Why Bush administration is demonizing Iran
thelasian
to read.
1-Petroprovocation: when Iran dumps petrodollars next year
2- Iran planning to launch an oil exchange in Tehran
3- Iran's plans for an oil exchange
4- OIL CHANGE Will euros replace the greenback as the world's petro
currency?
5- The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
Petro-provocation. The likely fallout for the US when Iran dumps
petrodollars next year
NEW INTERNATIONALIST NOVEMBER 2005
THE current reasons for US antagonism towards Iran extend well beyond
its publicly stated concerns egarding Iran's nuclear intentions. In
mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting euros as payment
for its oil exports from its European and Asian customers. This move
threatens international demand for and the liquidity value of the US
dollar.
Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000. But after
toppling his regime the Bush Administration quietly reconverted Iraq's
oil transaction currency back to the US dollar - which had the rather
adverse effect of wiping out 13 per cent of Iraq's oil export profits
(due to the euro's higher valuation over the dollar in mid-2003).
Now Iran is about to compound its 'offence'. In 2006 Iran intends to
set up an oil exchange (or bourse) that would facilitate global trading
of oil between industrialized and developing countries, most likely
pricing sales in the euro, or 'petroeuro.' At the moment, the vast
majority ofthe world's oil is traded on the New York NYMEX (Mercantile
Exchange) and the London IPE (International Petroleum Exchange), both
of which are operated by an Atlantabased US conglomerate.
These oil exchanges transact US dollars. Without a doubt, a successful
Iranian oil bourse will create a shift away from US dollars and towards
euros inthe oil market. The drop in demand for petrodollars would cause
the value ofthe dollar to plummet further, undermining the position
ofthe US as the global economic leader. Ultimately it will also force
the US to change significantly its current tax, debt, trade, and energy
policies, all of which are severely unbalanced. But present
international developments mean that any US retaliation against Iran
will also carry significant consequences. On 28 October 2004, Iran and
China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement valued at between $70
and $100 billion. China currently receives 13 per cent of its oil
imports from Iran, and with this deal the Chinese Government
effectively drew a 'line in the sand' around Iran. China is a major
exporter to the US, and its resulting trade surplus means that it has
become the world's second largest holder of US currency reserves Qapan
is the largest holder with $800 billion, while China holds over $650
billion).
US intervention in Iran - including any aerial attack on suspected
nuclear facilities - would put pressure on the Chinese to abandon their
support of the dollar. If really upset by an attack on their principal
oil export partner, they could afford to show their displeasure by
suddenly unloading perhaps $300 billion of their surplus US dollars.
The immediate effect would create a global dollar crisis, if not a
dollar crash, which would be likely to force Russia and OPEC to abandon
the dollar for a monopoly 'petroeuro'.
It is conceivable that such US aggression towards Iran could provoke
other industrialized nations to abandon the dollar in droves, indeed,
Russia and Venezuela have already expressed interest in moving towards
a petroeuro system for oil transactions. A desperate punitive
collective switch to petroeuros would ultimately render the US Navy in
a similar state to the once-mighty Soviet fleet - rusting in port due
to a collapsed economy.
William Clark is the author of the recently published book Petmdollar
Warfare: Oii, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
(New Society Publishers, British Colombia, 2005).
==================================
2- Iran planning to launch an oil exchange in Tehran
MARKETPLACE February 23, 2006 Thursday
Copyright 2006 Minnesota Public Radio.
All Rights Reserved
MARKETPLACE
SHOW: Marketplace 6:30 AM EST SYND
February 23, 2006 Thursday
KAI RYSSDAL, anchor:
This is MARKETPLACE from American Public Media. I'm Kai Ryssdal.
China says it wants to help solve the Iranian nuclear crisis. Tomorrow
a Chinese envoy will fly to Tehran to try to broker a deal. The
International Atomic Energy Agency is set to meet on the topic in early
March.
The US and Europe say Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But analysts
in London have spotted another curious development: a plan to launch a
new exchange in Tehran. They say the Iranians are trying to develop a
financial weapon. From London MARKETPLACE, Stephen Beard reports.
STEPHEN BEARD reporting:
In all the hullabaloo over Iran's nuclear activities, one small
development in Tehran has passed largely unnoticed by the Western
media. It was, says analyst Neil Patrick, an announcement by the oil
ministry.
Mr. NEIL PATRICK: The Iranians have announced that they will definitely
be opening an oil force in March 2006 that will be trading in oil which
will be denominated in euros and not US dollars.
BEARD: It seems the new exchange will start trading oil that's for
immediate delivery and then move on to the more sophisticated and
speculative futures trading. But why? Patrick says this may have been
prompted by the fear that sanctions would prevent the Iranians from
selling their oil on world markets.
Mr. PATRICK: It may be that if there were comprehensive economic
sanctions, then the Iranians would hope this would be one way in which
they could do at least some oil trading.
BEARD: Perhaps there's another possibility says Chris Skrebowski,
editor of Petroleum Review. Pricing their new oil marketing in euros
could be the key. This could be a plot, a plan to sabotage the US
economy.
Mr. CHRIS SKREBOWSKI: The less-innocent explanation is that they
actively wish to undermine the use of the dollar in pricing oil and
possibly in the dream of some, undermine the value of the dollar
itself.
BEARD: There's little doubt that having the world's most vital
commodity priced in dollars is a boon to the US economy. By keeping the
dollar in demand, you keep its value high and its purchasing power
strong.
Mr. SKREBOWSKI: Because oil is priced in dollars, this means that there
is an instantaneous, everyday demand for an enormous volume of dollars
and that, in effect, underpins the valuation of the dollar.
BEARD: So could the Iranians persuade the rest of OPEC to sell its oil
in euros on the new Tehran oil exchange? Could the mullers kick this
vital prop away from underneath the dollar, pitching the greenback into
free-fall?
Mr. SKREBOWSKI: Without smearing, I would think they will have their
job cut out for them.
BEARD: Axel Bush of Energy Intelligence says Ben Bernanke can relax.
The Tehran oil exchange is not a weapon of mass financial destruction.
Mr. AXEL BUSH: It's a protest. `We don't like Americans. We don't like
their currency. Here's one in the eye for you. See how you like euros
instead.'
BEARD: It will quickly fizzle out he says, after all, if you were in
the business of buying or selling oil, where would you prefer do to it?
New York, London, Rotterdam or Tehran? In London, this is Stephen Beard
for MARKETPLACE.
=====================================================
3- Iran's plans for an oil exchange
BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring February 28, 2006 Tuesday
Copyright 2006 British Broadcasting Corporation
All Rights Reserved
Iranian media began carrying news and comment about the possible
establishment of an oil exchange during former President Mohammad
Khatami's second term in office, but the exchange failed to materialize
before the end of his presidency (August 2005). More recent reports
suggest that the oil exchange may become operational in a limited form
in spring 2006. It seems that, at least during this initial phase,
crude oil will not be traded on the exchange and that trading will be
limited to some oil derivatives.
"The initiative in the Middle East oil market will fall into Iran's
hands"
In December 2003, Mowj news agency, which specializes in economic
issues, quoted a consultant (Hasan Fahimi-Rad) involved in Iran's metal
exchange as saying that it was likely that "foreign agents" would be
used in Iran's oil exchange. Fahimi-Rad also said: "The oil exchange is
being devised on the basis of international markets and if
international norms and standards are respected in the exchange, it
will definitely be well received. The general level of training in our
country is low and we hope that we can train agents to a level whereby
Iranian agents will be capable of trading oil. With the establishment
of the oil exchange, the initiative in the Middle East oil market will
fall into Iran's hands and this will bring a great deal of revenue to
the country's economy, and the financial turnovers and the trading of
oil and its derivatives will bring vast sums to the country."
Fahimi-Rad also said that a need was felt in the Middle East for an oil
exchange, adding: "The oil exchange will facilitate price-setting
conditions in the Middle East and OPEC, and the establishment of an oil
exchange with international standards will link us to the world's
markets. An international group is studying the question of where to
locate the oil exchange and it may be located in one of the free trade
areas. This group includes financial engineers [as received] and
British and Iranian consultants."
On 23 August 2004, Irangreenpen.org (a website dedicated to
environmental issues and sustainable development) cited the director of
the National Iranian Oil Company, Mehdi Mir-Mo'ezzi, as saying: "The
oil exchange is being set up for trading in oil derivatives only. Crude
oil is not going to be traded on it, but we intend to pave the way for
trading in all oil derivatives. The aim of setting up the exchange is
to make prices and the manner of trading transparent... No programme
has been devised yet for trading crude oil but there may gradually be
studies in this connection too."
Delays
Many of the reports in 2004-05 suggested that that the oil exchange
would be up and running before the end of Mohammad Khatami's presidency
(August 2005). In March 2005, Hayat-e Now economic daily quoted Oil
Ministry Adviser Mohammad Javad Asemipur, who is in charge of the oil
exchange project, as saying that the oil exchange was due to be
operational in a matter of months. According to the same report,
Asemipur also said that the different types of contracts that are used
in international exchanges were being examined to assess their
correspondence to Islamic legal regulations and added: "For the initial
planning of Iran's oil exchange, we have carried out a correspondence
with 180 world exchanges and financial services institutions. Iran's
oil exchange will have a different structure from other international
exchanges and its system has not been defined similarly to other
markets... Kish Island has been identified as the location for the main
trading hall and plans are being made for commissioning a hall in
Tehran... Moreover, subsidiary halls will gradually be established in
the oil regions of our country such as Asaluyeh and Ahvaz... The
initial dealing in Iran's oil exchange will involve commodities that
will pose less of a challenge for the country's economy, but,
ultimately, all the commodities and products of the upstream and
downstream sectors of the country's oil industry will be presented on
the exchange... The structure of companies that export oil derivatives
and petrochemical products will also change with the establishment of
the exchange."
But several months later, the oil exchange had failed to materialize.
It seemed almost like a step backwards when it was reported in July
2005 that Iran's Exchange Council - at a session on 25 July chaired by
the economy minister - had discussed the establishment of an oil, gas
and petrochemicals exchange and expressed its agreement "in principle"
with the project. Asemipur told Shana (news agency affiliated to the
Iranian Oil Ministry) on the occasion: "The exchange will play an
important role in increasing the GDP and foreign exchange revenues,
making trading transparent, providing experience in oil trading and
risk management, and establishing a regional and international market."
Asemipur described the oil exchange as one of the important economic
steps taken by the Khatami government, adding: "Now, with the legal
authorization of the oil, gas and petrochemical exchange, the
operational phases of the exchange, which will be based in Kish, will
proceed according to the timetable... It is being foreseen that, during
the first stage, petrochemical products and oil derivatives will be
traded on the exchange." Shana added in the same report: "Studies on
the oil exchange began last year with the participation of an
international consortium and the memo of understanding on commissioning
the exchange was signed in Ordibehehsht [13]84 [April-May 2005]."
On 10 September 2005, Sharq quoted the then head of the Tehran stock
exchange (Hoseyn Abdeh-Tabrizi) as saying that the establishment of the
oil exchange "requires more time", adding: "There is no problem if the
oil exchange is at the level of selling petrochemical products, like
the metal exchange. But, in the sense of selling our products in the
international arena - this is a different story, for which we need some
planning." Abdeh-Tabrizi also said that the Exchange Council was
waiting for the exchange's charter, "hence, we can say that the oil
exchange has been born, but, because of the absence of regulations,
norms and rules, it cannot trade yet." Asked whether the oil exchange
would have branches in different Iranian towns and cities,
Abdeh-Tabrizi replied that this was not really necessary, because
unlike stock exchanges, which attract ordinary people's savings,
commodities exchanges have "limited clienteles", their traders are
located in big cities and they can trade by telephone or via the
Internet.
On 14 November 2005, Sharq newspaper carried a brief report entitled:
"Reasons for the delay in commissioning the oil exchange", which reads
as follows: "The executor of the oil exchange project has said that the
delay in commissioning Iran's oil exchange on Kish was because of the
ratification of the Capital Market Bill by the Majlis. Mohammad Javad
Asemipur added: Since one of the bill's articles underlines that
exchanges in the country are private, the oil companies that wish to
enter the oil exchange must leave their current conditions and this
problem has to be resolved as quickly as possible. He added: We are
ready to commission the oil exchange today. But, in order for it to
begin work, some requirements have to be met, including the existence
of experienced agents. Asemipur said: The Supreme Exchange Council has
authorized the establishment of the oil exchange and its software is in
line with international standards. The executor of the oil exchange
project rejected some of the prejudgements about the currency that will
be used in the oil exchange and added: A decision has not been made
about the denomination yet and this depends on the situation of the
market when the oil exchange opens."
The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), on 21 November 2005, carried a
report on an interview with Asemipur in which he said that the new
Capital Market Law was being promulgated in that week and the oil
exchange charter, which was being drawn up, had to be made compatible
with the new law and sent to the Exchange Council. Asemipur added:
"With the new law, [the relevant] companies will become public joint
stock companies and their structure will change... The executive and
operational work of buying the building and the equipment, as well as
the software, for the oil exchange is in progress... Iran's oil
exchange is authorized to present all kinds of main and special oil
derivatives and petrochemical products, Iranian crude oil, Central
Asian swap-based crude oil and any kind of regional crude oil. It also
has the possibility of dealing with other exchanges in the world via
domestic and foreign joint agencies." As to the estimated financial
turnover, Asemipur said: "The maximum financial turnover in the oil
exchange - based on the National [Iranian] Oil Company's total revenue
of 60bn dollars last year and the 20bn dollars from the sale of
petrochemical products over the next 10 years, and assuming a minimum
trading of 10 times - will exceed 800bn dollars per year which will
play a fundamental role in the growth of the gross domestic product."
"First phase"
Early in 2006, the Majlis began showing an interest in the oil exchange
project. Majlis Deputy Hoseyn Afarideh told ISNA on 17 January that the
oil exchange had been discussed at a meeting of the Majlis Energy
Committee, adding: "At the meeting, Dr Asemipur, the executor of the
oil exchange project, and Salehabadi, secretary-general of the
country's stock exchange, spoke about the different stages and the
progress of the oil exchange; then, the Energy Committee underlined
that the oil exchange has to be different from the commodities, stocks
and agricultural exchanges, because, unlike these other three
exchanges, where the stock holders are mainly nationals, in an oil
exchange, the investors are mainly foreign investors. Hence, the
structure has to be defined in a way in which it is not limited to
Iran's 2.5m barrels of oil but should bring the oil of the regional
countries into the exchange and to present up to a ceiling of 25m
barrels."
Also on 17 January, Jam-e Jam newspaper quoted Kamal Daneshyar, the
chairman of the Majlis Energy Committee, as saying: "At meetings held
with Oil Ministry officials, it was decided that the first phase of the
oil exchange will become operational within three months. In the first
phase, the oil exchange will operate on a short-term basis, but, in the
second phase, the exchange will become international and its activities
will become very extensive... Oil products will be traded in the
exchange and gradually the range of products will increase... The aim
is for the exchange's activities to begin with Iran and neighbouring
countries and to become more extensive gradually." In the same report,
Jam-e Jam quoted Asemipur as saying: "Bringing in Iraq's oil, as well
as Central Asian oil, is one of the main aims of commissioning the oil
exchange."
Denomination
Some of the domestic and foreign reports about the Iranian oil exchange
have assumed that the exchange will be euro-based and have suggested
that this poses a threat to "the hegemony of the dollar" and is causing
the US Administration much consternation. But none of the official
Iranian reports have mentioned anything in this connection apart from
the 14 November 2005 Sharq report noted above in which Asemipur says
that no decision had been made about the denomination yet.
A blog especially dedicated to the subject of the oil exchange (oil
bourse) (http://oilbourse.blogfa.com/) was active in summer 2005 and
posted several English-language interviews with Asemipur and Hoseyn
Talebi, director of management information systems of the National
Iranian Oil Company and member of specialized and technical committee
of the oil exchange. In one interview, Talebi said among other things:
"In addition to physical transactions, paper deals will be carried out.
Another method is optional transactions which are used to offset the
risk from severe change in purchased oil price. In Iran, we are
deprived of revenues resulting from future and optional deals and most
of them are done in other counties; for example, IPE in England or
NYMEX in the United States or even SIMEX in Singapore. This is
important both economically and strategically because those markets
will attract customers and we, as a major player in the region, will
lose benefits. Therefore, establishment of oil bourse is a national
necessity... [The] founders of Iran's oil bourse have been determined
which include the National Iranian Oil Company (20 per cent), the
National Petrochemical Company (25 per cent), National Iranian Oil
Refining and Distribution Company (20 per cent), Iran Oil Industry
Pension and Deposit Fund (5 per cent), Tehran Stock Exchange (10 per
cent), Kish Free Zone Organization (10 per cent) as well as Mostazafan
and Janbazan Foundation (10 per cent). The founders have established a
company in Kish Island and that company will take care of inaugurating
the bourse including installation of needed software and hardware,
creating legal banners, and other needed measures. Dr Asemipur is still
in charge of the plan while agents will be chosen by the company
through signing contract with companies or consortiums that would be
qualified... It is a national must to launch the bourse as soon as
possible. On the other hand, needed legal and technological
infrastructures, in addition to agents, regulations and adapting to
religious norms should be done. This will take time. Oil products are
much diversified and so will be transactions at oil bourse. We can
begin with physical transactions on some products including pitch and
sulphur to gain needed experience. Then we can introduce other
products. As agency, banking, insurance and legal issues are
harmonized, we can, by and by, diversify transactions. "
Source: Iranian briefing material from BBC Monitoring in English 28 Feb
06
===========================================================
4- OIL CHANGE Will euros replace the greenback as the world's petro
currency?
by Franck Perrin
Canadian Business, Dec 26 2005, Vol. 79 Issue 1, p43, 4p
Contents
ECONOMICS 101
THE PETRODOLLAR
THE EXPORTERS
THE IMPORTERS
A DOLLAR-EURO BLEND?
CONCLUSION
Despite the current slowdown, oil prices have been rising steadily over
the past year. Will they continue to climb, stay the same or decrease?
We, as consumers of fuel, want to know, given our dependency on oil for
heating, electricity generation, manufacturing and industrial needs. We
also want to make wise transportation decisions in terms of the best
vehicle to buy or lease. As investors, we need to understand the
financial implications so that we can position our future investments
accordingly. The bad news for consumers and the good news for investors
is: Do not expect oil prices to fall significantly in the near future.
There are global economic and financial reasons for the oil price
frenzy to continue.
ECONOMICS 101
Remember the oil crisis of 1973? The Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo and we had to accept it.
Supply was manipulated for political goals, and everything was paid for
in U.S. dollars, the only choice. The result was galloping inflation,
massive unemployment, and for every country except the United States,
the necessity of maintaining huge amounts of U.S. dollars as reserves
to pay oil bills. These reserves became immobilized capital that
hindered economic growth. The U.S. dollar became the de facto
international energy currency--the "petrodollar"--and became the only
viable currency to hold as a foreign reserve. By the mid-'80s, oil
prices began to decline significantly, yet the United States continued
to enjoy currency supremacy.
The question that many ask is whether we will have an oil crisis
followed by an oil price decline. Again, do not expect that to occur,
for today's economic and monetary environment is quite different. More
specifically, there are two factors fundamentally affecting oil prices:
current supply-demand conditions for oil, and new currency
developments.
Nowadays, the price of oil is more a function of supply-demand factors,
together with the usual dose of oil company profit objectives and
government tax grabs. Oil prices are no longer determined by political
motivations to the extent they were back in 1973. In fact, in the past
10 years in particular, OPEC has simultaneously reduced oil prices and
increased production when it felt that the global economy was at risk
from high oil prices.
Since the last major recession of 1990-91, however, the global economy
has risen quickly, with increasing demand for oil, particularly from
fast-developing Asian economies. At the same time, most large oil
companies have put oil exploration in OPEC areas on the back burner,
owing to exploration costs and political risk considerations.
Furthermore, oil production in Iraq, the world's second-largest
producer pre-Desert Storm, was virtually halted for a period of nearly
10 years due to the highly restrictive UN-imposed oil-for-food
exchange. As a result, it was just a matter of time before growing
demand and shorter supply would push oil prices up again.
Although oil companies are in exploration mode again across the globe,
there is no sign that the supply-demand pattern will be altered in the
short or medium term. It will take a few years for new oilfields to be
operational and for Iraq to produce oil at full capacity. In addition,
the impact of fuel-cell technologies and hybrid car engines is still
far from being felt at the pump. Should a civil war erupt in Iraq
(assuming the departure of U.S. forces) for ethnic or religious reasons
or for oil control, world supply will be further affected. Oil prices
do not have inelastic properties: they will respond positively or
negatively to changes in demand and supply.
Another strong factor in the supply-demand pattern for oil is the
burgeoning needs of China. With an economy growing by 8% to 9% a year,
a population of 1.3 billion and a flourishing car industry, China's
need for oil will continue unabated. Recent Chinese attempts and
successes to take over foreign oil companies indicate that the
awakening giant is oil hungry. That reality will maintain upward
pressure on oil prices for some time. The same also applies to other
fast-developing Asian economies, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and
another oil-hungry giant yet to come, India.
Therefore, from a pure supply-demand perspective, oil prices are bound
to stay high in the medium term. In addition, from a currency
perspective, the rise of the euro has begun to challenge the supremacy
of the dollar, which will have an upside effect on oil prices.
Ironically, this challenge is not happening from oil considerations
alone but from changes in global trade, particularly in Asia. Before
addressing the currency issue, however, it is essential to examine the
global position of the U.S. dollar.
THE PETRODOLLAR
Since 1975, the United States has officially benefited from the global
use of petrodollars, owing to the fact that oil-importing countries
must pay for oil in dollars. Oil exporters invest the dollars received
in large amounts of U.S. securities in order to avoid currency
fluctuation risks. Oil importers also have to buy dollars and U.S.
treasuries in huge amounts to be able to pay their oil bills. This
global demand for dollars has helped the United States not only to keep
its currency strong, but also to allow American consumers to import
goods for less than would otherwise be possible. Moreover, it has
allowed each U.S. administration to borrow massively abroad to sustain
larger and larger trade deficits. This situation has kept U.S.
inflation down but has created a fiscal Leviathan. The current "dollar
arrangement," however, is eroding with the growing power of the euro in
international finance.
THE EXPORTERS
What about oil-exporting countries? After all, it is mostly they who,
over the past decades, have ultimately determined the rise and fall of
currencies. Will they dethrone the petrodollar and crown a petroeuro?
If so, what will happen to prices?
Some oil exporters have already begun the switch to euros. For example,
Venezuela is in the process of liquidating its last U.S. treasuries and
dollar reserves and has bought euro-denominated treasuries and euros
instead. Of course, Venezuelan President Hugo ChÁvez is doing so
partly as an anti-Bush stance, but the effect is still the same on
capital markets. Back in 2000, in articles published on the rise of the
euro in the Canadian Investment Review and Avantages, I predicted that
Iraq would take the opportunity to switch to payments in euros, again
as a stance against America. In November 2000, Saddam did just that.
Now, the U.S. military is in Iraq and the small oil flow coming out of
that country is paid in dollars in order to preserve the
oil-for-dollars arrangement and to allow American firms doing business
there to be paid for their services. When and if the Americans leave,
will an independent Iraq keep selling oil to the U.S. at a
discount--that is, for dollars? Very unlikely, for other major
suppliers are setting the euro trend.
Iran and Russia are building euro reserves with European gas and oil
clients. Since they began taking payments in euros over the past two
years, both countries have made more than 20% in currency gains alone.
With respect to Iran, its government is nervous with the U.S. military
at its doorstep, exercising influence in the region. Iran may thus wish
to weaken the United States position any way it can, including through
a weakening of the petrodollar. Economically, it makes sense for Iran
to switch gradually to euros. France, Germany and the Netherlands are
already Iran's main trading partners. In addition, many European firms
are currently undertaking gas and oil exploration there.
Russia is slowly introducing the euro for purely economic reasons.
Western Europe gets most of its energy from there, and the EU has been
pushing Russia to switch from the dollar to the euro as the standard of
exchange for purchasing its oil and gas exports. Eastern European
states that are in the EU or are applying for membership will also
adopt the euro soon.
Of course, the wild cards are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Saudi Arabia had approximately US$200 billion in
reserves before the 1991 Gulf War. However, the combination of a
US$36-billion war contribution to the U.S. effort at the time (mostly
by Saudi Arabia, but also by some of the other Gulf States) and other
disastrous Saudi economic policies in the 1990s, led the country to a
huge budgetary deficit. As a result, Saudi Arabia's U.S. dollar
reserves have dwindled, given that a substantial portion of its budget
goes to servicing its debt. However, Saudi Arabia stands firm behind
the dollar because of its political relations with the U.S., which
guarantees the survival of its current regime.
Kuwait also stands firm behind the dollar because of its special
relationship with the U.S. Although the U.S. dollar reserves of Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not very large, their
strict adherence to the petrodollar is of great political significance.
Saudi Arabia's influence within OPEC--as the world's largest oil
exporter--is substantial, and every OPEC member watches what Saudi
officials say and do. Nevertheless, pressure is mounting from within
OPEC (particularly from Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela), and it is only a
matter of time before Arab oil producers consider euros seriously.
The economic arguments for OPEC's conversion to the euro are very
strong. The euro-area's trade deficit is minimal, and euro members are
not heavily indebted to the rest of the world like the U.S. Interest
rate differentials may be in favour of the U.S. at the moment, but that
will change when the European Central Bank raises rates. Also, the
euro-area has a larger share of world trade than the U.S. and is the
Middle East's main trading partner. If OPEC were to convert its dollar
assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in euros, those
assets would immediately increase in value, since oil-importing
countries would also be forced to convert a portion of their assets to
euros, thereby driving oil prices up. For OPEC, supporting the euro
could bring huge profits, through currency appreciation, currency and
bond trading, and, above all, higher oil prices, for at least a period
of time.
Assuming that Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait were to switch to euros,
the entire global oil industry would become temporarily unprofitable
due to transaction and cost adjustments for both oil exporting
countries and oil companies. That would also exert upward pressure on
oil prices.
THE IMPORTERS
Let us look at two major oil consumers, China and Japan, which also
happen to be the largest holders of dollar assets, both in currency and
treasuries. It is common knowledge that America's annual budget deficit
of more than US$400 billion is largely funded by Asian purchases of
U.S. government bonds, mostly from China and Japan.
China has already substantially reduced its reliance on the dollar. For
example, its dollar currency holdings alone may have dropped from 83%
of its total foreign reserves in 2001 to as low as 60% now. That
process began in 2002, when China sold large amounts of U.S. government
bonds, shifting much of its reserves to euros, Australian dollars and
Canadian dollars. Other Asian countries, such as India, Thailand,
Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines, have also started a sell-off,
despite a diplomatic show of solidarity for the dollar that was
carefully designed to prevent a crisis of confidence in exchange
systems. Ask any global bond and currency trader and they will tell you
that it is quite unlikely that much of this outflow will ever return to
U.S. dollars. Without a doubt, the growing economic interdependence
within Asian countries and the widening presence of China's trading
conglomerates are slowly but surely transforming traditional global
trade market structures.
Furthermore, China has recently ended its currency peg to the dollar.
Although largely symbolic, it nonetheless indicates that China does not
wish to keep accumulating foreign reserves in U.S. dollars (it has,
together with Hong Kong, more than US$800 billion, both in currency and
treasuries, and over US$1 trillion, if we include Taiwan), which will
clearly depreciate in value over time.
Japan is by far the largest foreign holder of U.S. treasuries--it has
nearly US$700 billion. This compares with more than US$300 billion in
treasuries held by China and Hong Kong. Japan will therefore play a
critical part in any changes to the world's currency system. Of course,
because of its close relations with the U.S., Japan has much more to
lose from the demise of the dollar than China. As long as deflation
continued to be a major economic concern in Japan, supporting the
dollar was of paramount importance. With clear signs, however, of an
end to deflationary pressure in Japan, strong domestic economic
recovery there, and a diminishing dependence on exports for growth, the
imperative to support the dollar is eroding.
In addition, it is conventional knowledge that China, and Japan to a
lesser extent, are now increasing their exports to countries outside of
the United States, especially to Europe and the Middle East, but mostly
to other Asian economies. The dependence on American purchasing power
will therefore diminish over time.
On the other hand, the ability of China and Japan to sell off large
amounts of U.S. treasuries and dollars is not a riskless task. By
selling paper assets in large volumes, their value will decrease as
both bond and currency traders and arbitragers go in for the kill. Many
economists agree that a large sell-off of U.S. currency and treasuries
would exert significant downside pressure on the U.S. dollar. If the
U.S. dollar were to decline by more than 10% over a short period, there
would be panic in both capital and oil markets. Although China and
Japan are in too deep to exit rapidly--as to do so would invite huge
exchange losses--global events may precipitate a sell-off.
Should OPEC make an official, even gradual, shift toward the euro, the
sell-off will accelerate, further precipitating the dollar's fall and
increasing demand for euros. Other U.S. debt holders would have to sell
their U.S. treasury holdings and bid for euro-denominated short-term
fixed income instruments, while trading a rapidly devaluating U.S.
currency against euros, pounds and even Chinese yuans (seen as a
potential regional substitute in the future). Non-euro members would
have to trade a devaluating currency for a stronger one, leading to
large asset losses. As a result, the euro would increase substantially,
panic would hit capital and oil markets, and the price of oil would
spike.
Expect China and Japan, therefore, to remove their support of the
dollar over time, regardless of whether OPEC's currency policy changes
or not. That decision will gradually impact the dollar value, but, more
importantly, will affect global confidence in the dollar. Loss of
confidence in a currency that is the centre of oil (about 80% of
transactions) and global trade (about 50%) will bring uncertainty in
capital and commodity markets. And uncertainty will not help push oil
prices down. Quite the contrary.
A DOLLAR-EURO BLEND?
Some economists have spoken of a dual oil currency: a dollar-euro blend
by which oil and other commodity transactions could be settled. We said
earlier that if Arab countries made the switch to euros, the global oil
industry would become temporarily less profitable. With a dollar-euro
blend, the industry would still be in the same situation. To be
profitable, the oil industry must have a deep and liquid market in
which to conduct its global transactions. The use of one currency is
practical, as it solidifies the market, equalizes prices worldwide, and
allows for effective transparency in terms of costs and profits. With a
two-currency blend, the market would be fractured, substantially
increasing transaction costs. The overall effect would be to push oil
prices up. It is therefore doubtful that a dollar-euro blend will ever
be used by either OPEC or oil firms.
CONCLUSION
In the meantime, we need oil, and the U.S. dollar is cheaper than the
euro. And you think oil is expensive? When the oil currency becomes the
petroeuro--and the trend is underway--the U.S. dollar will decline
further, and there will be a major confidence crisis in exchange
systems with the potential upheaval of capital markets. If we move to a
temporary dollar-euro blend, there will be a period of uncertainty with
regard to currency adjustments. In both scenarios, the price of oil
will increase. Add China's hunger for oil and Japan's eroding support
to the dollar, and oil prices will edge up further. What are the
alternatives then?
As oil consumers, we have no choice but to pay the price asked, as we
need oil for transportation, heating, electricity generation and
industry. As investors, we can protect ourselves by hedging our oil
costs through investing in oil-related securities at least for the near
future--and also by buying euro-denominated fixed income securities or
euros with Canadian dollars.
PHOTO (COLOR): A sold-out U.S. gas station in 1973
PHOTO (COLOR): Iraqis queue for kerosene in 2004
PHOTO (COLOR): OPEC Conference president Sheikh Ahmad Fahad Al-Ahmad
Al-Sabah of Kuwait
PHOTO (COLOR): George W. Bush with then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in
April
PHOTO (COLOR): petrol station in China's Guangdong province
PHOTO (COLOR): China National Petroleum Corp.'s Liaohe oilfield
Franck Perrin is a Toronto-based asset management consultant,
specializing in global investments. He can be visited on his website
(franckperrin.com) or e-mailed at consu...@franckperrin.com.
===========================================
5- The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
By Dr. Elias Akleh *
Arabic Media Internet Network March 19, 2005
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2005/mar/mar191.htm
Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear
projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as
the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape
the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a
petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant
declaration of economical war against the US that would flatten the
revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an
economic collapse.
In June of 2004 Iran declared its intention of setting up an
international oil exchange (a bourse) denominated in the Euro currency.
Many oil-producing as well as oil-consuming countries had expressed
their welcome to such petroeuro bourse. The Iranian reports had stated
that this bourse may start its trade with the beginning of 2006.
Naturally such an oil bourse would compete against London's
International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as against the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by American corporations.
Oil consuming countries have no choice but use the American Dollar to
purchase their oil, since the Dollar has been so far the global
standard monetary fund for oil exchange. This necessitates these
countries to keep the Dollar in their central banks as their reserve
fund, thus strengthening the American economy. But if Iran - followed
by the other oil-producing countries - offered to accept the Euro as
another choice for oil exchange the American economy would suffer a
real crisis. We could witness this crisis at the end of 2005 and
beginning of 2006 when oil investors would have the choice to pay $57 a
barrel of oil at the American (NYMEX) and at London's (IPE), or pay
37 Euros a barrel at the Iranian oil bourse. Such choice would reduce
trade volumes at both the Dollar-dependent (NYMEX) and the (IPE).
Many countries had studied the conversion from the ever weakening
petrodollar to the gradually strengthening petroeuro system. The
de-valuation of the Dollar was caused by the American economy shying
away from manufacturing local products - except those of the military
-, by outsourcing the American jobs to the cheaper third world
countries and depending only on the general service sector, and by the
huge cost of two major wars that are still going on. Foreign investors
started withdrawing their money from the shaky American market causing
further devaluation of the Dollar.
The keen observer of the money market could have noticed that the
devaluation of the American Dollar had started since November 2002,
while the purchasing power of European Euro had crept upward to reach
nowadays to $1.34. Compared to the Japanese Yen the Dollar had dropped
from 104.45 to 103.90 yen. The British pound climbed another notch from
$1.9122 to $1.9272.
Economic reports published at the beginning of this month (March) had
pointed towards the deep dive of the American economy and to the quick
rise of the deficit up to $665.90 billion at the end of 2004. The worst
is still to come. These numbers worried the international banks, who
had sent some warnings to the Bush administration.
In its economical war Iran is treading the same path Saddam Hussein had
started when he, in 2000, converted all his reserve from the Dollar to
the Euro, and demanded payments in Euro for Iraqi oil. Many economists
then mocked Saddam because he had lost a lot of money in this
conversion. Yet they were very surprised when he recuperated his losses
within less than a year period due to the valuation of the Euro. The
American administration became aware of the threat when central banks
of many countries started keeping Euros along side of Dollars as their
monetary reserve and as an exchange fund for oil (Russian and Chinese
central banks in 2003). To avoid economical collapse the Bush
administration hastened to invade and to destroy Iraq under false
excuses to make it an example to any country who may contemplate
dropping the Dollar, and to manipulate OPEC's decisions by
controlling the second largest oil resource. Iraqi oil sale was
reverted back to the petrodollar standard.
There is only one technical obstacle concerning the use of a euro-based
oil exchange system, which is the lack of a euro-denominated oil
pricing standard, or oil 'marker' as it is referred to in the
industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated,
which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent
crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. Yet this did not stop Iran from
requiring payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian oil
exports since spring 2003.
Iran's determination in using the petroeuro is inviting in other
countries such as Russia and Latin American countries, and even some
Saudi investors especially after the Saudi/American relations have
weakened lately. This determination had also invited an aggressive
American political campaign using the same excuses used against Iraq:
WMD in the form of nuclear bomb, support to "terrorist" Lebanese
Hezbollah organization, and threat to the peace process in the Middle
East.
The question now is what would the American administration do? Would it
invade Iran as it did Iraq? The American troops are knee-deep in the
Iraqi swamp. The global community - except for Britain and Italy- is
not offering any military relief to the US. Thus an American strike
against Iran is very unlikely. Iran is not Iraq; it has a more robust
military power. Iran has anti-ship missiles based in "Abu Mousa"
island that controls the strait of Hermuz at the entrance of the
Persian Gulf. Iran could easily close the strait thus blocking all
naval traffic carrying gulf oil to the rest of the world causing a
global oil crisis. The price of an oil barrel could reach up to $100.
The US could not topple the regime by spreading chaos the same way it
did to Mussadaq's regime in 1953 since Iranians are aware of such a
trick. Besides Iranians have a patriotic pride of what they call
"their bomb".
America has resorted to instigate and encourage its military bastard,
Israel, to strike Iranian nuclear reactors the way it did to Iraq.
Leaked reports had revealed that Israeli forces are training for such
an attack expected to take place next June. Israel is afraid of an
Iranian bomb. Such an "Islamic" bomb would threaten Israel's
military hegemony in the Middle East. The bomb would extract some
Israeli concessions and would create an arm race that would gobble a
lot of Israeli defense expenditure. Further more the bomb would force
the US to enter into negotiations with nuclear Iran that may limit
Israeli expanding ambitions.
Iran had invested a lot of money and effort to obtain nuclear
technology and would never abandon it as evident in its political
rhetoric. Unlike Iraq Iran would not keep quiet of Israel strikes its
nuclear facilities. Iran would retaliate aggressively which may lead to
the destabilization of the whole region including Israel, Gulf States,
Iraq, and even Afghanistan.
*Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent, born in
the town of Beit-Jala and lives in the US.
© 2005 Arabic Media Internet Network - Internews Middle East
Roman Werpachowski
Roman Werpachowski
Kristoff Bonne
Added crosspost to europa.union.euro
thelasian schreef:
> REAL REASON why Bush administration is demonizing Iran: five articles
> to read.
> 1-Petroprovocation: when Iran dumps petrodollars next year
> 2- Iran planning to launch an oil exchange in Tehran
> 3- Iran's plans for an oil exchange
> 4- OIL CHANGE Will euros replace the greenback as the world's petro
> currency?
> 5- The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
(...)
Interesting reading althou I don't don't think it will all go that fast
and oil will be selling in euros that quick.
On one side, it's a bit strange to have oild sold in dollars, while the
amount of oil from the middle-east sold to Asia (Japan and China) is
AFAIK now much greater then to the US.
But then why switch to another currency -except to annoy the US ofcourse-?
Wouldn't it be more logical to simply create a completely new currency
for this.
Say that you create a new currency for this new oil exchange; let's call
it the "petro".
We make this new currency a "basket currency", i.e. a currency which
value is calculated on the value of a basket of other currencies. Let's
take the 4 currencies which represent the four countries/regions which
buy most of the oil from the middle east: dollar, euro, yen and yuan.
The weigth of the different values can be re-evaluated every x. months
(e.g.) based on the actual ammount of oil you buy via the Teheran oil
Exchange. Say China buys more oil, the weigth of the yuan in the
calculation of the petro. Europe buys more oil -> the weight of the euro
sizes in the price-setting of the currency.
This would have the advantage that the value of the petro would be less
dependent on economic, fiscal or other policies of one particular
country; and -therefor- also this would also apply for oil sold in petros.
Another question:
Say that the hypothesis in one of these articles would become reality
and the euro would become the major currency for oil. I wonder what
would be the effect on the euro and on the European currencies would be.
What would be the effect on the European economy of this. Say that the
rize of demand of China into oil from the middle east would increase
(and therefor the value) of euros. Would this be a good thing? This
would also affect exports from companies in the eurozone, I guess?
What is the size of the worldwide oil market? And what is the size of
the total industry of the eurozone?
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
domi --d
> the "petro".
>
wasn't irak selleing in euros , before ?
--
OLERON !!
www.bleudune.com
thelasian
is Patrick Clawon who is a researcher at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, which was founded through AIPAC (American Israel
Public Affairs Committee) -- a pro-Israeli pressure group that is
highly active in demonizing Iran.
Even the Washington Post reported on how WINEP was founded and
initially housed in AIPAC offices.
thelasian
to Gary Milhollin's Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. He was
quite active in claiming that the IAEA's "failure" to find WMDs in Iraq
was proof that the IAEA was "irrelevant" - see his article entitled
"Hans the Timid" (reference to Hans Blix, Director of the IAEA)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/hanstimid.htm
Now, considering this site's dishonesty regarding Iraq, how honest do
you think they are on Iran?
Roman Werpachowski
that the number of executions being carried out in Iran has risen
dramatically since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last
year."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765962.stm
This may mean two things:
1. crime is rising in Iran, or
2. Ahmadinejad is tightening the screw.
Roman Werpachowski
Don't know about dishonesty, but they don't know their facts:
"For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly enriched
uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25 kilograms that the
IAEA officially said was enough to make an atomic bomb. Iraq had
imported the uranium from Russia and France as reactor fuel, but it
would work in a bomb just as well."
1. Who ever said there was a threshold of 25 kg of uranium to make a
bomb?
2. Reactor fuel is not fit to make an atomic bomb.
Roman Werpachowski
left.
thelasian
Ahmadinejad is not in charge of the judiciary.
thelasian
who support their nuclear program -- who cares what the US or Israel
or Germany think? They're just murderers who armed Saddam Hussien with
chemical weapons - and the people of Iran know that too.
thelasian
J.M.
When the first bombs fall, they will care :-P
Roman Werpachowski
Ah, so there IS an Iranian program to build nuclear weapons?
Roman Werpachowski
I don't think he's in charge of anything. Have you seen a rock concert?
The frontman sings to the rhytm given by the guys with the drums and
bass guitars in the back. He's the frontman.
Don't insult me by trying to convince me that Iran has independent
judiciary.
Roman Werpachowski
rosignol
Kristoff Bonne <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
>
> Added crosspost to europa.union.euro
>
>
>
> thelasian schreef:
> > REAL REASON why Bush administration is demonizing Iran: five articles
> > to read.
>
> > 1-Petroprovocation: when Iran dumps petrodollars next year
> > 2- Iran planning to launch an oil exchange in Tehran
> > 3- Iran's plans for an oil exchange
> > 4- OIL CHANGE Will euros replace the greenback as the world's petro
> > currency?
> > 5- The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?
> (...)
>
>
> Interesting reading althou I don't don't think it will all go that fast
> and oil will be selling in euros that quick.
Pffft.
This is recycled conspiracy-theory crap.
The simple fact is that the fraction of the international currency
trading that is related to oil is not a particularly large fraction of
all international currency trading.
> On one side, it's a bit strange to have oild sold in dollars, while the
> amount of oil from the middle-east sold to Asia (Japan and China) is
> AFAIK now much greater then to the US.
Prior to the discovery of oil in the middle east, the US was a major oil
exporter, and (this shouldn't surprise anyone) US oil companies
generally set prices in US dollars. This became the standard pretty much
by default (Airbus does the same thing with aircraft).
> But then why switch to another currency -except to annoy the US ofcourse-?
> Wouldn't it be more logical to simply create a completely new currency
> for this.
Not really. A currency's usefulness depends on what you can buy with it.
Almost anyone on this planet will accept US Dollars as payment for what
they want to sell- they might not be willing to take Chinese Yuan (would
you know one if you saw it?), Saudi riyal, or Brazillian real.
[zap]
> Another question:
> Say that the hypothesis in one of these articles would become reality
> and the euro would become the major currency for oil. I wonder what
> would be the effect on the euro and on the European currencies would be.
