Iran: The Next Stop?

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

#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:)

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.

#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.

#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

#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.

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,

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.

Behram1 writes <<< True, but capitalism was the cover, now it is corporatism >>>

No difference between advanced capitalism of today and corporatism, they are one and the same thing, the mom and pop store capitalism is long dead and is not returning anytime soon. Given interchangibility among the political and economic institutions, and the military, the corporate elite and not much different than the political elite, they are all members of the same power elite. Different faces might come but the policies will remain the same unless the whole institutional structure is changed, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Corporateism, near monopoly capitalism has been ingrained in every fibre of this society including the culture, saying that it will just vanish in this fashion is utopian naivety.

Respectfully submitted,

#22 by masadi

Mr. Masadi, let me tell you I have great respect for you because you have courage of conviction. Why do you waste your time calling everyone a `damn fool` and insist on reasoning on solely your turf when the entire paradigms are different? I think with your courage, you could make a lot of difference by absorbing the reality on the ground and teaching how to correct the dire situation that many people find themselves in. After all, wasn`t there a Sulah Hudaybia in adverse circumstances and accepted with adverse conditions? Teach people that!

#12 by masadi

``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, ”

It would be interesting to know which ME country is/was on its way to development.

I will need to really study the subject but I think Iran has not made any substantial progress since Shah`s departure. What do they do with the oil revenue? Where is that money spent? I hope someone would point me to a site or some other reference that would show that Iran has made tremendous progress after the Islamic revolution.
Iran was a relatively prosperous country. At least there was tremendous urban development before 1979 now everything has stalled. The rural Iran is in worse shape. How many Iranian capitalist have emerged after 1979 practically none, barring Rafsanjani.

``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,``

You are not the only one. Scot Ritter is also going round and round repeating a similar line:)
I think 911 has not been cashed enough yet.

``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,``

You cannot do politics or promote interests w/o enemies. Even the guy running for the local bodies election has to find someone or something to oppose. So the US and for that matter many countries and that includes Iran regime too, will continue to invent/create bogeyman. That is how the world operates.

PS. As I read your other posts, I will respond to them.

#24 by masadi

You get hung up on Bush but you forget that Bush won`t be there in two years time. You also forget that there was Clinton too who during a break from his oval office recreation with Monica managed the best offer for the Palestenians which they ever had, one that they`re not likely to get again and will have to settle for much less.

So after Bush is gone, will anything change? Is the elite that you mention, is that elite not in Europe? Scandanavia? China? India? Singapore? Hong Kong? Thailand? South Africa?

The elite you talk about is actually the modern Value System. If you oppose that, you will find few adherents to your belief.

#27 HP, <<< I hope someone would point me to a site or some other reference that would show that Iran has made tremendous progress after the Islamic revolution. >>>

I was pointing to the pre-revolution era, I happened to have lived there as a young kid.


Then you write <<< You are not the only one. Scot Ritter is also going round and round repeating a similar line:)
I think 911 has not been cashed enough yet. >>>

While replying to SR you wrote about the expediencey of 9/11 regarding the Iraq war when it was unrelated. 9/11 has been used enough by this elite for its purposes, I think they need a new event to use for a new war, especially since they aren`t doing so well with public opinion regarding Iraq, so they`ll need a new pretext.

HP <<< Even the guy running for the local bodies election has to find someone or something to oppose >>>

Probably true but in the case of the US it has global consequences and contracts worth hundreds of billions, and deficits that future generations will pay many times over given finance charges- so there is a clear difference here.

HP sahib it`s not possible to be ``balanced`` when on one side there is minority barbarism ( of the American elite) and on the other side the very survival of humanity, on one side all the wealth of the world and on the other side scattered humanity, on the one side domination of information technology and sources and on the other side blocked access. I condemn the barbarism of the US elite in no unclear terms.

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


that`s completely false....but reality is a bit worse in a way...At least saddam had WMDs are some point and slam dunk did say saddam did have WMDs before the invasion..OTOH, he never had anything to do with 9/11...

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

# Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
# While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
# Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
# Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
# Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
# Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

Iran has a rich civilizational heritage and they are not an artificial country like Iraq (which is made of 3 factions that dont know how to get along)

Since the islamic revolution a huge chunk of the intellegentsia in Iran have migrated, mostly to the USA and Canada. The brain drain from Iran makes that from India look puny by comparison.

---

In terms of disposable income, the average Iranian today is 50 percent poorer than in 1977. An International Monetary Fund report on brain-drain puts it at No. 1 among 91 developing nations. Each year up to 180,000 highly educated Iranians emigrate, mostly to North America; there are more Iranian doctors in Canada than in Iran. Youth unemployment hovers around 30 percent.

---

The overwhelming majority of expat Iranians (they must number in the millions which is a huge number for a relatively small country) despise the present theocracy in Iran. I suspect their sentiments are shared by many who live in Iran.

Iranians are well educated and are more prepared to transition into a democratic system than most islamic countries including Iraq.

The US probably has a well thought out strategy to effect regime change in Iran and it wont be anything like what we have in Iraq. What it is and whether it will be implemented is anyone`s guess.

masadi: actually, i was referring to these nuke-loving, halwa-loving uncles of yours....