The Turks may not have nuclear weapons, but they have the resources to dominate the Near East if they were so inclined.

Since Iran is one of the few Muslim nations that will openly defy and even provoke the US (Syria may defy the US but never in "public".) This, and its links percived and otherwise for Hezbollah - an organization that is has the legitamacy of being percived to have forced an Israelis retreat - certainly give the Iranian regime credibility throughout the Muslim world. Yet Iran will never be the most powerful or influential Muslim nation because of the key Islamic divides between Shi'ite and Sunni; Arab and non-Arab.

A central part of the Iranian identity is Shi'ism. If a Shi'ite group is being persecuted somewhere in the Muslim world, Iran (to some degree) sees it as their role to stand up for them, which often places them at odds with a large majority of Muslims. Second even though being an 'Arab' may be for the most part as simple as growing up speaking Arabic, the fact is most Iranians don't. A fiery speech made in Persian simply isn't going to fan latent pan-Arabic sentiment.

Lastly, have we forgotten about Egypt and Pakistan? Not only is Egypt geographically situated in the center of the Arabic world it has the largest population of any Arabic country, and is larger than Iran. For that matter Pakistan is more than twice as big and it already has nuclear weapons to boot. Further Pakisant has its own 'street cred.' In addition to already having the muslim bomb, is has a mythical intelligence service (the ISI) and has radical elements that have ties with bin laden.

Iran does have its special leadership role because it gives a governmental platform to the confrontational-aggrieved-religiously self assured-Islamic voice in a way that no other Muslim government does. It certainly does so with more legitimacy. But, even if it does acquire nuclear weapons (and it could be a better bet that Islamic militants come to power over Iran getting the bomb) Iran will never be the heart of the arabic world and it will never be "central" enough to overshadow the other poles of power and influence in the Islamic world, regardless of the fact that the youth of Iran are perhaps the most dynamic in the Muslium world.

Iran the most powerful muslim nation?

There are two phenomena, which will continue to get a sharper profile in years to come: the Muslim identity and their perceived victimization at the hands of the West on the one hand and the ethnic and sectarian differences on the other.

Iran is going to be at the center of both these phenomena. Just as the Shias in Iraq come into their own, and the Shia rise, many Arab countries including Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia would become fearful. Iran would speak for the awakened Shias in the region, thereby accentuating the differences between Iran and the wider Arab world. As the Shia get persecuted in Pakistan at the hands of Sunni radicals, again differences would crop up between the Iranians and the Pakistanis.

Moreover there seems to an increasing amount of discontent within Iran itself amongst the minorities like Kurds, Baluchis and even Azerbaijanis. As the Kurds in Iraq have gained a large extent of independence, so too their brethren in Iran would also fight for more. As the Baluchis in Pakistan become more independent minded, so too would the Baluchis in Iran. The Arabs of Khurezan are also not very happy. However calm in Iran depends on peace between the Persians and the Azerbaijanis. That however is becoming fragile too. In all this mix, when you throw in USA trying to fish in troubled waters, it can become quite hard for the Iranians.

On the other hand, the Iranians can play the Palestinian and the Muslim card quite well. When Iran speaks against Israel and nuclear double standards by the West, people in the Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia sit up, take note and even cheer on the Iranians. As the Iranians start playing a bigger role in Central Asia and the Middle East, they are starting to get more respect.

High Oil prices have in fact strengthened the hands of the Iranian regime, and they are being wooed by many energy hungry countries like China and India.

So Iran without the nuclear weapons would always remain a major player in its own right, as it happens to be now, with perhaps a slightly more forceful presence on the scene, however with the sectarian and ethnic differences with the other countries in the region and ethnic discontent within Iran itself, it would not be able to become the dominant player.

With nuclear weapons, Iran would however go into another orbit. USA, Russia and China are super powers. Most other second class nuclear weapon states are usually subservient to the major powers. North Korea is dependent on China and as such somewhat controllable. Israel does heed to American advice. Pakistan is subservient to both USA and China. UK and France are solidly entrenched in the Western alliance with the US. India is a responsible nuclear power and prone to world opinion. Iran would be a sole nuclear power answerable to no one and to no world opinion. The rise of such a power would indeed change the political dynamics of the region and because of oil, of the world.

M.J, nice piece. You said it all.

Iran is currently knee-deep in religion, and that's never a good thing. And it's not about Islam, either - remember the Crusades? Salem witch hunts? I defy you to give me ONE country that has successfully thrived with a heavy dose of religion. Well, besides India :)

As far as Iran becoming the leading middle-east power, no. Israel is, as you mentioned. Iran and other Muslim countries handicap themselves by trying to adhere to religious conduct and standards that are dated. It's an economic burden and bad for morale.

