Iran recalling 40~ ambassadors...

[MKSheppard]

linka

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 37 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran's hard-line government said Wednesday it was removing 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of warmer ties with the West, from their posts in a shake-up that comes as the Islamic republic takes a more confrontational international stance.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced the changes to parliament, saying "the missions of more than 40 ambassadors and heads of Iranian diplomatic missions abroad will expire by the end of the year," which is March 20 under the Iranian calendar.

Mottaki, quoted by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, did not specify which ambassadors were among those being removed.

But IRNA said they included the ambassador to London, Mohammad Hossein Adeli, one of Iran's top diplomats and a leading member of the pragmatic foreign policy wing that supports contacts with Europe.

The moves give the new government of ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the chance to purge pro-reform figures brought in by his predecessor, moderate
Mohammad Khatami, and install its own supporters.

Ahmadinejad has taken a tougher line on a number of issues, particularly negotiations with Britain, France and Germany over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Hard-liners have criticized Khatami's government for agreeing to freeze much of the country's atomic activities during the talks, and Ahmadinejad already has replaced much of the negotiating team with hard-liners.

The new president, elected in June, also generated a storm of international criticism last week when he called for
Israel's eradication, saying it should be "wiped off the map."

Tensions with Europe and the United States over the nuclear issue are high after Iran ended part of its freeze on nuclear activities earlier this year, resuming uranium conversion at a plant in Isfahan. Washington accuses Iran of secretly aiming to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran counters that its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, will review Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue during a Nov. 24 meeting, and Washington is pressing for Tehran to be referred to the
U.N. Security Council, where it could face sanctions for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Sanctions, however, are unlikely.

Iran is sending conflicting signals to an international community concerned about its nuclear agenda, granting U.N. inspectors access to a secret military site but also saying it would process a new batch of uranium that could be used to make atomic weapons, diplomats in Vienna, Austria, said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

The diplomats said IAEA experts were allowed to revisit a high-security military site in Parchin as they try to establish whether Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program.

Parchin has been linked by the United States and other nations to alleged experiments linked to nuclear arms. The IAEA had for months been trying to follow up on a visit in January for further checks of buildings and areas within the sprawling military complex as it looks for traces of radioactivity.

Iran also has handed over documents and granted interviews with several senior officials believed linked to black market purchases of uranium enrichment technology, the diplomats said.

Ahmadinejad's victory in June elections sealed the decline of Iran's reform movement and solidified the control of hard-liners over the government. Some Iranians fear Ahmadinejad — a longtime member of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards — will bring back the policies of restrictions at home and confrontation abroad seen after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

On Wednesday, more than 10,000 demonstrators shouted "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the largest such demonstration in years.

Hard-liners organize protests at the site annually to mark the anniversary of the Nov. 4, 1979 seizure of the embassy by student militants.

Demonstrators carried a large picture of Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." They burned U.S. and Israeli flags and effigies of
President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon. Some wore a traditional Palestinian kaffiyah headdress, symbolizing their readiness to fight Israel.

"We have to continue our confrontation with the United States and Israel. This could help the world get rid of the arrogant powers," the hard-line Jomhuri Eslami daily said in an editorial.

___

Associated Press reporter George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, contributed to this report.

[The Grim Squeaker]

including supporters of warmer ties with the West, from their posts in a shake-up that comes as the Islamic republic takes a more confrontational international stance.

Oy, Vey.
This after their president calls for a zionist jihad and then the fucktards whine about the US and Israel calling for them to stop developing A-bombs

[KrauserKrauser]

So, where could they invade that would not curb stomp them into oblivion in response?

Iraq would be the obvious choice, but I'm thinking full scale war against the US is not something they truly grasp. Through conventional forces alone we could reduce their standard of living to less than third world status given the motivation.

If they choose to be the aggressors, they will be met by the united might of the world's armies ala Desert Storm.

But' they're crazy fundies that believe that Allah's merciful justice will shield them from the great satan's plethora of death dealing technology. The army of God vs. the facts of secularism....hmmm I think Iran may be in for a lesson in why the West is the dominant power.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, where could they invade that would not curb stomp them into oblivion in response?

Iraq would be the obvious choice, but I'm thinking full scale war against the US is not something they truly grasp. Through conventional forces alone we could reduce their standard of living to less than third world status given the motivation.

If they choose to be the aggressors, they will be met by the united might of the world's armies ala Desert Storm.

But' they're crazy fundies that believe that Allah's merciful justice will shield them from the great satan's plethora of death dealing technology. The army of God vs. the facts of secularism....hmmm I think Iran may be in for a lesson in why the West is the dominant power.

They could turn historical precedent on its head and just ivade Iraq

[Mr Bean]

We can dismantle their country's military structor at will through airstrikes alone. If it moves, or radiaits, it dies. That sad we can't take Iran without a massive comitment which we are not prepared for these days nor willing to do.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So, where could they invade that would not curb stomp them into oblivion in response?

Iraq would be the obvious choice, but I'm thinking full scale war against the US is not something they truly grasp. Through conventional forces alone we could reduce their standard of living to less than third world status given the motivation.

If they choose to be the aggressors, they will be met by the united might of the world's armies ala Desert Storm.

But' they're crazy fundies that believe that Allah's merciful justice will shield them from the great satan's plethora of death dealing technology. The army of God vs. the facts of secularism....hmmm I think Iran may be in for a lesson in why the West is the dominant power.

Anschluss with Azerbaijan, which is more than 90% Shia Muslim and was historically part of Iran until annexed by Russia in 1812 comes to mind immediately.

[General Brock]

Um, the US said it has serious plans to nuke Iran, and Europe won't let it expand a peaceful nuclear program not yet proven to be committed to weapons. Why wouldn't they remove any moderates that really must look stupid right now for trying to be, well, moderates?

Even if Iran did acquire nukes, well, so what? That would be the strategic excuse for the US or Israel to nuke them off them map, without looking like nuclear bullies, in the event of any conflict in which conventional casualties become undesireably high.

Looking at Iraq, I doubt that the Iranians are planning on doing much but bark impotently.

November 1, 2005
The Real Reason for
Nuking Iran
Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda
by Jorge Hirsch

The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago. Tactics adjust to unpredictable events as they unfold.

There was such an event last week, when Iran's president declared that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. The surprise was not the statement, which was an often-repeated quote by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, directed at a domestic student audience. What was surprising was both the timing (amid discussions about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium) and the relatively low-key U.S. response. Tony Blair expressed "revulsion," Chirac was "profoundly shocked," the European Union in a joint statement "condemned [it] in the strongest terms." Instead, Bush was quiet.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan commented, "It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," and the usually vociferous U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton only said that Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel were "pernicious and unacceptable." Those are uncharacteristically mild statements for this administration in the face of such a provocative statement by Iran against one of the U.S.' closest allies. Why?

Because Iran's intended underlying message to the U.S., which was ill-timed only in appearance, was: If you nuke us, the world will know that you did it because Iran supports the Palestinian cause.

Instead, it is in the U.S.' interests to de-emphasize any suggestion to that effect, hence its low-key response. Because nuking Iran for threatening Israel will inflame the Arab world and will not be acceptable to our European allies nor even to the American public. There are many other justifications that the Western world and the American public will find more acceptable, and these will be emphasized by the Bush administration at the right moment.

* Iran "is determined to get nuclear weapons deliverable on ballistic missiles that it can then use to intimidate not only its own region but possibly to supply to terrorists." (John Bolton, Oct. 15, 2005)
* "We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire the most destructive weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond." (John Bolton, June 24, 2004)
* "yria and Iran … share the goal of hurting America. … State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists…." (George Bush, Oct. 6, 2005)
* The 9/11 Commissiondetermined that al-Qaeda had long-standing and strong ties to Iran, for example that "senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives." (By contrast, it found no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq).
* Iran was responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, where 19 Americans were killed and 372 wounded, according to a June 2001 indictment by the U.S. attorney general. According to the 9/11 Commission, al-Qaeda may also have been involved.
* Hezbollah, a terrorist group tied to Iran, carried out the suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1982. Iran was directly involved, according to a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth in May 2003.

The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] as one of several possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries – not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the lives of many Americans or allies are at stake – just to demonstrate that it can do it.

