believe in this theory so much that not only have we thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at maintaining BOP, but we’ve also refused to take substantive steps towards arms reduction.  Now Iran is attempting to reach parity with Israel and we are all shaken up. 

Now I am a simple person and not terribly smart so I tend to look at things in uncomplicated ways.  In this case:  Either BOP works at maintaining the peace or it doesn't.  If it does work, I suppose we were justified in spending all that money on weapons systems.  But wouldn't that also mean we should encourage Iran to develop its own systems so it can be on parity with Israel and thereby maintain peace?  On the other hand, if BOP does not work, wouldn't we be wrong to have spend all that money on systems that didn't really do much to maintain peace?  And if peace was what we were truly after, wouldn't that also mean we should encourage both Iran and Israel to demobilize their weapons systems -- particularly the ones that could deliver nuclear devices?  

Finally and with that in mind, does this mean McCain is not serious about Israel’s security?  Or does it mean he is not serious about the United States’ security?
< Barack Obama discusses "White People". | Obama goes to Iraq. >
 Display:
Iran and the Balance of Power | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
On the whole (none / 0)

I think balance of power is at the very least a rather ineffective way of stopping conflict, tending towards useless.  It works in the short term, but if you don't address the underlying causes of conflict between nations, it will break down eventually.  I think money spent on arms reduction and conflict resolution is far more cost effective, not to mention morally superior.

  But you do have a very good point about why we are not following this concept with Iran and Isreal.  Most people know that Isreal is our largest recipient of military aid, but far less people know that Egypt is the second (or at least they were last time I checked).  Same thing on a smaller scale with the Greeks and Turks.  Even if you do buy into the balance of power, and believe arms reduction is  silly and counter-productive, (which all of our presidents, at least since Teddy Roosevelt, seem to beleive) why not apply that logic to Israel and Iran.  I think it has to do with the fact that political decisions involving Israel and the Islamic world in this country tend leave the rational world behind.  If you don't use the special code words everyone has agreed on you are either an anti-semite, or a zionist, depending on who you offend.  

  What is really sad is that there are plenty of concrete examples of how nations can reconcile their differences peacefully, but no-one wants to pay them any attention.

by funkyspoon on 07/10/2008 01:20:50 AM EST

BOP is "weak sauce" (none / 0)
I completely agree with you that BOP is "weak sauce" and very much think that the money we give to other countries would be better spend on helping with foreign nations’ infrastructure, education, and arms reduction.

 

Perhaps that didn’t come through enough – I will tweak it a bit.

by randall on 07/10/2008 01:45:03 AM EST

Balance of power (none / 0)
While I agree that balance of power is a limited theory at best, I also think that "arms reduction" is also somewhat worthless (even more worthless than gun control).  In the end in geopolitics as on the playground..might makes right.  While the middle linebacker in the football team never has to worry about anyone beating him up and taking his lunch money, the flute player in the marching band and the captain of the chess team usually do.  Right now Iran is sick of being picked on and they know the  only way to stop US from pushing them around is to be powerful enough to deter us.  The only other option is to hand over their lunch money. 

The alternative approach is to develop strong trading ties.  I'm sure you've heard of the McDonalds theory that no two contries with a McDonalds have ever fought a war (not exactly true, but close enough).  Basically countries with close trade ties very rarely go to war.  Large numbers of rich people with lots of money at stake tend to get fairly upset with their government when they do anything that might jepordize their business. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/10/2008 02:26:21 PM EST

The limits of military power (none / 0)

"In the end in geopolitics as on the playground..might makes right." 

Raw military power has never been enough.  History has shown this again and again and again.  Every powerful civilization that ever operated with a belief that it was invincible, that it was so powerful it didn't have to address the concerns of other nations, that it could simply step on anyone that was inconvenient has eventually been brought down hard.  This basic equation has not changed, only the weapons have.

by bfaul on 07/10/2008 03:23:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Overextended (none / 0)
The problem is overextension of power leading to internal breakdown and collapse, not external defeat...happened with the imperial european powers (Spain, Britain), happened with Rome, happened with the USSR and it will likely happen with the US.  However, none of these states at the height of their power could be defeateded by an agressor on their home soil.  

Yes imperialism seems to be inharenly unstable, however that does not negate that fact that being more powerful than all your adversaries is a significant deterent to attack.   

by alphasigmookie on 07/10/2008 04:12:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
War in economic terms (none / 0)
another way of looking at it is from the point of veiw of a cost benifit analysis.  Whenever someone is contemplating a conflict they generally assess their chances of winning and cost of winning vs. the benifits.  It is very rare that any party would start a conflict in which they didn't think the costs outwieghed the benifits.  Now of course many times this analysis is wrong (see Iraq, Russia in Afganastan), but it no doubt takes place in nearly every case.  The idea of building more weapons (especially nukes) is to influence that cost benifit analysis.  Where deterents tend to not work well is when you start talking about terrorist groups or separatist groups that don't have anything to lose and a lot to gain. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/10/2008 02:35:10 PM EST

It's our own fault (none / 0)

"Now Iran is attempting to reach parity with Israel and we are all shaken up."

I think that Iran is responding to an explicit lesson it learned from the neocons after 9/11, who, by not pursuing Bin Laden into Pakistan made it crystal clear that if you have nukes the US doesn't have the moxy to cross your border, even if the most notorious terrorist group in American history is known to be sequestered somewhere inside your country.    It is little wonder that they are spinning uranium as fast as they can with one hand and flipping us the finger with the other, especially with our ground forces overstretched in Iraq the way they are.   I think I would have made the same decision in their shoes.

by bfaul on 07/10/2008 04:00:06 PM EST

Iran and the Balance of Power | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: