Iran's Crosses the Rubicon

[rahulb]

The dead line of Iran's acquiesence to the Security Councils proposal has now passed. The counter proposals given by Iran are not acceptable as per sources and thus are not likely to have contained suspension of its nuclear enrichment programme. It is therefore certain that there will be a confrontation between the US and Iran. Will this lead to finally capping of Iran's nuclear programme or will it merely create some hiccups for Tehran to acquire nuclear capability will need to be carefully watched. My own feeling is that, Iran is quite determined to acquire nuclear weapons capability and the reason is apparently to see the rise of the Persian empire in a dynamics which has seen its undermining over teh last many decades by its Arab neighbours. It feels that a nuclear weapon will be a currency of power. To that extent, it is not too much of a weapon against the US or the West but a proclamation of its supremacy in the region. But then these are just starters, the essence of nuclear strategy to restrict the number of powers possesing nuclear weapons and hence the concern of the US is well understood. Well these will be interesting times.
Thanks
rahulb

 

[Big-E]

UN sanctions = joke

 

[Waylander]

These sanctions are not a joke. If they are done seriously with the support of russia and china than they can harm a country in a very bad way.
But there are three major problems.

First: I don't see russia or china accepting a full scale sanctioning of Iran.

Second: Most sanctions disturbe the industrial complex of a counbtry but they often enough cause agony to the poor population of a country.

Third: The oil of Iran...

 

[Grand Danois]

Third: The oil of Iran...

Iran exports 2.4 million barrels a day.

Who imports Iranian oil?

• Japan - 600.000 bbl/day - are trying to move away from this source.
  
  
• China - 339.000 bbl/day - new investments in Iranian oil.
  
  
• India - 230.000 bbl/day - invests in Iranian LNG + pipeline.
  
  
• South Korea - 230.000 bbl/day.
  
  
• France/Italy/Holland - 140.000 bbl/day each. All three are expanding their investments.

Targeted sanctions can work, but they would have to be agreed upon instead of pseudosanctions. I don't see this happening due to the oil...

 

[Waylander]

The problem is not the amount of oil itself but that the price for a barrel of oil on the world market is going through the atmosphere with the Iran stopping their exports.

 

[Grand Danois]

The problem is not the amount of oil itself but that the price for a barrel of oil on the world market is going through the atmosphere with the Iran stopping their exports.

Absolutely agree. The US could be affected through prices without importing any Iranian oil.

But those that do business there do still have a direct economic interest. Current contracts, investments, uninterrupted flow, whatnot...

 

[Rich]

Can someone point to one time in history when economic sanctions actually worked?.............. I thought so! It doesnt cause any real optimism with Iran does it?

 

[TheOne]

These sanctions are not a joke. If they are done seriously with the support of russia and china than they can harm a country in a very bad way.
But there are three major problems.

First: I don't see russia or china accepting a full scale sanctioning of Iran.

Second: Most sanctions disturbe the industrial complex of a counbtry but they often enough cause agony to the poor population of a country.

Third: The oil of Iran...

OIL Should be first, as it affects directly and indirectly through prices.

Sanctions are not a joke, but how is it going to be implemented ? China wants OIL and IRAN is a good source.

But I think UN Council should make sure Iran does not get any kind of military hardware or help from any country, that will stop the poor from being affected by the sanctions. But I doubt that will still have any effect of the sanctions.

Conflict between Iran and US, I think it will be major PR disater for US. They are just now finsihed with Iraq, which led to a backlash in the muslim world. Attacking Iran will be like big thing, dunno how the scenario is going to be like.

Cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Actions

Depending on 2008 US elections, I believe it will be Europe first who act one day they will realise we are in range, oops we should do something, the US has at least 10=15years before they or even their direct protectorates come under threat from Irans range, I'm not playing down the threat of any country with nuclear weapons but it is up to Europe to step up, with specific reference to France and Germany, however, Europe has been caught out time and time again so i wont hold my breath.

 

[Waylander]

We acting on our own?
Muhahaha, good joke next joke.

 

[Izzy1]

Conflict between Iran and US, I think it will be major PR disater for US. They are just now finsihed with Iraq, which led to a backlash in the muslim world. Attacking Iran will be like big thing, dunno how the scenario is going to be like.

