241 comments on World Nuclear Panel Refers Iran to the Security Council
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
http://tinyurl.com/83w7l
The US Navy and Marines would have to occupy the Iranian islands that guard the strait of Hormuz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
I still think we should invade Iran, but there is no need to for us to lie about it.
Which country is Iran threatening to invade ?
These are artifacts of history, events, conflicts,etc... What wkwillis refers to as Iranian occupation are the remains of the old Persian Empire -- which started long before there was ever a modern Iran.
From my Iranian friends, I know very few that are true pure blooded Persians, but my friends all consider themselves Iranians --whether ethnically Azeri, Armenian or Kurdi. 'Iran' is essentially is non-ethnicly linked name for the country.
Doesn't this all sound eerily current?
There is an active Kurdish resistance movement active in Iran. Kurds are concentrated in the north-west side of Iran and are about 7-8% of the population. The Azeri people (24-25% of Iran) have been resisting an "Iranization" of their provinces for decades. There is also a Baloch movement in the south-east corner, but right now it is mostly directed towards Pakistan. They are a very small minority.
People of Persian decent number about 50% of the population in Iran.
If this is your position I'd like to hear the arguments, especially what are those long-term contributions to the peace and prosperity this would bring.
The idea that nations are not divided on ethnic lines is a fault line that has impacted the modern world heavily. That is why it was so cool when Czechoslovakia simply became two separate states with no real problems. Unlike Yugoslavia. The Balkans is made even worse with little pockets of this or that person scattered haphazardly across the mountainous terrain.
Nigeria is another one. Not only does it include, because of colonial decisions made in the 19th century, different tribes, but you can throw in different religions too.
Personally, a Kurd nation state makes sense to me though Iran and Turkey would not be happy campers. That there are more Azeri's in Iran than in their home country is simply a problem waiting to happen.
We see it in the so-called progressive EU with the Basques, Catalonians, Corsica, Irish, etc. Heck, 10,000 Germans living in Denmark caused problems in 1933 and again in 1940.
In the meantime Slovakia's development basicly stalled and the country started lagging behind. Slovakia has much less of an industrial base and resources than the Chechs and goes by with agriculture, tourism and services.
Both countries have high unemployment though lower than Poland. High unemployment seem to be a marking sign for countries that have been separated one way or another and could not attract foreign investments (mostly due to the instability, crime and corruption following the split). For example in Bosnia and Kosovo, unemployment is close to 40% and the most profitable (and wide-spread) business is drug and weapons traffic.
Considering the level of development of ME countries, splitting Iraq/Iran in pieces would be the mostly disastrous scenario for the people of these countries (well for Iraq it might be already too late). First they'll be shooting themselves over oil for X number of years. After they get tired of that (being quite below their starting point) they will probably have installed some much more despotic governments (remote-controlled by Washington or not) than their current ones. In other words the only thing worse than a despotic and corrupted government are 3 or 4 despotic and corrupted governments.
People make decisions that are not economically based. The two people, Czechs and Slovaks, wanted a country apart and they had a "history" going back to World War I. Certainly they were on opposite sides in World War II when one was occupied and the other a supportive puppet. I agree that they have had problems since, but for the most part they are doing O.K. and now belong to the EU.
I agree splitting Iran (and others) would cause chaos and impact the oil price/supply. But I wonder if we are simply puitting it off? It is not like there has not been strife there in the region that has little to do with the USA. The best time to do it would be at the end of some successful major watershed on the world stage. Maybe the end of a big war, or the day the USA declares it is not importing any oil except from North America?
If balkanisation is promotion of homogeneous societies, it is great way to create intolerant societies. I can't agree it is a good thing. I know too many people from the former Yugoslavia, and too many ruined lives.
I see balkanisation as cultural ignorance and intolerance.
Balkanisation is, as you say, "cultural ignorance and intolerance". Your right.
But the older I get, the harder it is for me say that this person or that person should do this or that. The operative word there is should.
I think they should do what they want to, and nationalism is still a strong drive, mixed with that region's tribalism. It is hard for me to see how anyone (living in California) could object to blacks or latinos or whites together as friends and relatives, but they have a hard time in much of the Middle East to get along with the family in the next valley over who spells their name differently. I agree they are not smart thinking this way but "live and let live".
Also, what we are looking at are really small nations, and what is the practical result? The Basques and the Spanish have been fighting for going on 3 decades and with roots going much further back. And the Basques are not even Spanish by decent, but belong to the oldest race in Europe.
I guess when in doubt I come down on the side of freedom of choice.
So, much for being ethnically more neutral--thanks for clarifying the origin of the name.
Iran doesn't have a common border with Saudi Arabia; how can they occupy a piece of it?
Baluchis live in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also Saddam tried to snatch Kuzestan away from Iran but the Iranian Arabs fought against Saddam.
Baloch's resistance is primarily in Pakistan where they have been blowing up fuel lines. But 2% of the population of Iran is Baloch.
From their web-site:
This is a Baloch site we are trying to tell the world about the inequality and oppression of the Baloch people by Pakistan and its tyrant Punjabi institutions.
To the dominant Punjabis in Pakistan, who make up 58 percent of the population, it is unthinkable that the Baloch Nation should have special claims to Balochistan, which represents 48 percent of the land area of the country.
Both Islamabad and Teheran view the sparsely settled expanses of Balochistan as a safety valve for surplus population, a source of badly needed materials, and an area of vital strategic importance over which the central government should rightfully hold undisputed sway.
Baloch and other less Populace Nations will not be permitted to stand in the way of Punjabis so-called modernization programs, though it means the plunder of the Baloch National wealth.
More Azeri's of Ajerbaizan live in Iran than in the country with Baku as its capital.
Iran does not have any Saudi territory, but they do support the Shias who live predominately in the oil well areas of Saudi Arabia. One of the Gulf States is still upset over some minor islands in the Gulf that the Shah seized in the 1970's or so.
Kuzestan has had a series of bombings, the two latest being blamed by the Iranians on Britain (!). It is indeed Shia Arab.
Now Hawaii would be interesting.
Or California. I'd vote for independence.