Not much, IMO. As I mentioned earlier, oil-related currency exchanges
are a small fraction of all currency exchanges- it wouldn't matter
unless there was a scarcity of Euros (in which case the value of the
Euro would go through the roof, and european-produced goods would become
uncompetitive compared to goods produced elsewhere. This would result in
an implosion of european exports....
> What would be the effect on the European economy of this. Say that the
> rize of demand of China into oil from the middle east would increase
> (and therefor the value) of euros. Would this be a good thing? This
> would also affect exports from companies in the eurozone, I guess?
Yes.
Of the various dicksize wars that people can have with each other, "My
currency has a bigger number than your currency" ones are among the
stupidest.... but idiot reporters keep describing fluctuations in
exchange rates as 'strengthening' and 'weakening', which leads people to
think that changes in one direction is good and changes in the other
direction is bad.
> What is the size of the worldwide oil market? And what is the size of
> the total industry of the eurozone?
IIRC, European GNP (or whatever measure they're using these days) is
roughly 11 trillion USD.
OPEC's total revenues in 2005 are estimated at around 500B, and it's
thought to have roughly 40% of the global oil market. That would suggest
that the worldwide oil market is around 1.2 trillion USD.
--
al Qaeda delenda est
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
[zap]
> Don't know about dishonesty, but they don't know their facts:
>
> "For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly enriched
> uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25 kilograms that the
> IAEA officially said was enough to make an atomic bomb. Iraq had
> imported the uranium from Russia and France as reactor fuel, but it
> would work in a bomb just as well."
>
> 1. Who ever said there was a threshold of 25 kg of uranium to make a
> bomb?
> 2. Reactor fuel is not fit to make an atomic bomb.
Depends on the reactor.
Part of the problem of disposing of reactor fuel is that some of the
uranium will be converted to plutonium as the fuel is used. Plutonium is
chemically different from Uranium, which makes it a lot easier to
separate than Uranium isotopes that have an atomic weight of 235 vs
Uranium isotopes with an atomic weight of 238.
J.M.
Additionally, some nuclear reactors run with plutonium - so extracting
plutonium can either mean you want to build weapons or just use it in such
a reactor. Germany has one such reactor for research purposes at Garching.
That was actually quite a controversy when that was built about 10 years
ago -- the US protested quite loudly (but we ignored them ;-))
Jan
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
...and the chemicals came from Germany, not the US.
thelasian
Only in your fevered imagination. Iran has had a nuclear program for
civilian power generation since the 1970s, which the US and European
states at the time encouraged and supported.
thelasian
Save your asses in Iraq first, then threaten another war.
thelasian
But the financing and other materials and the intelligence and
political support of Saddam came from the US. Read Howard Teicher's
affidavit.
Roman Werpachowski
Iran shows no will of compromise.
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4798340.stm
>
> Iran shows no will of compromise.
[shrug]
Oh, well.
Roman Werpachowski
effortlessly (in military and diplomatic terms as well).
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well it IS a problem. It's not like the US can fight another war
> effortlessly (in military and diplomatic terms as well).
Nobody fights wars effortlessly.
What is most likely to happen, IMO, is waiting for diplomacy to utterly
fail, and then a massive air raid (possibly more than one)* intended to
slow down the Iranian program until Iraq can take care of itself (a year
or two, I think). Then the US troops in Iraq move east.
*It won't happen until after November, I think. People in the US are
figuring out what's coming, and the Congressional election will probably
be a de facto referendum on how Iran should be dealt with.
Roman Werpachowski
rosignol wrote:
> In article <1142605252.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well it IS a problem. It's not like the US can fight another war
> > effortlessly (in military and diplomatic terms as well).
>
>
> Nobody fights wars effortlessly.
>
> What is most likely to happen, IMO, is waiting for diplomacy to utterly
> fail, and then a massive air raid (possibly more than one)* intended to
> slow down the Iranian program until Iraq can take care of itself (a year
> or two, I think).
Hm. Only a year or two?
> Then the US troops in Iraq move east.
Then Bush's presidency almost ends. Will the next president carry on
his policy? What if Hillary Clinton wins?
I think it's either now -- this year or next -- or not until the US has
a new president.
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rosignol wrote:
> > In article <1142605252.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well it IS a problem. It's not like the US can fight another war
> > > effortlessly (in military and diplomatic terms as well).
> >
> >
> > Nobody fights wars effortlessly.
> >
> > What is most likely to happen, IMO, is waiting for diplomacy to utterly
> > fail, and then a massive air raid (possibly more than one)* intended to
> > slow down the Iranian program until Iraq can take care of itself (a year
> > or two, I think).
>
> Hm. Only a year or two?
Yup.
One of the things I noticed in the aftermath of the golden mosque
bombing was how little US involvement there was in keeping things under
control. It looks like the Iraqis are pretty close to being able to take
care of themselves (at least, compared to where they were a year or two
ago).
Yes, they could have done better, but 2 years ago, they wouldn't have
been able to do it at all- keeping order would have been entirely
handled by US troops.
I think Bush is pretending the military in Iraq is less capable than it
is. If the Iranians are confident that the US does not have the
capability to deal with them because our forces are engaged in Iraq,
they are far more likely to go beyond what the international community
is willing to tolerate. That means that when the time to act does come,
the US will have far more international support than if the US takes an
openly aggressive stance and the Iranians moderate their behavior.
"All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable of
attacking, feign incapacity; when active in moving troops, feign
inactivity. When near the enemy, make it seem that you are far away;
when far away, make it seem that you are near. Hold out baits to lure
the enemy. Strike the enemy when he is in disorder. Prepare against the
enemy when he is secure at all points. Avoid the enemy for the time
being when he is stronger. If your opponent is of choleric temper, try
to irritate him. If he is arrogant, try to encourage his egotism. If the
enemy troops are well prepared after reorganization, try to wear them
down. If they are united, try to sow dissension among them. Attack the
enemy where he is unprepared, and appear where you are not expected.
These are the keys to victory for a strategist. It is not possible to
formulate them in detail beforehand."
-Sun Tzu
> > Then the US troops in Iraq move east.
>
> Then Bush's presidency almost ends. Will the next president carry on
> his policy? What if Hillary Clinton wins?
Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but perhaps I should point out that
the US's cold war policy of containing the Soviet Union was continued by
Presidents of both parties for almost half a century.
> I think it's either now -- this year or next -- or not until the US has
> a new president.
This year, perhaps, but not until after the elections in November (or
the Iranians do something really stupid that would compel Democrats to
support action).
Roman Werpachowski
Wait a moment. What is the real goal here: to make Iran drop its
nuclear programme, using force if necessary, or to go to war with them
no matter what? The policy you've outlined seems to suit the second
goal better than the first.
>
>
> > > Then the US troops in Iraq move east.
> >
> > Then Bush's presidency almost ends. Will the next president carry on
> > his policy? What if Hillary Clinton wins?
>
>
> Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but perhaps I should point out that
> the US's cold war policy of containing the Soviet Union was continued by
> Presidents of both parties for almost half a century.
I wouldn't compare the two situations.
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rosignol wrote:
[zap]
> Wait a moment. What is the real goal here: to make Iran drop its
> nuclear programme, using force if necessary, or to go to war with them
> no matter what? The policy you've outlined seems to suit the second
> goal better than the first.
The goal is to end Iran's nuclear program.
I am of the opinion that this cannot be accomplished without removing
the current government of Iran.
> > > > Then the US troops in Iraq move east.
> > >
> > > Then Bush's presidency almost ends. Will the next president carry on
> > > his policy? What if Hillary Clinton wins?
> >
> >
> > Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but perhaps I should point out that
> > the US's cold war policy of containing the Soviet Union was continued by
> > Presidents of both parties for almost half a century.
>
> I wouldn't compare the two situations.
You asked if the next president will carry on Bush's policy, I gave you
an example of a policy that had been carried on. Of course Iran is not
the Soviet Union, it was just the most prominent example of the sort of
situation you asked about.
Roman Werpachowski
> In article <1143045366....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > rosignol wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > Wait a moment. What is the real goal here: to make Iran drop its
> > nuclear programme, using force if necessary, or to go to war with them
> > no matter what? The policy you've outlined seems to suit the second
> > goal better than the first.
>
>
> The goal is to end Iran's nuclear program.
>
> I am of the opinion that this cannot be accomplished without removing
> the current government of Iran.
Really? Why?
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't trust them. I have no *reason* to trust them. And I have no
reason to think that people who refer to my country as "The Great Satan"
are going to negotiate in good faith, or have any intention of keeping
any agreement they make.
Roman Werpachowski
Then how come the US keeps treaties with China and Russia? I don't
trust Russia one bit, too.
I think that with sufficiently big stick, Iran can be made to comply.
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
The stick that works on Russia and China is a 3,000 warhead nuclear
arsenal. It works because the Russians and Chinese would prefer to live
in a world where the USA exists than to die. By the same standard,
people in the USA would rather live in a world that includes Russia and
China than not live at all.
Religious fanatics tend to have a somewhat different attitude towards
death, and I don't know if the danger of annihilation is enough to keep
them from doing something really, really stupid.
John W.
sure that is at all the truth. It is one of the freer Islamic
countries, in spite of the hyper-religious leaders. The truth is we do
not KNOW much about Iran. But, don't you think that if something does
happen in the world, Iran will be pelted with our nuclear arsenal? And
don't you think that is as obvious to them as it is to the rest of the
world? Why would they, then, do it? Because they are religious nuts? I
am not sure that is a good enough reason... Besides, it takes a lot
more than simply a nuclear program to develop an ICBM. You don't just
throw a few chemicals together, slap on some bubble gum and let it
fly... It is obvious that in order to curb this situation, the giant
a** running the American government (or let me pluralize that...) needs
to clam up and let the Russians, and the EU work this out. It is, after
all, their problem. The EU is the ground for the terrorist campaigns of
late.
And as for Russia... what about their nuclear threat? They actually DO
have ICBMs that could reach the states. You are right, the reason they
do not sell them to someone who would use them is because they are much
more interested in a living breathing US presence in the world. If we
gave Iran enough of an economic incentive, then they, too, would be
much more willing to have us in the world. This means, firstly, not
alienating them even farther through snivling name calling... After
all, it was the great president of the United States who first started
calling people names (remember the famous 'axis of evil'
oooohhhoooohhhooh (ghostly noises...)) Give me a break! Instead of
calling them names in a public forum, work with them in a private
forum. This redneck boy attitude has done nothing but bury the US in a
hole! Hopefully, once king Bush decends the thrown and once the
Republican majority has moved out to pasture (dreaming of their large,
corporate paychecks) then polity will take precedence again!
John W.
around this mindset for a bit too long...
John W.
politically when you alienate the quintessential neo-conservative,
Francis Fukuyama, penman of the thesis on 'the End of History'. Even he
has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that the
continual mindset of 'victory' is one that has abandoned all semblance
of rationality and reason.
Thomas Koenig
Fukuyama is switching sides. (A cause celebre in the Guardian and
Independent).
To me the situation is frighteningly obvious: The US (and some vassals)
went to war for all the wrong reasons (WMD and other fairytales) but
with unintended desirable consequences (toppling of the Saddam
dictatorship). The problem was not to go to war, but to have no plan or
even clue, what to do, once the war was won. And to spend no money on Iraq.
No absolution for Fukuyama from here.
Roman Werpachowski
> So you think every human being in Iran is a religious fanatic? I am not
> sure that is at all the truth. It is one of the freer Islamic
> countries, in spite of the hyper-religious leaders.
I don't know how exactly Iran compares to Syria or Libia. Frankly, I
don't care much. They're all countries where the general public has
little say about what their government is doing. Your argument is thus
rather irrelevant. People on the streets of Teheran may not support the
nuclear program, but the important thing is that those who call the
shots there do.
> The truth is we do
> not KNOW much about Iran. But, don't you think that if something does
> happen in the world, Iran will be pelted with our nuclear arsenal?
If Iran uses nuclear weapons against other country, the world will
probably respond in kind.
> And
> don't you think that is as obvious to them as it is to the rest of the
> world? Why would they, then, do it? Because they are religious nuts?
Being a religious nut may lead people to self-destruction, if it serves
to hurt the "Great Satan". 9/11 being a prime example.
> I
> am not sure that is a good enough reason... Besides, it takes a lot
> more than simply a nuclear program to develop an ICBM. You don't just
> throw a few chemicals together, slap on some bubble gum and let it
> fly...
Constructing a nuclear bomb was not a too difficult task for Pakistan.
Why should we think it would be too difficult for Iran? They have quite
a lot of highly educated scientists and engineers.
> It is obvious that in order to curb this situation, the giant
> a** running the American government (or let me pluralize that...) needs
> to clam up and let the Russians, and the EU work this out. It is, after
> all, their problem. The EU is the ground for the terrorist campaigns of
> late.
They won't be able to sort it out without having America as the
ultimate big stick.
>
> And as for Russia... what about their nuclear threat? They actually DO
> have ICBMs that could reach the states. You are right, the reason they
> do not sell them to someone who would use them is because they are much
> more interested in a living breathing US presence in the world.
Actually, they sell military technology to the bad guys. Just not
ICBMs.
> If we
> gave Iran enough of an economic incentive, then they, too, would be
> much more willing to have us in the world. This means, firstly, not
> alienating them even farther through snivling name calling... After
> all, it was the great president of the United States who first started
> calling people names (remember the famous 'axis of evil'
> oooohhhoooohhhooh (ghostly noises...)) Give me a break! Instead of
> calling them names in a public forum, work with them in a private
> forum. This redneck boy attitude has done nothing but bury the US in a
> hole! Hopefully, once king Bush decends the thrown and once the
> Republican majority has moved out to pasture (dreaming of their large,
> corporate paychecks) then polity will take precedence again!
Let's hope it will be on both sides. Iranian president does not
restrict his speech.
John W.
don't care much. They're all countries where the general public has
little say about what their government is doing. Your argument is thus
rather irrelevant. People on the streets of Teheran may not support the
nuclear program, but the important thing is that those who call the
shots there do."
>From http://countrystudies.us/iran/80.htm
"At the top of the government structure is the faqih, the ultimate
decision maker. The Constitution specifically names Khomeini as the
faqih for life and provides a mechanism for choosing his successors.
The role of the faqih has evolved into that of a policy guide and
arbitrator among competitive views. Below the faqih a distinct
separation of powers exists between the executive and legislative
branches. The executive branch includes an elected president, who
selects a prime minister and cabinet that must be approved by the
elected legislative assembly, the Majlis. The judiciary is independent
of both the executive and the Majlis.
