A Nuclear IRAN

[jeff]

pigeonmeister - thanks for posting the link to Galloway acting like a lunatic. I saw that a little while ago, and was wondering what the UK press was doing about it. Does he qualify for an ASBO?

PS: Patrician well-moneyed pols from good/powerful/rich family yet with wide appeal are far from rare: FDR, JFK, GWB come to mind. To be rich is very good, to be rich and cultivate the common touch: priceless!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I just happen to think that convincing Iran that it has a lot to gain from this deal will work better.

I tend to agree for the nonce. And I suspect that even the Administration of the rash, imperialist cowboy Bush (tm) would always prefer to accomplish its goals thus. The main point of contention, IMO, is not over whether military force is preferable to or more useful than diplomacy---but rather over the limits of diplomacy, and the perception of when they have been reached. Doubtless Bush's patience is shorter in that regard than many people think is warranted, and his perception of when the benefits of talking have been exhausted is demonstrably different from those of the rest of the world community. As in Iraq, where he concluded that nothing remained to be gotten from Saddam by any tools short of force, while the rest of the world thought that that point had not yet been reached...and some countries gave every indication that they thought it never COULD be reached (cough, France ).

I think that's the real divide between the Bush Administration and the governments of most other countries. And I don't know how it can be resolved. If I'm right, the US may reach that tipping point earlier than the rest of the world on Iran's intransigence, too...

None of the top Iranian or proliferation specialists (or in fact anybody outside America) believe military action is any kind of solution.

Oh, I suspect that there may be one or three in Israel who would beg leave to dissent from that implied consensus.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jeff

pigeonmeister - thanks for posting the link to Galloway acting like a lunatic. I saw that a little while ago, and was wondering what the UK press was doing about it. Does he qualify for an ASBO?

I think the word 'backfired' would be a serious understatement in characterising Mr Galloways stint in Britains favourite reality show. The premise was interesting- that more young people vote to evict the contestants than vote in the general election and ergo George was trying to bring the horse to the water. Yet sadly he was undone by several factors.

1. His poorly hidden contempt for the ignorance of some of the younger contestants, who funnily enough didn't want to listen to him ranting about the plight of the Palestinians. One of the constestants didn't even know what an MP was when he introduced himself! Galloway actually succeeded in alienating all the people in the show who were under 40- commenting regularly with contempt about the 'youth of the today'. Thus completely failing in his objective of appealing to young voters. There was a poll of BBC Radio 1 listeners (the most popular station for 'the young') In the space of 20 minutes 19,661 votes were received. Of these, 18,189 (92.5 per cent) declared hatred for Mr Galloway!!!- nice one George!

2. Laws of media balance, meant that Channel 4 cut the sound EVERY time he went on rant mode in relation to politics. Thus denying the platform that Galloway's huge sense of self importance craved. He wasn't, after he left the show, very happy to hear that all his rants had been missed- ha ha!

3. He was exceptionally cruel to a recovering alcoholic (and clearly very vulnerable) Barrymore- whom you will have not heard, but was once a TV 'national treasure'. That is before the old gay sex, drugs and dead body in the swimming pool incident. Galloway obviously takes any advantage to try and show his total mastery of all issues, and takes delight in 'crushing' those who dare to have a different view. His back stabbing and pomposity was pretty full on. In all seriousness there is a darkness at the heart of Galloway that was exposed for all to see.

4. His Cat impression- if he ever dares to stand up in Parliament again he has been assured (by his fellow parliamentarians) that he will face a deafening chorus of 'Meouws'! If any of you have seen how childishly punch and judy the Commons can be, you will know that it will be seriously funny.

5. His absence from parliament and abandonment of his constituents. He already has the worse voting record in the Commons, and he then missed a debate on a crucial issue for his constituent (for a new tube station in Bethanl Green). Three week holidays in a reality TV show don't go down well. In fact motions were made in the Commons to reprimand him.

There was a priceless moment when Galloway was shown, for the first time, the headlines he had generated. He was visibly shaken and you could tell he was thinking 'oh ****'! The icing on the cake was when the show then cut to Jeremy Paxman (the much feared inquisitor who presents Britain's premier news programme). In a moment of pure joy Paxman asked: 'When you’re ready to talk, so are we — with or without your leotard," (Galloway had also pranced around in a red lycra leotard, dancing with a transvestite)

Even better, Galloway emerged to the news that the Times had a front page picture of a very friendly 1999 meeting with Saddam's psychotic son Uday. "During a 20-minute meeting with the alleged mass murderer and rapist nicknamed The Wolf, Mr Galloway joked about losing weight and going bald and discussed his love of Havana cigars."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...010152,00.html

To top it off Galloway then found out that he could be investigated by the Serious Fraud Office as part of an inquiry into the Iraq oil-for-food corruption scandal.

