MaiLuk Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 THE CHOICE HAS BEEN MADE Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 Mustafa El-Labbad analyses the context of a time of reckoning for Iran while Emad Mekay catalogues efforts of Washington's right-wing lobbyists and think tanks to prepare the way for war --------------------------------------------------- International pressures on Tehran over its nuclear programme have brought Iran to the threshold of an entirely new phase in its post-revolutionary history. The Iranian regime is no stranger to outside forces; the US has sustained a virtually uninterrupted political, economic and technological blockade against it since the 1979 revolution. However, never before has it confronted an international community so unanimously and determinedly ranged against it. It now appears almost inevitable that the nuclear issue will be brought before the UN Security Council and that Iran, for the first time in its history, will face punitive measures. Until last year, Tehran played brilliantly within the margin of manoeuvrability opened to it by the rift between Europe, China and Russia, on the one hand, and the US, on the other. Blazoning millions of dollars worth of oil contracts with major petroleum companies from the former areas, it succeeded voiding the American-led drive against it of all substance and driving sharp dents into the NATO front. The rift between the US and other international powers simultaneously enabled Tehran to sustain its regional presence and to develop this into one of its primary strategic strengths. Since then, however, the European and American stances towards Iran have converged to near conformity, especially after Tehran's decision to resume work in its nuclear research centre in Isfahan and its uranium plant in Natanz. After having steadfastly resisted US pressures for two years in their hope of reaching a negotiated settlement with Iran, the countries of the so-called Troika (Britain, German and France), which had spearheaded these negotiations, now support the American demand to bring the case of Iran's nuclear programme before the Security Council. If Russia has long been the most sympathetic to Iran's insistence on its rights to develop its nuclear technology, it, too, is likely to change its position soon. Moscow had offered Tehran the face- saving opportunity to let its scientists refine Iranian uranium on Russian soil. The initiative would have conquered several birds with one stone. It would have kept Tehran's nuclear ambitions under skein of silken diplomatic restraints as it would be taken for read that Tehran could not, therefore, possess the full fuel cycle needed to power nuclear weaponry. This, in turn, would have forestalled Washington's designs to escalate its campaign against Iran diplomatically and militarily. At the same time, Russia would be able to maintain its economic, military and strategic interests in Iran. Tehran rejected the Russian offer, leaving Moscow little alternative but to toughen its stance towards Iran if it does not want to jeopardise its relations with Washington. As the foregoing suggests, Iranian leaders are in no small measure responsible for the changing tide of opinion against them. Their handling of the nuclear issue has changed radically since only a little over a year ago. At the end of 2004, in Paris, they agreed to a voluntary halt in their uranium enrichment activities until an agreement over the issue could be struck with the Troika. Contrary to the claim of current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that move was not a "compromise," but rather a very astute manoeuvre at the appropriate time. As long as Iran was involved in negotiations with Europe, regardless of how wildly they fluctuated between near success and near failure, Tehran enjoyed a form of international cover, which protected it from the escalating onslaught from Washington and beneath which it could strengthen its hand against the US by consolidating its regional influence and, more importantly, securing allies in positions of power in Iraq. It is in this regard that the timing of Iran's shift in tactics is particularly significant. One can not help but to notice that its decision to back out of the Paris agreement and resume uranium enrichment operations occurred effectively following the announcement of the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq. It was those elections that put paid to Washington's hopes that even a small piece of the power pie in Iraq would go to certain political and sectarian parties, thereby weakening the relatively large majority held by Iran's major ally in that country, the Shia United Iraqi Coalition. Perhaps decision-makers in Iran feel that the prudence they had shown until last year -- or more appropriately, their policy of dissimulation under duress -- was no longer sustainable as the international balance shifted against them. Having given their nuclear development programme such high priority and having over previous years mobilised public opinion in support of this programme, they have landed themselves in something of a predicament. Now, even if they wanted to lower the ceiling of their nuclear ambitions they could not without losing considerable credibility at home. The development of a nuclear capacity has come to epitomise the Iranian national dream, the interpretation and pursuit of which is monopolised by the power centres of the Islamic republic. Moreover, there is a closer meeting of minds than ever in these power centres, now that the conservatives have come to dominate all the country's executive and legislative institutions, to the almost total exclusion of the reformists, a development that was crowned with the rise of Ahmadinejad as