-mike

Persian paradox

Expectedly, the June 29 Moscow meet of G 8 foreign ministers could not make Iran yield to incentives offered by the EU or buckle under US ultimatums. Supposed to stop further enrichment of uranium believed by the west as preparations for nuclear bombs, Iran sticks to its ground that it is for energy purposes only. It would take more than mere overtures like President Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter to George Bush for US -Iran relations to thaw, frozen since 1979 and mistrust to pave the way for a reasonable level of trust.

Bush's impatience at the June 21 Vienna conference and commander of US forces in Iraq, William Casey's allegation of Iran's covert role in training Shia militias, inciting terror attacks in Iraq are symptomatic for the usage of all options. Again, easily giving up before a boil would make Iran appear pliable under US pressure, a situation detrimental domestically to the leadership Trust levels have vanished partly due to post WWII US policies and Iran's leadership since 1979 that has stifled domestic dissent, flouted human rights and called for the obliteration of Israel.

To restore Anglo-American interests in Iran's oil reserves, the CIA and MI6 engineered Operation Ajax to overthrow the popular government of Dr.Mossadegh in 1953 and foist the Shah. A reign of monarchial dictatorship followed till 1979, where Savak, the secret police did away with nationalists and reduced elections to a farce. Shah's genuine intentions to modernize Iran had its flip side too. Foreigners and the Iranian elite fattened on oil profits made hay while Shah shone, leaving the rest to pick up the few crumbs. Jobs were nonexistent for US educated returnees, while villagers languished below poverty levels. Predominantly Shiite in a Sunni Arab world, Iran got isolated. Former CIA director Richard Helms wrote the Shah was totally out of sync with ground realities. In a deal with Saddam, then number two in Iraq, pilgrim tourism was unrestricted. Tens of thousands Iranians returning from Iraqi Shiite sites of Najaf and Karbala smuggled inflammatory anti-Shah, anti-US cassettes. Blinkered to the lurking danger, he failed to address the grievances of clergymen in mosques all over Iran. After the revolution, their belligerence grew fiercer and the dins of aggressive theology grew louder as the US, by then termed 'Great Satan', was too strong to be met headlong otherwise. Sanctions made things worse.

Later, during the last days of the earlier Bush government, Brent Scowcroft decided against selling light crop-duster aircrafts to Iran fearing they may be used to carry biological weapons.

Jesse Helms, during Clinton's term scuttled the sale of civilian aircrafts on the ground that Iran was on the US State Department's terrorism list. Sanctions also deprived Iran of spares for its national carrier resulting in frequent air crashes. Suspected targeting of US interests indirectly led to strong anti-Iran lobbies in the US.

While the UN Security Council's five permanent members are working overtime to piece together a set of incentives attractive enough to cease uranium enrichment, Iran is naturally skeptical. Iran is apprehensive of another unilateral preemptive strike on the pretext of 'invisible' WMD's, even after the UN inspectors give them a clean chit. US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, both bordering Iran has hyped the threat further. Knowing the futility of bracing up to the US with nuclear strike- power, they cannot also be seen as succumbing easily to US ultimatums. On the other hand, the US believes that Iran is buying time to develop its nuclear arsenal for use against Israel and US interests in the Middle East. Again, unlike Shah's time, Iran is not isolated anymore in the Arab world, does not have a Saddam, nor threaten invasion, but anti-US feelings run high even though exiled dissenters raise US hopes of instant democracy, should the present leadership go.

Knowing the futility of rabid anti-US policies, Ahmadinejad decided to break some ice with his May 8 letter, which though strongly worded, left room for negotiations. The US, in reality demands nothing short of regime change, should Iran not comply. In the worst scenario, the US may attack from 5000 meters up without risking a single marine's foot on the ground, despite mounting dissent at home. Whatever is Iran's motive, stopping enrichment altogether would be fatal for its energy requirements.

In pursuance of unrestricted realism as foreign policy instead of selective engagements, the US unknowingly planted despots and dictators despised by the affected nations. A paradigm shift in Iran-US relationship is imperative for the future of peace in the Middle East. Time will tell if the paradox can be suitably addressed by both.

It is rather amusing to see these ignorant and short-sighted replies. US/EU cannot do anything to really prevent Iran from nuclear techonology period. Even if the US attempted an operation against Iran, its interests worldwide would be jeopardized, and the CIA knows that Iran will react in foreseen and unforeseen ways. Let us march brothers to armageddon. Those who love death more than life shall be the victors.

Hum Ho Gaye Aap Ke
Why does America need India?
After all it's on the other side of the world and is such a large complex nation.
Well my brother cowboys we need India the way a drowning man needs a life boat. In this world nations must act in their self-interest. Yet one nations vital course chosen from self-interest is anthers threat. And as we look around the world our self-interest merges well with that of India's.
As long as China continues to pursue a slow hegemonic surge in search of Asian dominance we need India. She is a bulwark of democracy in...

Interested in the rest? Find it at my pro-Indian blog