Iran

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by RJM Corbet

'Never give an inch' is their philosophy ...

That used to be Ian Paisley's philosophy in Northern Ireland and it led to years of bloodshed.

I have to say I used to hate they guy but now have nothing but respect for his pragmatic approach to bringing peace to the region.

I think that the only solution is for both sides to negotiate and, to get back to the theme of the thread and I think my first post here, some kind of compromise over nuclear weapons. Northern Ireland is a prime example of both how to get things wrong and how to get things right in the political arena.

[Ursa major]

I think the concentration on Iran's need for nuclear weapons because of its opposition to Israel and the US is a useful smokescreen for all concerned. Yes, Israel sees Iran as a threat, and might lash out because of that, but I don't think Israel sees Iran as an enemy beyond that particular (very important) context.


If I was an Iranian, I would want my country to have nuclear weapons because Pakistan has them (and will have them until at least the time that India gets rid of its nuclear weapons, which is no time soon). Why? Because Pakistan has shown itself vulnerable to religious fervour and pressure, and the nastier aspects of that fervour aren't only directed at the West, but also at Pakistan's Shi'a and Christian minorities.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

... I think the concentration on Iran's need for nuclear weapons because of its opposition to Israel and the US is a useful smokescreen for all concerned ...

That's it, a smokescreen, like Iraq.

If China shows the will to mount its nukes on ICBMs, that will be the time for real concern. Both China and India have the ability to create ICBMs, both have well developed space capability.

The big threat of Iran possibly developing a single nuke, in the next few years, is obviously not worth all the fuss going on at the moment. Of course Israel will support any initiatives to prevent its neighbous developing nukes, of course they will.

But in the meantime it's conflicting global interests around Iran that are the real issue, and I'm sorry to say it, but the west has looked like the military aggressor all along, under the terrorism label that has taken over from the cold war, taking quick advantage of the Arab Spring, (except in Syria which has no strategic advantage, and difficult complications with Russia and China) and with no sign of stopping now ...

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by RJM Corbet

That's it, a smokescreen, like Iraq.

But not in the same way.

The WMD (not) in Iraq were an excuse for Iraq to be invaded on other grounds; whether these were control of oil, or dealing with unfinished "family" business, or something else, who really knows?. Iraq wanted its neighbours - particularly Iran - to believe that it might have WMDs in order to ward off any military threats from that quarter.


I think Israel is genuinely concerned (which means that the US is too) about Iran's intentions, but, of course, Israel can't invade Iran, only use air strikes. Israel knows that once Iran has nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them and has the means to obtain them, thereby introducing yet another religion-obsessed country into the nuclear club. (A quick look at a map will show that the Saudis wouldn't need ICBMs to reach Israeli territory.)

What those in the US who have a say in the matter are up is hard to work out (perhaps because there are so many conflicting semi-interests, that they themselves don't know).


But the biggest smokescreen is on Iran's part. What could be better than appearing to confront those too great enemies, Israel and the US, when you're far more worried about the mad mullahs just across your eastern border?

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

... But not in the same way ...

Oh to be a fly on the wall?

But it appears to me, with whatever common sense I have, that Iran is somehow taking the game to a whole new level not encountered in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

China, since I was a child, has always been 'the sleeping giant' and Russia since the cold war ended, has been trying to sort itself out again as a coherent national entity from the break up of the USSR back into its original independent member nations, and the gangster capitalism which has replaced communism in Russia itself, still easier said than done.

China has been busy with the excitement of building a new capital driven production economy and securing markets for its new production, while the west has decided to corner the oil, which is the most essential global currency, both economic and military.

At the same time Brazil and India have become powerful production economies, and the formation of BRICs has been happening, originally as an economic bloc, but for how long will it stay that way? Surely BRICs by now has realized that the west in the meantime has been seizing control the supply of oil, defensively, economically to protect its own way of life in the face of BRICs, but having no qualms about using military means.

Iran may just be a step too far, as far as BRICs is concerned, and compel them to resistance? The BRICs bloc, if they stuck together, would be a formidable military opponent to the armies of the west? Human rights are not be too high on some of their lists either ...

[JimBraiden]

China indeed has on paper at least a formidable amy and airforce- the navy is much weaker. What China does not have is the ability to project that force. Nor indeed does Russia. In the event of a joint US Israeli strike on Iran China and Russia might be highly vocal in their criticism but there is little or nothing they could do in the practical sense.
Palestine is indeed to be found on modern day maps- mostly those produced by the PLO and their allies.