The U.S. has maintained for some time now that it reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons to attacks or intended attacks with WMD, and that it intends to use nuclear weapons to destroy underground enemy facilities. It is argued that such statements have deterrent value, and that maintaining ambiguity as to what might trigger a U.S. nuclear attack deters countries from pursuing military initiatives that are contrary to U.S. interests.

Nonsense. Those statements have no deterrent value because no one in his or her right mind would believe that the greatest democracy in the world would do such a thing.

Unless the U.S. demonstrates, by actually doing it once, that it is indeed prepared to do so.

How do you create the conditions to perform such a demonstration and avoid immediate universal condemnation?

* You declare Iran to be the second member of the "axis of evil."
* You start a "global war on terror."
* You invade the first member of the axis (Iraq) and put 150,000 U.S. troops at the doorstep of the second member, in harm's way – not enough troops to invade Iran, nor to prevent an Iranian invasion of Iraq after Iran is attacked.
* You strike Iran's facilities, using conventional and nuclear bombs, to deter Iran from retaliating with missiles with chemical warheads and from invading Iraq, thereby saving the lives of 150,000 American soldiers.
* You argue that Iran's chemical and nuclear facilities had to be destroyed to prevent terrorists using weapons from those facilities to attack the U.S. (Never mind that the nuclear facilities were just nuclear reactors, not nuclear weapons).
* You get Israel to pull the trigger, i.e., bomb some Iranian installations (as it did in Iraq at Osirak) to provoke an Iranian response.

Now enter the world after the U.S. "demo," according to U.S. planners:

* There will be no doubt that U.S. statements on the use of nuclear weapons will have deterrent value.
* The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will be amended to prohibit uranium-enrichment for all countries that do not do it already; violators will be nuked.
* North Korea will be forced to disarm under the now real and credible threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.
* Any country suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons or any other military capability that could threaten the U.S. or its allies will be nuked.
* Russia, China, and all other nuclear countries will eventually be forced to disarm under the threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.

However, the real world does not always follow the script envisioned by U.S. planners, as the Iraq experience illustrates. So here is a more likely "post-demo" scenario:

* Many non-nuclear countries, including those currently friendly to the U.S., will rush to develop a nuclear deterrent, and many will succeed.
* Terrorist groups sympathetic to Iran will do their utmost to retaliate in-kind against the U.S., and eventually will succeed.
* With the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons broken, use of them by other countries will follow in various regional conflicts, and subsequent escalation will lead to global nuclear war.

Bye-bye world, including the United States of America.



Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861

[Surlethe]

Um, the US said it has serious plans to nuke Iran, and Europe won't let it expand a peaceful nuclear program not yet proven to be committed to weapons.

News to me. Could you point me to a credible source for those "serious plans to nuke Iran"?

Even if Iran did acquire nukes, well, so what? That would be the strategic excuse for the US or Israel to nuke them off them map, without looking like nuclear bullies, in the event of any conflict in which conventional casualties become undesireably high.

Because the US and Israel are definitely going to nuke any rogue state which acquires nukes, like they did to North Kor -- oh, wait. Never mind.

[Rogue 9]

Um, the US said it has serious plans to nuke Iran, and Europe won't let it expand a peaceful nuclear program not yet proven to be committed to weapons.

News to me. Could you point me to a credible source for those "serious plans to nuke Iran"?

To be fair, the Pentagon plans for everything; you could probably find plans to nuke Canada buried in some filing cabinet somewhere if you searched hard enough. The question is, are those plans being considered? I doubt it.

[Surlethe]

Um, the US said it has serious plans to nuke Iran, and Europe won't let it expand a peaceful nuclear program not yet proven to be committed to weapons.

News to me. Could you point me to a credible source for those "serious plans to nuke Iran"?

To be fair, the Pentagon plans for everything; you could probably find plans to nuke Canada buried in some filing cabinet somewhere if you searched hard enough. The question is, are those plans being considered? I doubt it.

Hence the "serious" to modify "plans". Contingency plans to nuke Iran are OK; serious plans to do so (in the context of his post) are rather questionable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To be fair, the Pentagon plans for everything; you could probably find plans to nuke Canada buried in some filing cabinet somewhere if you searched hard enough. The question is, are those plans being considered? I doubt it.

In the 1930s our strategic war plan for a conflict with the UK and Empire involved massed strategic bomber raids on Canadian cities using mustard gas bombs. Anyone who seriously thinks that simply planning for an outside event means that we're actually planning to execute that plan is a ludicrous idiot.

[Admiral Valdemar]

While every nation hopes for the best, plans for the worst with even their allies, I would think Iran is above a lot of that given the leaning of the gov't now and recent critiques of their practices.

[General Brock]

Um, the US said it has serious plans to nuke Iran, and Europe won't let it expand a peaceful nuclear program not yet proven to be committed to weapons.

News to me. Could you point me to a credible source for those "serious plans to nuke Iran"?

Even if Iran did acquire nukes, well, so what? That would be the strategic excuse for the US or Israel to nuke them off them map, without looking like nuclear bullies, in the event of any conflict in which conventional casualties become undesireably high.

Because the US and Israel are definitely going to nuke any rogue state which acquires nukes, like they did to North Kor -- oh, wait. Never mind.

Not if they acquire nukes, only if they have nukes and if they can do well enough conventionally such that preventing loss would require the use of nukes. With only 150 000 US soldiers in Iraq, for example, a hypothetical but unlikely massive Iranian invasion backed by the Iraqi Shia might only be stemmed with nukes.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background


In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

This became major public news, and was not just another contingincy scenario quietly developed as part of responsible war planning that would otherwise go unnoted. Given the conditions for implementation, I would say it was irresponsible. It is sabre rattling, but almost certainly more doable than any Iranian plan to wipe Israel off the map.

It effectively says, no matter the source of an attack on US soil, Iran will be considered culpable. This may encourage Iran and Iranian sympathizers to curb any major attacks on America itself, and even do some policing of its own where they can.

Iran could not possibly have reasonable access to every terrorist group capable of striking at the US, and those who don't like Iran might be persuaded to do to Iran what Bin Laden did to Iraq; turn it into another a quagmire for America and ignite a much hoped for holy war throughout the region. This posturing places America at greater risk, in my opinion, since it gives radical groups one more reason to attack America, and a more predictable response to such an attack.

The Iranians are in a bind; they need nuclear tech to advance their economy; the oil won't last, they don't sit on mountains of coal, but they do have other natural resources. It is better to be able to sell as much as oil as possible while developing a modern industrial economy based on nuclear power. Perhaps augmented by other alterative energy sources, although they seem to have concluded nuclear energy should be the base. They also know they are at an extremely vulnerable stage of their development as an independent nation.

The 'threat' Iran presents is not military; it is economic, in the sense that if Iran can fully exploit its peaceful potential, it is better placed to be a regional hegemonic power more so than Israel, Iraq (now, anyway), the US, or any European nation. That sort power is economically and financially based, not military. With Iraq in tatters, the traditional balance to Iranian ambition is gone. A substantial number of people will be inclined to look, willingly and without coercion, to Iran as the legitimate regional leader.

If Iran is to be prevented from pursuing its natural, peaceful destiny, integrating itself into the world economy as an independent player with its own agenda, unnatural events will have to be visited upon them before they become to awkward to be treated like a banana republic, too well-connected to the vested interests of world powers other than the US, to well defensively armed, to be arbitrarily removed without the severest of repercussions to the offending power.

[tharkûn]

Not if they acquire nukes, only if they have nukes and if they can do well enough conventionally such that preventing loss would require the use of nukes. With only 150 000 US soldiers in Iraq, for example, a hypothetical but unlikely massive Iranian invasion backed by the Iraqi Shia might only be stemmed with nukes.

BS. US troops have many options for mowing down poorly equiped masses of human waves. From claymores to napalm to clusterbombs to all manner of arty. The only way to beat the US is to use enough soft shielding that it becomes politicly unacceptable to use such things.

The Iranians are in a bind; they need nuclear tech to advance their economy; the oil won't last, they don't sit on mountains of coal, but they do have other natural resources.

Bwhahahahaha. Iran needs nuclear like a fish needs a bicycle.

Iran has the second largest proven natural gas reserves in the world. They will only run out decades after the world natural gas market dries up, at which point they are screwed regardless. Far more cheaply than they can build a heavily bunkered nuclear power program (which for odd reasons won't even import enriched fuel which would be far cheaper), they can exploit their proven natural gas reserves.

