Iran - a nuclear question.

[Dretlin]

Does anyone have any opinions on the matter?

Iran is quite a paradox socially, defiant against American and much of the west, yet indulges in many western past times, English primer league being an obvious one and many Iranians themselves live/work/study in the west (most notably America). Satellite TV may be banned in Iran but it does not stop an interest in the west. The infidel may be the infidel, but his sport coverage is clearly decent.

Will the inauguration taking place, in the next few hours as I am typing this, make a difference to Iranian attitude? While the regime may be extreme, I view the ordinary Iranian with more sympathy. One event did push to me believe this could be possible. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sending congratulations to the American victor. Would this have happen to a non Democratic candidate? Or does this show a shifting behaviour?

I do speculate that the Iran I see in UK reporting is, much of the time, the extremist Iran. However with outbursts such as "Israel must be wiped off the map", leads me to believe perhaps the regime is close to what is being depicted by the BBC and other news channels.

If nation X acted provokingly to nation Y, yet nation X also seeked a means for nuclear power, it would be madness to allow X such power. An aggressive regime can not be given such power. Iran does demand respect, yet also chokes its own desires to a higher status with needless anti-Semitism.

Anyone have anything compelling to say?

[Athos]

Not really. I'm not big on foreign affairs. I do recall however that there were things in the papers about Iran being a huge thread (right along with Korea I believe). But I really don't know what ever became of that. I also recall that (when there was a moment or two of tension between the U.S. and Iran or Korea--I think Iran) the U.S. Air Force activated the Nuclear Command Center. I'll read up more on it and post back.

[Raoul Duke]

I wouldn't call what I have to say compelling, but my academic position is that Iran is not a threat. The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and more importantly the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, are both what I would call 'conservative', humanist figures. Their reading of Islam is based on the traditional tenets Islam, and both advocate human rights.

Iran is under a lot of pressure. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei are both heavily critical of American foreign policy, and America's human rights record - and rightly so. Like any decent person, they're repulsed by unjust wars, torture of innocent and guilty people, and the historical exportation of many militaristic dictators around the world, particularly to South America**.

Given the nature of the outgoing [outgone? lol] administration, and the implicit and explicit warnings given to them in communication and the example of Iraq, they're very defensive. And who can blame them? The global climate, fostered by a plethora of factors including of course the Bush administration* has made them so. This defensiveness on their part is easily perceived as a threat. But lets think about it: they're not actually bellicose extremists. Their country would stand no chance in an offensive against Israel and America. They wont do anything.

The way Iran is perceived is a combination of the fact that the Iranians are under threat, a very tangible threat if they look next door, the fact that they criticise components of America and the West, and of course, the 'tarring with the same brush', phenomena. I think that under closer examination your point about the paradox of Iran is not actually a paradox after all, and that is quite telling for us: They're not anti-American extremists who reject everything pertaining to the West, but rather criticise America harshly and for the right reasons, whilst acknowledging the positives.



**this isn't supposed to sound like an anti-US spiel. It just happens to be that a lot of America's faults are relevant to our contemporary global order. The price that is paid for being the world Super Power hey? But! There are also a lot of great things that America has done over the years. And in any case, now we've the Obama administration. Which by the way, the Iranians are very pleased about! Cool!

[Pennyroyal Tea]

I don't believe anything the media says. If Iran was going to do anything, they would have done it by now. With the economy the way it is, and just everything else factored in. America is probably at it's weakest right now that it's been in a really long time. Not that it's weak, but with the incoming administration.

I would say that a country like Iran wouldn't really profit from the fall of a country like America, because it's too much of a domino effect even if we're able to be toppled, the resulting chaos would be something that I'm sure that a country like Iran isn't capable to handle at the moment, especially with the so called instability of the economy, I think that it's pretty stupid for any country to wage a large scale war at this moment *cough* *cough* Especially when they risk the stability of their own country in the process. I mean face it, this is the first time ever in the history of the country that we have been in a war time recession and with our forces already overstretched and since we've been totally ineffective in the places that we're supposed to be effective in *Afghanistan* I would instead try a much more diplomatic response to Iran. As it stands now, our cold stands, and fisted ways will only backfire in our faces. I'd say that it would put more pressure on Iran if we non-aggresively pursued some sort of solution to Iran instead of going back and forth with finger pointing which will solve nothing, and play into their game. (assuming that we're right in our assumptions about Iran, which is a theory I don't support)

Iran has lost a lot of it's profits with the fall of oil prices, so I'm sure they have many other things to deal with. I'm willing to bet that they won't be looking forward to creating such a unstable environment.

[Athos]

I agree with much of what Locke has said. I don't see Iran as a threat (though perhaps they might be to Israel). The U.S. was just acting out of the neocon/realist playbook. But, now with a new administration, we'll see how things are going. Already, President Obama issued an Executive Order to close down Gitmo, so perhaps there is hope to steer US foreign policy in a new direction (though Iran doesn't think so). And, in President Ahmadinejad's speech on 17/09/2005 to the UN General Assembly, he said that the access to nuclear capabilities would just be used to produce energy for his country. (On an irrelevant side note, I don't think President Ahmadinejad isn't all that much of a humanist. Human Rights Watch issued a report that says Iranian authorities since Ahmadinejad came into power, has used security and press laws, and other legislation to arrest and prosecute Iranian Kurds solely for trying to exercise their right to freedom of expression and association.) But, we'll see what happens.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

The U.S has other bases like Gitmo ya know. It's a glorified publicity stunt.

