Iran Election June 09

[JAD_333]

I see your point JAD. But from A-jad's point of view, he finallly wants Iran to have nuclear capability as long as Iran is under threat from a nuclear capable Israel.

Syria was previously thinking along this line as well. Not sure if it still is.

Talk to Iran, Syria and Israel to get a nuclear free middle east.

Difficult proposition when seen from that POV. I would just say that nations see to their national security interests. They don't come at them like judicial questions. The fundamental proposition is that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons or the capability of producing them, irregardless of whether our ally in the region has them. Iran already throws its weight around in the region; think of how much more weight they would have with nukes at the ready. Israel is in survival mode and has little or no prospect of shaping the Middle East in its image. It's nukes are a deterrent against attack, not a means of dominating its neighbors.

[Bigfella]

Just how picky do we have to be when the goal is getting Iran to give up any plans it may have to produce it's own fissionable material? We have to be pragmatic and if that means talking to A-jad and his handlers, so be it.

To paraphrase a former SecDef: you don't always get to negotiate with the government you want, sometimes you have to negotiate with the government that is there.

[Bigfella]

Difficult proposition when seen from that POV. I would just say that nations see to their national security interests. They don't come at them like judicial questions. The fundamental proposition is that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons or the capability of producing them, irregardless of whether our ally in the region has them. Iran already throws its weight around in the region; think of how much more weight they would have with nukes at the ready. Israel is in survival mode and has little or no prospect of shaping the Middle East in its image. It's nukes are a deterrent against attack, not a means of dominating its neighbors.

Again the issue of perspective matters here. You & I may well see Israel's intentions in that light, but its neighbours may not. Indeed, look at the number of times Israel has invaded or attacked neighbouring countries. We might well say that is self-defence, but countries in the region might well point out that Iran has no such record.

Iranians might also point out that they are surrounded by nations that are pretty much surrounded by nations that are either unfriendly, allied to one that is or hosting military forces from a nationan that is. Again, you and I might not see it quite that way, but neither of our countries has the recent history Iran does. Personally I think the desire to assert its power in the region is as or even more important a motivation, but again, I am a long way away.

I honestly don't know how this is going to get resolved short of China & Russia being brought on board, and perhaps not even then. Military action against Iran strikes me as perhaps the stupidest of all options, but it has a seductive simplicity that might just suck enough people in.

[Dreadnought]

I see your point JAD. But from A-jad's point of view, he finallly wants Iran to have nuclear capability as long as Iran is under threat from a nuclear capable Israel.

Syria was previously thinking along this line as well. Not sure if it still is.


*Neither would be under threat from Israel if:

1) Iran didnt constantly call for the destruction of the country and flaming rhetoric about the holucost.

2) Syria, all countries intelligence networks know full well who funds the problems in Syria, Its Iran and it has been Iran for some time.

If Israel is under constant threat even while trying to make some kind of tangible peace with the Palestinians I'd give them the green light to turn Irans lights out perminent.

Should we wait until this idiot threatens attacks Israel once they gain nuclear weapons. You know that every other day they will once obtained. And they already do now by proxy through Hezbollah. Why should we stop Israel from making certain her survival? Its only going to take one slip once Iran gets such weapons and then you will have an exchange due to A-jads rhetoric.

Let me guess blame the Israeli's then correct?

Making my opinion crystal clear, There are alot of good people in Iran. However their government is headed by antagonists. Ones that will bring them a war that the people clearly dont want but just like the recent elections they will have no say and many will suffer due to these rigged elections and an antagonist theocracy and President that runs the country and never knows when to shut his mouth and be truthfull and except the fact that he is and his rhetoric is responsible for Irans current situation. Not the British nor the Americans but A-jad and his handlers are responsible for the murders in the street as well as stoking Israel and the US and the Brits. It takes a man to admit when it is his fault, obvioulsy Iran has no such man in power and given this regime never will. It will be only a matter of time before the international community gives up on diplomacy and the clock is still ticking.