It is better to be able to sell as much as oil as possible while developing a modern industrial economy based on nuclear power.

No. It is far more economical to run off natural gas than to have a heavily bunkered nuclear program with multiplicatively higher costs.

The 'threat' Iran presents is not military; it is economic, in the sense that if Iran can fully exploit its peaceful potential, it is better placed to be a regional hegemonic power more so than Israel, Iraq (now, anyway), the US, or any European nation. That sort power is economically and financially based, not military. With Iraq in tatters, the traditional balance to Iranian ambition is gone. A substantial number of people will be inclined to look, willingly and without coercion, to Iran as the legitimate regional leader.

You are a moron. The region, minus Iraq, is heavily Sunni and hence will view a Shi'ite theocracy with extreme suspicion. Turkey, which actually has a modern economy and not just an oil economy is far better placed as a regional leader. Saudi Arabia has far more oil and due to its Sunni heritage makes a far superior regional leader. Armenia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, The United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan and Russia all have one issue or another with the Islamic Republic of Iran. From boundary disputes (which encompass large oil fields) to bad history (killing nationals, destroying oil tankers, etc.), to religious disputes, to rival claims of hegemony ... I'm wondering where all these people who will willingly look to Iran be found.

If Iran is to be prevented from pursuing its natural, peaceful destiny, integrating itself into the world economy as an independent player with its own agenda, unnatural events will have to be visited upon them before they become to awkward to be treated like a banana republic, too well-connected to the vested interests of world powers other than the US, to well defensively armed, to be arbitrarily removed without the severest of repercussions to the offending power.

The only thing that stops Iran from being hammered is that the US is unwilling to pay the cost. The Iranian economy could be destroyed by a relatively small US naval force closing the straights of Tiran to Iranian shipping, its military simply is not capable of standing up to B-2s, F-117s, F-22s, and cruise missiles. Those will be more than able to destroy Iranian air defenses which will then allow the military to be flattened.

Iran is essentially a petrol state with the ability to expand into natural gas. Oil makes up 90% of exports and about 50% of government funding. Iran has chronicly troubled budgets and high unemployment (and due to bad labor policies it may be as high as 50% for young adults).

Iran is not all that spectacular, and the whole theocracy and farcical representative government is keeping them from improving. Turkey has near parity GDP, while being an oil importer, and has more population. The Saudis have more money to pay out, the Turks have more people, the Pakistanis already have nukes, and all three have better military hardware.

The only way Iran can be a regional hegemon is if they get nukes and can then proceed to intervene regionally with minimal fear of retaliation. This obviously suggest that a nuclear Iran is a bad thing.

[Surlethe]

Not if they acquire nukes, only if they have nukes and if they can do well enough conventionally such that preventing loss would require the use of nukes. With only 150 000 US soldiers in Iraq, for example, a hypothetical but unlikely massive Iranian invasion backed by the Iraqi Shia might only be stemmed with nukes.

Stemming an invasion with nukes would hardly be contingent upon Iran possessing nukes, now would it?

This became major public news, and was not just another contingincy scenario quietly developed as part of responsible war planning that would otherwise go unnoted. Given the conditions for implementation, I would say it was irresponsible. It is sabre rattling, but almost certainly more doable than any Iranian plan to wipe Israel off the map.

It effectively says, no matter the source of an attack on US soil, Iran will be considered culpable. This may encourage Iran and Iranian sympathizers to curb any major attacks on America itself, and even do some policing of its own where they can.

Of course it was sabre rattling; that's what the point of the leak was.

The 'threat' Iran presents is not military; it is economic, in the sense that if Iran can fully exploit its peaceful potential, it is better placed to be a regional hegemonic power more so than Israel, Iraq (now, anyway), the US, or any European nation. That sort power is economically and financially based, not military. With Iraq in tatters, the traditional balance to Iranian ambition is gone. A substantial number of people will be inclined to look, willingly and without coercion, to Iran as the legitimate regional leader.

If Iran is to be prevented from pursuing its natural, peaceful destiny, integrating itself into the world economy as an independent player with its own agenda, unnatural events will have to be visited upon them before they become to awkward to be treated like a banana republic, too well-connected to the vested interests of world powers other than the US, to well defensively armed, to be arbitrarily removed without the severest of repercussions to the offending power.

So you believe the US would actually manufacture an excuse to nuke Iran in order to prevent it from becoming a regional rival?

[Master of Ossus]

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries – not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the lives of many Americans or allies are at stake – just to demonstrate that it can do it.

That line is hilarious. Duh! We've done it already! We did it to the Japanese only because American lives were at stake in the case of an invasion, and guess what? We'd do it again! That is the most retarded military analysis I've read in a long time.

[General Brock]

Stemming an invasion with nukes would hardly be contingent upon Iran possessing nukes, now would it?

No, just easier to justify publically. It is easier to spin the use of nukes against a nuclear armed opponent than otherwise. The US is still a democracy, allied with other like-minded powers. Administrations have to sell their actions to voters as well as to their allies.

So you believe the US would actually manufacture an excuse to nuke Iran in order to prevent it from becoming a regional rival?

Why not? I never thought they would make up the WMD thingy in Iraq, but they did, for goals that make little sense. If Iran does not relinquish nuclear capability, and continues to progress using facilities in deep bunkers only destructable to nuclear warheads, then may as well establish the groundwork for such a strike option. Whether or not they will play the card is in doubt, but establishing a creditable threat may insure that, if Irans nuclear program is peaceful - which I suspect it is - it will stay that way into the foreseeable future while they work out a better containment strategy with their allies.

[tharkûn]

No, just easier to justify publically. It is easier to spin the use of nukes against a nuclear armed opponent than otherwise. The US is still a democracy, allied with other like-minded powers. Administrations have to sell their actions to voters as well as to their allies.

Uhuh, the men in the white coats are your friends. Now just make sure you special hat doesn't come off.

Nuking a nuclear armed power means you pretty much have to go for a first strike which obliterates their arsenal on the ground. With Iran this will leave millions dead, cut off major oil supplies, and require a huge dose of instant sunrise. Because you are going to be hitting hardened targets you will also be groundbursting and creating lots of fun radioactive fallout which will follow the prevailing winds, which if memory serves are mostly east to west. This will then close down Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields, as well as possibly close the Persian gulf.

Selling nuclear pre-emption for anything other than a threat to the US is nigh unto impossible.

Why not? I never thought they would make up the WMD thingy in Iraq, but they did, for goals that make little sense

You are a retconning dumbass. The WMD thing was "made up" over a decade ago and was the stated position of numerous people, agencies, and governments. Cherry picking the evidence and disregarding negative signs might have been new and intentional, but you are completely clueless if you missed it when everyone else with different goals "made up" the same thing.

If Iran does not relinquish nuclear capability, and continues to progress using facilities in deep bunkers only destructable to nuclear warheads, then may as well establish the groundwork for such a strike option.

If memory serves the GBU-28 can go through 20ft of concrete. MOP is under work and may well be able to blow through anything Iran has or can realisticly build on this scale. In any event you don't need the bomb to even breech the bunker, you just need it to produce a sufficiently strong shockwave to cause collapse (shockwaves transmit far better undergound). Even if you just close off the tunnels leading in, you can continue to collapse those at will. Or dig your way down by blowing out sequential craters.

Whether or not they will play the card is in doubt, but establishing a creditable threat may insure that, if Irans nuclear program is peaceful - which I suspect it is - it will stay that way into the foreseeable future while they work out a better containment strategy with their allies.

Would you like to buy a bridge, I'll sell it to you cheap.

[General Brock]

BS. US troops have many options for mowing down poorly equiped masses of human waves. From claymores to napalm to clusterbombs to all manner of arty. The only way to beat the US is to use enough soft shielding that it becomes politicly unacceptable to use such things.

Conceded. If Iran only uses human waves. I don't know how good they are or what tactics they are capable of employing.

Bwhahahahaha. Iran needs nuclear like a fish needs a bicycle.

Iran has the second largest proven natural gas reserves in the world. They will only run out decades after the world natural gas market dries up, at which point they are screwed regardless. Far more cheaply than they can build a heavily bunkered nuclear power program (which for odd reasons won't even import enriched fuel which would be far cheaper), they can exploit their proven natural gas reserves.

