Can I just point out that we were talking about Iran’s nuclear programme longer than five months ago. In fact it was a hot issue
under even the previous Iranian president; and us-U.S pushing the issue at the time of the election may have been one of the reasons why this current
nutcase president was elected.
The Case For Nukes…
Personally I do not believe that Iran wants nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes. Otherwise it would have accepted our offer for subsidised
Light Water Reactors which cannot create the fuel needed for a nuclear explosion. If they needed enriched fuel for the heavy water reactor plans; then
they could of taken the Russian offer of subsidised enriched uranium fuel.
They do not need an enrichment plant just to supply Iran’s reactors. They do not need a fast breeder reactor which they are building
Iran's plans worry many nuclear experts because it is building what is commonly known as a "breeder reactor". Such reactors are efficient
at quickly producing significant amounts of plutonium, particularly for military use.
They neglect to mention that Iran developed its gas centrifuges and its breeder reactor in secret, and acquired fissionable materials and
If Iran wants anything (even U.S support for membership of the world trade organisation) news.bbc.co.uk...
can have it now.
There is no need for them to build a nuclear bomb and then say to the West “tell us what you’ll give us for getting rid of it” because we
(The West) are already serious enough to “pay them in advance”.
Trouble is Iran hasn’t (and still doesn’t) seem too enchanted.
The Question of Politics
makes that interesting point that the U.S is unlikely to do anything until the Republicans running it can be sure of winning the next
election. The trouble with this argument; is that assumes the Republicans haven’t already lost it.
It depends really on how rubbish the next
Democrat leader is likely to be; if it’s very rubbish like John Kerry with a mask (or God forbid Hillary Clinton without one) then Americans might
say “this is too rubbish, we’ll stick with the Republicans”. If on the other hand the Democrats have a moderate or good leader then the
Republicans have no chance because even if they have the same kind of leader; they (the Democrats) haven’t buggerd the world up so much, and having
never been in power during the war on terror; they have also had the benefit of watching the Republicans screw up.
The point is:
“how rubbish the next Democratic leader may be” has absolutely nothing to do with the movements inside Iran’s nuclear
programme, and everything to do with the will of God and Americas special interest groups, and cooperation’s (most emphasis being on the later).
Now The Meagre Question…
Does A War Make Biological Sense?
This is the problem with a war with Iran…
1. Iran has long had a small but reasonable arsenal of biological weapons. Obviously nukes are better in military terms; but Iran biological weapons
can still kill millions. Given that Israel only has a population of 6.25 million in the first place; this makes a war with Iran particularly
problematic (Western foreign policy wise).
2. Iran is in a perfect geographical position to wreck havoc with world oil supplies. It does not take a war for them to do this.
3. True Iran itself only supplies 4% of the world’s total; but true also that the global oil market only has a few million barrels a day spare
capacity. Maybe the global market
could manage quite happily without Iranian oil providing there wasn’t any disruption else where in Middle
East (which there would be as Iranians would have little to loose by (ever so indirectly
) causing some terrorist group to tackle oil production
else where in the middle East (or the world for that matter). Iran has a long history of backing terrorist organisation (just as we have a proud one
too). It’s important given how easy it would be for us to return to the 70-80 dollar barrel prices we had a few months ago (even without Iran
deliberately annoying us).
4. Iran is in a far better position than Iraq to wreck havoc with our ground forces in a invasion since there weapons are better, and more to the
point many have been designed with us specifically in mind (in a somewhat unsanctioned environment).
5. Even if Iran (in fear of nuclear retaliation) did not use its biological weapons against Israel the break up of its military command and control
structure probably would. Terrorists would be free to use them once individual generals and officers (with no one to answer to) can more or less do as
they please with any weapons they have their possession. This was probably the single biggest reason for not going for Saddam over through in 1991.
6. Naturally a war with Iran (even if its not regime change) will send the world economy into meltdown; and given the position of various things like
hedge funds, our fear of inflation, artificial growth from borrowing, currency weakness, and other factors we are not in good position to take such a
downturn right now (in particular).
Probably won’t do much; as despite the appearances of a democratic society the truth is that those in authority know more or
less exactly who the opposition are, where they live; and therefore are in an excellent position to tackle them through authoritarian-totalitarian
means should they pose any serious threat to regime survival.
2. A strategic air strike: This is what might be coming in the year 2007.
A few huge attacks against Iran’s nuclear, industrial, areas
of concern. We will have to be careful not to attack too many areas of Iran regimes general areas of strength. This is because if we annoy them too
much they may attack world oil facilities; or worse. They may do this indirectly anyway (through various terrorist groups) the question is how much
they annoy us, and how much we annoy them. The problem with this option is the psychological impact will send world oil prices sky high for some time.
The trouble is there is no way of knowing how high, or for how long; as really it all depends on the sanity of Iran’s Ayatollahs, and outrage of
Iranian society being containable in the view of a (itself) outraged Iranian state. The other problem is that it will only delay Iran’s nuclear
programme (or so I’ve heard)
3. Pray for regime change, within Iran itself. And a regime which likes us the West (in spite of evil we’ve done to places like Iraq). Or least a
regime which has no desire for nuclear weapons. I however fear that this is unlikely to be met; as any Iranian regime (looking to the longer term)
that does not wish to possess nuclear weapons might be quite literally crazy.
The fundamental problem is that if we were Iran we would also want nuclear weapons.
This is a consequence of the reality we have constructed
for ourselves both through our past actions like our invasion of Iraq, but also because of our fanatically pro Israeli attitude when it comes to even
selling them cluster bombs during the Lebanon war.
1. I believe we can
live with a nuclear armed Iran; providing that in the reality of a nuclear war we can not only destroy most of Iran, but
also anything it may have in the air directed towards Israel.
This last part is an engineering challenge but not an impossible one ether. One of
the few bright things the Moron of Washington ever talked about was a defence shield against incoming munitions from rogue states. I think a nuclear
armed one should be able to shoot down all of the incoming missiles (even if it misses them by half a mile or two).
2. In peaceful talks perhaps we could offer to moderate our overall Middle Eastern policy tone, and hence also the fears America and the West invoke
in Iran to cause it to build a nuclear programme. “Extremist actions” like supplying Israel with evil cluster bombs during its Lebanon war may
have to end.
But I believe it is more likely that we’ll live with a nuclear armed Iran; than moderate our own Middle Eastern tone. Because…
A. How can you quell the fears of the Arabs when so many of them are fundamentalists?
B. Besides they are untrustworthy, intelligent, strategic thinkers (just like us).
C. A reversible moderating of western foreign policy tone-intimidation; is worth a try in exchange for a nuclear freeze. But it would be irritating
and perhaps even costly to us, and without any long term guarantee of working out indefinitely.
3. Ether the above
or we are going to have to get used to a Israeli with a dramatically smaller population (perhaps half?), and a western
economy recovering from a recession in line with that of the Wall Street Crash.
4. It’s always possible for Iran itself to undo these conclusions by buckling out; and obviously they might. But they’ve gone such a long way in
their nuclear programme surely the most we can expect from them is a freezing of where they are now? Even then that may be expecting too much.