[chankya]

I see your point JAD. But from A-jad's point of view, he finallly wants Iran to have nuclear capability as long as Iran is under threat from a nuclear capable Israel.

I'm guessing that the nuclear worry for Iran is more Sunni Pakistan, with a history of anti-shia violence, than Isreal. It's also a more proximate threat. Iran recently closed its border with Pakistan. They may not articulate the threat since they're still bent on winning the hearts of the arab street but capability and intent both point to Pakistan as the bigger threat.

[JAD_333]

Again the issue of perspective matters here. You & I may well see Israel's intentions in that light, but its neighbours may not. Indeed, look at the number of times Israel has invaded or attacked neighbouring countries. We might well say that is self-defence, but countries in the region might well point out that Iran has no such record.

Iranians might also point out that they are surrounded by nations that are pretty much surrounded by nations that are either unfriendly, allied to one that is or hosting military forces from a nationan that is. Again, you and I might not see it quite that way, but neither of our countries has the recent history Iran does. Personally I think the desire to assert its power in the region is as or even more important a motivation, but again, I am a long way away.

The facts are as you cited; however, we might interpret them differently. Isarel's cross-border attacks are defensive in nature, a reaction to attacks from outside. Iran, on the other hand, has not suffered any such attacks during all the time of Israel's existence.

It may be that publics throughout the region see Israel's presumed nukes as a threat to them, but their leaders know full well that Israel would only use them in the event that its national existence was in dire jeapardy. For a country to use nukes to get its way in a region it first must declare it possesss them and prove it by, for example, testing them.

If Iran gets nukes it will not hide them under bushel basket. At its first opportunity it would test one just as the N. Koreans have. At that point the dynamics between it and all the countries within the range of its rockets will change dramatically. Its voice in regional issues from oil output to the shape of its neighbors' relationships with the West will carry huge weight. Indeed, it's voice worldwide will take on new significance. So, there is a difference between Iran's and Israel's motives for having nukes.

I honestly don't know how this is going to get resolved short of China & Russia being brought on board, and perhaps not even then. Military action against Iran strikes me as perhaps the stupidest of all options, but it has a seductive simplicity that might just suck enough people in.

I agree, but I believe Russia and China will not condone a nuke-armed Iran. For now, they appear less concerned about it than the US and its allies. Iran will not have nukes tomorrow or perhaps not in a couple of years. So, they're letting the West beat its chest while they play a soft hand in hopes of getting commerical gains from Iran. But if evidence emerges that Iran has restarted its nuke program, Russia and China would likely change their tune quickly. The nuke club wants no new members, save Pakistan who would perhaps like to see a fellow Islamic country join the ranks.

[Merlin]

Do they want to be martyrs to get large numbers of protesters out into the streets?

Opposition leaders court arrest by defying 'unlawful Iranian regime'

1 July [Times] Three of Iran’s most prominent opposition leaders flagrantly courted arrest today by denouncing President Ahmadinejad’s government as illegitimate one day after the regime said it would tolerate no more challenges to the election result.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister who lost the hotly-disputed vote, said the regime’s crackdown on dissent was tantamount to a coup. ...

Ayatollah Mohammed Khatami, 65, a popular former president, accused the regime of mounting a “velvet revolution against the people and democracy” and called the security crackdown “poisonous”.

Mehdi Karroubi, 72, another defeated presidential candidate, declared that “visible and invisible forces blocked any change in the executive power”. He added: “I will continue the fight under any circumstances and using every means.” ...

One Iranian analyst expressed astonishment at their audacity. “It looks like they’re trying to become living martyrs,” he said. “At the very least they will be put under house arrest. At worst they will be taken to jail and charged with threatening national security.”

The one reason the regime might hesitate to lock them up is the very real prospect of hundreds of thousands of incensed supporters taking to the streets again. “The only question is how big the demonstrations would be, and how long the people could fight the might of a military state,” said the analyst.

