Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I completely agree with your conclusion that it is not very likely that Iran will go to war with Israel. However, for the purpose of the discussion, I want to add one more argument in support to your claim. It is true that President Ahmadinejad is "a religious conservative with Islamist and populist views, and it is also true that his tone represents a major change from that of the former predisent, who openly advocated improvement of Iran's relations with the West.It is also true that Ahmadinejad is"a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander, and this is reflected in his hardline policy. However, the Iranian President has neither the power, nor the ability to declare war to another nation. According to the Iranian constitution, the control over the nation's army is reserved for the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran. So, what I am getting out of this is that even though Ahmadinejad may want to go to war with Israel, he does not have the ability to do so. Certainly, I acknowledge the fact that Khamenei supports Ahmadinejad in his revolutionary views. Nevertheless, I do not think that Khamenei will so readily and easily tolerate the obvious rashness of Ahmadinejad in relation to state of Israel.
by hitchhiker on Fri Jan 27th, 2006 at 12:50:35 PM EST
This is a very important point.  Thank you for making it.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jan 27th, 2006 at 01:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can only say that I agree with  you on those points.  In fact the "Supreme Leader" Ayathollah Khamenei had to reprimand the President at one point when he became to abusive in his remarks.  And yes the "supreme Leader" is also the head of the security apparatus, the "Pasdaran" (revolutionary guard) and he is the commander-in-chief so it is not the Presidents call when going to war.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Fri Jan 27th, 2006 at 06:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But no one in Iran has said the country should 'go to war with Israel'. Only people outside Iran have said that someone in Iran has said that. The Iranians are not irrational, despite the western inclination to think they are. You might not like your neighbor and wish he were dead and say it, which is not the same as saying you are going to kill him. The whole discussion around Iran reeks of prejudice and hypocrisy. Tell me please: why may Iran not have a mature nuclear research program? The King of Kings signed the nonproliferation treaty, true, but the King of Kings also had a nuclear (research?) program fostered by the U.S. and certainly not opposed by Europe. One day the oil will run out in Iran too. The Iranians also have their concerns.
by Quentin on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 06:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, in my view this is a bit naive thinking.  Hitler never said he wanted to go to war with the European countries and Saddam never said he wanted to go to war with Kuwait.  In my book Mr.  Ahmadinejad's statement of "wiping Israel off the map" is a pretty hostile and "warmongering" rhetoric alongside his denial of Holocaust.  When the country on top of that secretly acquires blue prints of nuclear warheads from the Pakistani nuclear scientist,  Abdul Qadeer Khan, and under pressure from the UN have to acknowledge undisclosed nuclear facilities, this does not add credibility to their statements of peaceful intentions.

A regime that additionally have supported terrorist groups and is believed to have assisted in assassinations of book publishers all over the world, has by no means a peaceful resume and the natural consequence is of course great scepticism.    

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 11:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please tell me how Iran could possibly go to war with Israel? The two countries don't even share a common border. Fly over Turkey or Syria or some other country? The Iranians can hardly keep their commercial airplanes functioning. Do you think their Air Force is in great shape? They don't have the right missels, they don't have nuclear weapons. Or is all of this projected into some misty future. Further, there is always the U.S. of A. (NATO, ha!) with its nuclear weapons in Turkey. So tell me, how can any Iranian politician or whatever in their right mind honestly consider starting such a conflict. It is logistically and materially impossible for Iran to embark on such madness. And, I repeat, the Iranians are intelligent, rational people, as much so as anyone else alive. If President Ahmanidejad denies the Jewish genocide, which I find totally incomprehensible coming from him or anyone else, that might be just his problem, however repugnant the view is. And maybe he just denies it to make himself look like a clown. Don't underestimate his tact. Are the intentions of the countries that crossed half the globe to start a conflict in Iraq not at least equally suspect. After all, they said the wouldn't and they did because they have the means.
by Quentin on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 01:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as I said in my article, it is not a likely scenario that Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel, if they acquire nuclear weapons.  That would mean the end of the whole Middle East, including themselves.  It is no rational in that. But the article explored the likely geo-political threat perceived by the other countries in the Middle-East in general, and Israel in particular.