Literally couldn't have been more of a disaster for him. I'm sure that a few US senators will be ordering the DVD!

There is more here: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_d...al_feline.html

[Gav]

I have to say that I agree.

Galloway seriously misunderstood what was going to happen when he took part. He effectively put himself at the mercy of his opponents with no possible defence. This is exactly what the government needed to neutralise him. All the good will that the earned by "stucking it to the senators" has probably been lost. It has ended his career. PR and political students will, for years, debtate this as a situation that you shouldn't get yourself in.

As for the beeping out of his rants - Channel 4's editorial decisions were "arguable" at best.

As for his contempt of the younger contestants - what did he expect? This is a lowest common denominator show. If you want to see the decline of Britain watch 5 minutes of that tripe.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The main point of contention, IMO, is not over whether military force is preferable to or more useful than diplomacy---but rather over the limits of diplomacy, and the perception of when they have been reached.

I see it more as a question of the limits of military force. Bush's position assumes there are none. Doubtless Bush doens't want a war though. I don't think you fully appreciate the Iranian mindset and this is one area I believe I might have a slight advantage (indeed I hope to be in Tehran in a few months time). To be honest it is easy to forget the way America manipulated that region and underlined the much hated Shah. They honestly don't fear America, perhaps they should but that's as maybe. There are so many layers of Iranian society and government, the one thing that would unite them would be military action. Because of the Iranian reaction to US strikes America would have to keep bombing Iran for ever, disarmament would have to ultimately mean regime change and I don't believe that America has the capabilty to do this again. Conversly If America and Iran could work towards changing the intransigent mindset that defines their approach to each other, then they could realise how much they could both gain from closer relations. This might take 10 years, but military action now would define Iranian attitude to America for the next 100 years. Especially when they have not attacked anyone or even been found not compliant with the NPT. Bomb now and US foreign credibilty would be in tatters, its global agenda ruined- Its lack of credibilty would force America into more isolation and this ultmatley would draw them into more unilateral action and who's to say some Iranian won't carry a dirty bomb into New York anyway? I think that even enrichment with close inspection would be better than this.

An interesting fact is that Iran supported Bush in both elections. Why- initially because they thought his connection to the oil industry would make him less likely to impose an oil embargo. Secondly because Iran will always hate Democrats (cos it was Clinton who started sanctions- I don't think they liked the Oslo accords either)

I think that's the real divide between the Bush Administration and the governments of most other countries. And I don't know how it can be resolved

It might be resolved by Americans dropping this idea that 'Only they know the true nature of the threat.' America (and particularly Bush) has not made the world safer for me or you. If anything they are trying to deal with the 'blowback' of its own actions during the Cold War/ and initiation of the Israli nuclear programme.

If I'm right, the US may reach that tipping point earlier than the rest of the world on Iran's intransigence, too...

Then god help us all.

Oh, I suspect that there may be one or three in Israel who would beg leave to dissent from that implied consensus.

Granted. But I think Israel would suffer the most from a US strike on Iran.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Gav

1) He effectively put himself at the mercy of his opponents with no possible defence. This is exactly what the government needed to neutralise him.
As for the beeping out of his rants - Channel 4's editorial decisions were "arguable" at best.

2) As for his contempt of the younger contestants - what did he expect? This is a lowest common denominator show. If you want to see the decline of Britain watch 5 minutes of that tripe.

1) I think this was politically motivated and I wonder what 'pressures' were applied to prompt this stance. What was naughty was the way Ch 4 blatently told Galloway that he would have his platform, I don't think he would have done the show had he known he wouldn't. I wonder if they asked Christopher Hitchens? To be fair-should Galloway be paid to give a 3 week party political broadcast when no one else in the show was capable of presenting an alternative view?

2)You don't even need to appeal to the young in politics. The old are a far more important political constituent. I won't deny that I found this show quite interesting, purely because it is funny to watch celebrities stripped of their entourage and subject to the same kind of social awkwardness that they don't get when surrounded by arse kissers. A broader point would be the element of 'freak show'. The Victorians were obsessed with physical abnomality. It seems we are obsessed with mental abnomality. Thus we enjoy watching very vulnerable effectively having a mental breakdown on TV. People like Barrymore and Traci Bingham, by entertaining us with their obvious 'issues' have become the modern day elephant man. This is a dangerous precident perhaps, and ethically worrying.

