General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2181015

    Iran

    Locked

    by onbliss ·

    The chatter in the media on Iran is increasing as days go by. One can be sure there is more than what meets the eye.
    The posture of Iranian Government is certainly worrisome. Wonder what is in store !!!

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3264334

      US/Iran

      by entramex ·

      In reply to Iran

      Does it occur to anyone that the posture of the US government is, and has been, far more worrisome?

    • #3264319

      Who knows.

      by bob in calgary ·

      In reply to Iran

      The posturing by both the US and Iran are worrying.

      The Iranian government does open mouth before engaging brain, but how much of a threat are they really? Isreal has Nukes and doesn’t abide by any international treaties, India and Pakistan have Nukes plus a whole host of other countries.

      The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and no one can put it back again.

      Any country can and will develope nuclear technology if they want to or feel the need to. All the UN can do is delay the inevitable.

      The US can’t afford another war, especially against a country that wasn’t crippled by 12 years of sanctions and if they try then there goes the Mid East Oil. The straights of Hormuz are too easy to blockade. The US cannot use Nukes as a first strike weapon regardless of how some may think. The consequences would be too catastrophic.

      The way out of this must be through diplomacy.

      And with that I guess I’ll just sit back and get roasted.

      • #3264304

        Israel doesn’t

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Who knows.

        say it wants to wipe another people off the face of the earth however.

        In a tight-knit theocratic dictatorship like Iran’s, some crazy (such as Tehran’s mayor) may become powerful enuf to actually use the nukes in offensive move against other peoples.

        • #3264291

          Isreal

          by bob in calgary ·

          In reply to Israel doesn’t

          I mentioned Isreal to make the point that Nukes are already in the middle east. And currently no one says Isreal will wipe anyone off the face of the earth, What happens in 10, 20, 50 years is another matter.

          Whose to say Pakistan won’t become a radical country in the future.

          Look at the Big picture. at best you can delay events You cannot stop them.

          The US has a very simplistic view of the world, As long as they make countries “free” and “democratic” whatever that really means they think everyone will play nice and be friends.

        • #3285576

          It is almost one now…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Isreal

          Pakistan is almost a radical country, right now.

        • #3285371

          Actually we can stop

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Isreal

          some countries from getting nukes.

          With that defeatist logic, why stop with letting countries get nukes? Maybe any group that wants them should have them? Why make them go to the bother of having to smuggle the plutonium and uranium themselves? Why make them have to spend alot of money enriching the stuff? Why make them have to find expensive precision parts from all over?

          If it’s inevitable, lets just get rid of all the controls? Hand them out like candy?

          You sound like the kind of person who leaves their house and car unlocked. After all, if they ‘really wanted to’ they could break in no matter what you do, right?

        • #3103523

          Don’t Think so

          by bob in calgary ·

          In reply to Actually we can stop

          You seem to confuse realism with defeatism, I am just being practical. The correct forum to control nuclear developement is the IAEA and the UN.

          The rest of your post doesn’t warrant a reply.

        • #3285575

          But, the very creation of Israel…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Israel doesn’t

          …was problematic.

        • #3105559

          I’ve heard it called “selling wolf tickets”

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Israel doesn’t

          It apparently takes quite some time to make a nuke. Having one nuke, and using it, is kind of like shooting a single shot shotgun into a crowd of heavily armed and ready sharpshooters. You?re going to have a hard time reloading.

          You?d have to be insane or have a death wish.

          On the other hand, having a loaded shotgun in the ready position does have a tendency to make people leave you alone and pay attention to what you have to say. Maybe we should just listen for a change.

        • #3287286

          No, one can actually be quite sane to act as Iran is doing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve heard it called “selling wolf tickets”

        • #3287257

          Big sigh

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to No, one can actually be quite sane to act as Iran is doing.

          I?ve read this same thing three times now. Please give it a rest.

          Let?s try to make a case for sanity in the way the US is acting, JUST regarding the war, shall we?

          What sane country would BORROW a Trillion dollars from friendly countries to make war upon another country for basically no really good reason? Yes, I?m talking about the war in Iraq. Oh, wait? I guess that would be the US. Somebody?s going to have to pay that back. What REAL value will they have to show for that money?

