Why Iran?

The question, "Who gave us (USA) the authority to run the world?"is asked here and in so many other posts in other threads. Considering that is is a rhetorical question, in virtually every instance is is employed it is a an indication of the essentially juevenille thought process of the user.

First of all the US doesn't claim authority for "running the world," and so the question must refer to actions and implications, rather than any specific claim.

Secondly, it is quiet obvious that the US neither rules the world nor believes it does. One need only read the international news section of one's favorite paper to understand this to be so.

Thirdly, modest (or vociferous for that matter) condemnation of Russia's renewed militarism and international hijinks can only be perceived as trying to or actually ruling the world by a mind that is not really capable of mature thinking.

Finally, the US has every right (natural or codified) to protect it's people, its sovereignty, and it's vital interests. Doing so is hardly an attempt to rule the world. Russia has been steadily moving away from the tenuous sense of mutual cooperation that arose after the fall of the Soviet Union. As it does it moves closer to being a threat. Letting the Russians know, through statements made by our Secretary of State, is rational diplomacy, not attempting to rule the world.

It is telling that similar or harsher statements made by the officials of Russia and other nations seem never to amount to "ruling the world" for Xingu and likeminded others.

It is also telling that Xingu will use the unchecked claims of a foreign official to vigorous question the claims of a US official. Obviously US claims are not automatically valid, but shouldn't one apply at least the same level of skepticism to the statements from other nations that dispute these claims?

Normally I admire the rational thought process Zakiria brings to issues, but this time it seems he has worked backward from a premise that fits his personal bias.

Comparisons between Ahmadidejan and Hitler, Stalin and Mao, may eventually prove to be ridiculous, and are ridiculous if the comparison is between the would-be mass murderer, and the real things, but to demand proof that Ahmadidejan is truly a nascent Hitler is pretty ridiculous.

At one time or another, all of the Evil Giants of human history, have been petty cranks (at best) or singular thugs. It really isn't hard to imagine that a Zakiria like article was published in the early days of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, mocking any attempt to compare them to true monsters like Ghengis Khan, Ivan the Terrible or Vlad the Impaler.

This, of course, doesn't mean that every pipsqueak gargoyle in the world is or is destined to be a full fledged monster, but we sneer at such pipsqueaks at our own peril, and we mock those who warn of them because of ideological leanings.

In my opinion, it's not that we have any authority to run the world, so to speak, nor are we running the world. The U.S., I believe, with the help of "fellow traveler" nations is trying to maintain western civilization as we know it. That includes democracy, capitalism, and a belief that developing nations can overcome corruption, despotism/authoritarianism and become part of the existing global economy/society. In effect, go forward, and stop being a backward society.

Needless to say, there are forces that work counter to the above. So, as it stands the world is divided into adversarial efforts. A waste of human effort. Or, it just may be the human condition.

For those who think the U.S. is, or trying, to run the world, should see that that canard is just a post WWII variation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Only now it's the U.S. and not a cabal of Jews. Some people even think it's both together! Another canard by those that may not want to blame those that truly keep some countries backward.

Something to think about as you listen to Bush beat the war drums.



http://www.powells.com/review/2007_10_15

America isn't the only one whose self interest is all important. Iran lost a hell of a lot of lives in her war with Iraq. She, far more than us, should be concerned about what happens in Iraq. Think of what we would do if Mexico was an Iraq and was invaded by another country, say a Muslim country.

So we're suppose to condemn and attack Iran for looking after her self interest, a self interest we have no regard or respect for?

I couldn't have said it more succinctly.

Warning Signals for the US
RUSSIA-IRAN RELATIONS

Wednesday 31 October 2007, by Neha Kumar

The relationship between Iran and Russia have been strengthened by the historic visit of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to Iran. Russian President Putin paid a visit to Iran on October 16, 2007 despite the threats of assassination. Putin made it clear that the aim of the visit was to clear up ambiguities regarding the nuclear programme of Iran and to play an influential role in the Iran nuclear programme. Russia also attended a multilevel meeting, that is, the Caspian Sea meeting. This meeting was attended by Russia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and they warned the outside countries not to use their territory to launch military operations. This comes amid growing concern of possible US actions against Iran. Russian President Putin has confirmed that Russia will support construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant at Iran. Moscow also mentioned that it would not back further sanctions against Iran unless the IAEA says Iran is not cooperating or proves it is working on weapons. Russia further signed a contract to supply Iran with five Tu-204-100 aircraft In this sense, the visit of Russian President Putin to Iran is very important for their strategic relations.

