Earlier this month, after the United Nations Security Council authorized new multilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic by adopting Resolution 1929, the member states of the European Union (EU) approved guidelines for expanding European sanctions against Iran. Any new sanctions that the EU might apply against Iran on the basis of the new guidelines must still be drafted and approved by member states, presumably before the EU foreign ministers meet again next month. The EU guidelines seek to pick up on various sorts of ideas for new sanctions which were suggested or encouraged in Resolution 1929, but not mandated. (Resolution 1929 defines relatively few new mandatory sanctions, but offers a kind of “menu” of potential additional sanctions, which individual states can chose to pursue.) The EU guidelines, among other things, envision tighter restrictions on European involvement in the Islamic Republic’s energy sector—including limits on “new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies, equipment and services related to these areas, in particular related to refining, liquefaction and LNG technology”.
We have been critical of the new UN sanctions (see here and here), the new unilateral U.S. sanctions announced by the Obama Administration following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, and the new Iran-related secondary sanctions legislation which is now heading to the White House for President Obama’s signature, see here. We have criticized these measures on diplomatic, economic, political, and strategic grounds. We are also critical of the EU sanctions effort. As Flynt told the Washington Post earlier this month, “The net effect of these ‘optional’ sanctions, which will be pursued by the United States and some of its allies, but no one else, will be to reallocate business opportunities in Iran from Western states to China and other non-Western powers”.
But we thought it important get a more focused look at the European sanctions effort—and, in particular, the relationship between the EU’s Iran policy and its long-term energy strategy—from our colleague Pierre Noël at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School. We are grateful to Pierre for providing a thoughtful and constructive answer to an important question—“Is Europe shooting itself in the foot (to Russia’s benefit)” with its Iran policy?—and are pleased to publish his assessment below.
Pierre takes on some important pieces of conventional wisdom about Iran and European energy security—e.g., that Europe needs Iranian gas to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and that Iran is waiting to jump on any significant opening to enter the European gas market. Pierre points out that Iran has become a very large gas consumer, with a high level of exploration and production activity. But that exploration and production activity is not translating into large-scale gas exports from Iran. (Even China’s deepening involvement in Iran’s energy sector will not do much to boost the Islamic Republic’s standing as a gas exporter, at least not in the near-to-medium term.)
In this context, Pierre notes that a couple of key variables which will affect the ultimate impact of European sanctions are the level of Iranian dependence on European service companies (e.g., Technop, Schlumberger, Siapem, CGG, Sieme, etc.) and whether European service companies’ contracts to work in Iran will be curtailed by EU action. The relevant facts on the first point are neither clear nor easy to discern. We suspect, though, that there is an increasing number of Asian and South American companies that could do most of these jobs if European companies are displaced.
Furthermore, Pierre argues that, while it is unlikely new European sanctions will have much of an impact on Iran’s trajectory as a gas producer over the next several years, such measures do serve perceived political interests in Europe. In particular, the EU’s Iran policy makes Europe appear relevant without having to pay any real economic cost or take any significant risk.
All in all, we find it hard to avoid the conclusion that Europe has largely taken itself out of the “race for Iran”. In the end, Europe seems incapable of a genuinely independent strategy toward the Islamic Republic—something that various Iranian interlocutors have been suggesting to us for some time.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
“IS EUROPE SHOOTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT (TO RUSSIA’S BENEFIT)?”, by Pierre Noël
The logic behind the question in the title is straightforward: Iran is a country with very large reserves of natural gas, a lot of it relatively low-cost to produce. With the right investment, Iran could become a gas exporter of global significance in about a decade. Europe is one of the largest gas markets in the world. Its combination of liberalized electricity markets and ambitious environmental policies has the effect of favoring gas as a fuel for power generation, at least in the mid-term. Russia’s position in the European gas market raises concerns about market power and the politicization of gas supplies from Russia. The EU supports new gas pipeline projects from Central Asia and the Middle East through Turkey to diversify Europe’s sources of natural gas; the availability of Iranian gas could be essential to the success of this diversification strategy. Russia, on the other hand, should want to prevent or delay the emergence of Iran as a large gas exporter.
However, there are a number of uncertainties, which, taken together, raise serious questions about the practical validity of these interlinked propositions. First, at the moment we do not know to what extent the latest EU sanctions will add to the difficulties already experienced by the Iranian oil and gas industry to source technology and finance. These is a log of oil and gas activity going on in Iran, but large-scale gas export projects combining complex financing and cutting-edge engineering are not part of this activity. This is certainly the case for LNG projects, an area where the relevant technology is still largely controlled by Western companies; it is unclear to what extent big pipeline export projects could be carried on.
Second—and more fundamentally—it is far from certain that becoming a large gas exporter is a strategic priority for Iran, or even a clearly defined objective. Iran’s potential to become a large gas exporter has been recognized for decades, but that potential has never materialized. Iran imports roughly 5 billion cubic meters of gas per year (bcm/y) from Turkmenistan and exports roughly the same amount to Turkey. The Islamic Republic’s small export contract with Turkey is notoriously unstable and has led to numerous rows over price and delivery. European majors such as Total and Shell have had a terrible experience negotiating with Iran over LNG projects (and, during the 1990s, over oil projects as well). When the European companies pulled back from new projects in Iran three years ago, ostensibly because of sanctions, the companies were not in a position to make final investment decisions on these projects for commercial reasons.
Becoming a large gas exporter would require a strategic decision by Iran, based on a wide political consensus—such as the one underpinning the Iranian nuclear program—to open the sector for real to foreign investors. There is deep opposition to such a move in the Iranian political culture and the culture of its oil and gas bureaucracy, rooted in the memories of the U.S.-sponsored coup of 1953 following the nationalization of British oil concessions by the nationalist Mossadegh government. If becoming a large gas exporter was a strategic objective for Iran, then the Iranian government would appear hopelessly incompetent at pursuing it. But geology is not destiny; Iran may not want to be the next Qatar.
Furthermore, Iran is itself a large and fast-growing gas market, now 30% larger than the largest European markets, the UK and Germany. Iran needs to continue developing some of its reserves simply to supply its domestic market; that is what Iran’s gas-related exploration and production activity has been about for some time and—I would suggest—that is what Iran’s gas-related exploration and production activity will continue to be mainly about. The existing sanctions have been effective at killing proposed LNG export projects—but these projects might not have gone ahead anyway, in the absence of sanctions, for commercial reasons. There is no indication that the sanctions have had any impact on the growth of gas production in Iran. I do not know to what extent the Iranian industry’s exploration and production effort relies on European technology and services that would be made unavailable by new EU sanctions, and would not be replaceable by technology and services from Asian or South American companies.
This does not mean that Iran has no strategic energy policy. In the context of the standoff with the “international community” over its nuclear program, Iran is obviously trying to use the attractiveness of its energy resources and geographical position to its political benefit. The growing interest of Chinese oil and gas companies in Iran has been widely documented—but it has not led to any new gas export project. Turkey’s ambition to increase its access to Turkmen gas via Iran has already been discussed on www.TheRaceForIran.com (see here and here). Given how strategic Turkmen gas (and the trans-Caspian pipeline) is to Europe’s Nabucco concept, Iran has an option to provide Turkey with both access to gas and leverage on Europe. The Iran-Pakistan pipeline project, for which the Pakistani government has just reaffirmed its support, is another example where Iran uses its energy assets strategically to raise the cost of the U.S.-EU Iran policy.
The final point is about Europe’s plans for a large pipeline across Turkey that would bring gas from Central Asia and the Middle East to the EU, especially south-east and central Europe. The noise around the “Nabucco” project, as it is known, is inversely proportional to its commercial and political credibility. The idea of a multi-billion ‘merchant’ pipeline being built across Turkey in the hope that exporters would then use it to ship gas to Europe is so unrealistic that it should never have been taken seriously outside Brussels. From high-level conferences to political agreements via feasibility studies, the project is still what it was 10 years ago: an unrealistic concept. Nabucco is a typical Brussels project with very little real political support from member states outside central Europe. It certainly is not the cornerstone of a European external energy policy—something which does not exist and that Europe does not need. European gas supply has been diversifying for four decades and the trend is accelerating sharply; the EU does not need a diversification strategy (though it badly needs an effective gas market, the creation of which is a real job for Brussels). It is true that Brussels energy bureaucrats have long had dreams of importing Iranian gas by pipeline—but these are just dreams; one cannot conclude from this that European leaders are frustrating Europe’s energy security interests by further isolating Iran.
The bottom line is that European countries have very little to lose materially from being tough on Iran. The idea that Iran would save Europe from Russia’s gas grip if only we could do business with the Islamic Republic is factually wrong, and the issues around Russian gas are not perceived that way in most of Europe anyway. European energy companies and key EU member states are actually busy helping Russia bypass Ukraine rather than scrambling to sign contracts east of Turkey.
Thus, the first element of an explanation to why Europe is getting tougher and tougher on Iran—on top of the fact that there is genuine and widely shared concern in Europe about the future of nuclear non-proliferation—is that those sanctions do not have any significant material cost. But Europe also has a lot to gain politically from being ahead of the pack on sanctioning Iran. This allows European countries to show complete solidarity with the United States on the top item on Obama’s foreign policy agenda, at a time when Europe is marginalized in U.S. foreign policy and criticized by the Obama administration for not doing enough in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it helps Europe balance its increasingly critical attitude towards Israel. Finally, one should keep the wider context in mind: for a Europe that is battling economic dislocation internally and political irrelevance externally, any issue that allows EU member states to present a united front and make Europe exist on the world stage looks like a gift from heaven. The Iranian nuclear issue is exactly that—at least as long as there is not real risk of a military confrontation.
Dear Serifo,
As you may recall, Qatar was trying hard to prevent the US/UK invasion of Iraq, right up to the last minute. Qatar is friendly toward Iran, and I think Iran does well when it follows policies that aid stability in the Gulf, in the mutual interest of all the people of the countries fronting on the Gulf.
Serifo,
After “9/11″, the Saudis forced the Americans to evacuate the bases so foolishly kept after the Gulf War. Some of the idiots who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, saw it as an opportunity to obtain replacement military bases.
The Saudis oppose any attack on Iran, by Israel or the US. On the other hand, the Saudis do have concerns about Iranian-supported efforts to create instability in their country. I think the Saudis and the Iranians need to work together to bring about a resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.
Dear James ,
” Qatar, Iraq and Turkey are adamantly opposed to any US attack on Iran, or any attack on Iran by Israel. Yet all three countries have US military bases “. The Saudi regime is complicit in many conspiracies against the Islamic republic.
Dear Nasser ,
” As I understand it, attacks on oil facilities (overt or covert) and blocking of the straits of Hormuz are precisely such deterrents Iran is counting on to prevent being actually attacked (by that I mean hot war, not some proxy attacks like Jundullah). If Iran were to go ahead and carry out the sabotages anyway without a serious provocation first (aerial strikes against nuclear facilities for example) wouldn’t this have the effect of Iran losing her deterrence towards future attacks? “. Well a small act of sabotage against some Saudi oil facilities will not compromise Iran`s deterrence , Iran will still have the S. of Hormuz and other oil facilities plus U.S military bases. The sabotage acts would be just reminders towards the Zionist servants in Washington !
” Also, if Iran was to carry out such acts of sabotage and no matter how clever they are there is a possibility that it could be traced back to her, what makes you think that it could not cause global outcry and allow the US and her allies to carry out all out war against Iran (by that I mean round the clock bombing not an actual occupation)….. “.The Iranians are clever to clean their finger prints , plus they can do what the U.S does : Deny and blame Al – Qaeda ! :) Finally the U.S and its western allies cannot sustain round clock bombing for too long , they will need to refuel the fighter jets , but then Iran has the capabilities to disrupt the supply lines , plus I doubt if all the key countries such as Iraq will allow the use of their airspace to facilitate any bombing campaign against Iran.
Mr Canning: “My understanding is that most Obama people working on this issue believe Iran will continue to enrich LEU for its domestic nuclear power plants, and that the US should accept this.”
SAY WHAT? Where the hell do you get THAT notion? Obama has been VERY CLEAR that he will NOT accept Iran enrichment on Iranian soil PERIOD! HE has stated this a number of times. He may have a few advisers who disagree, but I can assure you that his main advisers, including the Vice President, his Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, and Dennis Ross most definitely DO NOT want Iran enriching AT ALL.
Please, you’re just being disingenuous now. I realize that you’re one of these people who simply can’t emotionally accept that the US intends to go to war with Iran – and is merely trying to figure out how without losing the next election due to some hypothesized discontent from the US electorate once the war goes bad – but really, you need to get a more realistic view of the situation. Obama most definitely is on a collision course with Iran based on his basic and repeatedly stated view that he will not accept ANY Iranian enrichment.
All this 20% stuff is just the latest reaction. You need to go back a ways and realize that what I’ve said here is true – Obama is totally against ANY Iranian enrichment and it doesn’t matter what this or that adviser might think or say in some public media. US policy at its heart is identical to Israeli policy on this issue: NO enrichment whatsoever.
If you hear Obama say otherwise, it’s merely because he’s trying to lure the Iranians into a pointless discussion that will go no where as a prelude to trying to get them to stop enrichment completely before ANY serious negotiations. Which is a complete non starter and he KNOWS that. It’s just a game, just like the swap proposal was just a game – when Brazil and Turkey made it real, the US backed off like it was scalded. If that doesn’t tell you what Obama is about, you really don’t understand what’s going on here.
Dear James,
You write: “What use does Iran have for LEU? None, for years to come.” Many strategists like George Friedman of Stratfor postulates that Iran sees its program (overt program) primarily as a bargaining chip that could be traded for geopolitical concessions while its actual capabilities remain hidden. If so, why would they sacrifice on such key issues for nothing in return? Isn’t that the mistake that Khatami made? You know full and well that once Iran does what you prescribe there would be added pressure and calls for additional concessions.
One more thing James. I’ve seen you write that China and Russia supports Iran’s right to low level enrichment and it’s the 20% level they have a problem with. Do correct me if I am wrong on this but my understanding is that they helped pass security council resolutions calling for a complete cessation of Iran’s enrichment activities.
Dear James,
You write about “US/UK intelligence preparing a fake video to represent, falsely, that Iran is helping the Taliban (and al-Qaeda)?” I usually don’t take anything emanating from a Basiji mouthpiece like PressTv seriously but I think here you are proving my point. This just shows that Iran would be continued to be portrayed in a negative light and hostilities towards her would continue regardless of what it does. I strongly believe this hostility is because of geopolitical reasons (balance of power in the Gulf) and pressure on Iran would continue to persist regardless of what Iran does or what kind of regime it has.
If the Iran-Iraq war and recent Israeli actions have proved anything then it is that the moral highground matters very little in this region. The US and her allies would continue to back those opposed to Iran (Saddam, Salafists, putting up with Saudi and Pakistani transgressions) no matter how unsavory they may be and no one seems to be able to convince the US that it would be easier just to have a better relationship with Iran. Given all this, don’t you think it is in Iran’s best interest to stop any cooperation with the US and quit making their job any easier?
And yes they should continue to support the Palestinian cause but it might be in Iran’s interest to have some understanding with the Israelis (maybe open some back channel talks).
Scott,
“There are Google Ads on EA, automatically posted to the site based on the scope of our coverage. I have not noticed AIPAC being amongst those ads but will keep an eye open.”
They’re easy to miss, Scott, but this may help you to spot them: on nearly any Enduring America web page, look in the center column about one third of the way down.
Nasser,
Iran should keep the moral hight ground, and stand for peace and stability in the Middle East, in the context of justice for the Palestinians.
Did you see the report on PressTV’s site today (regarding US/UK intelligence preparing a fake video to represent, falsely, that Iran is helping the Taliban (and al-Qaeda)? The fact Iran is hostile to the Taliban is one major reason intelligent Americans can argue that US policy in Afghanistan is idiotic in that it tries to ignore Iran when Iran’s help in achieving stability is essential.
Nasser,
While I welcomed the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal, I thought the chances of preventing another round of sanctions from being approved by the UN Security Council, were close to nil. The passing of the latest sanctons measure does not mean that the deal cannot proceed; if fact, it should proceed as fast as possible.
What use does Iran have for LEU? None, for years to come. So, why not have the LEU stored in Turkey?
Serifo,
Qatar, Iraq and Turkey are adamantly opposed to any US attack on Iran, or any attack on Iran by Israel. Yet all three countries have US military bases.
Dear Serifo,
You write: “Iran needs to find other non diplomatic means of deterring the U.S and Zionist hostilities.” I think it would be safer for Iran to cause trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq and hold on to other forms of deterrence against possible future attacks. As I understand it, attacks on oil facilities (overt or covert) and blocking of the straits of Hormuz are precisely such deterrents Iran is counting on to prevent being actually attacked (by that I mean hot war, not some proxy attacks like Jundullah). If Iran were to go ahead and carry out the sabotages anyway without a serious provocation first (aerial strikes against nuclear facilities for example) wouldn’t this have the effect of Iran losing her deterrence towards future attacks?
Also, if Iran was to carry out such acts of sabotage and no matter how clever they are there is a possibility that it could be traced back to her, what makes you think that it could not cause global outcry and allow the US and her allies to carry out all out war against Iran (by that I mean round the clock bombing not an actual occupation). And this time, Iran being without a deterrent (having played her cards too soon), there would be nothing to hold the US back.
Lastly, you might find this interesting. The author speculates on Iran’s likely course of action in the case of such sabotages on oil facilities by Al Qaeda.
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/30/how_i_started_a_war_with_russia
Scott,
Try this Enduring America page:
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/07/05/palestine-israel-the-situation-on-the-eve-of-obama-netanyahu-talks/
You’ll find this:
“Stop Irans Nuclear Threat
Thank Congress for their support of new Iran sanctions legislation
wwwDOTaipacDOTorg“
Scott,
“AIPAC has never advertised on Enduring America.”
I remember very clearly seeing “AIPAC” on Enduring America, Scott, with a link. I recall seeing it more than once. Are you saying my memory is faulty (possible, but I very seriously doubt that), or simply that the reference to AIPAC I saw was not an “advertisement?”
Dear Nasser ,
Iran has been under U.S proxy attacks since the Islamic revolution , so it`s already at war against the U.S and the regional puppet regimes that host U.S military bases ! Now I was careful to use the term ” sabotage ” , so I don`t really mean a direct military attack on Saudi oil fields , but a clever and discrete way of causing oil disruption.I was hopefully that Iran could use diplomacy to deter the U.S hypocrisy and double standards , but I think diplomacy by itself wont work against U.S and Zionist hostilities , Iran needs to find other non diplomatic means of deterring the U.S and Zionist hostilities ! Such a means must go beyond Hamas and Hizbollah !
Dear Serifo,
China wouldn’t be fine even if their supply needs are met by Iran because taking Saudi oil off the world markets would drive the prices up through the roof. Thus, the Chinese or any other nation for that matter would not be too happy with Iran for committing an act of war, completely unprovoked. The only time Iran would be justified in attacking Saudi oil facilities and indeed other facilities in the region is when it is attacked.
Dear James ,
The puppet Saudi regime never really pressed the Zionist fanatics in Washington to stop the crimes of the Zionist regime against the Palestinians ! Instead , the puppet Saudi regime always sits back relaxed in silence , opening the country`s vast oil reserves to arrogant superpowers that sponsor the Zionist Army commit its crimes against the Palestinians. As for ” you might bear in mind that China is the largest buyer of crude oil from Saudi Arabia… “.China will be fine if it increases its imports from others countries such as Iran !
Dear James,
You write: “Do you think Turkey was hoping to capture the Iranian LEU, as part of a scheme to double-cross the Iranian government?”
