< HOME  Thursday, February 02, 2006

Does Iran know something we don't know?

Western countries [are] like "elderly lions whose mane and fur are worn out, and who can only roar [without biting]." -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I can't help but get the feeling that there is something nobody talks about that's behind all this posturing by Ahmedinejad.

10 Comments:

At Friday, February 03, 2006, Blogger Puma said...

You mean like, how much power and influence they wield, because of the simple fact that the dollar is tied to the sale of oil? And that other inconvenient fact that Iran is flush right now and could easily absorb the consequences of shutting off their oil spigot for awhile? And that other inconsequential little reality that China, partnering up nicely with Iran these days, is carrying our paper?

If even I know these little details, then I imagine there's quite a nice bottom of an iceberg underneath it.

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Hey, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sarah.

These facts are fairly well-documented, if not on the MSM, at least on blogs.

But, what's going on beneath the surface? Or, is all this posturing one big global game of chicken?

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Anonymous Steven Lagavulin said...

Oooo, Oooo! Let me play too!!!

Let's see....

--Iran has already threatened to seal off the Persian Gulf if attacked, and have had a plan in place for years now to do so. ( link ) Which would immediately shut down, what?...probably anywhere from 6 to 12% of the US's oil imports.

--An attack on Iran would further ignite Sunni revolutionaries against the Saudi Kingdom. Would the Saudis back the US against Iran? Unlikely. But would they then merely sit on their hands and do nothing? Interesting question...

--Iran has a real army--I think I've read roughly 850,000 troops--and they're trained and determined. Unlike the Iraqi troops who were torn in their loyalties to Saddam, these forces won't "break and run".

--The Iranian army is well-equipped, and has fairly updated weapons systems.

--US troops in Iraq are exhausted, and numerous reports are emerging that they are reaching a breaking point (similar to what happened in Vietnam in the 4th year). How could they possibly ontinue to occupy Iraq while they strike Iran? And a draft is out of the question. Therefore the US would require a massive multi-national force to participate in the invasion, and while the UN is behind some type of Iranian sanctions, it's very doubtful the civilian populace of, say, Australia or Germany are going to be supportive of their leaders getting them into their own little "Iraqi debacle".

--But ultimately: Iran has the cash to fight a war (as well as the moral support of China, India and Russia), while the non-oil producing nations of Europe and America do not (oh, wait...you already mentioned this...).

--Also, a war with Iran would further weaken the US's defensive and economic position, which would leave countries like China and Venezuela in the tempting position of being able to undertake any kind of actions they might wish that would run contrary to this US administrations interests.

--Per the last point...in the face of a new US front in Iran, a concerted US oil embargo by anti-Empire oil-producing countries outside of the Mid-East would very likely destroy the US as a superpower. So one has to wonder, why WOULDN'T they do this?

--Which further begs the question: why WOULDN'T countries that harbor ill-will toward the NeoCons WANT to coax the U.S. into such a stupid situation--by SUPPORTING the NeoCons in their march to war with Iran? This speculation might help explain why the US is finding such widespread support against Iran in the UN. (In addition to the fact that admittedly there are great reasons to see Iran's nuclear program destroyed as well). Only China and Russia are waffling, which is likely because they also have a conflicting interest in not seeing their oil purchases from Iran jeopardized....

Still, all in all, I just don't see a war with Iran happening, either. So I support your view that all this Iranian blustering is not just them talking out of their asses. They know they've got a strong position, and it's only getting stronger by the day.

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

hey steve, thanks for the thorough outline of possibilities.

like I said at your blog:

"I don't think your theory is wild. It makes more sense than any of the other reasons for precipitating war with Iran. The neocons are cornered and war is actually their best option out.

When you think about it, what do they, personally, have to lose? So, maybe it's not what Ahmedinejad knows, but what he doesn't know: that the neocons are crazy enough to plunge the world into a carnage from which most of humanity will not emerge."

In any event, by the looks of things, we'll soon see what's in store for us.

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

It is a brilliant calculation by Ahmedinejad.

Western countries' economies are hyper-sensitive to economic turbulence in the hand-to-mouth societies where personal savings are non-existent and lifestyles cannot be compromised.

Also, if push comes to shove, Ahmedinejad can rally his countrymen while no Western country can do that. You want suicide bombers: read the annals of the Iran-Iraq war.

The Iraq war has created such great suspicion of Western 'intelligence' (in all three meanings of the word) and Ahmedinejad and Chavez are extracting full advantage.

I wonder why Pakistan is afraid of the US? Pakistan is a country of fiercely patriotic anti-US Islamically motivated people. If roadside bombs are a nuisance in Iraq, do not underestimate the creativity of the Pakistanis - who developed nukes from scratch.

There is much more capitalist exploitation in Pakistan and Egypt and Indonesia - through ruses much more sinsister than usury but based on it.

I wish this blog would alo focus more on the causes of world poverty - and link it to interest.