Russia and Iran have many things in common, like, both oppose the US presence in Azerbaijan and Georgia, both are opposed to the proposal to demarcate the Caspian Sea, both agree on the need to confront the Al-Qaeda's activities and both want to deal with the expansion of extremist Wahhabism and the resurgence of the Taliban in the region. The visit of the Russian President clearly marks a strategic breakthrough in the relationship between Iran and Russia but it also signifies a threat for the US. The reason is that the relations between Iran and the US are tense for a decade and the US is pressing the international community to stand up against Iran's nuclear programme. The US regards Iran as a rogue state which supports terrorism and could launch attacks on US allies like Israel. The relations between Russia and the US are also tense during the last several months. It seems that Russia is building an alliance against the US.

The relationship between the US and Russia is further deteriorating due to differences on the issue of missile defence. Both countries held meetings recently to resolve their differences on missile defence. They also discussed the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty and to extend the START 1 Treaty which would expire in 2012. But unfortunately both countries failed to reach any agreement. The US wants to have radars and interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland so as to detect the missile threat by Iran. On the other hand, Russia is opposed to any such proposal because these interceptors and radars would be capable of tracking missiles of Russia and would reduce its retaliatory capabilities. Russia feels that its deterrence will be in danger.

AS a result of this, Russia has started responding by various military and diplomatic means so as to signal to the US that it would not sit idle and accept the US plans without any murmur. It has recently tested the RS-24 missile, which could carry multiple independent warheads. Russia has claimed that this missile cannot be detected by the US missile defence system. Russia has also declared to speed up its missile development and has announced that it would soon deploy the S-400 anti-missile system around Moscow. Besides, Russia has indicated its intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty and has suspended its participation in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.

Among diplomatic measures, Russia and China are coming close together and have conducted war games to show their military power in August 2007. Vladimir Putin during these war games ordered the Russian Air Force to resume the Cold War practice of long-range flights by strategic bombers. Observers say the exercise sent signals to Washington and Brussels. The political signal sent to the US was that it could not push the NATO into Central Asia.

President Putin's visit to Iran could be seen as one of Russia's diplomatic measures to prevent the US from establishing its hegemony in the region and yet another move to demonstrate its opposition of the US' defensive plans. The US has remarked that it wants to establish missile defence so as to counter the ballistic missile threat from Iran; and in this context the Putin visit signifies that Russia would help Iran in making it stronger. During this visit, Iran wanted to secure the support of Russia for its Bushehr nuclear plant which Russia has left incomplete. Under such a situation, the enrichment process of Iran with the help of Russia, along with Shahab 3 or possibly with Shahab 4 missile in future will give it the capability to strike targets in the Middle East. The support of Russia is also very important for Iran because of its status of permanent membership in the Security Council. Russia could exercise its veto power so as to block any resolution moved in the Security Council. Russia could present as a counterweight to the US in the region. The Russian President's visit to Iran is also against the US policy to isolate Iran in the region.

Another important factor to be noted is that arms transfer and nuclear build-up offer large trade to Russia. Nuclear power stations in Iran mean big business for Russia. Similarly, last year Russia signed 700 million dollars worth of contract with Iran for the transfer of 29 Russian surface- to-surface and surface-to-air missile systems. Iran has been a major purchaser of Russian military hardware for almost a decade. Putin has linked the arms export revenue to the country's budget for development expenditure on scientific, engineering and manufacturing areas. Russia also has huge economic stakes in investing in Iran's oil and gas resources. During this visit, both sides agreed to establish direct contact between two countries' oil and gas companies so as to have mutually beneficial commercial agreements. Therefore, Russia has large political and economic interests in Iran and both are willing to come together and oppose the West's policies.

All these developments are not in the interest of the US. The missile and nuclear facility of Iran is highly dependent on Russian help. Russia has not only helped Iran in its nuclear programmes, it also helped Iran to produce long-range missiles, manufacture model missiles and develop computer software. Without Russian help, Iran would not be able to make such rapid advances in its missile programme. There is also the possibility that in future, Russia could sell counter-measures technology to Iran so as to defeat the missile defence programme of the US. The alliance between Russia and Iran is very harmful not only for the US' security but also its non-proliferation policies. The US should understand that its non- proliferation policies and defensive measures would have no significance unless it takes Russia into confidence.

The author is a Research Officer, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article391.html

It sounds like a marriage made in heaven.

When Bush looked into Putin's eyes he saw and understood nothing.

Re: Why Iran?


To consolidate US power over oil
To reduce or eliminate a threat to Israel
To stop Iran trading oil for euros.

(the same reasons as Iraq)

Attacking Iran would be IMO an act of insanity by the US. The fear is that the imbecile in the White House is insane enough to do just that.

Regarding Russia's love affair with Iran. It would appear the the cold war is far from over and the Russians are gaining the upper hand.

Re: Why Iran?


Yes, Professor Henry Higgins, I believe you've got it! It might take time for Eliza Dolittle to get it.