Did you happen to see the recent Erdogan interview on the Charlie Rose show? He said he will pressure Iran to keep to the agreement worked out by Turkey-Brazil by shipping the fuels out or Turkey too will start sanctioning Iran! I thought that was an extraordinary moment when Turkey bares its fangs because this is despite the fact that the agreement is meaningless since the sanctions already passed.
To answer your question though I do not think Turkey would just steal the LEU like say I suspect Russia and definitely France would. Both Turkey and Brazil and indeed other developing countries should be worried that the P5 have been suggesting that the NPT needs to be changed and that countries do not have the right to an independent fuel cycle (a clear treaty based right). However, I believe Turkey is genuinely worried about a nuclear Iran and so they have their reasons for their diplomatic initiative. While I certainly don’t think Turkey is a friend to Iran per se, Iran should still take measures (increase commercial ties, make sure the IRGC do not harass Turkish contractors like they did b4) and exercise deep diplomatic caution to make sure they do not further alienate other countries.
serifo,
In advocating an Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities, you might bear in mind that China is the largest buyer of crude oil from Saudi Arabia.
Rehmat,
Most of the neocons are Jewish, it is true. And I agree with you that the Iraq War was part of a scheme to use American military power to “protect” Israel (meaning, enable the Israelis to crush Palestinian nationalism, permanently). And I agree with you that most of the grossly ignorant American public are not even aware of this fact.
The neocons originated with a group of Jews who mainly worked for Senator “Scoop” Jackson of Washington State. Jackson wanted to be president, and he figured he needed heavy support from Jewish financiers in New York (and elsewhere) to get to the White House. Jackson was a key American politician who manipulated US foreign policy in an effort to “protect” Israel. This included pressuring the Soviet Union to allow the emigration of hundreds of thousands of “Jews” – - many of whom relocated in Israel. The original neocons were largely Marxist, but for reasons of political opportunism they pretended in later years to be “conservatives” – - which of course they were not! (This scheme helped to dupe the grossly ignorant American public who voted Republican.)
serifo,
Given that Iran pays a significant price for its admirable (in my view) support of the Palestinians, does it make sense for Iran to attack Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis are also trying to achieve justice for the Palestinians?
DWZ,
Do I take it you concede Iran has no use for the LEU for many years to come? Thus, the further enrichment has more to do with notions of national pride, and fair dealing in international affairs, than anything else. (Admittedly, employment is generated by the enrichment programme.)
Do you think Turkey was hoping to capture the Iranian LEU, as part of a scheme to double-cross the Iranian government?
“Shooting in the foot” is not a new thing when it comes to the ignorant and arrogant western leaders. Nine years ago – they conceived the 9/11 to occupy Muslim lands for oil and Israel.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/war-on-terror-vs-war-on-islam/
Iran needs to sabotage Saudi Arabia`s oil fields as soon as possible , it`s the only way of sending a strong message to the U.S government ! Only a strong response will make the U.S change its hypocrisy and double standards in the Middle East.
Canning:
{What harm would come to Iran, if some of its LEU is shipped to Turkey? There will be no use for the LEU for years to come.}
Apparently, you do not understand what is going on and you come out with something worse than before. First, you must understand the basics and then hit the keys.
Good luck.
I am not going to answer you back from now on, because you have no clue.
fyi,
Russia and China have made clear they support Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme. DWZ thinks that if Russia votes for sanctions against Iran, this means Russia in fact does not support Iranian enrichment of LEU. I disagree. There are numerous OTHER ISSUES, of importance to Russia and China, that work their way into negotiations over how a vote will go in the UN Security Council.
I think Iran blundered by insisting on continuing enrichment to 20%, just before the latest vote on sanctions! I understand Iranian pride, and resentment for the lying, cheating, murderous treachery of the US and Israel, etc etc etc.
DWZ,
Are you suggesting Russia is part of a conspiracy to enrich Russia’s state-owned nuclear fuel manufacturer, by forcing Iran to use Russian LEU to fuel Bushehr #1 after 2015, and to fuel all the other nuclear power plants to be built at Bushehr?
My understanding is that most Obama people working on this issue believe Iran will continue to enrich LEU for its domestic nuclear power plants, and that the US should accept this.
What harm would come to Iran, if some of its LEU is shipped to Turkey? There will be no use for the LEU for years to come.
James Canning
DWZ is correct.
The weapons states under NPT want to take a sovereign right away from Iran.
They are entitled to do so but they also ought to be willing to pay the price; war and occupation of Iran.
DWZ is incorrect in thinking that there is a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear case.
There is not.
And there is not a military solution either.
This, as Mr. Ahmadinejad stated 4 years ago, “is finished”.
DWZ,
Just the other day, Sergei Lavrov asked Iran to suspend enrichment of U to 20%, to facilitate a diplomatic resolution of the matter. Russia’s foreign minister did not ask Iran to suspend enrichment of 5% U.
James Canning:
Russia voted against legal enrichment program of Iran when Iran was enriching at 3%. Why don’t you get this basic fact.
Russia went along with others to pass resolution 1747 in 24 March 2007 against Iran. Please stop you nonsense that Russia is against 20% not 3% enrichment.
{The permanent Security Council members, including Russia and China, have declared their intentions to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction because of its belligerent rhetoric towards the West and Israel since the Iranian Revolution.[4] In principle, the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have confirmed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).}
The Council affirmed its decision that Iran should, without further delay, suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_resolution
James Canning:
The Iranian leaders believe that they can live with the consequences of the Taliban victory. They think that together with Russia and China they can indefinitely keep the Northern part of Afghanistan under the control of a new improved Northern Alliance.
Pay attention here: it is the Chinese and the Russians and the Central Asians that need Iran’s help in this regard since the Sunni extremism is a threat to them much more so that to Iran.
Moreover, Iranians could, in principle, also support Taliban to cause trouble for US and NATO. Just like US supports terrorists against Iran.
I find much to admire in the conduct of Russian foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran. They took a weak hand and puffed it up and got things that otherwise they could not have. In case of Iran, they have injected themselves into an issue that fundamentally is a bilateral problem between US & Iran, they have made certain that Iran would never be part of an unofficial oil price-fixing cartel against them; they have cornered the Nuclear, Weapons, and Aviation markets of Iran, and all of this with very little diplomatic costs. Think about how they have caused the Iranians to be silent on Chechnya and to do nothing about Georgia. My hats off to them. And I think their conduct ought to be studied for decades to come by diplomats everywhere.
DWZ,
My understanding is that every Israeli PM who has visited Russia, and discussed the Middle East, has been told Russia does not want any Israeli attack on Iran.
I also understand that Russia voted for the latest round of sanction because Iran had started to enrich U to 20%.
Iran could complete the purchase of the needed fuel plates, if it continues with the required protocal and stops enriching to 20%. Russia in effect has said so.
Pak:
Has Iran violeted NPT? Please look at the facts and then hit the keyboard. Watch the following video to update your meager knowledge about Iran that honors NPT.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-international-bureau-of-double-standards-guest-post-by-a.html
{There are many more ways to defend Iran’s sovereignty than to lead Iran into a war, as you are basically suggesting.}
This statement is so baseless that does not deserve an answer.
Dear DWZ,
It is a cheap shot to say that those who do not follow your logic are threatening Iran’s sovereignty. There are many more ways to defend Iran’s sovereignty than to lead Iran into a war, as you are basically suggesting.
“Iran honors the rule of law…”
Ironic to say the least.
fyi,
Russia does not want an Israeli attack on Iran (or a US attack on Iran). How does Iran “weaken” itself if it suspens enrichment of U to 20% (as requested by Russia)?
Iran would be far stronger today, if so much vital capital had not been put into the nuclear programme and instead had been used to update oil and gas production and transport facilities.
Russia, China and many other countries support Iran’s enrichment of U to 5% or less. Why erode that support by continuing with enrichment to 20%? National pride? Personal pride, of an excessive sort, on the part of Saddam Hussein, brought catastrophe to himself, his family, and to his nation.
Sakineh,
Iran needs strong support from permanent members of the UN Security Council. That support, such as it is, comes from Russia and China. If Russia and China have concerns about Iranian enrichment of U to 20%, those concerns are of great importance to Iran – - no matter how many hundreds of millions of Muslims and other people all over Asia, Africa and South America offer support to Iran.
There seems no conclusive reason to believe Iran can produce the needed fuel plates, even if it has the specifications. If I am mistaken, I welcome comments on this point.
Castellio,
The US is not “committed to the destruction of Iran” and Iran should not assume it will be attacked no matter how it conducts its foreign policy. This would play directly into the hands of the numerous enemies of Iran who obviously can be found at high levels in the Obama administration. Some of those enemies, however, labor under the delusion that they can “protect” Israel – - and enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians – - if they can intimidate Iran sufficiently. This is an idiotic approach that needs to be attacked day in, day out.
Richard Steven Hack,
An Israeli or US attack on Iran is not inevitable, though the chances of such an attack would be higher if Iran followed your advice.
Iran is the enemy of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, so your suggestion that Iran be ready to help its own enemies in order to cause problems for the US (and Nato) is unsound, to say the least.
Iran should continue to promote stability in the Middle East in the context of justice for the Palestinians.
I don’t think Iran attempting to look like its trying to make nukes is to its benefit. The only proper course of action is to do as it is doing: continue to exercise its right to a peaceful nuclear energy program.
What it should be doing to counter US pressure is to continually harp on the Israeli nuclear arsenal. There is simply NO justification for that arsenal to exist. It is a threat to the region, a threat to the world and Israel should one of Israel’s weapons be stolen (military security is an oxymoron), and an inducement to other states to seek nuclear weapons. Iran should take the lead in inducing the Non-aligned nations and then the EU into pressuring the UN to make Israel’s arsenal a top priority.
It can also suggest that only when the US is prepared to join that movement will Iran consider any modifications to its nuclear program in the direction of further transparency (such as ratifying the Additional Protocol).