"Until 1987 the government was dominated by a single political party,
the Islamic Republican Party (IRP). Other political parties were
permitted as long as they accepted the Constitution and the basic
principles of velayat-e faqih. In practice, however, few other
political parties have been permitted to operate legally since 1981.
Most of the political parties that were formed in the immediate
aftermath of the Revolution have disbanded, gone underground, or
continued to operate in exile.
"The Constitution stipulates that the government of the Republic
derives its legitimacy from both God and the people. It is a theocracy
in the sense that the rulers claim that they govern the Muslim people
of Iran as the representatives of the divine being and the saintly
Twelve Shia Imams. The people have the right to choose their own
leaders, however, from among those who have demonstrated both religious
expertise and moral rectitude. At the national level this is
accomplished through parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled
at four-year intervals. All citizens who have attained sixteen years of
age are eligible to vote in these elections. There are also local
elections for a variety of urban and rural positions."
The argument is not irrelevant. The people of any country have a 'say'
in what their government does. They pay with their lives. They also pay
with their pocketbooks, the best way of pinching anyone in this world.
"Being a religious nut may lead people to self-destruction, if it
serves
to hurt the "Great Satan". 9/11 being a prime example."
People, yes, individuals, yes. But when has this driven a modern
country's international relations? It is clear that one can argue that
a single individual or a small group of individuals can and will behave
in a manner that is irrational. After all, Timothy McVeigh certainly
did. So did Charles Manson. Both of them convinced people to support
them, as well. But neither convinced an entire country to go to war.
The only reason the US government was allowed to go to war was because
they set up the straw man of WMD. Thus, if the government of Iran feels
that the US is threatening them, then they will have more and more
fodder for a call to mobilization. It would be a massacre, but they
would die believing that they are defending their homeland. Thus the
more this dialogue devolves into cro-magnon shouting and fist shaking,
the closer we come to war.
"Constructing a nuclear bomb was not a too difficult task for Pakistan.
Why should we think it would be too difficult for Iran? They have quite
a lot of highly educated scientists and engineers. "
A nuclear bomb is NOT a nuclear missile. A nuclear bomb is massive,
cumbersome and needs some form of delivery. In spite of what the
fearmongers in the states believe, you cannot really pop it in the post
and mail it to its destination. Thus Iran will need to build a missile
program or some delivery system that will take years and be difficult
to hide from prying eyes. The real fear is that the spent nuclear fuel
from the nuclear power plants will then be delivered to terrorists
hands and used in a dirty bomb. This has been a fear and a possibility
since the beginning. Nothing will change once Iran has nuclear power.
"Actually, they sell military technology to the bad guys. Just not
ICBMs."
Well, here you are falling into the basic, Bush-esque good / evil
dichotymy. Who exactly are the bad guys and why are they bad? Pakistan?
India? Japan? Korea? China? Brazil? Cuba? All of these countries have
bought military knowledge from Russia. Are all of them bad? Maybe we
should pull out this recent revelation that the states supports the
nuclear program in India and not in Pakistan. It is, of course, not a
simple as it sounds. But it does demonstrate some crucial things about
American foreign policy.
"Let's hope it will be on both sides. Iranian president does not
restrict his speech. "
Of course he does not restrict his speech. I think this is the reason
he was elected. The Americans were the first out of the gate after 9/11
to form the 'axis of evil'. Up until this point relations with Iran
were beginning to normalize (and I have problems with the reasons they
were normalizing, it certainly wasn't based on an improved human rights
record!)
What gets conflated in this reduction of some countries and cultures to
'bad' is 1) the historical reasons behind it and 2) the fact that a
people are always involved in forming the government. Few people do
things that they believe are 'evil'. Instead, it is the ideology that
generates a definition for this term. For example, those who think it
was a good idea to free the people of Iraq accept the loss of life in
so doing. Murder is evil. Americans murdered Iraqis (and vice-versa).
Are they evil? Being too simply in this logic can lead to just such
distinctions.
John W.
vassals)
went to war for all the wrong reasons (WMD and other fairytales) but
with unintended desirable consequences (toppling of the Saddam
dictatorship). The problem was not to go to war, but to have no plan or
even clue, what to do, once the war was won. And to spend no money on
Iraq.
No absolution for Fukuyama from here."
I agree. However, I think the problem WAS to go to war with Iraq. That
is the initial flaw. All other problems stem from this one decision.
However, I agree, that the second and most damning problem was the
complete lack of understanding concerning the rebuilding of Iraq. I
think that the American contractors are to be blamed here. All
reconstruction should have been turned over to the Iraqis with all
funding coming from the Americans. The idea should have been to
construct a trade partner and not to make some money on the side for
American industry.
And I give Fukuyama no absolution, either. The entire neo-conservative
movement should be buried. But it is a clear sign that there are
ideological problems when someone so blinded as Fukuyama saw the light.
I can't help, too, but think that a certain pragmatic openness on the
part of the American propaganda machine might have helped here. If they
had admitted that it was in America's and Europe's interest to secure
this source of oil, then the 'realization' taking place across Iraq
would have been bypassed. If the aleviation of human suffering had been
an admitted side-effect of the war, then maybe it would have prevented
so many from piercing through the hypocrisy.
John W.
have been Iranian. Most have come from the 'best friends' of American
in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia
Roman Werpachowski
> "I don't know how exactly Iran compares to Syria or Libia. Frankly, I
> don't care much. They're all countries where the general public has
> little say about what their government is doing. Your argument is thus
> rather irrelevant. People on the streets of Teheran may not support the
>
> nuclear program, but the important thing is that those who call the
> shots there do."
>
> >From http://countrystudies.us/iran/80.htm
>
> "At the top of the government structure is the faqih, the ultimate
> decision maker. The Constitution specifically names Khomeini as the
> faqih for life and provides a mechanism for choosing his successors.
> The role of the faqih has evolved into that of a policy guide and
> arbitrator among competitive views. Below the faqih a distinct
> separation of powers exists between the executive and legislative
> branches. The executive branch includes an elected president, who
> selects a prime minister and cabinet that must be approved by the
> elected legislative assembly, the Majlis. The judiciary is independent
> of both the executive and the Majlis.
HA HA HA HA!
I wonder who wrote similar BS about the Soviet Union in the past.
Independent judiciary... hilarious. Iran Judiciary is composed of
hardliners. They don't need to be supervised by the Ayatollahs all the
time.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/08/ir
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2562845.stman11100.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040503-055607-3404r.htm
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3358
One wonders why the Guardian Council is omitted in this brilliant
analysis of the distinct separation of powers in Iran.
>
> "Until 1987 the government was dominated by a single political party,
> the Islamic Republican Party (IRP). Other political parties were
> permitted as long as they accepted the Constitution and the basic
> principles of velayat-e faqih. In practice, however, few other
> political parties have been permitted to operate legally since 1981.
> Most of the political parties that were formed in the immediate
> aftermath of the Revolution have disbanded, gone underground, or
> continued to operate in exile.
>
> "The Constitution stipulates that the government of the Republic
> derives its legitimacy from both God and the people. It is a theocracy
> in the sense that the rulers claim that they govern the Muslim people
> of Iran as the representatives of the divine being and the saintly
> Twelve Shia Imams. The people have the right to choose their own
> leaders, however, from among those who have demonstrated both religious
> expertise and moral rectitude.
I.e. you can pick any color for your car as long as it is black.
> At the national level this is
> accomplished through parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled
> at four-year intervals. All citizens who have attained sixteen years of
> age are eligible to vote in these elections. There are also local
> elections for a variety of urban and rural positions."
>
> The argument is not irrelevant. The people of any country have a 'say'
> in what their government does. They pay with their lives. They also pay
> with their pocketbooks, the best way of pinching anyone in this world.
So the people of Iraq should be held accountable for the Iraq-Iran war
and the invasion of Kuweit, right?
J.M.
> So you think every human being in Iran is a religious fanatic? I am not
> sure that is at all the truth. It is one of the freer Islamic
> countries, in spite of the hyper-religious leaders. The truth is we do
> not KNOW much about Iran. But, don't you think that if something does
> happen in the world, Iran will be pelted with our nuclear arsenal? And
> don't you think that is as obvious to them as it is to the rest of the
> world? Why would they, then, do it? Because they are religious nuts? I
> am not sure that is a good enough reason... Besides, it takes a lot
> more than simply a nuclear program to develop an ICBM.
You do not *need* ICBM's to reach the US. A single sub in the harbour of New
York is sufficient.
> You don't just
> throw a few chemicals together, slap on some bubble gum and let it
> fly... It is obvious that in order to curb this situation, the giant
> a** running the American government (or let me pluralize that...) needs
> to clam up and let the Russians, and the EU work this out. It is, after
> all, their problem.
Naw, it is all of our problems, and probably Israel's problem more than
anyone else's. And next it is the US's problem. Iran will send a sub into
the harbour of New York with a nuke *long* before it will send a sub or
mid-range missle to Europe.
> The EU is the ground for the terrorist campaigns of
> late.
So what does that prove for Iran?
Jan
J.M.
That almost makes Iran sound like a model democracy. Fact is:
1) They do not have a freely elected parliament or president resulting from
a free election
2) They do not have freedom of speech or press
As a result, the people are definitely more fanatic than if there were
uncensored public discussions (just take a look at the Iranian press) and
the nuclear program enjoys considerable support. On top of that, the
religious leaders are pulling the strings in the background.
> The argument is not irrelevant. The people of any country have a 'say'
> in what their government does. They pay with their lives. They also pay
> with their pocketbooks, the best way of pinching anyone in this world.
LOL. That does not mean that they have the capacity to establish a
government of their choosing.
>
> "Being a religious nut may lead people to self-destruction, if it
> serves
> to hurt the "Great Satan". 9/11 being a prime example."
>
> People, yes, individuals, yes. But when has this driven a modern
> country's international relations? It is clear that one can argue that
> a single individual or a small group of individuals can and will behave
> in a manner that is irrational. After all, Timothy McVeigh certainly
> did. So did Charles Manson. Both of them convinced people to support
> them, as well. But neither convinced an entire country to go to war.
Dictators do not need to convince entire countries to go to war, certainly
not to the degree that a democracy does. Additionally, convincing the
people that war is necessary is a lot easier if you censor your press.
> The only reason the US government was allowed to go to war was because
> they set up the straw man of WMD. Thus, if the government of Iran feels
> that the US is threatening them, then they will have more and more
> fodder for a call to mobilization. It would be a massacre, but they
> would die believing that they are defending their homeland. Thus the
> more this dialogue devolves into cro-magnon shouting and fist shaking,
> the closer we come to war.
War is not the issue. The bomb is the issue. And if nothing else works to
prevent Iran from getting the bomb, then it will have to be war. I couldn't
care less what Iranians actually think.
>
> "Constructing a nuclear bomb was not a too difficult task for Pakistan.
>
> Why should we think it would be too difficult for Iran? They have quite
>
> a lot of highly educated scientists and engineers. "
>
> A nuclear bomb is NOT a nuclear missile. A nuclear bomb is massive,
> cumbersome and needs some form of delivery. In spite of what the
> fearmongers in the states believe, you cannot really pop it in the post
> and mail it to its destination. Thus Iran will need to build a missile
> program or some delivery system that will take years and be difficult
> to hide from prying eyes.
Look, there are more than enough ways to deliver a bomb - anything from a
passenger jet to a submarine. No need to go high-tech.
> The real fear is that the spent nuclear fuel
> from the nuclear power plants will then be delivered to terrorists
> hands and used in a dirty bomb. This has been a fear and a possibility
> since the beginning. Nothing will change once Iran has nuclear power.
Dirty bombs are nothing more than a slight nuisance compared to real nukes.
>
> "Actually, they sell military technology to the bad guys. Just not
> ICBMs."
>
> Well, here you are falling into the basic, Bush-esque good / evil
> dichotymy. Who exactly are the bad guys and why are they bad? Pakistan?
> India? Japan? Korea? China? Brazil? Cuba? All of these countries have
> bought military knowledge from Russia. Are all of them bad? Maybe we
> should pull out this recent revelation that the states supports the
> nuclear program in India and not in Pakistan. It is, of course, not a
> simple as it sounds. But it does demonstrate some crucial things about
> American foreign policy.
North Korea qualifies as bad by any reasonable standard. The profilation of
nuclear weapons does too.
>
> "Let's hope it will be on both sides. Iranian president does not
> restrict his speech. "
>
> Of course he does not restrict his speech. I think this is the reason
> he was elected. The Americans were the first out of the gate after 9/11
> to form the 'axis of evil'. Up until this point relations with Iran
> were beginning to normalize (and I have problems with the reasons they
> were normalizing, it certainly wasn't based on an improved human rights
> record!)
>
> What gets conflated in this reduction of some countries and cultures to
> 'bad' is 1) the historical reasons behind it and 2) the fact that a
> people are always involved in forming the government. Few people do
> things that they believe are 'evil'. Instead, it is the ideology that
> generates a definition for this term. For example, those who think it
> was a good idea to free the people of Iraq accept the loss of life in
> so doing. Murder is evil. Americans murdered Iraqis (and vice-versa).
> Are they evil? Being too simply in this logic can lead to just such
> distinctions.
Such philosophical discussions are pointless. I am not going to discuss
*why* Iran *executed* two children for allegedly having homosexual
relations. I don't *care* whether this is because they are *evil* or
because they are fanatics who believe they are doing the right thing. There
are some moral absolutes that are simply not negotiable and not excusable
Jan
John W.
and the invasion of Kuweit, right?
And why not? Did they not invade both? Silly argument!
John W.
York is sufficient.
Ich hatte keine Ahnung dass der Iran so ein U-Boat Program hatte. Warum
wollen Sie denn 'nukes'? Die koennten bestimmt viele normalishe
Racketen von einem U-Boot auf New York hinwerfen und schon viele
Menschen ermordern.
>> So what does that prove for Iran?
Das beweisst dass die EU doch den Dialog anfangen soll. Und dannach
koennen natuerlich die UN etwas sagen. Doch es ist bestimmt nicht die
USA die so eine 'pissing contest' anfangen sollen.
John W.
prison system each year? I am NOT saying that Iran is a model state. At
NO POINT did I imply this. It is much more difficult than simply piling
it onto a passanger jet, which would be shot down over the Atlantic.
Last time I looked, Iran did not have a serious submarine program. AND
simply floating into New York harbor and lobbing several high yield
missiles with normal, non-nuclear ordinance, would kill easily a
hundred thousand people. Why haven't they done this if they are so
maniacal and ready to die for thier cause. You can talk about
nightmares all you want. It is incredibly, embarrassingly easy to get
your hands on bio-weapons. Spreading some of that around the states
would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands. They remain,
however, dreams, myths, half-truths.
