BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Iran next?

  
 
---
00:58 / 15.03.04
Can't you sense something about to start getting heated? I hope my senses are off :


VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States, which has accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons programme, said on Wednesday it was confident the U.N. atomic watchdog would warn Tehran it could face sanctions within months.

Iran said Washington was bullying members of the United Nations into criticising its nuclear programme and this could complicate the Islamic Republic's future cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said a resolution being discussed would stop short of declaring Iran in breach of IAEA rules and reporting it to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions but would signal this could be close.

"What we have insisted on is that there has to be language in this resolution that causes the IAEA to review the situation at the next meeting," Powell told a a congressional hearing.

"Then in June make a judgment as to whether further action should be required and whether there should be other referrals to the Security Council, and that language I am confident...will be reflected in the resolution," he said.

Iran says its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, but the draft resolution suggests it is military-linked.

Reuters


So fucking what if it's military linked? Then why doesn't the American government disarm and lead by example for a change? The American government is so obviously being the world cop.

They can't tell Muslim countries not to do something that they are so obviously doing themselves and think that they have the public's best interests at heart.

Don't make nuclear weapons : Because we have shitloads and we're not stopping making them.

Masters of logic.
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:30 / 15.03.04
There's a thread from last year about the possibility. I don't think the US could invade Iran, even if it wanted to. Bush is in enough trouble over Iraq, both for soldiers' deaths and the cost.

There must be some other reason if they start pushing Iran on this... maybe just election year fear-mongering.
 
 
---
02:01 / 15.03.04
Oh cheers Baz, i'll remember to do a search next time.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
10:20 / 26.09.04
Al-Jazeerah, September 24, 2004
Iran’s rejection of the US authored demands means that the US will now take the next step in isolating Iran by presenting the case to the UN Security Council, where they will request sanctions and, perhaps, a “trigger mechanism” to initiate hostilities if Iran refuses to comply.

haaretz.com. September 26, 2004 Tishrei 11, 5765
The U.S. Defense Department has announced that it is moving ahead with plans to supply 5,000 "smart bombs," including 500 "bunker busters," to the Israeli Air Force.

BBC News. 25 September, 2004
Iran has confirmed that it successfully test-fired what it calls a "strategic missile" during recent military exercises.

...

Iranian-USA relations seem to be deteriorating. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
14:11 / 26.09.04
My twopenneth worth (and I admit from the outset my ignorance over a lot of the issues under discussion)

1: Iran is a reasonably unstable country from all accounts. The religious authorities are fighting a war with their own youth, who are getting sick of the religious restrictions and restrictive dogma

2: Iran do seem to be playing cat and mouse with the atomic regulators. They are claiming peaceful atomic intentions, yet (and this might be western propoganda) they do seem to be pursuing a weapons programme





That said, America and Britain (and the other minor players who make up the 'coalition') have been known to lie about 'intelligence' before and there are voices such as Israel who have a disproportionate voice and interest in ensuring that US and British pressure is brought to bear on Iran.
Israel....poor little Israel. They have 200 nukes of their own but they are shitting a brick over the thought of an Islamic state getting hold of them. Israel , who bombed an Iraqi/French nuclear facility in the early eighties.... are well versed in 'pre-emptive striking'

I can fully understand Iran's nervousness and wish to acquire a deterrent. With Bush and Blair lying and fighting an unjustified war and attempting to gobble up all the oil they can, I can fully understand the Iranian position. Whilst I do not believe that the Iraq debacle has been purely about oil, I do believe it was a pretty significant factor. Iran has loads of oil in it's own right and also pose a 'threat' to Israel. The PNAC document and the Neo-Cons (both Christian and Jew) in the Pentagon are determined to make Israel a safer place.....even if this means taking pre-emptive action against longtime peaceful states (such as Iran)

America's reluctance to take on North Korea seems to be linked to that regions ability to fight back and the fact that they seem lacking in any viable resources of their own.
The US might eventually take on NK and will undoubtedly win but they will suffer much worse casualties than they have to date in Iraq (unless they go nuclear....highly unlikely) and I believe they will manipulate the UN to ensure that other countries get involved in yet another bloody debacle

Getting back to Iran, Bush and his cronies seem to be more insistent on going down the UN route and they seem to be succeeding. They have France and others backing their resolution that Iran should come clean about it's intentions. Sanctions will be next and then the threat of military action. If Bush can curtail his impatience (Or Kerry if he gets in......not much difference really) then the US will follow a route they should have followed over Iraq and they get the UN backing and the new crusade will be upon us

US and European troops, fighting Muslim troops and all dying to ensure the oil is granted freedom and the Israeli Government get a greater Israel to play with


Woo Hoo

admittedly, probably wrong on many counts and far to simplistic a world view on my part. All I know is war is profitable and whilst our brave servicemen and innocent women, men and children are dying in Iran.......some bastard with shares in LockHeed Martin and others, will be rubbing their hands with glee as their share prices spike upwards again.
 
 
sleazenation
23:37 / 26.09.04
Wow... there is so much to talk about when tackling the subject of Iranian politics and its relations to the west.

While this article is 2 years old it does outline some of the most important factors surrounding Iran's international relations. As Joe suggests, Israel's own nuclear arsenal and the United States tacit approval of that arsenal makes developing a nuclear deterant even more attractive to Iran, add to that Iran's history of being royally fucked over by both the UK and the US.

Arguably US and UK involvement in organizing a coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953 in retaliation for attempting to nationalise the Iranian oil industry did much to retard the advancement of democracy in Iran. The pro-western/western backed regime of the last Shah was renowned for its corruption and its brutal practices and was eventually ended in the popular uprising that preceeded the Islamic revolution.

Far from being unstable, as Joe suggests, Iran would seem to have repulsed efforts by the UK and the US to install regimes that are friendlier to Western interests upon it in the past. With UK and US forces mired in the quagmires of Iraqi and Afghanistan, I don't see a policy of regime change being particularly feasible at present. Tacticle airstikes aimed at limiting Iran's Nuclear capabilities are only going to serve to strengthen the current Iranian regime. I don't see any easy answers in this but political engagement would seem to be more practical than any of the alternatives.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
01:21 / 28.09.04
It does appear to be a matter of when, rather than if, the US gets overtly involved. if we consider the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

The Nation. May 6, 2004

One, we want long-term strategic military bases. Two, we count on retaining significant influence over Iraqi oil policy. Three, we favor unrestricted foreign investment in a country that has a history of intense hostility toward alien ownership of the country's economic enterprises and natural resources. Four, we expect Iraq to support America's role in the Middle East peace process even when it would mean aligning Iraqi policy with that of George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon.

One, Iran is surrounded by US military bases. Two, Iran has large oil fields. Three, Iran restricts access to American multinationals. Four, Iran supports Islamic terrorists (Hamas and others).

Add to that Israeli Secret Service's willingness to act internationally.

The Age. September 28, 2004

Izz Eldine Subhi Sheik Khalil, 42, was killed in al-Zahraa neighbourhood in Damascus when a bomb tore apart his car.

The killing was the first of a Hamas member in Syria.

And also this thread from October last year.

The US may wish to act before Iran possesses nuclear weapons.
 
 
sleazenation
20:52 / 28.09.04
There is undoubtedly a desire among various elements of the US government to see regime change in Iran. I have severe doubts how practical a furthur military misadventure will be at achieving this aim.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
23:44 / 29.09.04
sleazenation - i agree with you. things just seem to be going off the boil and it's giving me the fear. hopefully after Kerry wins the election, USA foreign policy will become all sweetness and light.
 
  
Add Your Reply