Iran: The Next Stop?

Zeemax writes <<< If Muslims consider themselves a part of the world community, they don`t need nuclear games >>>

Here by ``world community`` Zeemax means the desires of the American elite and its continued hegemony over world affairs. I think Iranians are doing their utmost to be part of that same ``world community``- a community that has perfected hypocrisy, mass killings and nuclear proliferation, always keeping their finger on the nuclear trigger

Here is a letter of mine that was sent to Al-Ahram in 2004 after (believe it or not) Bush was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (and Fox news was cheerleading for him):

(quote)The nomination of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair last week for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, that was widely advertised in the US media, must certainly rank among the most absurd nominations presented to the Nobel Foundation. We have a president who midway between his first term has already launched two different wars of aggression on two much weaker countries, under shady pretexts, laying both of them to waste, killing thousands of people and forcibly changing regimes. He was hardly done with his second war (on Iraq) when he started threatening two other countries (Iran and Syria). His administration (during this short term) provoked North Korea to go down a dangerous path of nuclear deterrence because it fears a similar war of aggression from him, jeopardising the peace and lives of hundreds of thousands in that region.

He pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and wants to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons for use in the battlefield. He has dramatically increased US spending on arms and armament -- the US is now spending more on its military establishment than all the other countries of the world combined.

His administration has divided up Europe into ``old`` and ``new``, pitting one against the other. His secretary of state threatened France with ``consequences`` for non-appeasement. His doctrine of ``pre-emption`` led India to almost start a nuclear confrontation with Pakistan. He stood by, giving a green light to Ariel Sharon when the latter launched a massive military reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and called him a ``man of peace``.

And what is truly scary is that he isn`t done with his assault on peace around the world yet, and they want to nominate him and his cheerleader Blair, for the Nobel Peace Prize? This is outrageous.

M Asadi (end quote)
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/639/letters.htm

The American elite are in no moral position whatsoever to tell anyone anything about nuclear weapons. In fact they should shut up, look at their own irresponsible use of those weapons (both real and potential) and hang their heads in shame.

#19 tahmed writes <<< ...he will lie, cheat, beg, threaten, do everything he can to get to the halwa. >>>

Aha- Now I understand why the obesity epidemic has hit America, it was the halwa all the time, and the tiny halwa-heads that Bush wants to develop for use on the field. Seems like these damn fools are outdoing the Maulvi in their love for halwa.

#18 by HP

[But who has the right to correct Iran?]

All of us do. HP, think of the world as a community. It`s a very small place. The values determined and agreed upon by humankind after centuries of conflict, upheavals, introspection, and development of thought are simple. Theses are the golden principles of mankind which are human rights, equal opportunity, right to exist and not be threatened ... so forth. Anyone who threatens those values is malignant in the world`s eyes, and will be removed, like a cancer.

If Muslims consider themselves a part of the world community, they don`t need nuclear games. The world community will ensure their development since it`s in the interest of everyone. Sudan too will be saved if the world focus is allowed to shift from fighting fires. If nothing changes, Muslims will be isolated and destroyed as outcasts since all of their access to the ever increasing modern knowledge will be staved off. If they still continue with their medieval ways, they will be physically eliminated and their lands absorbed in other sovereigns. I firmly believe that. The inexorable journey of time will not stop and life will still go on, minus those who failed to understand.

Iran and Pakistan simply HAVE to figure out a way to join the world community, and STOP being perceived as a threat to the world civilization. If it takes a harsh inquisition to do that ..so be it. It will be in the interest of the future generations to come.l

#5 by SR
“He has become known as a liar to the troops he commands.”
“An astounding 93 percent of the US troops polled believe the occupation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.”

I would be interested in finding out who did that polling. A link please?

Anyway, the war to the US public or the army was never sold as something to look for WMD. If you remember Cheney calling it just a convenient excuse (paraphrasing). The war was sold to American as a revenge for 9/11. That is how American public and the army have accepted it.

93% American rightly believe that the war had nothing to with WMD at all. But that does not prove that they think that BushLied™. Is there any government in the world that never lies?They may not lie all the time but they do lie plenty. The funky liberals and simplistic leftist-especially the pro china types- have to come out of the LA LA land they live in.