This would put Iran squarely in the right and make it much more difficult for the US and Israel to continue to portray Iran as a “rogue nuclear state”.
In the meantime, because the US/Israeli agenda is regime change, Iran should continue to concentrate on preparing itself for the inevitable attack by Israel and/or the US. It should keep pressuring Russia to deliver the antiaircraft missile defense system Russia keeps dangling in front of them. It should prepare to cause the US major difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and through Hizballah, Israel.
I would also agree that it should attempt to minimize actions that would continue to allow it to be portrayed as a repressive state – even if it is one. This will only be partly effective, as anything that occurs will be portrayed in a negative light in the controlled Western press anyway. But there’s no point in making it easy.
There’s really little else Iran can do except wait it out and hope that the US eventually decides to “blink” and accept Iranian enrichment.
“Other than the grand deal, which is not going to happen, what should the economic/social/international strategy of Iran be? I would like to see some discussion on that issue.”
Iran can start by portraying the Americans as the belligerent ones and try to take advantage of any natural rifts in the American led alliance (the Turkey-Brazil deal was a good start). It definitely needs to worry about its image abroad i.e. stop beating protesters. It should absolutely cease any cooperation with the US in other areas such as in Afghanistan and Iraq regardless or not whether it is in Iran’s interest to do so. This will have the effect of welcoming threats from Washington and ironically accusations of Iranian meddling but Iran should stand resolute and underscore to the Americans the value of their cooperation. But I think most importantly it shouldn’t alienate other countries it has somewhat good relations with i.e. stop chanting deaths to Russia and China.
The Islamic government can stop being so divisive domestically. It should cut those wasteful subsidies and use that money elsewhere in the economy such as in infrastructure or R&D. It can aim for more efficiency and less corruption and let the technocrats handle the important aspects of the economy instead of idiotic populists like Ahmedinejad. Yes, I realize none of this is likely to happen because that would require Iran to have a competent government!
From an American geostrategic perspective there is two components to Iran; the western (gulf) component and the northern (Russian periphery) component. In the Persian gulf, the US has always tried to preserve a balance of power in the region and without Iraq they feel a need to try and contain (isolate) Iran. I don’t think this will change regardless of what Iran does or what type of regime it has. Now that the Soviet threat is gone, Iran’s geostrategic value has been significantly reduced in American eyes. Unless the US feels like a need for Iran’s help to its north because of say something like another Georgian invasion or an Armenian-Azerbaijani war I just don’t think they will reverse their position on Iran.
Lastly, how long does it take to make nukes anyway? If North Korea did it why can’t Iran? I have heard George Friedman of Stratfor suggest that Iran’s ideal position is to look like it is striving to build nuclear weapons but is not actually close to having them; so that Iran can use its program as a bargaining chip of sorts.
Iran is in a hard place about to get harder. It’s difficult to figure out how it can maintain its economic growth, political maturation and civil cohesion while the trade embargoes continue to complicate matters. It seems to me that the US is going to be more effective punishing third country players this time around: certainly they are trying to put the ducks in a row where its just not worth the bother to help Iran.
Without the real financial and political cover it needs from China and Russia to maintain international trade and on-going investment and exchange of ideas… well, it will be difficult. Is the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation really already dead as far as Iran is concerned? Is there movement on that front?
I think a passive Iran is… to put it nicely, sunk… the American government is committed to its destruction, by hook and crook, but what are the actions that will allow Iran to maintain cultural and economic momentum during these ever more difficult times? Its relationship with Syria seems to hold, its relationship to Turkey will soon be tested. Egypt wallows ever deeper in its shame. Iraq may be friendly, but it is extremely weakened. Extremely so.
I sometimes think that the real game changer is the idea put forward by the Japanese for a new currency based on an Asian basket of countries… its extremely important to weaken the American dollar as an international fiat currency. However, that is not something that Iran can either help or hinder, or is it?
Other than the grand deal, which is not going to happen, what should the economic/social/international strategy of Iran be? I would like to see some discussion on that issue.
This will never happen. Either we realise this or we keep on fighting until our country is in ruins.}
PAK:
Thank you for your attention. I am actually very realistic.
When nations are the member of NPT, then the international law must be applied equally to all. According to NPT, the agency must help members to solve their technical problems dealing with the enrichment for peaceful purposes. The agency has not done its responsibilities regarding Iran, but has created many problems instead since it does not act independently and is under influence of the dominant power. The dominant power has threatened Iran’s sovereignty which is not acceptable to all Iranians. Iran is a sovereign nation. If that is not important to you, then we cannot argue further. Iran’s sovereignty MUST BE RESPECTED AT ANY COST.
Iran never asked to be allowed to rule the world, the apartheid state of Israel is trying to do that through proxy, thus, has violated every single of the international law. Do you have no problem with that? Do you think she has a right to do so since she has occupied all branches of government in Washington?
If you think this is Ok, then, we have serious disagreement.
Iran honors the rule of law, therefore, expects to be treated like those who do the same.
If you think this is not ‘realistic’, then you must believe in a system that the war criminals are trying to sell which is based on the protocol, meaning ‘world government’, an “Iron Cage” where no one can survive under such a brutal system.
“This is the mentality of zionazis who do not deserve an answer.”
Oh yes, when all else fails a Basiji would bare its fangs and revert back to racism. As far as I am concerned those “zionazis” saved Iran’s butt from Saddam while your adoring Europeans were supplying Iraq with chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.
Mr. Canning: ” I have suggested Iran should seek support from Russia and China, by giving in to their wishes regarding the enrichment to 20%. Is Iran serving its own best interests, by putting so much effort into enriching uranium, when there likely will be no use for that uranium for years to come?”
Excuse me, but you still miss the point. It is irrelevant whether Iran suspends 20% enrichment or not, whether as a short term goal to gain favor with Russia and China – who are playing their own game for their own interests vis-a-vis the US – or permanently.
The issue is the bottom line: regime change. Iran can not benefit one iota by caving in to Western demands on any point of its technological needs. The only benefit it might receive is if the offer is one the “grand bargain” style where Iran would benefit enormously from normalizing diplomatic and more importantly trade relations. But this is NOT going to happen! Give up the notion that the US is negotiating in good faith. It is NOT!
Therefore it is pointless for Iran to suspend technology that it has perceived a need for merely to gain some short-term benefit like POSSIBLY persuading Russia to veto a new round of sanctions.
First, Iran has correctly identified the fact that Russia is playing Iran vs the US for its own purposes. So is China, concerned about US military aid to Taiwan, willing to give up what it knows are pointless sanctions in exchange for the US reviewing arms sales to Taiwan.
Second, since the US would go ahead with its own sanctions anyway, and US sanctions are the ones that count, Russia and China could only make a slight difference in the end result, mostly in terms of international legitimacy (UN approval vs not). This is not worth the effort of terminating Iran’s enrichment in any way.
Iran has correctly perceived that nothing it does will change the direction of the conflict – toward war and regime change. Why then should it make empty gestures? You’re simply suggesting that Iran be thrown scraps while giving up the one thing they have in their favor – the fact that they can and are enriching without anyone’s permission and short of military attack, no one can do anything about it.
The rest of the world, contrary to the Asia Times article, supports Iran in that decision, with the sole exceptions of the US, Israel and the EU (and the EU is two-faced since they continue to allow many of their corporations to deal with Iran).
If the US was serious about negotiating with Iran, it would go to the UN, demand that Israel join the NPT and disarm its nuclear arsenal. Until this is done. Iran can know for certain that the US doesn’t care about its alleged nuclear weapons program, but only about regime change.
Bottom line: Iran can gain NO benefit from negotiating with the US until the US formally gives up the policy of regime change AND tells Israel it will not allow Israel to attack Iran either.
James Canning,
I really appreciate your contribution to this forum, however, I must say, you are really stuck on this 20% business.
It has been shown on this site as well as others many times over, that cessation of enrichment to 20% is not in Iran’s best interest. It/suspension
1) Allows the West to extract a price (call it blackmail) for a supply of something that Iran has a right to buy on the open market freely.
2) Until the guarantee of reception of the said material is made, Iran should go ahead and enrich to 20%, so that its patients don’t suffer in case it runs out.
So, until such day the Iran can receive the material that it is entitled to buy on the market, it is not wise to stop.
On the mater of : “Iran has a very good chance to have world public opinion on its side, but this requires a certain amount of clear thinking of what image is being projected to the world”.
Ask yourself this: who is doing the projecting? MSM? Is the West the world?
Iran has shown time and again that it is a very logical, cold and calculating country and the None Aligned Movement (which the word world more aptly applies to) is squarely behind it. Please don’t fall into the trap of MSM and the image they are selling you.
PAK im afraid you are wasting your breath on DWZ. Iranians like that love to harp about “arrogant powers” but fail to see how arrogant they are being themselves. I have no idea what gives them such an inflated sense of self worth but they actually believe they can “punish” China!!!! Hahahaha, I think my spleen just burst out of my body from laughing so much. Their ideological fanaticism just keeps isolating them from the international community even further but they have no diplomatic tact whatsoever to try and reverse the course.
On top of all this apparently the Islamic Republic seems to believe in the economic equivalent of Alchemy if shit like this actually passes for serious theory: “Iranian bloggers have already asked the population of Iran to boycott Chinese GARBAGE to punish them who sign have signed illegal sanction against Iranian children with NO SHAME. Iranians must make their r own clothing, shoes, toys, and other items to create jobs and prevent their money to go to a country that rob Iran by sending more garbage and receiving natural resources, oil, for it.” – Punish them hahahaha. Oh my spleen!
Dear DWZ,
Very idealistic – very unrealistic. The root of Iran’s problems in international relations is the insistence on extreme independence, i.e. isolation.
“We are fed up with double standard in all aspect of the ‘international law’. All nations must be treated equally by the international law…”
This will never happen. Either we realise this or we keep on fighting until our country is in ruins. Being ideologically driven in the modern world will lead us nowhere, other than becoming another North Korea.