Maybe so, but if they want to be self-sufficient they need complete uranium refining capability. There is also the payoff to whomever stands to profit from making these elaborate bunkers and the reactors therin, whether the businessmen selling the concrete or the labourers, skilled tradespeople, skilled technicians, and the scientists and engineers. Megaprojects tend to splash a lot of money around. Not to mention the prestige of being nuke savvy and the good domestic PR for defying the imperialist west. Demand for natural gas is going up; as long as they can sell it as a viable energy source, there will be demand. [/quote]

You are a moron. The region, minus Iraq, is heavily Sunni and hence will view a Shi'ite theocracy with extreme suspicion. Turkey, which actually has a modern economy and not just an oil economy is far better placed as a regional leader. Saudi Arabia has far more oil and due to its Sunni heritage makes a far superior regional leader. Armenia, Afghanistan, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, The United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan and Russia all have one issue or another with the Islamic Republic of Iran. From boundary disputes (which encompass large oil fields) to bad history (killing nationals, destroying oil tankers, etc.), to religious disputes, to rival claims of hegemony ... I'm wondering where all these people who will willingly look to Iran be found.

A lot of small countries in Asia are suspicious of China, or Japan, but business is business. Iranians in Tehran in particular are fond of reminding everyone they are Persians, not Arabs or Kurds, so there is a lot of non-religiously based rivalry. Turkey is remembered as the failed Ottoman Empire, and has growing Kurdish unrest. Saudi Arabia is considered too sympathetic to Western interests. Iran is the only truly independent power in the region, which garners it a level of populist respect across the Islamic world. No-one is going to say 'boycott Iran'.

The only thing that stops Iran from being hammered is that the US is unwilling to pay the cost. The Iranian economy could be destroyed by a relatively small US naval force closing the straights of Tiran to Iranian shipping, its military simply is not capable of standing up to B-2s, F-117s, F-22s, and cruise missiles. Those will be more than able to destroy Iranian air defenses which will then allow the military to be flattened.

Iran is essentially a petrol state with the ability to expand into natural gas. Oil makes up 90% of exports and about 50% of government funding. Iran has chronicly troubled budgets and high unemployment (and due to bad labor policies it may be as high as 50% for young adults).

Iran is not all that spectacular, and the whole theocracy and farcical representative government is keeping them from improving. Turkey has near parity GDP, while being an oil importer, and has more population. The Saudis have more money to pay out, the Turks have more people, the Pakistanis already have nukes, and all three have better military hardware.

The only way Iran can be a regional hegemon is if they get nukes and can then proceed to intervene regionally with minimal fear of retaliation. This obviously suggest that a nuclear Iran is a bad thing.

Well, why dosen't the US just tank over the Iranians? What is the cost that would hold it back?

Iran couldn't win a nuclear war even if it had nukes, and having nukes on hand is not without risk, so I doubt that they are making any; there isn't any net benefit. They haven't done much intervening in recent memory; they only obsess over keeping out foreigners. Not counting the tacit support of pro-Palestinian groups of course, and militant cells that kept Saddam on his toes. Any hypothetical Iranian nuke that slipped into terrorist hands and was used would bear the isotopic fingrerprint of their processing procedures, recorded at the IAEA, and invite that instant sunrise no-one wants to wake up to.

For a backwards theocracy Iran has accomplished a lot in a small amount of time. That's extremely alarming, if the nation is as backwards and unsophisticated as you describe. I don't think US policies for dealing with the problems that could arise are at all constructive and well thought out, since they seem designed to provoke a simplistic military showdown, while Iran is trying, effectively, to avoid such a showdown. Iran is also making a good show of an Islamic theocracy working, while the Bush and co. have made liberal democracy look rather slimy.

http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2167/html/focus.htm

Sun, Dec 19, 2004

Challenges to Economic Takeoff

In an interview with the Persian daily Hamshahri, MPO Chief Hamid Reza Baradaran-Shoraka elaborated on the issue.

The former dean of Allameh Tabatabaei's Faculty of Economy believes in free economy-what the conservative parliamentarians are strongly opposed to.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

Officials have repeatedly talked about economic takeoff. Essentially, what does it mean?

Established in the 1960s, the phrase economic takeoff enjoys a high status among economic growth theories.

According to this theory, there are several stages in the process of economic growth with the creation of the necessary infrastructure being the initial one followed by a takeoff and then the production boom.

I personally think that we have already completed the initial stage.

...
I totally agree with the theory that an economic takeoff is needed to advance growth objectives and make up for shortcomings of the past.
We have all what an economy might need to develop, including a rich historical background, specialized and inexpensive workforce, natural resources, etc.

Efforts to achieve industrial development have produced the desired results in recent years as can be seen in the high-tech industries emerging in the country these days.

In addition to developing the national economy, we must also try to strengthen our presence in regional markets.
....
Spatial planning studies suggest Iran rests at the heart of a 300-million-strong market, which at the same time is the world's energy hub. That is, any investment in Iran would bear fruit. The same is the reason why many international companies have in recent years expressed their willingness to embark on direct investments in the county.
In the past years, huge foreign investments have been made in the hydrocarbon resource-rich Assalouyeh area, where strategic oil products are being produced and exported. We also produce sophisticated electronic equipment inside Iran.
...
What are the challenges to Iran's economic takeoff?

The first challenge could be cultural. When I was studying abroad, I had some (South) Korean friends. They were upset about the cultural problems that followed their economic development. They recommend that it is important to preserve cultural identity in the process of improving development goals.

I understand that the Europeans have the same concerns.
We are an Islamic country and our cultural values should not be affected by efforts to achieve sustainable development.

One of the main challenges of the industrialization process is that the people could lose their cultural identity. In an industrialized country, it is possible that two neighbors live next to each other for 50 years but do not know each other's names.

Such cultural threats exist in the process leading to economic takeoff.
In addition to this, social divide would broaden in the wake of unfair distribution of wealth that would follow industrialization.

This is the usual pro-government stuff one would expect from the Iran Daily, but I suspect that the Iranian conservatives that have since come into power won't reverse the economic and technological gains any more then Christian fundies in the US would, and will use them to make a case for the viability of theocractic authoritarianism. I think they view this not in terms of a hot war, which they know they cannot win, but a cold war where they only have to last and grow stronger.

[tharkûn]

Conceded. If Iran only uses human waves. I don't know how good they are or what tactics they are capable of employing.

As Iraq found out, if it moves the US can kill it. Between the helicopters, planes, arty, and the extremely well armored M1A2 anything not man portable or at most crew portable is dead.

Once you get to that point you are reduced to either human waves or irregular warfare. Large concentrations of troops are simply targets for whatever is handiest to kill them. Small concentrations can be dealt with using superior firepower.

An Iranian offensive will fail miserably in any conventional war.

Maybe so, but if they want to be self-sufficient they need complete uranium refining capability. There is also the payoff to whomever stands to profit from making these elaborate bunkers and the reactors therin, whether the businessmen selling the concrete or the labourers, skilled tradespeople, skilled technicians, and the scientists and engineers. Megaprojects tend to splash a lot of money around.

First off the don't need uranium refining capability, South Korea has no problems lacking it.

Second the "payoff" is a broken window fallacy. Rather than spend money on a functionally useless endeavor, you could build far cheaper natural gas plants and use the rest of the money to build roads, airports, etc. or invest it in education and healthcare. Either would be far superior.

Not to mention the prestige of being nuke savvy and the good domestic PR for defying the imperialist west.

They get PR, they may also get bombed for it. I leave it to the reader to decide if the potential deaths of many Iranians would be worth the PR benifits; and if it is why that might not be a receipt for stable Iranian relations with the rest of the world.

Demand for natural gas is going up; as long as they can sell it as a viable energy source, there will be demand.

No really Sherlock? The fact of the matter is Iran has enough natural gas to sell abroad and produce domesticly. If they actually endangered their reserves it would only be after the largest exploration and production program for any resources in the history of the world. They would also glut the market and destroy their economy, but hey.

In any event Iranian policy shoots that one in the foot. Currently Iran subsidizes its own energy consumption rather than sell oil abroad, this would be little different and far cheaper than the 50 billion or whatever they burn on domestic subsidies today.

A lot of small countries in Asia are suspicious of China, or Japan, but business is business.

Yes and Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan will be far more interested in keeping a greater share of the Caspian fossil fuel reserves for themselves than looking up to Iran. Armenia will remember how much Iran has helped its economy.