[jeff]

pigeonmeister, Gav - thanks for the Galloway details. Fascinating. He sounds pretty twisted, not a surprise itself, but this is a meltdown of spectacular completeness..

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I
No, I wasn't saying Iran is a greater threat than North Korea ( for example ), only that those things are among the reasons that we are more willing to rattle the sabre at Iran.

Then they are fools, just as Saddam was a fool. I very much hope that they are NOT such fools, and that their bravado is a front for domestic and Muslim consumption.

If Iran is not the greater threat, but America appears more willing to rattle the sabre at them, then does this not make it easier for hardliners to peddle the war on terror as a war on Islam? I think that the major difference between the US and the European approach is that Europe recognises that extremists on both sides benefit from an increase in tensions between the two countries.

They are not fools, they just have long memories and I think that you really don't fully appreciate where they are coming from.

Iranians (mostly older Iranians) still hold the US responsible for the coup against PM Mossadegh in 1953 that reinstalled into power a shah that many of them did not like - and a shah who was brutal and, in their views, un-Islamic. Allbright has apologised for this but the fact remains that Iran has a very young population, most of whom have no recollection of this (or even the 79 revolution). If America waits a few years then this generation gap will become more apparent (as the old guard become to old to hold office)

They also have a sense that the US robbed them of wealth and income, not only from the sanctions, but also by freezing Iranian assets - especially the assets of the former shah. They are astonished that the US has expanded its own laws, like ILSA and others, to Iranian soil, and that Iran has lost its sovereign immunity in the courts of the US - as exemplified in the Flato case.

America has publicy pledged tens of millions to engage in covert activities to either change the Iranian leadership, or to change the way Iran looked at the world. This was done in an extraordinarily public manner. How would America react if Iran tried to interfere in US internal politics? (something that America had promised not to do in 1998 I believe)

Even the modernisers resent the fact that the US successfully blocked loans and other assistance from international organisations like the World Bank and the IMF until just recently, and that the US has been trying to block Iran's membership in the WTO. They saw some of the attempts by PM Khatami to bring Iran back into the international system of trade and finance as being blocked by the US.

There are holdover resentments about the US support for Iraq during the miserable 8-years war, in which Iran lost hundreds of thousands of people. During the war, its economy collapse, and its cities and all-important oil industry got severely damaged.

Many Iranians also hold resentments toward the US for the downing of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes. They were livid when they heard the commanding officer of the Vincennes was later promoted.

The US are also happy not to put anti-Iranian terrorists on the prohibited list, whilst condemning Iranian support for Hezbollah. The lack of sanctions (for the Israeli nuclear bomb programme) is seen as more evidence of double standards. They also find it curious how the sanctions imposed on Pakistan and India were taken off once it was clear that these two countries would help the US with the war on terrorism (even though the Iranians cooperated in Afghanistan)

There is also very little consideration of the strategic position Iran finds itself (effectively surrounded by US client states)There is also no consideration that Iran is changing rapidly, a change that can only be arrested by US strikes. There is also no consideration that Iran was more democratic than Syria, Iraq and Libya put together.

Then there are the symbolic insults- such as the fact that all (and only)Iranians have to be finger printed in order to enter the US.

The crashing of spy drones and obvious special forces operations in Iranian territory havn't helped either.

All this has prompted relations to fall into more ideological positions, rather than more pragmatic ones. Instead of focusing on the geopolitical, strategic and economics of each- the arguments often fall into other categories, because both start from a mindset that talking to each other is pointless. Russia has come closest to positive movement because it has rejected any notion that violence can solve this issue, more importantly they have appealed to Iranian pragmatism- not its fears, stereotypes or stubborness.

For many Americans the first things that come to mind when one mentions Iran are: the hostage crisis, the bombing of the marine barracks and the embassy in Lebanon in the early 1980s, support for Hezbollah and other "terrorist" groups, and mullahs in black turbans leading demonstrators yelling "Marg bar Amrika" (Death to America).

