Iran, Geopolitics and the Bomb

kaura # 23 ``you don`t take a razor out of man`s hand......only a monkey`s....... ``

you dont trust chimps and sikhs with their own countries...only humans

I like Persian pussies.

The answer is simple...Israel because of it`s overwhelming Military power does not invoke the Samson option except as a matter of last resort. It is a well known fact that Israels security is underwritten by the US, one only has to look at the Yom Kippur was to confirm that fact, after all the US went to a Nuclear alert & launched one of the biggest ever military airlifts in history to ensure Israel could turn the tide.

That is not unusual, India does much the same..the US policy during the Cold war was more akin to Pakistans policy..that is one of refusing a no first strike agreement which would give the Soviets with their numerical superiority an advantage. In fact the US has considered Nukes as an option even in low intensity conflicts like Korea and Gulf war mark 1..

Ahmedinajads comments aren`t something new, one party states tend to use propaganda quite often, and when they are hardliners like him they tend to use it even more. Focussing on his comments this time seems more like something which suited those opposing Iran.

you don`t take a razor out of man`s hand......only a monkey`s.......


Jews aren`t fanatics who destroyed other civilizations (they have been victims since the dawn of history).......muslims did.....latest madening threats to wipe out Israel doesn`t help the cause either.......

Re:Netizen#19

[...The irani president needs to take Diplomacy 101 before his another outburst...]

I am convinced that the new Iranian President Ahmedinijad is a long lost cousin of our favorite Parsee Paindu - Behram Atashband!! Maybe they had a common zoroastrian ancestor or maybe they are brothers who got separated at childhood in a mela!! :-)

How else can one explain the absurd, moronic statements he is making every day? It is ``Aa bail mujhe maar!!``. I thought the Iranians were smarter than that. But I guess, every race produces black sheep like ahmedinijad and behram.

HP #18

`` It has nothing to do with nuke or the new Iran president with weird statements. The US was looking for an opportunity to get to Iran way before it was thinking of Iraq. In fact, Iran was the main motivating force for attacking Iraq. The idea was to establish a beachhead in Iraq and use the same forces to enter Iran. The two other places one can enter Iran are Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan is too far away from Tehran for an infantry to use. The terrain in Afghanistan is unusable for mounting a quick strike with a rapidly moving small force like the one used in Iraq. Iraq was the only location for the US to use ground forces against Iran. ``

Iran is too big whether you attack from Pakistan or Iraq. Iranian oil fields are closer to the Iraqi border than the Pakistani border. I will give you that.

`` The US did not plan for a long control of Iraq until it met an unexpected resistance that was mounted by the Baathist and now being actively supported by Iran. Iran has effectively bogged down the US forces in Iraq. Many people forget that the disbanded Iraq army consisted of majority Shia conscripts and they are still out there and are probably controlled by Iran’s secret services. ``

Iraqi Shites are too smart to be controlled by Iran. They will work with Iran as long as they have mutual interests.

`` The Iran crisis also needs to be looked at from the internal political situation in the US. The conservative US government is currently in a serious decline and might possibly lose the control in both US houses. To arrest that situation, the Bush admin will have to act during the summer and will have to increase the volume in the next couple of month. The strikes on Iran this coming summer may not be large scale but would be enough to ensure status quo in both houses in 2006 elections. ``

I doubt military strikes on Iran are low risk and worth the political trouble.

re: 19

correction:

``Other point is why does oil and gas surplus iran need electricity? ``

should read

....need nuclear power to generate electricity.

The irani president needs to take Diplomacy 101 before his another outburst.

By seeking to wipe off israel from the face of earth or disbanding it to alaska or europe, he is embarassing nations willing to support irans cause.

malik thinks that it is israeli ``conspiracy`` and may be the ``jewish lobby -controlled`` congress is acting on israels behalf. but what about Chirac`s warning?

I was rather surprised that the ``old europe`` and bush are speaking the same language.

Other point is why does oil and gas surplus iran need electricity?

anyway, maybe iranis would heed to russias plan and do uranium enrichment in russia, satisfying all the parties.

Long post but the topic needs a good discussion...


A timely article though trivial and perhaps naïve conclusions. The problem between the US and Iran is almost 28 years old now. The US was irked not by Iran becoming an Islamic country but because it lost an important post in Iran. If the Islamite had turned pro-America at any point after the Shah, the US and Iran would have been in the best of relations like Suadia and the US are now. So it has nothing to do with Iran being an Islamic country.

All wars are about resources and especially the wars where western countries are involved. That’s what history tells us beginning with the rampage the western countries went thru the world for capturing colonies. In the 21st century, it is in no one interest to colonize a country forever to control resources. Surgical strikes and establishing pro west governments would do the trick.

It has nothing to do with nuke or the new Iran president with weird statements. The US was looking for an opportunity to get to Iran way before it was thinking of Iraq. In fact, Iran was the main motivating force for attacking Iraq. The idea was to establish a beachhead in Iraq and use the same forces to enter Iran. The two other places one can enter Iran are Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan is too far away from Tehran for an infantry to use. The terrain in Afghanistan is unusable for mounting a quick strike with a rapidly moving small force like the one used in Iraq. Iraq was the only location for the US to use ground forces against Iran.

The US did not plan for a long control of Iraq until it met an unexpected resistance that was mounted by the Baathist and now being actively supported by Iran. Iran has effectively bogged down the US forces in Iraq. Many people forget that the disbanded Iraq army consisted of majority Shia conscripts and they are still out there and are probably controlled by Iran’s secret services.