The Iranian government is efficient and runs a strong economy. This is
the reason that they are in power. If they were the Taliban, then they
would have been invaded long ago for the sake of the oil. Human rights
issues are very very important, and Iran has nothign but a negative
record. All of the 'quatsch' that I quoted before is an accurate
portrayal of how an oppressive regime continues to exist in the face of
obvious desire for change, by establishing itself as normal. Invading a
country like this, killing thousands of innocent lives, is not the way
to make this government seem less normal. Not many people aspire to be
like warmongers.
So, why doesn't Germany allow neo-Nazis to be open about their beliefs?
Well? Because they must be oppressed (thankfully Germany realizes
this). If they did not oppress them then they, too, could convince
people that they are normal, they just want to 'export' some
undesireables. Is this a 'free system' that does not allow complete
freedom of speech? I hope you would not say that they are oppressive.
Governments are determined to survive, especially in the face of real
or perceived threats. Given an option for change, given positive
encouragement to change, then maybe they will.
J.M.
>>> You do not *need* ICBM's to reach the US. A single sub in the harbour of
>>> New
> York is sufficient.
>
> Ich hatte keine Ahnung dass der Iran so ein U-Boat Program hatte. Warum
> wollen Sie denn 'nukes'? Die koennten bestimmt viele normalishe
> Racketen von einem U-Boot auf New York hinwerfen und schon viele
> Menschen ermordern.
Nice of you to answer in German, but I am going to reply in English, because
more people will be able to follow the discussion.
I am not suggesting that Iran has subs, I do not know. I am simply saying
that there are other ways to deliver a nuclear warhead and getting subs may
be easier than ICBMs. In this sense, I do not see why Europe is more
threatened by Iran than the US and I do not follow that this is more a
European problem than an American one.
>
>>> So what does that prove for Iran?
>
> Das beweisst dass die EU doch den Dialog anfangen soll. Und dannach
> koennen natuerlich die UN etwas sagen. Doch es ist bestimmt nicht die
> USA die so eine 'pissing contest' anfangen sollen.
Well, the dialogue is not going anywhere. The EU has made a number of
reasonable proposals, which would allow for Iran to have a civilian nuclear
program. Granted, it was not all that Iran had hoped for, but it would have
been a first step. The fact of the matter is that Iran has had a covert
nuclear program in violation of international rules. One of the reasons for
this secrecy is definitely the fear that Israel might have bombed it, so
that is some small justification, but it is not enough. Certainly, Iran is
entitled to have a civilian nuclear program, but for the time being, it is
not acceptable for it to proceed in enriching uranium - it has to regain
the trust it lost by having a covert program. So I feel that the proposal
to have Russia provide the enriched fuel that Iran needs was a good
compromise for the time being, a compromise that should have been
acceptable *if* Iran really only wants a civilian nuclear program. Of
course, if Iran continues to evolve in a democratic direction and they
prove that they honor their agreements, I would not have a problem allowing
Iran to enrich uranium in the future, but right now, that is not
acceptable. In any case, these proposal have been rejected, so the UN will
need to find a different solution.
Jan
J.M.
> Murder is an absolute. Yet Americans murder how many people in the
> prison system each year?
Human rights violations in one state are not suitable as excuses in another.
> I am NOT saying that Iran is a model state. At
> NO POINT did I imply this. It is much more difficult than simply piling
> it onto a passanger jet, which would be shot down over the Atlantic.
> Last time I looked, Iran did not have a serious submarine program. AND
> simply floating into New York harbor and lobbing several high yield
> missiles with normal, non-nuclear ordinance, would kill easily a
> hundred thousand people. Why haven't they done this if they are so
> maniacal and ready to die for thier cause. You can talk about
> nightmares all you want. It is incredibly, embarrassingly easy to get
> your hands on bio-weapons. Spreading some of that around the states
> would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands. They remain,
> however, dreams, myths, half-truths.
Fine, but that does not change the fact that I do not see why Iran is more
of a problem for Europe than the US. If anything, Iran wants to hurt
Israel, the US and then Europe, in that order. I don't follow your line of
reasoning that because they cannot nuke the US that they will nuke Europe
instead (if they had the capacity). For that matter, nuking Israel would be
bad enough as it would ignite an huge war in the Middle East which would
most certainly affect the rest of the world.
>
> The Iranian government is efficient and runs a strong economy. This is
> the reason that they are in power. If they were the Taliban, then they
> would have been invaded long ago for the sake of the oil. Human rights
> issues are very very important, and Iran has nothign but a negative
> record. All of the 'quatsch' that I quoted before is an accurate
> portrayal of how an oppressive regime continues to exist in the face of
> obvious desire for change, by establishing itself as normal. Invading a
> country like this, killing thousands of innocent lives, is not the way
> to make this government seem less normal. Not many people aspire to be
> like warmongers.
>
> So, why doesn't Germany allow neo-Nazis to be open about their beliefs?
Unfortunately, it does.
> Well? Because they must be oppressed (thankfully Germany realizes
> this).
I disagree.
> If they did not oppress them then they, too, could convince
> people that they are normal, they just want to 'export' some
> undesireables. Is this a 'free system' that does not allow complete
> freedom of speech? I hope you would not say that they are oppressive.
Well, I do consider it oppressive, but that is not my main problem with
that. I don't really sympathise with oppressed Neo-Nazis. The real problem
is that such oppression does not work. Rather than saying what they really
want, they say just what is legal - making them sound much more moderate
and electable than they would otherwise.
>
> Governments are determined to survive, especially in the face of real
> or perceived threats. Given an option for change, given positive
> encouragement to change, then maybe they will.
I agree - and I most certainly would give Iran all the encouragement to
evolve into a model democracy and I most certainly would object to
interference there. However, the fact that they seem to want nukes changes
all of that. I am not prepared to let such an oppressive government have
nukes and I strongly object to any proliferation of nuclear weapons.
rosignol
wrote:
> John W. schrieb:
>
> > So you think every human being in Iran is a religious fanatic? I am not
> > sure that is at all the truth. It is one of the freer Islamic
> > countries, in spite of the hyper-religious leaders. The truth is we do
> > not KNOW much about Iran. But, don't you think that if something does
> > happen in the world, Iran will be pelted with our nuclear arsenal? And
> > don't you think that is as obvious to them as it is to the rest of the
> > world? Why would they, then, do it? Because they are religious nuts? I
> > am not sure that is a good enough reason... Besides, it takes a lot
> > more than simply a nuclear program to develop an ICBM.
>
> You do not *need* ICBM's to reach the US. A single sub in the harbour of New
> York is sufficient.
Mm. Matter of fact, Iran has some subs.
Does anyone care to guess who they bought them from?
[zap]
rosignol
wrote:
[zap]
> For that matter, nuking Israel would be
> bad enough as it would ignite an huge war in the Middle East which would
> most certainly affect the rest of the world.
Nah, it'd go something like this:
1) Iran nukes Israel.
2) Israeli ballistic missile subs launch nuclear counterstrike on every
hostile state in the middle east (i.e., most of them).
3) lots and lots and lots of people die.
4) most of the states hostile to israel are essentially decapitated,
cease to function as states, descend into anarchy
5) industrialized world's economies grind to a halt as the people on top
of the oil have more important things to do than pump it out of the
ground.
6) The upside: the Kyoto co2 emissions targets will be reached! :p
J.M.
Anyone's guess? Russia? US? China? Germany? France?
>
>
> [zap]
>
J.M.
Yup, every cloud's got a silver lining ;-)
Jan
>
rosignol
wrote:
Russia, back in the early 90s.
(The US? Do you think we're insane, or terminally stupid?!?)
Three Kilo-class diesel/electric attack subs.
They would be very useful if the Iranians wanted to make anyone passing
through the straits of Hormuz very, very nervous, and are pretty much
invisible to the US's satellites, as well as impervious to airstrikes.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm
>>>>>
"The Kilo is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel
submarines in the world."
[...]
"Russia exported 21 Project 877 and 636 submarines, including: India -
10, and China - 4, Iran - 3, Algeria - 2, Poland - 1, Romania - 1.
On 04 August 1993, Iran took delivery of a second Russian Kilo-class
diesel submarine, and the third arrived 18 January 1996. Russia went
ahead with the first two deliveries despite vigorous US protests. In
response to Administration pressure and US sanctions legislation, Russia
formally pledged in June 1995 not to enter any new arms contracts with
Iran, although prior arms contracts could be implemented. "
>>>>>
Hunting them down would be a bitch and a half, even for the USN.
Probably why the Iranians bought that model.
J.M.
> In article <e01t28$l9u$1...@online.de>, "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> rosignol schrieb:
>>
>> > In article <e01hef$3f2$1...@online.de>, "J.M." <jm_jm_re...@gmx.de>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> John W. schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> > So you think every human being in Iran is a religious fanatic? I am
>> >> > not sure that is at all the truth. It is one of the freer Islamic
>> >> > countries, in spite of the hyper-religious leaders. The truth is we
>> >> > do not KNOW much about Iran. But, don't you think that if something
>> >> > does happen in the world, Iran will be pelted with our nuclear
>> >> > arsenal? And don't you think that is as obvious to them as it is to
>> >> > the rest of the world? Why would they, then, do it? Because they are
>> >> > religious nuts? I am not sure that is a good enough reason...
>> >> > Besides, it takes a lot more than simply a nuclear program to
>> >> > develop an ICBM.
>> >>
>> >> You do not *need* ICBM's to reach the US. A single sub in the harbour
>> >> of New York is sufficient.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mm. Matter of fact, Iran has some subs.
>> >
>> > Does anyone care to guess who they bought them from?
>>
>> Anyone's guess? Russia? US? China? Germany? France?
>
>
> Russia, back in the early 90s.
>
> (The US? Do you think we're insane, or terminally stupid?!?)
>
No, but I suppose the US could have theoretically sold some subs to the
pre-revolutionary Shah gov't of Iran. Granted, not too likely and probably
too long ago. ;-)
> Three Kilo-class diesel/electric attack subs.
>
> They would be very useful if the Iranians wanted to make anyone passing
> through the straits of Hormuz very, very nervous, and are pretty much
> invisible to the US's satellites, as well as impervious to airstrikes.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm
>
>>>>>>
>
> "The Kilo is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel
> submarines in the world."
Things could have been worse ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
Jan
[...]
John W.
I agree. The EU has been trying and has offered a number of reasonable
solutions. But this does not change the fact that Iran sees itself as
threatened thanks to the actions and words coming out of the US. It is
also a reasonable fear. One way of definitely preventing an invasion is
to have nuclear weapons. If any nuclear weapon goes off in Europe,
Israel or the US, it would be one only and possible 1-2 million people
would die, not to mention the long lasting effects of fallout. However,
if this happened, the entire population of Iran and Iraq would be
annhilated... millions of people. A massive and complete genocide. What
is the reasoning behind this? Why start a war that would only end in
the total destruction of your entire society with minimal casualties to
the enemy? I have no doubt, also, that the entire muslim religion would
be purged from most societies. It is a massive lose lose situation.
Now, an individual would not think rationally and might very well do
it. But a state, whose very being rests in the protection of its
people, would most likely never do such a thing. The only reason the
states used it twice (twice in the history of nuclear weaponry) is
because they knew there couold be absolutely NO retaliation.
John W.
Of course you are absolutely right. However, the open hypocrisy of such
claims without reference to some universal law (something the States is
hesitant to implement due to the likelihood that many American citizens
would go before world courts), is disheartening. The horror of this
whole situation is in the propaganda and ideology. While we call
ourselves liberators, the truth is that we are victors. If we see
ourselves as being victors then we should call ourselves that and form
a police state, then slowly relinquish control to the people once they
are 'educated.' After all, most of the people running Afghanistan,
Iran, and Iraq have educational ties to the west. It is that education
that has turned them back towards more religiously oriented rule.
J.M.
To some extent it is, which is why Iran needs to understand that the only
way to make sure that this does not happen is to stop trying to build
nukes. Trying to build nukes is the fastest way to get invaded. Simple
enough, isn't it?
> One way of definitely preventing an invasion is
> to have nuclear weapons. If any nuclear weapon goes off in Europe,
> Israel or the US, it would be one only and possible 1-2 million people
> would die, not to mention the long lasting effects of fallout. However,
> if this happened, the entire population of Iran and Iraq would be
> annhilated... millions of people. A massive and complete genocide. What
> is the reasoning behind this? Why start a war that would only end in
> the total destruction of your entire society with minimal casualties to
> the enemy? I have no doubt, also, that the entire muslim religion would
> be purged from most societies. It is a massive lose lose situation.
> Now, an individual would not think rationally and might very well do
> it. But a state, whose very being rests in the protection of its
> people, would most likely never do such a thing.
You are naive and have had too little contact with dictatorial regimes.
Enough dictators would be more than pleased to take their country into
oblivion with them.
> The only reason the
> states used it twice (twice in the history of nuclear weaponry) is
> because they knew there couold be absolutely NO retaliation.
And because the American president actually gives a damn about the American
people.
Jan
John W.
known as an oligarchy. Very different things. Well, I am not sure too
many people have had experience with Dictatorial regimes. When did a
dictator launch a nuke, anyway? Pakistan is a dictatorship. Yet they
have nukes.
'The American President' is a weird word to use. This was ONE American
President of a completely different generation of other American
presidents. The current president cares so much for the American people
that he has decided to breed terrorists in Iraq by invading it and
endanger every American's life, not to mention the soldiers who fight.
I am an American. I do not feel any safer now than I did. Strange how
that happens.
Now as to the question of naivete. That language parallels all the
language coming from the white house. All who oppose forceful
intervention outside of an absolute last resort are called poor little
naive people. I am not naive simply because I have a different opinion.
How can rationality be considered naive? I think it is simply not
rational to threaten to invade a country that is this close to
producing nuclear weapons. The best thing to do is to force economic
penalties, political solutions. If they want security then we should
provide security.
John W.
include a realistic view of the situation. Let's attack them while we
have the chance is not a realistic solution.
Roman Werpachowski
> Murder is an absolute. Yet Americans murder how many people in the
> prison system each year?
On purpose? No. I am interested in the statistics you based your
argument, BTW.
> I am NOT saying that Iran is a model state. At
> NO POINT did I imply this. It is much more difficult than simply piling
> it onto a passanger jet, which would be shot down over the Atlantic.
> Last time I looked, Iran did not have a serious submarine program.