Iranians in Tehran in particular are fond of reminding everyone they are Persians, not Arabs or Kurds, so there is a lot of non-religiously based rivalry.

And this helps your point how? That Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, etc. are more likely to look up Iranians who don't even speak their language?

Turkey is remembered as the failed Ottoman Empire, and has growing Kurdish unrest. Saudi Arabia is considered too sympathetic to Western interests. Iran is the only truly independent power in the region, which garners it a level of populist respect across the Islamic world. No-one is going to say 'boycott Iran'.

Let's see Iran is the failed Persian Empire and is viewed as too wackaloon to trust. They are fast becoming a Russian dependency. Boycott Iran has been said multiple times in the past. Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all did so as I recall. The rest of the world will most certainly boycott Iran should they feel it is needed or if the US turns the screws hard enough on whomever does business with Iran.

Well, why dosen't the US just tank over the Iranians? What is the cost that would hold it back?

Disrupting oil supplies for one. Cost of expended hardware for two. The electoral costs of going to war for three.

Iran couldn't win a nuclear war even if it had nukes, and having nukes on hand is not without risk, so I doubt that they are making any; there isn't any net benefit.

Wow what a dumbass. Iran can't win a nuclear war against the US however it could stalemate/win one against Israel. It could stalemate one against Pakistan. And it could win one against Azerbaijan (which Iran has dubious claims upon), Armenia (who have pissed off the theocrats many times), or any of the Gulf States.

They haven't done much intervening in recent memory; they only obsess over keeping out foreigners.

Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Not counting the tacit support of pro-Palestinian groups of course, and militant cells that kept Saddam on his toes. Any hypothetical Iranian nuke that slipped into terrorist hands and was used would bear the isotopic fingrerprint of their processing procedures, recorded at the IAEA, and invite that instant sunrise no-one wants to wake up to.

Which is meaningless if they:
A. Beleive Allah will protect them.
B. Beleive the matyrdom of a nation is worthwhile if it serves the greater good.

For a backwards theocracy Iran has accomplished a lot in a small amount of time.

No they haven't. Until recently the same bog standard car that Iran was producing under the Shah was being produced for the current market. Their oil industry has never recovered to the levels under the Shah. Education and health might be better, but data is sketchy. The truth is the Shah, whatever else his faults, did take and drag the country kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

I don't think US policies for dealing with the problems that could arise are at all constructive and well thought out, since they seem designed to provoke a simplistic military showdown, while Iran is trying, effectively, to avoid such a showdown.

BS. Iran has attacked the world's oil supply, had its president call publicly for the wholesale obliteration of the US, and you know remains the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always been confrontational and has in the past undertaken multiple acts of war, if they are trying to avoid a showdown they are to be bigger idiots than a lobotomized moron like you.

Iran is also making a good show of an Islamic theocracy working, while the Bush and co. have made liberal democracy look rather slimy.

By what standard? They have a sham for representative democracy. They have terrible human rights. They have chronic unemployment. They hold the honor of having the most polluted city in the world. And despite their massive oil wealth they lack even the standard of living of Turkey.

I'm of course ignoring many of the hated religious laws, public riots/demonstrations, and of course all the rural areas.

This is the usual pro-government stuff one would expect from the Iran Daily, but I suspect that the Iranian conservatives that have since come into power won't reverse the economic and technological gains any more

They already have. The 2005 policies already show regression, for instance government price controls and subsidies for gasoline which were eased in 2004 are now back to earlier levels. In order to pay for this they are dipping into a fund set up as a hedge should oil prices fall. Needless to say both actions are highly regressive and will be bad for economic progress.

I think they view this not in terms of a hot war, which they know they cannot win, but a cold war where they only have to last and grow stronger.

Wonderful your opinion and 35 cents will let you make a phone call.

The truth is their rhetoric is to obliterate Israel. The truth is they actively fund, equip, and train anti-Israeli forces. The truth is they are engaged in war by proxy and that appears only to be getting worse, and certainly won't be better once nuclear weapons give them protection from regional reprisals.

[LordShaithis]

Pardon my ignorance of military matters, but if Iran decided to essentially "zerg rush" occupied Iraq, couldn't a couple of carriers basically slaughter them in droves as they moved across the desert?

[General Brock]

Pardon my ignorance of military matters, but if Iran decided to essentially "zerg rush" occupied Iraq, couldn't a couple of carriers basically slaughter them in droves as they moved across the desert?

tharkûn is certain the US can kill them if they can see them, and I have no reason to doubt this is true, which is why I conceded that point. Iranian commoners may not be as religious as they were in the 1980s and probably wouldn't volunteer as readily as their parent's generation, either.

[General Brock]

First off the don't need uranium refining capability, South Korea has no problems lacking it.

Second the "payoff" is a broken window fallacy. Rather than spend money on a functionally useless endeavor, you could build far cheaper natural gas plants and use the rest of the money to build roads, airports, etc. or invest it in education and healthcare. Either would be far superior.

South Korea? One of America's closest allies and ward in Asia? Who would oppose them acquiring nuclear power, except anti-nuclear environmentalists?

Nuclear power is an investment in a possible future where fossil fuels won't be around. I would rather they use alternatives, but I've heard it argued that no amount of alternative energy schemes outside nuclear power is truly viable if fossil fuels are out of the equation. Iran will probably be exporting nuclear generated electricity as well as fossil fuels to their neighbors long after those countries run dry, but eventually they too will run out. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Vegetable oil diesel requires cropland that might be needed for food. Nuclear power can be set on unuseable land, and in Iran's case, diposing of nuclear waste is not a problem; it's already in a massive bunker.

They get PR, they may also get bombed for it. I leave it to the reader to decide if the potential deaths of many Iranians would be worth the PR benifits; and if it is why that might not be a receipt for stable Iranian relations with the rest of the world.

Getting bombed for having a peaceful nuclear power plant. No wonder they are burying this investment under concrete and steel.

No really Sherlock? The fact of the matter is Iran has enough natural gas to sell abroad and produce domesticly. If they actually endangered their reserves it would only be after the largest exploration and production program for any resources in the history of the world. They would also glut the market and destroy their economy, but hey.

In any event Iranian policy shoots that one in the foot. Currently Iran subsidizes its own energy consumption rather than sell oil abroad, this would be little different and far cheaper than the 50 billion or whatever they burn on domestic subsidies today.

Suppose Iran could milk oil and natural gas for 200 years. They have been around for over 2000; that might figure into their planning. Eventually, they would have to go nuclear; why not start learning how to build and operate that technology now, while they can afford to?

Yes and Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan will be far more interested in keeping a greater share of the Caspian fossil fuel reserves for themselves than looking up to Iran. Armenia will remember how much Iran has helped its economy.

If oil is an unreliable source of income because of competition and price instability, then diversifying into exported nuclear generated electricity may become an option. They can also use nuclear power to expand their economy beyond reliance on raw resource and agricultural exports.

And this helps your point how? That Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, etc. are more likely to look up Iranians who don't even speak their language?

More than half of Iran's 68 million people are Persian. Other ethnic groups include Azeri, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Kurd and Arab. Shi'iah Islam is Iran's national religion, practiced by 89 percent of the population. Sunni Muslims make up another 9 percent. The major languages spoken in Iran include Persian and Persian dialects, Kurdish, and Turkic and its dialects. That's a good representation of Islam, allowing them to network multiculturally internationally while maintaining a strong mainstream to shape national focus. Iranian partners don't have to look up to them, just view the Iranian ticket as the best way to advance their own interests.

Practically, there is unrest and dissent, but mostly in the outer provinces and driven by poverty. Alleviate the poverty, and perhaps some of the tensions will be relived too.

Let's see Iran is the failed Persian Empire and is viewed as too wackaloon to trust. They are fast becoming a Russian dependency. Boycott Iran has been said multiple times in the past. Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all did so as I recall. The rest of the world will most certainly boycott Iran should they feel it is needed or if the US turns the screws hard enough on whomever does business with Iran.

Japan, Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Belgium are Iran's major trade partners, not Russia. All of them would like access to Iranian oil, if not for domestic use then to set up exploration and export companies to sell to others. Even Russia, despite having its own vast reserves, needs to expand using foreign investments.

The US can turn all the screws it wants; the world economy is so becoming so tightly interlinked that it would only be screwing itself.
It is unlikely that the rest of the world will take kindly to having to having the US impose itself as middleman to vital ME resources. A cop enforces laws fairly, not makes them.