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Anonymous Byrne said...

Excellent commentary.

There is certainly a lot of posturing going on. The IAEA meeting which will now conclude on 5th Feb has issued the following ( see http://www.iaea.or.at/NewsCenter/News/2006/dg_bog020206.html

"We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis situation. It is about confidence building and it is not about an imminent threat... Whether the Board´s outcome will be to report to the Security Council or not, everybody agrees that the only way to move forward is through diplomacy, through negotiation and there is still a window of opportunity for all concerned parties to find a way forward."


"We will see how the Board will decide on the kind of resolution they will adopt... All who have spoken on the issue, even those who are supporting Security Council reporting, are making it very clear that the Security Council is not asked, at this stage to take any action, definitely not before I submit my report in March. All of them are saying that this is simply a continuation of diplomacy."


"The draft resolution which is now before the Board (sponsored by Britain, France, Germany) says that we should report on that issue. But the sponsors made it clear that the Security Council is not expected to take any action at least before March... very much a window of opportunity. I hope during that month that Iran will continue to cooperate with the Agency, to clarify remaining outstanding issues."

(Nobel Peace Prize Winner) IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei appears to be restraining the hawks (good on him).

I was troubled by why Iran was 'provoking' the 'West', but WHY NOT? That's what the (Neocon controlled) US is doing to Iran.

The difference is, (as related above) Iran is not in the position of DESPARATION (collapse of US OilDollar Hegemony) that the US is imminently in.

 
At Friday, February 03, 2006, Anonymous Byrne said...

I just found this from the Iranian News agency at
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/menu-236/

Vaeidi-Iran-Nuclear

Head of Iran's dispatched delegation to IAEA Javad Vaeidi said here Friday that any kind of referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council would mark end of diplomacy.

Vaeidi made the comment in a meeting with the press, adding, "That would meanwhile mean demolishing the Russians' cooperation proposal, as a key to solving the crisis."
The head of the Iranian delegation said, "We have always announced our readiness for holding dialogue and according to the rules of logic, all sides are urged to give diplomacy a chance."
Warning the West not to make a grave historic mistake, he said, "Based on a ratification at our national parliament on the country's nuclear program, there would be no difference between forwarding Iran's nuclear dossier to the UNSC, reporting the case to the Security Council, or just informing that international body of the case, since in any of those cases Iran would cease all its voluntary moves." He added, "As you are aware, in order to give diplomacy another chance, our government was actively involved in talks on practical measures related to implementing the Russian proposal, but if the IAEA Board of Governors would intend to adopt different measures, we would have no option, but to do what I mentioned."
Vaeidi emphasized, "Our government does not welcome resorting to those measures (ending all voluntary suspensions and boycotting the NPT additional protocol), is not willing to see all diplomatic paths closed, and just as always, favors resorting to peaceful methods to solve the crisis."
He said, "Referring Iran's dossier to the Security Council in any possible way would be a historic mistake under such conditions that Iran is willing to continue full scale cooperation with the IAEA and the world nations to solve the crisis peacefully, and serve the interests of the international community."
The head of the Iranian delegation at the end emphasized on three principals, saying, "We are ready to continue our cooperation with the agency, continue talks with the EU in a bid to pursue diplomacy, and reach agreements for future phases of our activities." In related news, the Non-aligned nations want to soften the resolution to make it for information only rather than a formal report which can lead to sanctions, but diplomats said the West will not accept this.

 
At Saturday, February 04, 2006, Blogger Jason H. Bowden said...

As Senator McCain put it, there is only one thing worse than war with Iran, and that is a nuclear Iran. I personally would prefer to pay more for gas if it means Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hebollah, and any other terror organizations Iran supports do not get the bomb.

 
At Saturday, February 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the Neo"cons" It is a holy war.
This long march to war was planned long ago, before 9/11.
Even if the battles are not going as planned on the ground, the larger scheme is being executed methodically and with distinct goals.
Oil, global posturing and fighting "terrorism" just don't make enough sense as the primary motivations for this kind of commitment from the hawks.

corrupt democracy is going to be the next cause for war, but it will be very ugly before Americans are drawn to war in their own country... let's not forget the last bloody civil war and how relatively recent that was.

On another note. If there are so many smart people in this world, why are they not in power... what an opportunity we are missing out on. America also missed an incredible opportunity after 9/11 to reshape the world.

 
At Sunday, February 05, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Ech, whew Jason H. Bowden, but u're so full of it, u smell. All u did was put "me too" to the stupidest, scummiest propaganda by known murderers and conspirators. U're just an abject sucker for Israel, and a traitor to the US and its Christian people, comrade; u impress no one--even the Jews have contempt for a slimey little suckalong like u. Yech. U want to learn something?--ck my entry on blog, this site, "Truth does not Negotiate with Lies." Apollonian

 

Post a Comment

<< Home