It has six submarines.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm
> AND
> simply floating into New York harbor and lobbing several high yield
> missiles with normal, non-nuclear ordinance, would kill easily a
> hundred thousand people.
Not at all.
> Why haven't they done this if they are so
> maniacal and ready to die for thier cause. You can talk about
> nightmares all you want. It is incredibly, embarrassingly easy to get
> your hands on bio-weapons.
On agents, yes. On reliable means of delivering them to target, no.
> Spreading some of that around the states
> would kill thousands if not hundreds of thousands. They remain,
> however, dreams, myths, half-truths.
>
> The Iranian government is efficient and runs a strong economy.
... based on oil.
J.M.
> Im sorry. But the last time I looked this was NOT a dictatorship. It is
> known as an oligarchy. Very different things. Well, I am not sure too
> many people have had experience with Dictatorial regimes. When did a
> dictator launch a nuke, anyway? Pakistan is a dictatorship. Yet they
> have nukes.
Not all dictatorships are created equally.
1) You have fairly benign dictatorships, usually the military dictatorships
that Spain, Greece, Portugal, Turkey or Pakistan have/had. Here, people
pretty much get to do what they want, except critisize the regime or demand
elections. The press is still fairly free and censorship rare - except that
criticism is not allowed. But other than that, you can lead a pretty normal
life.
2) After that, you have the nastier dictatorships such as the communist
dictatorships in eastern Europe. Here, your freedom is restricted even
more, the government tries to brainwash its citizens, it spies extensively
on its people, etc. However, it is possible to survive by keeping your
mouth shut.
3) The worst dictorships are those where some people have no chance of
surviving, not matter what they do. Nazi-Germany (or Stalin's Soviet Union)
is an example. A significant number of persons (Jews) are simply murdered
because that is what the regime wants.
Simply put: I don't worry too much about (stable) democracies having nukes
or WMD -- they will only use them as a deterent. The higher up in the
categories of dictatorship we move, the nuttier the dictator becomes, the
more unpredictable he becomes, the less likely he is to care about what
happens after he is gone. Now, Pakistan fits into category 1), with a small
tendency to 2). Iraq was somewhere between 2) and 3). Iran is a hard call
-- but probably fits somewhere in between 2) and 3). (Iran has
pseudo-democratic government that is allowed to decide a few things within
a very narrow framework as given by the supreme religious leader, so it
sort of looks like a democracy, but at any time, a reactionary religious
leader can force certain decisions to be made.)
>
> 'The American President' is a weird word to use.
I do think all American presidents have cared for the American people,
including Bush -- that does not mean that all decisions have been wise or
successful at improving the safety and welfare of Americans.
> This was ONE American
> President of a completely different generation of other American
> presidents. The current president cares so much for the American people
> that he has decided to breed terrorists in Iraq by invading it and
> endanger every American's life, not to mention the soldiers who fight.
> I am an American. I do not feel any safer now than I did. Strange how
> that happens.
>
> Now as to the question of naivete. That language parallels all the
> language coming from the white house. All who oppose forceful
> intervention outside of an absolute last resort are called poor little
> naive people.
I called you naive because you assumed that dictators would not hurt their
own people and for no other reason.
John W.
The Iranian president is not a dictator.
John W.
own people and for no other reason.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Meaning that he had absolute control
over all military and most social aspects of the government. This is
not the Iranian president.
J.M.
No, the real dictator is the supreme religious leader. For running the day
to day business, he is in the background, but he sets out the very narrow
path within which politics gets to decide things. But don't think for one
second that anything happens in Iran without his approval.
Roman Werpachowski
John W. wrote:
> >> I called you naive because you assumed that dictators would not hurt their own people and for no other reason.
>
> The Iranian president is not a dictator.
You're right. He's a puppet. The dictators are Ayatollahs.
John W.
This is subjective. The supreme religious leader is the head of the
religious council. He cannot (this is from a source who supposedly
knows what goes on there...) do anything without consulting the
council. The realm of responsibility of the religious leaders is,
primarily, the religion. They do not delve into economic policy and,
usually, do not deal with foreign policy. Since this is a 'closed
doors' system, though it is difficult to know how much they do one or
the other.
Your assumptions are, though, that this group of people are ready and
willing to sacrifice 68 million people in order to strike at the united
states. A proactive strike on the part of Iran would result in the all
but total destruction of the country. If they can convince the people
that they are defending themselves, however, then they can convince
them to sacrifice themselves.
The government of Iran is bipolar, one side being the 'chief of state'
(or the religious leader) and the other being the 'chief of government'
of the president. There is a legislature, the members of which are
elected. This 'one man' that all of you fear woul dhave to convince
these people that it is in their interest to fund a strike on the
states, a strikes that would result in their total destruction. The
only way theywould say 'yeah, let's do that' is if they thought they
were being invaded at any rate.
John W.
Again, Roman, a subjective judgment. (first of all, plural dictators =
oligarchy... more than one so the others could curb radical thoughts
coming from one of them). See above response.
Roman Werpachowski
Sovietologists on how the inner circles of the Soviet government work.
Those stories were often very far from reality.
John W.
Here you are confusing internal policy (repression) with external
policy. The represssion of the people, groups of people or one person
does not equal suicidal tendencies. Following your logic, Stalin would
have launched all of his nukes, not caring how many of his people died,
since he was persecuting them anyway. The internal repression of
political groups, social classes, religious sects or genders does not
drive foreign policy. After all, Iran has been an active member of the
world political system for some time now including the WHO, UNESCO, and
the WTO. Foreign policy must be separated from internal policy.
>> I called you naive because you assumed that dictators would not hurt their own people and for no other reason.
No, I assume oligarchies will not destroy ALL of their people and their
seat of power, the very state that gives them all of their power,
without thinking that they are in a lose lose situation.
>> I do think all American presidents have cared for the American people
But all Presidents have not cared for ALL American people. Up until the
60s millions of American people, whose relatives fought and died in WWI
WWII Korea and Vietnam were oppressed and basically subjugated. Now,
clearly this is the past, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every
American President cares for every American people. It is easy and
quite right to suggest that the American president cares for an IDEAL
people, 'THE people', but you could say the same for every oligarchy,
dictator, whatever. None of them OPENLY says, I hate you, my people.
All of them give the pretense that they love their people / country.
Your list of dictatorships is interesting, but it supports my point.
The Russians, the worst on your list, never did launch their missiles.
Why? Because they new that that would have meant total destruction.
Now, look at it from Iran's point of view. They have no missiles (yet).
Why did Russia build their arsenal? To launch them on the states? or to
prevent the States from launching at them? Obviously the latter. So
this worst of the worst reiterates the fact that there is no rational
basis for a state to destroy itself when other options are available.
John W.
But Russia never did USE its nuclear arsenal. See the above response to
J. M.
J.M.
>>> Simply put: I don't worry too much about (stable) democracies having
>>> nukes or WMD -- they will only use them as a deterent.
>
> Here you are confusing internal policy (repression) with external
> policy.
I am not confusing anything. I am telling you, what I worry about. And I
believe that by its very nature, a democratic government is more concerned
about the well-being of people, both their own citizens and other human
beings.
> The represssion of the people, groups of people or one person
> does not equal suicidal tendencies. Following your logic, Stalin would
> have launched all of his nukes, not caring how many of his people died,
> since he was persecuting them anyway.
He had no reason to launch all his nukes. But the fact that all of his
people would have died would not have been a deterrent to launch them if he
had wanted to.
> The internal repression of
> political groups, social classes, religious sects or genders does not
> drive foreign policy.
Of course it drives foreign policy. A dictator wants one thing: to stay in
power and to increase that power. That is his primary motivation and
usually results in oppression of his people and a relatively aggressive
foreign policy. That does not mean that he will go to war - often enough,
he knows he cannot get away with that, but if he feels that he can go to
war, win, get away with it, and increase his power and influence in the
process, then he will do so. Democracies tend to be more peaceful.
> After all, Iran has been an active member of the
> world political system for some time now including the WHO, UNESCO, and
> the WTO. Foreign policy must be separated from internal policy.
No. I do not believe that a person is an angel one minute and a devil the
next.
>
>>> I called you naive because you assumed that dictators would not hurt
>>> their own people and for no other reason.
>
> No, I assume oligarchies will not destroy ALL of their people and their
> seat of power, the very state that gives them all of their power,
> without thinking that they are in a lose lose situation.
I do not share such optimism, particularly if the oligarchs think that dying
is a good thing.
>
>>> I do think all American presidents have cared for the American people
>
> But all Presidents have not cared for ALL American people. Up until the
> 60s millions of American people, whose relatives fought and died in WWI
> WWII Korea and Vietnam were oppressed and basically subjugated. Now,
> clearly this is the past, but it is ridiculous to suggest that every
> American President cares for every American people.
I never said for all, but for many or most. Certainly much more than your
average dictator.
> It is easy and
> quite right to suggest that the American president cares for an IDEAL
> people, 'THE people', but you could say the same for every oligarchy,
> dictator, whatever. None of them OPENLY says, I hate you, my people.
No, but for most it is self-evident that they do not really care much about
them either. Put differently: a democratically elected leader relies on
popular support, a dictator does not.
> All of them give the pretense that they love their people / country.
>
> Your list of dictatorships is interesting, but it supports my point.
> The Russians, the worst on your list,
The Russians under Stalin. After Stalin, I would classify them in category
2) ;-)
> never did launch their missiles.
> Why? Because they new that that would have meant total destruction.
Stalin never launched any missles for lack of the means to do so and because
there was no need to do so. He could oppress all surrounding states by
conventional means. The same holds for the Soviet Union after Stalin.
> Now, look at it from Iran's point of view. They have no missiles (yet).
> Why did Russia build their arsenal? To launch them on the states? or to
> prevent the States from launching at them? Obviously the latter.
LOL. The Soviet Union / Russia supported Iran for entirely egotistic
reasons: to build its sphere of influence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's not pretend Russia was being atruistic here.
> So
> this worst of the worst reiterates the fact that there is no rational
> basis for a state to destroy itself when other options are available.
It simply states that this is unlikely, but do you honestly believe that if
one day *all* states on this planet actually had nukes that they would
never be used??? Put differently, you would not be concerned *at all* if
the non-proliferation treaty were scrapped?
Jan
J.M.
>>> No, the real dictator is the supreme religious leader
>
> This is subjective. The supreme religious leader is the head of the
> religious council. He cannot (this is from a source who supposedly
> knows what goes on there...) do anything without consulting the
> council. The realm of responsibility of the religious leaders is,
> primarily, the religion. They do not delve into economic policy and,
> usually, do not deal with foreign policy. Since this is a 'closed
> doors' system, though it is difficult to know how much they do one or
> the other.
>
> Your assumptions are, though, that this group of people are ready and
> willing to sacrifice 68 million people in order to strike at the united
> states.
No, I am assuming that I am not sufficiently sure that will not do something
stupid so as to allow them to have nukes. That is quite different. For that
matter, you are only describing the worst case scenario. Iran having nukes
is very likely to provoke an arms race in the Middle East, which is not
something any of us really want.
> A proactive strike on the part of Iran would result in the all
> but total destruction of the country. If they can convince the people
> that they are defending themselves, however, then they can convince
> them to sacrifice themselves.
>
> The government of Iran is bipolar, one side being the 'chief of state'
> (or the religious leader) and the other being the 'chief of government'
> of the president. There is a legislature, the members of which are
> elected.
They are not elected in any democratically meaningful way.
> This 'one man' that all of you fear woul dhave to convince
> these people that it is in their interest to fund a strike on the
> states, a strikes that would result in their total destruction. The
> only way theywould say 'yeah, let's do that' is if they thought they
> were being invaded at any rate.
A more likely scenario is, of course, that Iran would support terrorists and
give them some sort of bomb. I do not see Iran claiming responsibility for
destoying New York, if that ever happened. But again, that is not the only
problem (because it is unlikely) with Iran having nukes
Jan
J.M.
> Roman W.
>
> But Russia never did USE its nuclear arsenal. See the above response to
> J. M.
No, but the simply fact that it had a nuclear arsenal allowed it to bully a
large number of other states. I do not think Iran should be allowed to have
such a capacity.
John W.
never be used??? Put differently, you would not be concerned *at all*
if the non-proliferation treaty were scrapped?
Let me be clear, I DO NOT advocate Iran having or using a nuclear
arsenal any more than I advocate America having or using a nuclear
arsenal. Instead, I am suggesting that we understand the Iranian
reasoning for wanting nuclear weapons not as a proactive step but as a
desire for a secure defense policy. They feel they need this defense
policy because of the language employed by President Bush in his many
militant speeches over the past four years seeming to indicate his
desire to invade Iran and overthrow the government. I feel, though,
that the non-proliferation treaty is based on contradictions and
concretizes the existing global power structure, something that, in and
of itself, many states across the globe may have issues with,
includiing Russia. Of course they did not do this for altruistic
reasons; they did it for the sake of trade and capitalism pure and
simple.
As for Iran being an angel / devil... is this a person or a country?
The state of Iran is still a part of all of these organizations I
mentioned, they have been striving to become a functioning member of
the global system all the while oppressing their people in gruesome and
sometimes horrific fashion. I am NOT advocating for the state or
suggesting that any other state should model itself on Iran. Rather,
again, I am suggesting that this problem must be examined 'from the
inside' and with an understanding of the reasoning behind their
actions. Otherwise it becomes a binary argument similar to the
primitive, simplistic argument of president bush ... "ugh he bad....
ugh me good..."
John W.
Israel has had nukes since the seventies. The arms race has already
begun!
John W.
Russia also had the largest standing military in the world that they
were not afraid to use (Praguer Fruehling). I think that had some
effect when it came to bullying states.
Roman Werpachowski
No, because no other country followed. Israel wanting to have nukes is
actually rather understandable, since they were attacked by all
neighbours.
J.M.
>>>It simply states that this is unlikely, but do you honestly believe that
>>>if one day *all* states on this planet actually had nukes that they would
> never be used??? Put differently, you would not be concerned *at all*
> if the non-proliferation treaty were scrapped?
>
> Let me be clear, I DO NOT advocate Iran having or using a nuclear
> arsenal any more than I advocate America having or using a nuclear
> arsenal. Instead, I am suggesting that we understand the Iranian
> reasoning for wanting nuclear weapons not as a proactive step but as a
> desire for a secure defense policy. They feel they need this defense
> policy because of the language employed by President Bush in his many
> militant speeches over the past four years seeming to indicate his
> desire to invade Iran and overthrow the government.
They have felt this need for quite some time, not just since GWB became
president, as they have had a secret nuclear program for about 15 years.