Mr Mousavi, 67, is living at home with his family in Tehran, but with security and intelligence agents watching his every move. They have arrested most of his inner circle and made it progressively harder for him to communicate with his followers. ....

[JAD_333]

I see your point JAD. But from A-jad's point of view, he finallly wants Iran to have nuclear capability as long as Iran is under threat from a nuclear capable Israel.

Syria was previously thinking along this line as well. Not sure if it still is.


*Neither would be under threat from Israel if:

1) Iran didnt constantly call for the destruction of the country and flaming rhetoric about the holucost.

2) Syria, all countries intelligence networks know full well who funds the problems in Syria, Its Iran and it has been Iran for some time.

If Israel is under constant threat even while trying to make some kind of tangible peace with the Palestinians I'd give them the green light to turn Irans lights out perminent.

Should we wait until this idiot threatens attacks Israel once they gain nuclear weapons. You know that every other day they will once obtained. And they already do now by proxy through Hezbollah. Why should we stop Israel from making certain her survival? Its only going to take one slip once Iran gets such weapons and then you will have an exchange due to A-jads rhetoric.

Let me guess blame the Israeli's then correct?

Making my opinion crystal clear, There are alot of good people in Iran. However their government is headed by antagonists. Ones that will bring them a war that the people clearly dont want but just like the recent elections they will have no say and many will suffer due to these rigged elections and an antagonist theocracy and President that runs the country and never knows when to shut his mouth and be truthfull and except the fact that he is and his rhetoric is responsible for Irans current situation. Not the British nor the Americans but A-jad and his handlers are responsible for the murders in the street as well as stoking Israel and the US and the Brits. It takes a man to admit when it is his fault, obvioulsy Iran has no such man in power and given this regime never will. It will be only a matter of time before the international community gives up on diplomacy and the clock is still ticking.

There's a universal truth in what you say: bellicose leaders must be taken at their word by other nations even if they are perceived to be beating a false drum. A-Jad may be using the old trick of making a lot of noise above ground so the world's attention will be diverted from what is going on under ground. Or, he may be conditioning other Islamic countries in the region to regard Israel as a threat to their existence; ergo, someone in their orbit has to get nukes to counterbalance Isreal's nukes. So, why not Iran?

But the possibilities are endless. A-jad is from a nation of skilled rug merchants, as it were. If they are going to sell their "right" to process enriched uranium and/or build nukes, why not drive the price up as much as possible. The price then includes regional stability, now threatened, better relations with the West, now non-existent; secure access to the sea lanes in the Gulf, now under Iran's guns; recognition of Israel, now a virtual pipe dream...etc. etc.

What we cannot afford to do, as the status quo now stands, is to attack Iran's enrichment facilities or overtly attempt regime change. Iran would not only continue as a hornets nest, but would grow even more difficult to live with, and the same would be true of any number of its neighboring Islamic countries. All we worked for in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakisan would be lost.

That is not to say that an attack in the future must also be ruled out, but such an attack would take place under far different dynamics than now exist. For one thing, there would have to be almost universal support for doing so, even in the region. Of course, Israel is the wild card. It's interests are singular unto itself: national existence. How that would play with the rest of the world is an open question, but every leader worth his salt knows that a threat to one's national existence justifies any action to secure it.

[JAD_333]

Europe Weighs Pulling Envoys From Tehran

The plot thickens.

Europe Weighs Pulling Envoys From Tehran

By ALAN COWELL and STEPHEN CASTLE
Published: July 1, 2009 (New York Times)

PARIS — Iran risked diplomatic isolation from the European Union, as European officials discussed whether to withdraw the ambassadors of all 27 member nations in a dispute over the detention of the British Embassy’s Iranian personnel.

European diplomats said Wednesday that they had made no formal decision to order their envoys home, but that the measure was an option as the European Union — Iran’s biggest trading partner — tried to work out how to defuse the dispute in a way that would shield other embassies in Tehran from similar action.