This is not about 20% or 3.5%.
This is about keeping Iran weak and amenable to threats by removing her ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon.
It is not just Iranian leaders who have concluded that such a capacity is essential for the continuation and survival of the Iranian state. Many ordianry people will tell you the same things. That Iran may be attacked – eeven with nuclear weapons – by any of her neighbours – who knows which. Say turkey after a military coup brings the Army back in power and they attack Iran.
The Europeans had already stated as much: “we do not want you to know about nuclear sciences.” Kind of like Germans in WWII who shot every Russian male villager who could read and write; Russians were to be slaves of the Master Race and thus kept ignorant.
Iraian leaders, having concluded that the 5+1 have no intention of coming to an understanding with Iran on this issue, decided to exercise their softpower and dilute the power of 5+1 by bringing in Turkey and Brazil; making the Iranian nuclear file that much more intractable.
About the plates, we shall see if they have that capability. They claim that they do.
{filling Iranian stores, due to Ahmadinejad’s clever }
Iranian bloggers have already asked the population of Iran to boycott Chinese GARBAGE to punish them who sign have signed illegal sanction against Iranian children with NO SHAME. Iranians must make their r own clothing, shoes, toys, and other items to create jobs and prevent their money to go to a country that rob Iran by sending more garbage and receiving natural resources, oil, for it. Iranians should not spend their money on goods that are harmful to their health and economy. Iranian authorities must leave women’s hejab alone and check to see if anyone consuming Chinese and Russians good, if they are then they should pay fine. China is sitting on hundreds of nuclear bombs then with other war criminals signs illegal sanction against Iran. These people must be punished. We are fed up with double standard in all aspect of the ‘international law’. All nations must be treated equally by the international law otherwise NO ONE WANTS A WORLD WHERE IS RULED BY WMD IN HANDS OF THE WAR CRIMINALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
DWZ,
Ahmadinejad the other day said that Iran seeks good relations with every country on earth, with the exception of the US and Israel.
Iran has a very good chance to have world public opinion on its side, but this requires a certain amount of clear thinking of what image is being projected to the world.
fyi,
I did not suggest Iran should give up its nuclear programme. I have suggested Iran should seek support from Russia and China, by giving in to their wishes regarding the enrichment to 20%.
Is Iran serving its own best interests, by putting so much effort into enriching uranium, when there likely will be no use for that uranium for years to come? Assumptions that Iran will be able to build the needed fuel plates for the Tehran reactor may prove incorrect. And Bushehr #2 is years away from coming on-line.
Dear Nasser,
“Continue your petty life style, shopping at the malls. Who else IS GOING TO BUY CHINESE GARBAGES IN THE STORE? Only ignorant people like you.
BOMB ISRAEL, BOMB ISRAEL”
DWZ’s words above are even more ironic when you consider that Chinese “garbages” have actually been filling Iranian stores, due to Ahmadinejad’s clever “I don’t believe in economics” economic policies. So much so that traditional Iranian handicraft in bazaars are being replaced by Chinese replicas. Good work DWZ!
John Canning:
{In the court of world opinion, if the US is openly seen as conspiring to subvert the normal functions of the IAEA under the NPT, and to prevent Iran from obtaining the 20% fuel for the research reactor, even if proper procedures are followed by Iran, this would be a substantial blow to the credibility of the Obama administration.}
NO. NO. NO. NO.NO. NO. NO. NO……………………………….
Knowledge people who are able to distinguish lies from facts and are against Zionism are supporting Iran against the war criminals, regardless of zionist propagand, and write many articles daily on behalf of victims including Iran.
The Zionist media target larger population who are fooled by the conventional media. You cannot do much about that since they control 99% of the airways to reach American household. Charlie Rose is another Zionist platform targeted more educated people, but the end game is the same to keep the fools in the pocket of Zionists. Look who represents Charlie rose show and who is giving financial support to this program.
OBAMA ALREADY HAS NO CREDIBITY WITH THE PUBLIC WORLDWIDE WHO ARE NOT ZIONISTS, AND IS FAMILIAR WITH FACT REGARDING ENRICHMENT PROGRAM OF IRAN.
David Rhodes, after he escaped from the captivity in Afghanistan, told Cherie Rose people in Afghanistan spit at Obama picture where ever they see one. So, Obama does not have much credibility with majority of people in the region although he, as a “black man”, was selected by Israel Firsters to fool Muslims in the targeted countries, who are not either “exceptional” or “unique” to change American image from war criminal to “promoter of democracy”. The negative image of American not only was not changed but changed for the worse.
James Canning:
Iran does have that capability.
The fuel swap was just an ice-breaker, if you will, to start the ball rolling and get both states out of the corners that they had painted themselves.
Each was testing the others sincerity.
But these are academic discussions now.
Iranian leaders most likely assess that their strategic position is comfortable: they are entrenched in Iraq, they are influential in Lebeanon and in Afghanistan and most likely, in my opinion, they have deep connections with Shia in Pakistan.
And inside Iran, the situation is normal; food and consumer goods are readily available, fuel is subsidized, and the state is functioning at the level of a poor Southern European state.
They have no incentive for any grand bargain with US and frankly, I do not see what US can offer them that is worth that much to them. And they will never ever give up on their nuclear program. This is not a matter of national pride – it is a matter of national survival and state cohesion for them.
DWZ,
In the court of world opinion, if the US is openly seen as conspiring to subvert the normal functions of the IAEA under the NPT, and to prevent Iran from obtaining the 20% fuel for the research reactor, even if proper procedures are followed by Iran, this would be a substantial blow to the credibility of the Obama administration.
Are you assuming Iran in fact can develop the fuel plates/rods, when it appears many countries in the nuclear business stay away from that particular area?
John Canning:
Please read Scott Ritter once more carefully. He says the same as I have alread written:
{The U.S. policy objective was never to provide Iran with 19.5 percent enriched uranium fuel rods, or to lock Iran in at a 3.5 percent enrichment threshold, but rather to get the majority of Iran’s existing stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium out of the country, thereby eliminating any scenario that had Iran using this low-enriched uranium as feedstock for any breakout nuclear weapons production capability, no matter how farfetched such a scenario might be. This is why the Obama administration never paid much attention to the details of such a swap, since these details simply didn’t matter. The U.S. approach was never about facilitating a swap so much as it was about facilitating a kidnapping. The policy objective was to get the majority of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks under international control. Once Iran no longer had access to 1,600 kilograms of its 1,800-kilogram stockpile of low-enriched uranium, the Obama administration could blunt the fear-driven concerns over the immediacy of any Iranian nuclear capability. It would take Iran several months to reconstitute its low-enriched uranium stocks to the level needed to produce its hypothetical nuclear bomb. During this period, the U.S. would redouble its demands for suspension of uranium enrichment and develop a comprehensive package of stringent economic sanctions that would be imposed on Iran should it fail to cooperate.}
“Continue your petty life style, shopping at the malls. Who else IS GOING TO BUY CHINESE GARBAGES IN THE STORE? Only ignorant people like you.
BOMB ISRAEL, BOMB ISRAEL”
Your Basiji ethnocentrism really amazes me DWZ (wtf did China ever do to Iran?) and you are accusing Israel of fascism?! I’ll continue my “petty life style” as you call it while your beloved Khameini keeps on looting Iran’s resources but you don’t care as long as you keep collecting your salary from Basij Media Relations. This inflated sense of self-importance and utter ignorance of the outside world is precisely why the Islamic Republic has no friends anywhere and gets no diplomatic support whatsoever.
DWZ:
The electeted representatives of the American people are making moral choices that are clearly approved by their electorate.
You must undertsnd that this is a site for the dissidents – USSR used to have its dissidents and US has hers.
US will only change when she has spent her marign of error.
Complaining about it will not change anything or bring that day forward more quickly.
Just like in business, sometimes you have to let things go down in ruins.
Last sentenced did not get posted-k
“There are Google Ads on EA, automatically posted to the site based on the scope of our coverage. I have not noticed AIPAC being amongst those ads but will keep an eye open….”
Isn’t it that the answer should be “why should AIPAC be discriminated” to advertise, and to rephrase our great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld the danger to the knowledge is not from the known known’s but rather from the unknown known’s. If AIPAC did not advertise how else one would know that they exist to improve American’s interests, could you believe often our good representatives forget to inform us that these interest groups are helpful improving our lives. Well at least some of us some of the times it’s not necessary to be all of us all of the times.
“There are Google Ads on EA, automatically posted to the site based on the scope of our coverage. I have not noticed AIPAC being amongst those ads but will keep an eye open….”
Isn’t it that the answer should be “why should AIPAC be discriminated” to advertise, and to rephrase our great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld the danger to the knowledge is not from the known known’s but rather from the unknown known’s. If AIPAC did not advertise how else one would know that they exist to improve American’s interests, could you believe often our good representatives forget to inform us that these interest groups are helpful improving our lives.
irshad,
Only a lunatic would bomb Bushehr. There are 1500 Russians working at Bushehr #1.
But any attack on Iran would be utter madness.
Dan Cooper,
Don’t miss Mearsheimer’s article in The American Conservative for August 2010. He mentions “Israel’s intoxication with military force, [which] helps explain why the Israeli press reoutinely carries articles predicting where Israel’s next war will be.”
General George C. Marshall thought Israel was a millstone around the neck of the US. He clearly was correct.
Richard Hack,
In my view, only an idiot would want war with Iran, and I agree with you such a war would be interminable.
But we know there are many idiots out there, clamoring for war as a means of distracting world attention from continuing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
Eric,
The writer in the Asia Times is an idiot. Eight years of war, Iraq-Iran. Seven years of war, Iraq War. Nine years of war, Afghanistan.