And of course Iran feels threatened, and justly so. It has indicated more
than once that Israel should be wiped of the map. So stop making excuses
for them. If Iran had not supported terrorism and if Iran had complied with
international law by respecting the sanctity of embassies on its soil and
if it would respect the right of Israel to exist, then it would not feel
threatened. As far as I am concerned, any state wanting to wipe another
state of the map should have its government replaced and I invite any
country to do so. So let's stop the hypocrisy. I am no fan of GWB, but
let's not pretend that the US is the problem here.
> I feel, though,
> that the non-proliferation treaty is based on contradictions and
> concretizes the existing global power structure, something that, in and
> of itself, many states across the globe may have issues with,
> includiing Russia. Of course they did not do this for altruistic
> reasons; they did it for the sake of trade and capitalism pure and
> simple.
>
> As for Iran being an angel / devil... is this a person or a country?
> The state of Iran is still a part of all of these organizations I
> mentioned, they have been striving to become a functioning member of
> the global system all the while oppressing their people in gruesome and
> sometimes horrific fashion. I am NOT advocating for the state or
> suggesting that any other state should model itself on Iran. Rather,
> again, I am suggesting that this problem must be examined 'from the
> inside' and with an understanding of the reasoning behind their
> actions. Otherwise it becomes a binary argument similar to the
> primitive, simplistic argument of president bush ... "ugh he bad....
> ugh me good..."
I agree, but in the end, it may all boil down to a simple question: appease
and allow the Ayatollahs to have the bomb or go to war. I choose the
latter. Let's hope this choice is never forced upon us, and let's do all we
can to resolve this peacefully, but in the end, we may have to make that
choice.
Jan
J.M.
>>> No, but the simply fact that it had a nuclear arsenal allowed it to
>>> bully a large number of other states. I do not think Iran should be
>>> allowed to have such a capacity.
>
> Russia also had the largest standing military in the world that they
> were not afraid to use (Praguer Fruehling).
Yup, and unfortunately, the US never had the capacity to prevent the USSR
from going nuclear. I do wish the US would have had that capacity.
Jan
John W.
Not excuses. Understanding. With better understanding this situation
could be resolved. 15 years is about right to parallel the donation of
nukes to Israel. Last time I looked, America was advocating the
eradication of the 'axis of evil'... Should we be invaded? Obviously
supporting terrorism is a disgusting act and paying people to strap
bombs to their chests is inhuman. I could not agree more. and I could
not agree more that Iran needs a change in government. But until that
happens, an invasion must be completely out of the realm of
possibility.
In order to prevent an invasion Israel could give up its nukes (BTW why
did they need nukes to keep from being invaded? The British, Americans,
French and Germans would have come to their aid as they did in the
construction of the country!) Isn't the very construction of Israel
going back to before the middle ages, back to a prehistory? Well, so
was the 'reclaiming' of the land through violence.
If Israel and the west had prevented Hamas from gaining a foothold
(remember they started as a opposition group to an invaiding Israel),
and if they had set up powerful philanthropic organizations intending
to 'reimburse' the Palestinians for the land, then maybe this would not
have been as it is now. But that is history. The fact that Israel has
nukes is not history but continual fact. The fact that Israel's nukes
could reach Iran in a matter of minutes is a fact.
Finally, I think we should not pretend that the US is the problem but
realize that it is not helping the situation. If we are speaking of
history, then the US was the problem for supporting the murderous Shah.
If we are speaking of history then the US is the problem selling
weapons to the Iranians for the hostages. If we are speaking of the
history here, the US is the problem for not renormalizing relations
with Iran rather than slyly accepting oil and assuming that they were a
backward, primitive society. I dare any country in the throws of
revolution to 'comply with international law'. This history is part of
the present dialogue. Before 9/11 (which, just with Iraq, there is no
proof that there was any complicity on the part of Iran in this... and
in spite of the fact that most of the bombers were Saudi Arabian I have
heard no cries against that country) relations with Iran were stable.
Yes they were apparently seeking nuclear weapons, but if we had sought
to open this country ini the aftermath by forcing them to admit to the
world that they had nothing to do with it and allowing inspectors in
then this would have been known sooner. Instead, immediately they were
put on the list of dire enemies. Smart.
Finally, I think it is encumbent on Israel to *prove* they have the
right to exist by forming strong economic ties to the states around
them rather than threatening to invade everyone at the drop of a hat.
States are looking for good neighbors not belligerent ones.
Roman Werpachowski
> >> So stop making excuses for them
>
> Not excuses. Understanding. With better understanding this situation
> could be resolved. 15 years is about right to parallel the donation of
> nukes to Israel. Last time I looked, America was advocating the
> eradication of the 'axis of evil'... Should we be invaded? Obviously
> supporting terrorism is a disgusting act and paying people to strap
> bombs to their chests is inhuman. I could not agree more. and I could
> not agree more that Iran needs a change in government. But until that
> happens, an invasion must be completely out of the realm of
> possibility.
Only by keeping invasion a realistic possibility can we influence
Iran's actions. The last time someone counted on Iranian theocrat's
good will, he got a disaster (Jimmy Carter).
>
> In order to prevent an invasion Israel could give up its nukes
Huh? In order to be secure, Israel should *unilateraly* disarm itself?
That goes contrary to my understanding of the word "security".
> (BTW why
> did they need nukes to keep from being invaded? The British, Americans,
> French and Germans would have come to their aid as they did in the
> construction of the country!)
1. They weren't so helpful when Israel was invaded.
2. Before they came, there could be no Israel left to defend.
Israel's nuclear weapons were a means of levelling the playing field.
> Isn't the very construction of Israel
> going back to before the middle ages, back to a prehistory? Well, so
> was the 'reclaiming' of the land through violence.
The construction of Israel was sanctioned by a 1948 UN resolution,
which the Arabs rejected.
>
> If Israel and the west had prevented Hamas from gaining a foothold
> (remember they started as a opposition group to an invaiding Israel),
> and if they had set up powerful philanthropic organizations intending
> to 'reimburse' the Palestinians for the land,
Do you have any idea how much money they get from the EU and US? For
God's sake, Israel is collecting their taxes for them.
> then maybe this would not
> have been as it is now. But that is history. The fact that Israel has
> nukes is not history but continual fact. The fact that Israel's nukes
> could reach Iran in a matter of minutes is a fact.
The fact that it was not Israel proclaiming it wants Iran "wiped off
the map" but vice versa is also a fact. The situation is not symmetric.
>
> Finally, I think we should not pretend that the US is the problem but
> realize that it is not helping the situation. If we are speaking of
> history, then the US was the problem for supporting the murderous Shah.
It was their mistake, yes. They should've stuck with Mossadeq (who,
BTW, wasn't a democrat either).
> If we are speaking of history then the US is the problem selling
> weapons to the Iranians for the hostages.
Hilarious. The problem was that the Iranians took the hostages.
> Finally, I think it is encumbent on Israel to *prove* they have the
> right to exist
They are a recognized country. They don't have to prove anything like
that to anyone. End of story.
> by forming strong economic ties to the states around
> them rather than threatening to invade everyone at the drop of a hat.
It did seek peace and found it with those who were convinced, by losing
wars, that peace is a better option (Egypt). Iran never lost a war with
Israel and thus it doesn't know it's better to be at peace with them
than at war. BTW, when did Israel threaten to invade a peaceful
neighbour?
Israel's fate is a classical example of "si vis pacem, para bellum".
> States are looking for good neighbors not belligerent ones.
Israel's neighbours proved it amply by invading it twice.
rosignol
"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote:
Repeatedly.
--
al Qaeda delenda est
John W.
>> Only by keeping invasion a realistic possibility can we influence Iran's actions. The last time someone counted on Iranian theocrat's good will, he got a disaster (Jimmy Carter).
Well, it would obviously be silly to suggest, now, that there is no
chance of invasion. Military might is always the counter-weight ini
these situations. But the US dug this hole itself by being proactively
militant in its foreign policy. So, the threat of invasion has not been
limited to this concern over nuclear power. Right now, the crucial
concern is cutting off Russian support. Why has the west simply
forgotten about that?
>> Huh? In order to be secure, Israel should *unilateraly* disarm itself? That goes contrary to my understanding of the word "security".
Why did they arm themselves? You will say because of the invasions?
When did they use the nukes? Why not if they were for 'defense'?
>> They weren't so helpful when Israel was invaded
Providing complete funding, all weapons, and war systems is not
helping? So what that they did not join in on the front lines. They
built the entire military from the groud up!
>> Do you have any idea how much money they get from the EU and US? For God's sake, Israel is collecting their taxes for them.
That is the best unkept secret! Of course I know how much funding they
get. But I see very *little* in the way of actual philanthropic
organization in Palestine from the EU or the US. Money to the corrupt
(rotten to the core) government does not equal philanthropy. It is to
cover our guilt (sort of like paying the prostitute, I suppose...) The
major philanthropy comes through Hamas, and that is the reason they
were elected. More often than not it is internal concerns that decide
elections and not foreign policy.
>>Hilarious. The problem was that the Iranians took the hostages
I admit. It was hilarious. However, it was the US policy in Iran that
helped generate the uprising and the violent overthrow of the
government. They did not almost choose communism because they loved
Lenin. They hated the US. And they hated the US because the US
supported the Shah and his oppressive government (much like the support
Rumsfeld personally gave to Hussein).
>> They are a recognized country. They don't have to prove anything like that to anyone. End of story.
Not quite... Germany was a recognized country and yet it did not prove
to be a good neighbor. Russia was a recognized country and it did not
prove to be a good neighbor. This is the core of foreign
relations--building good will with the communities around you. And the
policy of si vis pacem, para bellum only works with an elaborate power
structure whose very existence builds ill will. Yyou are setting up
your own destruction if you do not try to help rather than hurt.
J.M.
>>> So stop making excuses for them
>
> Not excuses. Understanding. With better understanding this situation
> could be resolved. 15 years is about right to parallel the donation of
> nukes to Israel. Last time I looked, America was advocating the
> eradication of the 'axis of evil'... Should we be invaded? Obviously
> supporting terrorism is a disgusting act and paying people to strap
> bombs to their chests is inhuman. I could not agree more. and I could
> not agree more that Iran needs a change in government. But until that
> happens, an invasion must be completely out of the realm of
> possibility.
It is an acceptable last resort.
>
> In order to prevent an invasion Israel could give up its nukes
Yeah, if I had a neighbour that wanted to eradicate me from the face of the
earth, my first thought would be to get rid of my nukes too. Why don't we
turn the argument around: Iran should stop trying to get nukes. Between
Israel and Iran, Iran is clearly the more aggressive country, which is why
the latter's future nukes are more worrisome.
> (BTW why
> did they need nukes to keep from being invaded? The British, Americans,
> French and Germans would have come to their aid as they did in the
> construction of the country!)
Every country has the right for the means to defend itself, particularly, if
its neighbors have in recent history attacked it several times. There is no
reason to demand of Israel to rely on others to defend it. On the other
hand, no one (except Saddam, but he is gone) has attacked Iran in recent
history. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it will be attacked,
unless it tries to get nukes.
> Isn't the very construction of Israel
> going back to before the middle ages, back to a prehistory? Well, so
> was the 'reclaiming' of the land through violence.
>
> If Israel and the west had prevented Hamas from gaining a foothold
> (remember they started as a opposition group to an invaiding Israel),
> and if they had set up powerful philanthropic organizations intending
> to 'reimburse' the Palestinians for the land, then maybe this would not
> have been as it is now. But that is history. The fact that Israel has
> nukes is not history but continual fact. The fact that Israel's nukes
> could reach Iran in a matter of minutes is a fact.
>
> Finally, I think we should not pretend that the US is the problem but
> realize that it is not helping the situation. If we are speaking of
> history, then the US was the problem for supporting the murderous Shah.
> If we are speaking of history then the US is the problem selling
> weapons to the Iranians for the hostages. If we are speaking of the
> history here, the US is the problem for not renormalizing relations
> with Iran rather than slyly accepting oil and assuming that they were a
> backward, primitive society. I dare any country in the throws of
> revolution to 'comply with international law'.
Yup, and I am perfectly willing to allow Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear
program and was supportive of the negotiations Iran was having with the EU.
Iran unilaterally broke the seals during these negotiations and essentially
walked out, but the door is open for Iran to return. For that matter,
regardless of history, the solution is for both Israel and Iran not to have
nukes, not the other way around. So getting Israel to give up its nukes
must be the goal and not appeasing Iran. And the only way that Israel is
going to give up its nukes (and justly so) is if it feels that it is safe -
and Iran is doing everything to make Israel unsafe. Let's not pretend that
Iran needs these nukes to be safe from Israel -- Israel is not about to
attack and I don't think that Iran believes that. Iran wants these nukes
for precisely one reason: to bully its neighbors, because it wants to be
important. And that is not acceptable.
> This history is part of
> the present dialogue. Before 9/11 (which, just with Iraq, there is no
> proof that there was any complicity on the part of Iran in this... and
> in spite of the fact that most of the bombers were Saudi Arabian I have
> heard no cries against that country)
I do not believe in collective guilt. Do you?
> relations with Iran were stable.
> Yes they were apparently seeking nuclear weapons, but if we had sought
> to open this country ini the aftermath by forcing them to admit to the
> world that they had nothing to do with it and allowing inspectors in
> then this would have been known sooner. Instead, immediately they were
> put on the list of dire enemies. Smart.
>
> Finally, I think it is encumbent on Israel to *prove* they have the
> right to exist by forming strong economic ties to the states around
> them rather than threatening to invade everyone at the drop of a hat.
> States are looking for good neighbors not belligerent ones.
I think Israel has quite good relations with Egypt and with Jordan. Why does
Israel have bad relations with Syria and Iran? Are you suggesting that
Israel is to blame? (So, this will be my last post for three weeks or so)
Jan
John W.
>> I do not believe in collective guilt. Do you?
No. Still does not prove a connection between Iran and 9/11.
John W.
>>Why does Israel have bad relations with Syria and Iran?
On top of the controversial presence and 'carving out' of Israel by the
British... what about the Sinai campaign? Israeli spies started it all
(trying to sour relations between Egypt and America) and then Israel
(with the support of the British, French and Americans) marched into
Egypt. That is proactive. What about the 6 day war with Syria? Though,
here, there was a bit more involved than simple spying and it was not
*completely* on the shoulders of Israel. However, instead of firing on
the workers doing the ir duty, they could have brokered for a peaceful
resolution. They were not going to starve or dehydrate, after all. And
what about the invasion of Lebanon?