Do you really think anyone in the region wants a nuclear-armed Iran? Pakistan doesn't, Iraq's current Government certainly wouldn't like it, Turkey would almost certainly do what it could to stop it and Riyadh would almost certainly start looking at its own nuclear options.

The only nation in the region that would be concerned by a US attack on Iran would be Syria - out of the basic fear that it would be next!

There is very little love lost between Arabs and Persians.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Nuke or no Nuke

There is very little love lost between Arabs and Persians.

Exactly you've hit the nail on the head and its a distinction everyone conveniently forgets, or is anaware of.

With proliferation, I believe we are headed for everyone having rather than no one having. Nothing but a UN with a backbone can reverse this and that means resolve in its members that surpass national agendas, :lol3

 

[Grand Danois]

Exactly you've hit the nail on the head and its a distinction everyone conveniently forgets, or is anaware of.

With proliferation, I believe we are headed for everyone having rather than no one having. Nothing but a UN with a backbone can reverse this and that means resolve in its members that surpass national agendas, :lol3

Yup. With the Iranians having them, everybody in the region will make a scramble. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps also Turkey. Proliferation issues.

THAT is the concern of the European decisionmaking establishment, not the mullahs in Iran, who are considered religious fanatics, but still sophisticated enough not to use nuclear weapons in a suicidal way. That includes Iranian use with "deniability." It has been made very clear from eg Chirac that any use against Europe will be answered with a nuclear response.

The general public OTOH is more concerned with the nukes in the hands of radical mullahs. Ahmedinejhad does a lot to reinforce this perception.

 

[Rich]

THAT is the concern of the European decisionmaking establishment, not the mullahs in Iran, who are considered religious fanatics, but still sophisticated enough not to use nuclear weapons in a suicidal way.

We in the West like to believe our enemies, or potential enemies, are as reasonable as we are. And as pragmatic. I wouldn't assume anything with the Mullahs running Iran, including reasonableness and pragmatism. Were talking about "types" that sent children thru minefields barefoot to clear paths for soldiers in their war with Iraq.

The Iranian leadership is hell bent on winning regional dominance and I couldn't imagine a worse bunch to have fingers on the button then these characters. The rest of the world may consider their "death to America" and "death to Israel" babbling as mere rhetoric but I take people seriously when they say such things. Most of all Leaders of Nations.

Back in 1977, right before I joined the Military, I got a weekend trip bought to D.C. and paid for by a friend whos Mom was big into Pro-Shah politics, "they were Iranian". The Shah was visiting America and wanted a big turnout in his favor for the photo ops on the White House lawn. So we hit the clubs in DC for the weekend, played poker in the hotel, and generally had a ball on the Shahs dime. All we had to do was show up at a Pro-Shah rally that Sunday in front of the White House, which we dutifully did.

So were sitting in the bleacher stands they put up across from the White House while Jimmy Carter and the Shah were on the White House lawn, the crowd is shouting Pro-Shah slogans. All of a sudden, from the other end of the parkway, came thousands of masked fundamentalists carrying big sticks. They descended into our crowd and started beating the Pro Shah people to within an inch of their lives. I was on crutches from a twisted ankle, I gave one of them to a buddy and we fought our way out of there, or tried to. It was complete pandemonium!

What I remember is these fanatics savagely beating little kids even. Im talking 8yos here and Im talking terrible beatings. We stayed in the crowd fighting just trying to save some kids. The army ringed the WhiteHouse but didn't come to help us. The only ones that did were some mounted Park police, whose horses just tore these kids up. We got out of there intact and flew home. It really was no surprise to me when the Shah was overthrown, nor was the fact I was so close to Tehran when it happened. And thanks to President peanut for allowing these lunatics into our country to stage their mini-revolt. 9/11 was no big surprise after all.

But my point is its dangerous to assign western standards of reason, civility, or even sophistication to people who live in, and especially those who rule, the tribal 3'rd world. Because the fact is they "aren't" like us no matter what their propaganda machines dribble out and no matter how much we "want" them to be. The ones wearing the turbans on the Iranian revolutionary Council never had to go thru the stringent screening process western politicians are forced to go thru in order to get elected and they certainly dont have the same standards of accountability to their citizens western leaders have.

In short, for an Iranian mullah to gain power not only isn't irrationality a liability, its probably a pretty strong plus on a resume. Add to this they are accountable to no-one but themselves, openly state they want to annihilate all Jewry, and we have a pretty good idea what were dealing with here. Iran went from a totalitarian regime ran by the Shah to a totalitarian regime ran by the Mullahs.