Withdrawing all 27 ambassadors would be a rare and unusually forceful display of European anger at Iran’s crackdown on dissent after the June 12 presidential election, and several diplomats said the European Union would prefer to avoid such a move.

Iran arrested nine employees of the British Embassy in Tehran over the weekend, but said it had released all but one of them by Wednesday.

The Iranian response to the potential European action was bellicose. A high-ranking Iranian military official demanded that the Europeans apologize for interference in Iran’s affairs, which, he said, disqualified European countries from negotiating on Iran’s nuclear program.

The official, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the armed forces chief of staff, was quoted by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying that because of the European Union’s “interference” in the postelection unrest, the bloc had “totally lost the competence and qualifications needed for holding any kind of talks with Iran.”

He added, “We believe that they don’t have the right to speak of negotiations before apologizing for their obvious mistakes and showing their regret in practice,” Fars said.

The statement was a sign that Iran might use its postelection dispute to cast further doubt on the stalled nuclear negotiations, buying time to continue a nuclear enrichment program. Tehran says the program is for civilian power, but many Western nations believe that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

Iran appears to be caught between strategies: one that does not want to downgrade diplomatic relations with other nations for fear of international isolation, and another that is pushing the concept of foreign interference for domestic reasons.

In Iran on Wednesday, Mir Hussein Moussavi, the main challenger in the election, reasserted his claim that the election was illegitimate. According to Press TV, a television station financed by the Iranian government, he said he would present documents that prove electoral fraud.

Late Tuesday, another opposition candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, reiterated on his Web site that he would not accept the outcome of the election. Mr. Karroubi is a former Parliament speaker who came in a distant fourth in the vote. The government shut down his reformist newspaper on Wednesday.

Iran’s police chief, Brig. Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moqaddam, said Wednesday that 1,032 people were detained during the postelection unrest, Fars reported. He told reporters that most detainees were released, and that “those who are still in detention have been sent to public and revolutionary courts in Tehran.”

He also said that 20 people had been killed in the postelection violence, and 500 troops had been wounded.

Apparently in a sign of the leadership’s edginess after the protests, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a planned trip to Libya on Wednesday, news reports said. No further details were given.

For the West, meanwhile, the Iranian reaction to a potential European diplomatic withdrawal added another layer of complexity to assessments of how to deal with Iran — not only for Europe, but also for the United States, where the Obama administration had expressed hopes for a new dialogue with Iran before the election-related crackdown.

Members of the European Union have strongly condemned the violent crackdown on dissenters, who believe that the government manipulated the election results to keep Mr. Ahmadinejad in power.

The Iranian authorities have sought to cast Britain in particular as an instigator of the unrest. The nine Iranian employees of the British Embassy who were arrested over the weekend were accused of fomenting unrest. Five were released by Monday night, and Press TV said that three more were released Wednesday, leaving one still in custody. That employee, Fars said Wednesday, “had a remarkable role during the recent unrest in managing it behind the scenes.”

As the dispute unfolded, the European Union said it would support Britain, but it has been unclear what form that backing would take. Britain has been pushing for a tough response, while Germany, Iran’s biggest trading partner in the European Union, is being more cautious.

Some Europeans believe the Iranians can be persuaded to avert a confrontation by quickly releasing the remaining British Embassy staff member, diplomats said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.

Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden, told reporters in Stockholm on Wednesday — the day his country took over the presidency of the European Union — that it was in the interests of the European Union and Iran to retain full diplomatic ties. But he did not exclude the withdrawal of ambassadors, saying that “from the diplomatic perspective, all options are on the table.”