The US public understood the war as a response to 911 and not an attempt to look for WMD.
At this time the US public may not be happy with the conduct of the war but most still support the Iraq invasion.

Since you repeated the 93% line several times in your post, I would really like to see the link.
It is always a good idea to look at polls methodology and the questions asked before repeating the ridiculous assertions/deductions umpteenth times.

#7 by arjun_m

“The US plan almost certainly is to lead with airstrikes, block Iranian shipping lanes and increase sanctions. Jessica Lynch won`t be driving a truck in Iran anytime soon.”

I am glad that you are privy to the US plans. W/o getting inside Iran, there will be no regime change. W/O regime change, nothing will change in the area unless the US wants Iran to stay as a “convenient target” for future.

#9 by Netizen

Thanks for the correction.

“in this article you have focussed on only u.s. objection to irans nuclear ambition. you should have written about what e.u., russia, china and japan think of it.”

The US and Iran are the key players. Others -Russia, China or EU - certainly have views. How about you tell us what you think their views are and we can discuss them here. You don’t have to write an article you can post them here but I am sure Chowk editors would love an article too.

interesting article. the nuclear bomb is like turbo-charged halwa for the maulvi. will the world be able to keep the mullah away from the halwa? it wont be easy - he will lie, cheat, beg, threaten, do everything he can to get to the halwa.

#1 by zeemax
“Iran is wrong and their generation after generation will suffer for that.”

I agree with that. Historically, Iran is wrong…But who has the right to correct Iran? The Iranian ideology actually sets the people of Iran back. Ideally, Iranians should set Iran right.

Do the US or even the UN has the right to set any country right? There has to be some way for the world to recover countries from the abysmal situation they are in. People in countries like Iraq, Iran or even Sudan certainly need help. Sudan would never get the attention because it does not offer anything to any one but Iran would be in the eye of the storm like Iraq was for its resources. Even Pakistan in my view is another country that will need to be recovered. In Sudan, Iran and Pakistan dictatorial regimes and human rights violations do require international attention as the people in these countries don’t have the means to change the govts. The US would only interfere when it has an ax to grind.

#2 by bjkumar
“And there is always the possibility that the people of Iran can get rid of the theocracy and breathe freedom.”

I think the current regime in Iran has effectively killed that opportunity. I just don’t see how people of Iran can change things in Iran w/o outside interference. They certainly need help. Would military interference be helpful?

Iraqis certainly needed help as they too were unable to remove an oppressive regime. The military interference by the US was not to help the people but to protect its interests and now we see a miserable situation emerging in Iraq. If the US interferes in Iran, chances are that Iran would also slip into an Iraq like situation.

“The acquisition of nukes does not automatically translate into anything – especially not enhanced power or prestige”

Acquiring nukes for third world countries is illogical. But the governments in the third world acquire or attempt to acquire nukes to enhance prestige among their own populace first. So the target is its own population and not the external enemy. Iran government gains more prestige in its population if it continues to insist on acquiring nukes. This gives them a good alibi for not doing anything for the people.

#3 by iron_mask

“the whole reagion starting with Morocco on the atlantic coast, through the Maghrib, Egypt, onto the levant, and through to pakistan, and whence to the Indonesian Islands is awash with the great unwashed of this earth.”

It seems to me that the world is going thru a transformation. In the 40s, we saw Europe and Japan going thru a major transformation. In the 50s/60s it was South America then we saw countries in East Asia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Thailand and even Malaysia and Indonesia going thru the changes in the 60s/70s, and Eastern Europe in the 80s/90s. Now I guess it is time for the countries in the ME to shape up.

#4 by behram1

“the current administration will not be able to rally the US people support in such an endeavor. People are finally beginning to understand games MNCs play, and they will not participate for the foreseeable future. Politicians are getting the message that global economic forces are dead.”

The US public already supports the admin when it comes to Iran. Would it support a military intervention? I think it would. It is not difficult to build up an invasion behind nationalism.