Fair enough but America must also (in my opinion) recognise the growing pro-Americanism in Iranian youth (which would be dashed for another generation if they were attacked), the economic potential of Iran, the stablising factor it could play in Iraqi politics and the message that a diplomatic solution would send (a stronger message than a military solution in my opinion)

This is also costing America money: Trade between the US and Iran is miniscule. The US exports about $9 million of goods and imports from Iran about $51 million. Compared to the $10+ trillion US economy and the $100+ billion Iranian economy, these numbers are barely on the economic radar screen. US investment in Iran is pretty much nonexistent and that means jobs. With more investment America would be able to exert more economic power (not just military). It is from this stance that Germany, China and Russia have been more succesful than America. Indeed America, in attempting to isolate Iran, has really (by threats of force) only succeeded in isolating itself. How has this helped?- blaming Europe for this isolation shows a remarkable lack of sophistaication and just perpetuates the problem (and impedes European-US relations)

Both sides have to realise that each other are not inherently 'evil'. This gets in the way on so many issues. Iran and the US could also work together on energy projects. Central Asia is slowly coming on line as the next big producer of oil and natural gas. Iran wants to pipelines to go the shorter route through its territory to the Gulf and on to India, Pakistan and beyond. The US wants the pipelines to go in the other direction. So far it has been successful in getting its way, even if the pipelines through Iran would be cheaper to build. The US does not want the transport fees going to a country that it considers part of the "axis of evil".

Don't give up on diplomacy. I know what you are going to say: Iran supports terrorism in Israel, wants WMD, is not fully democratic, hates America and wishes Israel dead. None of this is going to change by bombing- it is a short term fix (if a fix at all). The long term solution is better relations and incoporation into the international community. I think Europe is right to believe that military threats are the biggest obstacle to achieving this. Iranians genuinly feel agrieved by US policies (since the 50's) and don't fear an attack. The views of those who advocate military action should be judged within the context of their stated agenda for US strategy in the region- a strategy that goes beyond Iran and the present crisis.

[Epee_Pox]

Can someone explain to me why Iran is now saying that, should the international atomic agency refer the matter to the UN, it would mean the end of diplomacy?

[pigeonmeister]

Iran took the stance that it would halt voluntary surprise UN inspections if it is referred to the UN Security Council. It hasn't said it would end diplomacy.

This is a mistake (by Iran) because finaly diplomatic pressure is coordinated and China and Russia seem onside. America stil wants a 'referral' that means sanctions, yet Russia and China seem to agree to 'reporting' Iran- not 'referring'. But at least now there is agreement that the Security Council should get involved. I can only assume that Iran is trying to break up this fragile concensus by ratcheting up the pressure so as to provoke a US demand the reporting is not enough and thus breaking the concensus between Russia and America. The previous status quo (of America being the the bad cop and Europe the good cop) was easier for Iran to exploit- they want to go back to this but are scared by Russian cooperation.

I would take this to mean that diplomatic pressure is working- because Iran feels less protected by the Russian veto than before. This means that the diplomatic pressure has teeth and can have a chance to apply itself. It is certainly not an argument for renewed enthusiasm for a military strike.

[Epee_Pox]

Thanks.

Interesting comment:

"We view any referral or report to the (U.N.) Security Council as the end of the road for diplomacy, and this is not a positive step," said Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

"For the Europeans and the IAEA board, this step will not be a bright moment, and if I may say, it will be a bad move to refer a country's nuclear file for further investigation to the Security Council. And to do this with Iran's file, it will be a bad direction to take for the Europeans."

[jBirch]

<Pulls Pin...>

I'd like to introduce a bit of contention into this debate if I may for a moment...

<throws grenade...>

No two nuclear powers have ever gone to war. Sure, they've abused third parties and engaged in some pretty intense skirmishing, but they've never gone to war. In fact, where severe disagreements exist, nuclear weapons have served to increase peace, not destruction. Would anyone care to conjecture where WWII or Korea or Vietnam would have gone had there not been the threat of nuclear retaliation? MADD, as a philosophy, actually does provide a check on one's actions.

I'm actually of the opinion that while terrorist activity in the region will probably increase, military conflict (with armies and air forces and the like) will decrease. Israel is actually more secure with Iranian nukes then it is without them for the simple reason that Iran has less to fear from Israel and the rest of the West.

<Ducks...>

James.

[jBirch]

And because I always like to inform you Yanks just who is the one doing all the real diplomacy in the world...

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionF.htm#x1
http://www.ccnr.org/myth_1.html

I mean really. The evil plan is to make sure that the Timmy's infiltrations go unnoticed as the US military is too tied up elsewhere...

*evil grin*

James.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

<Pulls Pin...>

I'd like to introduce a bit of contention into this debate if I may for a moment...