[paranoid marvin]

All China need to do is sit on their nukes - which is why the US will never do anything to really annoy them, or put them in a position where they feel they must retaliate. Same applies to Russia - that's why joining the nuclear club is the ultimate goal of any smaller nation. It gives them a seat (if not a voice) at the big boys' table , and virtually guarantees that no-one will invade your country.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

All China need to do is sit on their nukes - which is why the US will never do anything to really annoy them, or put them in a position where they feel they must retaliate. Same applies to Russia - that's why joining the nuclear club is the ultimate goal of any smaller nation. It gives them a seat (if not a voice) at the big boys' table , and virtually guarantees that no-one will invade your country.

Ummm ... yeah. Good point. Definitely true.

[JimBraiden]

Hmm.. the idea that either China or Russia would engage in a nuclear war to defend Iran is, to be polite, very far fetched.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

Hmm.. the idea that either China or Russia would engage in a nuclear war to defend Iran is, to be polite, very far fetched.

I agree. Nuclear war would never be a first option. But weapons are weapons, and conflicts escalate ...

[Foxbat]

The whole point of the creation of The Islamic Republic Of Iran was to spread their version of Islam throughout the world (in much the same way that Lenin wished to spread Communism - through violence and revolution throughout the world).

Although time has changed this ideology somewhat, the essence of it still permeates the structure of Iranian Government through the existance of The Council Of Guardians and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. It may only be a matter of time before fundamentalism with a view to world revolution re-emerges as the driving force in the country

Because of this situation, I think that both China and Russia will support Iran - to a certain extent. But, unless either really wish to see this fundamentalism unleashed and unchecked, they will be very pragmatic in their support and will withdraw it when their interests finally align with the West.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

The whole point of the creation of The Islamic Republic Of Iran was to spread their version of Islam throughout the world (in much the same way that Lenin wished to spread Communism - through violence and revolution throughout the world).

Then we should be relaxed, give or take vigilance on the terror front. It isn't as if Lenin had much success, not over the long term, and the Russia he took over was, for all its relative backwardness, a Great Power; Iran hasn't been one of those for quite some time. And it isn't as if Sunni Islam is exactly moribund, or lacking in fanatics, so Iran would be hard pressed to convert even the Middle East to Shi'a Islam. (And Shi'a Islam itself is not monolithic.)


What I will grant you is that the oil producing areas around the Gulf have significant populations of Shi'as, which is presumably one reason the West is prepared to arm Saudi Arabia to the teeth, in spite of that country's Salafist (Wahhabist) outlook.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

What I will grant you is that the oil producing areas around the Gulf have significant populations of Shi'as, which is presumably one reason the West is prepared to arm Saudi Arabia to the teeth, in spite of that country's Salafist (Wahhabist) outlook.

I think you are probably right on this point. I see the role Saudi Arabia plays in the gulf much the same as the Warsaw Pact countries during the cold war - as a buffer. Not so much, this time between East and West but to counteract effect of Iran (95% shi'ite) on the region (as well as being a major oil exporter in its own right).

However, our dependance on this region for oil and our turning a blind eye to some of the more extreme views emerging in Saudi may, in the long run, be a much more dangerous foe than Iran.

[Ursa major]

I would agree with that.

It seems to me that Saudi Arabia spends a good deal of time, money and effort in backing its version of its faith amongst coreligionists in the West and elsewhere. I'm not sure that Iran has the same opportunity (in terms of the number of adherents to Shi'a Islam), so is limited to other, less productive, avenues.

[Harpo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21768360

As US President Barack Obama arrives in Israel, he does so amid a growing sense of urgency among the Israeli leadership over Iran's nuclear programme - and the possibility it will take military action to stop it.

The window in which to solve the crisis by peaceful means, estimated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN last September as this spring or summer, is closing, and the prospect of a military strike looms.

Then, the prime minister, in front of a global audience, famously produced a caricature of an Iranian "nuclear bomb" and, with a red marker pen, drew a line near the top - making crystal clear where along Iran's path of uranium enrichment Israel would not allow it to reach.

Just days earlier, America had spurned Israeli attempts to set deadlines publicly, reiterating a preference for negotiations as "by far the best approach".

In Mr Netanyahu's view, discussions with Iran have served only to buy it time to finish its nuclear project, and are pointless unless coupled with a credible military threat.

The key question observers and analysts disagree over is whether this is merely a strategy by Mr Netanyahu to apply the greatest possible pressure on the US to take more robust action to get results, or whether he would actually order a strike.

"He's not bluffing at all," says Maj Gen (ret) Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel's National Security Council. "He believes if, at the end of the day all other options are exhausted - and there are only two options: either get used to nuclear weapons in Iran or try to stop it by Israeli means - then he will prefer the second."