The US cannot pull out of Iraq until it resolves the Iran problem and the problem with Iran is getting tricky with every passing day. The US attempts in Iraq to raise the Iraqi army to free up the US army have been successfully thwarted by Iranian by constantly attacking the new recruit and training facilities.

The Iran crisis also needs to be looked at from the internal political situation in the US. The conservative US government is currently in a serious decline and might possibly lose the control in both US houses. To arrest that situation, the Bush admin will have to act during the summer and will have to increase the volume in the next couple of month. The strikes on Iran this coming summer may not be large scale but would be enough to ensure status quo in both houses in 2006 elections.

So, we may see an incessant talk of WMD, nukes etc. in the coming month though nobody has a good handle on whether Iran has any nuke or not. The argument as in the case of Iraq would be the same. Should the US wait to find out whether Iran has the WMD or nuke or assume that Iran has the capability? It is the “mushroom cloud” argument and I think the US public would take the bait again.

What would be Israel’s role? Israel can mount aerial strikes against Iran but unlike Iraq, Iran’s nuke facilities are spread over at least 14 areas. How many can Israel attack and incapacitate in overnight surgical attacks? Israel can get in Iran easily but getting out would follow missiles to main Israeli cities and inevitably destroy any further US action in Iran.

So Israel is just talk and the US would never allow it to attack Iran. The US may use Israeli facilities. Israel will keep the rhetoric to help the US in mounting the case for attack on Iran for the US public consumption.

What would be the consequences for the area in case of the US attacks on Iran? In the Middle East setting one element in motion can trigger some other elements too.

There is one other factor that needs to be looked at. Who is behind Iran? Why would Iran President do the trash talk unless he wants to provoke the US and allow the US to make a case for the US attack in the US public?

Isn’t he making the case for the US with some boneheaded but very pertinent diatribes against the US and Israel?

Lastly, what would be the “fear premium” on the oil prices before and after the hostilities break out?

It is nothing but apartheid to deny some nations what others possess and flaunt. Ideally, there should be nuclear parity on a global basis, with everyone from Nicaragua to Newzealand allowed there own weapons. If one takes the killing power of nukes, this parity should be achieved by everyone not opting for these deadly weapons. This is what India under Pt. Nehru tried to put across to the great nations of the world for nearly 3 decades after her independence. During that period, we got nothing but disdain from the great powers. The moralistic posture was inferred as a strategic weakness and we were dismissed as a bunch of sissies :-)

I read sometime back about a similar scenario in the 1920s. Tagore after getting Nobel Prize was touring Japan and lamented the excessive militarization and demonization of the other. He opined that such attitudes will goad the nations into war and bring unfathomable destruction and grief. A leading Japanese paper contemptuously dismissed his sermonizing as the `poetry of the defeated people` :-)

India learnt its lesson the hard way. We were impaled by an unexpected invasion from a country we professed friendship with. The same country pursued and got nukes while the great powers looked the other way. If there were any doubts, they were cleared when nuclear-tipped Armada of a superpower landed at our shores when we were liberating another country from the clutches of our sworn enemy. We had no choice but to arm ourselves, morality be damned. There is no option but to obey the universal law of jiski laathi uski bhains.

++++++++++

It doesn`t matter whether Iran is errant as per this or that provision of some unjust treaty. What matters is the fact that Iran is disliked by US and big powers of Europe. My hunch is that they`ll be attacked before the term of current US president gets over, the nuclear sabre-rattling providing a convenient excuse.

From Indian POV, this would be yet another setback. Friendly regimes in our neighbourhood countries are being replaced with puppet governments who are inimical to our interests. The secular Shah helped Pakistan during ’71 crisis, while under ‘Mullah’ Khatami, we held joint operations with Iranians. Besides, this warlike atmosphere in middle-east will cause the oil prices to sky-rocket, punishing our economy in the process.

Last week I was watching a talk show on BBC on the Iranian nuclear issue. A correspondent relayed the Russian mood thus, “The Russian media is sympathetic to Iran and they feel the oil prices are too low”. When the hostess pointed that it was in the excess of 60$ per barrel, he said Russians don’t think so. A barrel of Coke (retail) costs 400$, so oil is under-priced and a volatility in the market will help improve the prices. Russians have discovered a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario. If Iran is not attacked, they’ll take credit for averting the disaster, further cementing their relations with the Islamic republic, else they’ll benefit from spiralling oil prices.

Iran is doomed!

arjun_m said

````...........dreaming doesn`t make your wishes come true all it does is wet your pajamas .....

going by that, you should change the name of the land of the pure to wetpajamaistan..````



What do you know about Islamic Revolution? As far as i have read and understood your comments in chowk, you are just targetting any one with your eyes close ( that explans your name) without even thinking and understanding the topic.

Iran`s nukes are ok as long as they do not use it against someone. The real problem is the reaction of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Egypt to Iranian nukes.

If this happens, monthly parking for a GMC Tahoe in NYC will be worth more than the Tahoe..

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran
Email this Story

Jan 21, 9:00 PM (ET)

By JOSEF FEDERMAN

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel`s defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran`s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

``Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing,`` Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

#11 by hamidm2 on January 22, 2006 8:42am PT


...........dreaming doesn`t make your wishes come true all it does is wet your pajamas .......


going by that, you should change the name of the land of the pure to wetpajamaistan..

#11: No one wants misiles flying anyway, my friend. But the enmity between riyadh and tehran runs pretttttty deep.

chalta.

``The chance of Iranian nukes flying into tel avaiv are a lot less likely than Iranian nukes flying into Riyadh or Islamabad`` ...........

...........dreaming doesn`t make your wishes come true - all it does is wet your pajamas .......