Clearly there is a propaganda effort underway, worldwide, to deceive the American public into thinking a war with Iran would be a quick, effective “solution” to a nagging “problem”. This is always the strategy of the warmongers. After all, the First World War was meant to be over in a few months! It lasted eight or nine years!
JohnH,
The Pentagon opposes an Israeli attack on Iran, and it opposes a US attack on Iran.
I think DWZ is quite right to call on Americans and Europeans to wake up to the danger posed to the interests of the US and the EU, by warmongering Israeli militarists (and their stooges in the US Congress).
DWZ,
Would the US have been able to get Chinese and Russian “support” for the latest round of sanctions against Iran, if Iran had suspended enrichment of U to 20%?
I recommend John J. Mearsheimer’s “Sinking Ship” in the August 2010 American Conservative Magazine (amconmag.com). Mearsheimer says that “Israel is unwittingly destroying its own future as a Jewish state, and doing so with tacit US support.”
An addition to below comment.
There are Google Ads on EA, automatically posted to the site based on the scope of our coverage. I have not noticed AIPAC being amongst those ads but will keep an eye open….
Scott
Just a note as I follow an interesting discussion.
AIPAC has never advertised on Enduring America.
Best,
Scott
Fiorangela,
Interesting observation about the ads placed on Asia Times. Other websites are similar (for example, Enduring America often runs AIPAC ads). But I have no reason to believe Asia Times would turn down advertising money from pro-Iran sources. It may just be that none has been offered.
I don’t think a publication that purports to support free expression should pick and choose among its advertisers, other than to exclude extreme cases. At the same time, when a publication’s advertising is placed disproportionately by organizations that support one side of an issue, it’s natural for readers to wonder both (1) whether the publication is in fact accepting advertising without discrimination; and (2) why the publication is supported disproportionately by those organizations.
Those thoughts shouldn’t color one’s views of what one reads in the publication, but they often do. I’m glad this website is able to survive without advertising.
I 2nd what Firorengala wrote…
The most revealing line that I noticed in the spate of atimes.com articles pressing for war on Iran is this advertising block immediately below the text:
The David Project
Educating Voices for Israel Training, Campus & Support
http://www.thedavidproject.org/
Follow the link and you’ll see a classroom with young people being “educated” to advocate for Israel.
The recent Bomb Iran atimes articles were written by nobodies; perhaps a class assignment of the David Project?
Fiorangela
Re: huge gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
Thanks for the link.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680
you brought up a very important subject about the Israel / Palestine conflict.
The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.
This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
Who Owns the Gas Fields?
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.
Richard,
I agree with your post, and thank you for the link to the Asia Times article.
The conclusion reached by that writer — that war with Iran is all but inevitable and something to be welcomed — would be amusing if one did not bear in mind that many people agree, and consider his reasoning to that conclusion to be sound. The writer found it necessary to ignore or distort a number of inconvenient facts, and to fashion a definition of war so narrow that he was able to write this without any felt need for elaboration:
“As a rule, no Middle East war in the last 60 years has lasted for much longer than a month…”
This imagination-liberating “rule” having allowed him to brush away such inconvenient truths as the 8-year Iran-Iraq war and the ongoing long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it took the writer only a few twists and turns of logic to reach the comforting conclusion that war with Iran will actually mean peace:
“The main impact of a military campaign, therefore, would not be military. The true battle will be one of persuasion, and the target will be the Iranian people as well as the Muslim and broader international community. Luckily for the US, Israel, and their Middle Eastern allies, it appears that there is a growing international consensus against Iran, and that at the very least most states would once again refrain from too much criticism of the dominant superpower. If that happens, the Iranian regime could be quickly humiliated and weakened, its nuclear program set back by many years, and its international isolation deepened. In this case, seething internal tensions would eventually lead to regime change in the Islamic Republic.”
“Moreover, such a development would shake up the status quo in the Middle East, giving US President Barack Obama much needed leverage to push through an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. Having fulfilled his most important pre-election promise, in turn, would make Netanyahu more prone to compromise.”
It is especially hard to argue with the writer’s final sentence. There is nothing quite like the destruction of one’s principal (perceived) enemy to instill the spirit of compromise in the victor.
Israel has huge gas reserves in the Mediterranean off its shores, and Gaza has a large gas reserve in its maritime possessions. British interests, led by Tony Blair, have been negotiating with Israel and Fatah to tap the gas resources.
www dot globalresearch dot ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20090108&articleId=11680
www dot jpost dot com/Home/Article.aspx?id=48362
www dot guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/26/gazaagasforblair
www dot jcpa dot org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=1845&IID=1896
www dot bg-group dot com/OurBusiness/WhereWeOperate/Pages/pgIsraelandAreasofPalestinianAuthority.aspx
Israel’s campaign to demonize Iran started in 1992, realized its first American ’success’ in the form of sanctions on Iran in 1995, and intensified in 1999, when Ephraim Sneh convinced Knesset to shift military funding to an anti-Iran objective. The timeline tracks with the progress of the lawsuit between Iran and Israel over the lucrative tanker-pipeline oil deal Israel had enjoyed with Iran between 1950 and 1979, whereby Iran shipped oil to Eilat, where it entered a pipeline to Ashkelon and thence was marketed to Europe. Khomeini halted the arrangement in 1979 and in 1985 Iran sued Israel on contracts in the Trans Asiatic company. A Swiss arbitrator decided in Iran’s favor in 2004; Paz, Sonol and Delek oil companies must compensate the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) hundreds of millions of dollars. Additional lawsuits involving Trans Asiatic are in the pipeline; the Israeli firms have refused to pay the mediated amounts.
The affair provides an insight into the extent to which Israel-the-state is Israel, Inc., which puts its full military and bureaucratic apparatus behind commercial dealings of Israeli companies. It also demonstrates that when Americans complain bitterly that US wars in the Middle East are about oil, they are partially correct: they HAVE been resource wars, but not necessarily for the benefit of US; for minimal investment, Israel intends to gain maximum return from oil (and/or gas) pipeline deals.
Off topic but interesting:
“The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media”
These are the facts of Jewish media control in America.
Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy.
I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least.
Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people.
By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government;
we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.
Please click on the link below;
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/
Fiorangela,
Well put. My sentiments exactly.
To the Commenters on RaceforIran:
The Leveretts present timely, principled analysis that I’ve not found elsewhere. Similarly, many commenters have posted carefully argued, well-informed responses to the Leveretts’ posts. The combination makes this young site a very sophisticated source for high caliber information.
It would be a shame if RaceforIran became yet another forum where obscenities and name-calling pass for argument. Please don’t let “trollish” behavior take hold here, like weeds in a garden. Writing well to make your case and express your passion persuasively is hard work; please make the effort.
Here’s another example of someone who expects the Iran war to be over in a short time:
Weather clears for a US strike on Iran
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG03Ak01.html
In fact, my prediction is that Iran, if forced into a conflict by Israel or the US, would like nothing better than for the war to drag on. This is the “Vietnam strategy” – drag the war out until the US bleeds to death economically, militarily and geo-politically. Iran is well prepared to conduct asymmetric war for a period of some years. They can easily do what the Taliban have done. They have the territory in depth, they have the option of arming a million or several million more Basiji in addition to their regular Army and IRGC and sending them to harass US forces on the ground in Iraq and in Iran and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Since one of the goals of any US attack on Iran will be to seize the oil fields in Khuzestan, one can expect guerrilla war to be the order of the day for the next ten years.
If you thought Afghanistan was a “long war”, you haven’t seen anything yet. Iran has the resources to continue fighting the US asymmetrically for a decade or longer. The cost of the war with Iran will be several times higher than the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED. Instead of $6 billion a month for Afghanistan or $10 billion a month for Iraq, try $20-30 billion a month “tax” on the US economy IN ADDITION TO the oil price spike impact. Then stretch that for ten years. Iraq cost the US at least a trillion dollars; Iran will cost the US SEVERAL TRILLION dollars. It will beggar the US into a Third World country. Iran’s economic infrastructure will be mostly destroyed as well, and it will cost Iran more than the million lives lost in Iraq, but in the end for all intents and purposes Iran will have won.
Like the Vietnamese officer told the American officer, it will be irrelevant that Iran “lost” every battle if they end up winning the war.
The war with Iran will be the last war the US engages in. Because at the end of the Iran war, the US will be broken economically, militarily and geo-politically.
Nasser,
“I know this site is obviously full with a lot of pro Iranian types but they seem to think that this means blindly supporting any government moves and never looking critically at Iran’s own policy decisions.”
This site has a lot of types, including the type you describe. But I think most people appreciate reading well-reasoned posts, whether they agree with them or not. I’d certainly put your post in that category.
It seems a lot of pundits on Asia Times have been writing about an imminent attack on Iran and its nuclear sites. It tends to concentrate on how its going to happen, the realitation from Iran will be limited, the Arab regimes will support it – albeit behind closed doors – but the thing that hits me and hits me hard apart from all this bomb bomb bom madness is, if they do attack irans nuclear sites, is the radiation not goj gto be swept over other coutnries e.g. the Persian Gulf emirates and states….I hate to see the radiation level in Dubai onces Busher is bombed…have the Arab regimes not thought about that…???? And where are all the people standing up against such madness..?
“Second—and more fundamentally—it is far from certain that becoming a large gas exporter is a strategic priority for Iran, or even a clearly defined objective.”
“…There is deep opposition to such a move in the Iranian political culture and the culture of its oil and gas bureaucracy, rooted in the memories of the U.S.-sponsored coup of 1953 following the nationalization of British oil concessions by the nationalist Mossadegh government.”
Im glad this article points out what the Leveretts have stated numerous times in the past; that it is not just sanctions that is to blame for Iran’s woeful situation but it is also Iran’s own incompetence, rampant corruption and complete inability to negotiate meaningfully with third parties that is also to blame. The Iranians are notorious for their “uppidy” attitude and posses a wonderful knack for being able to alienate EVERYONE all at once because they lack any form of diplomatic tact whatsoever. This can be seen by the idiotic statements hurled out against China and Russia; the only two countries it has somewhat normal relations with (Yes, you fucking geniuses isolate yourself from the international community some more). The Iranians lost out on the Indian market precisely for this and NOT for the US-India nuclear deal. I know this site is obviously full with a lot of pro Iranian types but they seem to think that this means blindly supporting any government moves and never looking critically at Iran’s own policy decisions.