          What sane country would not have UNDENIABLE evidence before going to war? Wait again? that would be the US. Let?s try to ignore that for now.

          If you want to talk about 9/11, Al Queda, Al-Qaeda or how ever you want to spell it, make ALL of the evidence available to support your conclusions that the official story is undeniable.

          On second thought, don’t bother trying to prove it. You can’t.

          Show me how all of the, sane, much better educated folks than me (and, I suspect, you) who say that 9/11 didn?t happen the way Bush and Company say it did are wrong.

          Of course anyone that doesn?t see it the way they?re told to see it is just a kooky conspiracy theorist. Disregard their MIT, Harvard, and Oxford degrees and Professorships. They?re probably on drugs. Damn hippies.

          What sane country wouldn?t demand that ALL of the evidence and investigations about 9/11 be trotted out on TV? That would be the US again. Hell, we endured the O.J fiasco for months but where was the show about 9/11? Oh, that?s right! American Idol is on.

          What sane country would?ve gone to war without trying every possible means of avoiding such a costly conflict? Totally impossible to have Mr. Sadaam Hussein come over for tea and crumpets I guess.

          Hmmm? I?m seeing a pattern here.

          What sane country goes to war without a plan on how to win that war with minimal troop casualties? Need anyone answer? Don?t we all know?

          So, if we judge ourselves, as a country, to be sane and choose to believe that the copyrighted document that keeps getting trotted out here is the absolute unvarnished truth that can never be disputed, what exactly is the sane thing to do?

          Quick, I need to go to bed. How can I sleep if some Mullah’s half a world away might have a thimble full of enriched Uranium?

        • #3287096

          Was the above posted out of place ?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Big sigh

          As I’ve said nothing contrary to what you state in your post, and do, in fact, concur with your position, I am at a loss to understand how it is that you might think otherwise.

          You state that you’ve read “this same thing three times now,” but it is not clear to me what “thing” it is to which you refer.

          All I did was point to the StratFor analysis which explains how Iran’s current posturing [i]might be rational[/i], rather than being the offspring of a mad man.

          Please clarify.

        • #3287287

          Iran may welcome a nuclear strike against itself.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Israel doesn’t

    • #3286527

      Iran

      by peter warren ·

      In reply to Iran

      Iran

      While I wouldn?t consider myself an expert, far from it in fact, I tend to doubt that the US will move militarily against Iran in the near future, not counting psychological, diplomatic and economic pressures. I would think that any military action is a minimum of 2 to 3 years off, and probably significantly further away than that. And that?s if it ever happens. Because of our mistakes in Iraq, we are hardly in a position to invade Iran, and this isn?t going to change anytime soon. That leaves air strikes, naval action and small scale special action teams. In my opinion, unless we plan to go nuclear or conduct massive, long-term, strategic bombing, say on the scale of the bombing of Germany and Japan in the 40?s, these approaches will only serve to galvanize Iran against the rest of the world and America in particular. The problems of using nuclear bombs first, or of destroying the cities, industries, oil fields of Iran, not to mention the slaughter of tens millions of civilians, are too massive for this to be successful in the long term. In plain language, only a mad fool would take this course and expect a positive outcome.

      As for emerging Iranian military capability, with or without nuclear weapons, they are not remotely close to the US and its allies in military capability. Of course it won?t take much to disrupt the world oil markets, and if they do get the bomb and use it against Israel or American forces in the area, we can all kiss our extravagant lifestyles goodbye. But the Iranians will be slaughtered in a massive retaliation. Their leaders and the majority of Iranians know this. These are not stupid people.

      If we and our allies contained the nuclear-armed Soviet Union for fifty years, and their nuclear- armed Chinese allies (who were considered the ?fanatical? communists) for almost as long, we can certainly contain Iran, just as we could have certainly contained Iraq.

      The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (M.A. for short), is a loose cannon, but he is not the ultimate authority in Iran. He has handlers and has to answer to the clerical power structure. So the question is — will this power structure sit idly by while the firebrand M.A. leads their nation down a dead end street? I don?t think so.

