This whole Iranian issue always catches my attention, partly because I come from the region that can be potentially affected by any kind of Iran-third country military conflict. Although I am currently an undergrad at the American University in Bulgaria, my origins lie in the great vastness of Northern Kazakhstan... [Please, forgive me this short instance of emotional weakness.]

The issue's prominence in my worldnews lookout is also explained by the fact that it's been only a couple of months since I finished reading a book on Central Asian geo-politics, which I am happy to recommend to those interested. It was Lutz Kleveman's "The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia" (Grove Press, 2004). [The link is not meant to be a promotion of the site, just have a look at the reviews of the book.]

The highlight of the read for me was the chapter, in which the author claimed that the inclusion of Iran in the Bush administration's axis-of-evil list of rouge states was, in fact, a signal sent to the Central Asian capitals (esp. Astana). It meant that any association with Iran would lead to complications in these countries' political as well as economic relations with the US. Oil was at the core of this diplomatic maneuver, of course. [For more details, address the book.]

Last week, however, I got an alternative explanation for the US crackdown on Iran over its alleged nuclear aspirations, which takes the argument to the realm of economics or, rather, international political economy. You can find 2 articles here that lay it out in detail.

[While one of the sources may seem of doubtful quality - and I apologize for that - the other one, written by an Economics professor at my university, parallels the line of argument. So there should be some legitimacy to the political events taking place in the Middle East.]

I would love to hear what y'all think about this.