The real issue is would the US lose Iraq if it militarily interferes in Iran? It might seem Strange to you, but the US public has always supported multiple US admins-not just the bush admin- when it comes to foreign policy decisions. Americans understand that they are the largest consumers of natural resources or whatever else is produced around the world. Most of the MNCs are originally US corporations. So the US public would be behind them initially. The support may go down once the mission is accomplished:)

Re: # 18

Dear HP:

{The US public already supports the admin when it comes to Iran. Would it support a military intervention? I think it would. It is not difficult to build up an invasion behind nationalism.}

Not really. The Americans are sick and tired of the foreign intervention. Pews recently polled that 42% Americans want to pull their country back. This was published in the Economist not too long ago.

Even George Will was suggesting (on ABC, This Week) that the mood in this country is about isolationism. We will see a marked difference in the upcoming immigration reform legislation which will be discussed in the Senate. I firmly believe thet G.W. Bush policy of guest worker program will be soundly defeated. People are in no mood for getting involved with foreigners anymore, no matter what MNCs promote. MNC will finally get booted out of the American lexicon. Capitalism yes, corporatism No.

{It might seem Strange to you, but the US public has always supported multiple US admins-not just the bush admin- when it comes to foreign policy decisions.}

Actually it is crystal clear to me, that MNCs have always run the US foreign policy, but that is so yesteryears. Nowadays, US politicians are grappling to figure out where to go from here. Can you imagine Howard Dean came out suggesting that Bush is not strong enough in its War on Terror?

{Americans understand that they are the largest consumers of natural resources or whatever else is produced around the world. Most of the MNCs are originally US corporations.}

True, but capitalism was the cover, now it is corporatism. Walmart when it first started was truly capitalist. Dell was a capitalist. Just now I came back from a conversation with a money broker and as he puts it..``when capitalists goes for money from the stock market, then it becomes a corporatist.`` And that is where they (the corporatist) have lost the population of the US.

As an example, go to any Barnes and Noble bookstore, and ask its manager (as I did recently) about how its business section books are doing. They have seen a huge reduction in their business books for quite some time now. Can you ever wonder why?

{So the US public would be behind them initially. The support may go down once the mission is accomplished:) }

No, HP. I do not think that US will be able to handle another rift with anybody for a long time. Yes, they will continue to give lip service to the whole world, but not the actual action. Let others handle their freaking problems, and leave US alone.

Respectfully submitted,

re:#11 by sanjay
I.K.Gujaral was told (when he was a foregn minister) by an American diplomat that USA will aggresively pursue its oil interests abroad. This made Gujaral remark privately that India is lucky not to have oil!
But the great game for control over oil is being played in the central Asian Caucuses. Iran is the focus of attention mainly because it is aggressively pursuing nuclear option and has been threatening Israel. Jewish lobby in US has been working overtime to keep American politicians stay focussed on preventing Iran from going nuclear
Iran may have oil but it has to sell it to be able to sustain itself. By isolating itself, it has not been able to grow economically the way it should have. It may continue to remain isolated if it choses but it can` continue to follow the nuclear option without attracting international criticisms, UN Sanctions and if necessary, a UN lead invasion.
Sridhar

#11 by sanjay

[Iran being an oil producing country can survive even remaining cut-off from the world.]

Hmmm ... like Iraq ... come to think of it .... isn`t Iraq oil producing as well?

The author writes <<< The Middle East is headed for another confrontation and the countries in and around the area should brace for continued violence for sometime to come. >>>

Well balanced, carefully written article into which much thought and work has been put (more than I can say for most of the articles published here). One wonders if peace in the general Middle East region is ever possible given the fact that the US jumps from one imagined ``threat`` to another in that region. One also wonder, as in the case of Iran, that whenever a country in that region is on its way to development some upsetting event occurs, almost without fail, taking that country back several decades. Then one looks at the wars in the region and the long history of conflict and how people`s lives, generation after generation, are circumscribed by war and want and how that affects the very nature of their being, their personalities and their culture. In all this ``wondering`` one factor emerges as common, the US, its reaction or lack of reaction and the catastrophic consequences that has had for people`s lives in that region.

One wonders if the US would be as fascinated with the general Middle East region were it not for the resources, as a factor in profit making and not merely for their cheap access. One also wonders if Israel in that region, were it not for its ``value`` to the US elite in starting and inflaming conflicts that serve their interests, would exist in the form that it exists today. Then one wonders how intricately all this is worked out, divide the region into nation states, play one against the other, dominate their resources and thereby their economic and political systems, arm both sides in a conflict, and to add spice to it all, place a marauding base, the state of Israel, in their midst so that whenever they desire peace and development, control of their own resources or unity, some conflict can be inflamed. For people who look at all this from a humanitarian perspective, rather than the ``us versus them`` mentality that is nurtured and promoted by the world capitalist system, the consequences of US rhetoric will boil down to, even as the author alludes , “another human disaster in the area after Iraq and Afghanistan``.