      Another question to consider: can M.A. gain complete control? For example, Hitler was able to out-maneuver his early industrial and military supporters and ?handlers? in 1930?s Germany. He gained unchallenged power and we all know what happened next. I don?t see this same capability in M.A. yet, but this angle certainly needs to be watched. And while Hitler enjoyed wild, almost worshipful support among younger people who were seduced by his nationalistic and racial myth making, my impression is that a significant percentage of the youth in Iran is fed up with all the repression and rejection of the modern world. This is where the rest of the world should be focusing ? cultivating a better relationship with the educated and the young in Iran.

      Another point to consider is that Iran has tremendous social problems, which is in part why M.A. rose to the President?s office in the first place. He was very popular with Iran?s poor and unemployed. So far, M.A. has been tall on sword rattling, swagger, racist anti-Semitism, and challenging the US and Europe. But he has not made progress on solving Iran?s economic and social problems. His support will not last if he does not produce some tangible improvements. If this failure continues, and I can?t imagine why it won?t, M.A. will have to answer to the Mullahs who want stability in Iran so they can continue ruling their theocratic fiefdom.

      I think the elephant in the living room for both Iran and Iraq is oil. We are uncomfortable admitting how oil is driving us into an endless cycle of war. Even the leaders of the religious fanatics who have declared war on the US are fighting to control the oil, though they?ll give you a lot of gibberish about Islam, martyrdom, blah, blah, blah. They don?t want us out of Arabia and the Middle East because it?s ?holy.? They want us out so they can overthrow the current rulers and gain control of the oil resources.

      I know many reasons are given for going to war, but I think there is always an economic driver. Fanatics and idealists may kill and die for an idea, but nations are led to war for economic reasons.

      So what can we do? I think we Americans need to demand that serious, massive resources be dedicated to the development of modern, alternative energy sources. I don?t mean trial runs, and small time experimental projects, photo ops and pr speeches about how this is our future. We need to make it our present. I mean large scale, national projects on the order the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, the US highway projects, the TVA projects. We Americans have amazed the world in the past, and we can do it again. But we must have leadership with the courage move forward.

    • #3075340

      Sanctions and isolation

      by av . ·

      In reply to Iran

      Iran’s defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting to the world about enriching uranium and testing missiles isn’t going to win him any friends.

      I certainly hope the US is not really considering “tactical nuclear strikes” in Iran or anything else like it. Why go to war if there is another way?

      In the end, I think Iran will be sanctioned by the UN as long as GWB can work diplomatically. If Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapon capability yet, he can be contained.

      • #3103571

        Sanctions will work

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Sanctions and isolation

        if you ignore the fact that they will likely have nuclear missiles of better quality aiming probably than Saddam’s SCUDs, by the time the UN gets around to sanctioning them.

        I doubt we’d nuke strike them. Maybe a few conventional bombs thru the roof of their enrichment facilities.

        Iran, despite using energy embargoes for political pressure (case of Turkey getting suddenly cutoff for a while from Iran nat gas pipeline after a vote about Iran), can’t afford to not ship their oil. 90% of their govt revenues and 40% of their income is from oil exports.

        • #3105686

          Couldn’t they sanction them now?

          by av . ·

          In reply to Sanctions will work

          Iran is a major threat to the world and most countries do not like the bravado of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about joining the Nuclear Club. I don’t know how long it usually takes to impose sanctions, but it needs to be done right now. I think Iran could be contained if it is done early.

          I surely hope we don’t bomb anyone else unilaterally. Support from the UN Security Council has to be there before any action is taken. Especially Russia and China.

          Iran needs the oil money, but they don’t have to sell oil to the US. If they can divide the security council countries with a promise of oil, they may avoid some sanctions. I don’t think the US wants to alienate the Iranian people either.

          Iran needs to be isolated from the world until it complies with the IAEA.

        • #3105556

          About that statement

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Couldn’t they sanction them now?

          ?Iran is a major threat to the world and most countries do not like the bravado of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about joining the Nuclear Club.?

          Did you get that from CNN, Fox or some other threat-of-the-day news channel?

        • #3287315

          Do you disagree with the statement?

          by av . ·

          In reply to About that statement

          I’ve seen it on many different news sources.

          Every news channel has threat-of-the-day news lately because that is our world.

        • #3287269

          Who’s the bully?

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Do you disagree with the statement?

          Sure I disagree.

          There are 192 countries in the world of which 9 are supposedly nuclear capable.
          Iran is ranked 20th in World population AND has yet to be proven to have a nuclear WMD.
          Given some fairly current figures that places them at about 3-4% of the population total.