And I would never assume they are reasonable. Having some experience in the region I would never assume anything. Because they "aren't" like us.

 

[Grand Danois]

We in the West like to believe our enemies, or potential enemies, are as reasonable as we are. And as pragmatic. I wouldn't assume anything with the Mullahs running Iran, including reasonableness and pragmatism. Were talking about "types" that sent children thru minefields barefoot to clear paths for soldiers in their war with Iraq.

But my point is its dangerous to assign western standards of reason, civility, or even sophistication to people who live in, and especially those who rule, the tribal 3'rd world. Because the fact is they "aren't" like us no matter what their propaganda machines dribble out and no matter how much we "want" them to be. The ones wearing the turbans on the Iranian revolutionary Council never had to go thru the stringent screening process western politicians are forced to go thru in order to get elected and they certainly dont have the same standards of accountability to their citizens western leaders have.

....

In short, for an Iranian mullah to gain power not only isn't irrationality a liability, its probably a pretty strong plus on a resume. Add to this they are accountable to no-one but themselves, openly state they want to annihilate all Jewry, and we have a pretty good idea what were dealing with here. Iran went from a totalitarian regime ran by the Shah to a totalitarian regime ran by the Mullahs.

And I would never assume they are reasonable. Having some experience in the region I would never assume anything. Because they "aren't" like us.

It is not that the European decisionmakers are deluding themselves with the idea that what drives people and that the perceptions of the world are universal, or that they expect everybody to rationalize the same way as everyone else.

It is just that the not-so-transparent power structure of Iran suggests that the political power lies with industrialist families, conservatism ensured by the Council of Guardians, and a lot of parallel power structures in intelligence, army... They trade of deals internally eg funding of Hezbollah ensures the support of one faction for the other.

Basically a typical dictatorship, in this case dressed up as theocracy, legitimising itself as a protector of values, virtue, from "external aggresion" and whatnot.

There are of course still irrational elements and the risk of a coup by more radical elements. So playing it the European way is by no means risk-free or predictable.

It is a very interesting story, that is a reflection on how to set your agenda through intimidation.

 

[LancerMc]

Will Iran get the bomb? If things don't change, yes they will. Will they use it? No way in hell because beside the fact their country would become a radioactive lake bed after other countries fight back. They want the bomb to become like Rich said a the major regional player. Will sanctions work? Your guess is as good as mine. After Iraq, the world learned how effective oil sanctions were there. Iran could influence the oil market, because the market is so shaky if President Bush farted in the direction of Saudi Arabia the price of oil would go up a dollar.

The political situation in Iran is a lot more unstable then they make it out to be. Unemployment in their youth is extremely high. During the last national election, a large portion of the youth boycotted the election. If and when this large group of Iran's people mobilizes to change their system of government, things will change probably for the better in Iran.

If military actions ever do come about, I do not expect the U.S. to leading the way. Besides Iraq, currently Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. forces, but threatens a number of U.S. allies and NATO members. If the situation ever escalated to actual combat the U.S. would probably be using significant NATO forces in battle.

 

[caksz]

for countries who already have nuke , did the they realize their weapons is also concern to others countries

Will the U.N and others major power give iran a security insurance if they stop pursue nuke techology

 

[fylr71]

There is a short window of opportunity to eliminate the threat of Iran. It is a simple fact Iran will be and must be either forced to give up its uranium enrichment (doubtful) or will be attacked. Iran is also building up its regular military. The most conservative estimates put Iran at 10 years away from having the ability to build nuclear weapons. Most estimates put them at 5 years away. That is the window of oppotunity that the world has. China and Russia will eventually realize that a nuclear armed Iran is not in their best interests. Their only interests in Iran is oil. Perhaps if the west actually allowed them to take some of the spoils of a war Iran they would be more willing maybe even send troops.It is unfortunately obvious however that a diplomatic solution cannot be achieved and that another war in the middle east will happen. It will certainly bog down into another insurgency maybe this time the US won't screw it up.

 

[merocaine]

Wait a minute, Irans invaded central Italy! thing are more serious than I thought.....

 

[Waylander]

It is right that all nuclear weapons are fearsome weapons but I am much more concerned of Iran having nuclear weapons than France.

@Merocaine
Höh?