Yet another vulnerability of an enemy:
Iran is experiencing a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports and, if the trend continues, income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis released yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences.
Yet the economic geographer at John Hopkins University advises doing nothing with this:
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years, it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Mr. Stern said, is good reason to control any instinct to take on Iran militarily.
I don't know about that conclusion. When an enemy is on the ropes, why would you let up the pressure? If an enemy is staggering--push them over! Don't pull back and let them recover their balance. It's ok if we win. Really.
Besides, rather than making Iran more conciliatory, might not looming economic collapse inspire the mullahs to strike hard to gain by force what they cannot provide by themselves? God help us if they have nukes by then.
Heck, maybe we can use non-military means to fix our Iran problem. Indeed, using information like this oil revenue forecast to undermine Iran's mullahs might make it less likely that we need to use military force.
But of course, to think that way you have to have the instinct to recognize an enemy. For some, I won't hold my breath.
UPDATE: Victor Hanson doesn't understand why we should let up on an enemy who is hurting:
So, as Iranians worry that their nation is becoming an international pariah and perhaps heading down the path of bankruptcy in the process, now is not the time for America to give in by offering direct talks with Ahmadinejad. That propaganda victory would only help him reclaim the legitimacy and stature that he is losing with his own people at home.
And please keep in mind that our enemies are not unbeatable. For so many who counsel "redeployment" or negotiating, there seems to be an assumption that our enemies cannot be beaten. In fact, our enemies have far greater problems than we have and only losing our nerve can deliver victory to our enemies.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jack Kelly agrees that the prospect of internal economic collapse might well prompt Iranian aggression rather than making Iran more conciliatory:
Impending fiscal catastrophe could make the Iranians more tractable, Prof. Stern thinks. If the U.S. can "hold its breath" for a few years, it might find Iran to be a much more conciliatory country, he told Barry Schweid, the AP's diplomatic writer, in an interview.
But one of the big reasons why oil production in Iran is declining does not suggest a happy outcome. Iran is spending so much on its nuclear program that next to nothing is being invested in modernizing oil production. Though the West has made it clear it will assist in developing nuclear energy if Iran will forswear its nuclear weapons programs, Iran would rather have the nukes than the carrots the West is offering.
So rather than come begging with his hat in his hand, it's more likely Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will seek a Saddamite solution. When Saddam Hussein invaded Khuzestan in 1980, he didn't say he was doing it for the oil. He was asserting Iraq's historic territorial claims to the region, and acting to protect the Arabs in the province from Persian oppression. Or so he said.
And if Iran should take aggressive action against its oil rich neighbors, it will, ostensibly, be to protect Shia minorities from oppression by Sunni overlords. Or so Mr. Ahmadinejad will say.
I've mentioned the possibility that Iran might have grander visions than just Iraq. Oh, and if you want to brush up on the Iran-Iraq War (The First Gulf War), read my piece here.