president of the republic. Certainly this helps to account for the current tenor of Tehran's diplomatic and media drive. If achieving a nuclear capacity is not just one of the aims, but the ultimate aspiration of the regime and the cornerstone of its legitimacy, it has little alternative, in view of the logic of domestic politics, but to meet mounting pressures from abroad with an escalation of its own. This has taken the form of the decision to restart uranium enrichment operations regardless of the consequences. "Keep your gold and intentions to yourself," goes a Shia saying cautioning against publicising the extent of your wealth and your financial dealings. The regime in Tehran has clearly cast this adage to the winds, or, at least cast it in a different mould. The oil and natural gas-rich country no longer makes a secret of its lust after "yellow cake" and its intent to control all possible means to develop its nuclear technology. Link to Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Was just thinking that the US is training a HUGE army in iraq. Could shia iraqis view iran as a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Sadam reportedly used to tell his advisors that Iraq had nothing to fear from Iran's nuclear development. If Iran ever got close to making the bomb, the Israelis or the US would take them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 OK...principle here...US has Nukes...Nuclear weapons, power...etc...Isreal has Nukes...India...Pakistan (?) North Korea(?) who else? Any left in the old Soviet Union? O.k. so bottom line time Isreal has them, why can't Iran? Mind you, I'd prefer they/no one had them...fucked up world...or maybe it's just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packy Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Not always who has the bomb, but who has the lunacy to use it! Iran has already said what they would like to do to Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Question is since the revoluitionary mullahs are going to have a bomb, what is the next move? Remember reading some reports about how the nuclear sites are built way underground, concrete above and impervious to an airstrike. Is there a realistic possibility of western troops in iran to resolve this? Thats why i mentioned the iraqi army. US might manipulate matters so that the new iraqi army can be used to handle certain problems in the area. Unfortunately the US seems to have little control over the new gov. But an old fashioned pretext could be created to turn iraqis against the iranian mullahs. For example, a contrived iranian plot to bribe iraqi leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Sadam reportedly used to tell his advisors that Iraq had nothing to fear from Iran's nuclear development. If Iran ever got close to making the bomb, the Israelis or the US would take them out. Sort of ironic. Based on that belief, maybe he decided to NOT make the bomb to ensure that he himself would not get taken out. Just goes to show you can eat a high fiber diet, avoid the sun. But ya never know who is gonna get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 MaiLuk said:Question is since the revoluitionary mullahs are going to have a bomb, what is the next move? Remember reading some reports about how the nuclear sites are built way underground, concrete above and impervious to an airstrike. Is there a realistic possibility of western troops in iran to resolve this? Thats why i mentioned the iraqi army. US might manipulate matters so that the new iraqi army can be used to handle certain problems in the area. Unfortunately the US seems to have little control over the new gov. But an old fashioned pretext could be created to turn iraqis against the iranian mullahs. For example, a contrived iranian plot to bribe iraqi leaders. More than likely, they would put aside past differences and get us... Look, Lunatic factor aside, the US has a ton of nut job bornagain dry drunks/addict running it...they have their agenda. To date, the only people luney enough to have used a nuke, has been us...or U.S....these people have been pushed into a corner and kicked for so damned long, it might be time to start taking a look at just what it is that is pissing them off so much, and maybe make amends for it... Isreal supposedly has nukes, and believes in the Massada principle. If they get over run, they will take themselves and the whole middle east out with nukes, tell me that isn't any more fanatical than these jack assed Mullahas...? Going in and starting another war we can't win will solve nothing, and perhapes actually provoke them into using one...Scarey is, the technology and people are out there to build a small nuclear device, smuggle it into Isreal or the US/wherever and set it off...Iran may be doing a bit of sabre rattling here in order to try and force a sit down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Old Hippie said: MaiLuk said:Isreal supposedly has nukes, and believes in the Massada principle. If they get over run, they will take themselves and the whole middle east out with nukes Israel ( correct spelling ! ) has never admitted to having nukes. Plus they do NOT believe in the Massada principle at all, where did you read this BS ? A nuke should be a deterrent, not a last ditch effort. IMO a nuke should then be used by the US after a UN concensus pre-emptively to cut out a cancer. IMO of course......but that would be the way to go. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Israelis have told me that if they have to die, they will die fighting. But they never said anything about killing themselves! p.s. Unofficial estimates are that Israel has around 16 nuclear warheads. They'd be foolish not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.