The rest of the world also does not see Iran in hysterical terms. Iran is also another cradle of civilization, with an interesting history, friendly people, and fascinating culture, past and present.

Disrupting oil supplies for one. Cost of expended hardware for two. The electoral costs of going to war for three.

Costs which Iran plans to increase every way it can via diplomatic means, if they can. They are not going to come out and play, and going after them militarily and holding them is going to be difficult; Iran has broken the containment previous US adminstrations helped establish through shrewd diplomacy.

For a militant country in a volitile region, they spent only 3.8% of their GDP on their military in 2003. In comparison, Saudi Arabia, a far richer country with powerful allies, spent 8.7%. Only the UAE spent less on %GDP in 2003 at 3.1%. Trying to make a case for war against Iran is a waste of time and is only further eroding American credibility and undermines any arguments the US might make about Iranian human rights abuses.

Wow what a dumbass. Iran can't win a nuclear war against the US however it could stalemate/win one against Israel. It could stalemate one against Pakistan. And it could win one against Azerbaijan (which Iran has dubious claims upon), Armenia (who have pissed off the theocrats many times), or any of the Gulf States.

Stalemate? With nukes? Lose Tehran and a couple of other major centres, and what else is there? That's what, four of five nukes? Ten, to account for lousy targeting systems and faulty detonation. Nuking non-nuclear Azerbaijan or Armenia would cost it so much in international trade and goodwill they they might as well set one off in Tehran as well. A pre-emptive strike against Israel would also be a ticket to paving Tehran and most of the rest of the country with glass, if Christian fundies the world over have any say in the matter. That would be after Israel's spoilsport strikes.

Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Maybe, maybe not. One nation's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. A lot of that activity is grassroots in nature, anyway. Iran could disappear from the face of the earth, but the root causes for terror attacks would remain, motivated by hatred and fueled by drug money and people who get off on that sort of thing.

Which is meaningless if they:
A. Beleive Allah will protect them.
B. Beleive the matyrdom of a nation is worthwhile if it serves the greater good.

Iran/Persia has proven itself very good at staying alive. Martyrdom will have to be foisted on them.

... Until recently the same bog standard car that Iran was producing under the Shah was being produced for the current market. Their oil industry has never recovered to the levels under the Shah. Education and health might be better, but data is sketchy. The truth is the Shah, whatever else his faults, did take and drag the country kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

The Shah couldn't give them their pride. They had to take it. May sound stupid, but human beings are more emotional than rational at times. As for the car; changes in the auto industry here are driven by a large and free market. They don't have that in Iran, and it is probably not profitable to upgrade their models. Rich Iranians can always import a Volvo.

Real GDP growth in Iran increased to 4.9 percent in 2000 as compared to 2.5 percent in 1999, and from 2001-4 averaged 5.7 %. That's not bad. With 80% of revenues coming from oil exports at record prices, and above board and underground exports to Iraq, and taking up whatever regional trade Iraq has to relinquish, 2005 will be another banner year. Iraninans enjoy as good or better a standard of living compared to their neighbors, as well.

Iran is doing well for a country that experienced a major revolution in 1979, a war with Iraq from 1980-88, and being kept out of the WTO by the US and subject to US sanctions. After the fastie the Bush administration pulled in Iraq, it is safe to assume the UN security council won't allow itself to be trapped into laying seige to Iran the way they were in Iraq; the member countries don't want to be shut out of the world's largest oil reserves, which they can gain access to more easily in direct dealing with a free Iranian nation state rather than one liberated by US occupation forces.

Which means Candi will have to do some major arm-twisting if Iran is to be contained.

BS. Iran has attacked the world's oil supply, had its president call publicly for the wholesale obliteration of the US, and you know remains the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always been confrontational and has in the past undertaken multiple acts of war, if they are trying to avoid a showdown they are to be bigger idiots than a lobotomized moron like you.

Iran attacked the world's oil supply? Multiple acts of war? What, they launched attacks in Canada, Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, and the North Sea, too? If Iran is looking for a showdown, why aren't they frantically arming to the teeth instead of trading diplomatic barbs and failing to upgrade tired old slogans like "Death to America/Israel"? Where are the trenchlines, the AK chicks in black burkhas, tanks and anti-aircraft guns on the streets?

For that matter, why haven't all those Iranian terror groups ratcheted up their activites to fever pitch? Even the problems in Iraq are more often blamed on Syria than Iran.

Iran may be confrontational on a pulpit, but in real terms, they don't seem to be doing much else but making the usual rote threats thay have been making since the revolution.

By what standard? They have a sham for representative democracy. They have terrible human rights. They have chronic unemployment. They hold the honor of having the most polluted city in the world. And despite their massive oil wealth they lack even the standard of living of Turkey.

I'm of course ignoring many of the hated religious laws, public riots/demonstrations, and of course all the rural areas.

Iran shows signs of gradual improvement. The US is backsliding. The US may be light years ahead, but in power right now is an administration that lied its way into a war, fielded an unprepared army and stabbed the nation's own security service, the CIA in the back, to do it, and some people still fight to justify this behavior as patriotic.

They already have. The 2005 policies already show regression, for instance government price controls and subsidies for gasoline which were eased in 2004 are now back to earlier levels. In order to pay for this they are dipping into a fund set up as a hedge should oil prices fall. Needless to say both actions are highly regressive and will be bad for economic progress.

Its what the people want; cheap basic commodities and gasoline. It is their turn to learn wage and price controls don't work. They do have this hedge fund, and it is not some strongman's Swiss bank account?

Iranian elections may be a joke to you, but they have them and abide by the results. The reformist Khatami was president in 2000, the conservative Ahmadinejad was president in 2005. It may be discouraging that the Guardian Council disqualified some 2400 of 8000 candidates, but that did not impact on the final result; the people wanted a more conservative regime. Replacement reform candidates apparently did not make the cut, and the election results were credited to Ahmadinejad's appeal to the poor and against government corruption. More than likely some reform officials profited too obviously from liberalization and privatization.

More importantly, no mass liquidations in the process nor was there a media spectacle of well-poisoning and mud-slinging. People may not be happy about it but there is a measure of stability in Iran and people are concerned about the issues. Progress is happening, and it should be encouraged, not shot at.

Wonderful your opinion and 35 cents will let you make a phone call.

The truth is their rhetoric is to obliterate Israel. The truth is they actively fund, equip, and train anti-Israeli forces. The truth is they are engaged in war by proxy and that appears only to be getting worse, and certainly won't be better once nuclear weapons give them protection from regional reprisals.

Iran is unlikely to be producing nuclear weapons. Repeated IAEA inspections have proven this, and news reports of infractions exaggerate the nature of the infraction when closley studied. Europe is more concerned about Iranian software piracy then Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities. If the US is eager to attack Iran for even having the remote capability, then for Iran to actually produce a nuclear weapon, discrediting themselves and their allies internationally, would be a disaster likely ending in its nuclear facilities being permanently sealed in wrecked bunkers by your GBU 28s and MOBs while the Guardian Council receives personalized petitions from a flight of tomahawk cruise missiles.

Blasting Iran for supporting Palestinian resistance has not been openly hyped as the cause for wanting war with Iran; Iran's alleged nuclear weapons are.

If Israel is indeed the motivation for US aggression, then by comparison, Iran is at least being honest in its foreign policy, and not making empty statements about fighting terrorism and claiming to be an honest broker in the ME conflict. If Americans don't want to fight a war for Israel - and this is hard to determine since the question is never openly put to ballot - then for a minority of American leaders to lead them into one that happens to benefit Israel anyway, that lines their pockets while soothing their superstitious religious qualms, is not exactly democracy at its finest.

[tharkûn]

South Korea? One of America's closest allies and ward in Asia? Who would oppose them acquiring nuclear power, except anti-nuclear environmentalists?

North Korea, China, Russia.

Nuclear power is an investment in a possible future where fossil fuels won't be around

No it isn't. The payout schedule for a nuclear reactor program operating under the security restraints evidenced at Natanz and other sites is miniscule if not negative.

I would rather they use alternatives, but I've heard it argued that no amount of alternative energy schemes outside nuclear power is truly viable if fossil fuels are out of the equation.

Iran wil be the last country on earth to run out of fossil fuels. It can maintain current consumption trends until long after today's children's grandchildren are long dead.