<throws grenade...>

No two nuclear powers have ever gone to war. Sure, they've abused third parties and engaged in some pretty intense skirmishing, but they've never gone to war. In fact, where severe disagreements exist, nuclear weapons have served to increase peace, not destruction. Would anyone care to conjecture where WWII or Korea or Vietnam would have gone had there not been the threat of nuclear retaliation? MADD, as a philosophy, actually does provide a check on one's actions.

I'm actually of the opinion that while terrorist activity in the region will probably increase, military conflict (with armies and air forces and the like) will decrease. Israel is actually more secure with Iranian nukes then it is without them for the simple reason that Iran has less to fear from Israel and the rest of the West.

<Ducks...>

James.

Supposing there is more than a grain of truth in what you say (and there is), are you sure that the end state is preferable? Would you rather have wars where armies fight armies as countries protect their interests, or conflicts where jihadists kill civilian mommies and babies in the attempt of private interests to get their way.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I see it more as a question of the limits of military force. Bush's position assumes there are none.

Were that true, we would already be fighting in Syria and Iran, North Korea and the Pakistan tribal regions, and perhaps elsewhere. Clearly he knows that there are SOME limits.

I don't think you fully appreciate the Iranian mindset and this is one area I believe I might have a slight advantage (indeed I hope to be in Tehran in a few months time). To be honest it is easy to forget the way America manipulated that region and underlined the much hated Shah. They honestly don't fear America, perhaps they should but that's as maybe.

You're right, all I know of Iran is what I read...

Because of the Iranian reaction to US strikes America would have to keep bombing Iran for ever,

Why? It's not as though Iran has the capacity to sail across the seas and attack the US. What are they going to do, take over another embassy? Help terrorists? They do that already.

Now economically they are potentially a threat. They could throttle shipping in the Straits and embargo their oil. I don't see why we'd have to continue military action.

Unless you're saying they'd invade Iraq to get at our troops there? ( And if so I suspect they'd make no more headway than did Saddam's Republican Guard. Iran is not China, it is not capable of indefinite human wave attacks. ) I cannot see how Iran could do more against the US than a combined Arab army accomplished in two wars against tiny Israel.

No, as I see it we'd only need to bomb a few selected facilities, damage a few critical processes and then withdraw to thumb our noses at them. Not that I think that'd be a very wise thing to do, of course. Just possible.

Conversly If America and Iran could work towards changing the intransigent mindset that defines their approach to each other, then they could realise how much they could both gain from closer relations.

Perhaps, but the Iranian attitude and sense of grudge would probably mean that the US would have to abase itself to some extent in order to appease Iranian religious opinion, and probably to offer concessions such as the abandonment of Israel.

In the absence of the potential for nuclear weapons it would be best to wait out the aging mullahs and let the demographic trends and desires for greater freedom and outside contact bring about an internal regime change. Unfortunately, that may be exactly why the Iranian theocrats want a nuclear program: they realize that the tide of time is against them.

Especially when they have not attacked anyone or even been found not compliant with the NPT.

Have you seen the report leaked from the IAEA today, aout Iran's acquisition of black market plans and documents having no peaceful purpose but rather only use in creating nuclea weaponry?

Bomb now and US foreign credibilty would be in tatters, its global agenda ruined-

I don't think anyone is contemplating it as yet. We're having trouble enough getting Iran referred to the SC. One step at a time. Although of course Israel may be closer to such a step than we are, and we would no doubt support Israel if they stole a march on us.

I think that even enrichment with close inspection would be better than this.

But Iran will not permit the latter. They have demonstrated a willingness to connive and conceal and dissemble, and to defy and refuse, in the face of monitoring and oversight attempts. There is no reason to believe that is likely to change.

An interesting fact is that Iran supported Bush in both elections. Why- initially because they thought his connection to the oil industry would make him less likely to impose an oil embargo. Secondly because Iran will always hate Democrats (cos it was Clinton who started sanctions- I don't think they liked the Oslo accords either)

And maybe one religious zealot recognizes a kindred spirit in another.

America (and particularly Bush) has not made the world safer for me or you.

This is debateable at best. The picture probably won't be clear for many years, or perhaps even decades, and depends on whether we are talking about short-term safety or long-term security...

I must say that personally I would rather face an irritated viper in the open now than to let it breed more vipers to crawl off and hide in the grass and under the woodshed to emerge tomorrow. ( Whether "facing it" means killing it or only penning it is another question. )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

If Iran is not the greater threat, but America appears more willing to rattle the sabre at them, then does this not make it easier for hardliners to peddle