Do I think war with Iran is immanent in the short term? Not really, the perpetual threat that allows the US its hegemony over the region serves its interests much better at the present time than any new war. It is as if they have rewound the tape on Iraq and are replaying it with Iran. Wait for a trigger event and not merely the ``nuclear threat`` for war to become immanent. It will be over something else, some other event and not the ``nuclear threat`` in my opinion. One wonders what that trigger event might be, and where it might occur, but the US elite do not lack imagination where it concerns ``trigger events`` or making prepostrous connections to justify invasions. The all too familiar familiarizing the public with this new bogeyman, to support a new threat and a possible war has already started on the US media, the next stage is prepping them for war and the resulting wholesale theft by the defense industries.

Iran cannot be put in the same bracket as India and Pakistan. The difference is that Iran is an Oil producing country whereas India and Pakistan are not.

This aspect becomes significance since though India and Pakistan can flaunt their Nuclear Weapons but that is it. Both the countries, being resource and technology starved, cannot stand on their own. They have to depend on western/ other countries for their survival. They cannot think of their survival by remaining cut-off from the rest of the world. This aspect puts a de-facto check of the world on their respective nuclear programmes.

Iran being an oil producing country can survive even remaining cut-off from the world. Oil is a precious commodity and it will find its buyers anywhere, anytime. Thus the rest of the world cannot have a check on Iran`s nuclear programme the way it can have on Indo-Pak nuclear programmes. This makes Iran a dangerous place for one and all.

No doubt, all efforts are to be made to desist it from going nuclear.

Re:bbabu#8

[...What are they fighting the West for ?....]

Excellent question. It is hard to understand why the Iranians are having such an itch up their rear. What is their problem?

No one is interested in a war with Iran. Not Israel, not US, not EU, not Pakistan. In fact, people want them to just lead their own lives, build their country and stop bothering everyone else. Why this fascination for nukes? India needed nukes for protection from Pakistan and Pakistan needed nukes for protection from India. Israel needed nukes for protection from the arab countries. Why does Iran need protection when no one is threatening it?

As far as Islamic theocracy is concerned, no one really cares. If the Iranians are so dumb that they want to cover up their women and pray 100 times a day, no problems. Keep praying and torturning your women. No one gives a $hit. Just dont threaten or bother anyone.

Re: # 10 - RANJIT - [Israel needed nukes for protection from the arab countries]..

and since when Hyennas have started fearing the mouse?

``Russia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine are not involved in any conflict in the region. Their nukes and the nuclear plants are under effective international control. ``

of the ex-soviet states; kazakhstatan, ukrainre, belarus and russia had nukes. after the fall of the soviet union, all the nukes from the other states were transferred to russia in return for monetary compensation. azerbaijan never had nukes. and currently no ex-soviet state has nukes (other than russia).

``Israel, a rival, reportedly has already acquired nuclear capabilities. ``

iran sponsors jihadis and wants of throw jews and israel out of middle east. if this policy is discontinued there is no reason for israel to attack iran. iarael wants good relations with islamic countries (even with pakistan) as long as they recognise its right to exist.

in this article you have focussed on only u.s. objection to irans nuclear ambition. you should have written about what e.u., russia, china and japan think of it.

iraq was a unilateral approach by u.s. but its different in this case.

also the russian offer to work with iran to produce electricity has been neglected.

the world (including u.s.) wants iran to go for civilian nuclear technology not military. unless iran wants a nuke, there shouldn`t be a problem.

Iran should strike a deal with the West. What are they fighting the West for ? Oil is @ $60 barrel. That should be plenty of cash to finance their economy.

anybody who thinks the Iran war plan will be a copy of the iraq war plan is a fool. The US plan almost certainly is to lead with airstrikes, block Iranian shipping lanes and increase sanctions. Jessica Lynch won`t be driving a truck in Iran anytime soon.