Iran will probably be exporting nuclear generated electricity as well as fossil fuels to their neighbors long after those countries run dry, but eventually they too will run out.

Oh look more retconning being pulled straight out of your ass. Does Iran have the electrical infrastructure for large scale electricity exports? No. Is it building the plants with any concern for economical electrical exportation? No. Even if it could get a large amount of electricity to the border do its neighbors have the grid capacity to take it inward to meet deman? No. Even if it could get electricity from Bushehr to Islamabad would Pakistan want to buy it? No, the price of paying for security, clandestine operation, and paying off the initial construction costs make it ridiciously expensive.

Long before anyone would buy Iranian electricity at cost (let alone for an Iranian profit) they'd simply build their own, use cheaper designs (though ones more difficult to weaponize) and import their uranium direct rather than have Iran import it from elsewhere.

Getting bombed for having a peaceful nuclear power plant. No wonder they are burying this investment under concrete and steel.

BS. If they want a good "investment" they'd have taken the European offer for a free reactor which wouldn't be bombed as it would be exceedingly difficult to weaponize and virtually impossible with real time monitoring.

Suppose Iran could milk oil and natural gas for 200 years.

Iran could milk natural gas for in excess of 2,000 years . In any event their uranium reserves amount to a whopping 1% of their oil reserves, let alone their natural gas reserves. You really aren't grasping this, Iran has 27 trillion cubic meters of natural gas.

They have been around for over 2000; that might figure into their planning.

Funny your BS has yet to come from an official Iranian source. In any event they have that much natural gas, easily; they haven't a fraction of that much uranium (only in the thousand ton range).

Eventually, they would have to go nuclear; why not start learning how to build and operate that technology now, while they can afford to?

Well let's see first because Iranian uranium reserves aren't enough to sustain a nuclear industry long term. Second they are uneconomic to exploit (unlike say the Australian deposits). Third by using their current reactor design they will decrease the potential electricity they could generate.

If oil is an unreliable source of income because of competition and price instability, then diversifying into exported nuclear generated electricity may become an option.

It isn't. Its neighbors don't consume enough energy, the infrastructure isn't there, and Iran's nuclear power industry simply is too expensive (which tends to happen when you bunker it).

They can also use nuclear power to expand their economy beyond reliance on raw resource and agricultural exports.

Snort. Yup wasting lots of money on uneconomic power generation has been a real winning idea when it has been tried historicly.

That's a good representation of Islam, allowing them to network multiculturally internationally while maintaining a strong mainstream to shape national focus. Iranian partners don't have to look up to them, just view the Iranian ticket as the best way to advance their own interests.

And when you have an arguement to put forward about why backing Iran would be in their neighbors best interests, get back to us.

Practically, there is unrest and dissent, but mostly in the outer provinces and driven by poverty. Alleviate the poverty, and perhaps some of the tensions will be relived too.

The unrest reaches across all social strata. Many of the most vocal dissidents are the university students who would happen to like little things; like human rights and real representative democracy.

Japan, Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Belgium are Iran's major trade partners, not Russia.

Irrelevent. I said Iran is becoming dependent on Russia. Russia is supplying and will continue to supply the high technology needed to run its nuclear reactors (Iran simply lacks the facility to build many of these parts). Iranian arms for the foreseeable future will either be Russian built or crappy Chinese knockoffs of Russian arms. Politicly Iran is isolating itself from the EU over this very issue and has only Russia and China who might back it.

The US can turn all the screws it wants; the world economy is so becoming so tightly interlinked that it would only be screwing itself.

Like that has stopped the US from doing so before. I refer you to WWII and Japan.

It is unlikely that the rest of the world will take kindly to having to having the US impose itself as middleman to vital ME resources. A cop enforces laws fairly, not makes them.

The rest of the world can play along or watch their economies implode, I think I know the choice they would make.

The rest of the world also does not see Iran in hysterical terms. Iran is also another cradle of civilization, with an interesting history, friendly people, and fascinating culture, past and present.

It just happens to be run by theocrats who like to call for the obliteration of the United States.

Costs which Iran plans to increase every way it can via diplomatic means, if they can. They are not going to come out and play, and going after them militarily and holding them is going to be difficult; Iran has broken the containment previous US adminstrations helped establish through shrewd diplomacy.

Iran never was contained. From the beginning Iran was making deals with Israel no less, if Iran weren't so mind numbingly stupid relations with the US would already be going back towards normalization.

For a militant country in a volitile region, they spent only 3.8% of their GDP on their military in 2003. In comparison, Saudi Arabia, a far richer country with powerful allies, spent 8.7%. Only the UAE spent less on %GDP in 2003 at 3.1%.

As I've said before Iran has far inferior hardware.

Stalemate? With nukes? Lose Tehran and a couple of other major centres, and what else is there?

Isfahan, Qom, etc. Iran may well survive a nuclear exchange with Israel. Severely weakened, but the country may not hit the rock bottomed envisioned in most US-USSR exchange scenarios.

Nuking non-nuclear Azerbaijan or Armenia would cost it so much in international trade and goodwill they they might as well set one off in Tehran as well.

You are a moron. Nukes are almost never "offensive" they allow you to undertake conventional actions with lesser risk of retaliation. Iran wouldn't need to nuke Azerbaijan, just march the army in and threaten to close Hormuz if anyone makes a huge deal out of it (which nuclear weaponry would allow it to do).

A pre-emptive strike against Israel would also be a ticket to paving Tehran and most of the rest of the country with glass, if Christian fundies the world over have any say in the matter. That would be after Israel's spoilsport strikes.

In other words Allah receives many glorious new martyrs.

Maybe, maybe not. One nation's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. A lot of that activity is grassroots in nature, anyway. Iran could disappear from the face of the earth, but the root causes for terror attacks would remain, motivated by hatred and fueled by drug money and people who get off on that sort of thing.

Cut the sophistry crap. Iran bankrolls terrorists as defined by the people most likely to get upset and bomb Iran for funding these people. The semantics games are irrelevent to the fact that Iran is seeking proxy conflict with those most likely not to trust Iranian declarations of peaceful nuclear intent and most likely to bomb Iran. It is confrontational, deal with it.

Iran/Persia has proven itself very good at staying alive. Martyrdom will have to be foisted on them.

No really? Are you going to tell me water is wet next? Of course the Supreme Leader or other nutcase on top will do the foisting, that still doesn't mean that Iran has many people in a position of authority who may well think mass matyrdom is good thing.

Real GDP growth in Iran increased to 4.9 percent in 2000 as compared to 2.5 percent in 1999, and from 2001-4 averaged 5.7 %. That's not bad. With 80% of revenues coming from oil exports at record prices, and above board and underground exports to Iraq, and taking up whatever regional trade Iraq has to relinquish, 2005 will be another banner year. Iraninans enjoy as good or better a standard of living compared to their neighbors, as well.

Such weak rates of growth under the best oil market in literally decades clearly show Iran's economic failings.

After the fastie the Bush administration pulled in Iraq, it is safe to assume the UN security council won't allow itself to be trapped into laying seige to Iran the way they were in Iraq; the member countries don't want to be shut out of the world's largest oil reserves, which they can gain access to more easily in direct dealing with a free Iranian nation state rather than one liberated by US occupation forces.

I'm sure somewhere in there you had a point and weren't just rambling about opinions coming straight from your ass, damned if I can see it though.

Iran attacked the world's oil supply? Multiple acts of war? What, they launched attacks in Canada, Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, and the North Sea, too?

The tanker war endangered a far greater proportion of the world's oil supply than when Saddam rolled into Kuwait. Sinking neutral ships in neutral waters tends to be an act of war.

If Iran is looking for a showdown, why aren't they frantically arming to the teeth instead of trading diplomatic barbs and failing to upgrade tired old slogans like "Death to America/Israel"?

Because arming to the teeth is meaningless. If they present a conventional target the USAF can destroy them.

Where are the trenchlines, the AK chicks in black burkhas, tanks and anti-aircraft guns on the streets?

Trenches just make it easier to napalm the defenders to death. Tanks and AA guns are little more than signs saying "drop bombs here". AK chicks aren't useful until the enemy actually gets in country and then you kinda want them to be irregular fighters who can blend in with the civillians.

For that matter, why haven't all those Iranian terror groups ratcheted up their activites to fever pitch? Even the problems in Iraq are more often blamed on Syria than Iran.

