War In Iran

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy said:
I somehow doubt that IRAN needs a civilian nuclear programme (second largest reseves of conventional crude in the world - 133 gigabarrels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iran, as well as having the second largest natural gas reserves in the world).
Click to expand...

I though Iraq had the second-biggest oil reserves? Obviously the whole region is fuel-rich but I was unaware Iran had especially big reserves.
Perhaps it's just sabre-rattling. I certainly hope so. Even North Korea seems to have backed down, in return for a big wodge of aid.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
But, um, DWD, what do you actually know about Ledeen's role in Iran-contra?

I like the way you make me seem a bit devious, trying to insert right-wing political porn into the lives and minds of unsuspecting Dissensians. That does sound fun. But I wasn't.

I just felt it would be nice to counterbalance the usual Counterpunch and Information Clearing House stuff that gets linked to here. I can see the idea upsets you; it also makes you sound rather authoritarian, which is a telling touch.

This may sound odd, but I trust someone like, say, Mr Tea, to read an article, understand its position and maybe its agenda (and Mr. Ledeen is hardly one to disguise this) and decide for himself whether or not to pay attention to him. After all, it's not difficult to google "Ledeen" and found out whatever you want to know. Is it?
 
D

DWD

Well-known member
oliver craner said:
I just felt it would be nice to counterbalance the usual Counterpunch and Information Clearing House stuff that gets linked to here.
Click to expand...

Great. Hi! It's nice to meet someone who is so dedicated to upholding the standards of online debate.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
vimothy said:
Why is it so hard to have a dialogue without people instantly dismissing stuff as part of a nefarious covert plot. Why is there always a "programme" or a "project" which is pursuing some hideous hidden agenda? Can't we put the paranoia aside for just a leeetle bit?
Click to expand...

The "plot" isn't particularly covert: maintainance of US dominance/supremacy in the middle east at almost any cost, paired with naive democratic messianism, and exaggerated belief in the abilities of the US army. See also here.
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Mr. Tea said:
I though Iraq had the second-biggest oil reserves? Obviously the whole region is fuel-rich but I was unaware Iran had especially big reserves.
Perhaps it's just sabre-rattling. I certainly hope so. Even North Korea seems to have backed down, in return for a big wodge of aid.
Click to expand...

Nah, Iran's got loads of fuel, though other countries have more reserves of unconventional oil (the Athabasca Tar Sands in Cananda for e.g.).

I certainly hope it is sabre rattling. I can't see any other reason for Iran to develop nuclear power, though. But perhaps we're on the verge of something new in any case. The government there is obviously badly out of touch with the people, the demographics and economics are close to disastrous and while it looks as though Kominei is about to shuffle off this mortal coil the country's leadership is beset by internecine conflict. Maybe they can finally shake off the theocrats.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
It's nice to meet someone who is so dedicated to upholding the standards of online debate.

Liking the lead-weight sarcasm, truly, truly.

I am, indeed, devious.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
borderpolice said:
The "plot" isn't particularly covert: maintainance of US dominance/supremacy in the middle east at almost any cost, paired with naive democratic messianism, and exaggerated belief in the abilities of the US army. See also here.
Click to expand...

America will be the most powerful actor in the Middle east for some time, unless some pretty remarkable things happen (starting with regional economic and political liberalisation), so I don't believe that a "plot" to maintain a status quo which is unlikely to change is very credible. Surely what everyone wants is to keep nuclear weapons from authoritarian regimes who may, regardless of the reasonable-ness and dignity of most their populations, happily launch them at us.

Messianic beliefs in the power of democracy and unstinting trust in the abilities of the USAF are hardly part of a plot in any case (whether one agrees with you or not): it's naivity. And naivity surely means that there is no hidden agenda.

As for the BBC article, you know, they were wrong, and that's very unfortunate for everyone, except for Bush-baiting pundits who sometimes seem to revel in the destruction and bloodshed in Iraq and the ineptness of US policy there. [Sorry, cynicism is getting the better of me today].
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
vimothy said:
America will be the most powerful actor in the Middle east for some time,
Click to expand...

No, the status quo of US dominance is not maintained by default. it requires the continuation of US colonialism, that has been at the heart of US middle-eastern politics for several decades. however, due to a variety of geopolitical changes this will be more difficult and dangerous from now on. The most important of those are the increasing political weight of oil producing countries, due to increased demand, and falling reserves; the geopolitical ambitions of Russia and china; the disaster in Irak, troubles in afganistan; the split with european allies; demographic developments; the political weakness of the Bush government and so on.

vimothy said:
Surely what everyone wants is to keep nuclear weapons from authoritarian regimes who may, regardless of the reasonable-ness and dignity of most their populations, happily launch them at us.
Click to expand...

Whom do you refer to as "us"? And which authoritarian regime are you referring to? Pakistan,
Russia? Israel, the US or Iran?

vimothy said:
you know, they were wrong, and that's very unfortunate for everyone, except for Bush-baiting pundits
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Live's a gamble, you will some you loose some? that's all you have to say as political analysis?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
No, the status quo of US dominance is not maintained by default. it requires the continuation of US colonialism, that has been at the heart of US middle-eastern politics for several decades.
Click to expand...