          Bad analogy follows:

          As a thought experiment, try to picture a high stakes high school football game that everybody is going to go to. Now imagine the ENTIRE country of Iran as a high school wanting to go and pretend they actually have a way to get there.

          Do you expect them to kick the entire stadiums 96-97% larger collective butt during half-time? It?s a pretty rough, well trained crowd they?re facing.
          Should the rest of the stadium be afraid of the Iranian high school because, as it turns out they are NOT all armed and may (or may not) only have a single weapon amongst themselves.

          Let me take a bad analogy even further:

          Nine other high schools are at the same game. They may or may not like the Iranian high school. Seven of the other schools have 1273 bigger and better weapons between themselves. They?ve also had more time to deal with the psychological threats of bullies.
          The 7 high schools sit in their own sections of the stadium, kind of trying to mind their own business.
          The last 2 high schools at the game have 9500+ weapons among them.
          Can you see yet why it?s best, if you?re the Iranian high-school, just to shut-up, sit down and watch the game?

          If you want to imagine feeling threatened imagine being at the same game and having the most hostile and well armed high school in the crowd threatening to use some of their 6300+ big and bad weapons against your unarmed Iranian high school!

          Bad analogy ends.

          From what I can see, the US is trying to push their will, through force, on foreign people everywhere.

          Why?

          Whatever happened to diplomacy? Where’s the olive branch? Whatever happened to intelligence?

          I don’t mean the military type of intelligence.

          Why not invite, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and whatever associates he cares to bring with him, under UN protection to the United States?
          Show him around the place. Make him feel welcome.
          Why not? Are we afraid?

          Tell me, PRECISELY, what we in the US and/or the World are afraid of if indeed we are afraid?

          Shoot, if I turn off my TV, radio and quit reading the news I wouldn?t even know Iran exists until I talk to the friendly people that own my favorite package liquor store.

          I don?t BELIEVE what I hear or read in the news. I prefer to make up my own mind.

          I guess I must have had a pretty rough life. Over time, I?ve had 5 people tell other people that they were going to kill me.
          What did I do?
          I sought out each of those people, one on one. For various reasons, we came to an understanding that it might not be a good thing to threaten me. We developed mutual respect.

          For the record, count me as not skeered. Not even a little bit.

        • #3104065

          I think its fair to say this

          by av . ·

          In reply to Who’s the bully?

          America is not going to allow a country like Iran to create nuclear weapons. There is no reason to believe they have peaceful intentions. They hate us and we are united with Israel, their worst enemy, that they publicly say should be wiped off the earth.

          Iran’s president Mahmoud A. is defiant in the face of calls from many countries and the IAEA not to pursue nuclear weapons.

          We do need diplomacy, but the best thing we can do is work with the IAEA and UN. The time for tea parties at the White House is over. If Iran didn’t accept Russia’s offer of enriching nuclear fuel for them to make Iran’s nuclear program acceptable to the UN Security Council, than we have little chance of diplomacy. Russia and Iran are supposedly on good terms.

          What we need is a good strategy.

          I don’t think you should turn off the tv and forget that there are lots of Irans out there that mean us harm. That reminds me of the pre- 9/11 mentality when we never even thought about being attacked. The good old days.

          You may have been able to resolve your personal differences with people, but I don’t know if that will work in this case. Maybe when we have a regime change in America.

      • #3287285

        To the contrary, it may well win him the “friendship” that he seeks.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Sanctions and isolation

    • #3075335

      Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 17JAN2006

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to Iran

      Iran’s Redefined Strategy
      By George Friedman

      The Iranians have broken the International Atomic Energy Agency seals on some of their nuclear facilities. They did this very deliberately and publicly to make certain that everyone knew that Tehran was proceeding with its nuclear program. Prior to this, and in parallel, the Iranians began to — among other things — systematically bait the Israelis, threatening to wipe them from the face of the earth.

      The question, of course, is what exactly the Iranians are up to. They do not yet have nuclear weapons. The Israelis do. The Iranians have now hinted that (a) they plan to build nuclear weapons and have implied, as clearly as possible without saying it, that (b) they plan to use them against Israel. On the surface, these statements appear to be begging for a pre-emptive strike by Israel. There are many things one might hope for, but a surprise visit from the Israeli air force is not usually one of them. Nevertheless, that is exactly what the Iranians seem to be doing, so we need to sort this out.