Concerning the capabilities of Iran, they have got an inter-mediate ballistic missile with a range capable of reaching any country within the Middle East and able to carry a 500kg-650kg nuclear warhead, if Iran develops nuclear weapons.  My point is not so much Iran going to war with Israel, but rather what Iran might do in terms of threats and aggression if they acquire such a weapon.  Iran has got a fundamentalist regime with very hostile attitudes and rhetoric towards many of its neighbours and the Western countries.

I have much admiration for the Iranian culture, its people and history.  The country has contributed greatly to the cultural heritage of the world, but I have great scepticism to the regime of today. Your belief in the Iranian President is greater than mine I have to admit. I agree with your point about the US invasion of Iraq and its aftermath was and is a failure, but this is another story, and not relevant for the issues covered in this article.    


Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 02:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Iraq catastrophe is relevant, not only tangentially. Iraq and Iran are dual stories on one theme - oil, oil, oil - and always will be. Otherwise neither country is interesting. The U.S. and the U.K. are leading the charge against Iran as they did during the whole 20th century, first the U.K., then the U.S. Germany and France are now allowed to participate, Russia has to be taken into account because it is a central player in the nuclear question. The present government of Iran is of course horrid but when did Iran ever have a fairly decent government. Maybe sometime in the 18th century. The King of Kings, oh no, nostalgia. No matter how much Iran bellows and blusters it is in a vulnerable position. The cards are in the hands of the west and their endgame is a change of government, just as in 1952 when the U.S. and the U.K. overthrew Mossadeq and RE-installed the King of Kings who had left the country. Don't fool yourself if you think the Iranians have forgotten these events. Not at all. If the U.S. would only accept the results of the Iranian revolution, including the U.S. hostage-taking, it would be very well situated to realize a deal. But the U.S. cannot go into any talks or negotiations with the attitude that the government must be replaced. This is madness, the same kind of madness that drove and still propels the Iraq war.
by Quentin on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 03:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
in 1952 when the U.S. and the U.K. overthrew Mossadeq and RE-installed the King of Kings who had left the country. Don't fool yourself if you think the Iranians have forgotten these events.
Ironically, the CIA seems to have forgotten about it.
CIA World Factbook: Iran
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 03:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I have said in my comments over at dailykos and other places, some Western countries have done a great deal of damage throughout history, but this article was about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and its possible repercussions in the Middle East. Of course the Iranians haven't forgotten their history and why should they?  But that is not a good argument for them possibly developing nuclear weapons.  

Iraq and Iran are to different countries, with very different topography that in itself is a telling story why Iran never has been invaded by a western country for the last few centuries.  If a country was to invade Iran with its mountainous landscape the story would end up very much like the one the Russian's tried out in Afghanistan, but at a larger scale.

I have heard the story about oil over and over again and find the argument a bit too simple when explaining the forces behind foreign policy issues.  Don't misunderstand me, oil is important, but by no means the sole driving force behind a country's foreign policy. Your argumentation seems to be, the best foreign policy is no foreign policy at all and that is in my book at best a Utopian view.  Both Iran and Iraq have a strategic position in the Middle East and thus, will be of interest to anyone who has an interest in the Middle East.  The fact that some Western countries have got an Imperialistic history is of course not a good reason to deny them a foreign policy in general and towards the Middle East in particular.

If you mean that Iran must be allowed developing nuclear weapons to protect their oil, I find this not acceptable.  Iran are entitled to develop nuclear energy, yes, but not the technology that can make them able to develop nuclear weapons that is why we have got the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory. When Iran admits to secretly having acquired blue prints for developing nuclear warheads the scepticism increases, and naturally so. If oil was the only motivating factor, then the logical thing would be to avoid conflict at any cost and allow Iran to enrich uranium and even nuclear weapons.  Then the country had its own energy supply and all the oil it produced could be exported. One case against your claim that oil is the only driving force behind the West's foreign policy in the Middle East is the oil embargo against Iran-Iraq during the war between the two countries in the 1980's, the oil embargo against Libya in the 90's and against Iraq after the Gulf war in 1991.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 04:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Correction: there was no formal oil embargo during the Iran-Iraq war, but still you have got the embargo's against both Libya and Iraq.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 28th, 2006 at 04:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series