Oh, puh-lease,

however, due to a variety of geopolitical changes this will be more difficult and dangerous from now on. The most important of those are the increasing political weight of oil producing countries, due to increased demand, and falling reserves; the geopolitical ambitions of Russia and china; the disaster in Irak, troubles in afganistan; the split with european allies; demographic developments; the political weakness of the Bush government and so on.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that the current situation vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear ambitions reflects that country's (Leadership's) geopolitical strategies and desire to become a powerful and fearsome Islamic state both within the region and worldwide, and to develop an "empire" or network of proxies/satelites (in Leb, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, etc) and international alliances. Naturally this threatens "US dominance" of the region (though after reading your first two sentences I think that we mean different things by that) - it threatens everybody's dominance of the region (check the Wahabi realignment).

Whom do you refer to as "us"? And which authoritarian regime are you referring to? Pakistan,
Russia? Israel, the US or Iran?
Click to expand...

Us could be anyone, the West, the Anglosphere, Europe, the UK, Manchester: I don't think those distinctions will matter very much when/if the nukes start flying. And I wouldn't characterise the US, Israel or even Russia as authoritarian.

Oh yeah? Live's a gamble, you will some you loose some? that's all you have to say as political analysis?
Click to expand...

No, obviously not.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think an important point to emphasise or re-emphasise here is that having WMDs is a very different thing from having the means to deploy WMDs at any useful range. For example, it's well known that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own population (the marsh Arabs) in the late 80s/early 90s, but he was simply too far away to offer any serious threat to any big Western targets, e.g. UK military bases in Cyprus, which I believe were the basis of the spurious '45 minute' claim.

So the question here is, if Iran were to gain the nuke, what could it usefully nuke? Any attempt on Israel would simply invite the wrath of the world's biggest military power, which can't be much use to any would-be Middle Eastern midi-power.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
So the question here is, if Iran were to gain the nuke,
Click to expand...

But why is that the question? why isn't the question: "if the US were stay nuclear ..."? or "if russia were stay nuclear ..."? or "if israel were stay nuclear ..."? or "if the UK were stay nuclear ..."?

For a start the US, russia, israel or the UK have historically been VASTLY more belliciose than Iran. Of course past performance is rarely a good predictor of future performance, but why should one loose sight of this fact?

Your question betrays a strong bias in favour of the existing powers (Might is right?)
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
Is this a good time to mention 'hanging chad'? :)
Click to expand...

The US has troops stationed in over 70 countries, IIRC, hence effectively ruling these, without giving the citizens of these countries the right of voting for the US government. Hence the US cannot be said to be a democracy.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
borderpolice said:
But why is that the question? why isn't the question: "if the US were stay nuclear ..."? or "if russia were stay nuclear ..."? or "if israel were stay nuclear ..."? or "if the UK were stay nuclear ..."?

For a start the US, russia, israel or the UK have historically been VASTLY more belliciose than Iran. Of course past performance is rarely a good predictor of future performance, but why should one loose sight of this fact?

Your question betrays a strong bias in favour of the existing powers (Might is right?)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying 'might is right', I'm saying 'stability is right'. With the exception of the Cuban missile crisis, none of those countries has come close to using nuclear weapons since the end of WWII. Sure, America and Russia (in particular) like to throw their weight around, but they're run by cynical power-mongers rather than fanatics. I trust the 'established' nuclear powers not to use their weapons, but I'm not so sure about Iran.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Oliver your site looks brilliant. Hopefully I'll get the chance to mine it properly soon. Are all the articles there yours?

Thank you. Yes, I wrote all of it. I used to be quite energetic and engaged!
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
I'm not saying 'might is right', I'm saying 'stability is right'.
Click to expand...

Your concept of stability is biased, presumably reflecting the place where you live. If you had been a resident of one of the places where the imperial powers fight their proxy wars, e.g. afganistan, iran, irak, lebaon, palestine, chechnya, you'd have realised that there is no stability. it behooves you well, to consider the plight of others and not just wealthy westerners.

Mr. Tea said:
none of those countries has come close to using nuclear weapons since the end of WWII.
Click to expand...

(1) they regularly use nuclear weapons in tests.

(2) they regularly use there other weapons, just as deadly, c.f. Irak. Iran has not done this for over 2000 years.

Mr. Tea said:
Sure, America and Russia (in particular) like to throw their weight around, but they're run by cynical power-mongers rather than fanatics. I trust the 'established' nuclear powers not to use their weapons, but I'm not so sure about Iran.
Click to expand...

The reason you believe this is because the western mass media tells you this story all the time.

The same media that used to go on about the weapons of mass destruction in irak just a few years back, the same media that is owned and steered by the same power elite that finances the current western governments.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, here we go again - I don't hold Western goverments responsible for all the bad things in the world, therefore I'm a mindless drone brainwashed by propaganda. Can you please credit me with the intelligence to form my own opinions?

I'm well aware of the hand the US, Russia and other countries have had in all sorts of conflicts all over the world, but we are talking *specifically* about nuclear weapons here (and I fail to see what relevence tests have, especially since the established powers have kept to the test ban treaty for some time now and it's been India, Pakistan and N. Korea that have been conducting the tests). Iran seems to be sounding a lot less belligerent lately but it wasn't long ago that it pledged to "wipe Israel of the map" - now would you want to be an Israeli within striking distance of a nuclear power that felt that way about your country?

(It goes without saying that a lot of Muslim countries (although not Iran directly, I think) have good reason to resent Israel, of course.)
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
borderpolice said:
The US has troops stationed in over 70 countries, IIRC, hence effectively ruling these, without giving the citizens of these countries the right of voting for the US government. Hence the US cannot be said to be a democracy.
Click to expand...

What the fucking fuck?!

In what sense does having troops stationed in a country mean the US rules it? Does the US administration make decisions about UK health policy, for e.g.? Did stationing troops in Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion constitute an invasion of sovereign muslim soil, as per bin Laden?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top