[Raoul Duke]

I agree with much of what Locke has said. I don't see Iran as a threat (though perhaps they might be to Israel). The U.S. was just acting out of the neocon/realist playbook. But, now with a new administration, we'll see how things are going. Already, President Obama issued an Executive Order to close down Gitmo, so perhaps there is hope to steer US foreign policy in a new direction (though Iran doesn't think so).

I'm with you on that. Where did you find out that Iran isn't hopeful? I thought they were rejoicing. I ask purely out of interest, not contention or to be a Tight "you must reference" Ass, lol. Since I don't really reference things here anyway. I'd be interested to find some official information on their stance, is all.

And, in President Ahmadinejad's speech on 17/09/2005 to the UN General Assembly, he said that the access to nuclear capabilities would just be used to produce energy for his country.

Do you take their word for it? I sort of do, but I wouldn't be willing to risk merely "trusting". I'd be super happy to let them have nuclear power if it were done transparently. Even if they wanted to make weapons, Nuclear-weapons peace thesis? Ha! Perhaps I wouldn't let it get that far.

(On an irrelevant side note, I don't think President Ahmadinejad isn't all that much of a humanist. Human Rights Watch issued a report that says Iranian authorities since Ahmadinejad came into power, has used security and press laws, and other legislation to arrest and prosecute Iranian Kurds solely for trying to exercise their right to freedom of expression and association.) But, we'll see what happens.

That's a top pick up dude, I wasn't fully aware of that. I guess that's vogue right now for leaders. Bush, Blair, and Howard [all outgoingoinggone!] winning themselves exactly the same awards, eh.

[Raoul Duke]

Sorry for the double post, I forgot to add on:

My main reason for having no major gripes with Iran is pretty much the 'peace is profitable' thesis. Peace is conducive of trade, trade makes money. It's all pretty simple. War is hugely costly, in a plethora of ways. When was the last war that benefited anyone? lol. I guess that's a clumsy question, and too hard to answer properly.

[Athos]

I agree with much of what Locke has said. I don't see Iran as a threat (though perhaps they might be to Israel). The U.S. was just acting out of the neocon/realist playbook. But, now with a new administration, we'll see how things are going. Already, President Obama issued an Executive Order to close down Gitmo, so perhaps there is hope to steer US foreign policy in a new direction (though Iran doesn't think so).

I'm with you on that. Where did you find out that Iran isn't hopeful? I thought they were rejoicing. I ask purely out of interest, not contention or to be a Tight "you must reference" Ass, lol. Since I don't really reference things here anyway. I'd be interested to find some official information on their stance, is all.

And, in President Ahmadinejad's speech on 17/09/2005 to the UN General Assembly, he said that the access to nuclear capabilities would just be used to produce energy for his country.

Do you take their word for it? I sort of do, but I wouldn't be willing to risk merely "trusting". I'd be super happy to let them have nuclear power if it were done transparently. Even if they wanted to make weapons, Nuclear-weapons peace thesis? Ha! Perhaps I wouldn't let it get that far.

(On an irrelevant side note, I don't think President Ahmadinejad isn't all that much of a humanist. Human Rights Watch issued a report that says Iranian authorities since Ahmadinejad came into power, has used security and press laws, and other legislation to arrest and prosecute Iranian Kurds solely for trying to exercise their right to freedom of expression and association.) But, we'll see what happens.

That's a top pick up dude, I wasn't fully aware of that. I guess that's vogue right now for leaders. Bush, Blair, and Howard [all outgoingoinggone!] winning themselves exactly the same awards, eh.

I found that Iran wasn't hopeful here in an article from London's Telegraph. Which I found out to be odd because when Ahmadinejad seemed hopeful when he appeared on Larry King Live. I feel the same way. If they say they want it to produce energy, go for it.

Yup. It's a dawning of a new era >_> (hopefully).

[Raoul Duke]

Cheers for the link, mate. And what is this? Comon:

>_> ?

don't be like Iran!

[Athos]

Did I ">_>" Er, I meant ^_^

[Raoul Duke]

Did I ">_>" Er, I meant ^_^

Lol! Attah boy.

Reading through the article, I guess I agree with the subtitle, "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reserving judgment." And that's a fair call. I'm reserving judgement too. Though I am hopeful. I strongly disagree with quoted material from Kayhan's "ultra-conservative" editorial, most notably:

"Obama is the logical continuation of Bush... and important changes are to come because he will try to materialise Bush's wishes, which Bush did not know how to achieve,"

and

Kayhan predicted the Obama administration would "cause big economic problems for Iran in a bid to bar the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" in June elections.

[Athos]

Yeah, you know I didn't understand how Kayhan came to that conclusion. If anything, it's premature to say that. And Obama doesn't seem to fit the dogma of neoconservatism.