I think if Iran manages to have a rapprochement with the US it should propose a deal with Russia where it promises to forego the European market in exchange for Russia’s support regarding Iran’s Caspian claims and a sphere of influence in Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan through which it can draw pipelines to China. A genuine commercial relationship with China can evolve into more of a true partnership and will be more rewarding for Iran in the long term than anything with the Europeans who seem to discard Iran at the first urging of the Americans (not to mention supply chemical weapons to her enemies just for good measure)!
DWZ in your rantings have you forgotten that Israel was the only country helping Iran during the Iraq war (unlike the USA, USSR and just about ALL Arab countries), as evidenced by the fact that Iran’s air force remained operational even after Saddam’s sneak attack and the Khomeini purges. Iran has done a hell of a job returning the favor though!
Castellio
“Europe, it often strikes me, remains an occupied continent”
Very rightly described, I also believe, Europe did not recover from the naivety of its two wars, and lazily remained an American protectorate, sort of a mandate.
Paul,
It is of course your prerogative not to respond, but on the off-chance you’ve not seen my earlier post to you (on an earlier thread), I’d appreciate your response to it:
Paul,
You make some interesting comments, which I hope will continue. But, absent some explanation which presently escapes me, you sound like the very sort of “alterna-pundit” you warn us to be on the lookout for: those who take a strong anti-US government stand on one narrow element of the Iran debate but otherwise fan the flames of war. You limit your warning to those writers who help to obscure (what you believe to be) the Obama administration’s warlike intentions, which you say will be revealed only when it is too late: “If one observes carefully, one notices that each alterna-pundit specializes in a particular fragment of the truth, but for the rest, they stick to a variation of the ‘approved’ script, that script being that US leadership doesn’t really want war…”
Accepting for the sake of argument that the Obama administration has the warlike intentions you ascribe to it, helping to obscure that warlike intent is only one of several ways that a dangerous “alterna-pundit” might contribute to the march toward war. Another form of contribution, which concerns me greatly because it was so important in selling the US’ two current wars to the American public, is the “no muss, no fuss” prediction about a US or Israeli attack on Iran. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a rosier prediction than yours:
“I think a lot of pundits are wrong to claim that an attack on Iran will lead to widespread problems. … I think that any attempts by Iran to defend itself will be unavailing. … The whole thing can be basically over in 24 hours, with minimal fallout even in the Persian Gulf, much less elsewhere.”
Would the US government have been able to “sell” the Iraq war to the US public if it had told them we’d be there seven years and counting, or that we’d still be in Afghanistan 9 years later with no end in sight? Possibly, but I doubt it. In both cases, the American public was told almost precisely what you predict above for Iran, and that “no muss, no fuss” prediction helped a great deal to tip the scales toward war.
Should we be worried about you?
DWZ… do you have to use the caps? Do you have to scream at us?
FYI… “Ultimately, US, carrying on the way she has been, will fail in her aims in the Middle East since she will not have been able to articulate any positive vision of the future for these polities – in contradistinction to Europe during the Cold War.”
The Cairo speech was meant to address that, wasn’t it? But I agree with you, and think you put it well.
Cyrus: I don’t think the Europeans struck any deal for their support of failed policies towards Iran… I think the amount of “drift” in European foreign affairs is almost total… we would be shocked to realize how ineffective the European elites have become. Europe, it often strikes me, remains an occupied continent.
US, UK, France, Russia, and China are jealous of their nuclear weapon state status under NPT. They want to keep Iran down, to all appearance. They are sincere in that. Otherwise how can one account for the absurd situation in which an NPT member state is denied fuel for medical isotopes while China is supplying reactors to Pakistan and France, Russia, and Japan to India?
In regards to Chalabi etc.; he was Iran’s man (may be others as well) and he helped accomplish something that Iranians could not expect to have except in their dreams: strategic entrenchment in Mesopotamia after a 200-year absence.
In regards to Ukraine, Russia, and gas; it was Ukraine that reduced (but did not cut) gas flow to Europe and not Russia. Now, of course, the pipelines are also going around Ukraine precisely to avoid that situation.
Arab states have been against non-Arab states since they gained their independence; Israel, Turkey, and Iran all attest to that. You can travel in Dubai and UAE and experience for yourself the tribal and racialist attitudes of Arabs to all non-Arabs; including Pakistanis. And excepting Oman, Syria and Libya, Arab states supported Iraq in her war against Iran to the hilt. Israelis did not plan that war.
Immediately after 9/11 attacks, there were days of jubilations in the cities of UAE. College girls would come to the class giggling about it. Across the Persian Gulf, on the other hand, there were a few thousand Iranians that lit candles in memory of those who were killed on that day in Tehran. Nevertheless,, Mr. Bush, in January of 2009, was in UAE – a hard dictatorship where its citizens cheered the murder of his fellow countrymen– haranguing Iran for not being a democracy.
I think this is absurd too.
But this is the lengths to which the elected leaders of American people are willing to go in pursuit of, what exactly?
I think the strategic prize (for US) of changing the orientation of the Iranian state is out of reach.
Ultimately, US, carrying on the way she has been, will fail in her aims in the Middle East since she will not have been able to articulate any positive vision of the future for these polities – in contradistinction to Europe during the Cold War.
Destroying Iran to save Iran’s energy sector? Could be. “Shock and awe” did not sufficiently impress the world in 2003, so maybe they’re planning an exponentially more destructive version of it this time around.
“‘They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,’ according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. ‘US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,’ he said. ‘The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,’ accelerating under Obama.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iranian-threat-by-noam-chomsky
This would be consistent with the Leveretts’ theory that sanctions are closing the door to any solution but war. The biggest prize is the world’s largest natural gas field, South Pars, which is shared with Qatar, the center of the Gulf’s LNG industry. Presumably Iranian natural gas could be added easily to Qatar’s infrastructure once Iranian ownership was peeled away.
The goal here is to make world natural gas markets function like liberalized oil trading markets, complete with commodities exchanges, dollar pricing, and tankers passing under US “protection.”
The US hates pipelines, because piped gas can be priced under long term contracts, not traded on Wall Street exchanges. Prices can be negotiated bilaterally between the buyer and seller, not necessarily in dollars. And pipelines do not require the naval “protection” schemes inherent in shipping by tanker. Since pipelines are protected by sovereign transit states, the US’ significance in guaranteeing the flow of gas becomes highly questionable.
The most recent US sanctions target the IRGC, a “terrorist group,” which just happens to be developing one or more phases of South Pars (with some real difficulty). Blocking the IRGC from required financial and technical inputs would help preserve the gas until the West gets control of it.
Europe is in a real box here, totally dependent on the US, Russia, and/or a string of transit states (Eastern Europe and Turkey) to deliver their much need gas.
Fiorangela,
I cannot believe people at this site falls for the propaganda. Chalabi was and still is close to Israel and Zionists. He wanted to get rid of Saddam and make him a president. Neocons wanted the same thing to pursue ISRAEL’S INTEREST. Neocon had the interest of ISRAEL AHEAD OF AMERICAN’S INTEREST. Chalabi has no objection to Israel, neither Illawi nor Makiya. These people were working closely with the neocons. Chalabi in the last election, appeared next to Illawi, a secular Shiite and a butcher close to CIA/Mossad/ and MI6 where has been said he murdered many people by his hand gun after the invasion.
The rumor by the media that Chalabi has ties with Iranian government or is an agent of Iranian government was not TRUE. He has gone to Iran because he was in the government and had to go to talk about issues between two governments; the Neocons still love him and have hope for the future. Saudis are working with this group and by spending $$$$$$ and terror are trying to bring Illawi as the prime minister. Most of the killing in Iraq is funded by Saudis on behalf of the United States.
Chalabi, Illawi, Makiya are SECULAR, born in Shiite families. They are not Shiite per say, but all have close relations with Israel, US and Britain. Majority of the Neocons have close relations with these people, who are labeled as WAR CRIMINALS BY IRAQI PEOPLE. Kanan Makiya was rewarded with a PhD degree in Israel for his services to apartheid state and teaches at a Jewish University, Brandies a Professor of the Middle East without having the credential to be a professor in this area.
The war in Iraq was not US policy but since 1948 has been Israel’s policy to partition Iraq and create “Kurdistan” which no one in the region wants. Part of Turkey and Israel tension is very much due to this fact. Israel not only wants to steal all of Palestine but American power to wage wars to expand beyond Palestine to establish GREATER ISREAL.
Please wake up, wake up , wake up………
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/03/13/whos-to-blame-for-the-iraq-war/
The partition of Iraq designed by a Zionist Jew, Leslie Gelb, brought to the senate by a Zionist servant, Joe Biden. Israel according to ODED YINON strategy and A CLEAN BREAK wants more wars, now against Iran, to partition Iran and creates more TRIBES KURDS, AZERI, BALOUCHI, SHIITE, SUNNI, BERBER, SO ON AND SO FORTH, from North Africa including Sudan and Somalia to Afghanistan.
Wake up, wake up, and wake up
Israel disguised as BUSINESSMAN is actually from Mossad and is training terrorists such PKK and PAJAK. Turkey is very angry with Israel because they have evidence that Israel in North of Iraq is training PKK to attack turkey to destabilize the Kurdish area.
Wake up, wake up, wake up
Fiorangela,
Chalabi obviously wanted power in Iraq, and saw the neocons and Israel lobby as the way forward to achieve that object.