However, he added that the bloc had “an interest in maintaining full diplomatic relations” with Tehran and that he thought “it would be in Iranian interests that we retain diplomatic courtesies in a situation like this.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/wo...2iran.html?hpw

[Bigfella]

[QUOTE=JAD_333;652615]

The facts are as you cited; however, we might interpret them differently. Isarel's cross-border attacks are defensive in nature, a reaction to attacks from outside. Iran, on the other hand, has not suffered any such attacks during all the time of Israel's existence.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, perhaps it came out wrong or unclear. As you are no doubt aware Iran has suffered not only a devastating invasion & war, but also a lengthy insurgency supported by neighbours (in Kurdistan) and outside interference in its domestic politics the likes of which Israel has never suffered. It has also seen the rise of fundamentalist Sunni regimes or militaries on its Eastern border, one of them nuclear armed. The Mullahs of Qom (and for that matter Najaf) know full well that the war OBL & co are really gathering forces for is not an assault on the west, but a cleansing of Islam (after which it might be our turn). I would argue that Iran can easily justify its paranoia.

It may be that publics throughout the region see Israel's presumed nukes as a threat to them, but their leaders know full well that Israel would only use them in the event that its national existence was in dire jeapardy. For a country to use nukes to get its way in a region it first must declare it possesss them and prove it by, for example, testing them.

If Iran gets nukes it will not hide them under bushel basket. At its first opportunity it would test one just as the N. Koreans have. At that point the dynamics between it and all the countries within the range of its rockets will change dramatically. Its voice in regional issues from oil output to the shape of its neighbors' relationships with the West will carry huge weight. Indeed, it's voice worldwide will take on new significance. So, there is a difference between Iran's and Israel's motives for having nukes.

I think this is one of those 'yes & no' propositions. I agree that Israel's nukes are essentially defensive, but we have seen in the past that Israel sometimes has a somewhat expansive view of where its defensive perimeter lies (the suburbs of Beruit or the Suez canal, for example). The possession of those weapons certainly gives Israel a range of conventional options that I doubt please its neighbours, even those without hostile intent.

Just one point. Israel has tested at least one nuke, and its possession of the weapons is accepted as fact, so I'm not sure how relavant that issue is.

I agree, however, that Iran does have some different motivations. I think it is unwise to discount the emotional importance of deterrance, especially to ordinary Iranians with good memories (this is relevant because we should not assume that a different regime necessarily ends the quest for nukes - indeed a democratic Iran might argue it has no less right to them than France). You are right, however, in asserting that the leadership is after more than this. It wants 'great power' status & the sort of leadership position in the Islamic world that Pakistan would have if it were a real country. Noting good can come of this.

I agree, but I believe Russia and China will not condone a nuke-armed Iran. For now, they appear less concerned about it than the US and its allies. Iran will not have nukes tomorrow or perhaps not in a couple of years. So, they're letting the West beat its chest while they play a soft hand in hopes of getting commerical gains from Iran. But if evidence emerges that Iran has restarted its nuke program, Russia and China would likely change their tune quickly. The nuke club wants no new members, save Pakistan who would perhaps like to see a fellow Islamic country join the ranks

.

I truly hope you are right about Russia & China. If they are indifferent or even supportive of Iran getting nukes then only force will stop it, and I am unconvinced that is worth the price.

I disagree on Pakistan. Some might be pleased to see 'fellow Muslims' with nukes, but a powerful constituency within Pakistan (and its military) don't view Shi'ism in quite those brotherly terms. Even those who don't see it that way might like the idea of being the only Islamic nuclear state. Give Iran nukes & the shambles that passes for Pakistan instantly becomes much less important. I think they will quietly egg on any attmpts to keep Iran nuclear free short of force.

[Bigfella]

There's a universal truth in what you say: bellicose leaders must be taken at their word by other nations even if they are perceived to be beating a false drum. A-Jad may be using the old trick of making a lot of noise above ground so the world's attention will be diverted from what is going on under ground. Or, he may be conditioning other Islamic countries in the region to regard Israel as a threat to their existence; ergo, someone in their orbit has to get nukes to counterbalance Isreal's nukes. So, why not Iran?

But the possibilities are endless. A-jad is from a nation of skilled rug merchants, as it were. If they are going to sell their "right" to process enriched uranium and/or build nukes, why not drive the price up as much as possible. The price then includes regional stability, now threatened, better relations with the West, now non-existent; secure access to the sea lanes in the Gulf, now under Iran's guns; recognition of Israel, now a virtual pipe dream...etc. etc.