Because many of them have been infiltrated, killed, or dismembered. Syria doesn't do as much state sponsorship, so much as the Syrian border is porous as hell and central government control of the border sucks arse.

Iran may be confrontational on a pulpit, but in real terms, they don't seem to be doing much else but making the usual rote threats thay have been making since the revolution.

In real terms Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Iran shows signs of gradual improvement.

Evidence, let's see the numbers.

The US is backsliding

Evidence, let's see the numbers.

Its what the people want; cheap basic commodities and gasoline. It is their turn to learn wage and price controls don't work. They do have this hedge fund, and it is not some strongman's Swiss bank account?

It is an Iranian account, exactly what monies are really "in" it is subject to debate as Iranian accounting in this manner ain't exactly transparent.

Iranian elections may be a joke to you, but they have them and abide by the results.

They happen to be a joke for a large body of the Iranian public who made a precipitious decline in turnout.

The reformist Khatami was president in 2000, the conservative Ahmadinejad was president in 2005.

Because Khatami was term limited and all his successors were barred from running.

It may be discouraging that the Guardian Council disqualified some 2400 of 8000 candidates, but that did not impact on the final result; the people wanted a more conservative regime.

Awful hard to tell when virtually every major reformer seeking to run was kicked off the ballot.

Replacement reform candidates apparently did not make the cut

Who in hell were these?

and the election results were credited to Ahmadinejad's appeal to the poor and against government corruption.

I see we read the official party line, not look at the turnout numbers and voter intimidation.

More importantly, no mass liquidations in the process nor was there a media spectacle of well-poisoning and mud-slinging.

Ain't it wonderful having a government monopoly on news, all the demonstrations don't have to be covered and the opposition can't go mud-slinging, because hey we can just close down the presses.

Iran is unlikely to be producing nuclear weapons. Repeated IAEA inspections have proven this, and news reports of infractions exaggerate the nature of the infraction when closley studied. Europe is more concerned about Iranian software piracy then Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities.
Iran is unlikely to be producing nuclear weapons.

Unless of course Iran has yet more undeclared facilities, like Natanz and all the other facilities they only declared after being "outed" by an opposition group (the same group which maintains they are pursueing nukes BTW).

Pardon my ignorance of military matters, but if Iran decided to essentially "zerg rush" occupied Iraq, couldn't a couple of carriers basically slaughter them in droves as they moved across the desert?

Easily. People too often ignore the vast increases in lethality the US has gained in AP mines, cluster mines, claymores, and other toys. The only way poorly armed masses can defeat the best armed forces in the world is if something prevents the deployment of these munitions (i.e. mining jungles is a bad thing if most of the people in them are civillian).

[General Brock]

tharkûn wrote:

Oh look more retconning being pulled straight out of your ass. Does Iran have the electrical infrastructure for large scale electricity exports? No. Is it building the plants with any concern for economical electrical exportation? No. Even if it could get a large amount of electricity to the border do its neighbors have the grid capacity to take it inward to meet deman? No. Even if it could get electricity from Bushehr to Islamabad would Pakistan want to buy it? No, the price of paying for security, clandestine operation, and paying off the initial construction costs make it ridiciously expensive.

Long before anyone would buy Iranian electricity at cost (let alone for an Iranian profit) they'd simply build their own, use cheaper designs (though ones more difficult to weaponize) and import their uranium direct rather than have Iran import it from elsewhere.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... irna03.htm

... The nuclear fuel for Bushehr is ready and a storage facility has been built in Iran, with IAEA safeguards. Russia wants to supply it, because it will only get paid on delivery, Rumyantsev said.

As a signatory to the NPT, Iran is currently only obliged to show
sites it has declared to the IAEA.

The Bushehr reactor should be operational by the end of 2004 and
the power station connected to the electricity network of Iran in
2005, the minister said, denying any "slowdown" in the project in
response to US pressure.

Oh, look, Iran has an electrical grid. Connected to a nuclear power plant.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... %20Affairs

More electricity export to Iraq

Tuesday, June07 , 2005 - © 2005IranMania.com

LONDON, June 7 (IranMania) - Iran is planning to increase export of electricity to Iraq from the current level of 100 megawatts annually to 400 MW in the next two years, a senior power industry official declared.

Massoud Hojjat, deputy head of power generation, transmission and distribution company TAVANIR, told Fars News Agency that Iran currently exports100 megawatts of power to Khaneqin, adding that the figure will increase to 170megawatts by autumn.

Noting that the top power industry officials from the two countries have called for greater cooperation in this respect, Hojjat said power exports to Iraq would not harm domestic supply as the peak power consumption hours are different in the two countries.

?Export of 400 megawatts (a year) to Iraq would not disrupt domestic supply given the fact that power plants currently generate30 , 500megawatts (per annum),? he said, stressing that Iran is not seeking to compete with Turkey as far as power export to Iraq is concerned.

Heavens me, they export the stuff. And they have an existing line into Iraq, of all places.

tharkûn wrote:

... Its neighbors don't consume enough energy, the infrastructure isn't there, and Iran's nuclear power industry simply is too expensive (which tends to happen when you bunker it).

The safest way to store and protect nuclear materials is to bunker it. Irans neighbors are not the backwards mudholes you envision. At the very least, they will need electricity for their own resource extraction projects. For all I know, this sort of cooperation helps to overcome each nations internal geographic challenges.


http://www.payvand.com/news/05/may/1064.html

Payvand's Iran News ...

5/9/05
Iran's electricity imports outstrips exports

Tehran, May 9, IRNA-Managing Director of Power Production, Transmission and Distribution Company (TAVANIR) said in Tehran on Sunday that Iran's electricity import from neighbouring countries is 500,000 kw/h more than its exports, `Iran Daily' wrote Monday.

The daily quoted Mohammad Ahmadian as saying that Iran imports 1.2 million kw/h of electricity per year but exports 700,000 kw/h.

"Iran sells electricity to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan", he said, adding that the country is also engaged in seasonal power swaps with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The official said that more than 300 megawatts of electricity is traded between Iran and Turkmenistan.

"Half of the cost of imported electricity is covered by export of electrical equipment and related engineering and technical services to that country." Ahmadian added that Iran's electricity production is expected to increase by 3,000 megawatts in the current Iranian year (started March 21, 2005).

"Once new projects become operational, the capacity to produce electricity will rise significantly." He said electricity consumption reached a peak of 29,000 megawatts last summer (June 21-September 22).

Iran exports 950,000 kw/h of electricity to Armenia and Azerbaijan annually, he said, adding that the country imports 1.5 million kw/h of electricity annually from other sources.

They import electricity from their neighbors, who will not be happy if their client gets bombed to hel. And look, Iran exports to Pakistan.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleVi ... %20Economy

Wind farms to produce electricity for Iran

Saturday, October30 , 2004 - © 2004IranMania.com

LONDON, Oct 30 ( IranMania) - Primarily, it has been figured that some6500 megawatts of the country?s power output is produced by wind turbines, Iran's Mehr News Agency said.

Head of Iran Renewable Energies Organization, Yusef Armoodeli said Friday that experts are preparing Iran?s wind atlas through compiling data that is obtained from 17 wind farms in Zanjan, Gilan, Qazvin, West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan, and Ardebil. ?Each wind farm is 40 meters in height?, he added.

?We will build 50 more wind farms in other parts of the country in order to have a fairly accurate calculation of the country?s power production capability?, Armoodeli stated. The first step of the work would be to figure out the wind speed in different areas, he uttered.

So far, he said, 26 points have been marked all over the country, which are estimated to bring the highest amount of power out of winds. ?We expect a total of 6500 megawatts for the first stage?, Armoodeli stated, adding that some 120 megawatts have been already produced by the new wind farms.

Meanwhile, he added that the organization is to share the projects with private companies. ?It is seen in the Fourth Development Plan that we collect power from private-owned wind farms?. Tavanir has recently accepted offers from several private companies, which tend to take part in wind power production projects, Armoodeli stated.

Presently, the government is building a30 -megawatt wind turbine in Binalud, Khorasan. The Iran Atomic Energy Organization has just started implementing two projects in Manjil and Rudbar, Gilan Province. ?These include building wind farms to produce 90 megawatts of power?, Armoodeli uttered.


Each year, Iran obtains50 mln kW/h of electricity from wind power, he said, adding it will increase as the new wind farms come into operation.

Wind farms too; guess they know how to put those mullahs to work.