      There are four possibilities:

      1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is insane and wants to be attacked because of a bad childhood.
      2. The Iranians are engaged in a complex diplomatic maneuver, and this is part of it.
      3. The Iranians think they can get nuclear weapons — and a deterrent to Israel — before the Israelis attack.
      4. The Iranians, actually and rationally, would welcome an Israeli — or for that matter, American — air strike.

      Let’s begin with the insanity issue, just to get it out of the way. One of the ways to avoid thinking seriously about foreign policy is to dismiss as a nutcase anyone who does not behave as you yourself would. As such, he is unpredictable and, while scary, cannot be controlled. You are therefore relieved of the burden of doing anything about him. In foreign policy, it is sometimes useful to appear to be insane, as it is in poker: The less predictable you are, the more power you have — and insanity is a great tool of unpredictability. Some leaders cultivate an aura of insanity.

      However, people who climb to the leadership of nations containing many millions of people must be highly disciplined, with insight into others and the ability to plan carefully. Lunatics rarely have those characteristics. Certainly, there have been sociopaths — like Hitler — but at the same time, he was a very able, insightful, meticulous man. He might have been crazy, but dismissing him because he was crazy — as many did — was a massive mistake. Moreover, leaders do not rise alone. They are surrounded by other ambitious people. In the case of Ahmadinejad, he is answerable to others above him (in this case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), alongside him and below him. He did not get to where he is by being nuts — and even if we think what he says is insane, it clearly doesn’t strike the rest of his audience as insane. Thinking of him as insane is neither helpful nor clarifying.

      The Three-Player Game

      So what is happening?

      First, the Iranians obviously are responding to the Americans. Tehran’s position in Iraq is not what the Iranians had hoped it would be. U.S. maneuvers with the Sunnis in Iraq and the behavior of Iraqi Shiite leaders clearly have created a situation in which the outcome will not be the creation of an Iranian satellite state. At best, Iraq will be influenced by Iran or neutral. At worst, it will drift back into opposition to Iran — which has been Iraq’s traditional geopolitical position. This is not satisfactory. Iran’s Iraq policy has not failed, but it is not the outcome Tehran dreamt of in 2003.

      There is a much larger issue. The United States has managed its position in Iraq — to the extent that it has been managed — by manipulating the Sunni-Shiite fault line in the Muslim world. In the same way that Richard Nixon manipulated the Sino-Soviet split, the fundamental fault line in the Communist world, to keep the Soviets contained and off-balance late in the Vietnam War, so the Bush administration has used the primordial fault line in the Islamic world, the Sunni-Shiite split, to manipulate the situation in Iraq.

      Washington did this on a broader scale as well. Having enticed Iran with new opportunities — both for Iran as a nation and as the leading Shiite power in a post-Saddam world — the administration turned to Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and enticed them into accommodation with the United States by allowing them to consider the consequences of an ascended Iran under canopy of a relationship with the United States. Washington used that vision of Iran to gain leverage in Saudi Arabia. The United States has been moving back and forth between Sunnis and Shia since the invasion of Afghanistan, when it obtained Iranian support for operations in Afghanistan’s Shiite regions. Each side was using the other. The United States, however, attained the strategic goal of any three-player game: It became the swing player between Sunnis and Shia.

      This was not what the Iranians had hoped for.

      Reclaiming the Banner

      There is yet another dimension to this. In 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini deposed the Shah of Iran, Iran was the center of revolutionary Islamism. It both stood against the United States and positioned itself as the standard-bearer for radical Islamist youth. It was Iran, through its creation, Hezbollah, that pioneered suicide bombings. It championed the principle of revolutionary Islamism against both collaborationist states like Saudi Arabia and secular revolutionaries like Yasser Arafat. It positioned Shi’ism as the protector of the faith and the hope of the future.

      In having to defend against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s, and the resulting containment battle, Iran became ensnared in a range of necessary but compromising relationships. Recall, if you will, that the Iran-Contra affair revealed not only that the United States used Israel to send weapons to Iran, but also that Iran accepted weapons from Israel. Iran did what it had to in order to survive, but the complexity of its operations led to serious compromises. By the late 1990s, Iran had lost any pretense of revolutionary primacy in the Islamic world. It had been flanked by the Sunni Wahhabi movement, al Qaeda.