What we cannot afford to do, as the status quo now stands, is to attack Iran's enrichment facilities or overtly attempt regime change. Iran would not only continue as a hornets nest, but would grow even more difficult to live with, and the same would be true of any number of its neighboring Islamic countries. All we worked for in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakisan would be lost.

That is not to say that an attack in the future must also be ruled out, but such an attack would take place under far different dynamics than now exist. For one thing, there would have to be almost universal support for doing so, even in the region. Of course, Israel is the wild card. It's interests are singular unto itself: national existence. How that would play with the rest of the world is an open question, but every leader worth his salt knows that a threat to one's national existence justifies any action to secure it.

I agree, especially with the highlighted portion. Iran has tremendous positive potential. It could be a strong, successful & modern Islamic nation - comparable in some ways to Turkey, though not as secular. Military action would destroy the liberal reformists for a generation at least and might turn Iran into something unthinkable dangerous. It really must be a 'minutes to midnight' scenario with near universal backing.

[Officer of Engineers]

Just one point. Israel has tested at least one nuke, and its possession of the weapons is accepted as fact, so I'm not sure how relavant that issue is.

No evidence of such a test, including none of the noble gases associated with such a test.

Even if taken to be fact, one single test does not a reliable arsenal make.

[Bigfella]

No evidence of such a test, including none of the noble gases associated with such a test.

Even if taken to be fact, one single test does not a reliable arsenal make.

The Americans have certainly believed they have weapons for at least 40 years.

Israel Crosses the Threshold

A test is believed to have taken place in 1979....

Prince Edward Island. Site of the suspected South African/Israeli nuclear test. A United States Vela satellite detected the characteristic double flash of an atmospheric nuclear explosion on September 22, 1979

Nuclear Test Sites | atomicarchive.com

....though there is some dispute over interpretations of the data.

The Vela Incident: Nuclear Test or Meteorite?

In any case, there is ample reason to believe Israel has a nuclear arsenal. The chance that they might not work is not one anyone is likely to take.

[JAD_333]

[QUOTE=Bigfella;652687]

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, perhaps it came out wrong or unclear. As you are no doubt aware Iran has suffered not only a devastating invasion & war, but also a lengthy insurgency supported by neighbours (in Kurdistan) and outside interference in its domestic politics the likes of which Israel has never suffered. It has also seen the rise of fundamentalist Sunni regimes or militaries on its Eastern border, one of them nuclear armed. The Mullahs of Qom (and for that matter Najaf) know full well that the war OBL & co are really gathering forces for is not an assault on the west, but a cleansing of Islam (after which it might be our turn). I would argue that Iran can easily justify its paranoia.

I have to go off to work, but I just wanted to be sure to reply to you on this. I misspoke. You are quite right about the threats Iran has suffered and faces today. However, there is no concerted effort to snuff out Iran's national existence as there is Israel's. And to some extent Iran's ambitions draw the threats they face.

Back to your other points later. Have a good day.

[Officer of Engineers]

A test is believed to have taken place in 1979....

Nuclear Test Sites | atomicarchive.com

....though there is some dispute over interpretations of the data.

The Vela Incident: Nuclear Test or Meteorite?

The more I've read about that incident, the more it is up in the air. There are just as many arguements against it as a test as there are for it. However, aside from the double flash, there has been no other evidence a test.

In any case, there is ample reason to believe Israel has a nuclear arsenal. The chance that they might not work is not one anyone is likely to take.

As shown by all recent tests (Indian, Pakistani, and North Korean), the designs may not work at all and in the case of the Pakistani, they had a Chinese blueprint to begin with and an initial test in China.

The more complicated the warhead designs, the chances are, the more likely it would screw up. All N5 powers went through this stage, it is highly doubtful that Israel would be spared this learning curve.