I am curious just what business relationship his family (including a nephew) had with Doug Feith (who used his post in the Pentagon to “stovepipe” false intel directly into the White House, bypassing the CIA – - which thought it was rubbish).
fyi, DWZ, James Canning: How do you assess Chalabi’s involvement in motivating zionists to fix intelligence to persuade Bush to launch a war against Iraq? Was he connected to the Iranian power structure or was he a freebooter, working for his own interests?
fyi,
Russia and China have been sincerely seeking a diplomatic resolution of the dispute regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. Some US officials have been sincere, while others are in effect stooges of the Israel lobby and care little for achieving normal US-Iran relations (even though that obviously is in the best interests of both countries).
DWZ,
You are quite right: Iran tried to prevent the idiotic US/UK invasion of Iraq, knowing that civil war would be likely to erupt.
In fact, Iran offered to help the US to assess whatever “threat” was posed by Saddam Hussein, and to deal with that threat, in order to avoid an invasion. The neocon fools (to be kind) in the Bush administration rejected the Iranian offer.
fyi,
Have you forgotten that Russia cut gas shipments to the EU because Ukraine had not paid its gas bill?
{An example was how they tricked US to invade Iraq and how they have consolidated their position in that country; a position from which they cannot be evicted because they are the Shia Fortress that backs the Shia of Iraq.}
IRAN DID NOT WANT A WAR IN IRAQ. WHY DON’T YOU STUDY THE EVENTS.
IRAQ WAR IS PART OF THE ISRAEL STRATEGY TO DESTABILIZE AND PARTITION THE REGIONAL STATES TO CREATE NON-ARAB STATES AGAINST ARAB. I AM FED UP WITH THE DEGREE OF IGNORANCE AT THIS SITE. GO AND STUDY A LITTLE BEFORE COMMENTING.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
It never made commercial sense for Iran to try to supply natural gas to Europe; there were too many others trying to supply the same market.
Strategically, the only time that Russia will cut natural gas flow to Europe is when a real war (and not a Cold War) is initiated against her. This constant noise regarding Europe’s reliance on Russia is just that, noise. It has no strategic significance.
In regards to LNG, it seems that the market no longer supports the initial investment costs. And Iranian officials are more concerned about supply the domestic and the near-abroad markets (as this article notes). And they can sit on that sea of gas until such time that it will be convenient and profitable to export their gas.
In regards to the nuclear program of Iran; there is no political force that prevent it and this was known to US, Russia, EU, Israel, China and others since at least 2002 – perhaps even earlier.
The perception of the Iranian leaders is that US, EU, Russia, and China want to keep their country down – constricted. The nuclear file is one such tool for foreigner to do so. They know that US, EU, Russia, and China will never settle this issue, just like the same collection of states do not wish to settle the war in Palestine. So, they are trying to minimize damage to Iran while entrenching themselves in the Middle East as a viable commercial partner in improving the lot of the Middle Eastern states. By that I mean they import/export water, natural gas, gasoline, and electricity to their neighbours, they let the citizens of their neighbours’ to enter Iran without much hassle and do trade, and other such things.
Furthermore, the Iranian leaders will do everything in their power, by hook or by crook, to enhance the power of Iran and her (mostly Shia) allies. An example was how they tricked US to invade Iraq and how they have consolidated their position in that country; a position from which they cannot be evicted because they are the Shia Fortress that backs the Shia of Iraq.
The same dynamics is playing out in Afghanistan, making sure that once US has departed and Taliban have come back, as much of Afghanistan as possible will be controlled by Iranian allies (a new Northern Alliance).
For the sake of argument I will entertain here a war scenario between US and Iran. I will use the 2006 Lebanon-Israel War. Since US is 60 times as populous as Israel, the damage to Iran will be about 60,000 dead and $1.2 trillion dollars. These are less than what Iran suffered during Iraq-Iran War. I imagine the casualties of US would be about 100 times less; 600 dead and $ 12 billion of damages. And for this, US will have to gather all her assets from all over the world and bring them to Persian Gulf.
This was the threat that Mr. Bush and his government posed to Iran in 2006 and the Iranian leaders accepted that; i.e. they indicated that they are ready for war. And there was no war, except perhaps its warm-up between Lebanon and Israel.
I will not speculate about the impact of the war on the Arabs states of the Persian Gulf. Certainly journalistic target selections in Iran over the last few years can be duplicated by selection desalination plants, power plants, pumping stations, port facilities in the southern Persian Gulf. Millions of refugees could potentially flood other Arab states.
Strategically, this war will be a case of escalation to no-where. There is no peace to be had after such a war –at any price -, only a relentless a struggle to eject US out of the Middle East where she will have demonstrated herself to the entire world to be incapable of articulating a positive vision of the future.
One significant casualty will be most certainly NPT – it will be finished as an international instrument of disarmament. Another will be the ability of US to defend Israel; that will no longer be feasible as US will not be able to bear the cost. And I am not even going to discuss what will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others can, I am sure, add more to these items.
For Mr. Obama, who claims to want to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament, to leave Iraq & Afghanistan with honor (i.e. not under fire), and to help end the war in Palestine there is no better interlocutor than Shia Iran. Ending US cold war against Iran will revolutionize US position among Muslims Worldwide and not just in the Middle East. Certainly the Arab states in the Persian Gulf can breathe easier after that. It will benefit Afghanistan which currently and yet again, has become an arena of proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It will defang the Sunni extremists and kick the Wahhabi to where it belongs; i.e. the extreme margins of the Muslim World and not the place of honor that it currently occupies thanks to Saudi (and US) collusions to make it so as the ideological defense against Shia Iran (since 1978).
But it will not happen. US Leaders are unwilling to concede the point. They are not daft (just look at Kissinger’s comments about Iran over the years) but they are not yet ready to make a purchase; they have, in my opinion, since 1991, have become too used to cost-free foreign policy.
Pirouz_2,
While I am not an Oil/Gas scientist, my understanding is that like oil, gas will stay under ground unless it finds an opening to exit. Currently Iran is using a lot of its gas to force the aging oil wells to produce better by putting pressure on top of oil. Iranian gas is also diminished by being siphoned off by Qatar which has gas fields that are connected to Iran’s.
Iran has had policy of converting and producing new cars with dual burning engines to ward off sanctions, so it has lots of use for internal consumption.
Hey, is Paul, Wigwag reincarnated? He is itching to pull the trigger.
Once not so long ago the EU were quite opposed to sanctions. I suspect the EU and the US made a deal: the EU would get onboard re: sanctions as long as the US would agree to no military force.
Iran is still not a GAS EXPORTER state because it does not have a comprehensive energy policy yet.
http://www.csr.ir/departments.aspx?lng=en&abtid=06&&depid=123&semid=2057
I have a very important question to ask to everyone who is commenting on this site. Does anyone here have any expertise related to Geology and in particular gas fields and their usage? My question is this:
Iran is known to have the second largest gas reserves in the world (after Russia). If these fields are not tapped into, what will happen to that Natural Gas? Does it stay intact, under the ground, waiting to be tapped into at some time (however, near or distant) in the future, or is it some how going to waste? In other words, if these fields are untapped, will they still be available to us without any loss to their gas content, say 50 years from now?
Yet another ludicrous article whose basic theme is that no one should think that all the war propaganda and war preparations against Iran actually PORTEND WAR!! Oh no, it’s all just a bunch of posturing and nothing anyone should worry about. The obvious point this article ignores is that, if it’s Iran’s leadership that is preventing full ‘exploitation’ of its gas resources, ‘regime change’ might be just exactly what the EU is after. But oh no, it’s all just political posturing, political posturing that is real enough to be putting a hammer to Iran’s economy, surrounding Iran with military forces, ratcheting up war rhetoric on a daily basis, etc.. But if the overarching point is that, as more and more countries jump on the anti-Iran bandwagon, part of the reason might be that it seems to them an easy way to please the US and Israel, no doubt there is some truth to that. Israel and the US seem to be so hellbent on crushing Iran that countries like Russia and China seem to have squeezed major deals out of it (in particular, Russia gets the pipeline that bypasses Ukraine and China gets the trade deal with Taiwan). Brazil seems to be working on a deal and no doubt Turkey will get some fat plum out of the whole thing too, perhaps membership in the EU. But it comes down to this – what we are watching is wrong even if it’s just posturing, but what it looks like is almost certainly what it is – war. And either way, all the political and economic arguments pale next to the fact that the whole thing is monstrously illegal and immoral.
Oh, and this bit of bull from Pierre is precious:
“the first element of an explanation to why Europe is getting tougher and tougher on Iran—on top of the fact that there is genuine and widely shared concern in Europe about the future of nuclear non-proliferation—”
As Pierre knows, and as we all know, non-proliferation has almost nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, and if the EU was seriously concerned about non-proliferation, Iran would be well down on the list of states to be worried about, and in any case, they would be fully aware that threatening and isolating Iran is the best way to encourage Iran to develope nuclear weapons.
Iranian@Iran,
His name is Brian Baird.
Very few Americans are even aware of the importance of Iranian oil and gas, as additions to the global supply.
Iranian@Iran,
A US Congressman from Washington State, strongly supports the Palestinians and he also opposes sanctions against Iran. In fact, he was the only Congressman to vote against the latest sanctions, from the Washington State delegation. He deplores the power of the Israel lobby to manipulate US foreign policy. Regrettably, he is leaving the Congress at the end of the current term.
Iranian@iran,
Could you provide a link to the Afrasiabi interview? Thanks.
If possible go and watch Kaveh Afrasiabi on Press TV. This is not the first time a pro-Iran Iranian (Mr. Mousavi in LA,…) has been arrested and abused by the US police. The US does not tolerate real dissent. Did you know that people can go to jail for 15 years for watching Almanar TV!
Bravo! The US and the EU should be encouraging Turkish efforts to import large amounts of natural gas from Iran, so that imports of gas from Russia can be lowered.
This increases supply, and opens options to prevent disruptions to the market.
The Leveretts have previously commented on the stupidity of the US’s failure to support the proposed natural gas line running from Iran through Pakistan to India.