      The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never trusted it. Iran certainly didn’t want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did not want al Qaeda to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al Qaeda’s influence, or concede that the Sunnis had taken the banner from Khomeini’s revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had to do this without undermining its geopolitical interests.

      Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the reduction of al Qaeda’s network and global reach. In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran’s clear willingness to collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By the end of 2005, Iran had secured its western frontier as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement for itself and for Shi’ism.

      Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami’s term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — an heir to Khomeini’s tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s — and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.

      Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran’s position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran’s anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel’s existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami’s approach.

      Khatami was focused on splitting the Western world by dividing the Americans from the Europeans. In carrying out this policy, he had to manipulate the Europeans. The Europeans were always open to the claim that the Americans were being rigid and were delighted to serve the role of sophisticated mediator. Khatami used the Europeans’ vanity brilliantly, sucking them into endless discussions and turning the Iran situation into a problem the Europeans were having with the United States.

      But Tehran paid a price for this in the Muslim world. In drawing close to the Europeans, the Iranians simply appeared to be up to their old game of unprincipled realpolitik with people — Europeans — who were no better than the Americans. The Europeans were simply Americans who were weaker. Ahmadinejad could not carry out his strategy of flanking the Wahhabis and still continue the minuet with Europe. So he ended Khatami’s game with a bang, with a massive diatribe on the Holocaust and by arguing that if there had been one, the Europeans bore the blame. That froze Germany out of any further dealings with Tehran, and even the French had to back off. Iran’s stock in the Islamic world started to rise.

      The Nuclear Gambit

      The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume — or very publicly claim to be resuming — development of a nuclear weapon. This signaled three things:

      1. Iran’s policy of accommodation with the West was over.
      2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that Sunni states would have to deal with.
      3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.

      The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. First, building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust and reliable to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The key technologies here are not the ones that build a device but the ones that turn a device into a weapon — and then there is the delivery system to worry about: range, reliability, payload, accuracy. Iran has a way to go.

      A lot of countries don’t want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the ‘Stans into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However, there are only two countries that can do something about it. The Israelis don’t want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot avoid action because they are the most vulnerable if Iran should develop a weapon. The United States doesn’t want Israel to strike at Iran, as that would massively complicate the U.S. situation in the region, but it doesn’t want to carry out the strike itself either.

      This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an Israeli nuclear force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably not blow up New York. That’s why the United States doesn’t mind Israel having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power politics, not sharing time in preschool. End of digression.

      Intra-Islamic Diplomacy

      If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance unless nukes are used. In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran’s credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.

      Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran’s point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that’s great — but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that’s not a bad outcome either.

      In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.

      ? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

      • #3104911

        Being Persians…

        by onbliss ·

        In reply to Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 17JAN2006

        ….several Iranians, if not almost all Persian Iranians take pride in that matter. Apart from being Muslims, this is another key factor as they have a very rich history and culture going back several centuries even before Islam conquered them. They very well could be looking at a real long time ride to the top in that region.

        • #3104825

          The importance of pride.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Being Persians…

          All to many seem to be either unaware or dismissive of the pride felt by those not of their own kind.

          Such self-inflicted blindness can have dire consequences.

      • #3149155

        That’s good

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 17JAN2006

        except one point: I don’t think the US will use nukes on Iranian enrichment facilities, as we don’t need to. See recent NY Times editorial outlining reason we don’t need to use a nuke on them, including ones you’ve mentioned. (Hopefully strategists in Washington will read that editorial)

        • #3149085

          Then you may be interested in getting an e-letter subscription.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to That’s good

          In addtion to their paid subscriptions, Strategic Forecasting offers free subscriptions to 3 of their e-letters, which are essentially abbreviated versions of the paid reports.

          The 3 are:
          1) Geopolitical Intelligence Report;
          2) Terrorism Intelligence Report; and,
          3) Public Policy Intelligence Report.

          As they are written for those who operate in the global business market and therefore require unbiased & detailed information, I find them to be a partucularly invaluable source.

          They can be had at

          https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php .

Viewing 4 reply threads