I'd like to offer a few random thoughts on the subject.

First off, I do not believe that the United States has the wealth, the manpower, nor the right to be the World's policeman.

Secondly, I do not believe our elected officials have the right to send our servicemen and servicewomen into harm's way without giving them their unqualified support, without believing that victory is possible, or with the obscene Rules of Engagement we currently have.

I do not believe that every problem in the World is the responsibility of the United States, nor should be solved by the United States.

Many other nations in the World have developed nuclear weapons (India and Pakistan, to name two), and I have not heard anyone in the United States suggest that military action is needed to stop this. However, I have not heard that these other nations execute their gay citizens or threaten to wipe other nations off the map.

And one final thought. Many A2Kers have posted ridicule for G.W. Bush, suggesting that his faith is providing a self-fullfilling prophecy regarding Iran and war in the Middle East. This may well be true. But is it not equally possible that the same could be said for the current rulers of Iran?

The term "policeman of the world" is just a popular notion that has no basis in fact. We get involved in the world for many reasons, none are to act as a policeman. Policemen have no vested interest in the situations they deal with. We, as a country with international economic interests, have a vested interest in every situation we get involved in.

Then perhaps I should have said that we do not have the wealth, the manpower, nor the right to intervene in every other nation's affairs when we do not approve of what they are doing.

I do not believe for one minute that Iran has any intention of "wiping Israel off the map." Iran has not attack any country since 1785. Iran knows the minute she launches one missile against any country, Israel or Eastern Europe, she will be wiped off the map. I do not believe Iran wants this. It is not a nation run by a bunch of Osama bin Laden religious fanatics bent on suicide. But they are a proud people and they will not be bullied.

If Iran is interested in developing a nuclear weapon I believe it is because of Bush and Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and one one objected. Bush has declared Iraq and Iran to be axis of evil and, with lies and cooked intelligence, attacked Iraq. It was very apparent to Iran that she would be next. No matter what she did Bush would cook up some cockamanie story, just as he did with Iraq, and use it to launch an attack against Iran. Iran saw the obvious; she needed a big stick to defend herself against the bully who has already declared his intention of aggression towards her.

This is what you get when you use your military to to impose your will on others. You make them look for a big stick.

That's called nuclear proliferation.

Xingu - I hope you are right that Iran has no intention of "wiping Isreal off the map". But maybe, just maybe if this is not their intention, then perhaps their Head of State shouldn't go around saying that's what is going to happen.

Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to attack anyone nor does he control the military. Only the "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has that power. Ahmadinejad does not speak for Khamenei. What Ahmadinejad says is irrelevant as he could be voted out of office in 2009.

You don't attack a country over the rantings of an ignorant man with little power.

I would also mention that Iran can not develope a nuclear weapon in the time left for Bush's presidency. It is estimated that it would take them 3 to 8 years to develope one they may not even be able to develope it in the next persons term of office. It's not up to Bush to make the decision to attack Iran. A lot of diplomacy and change can happen between the end of Bush's term and whenever. It should be up to the next president to make the decision as to what to do about Iran, not Bush.

One last thing to mention is there is no evidence that Iran is making plutonium that could be used for weapons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Iran is becoming another Iraq. Using lies and cooked information Bush is trying to build support for another war. Iraq was of no threat to anyone when we attacked her and Iran is not a threat to anyone today. But with enough lies and scare tactics you can make her into another Nazi Germany.

IMO the greatest danger to the US is the man who presently occupies the oval office.

Considering the Iranian people are not Arabs, have their own oil supply to sell on the world's market, making them economically independent, they should have no reason to make menacing statements against Israel.

But, inasmuch as menacing statements were made against Israel, there must be a reason why. Whatever that reason is, there is the not so subtle hint that the reason implies Iran has political goals beyond being a non-Arab, economically independent, oil producing nation.

So, if Iran has decided to sound like a threatening Arab nation, similar to previous Arab nations' threatening talk, that ended in wars in 1967 and 1973, Israel has every right to be concerned with this morphing of a non-Arab nation into an Arab sounding nation, in regards to Israel.

Notice the people that are in effect saying to Israel, "Don't worry!" are not living in Tel Aviv. And, I'd guess have nary a Jewish relative. Interesting how the world thinks they have the right to speak in behalf of a Jewish State. The psychological inference, in my opinion, is that if over the past two millenia, the Jews have failed to convert to the other two monotheistic faiths, then adherents of these two "rejected" faiths will still tell Jews what to do.

That in itself sounds like a reason for Jews to go to Israel, where they can, at least on a daily basis, ignore a world that seems preoccupied with their existence. That may not be classic anti-Semitism, but rather Judeophobia - "watch" the Jews; who knows what they are up to!