World Nuclear Panel Refers Iran to the Security Council
Posted by Stuart Staniford on February 4, 2006 - 7:36am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: hubbert peak, iran, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
In a move that could change the course of international diplomacy towards Iran, the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved a resolution on Saturday to report the country's nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council.Just when the oil price had managed to skulk back down below $65...The resolution, which passed 27-3 with five abstentions, opens the door for the first time to possible punitive action against Iran in the New York body over fears that it is developing a nuclear weapon.
Cuba, Syria and Venezuela voted against the resolution. Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.The vote is the climax of a two-and-a-half year campaign by the Bush administration to convince the world that suspicions about Iran's nuclear program are so serious that the issue must come before the Security Council for judgment.
It also signals the failure -- at least for now -- of the two-and-a-half year strategy of France, Britain and Germany that was based on the premise that Iran could be coaxed into freezing, perhaps indefinitely, key nuclear activities if the political, technological, economic and security rewards from the West were enticing enough.
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.
The oil capacity has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that the Mullahs of Iran are not under US control and they are threatening a real problem for the US ruling class: the oil exchange based on the euro. All of this hysteria about the threat of an Iranian nuclear program is propoganda aimed at convincing the American people (Yet again) that there is some crazy brown people that want to destroy their happy driving utopia because they "hate our freedom."
The biggest threat posed by an Iranian nuclear program is an effective deterrant against US aggression.
Every country either wants the bomb or wants to be a close ally of someone with the bomb.
If the mullahs hadn't already sworn to use nukes against Israel, you might have a point.
Easy. Independence. Iran has gobs of uranium ore. They want to have a 'closed cycle' so they are not dependent on another country for their energy. Being 'in the energy supply business', like they are, they understand the control that is lost when you do not own all parts of the process.
Iran's problems in this area are caused by its own belligerence and intransigence. Oh, and murderous mullahs who hang teenage girls for having sharp tongues.
If they wanted to prove to the world that they had no intention of building nuclear weapons, Iran could do it in a minute. They have done the opposite. This speaks volumes.
And as for the mullahs being murderous bastards, I'm sure they are. I defy you to look at what we're doing in Iraq with open eyes, especially in places like Fallujah, and reach any other conclusion about the US. And the same goes for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. And Russia and China are no better. I can think of several counties whose problems are caused by thier own belligerence and intransigence.
There is no high ground here, we have no moral superiority anymore - it's just us vs. them.
Doesn't excuse Iran for using the loopholes to make weapons they've sworn to use.
If that's so then we should just do what we have to do to stop Iran from carrying out its threats, because it would be even worse if we let it happen. If it's not so and we do have moral superiority, we should do the same.
Either way, Iran would instantly be off the intervention list if it farmed out its enrichment to a nation which is not a proliferation threat. Like France, or China, or Russia.
Russia volunteered. Iran said no. That says it all.
Iran has not threatened the US. They have threatened Israel, which has nuclear weapons and can defend itself if attacked, but in the context of reacting to news reports that Israel was planning a preemptive strike on Iran. That's providing you believe the recent statements were meant for more than whipping up the locals.
The fact is that Iran has the right to develop the complete nuclear fuel cycle under the NPT. If we say that they can't, then the NPT means nothing - in which case there are no rules, and they have as much right to nuclear weapons as does anyone else, including the US and Israel. Because there is no evidence that they have a weapons program, only speculation. Tell me - what would be required for you to accept that Iran be allowed to do the things that the NPT says it can? What nations have gone as far as Iran has in allowing the IAEA to monitor their activities?
For me, when one has no moral right to do something, especially a military action that will cost many lives, then one should not do it. Apparently others feel that one should do whatever one feels like, as long as one is strong enough to get away with it. Might makes right I guess.
If there's anything we should know about the fanatics in that part of the world, it's this: when they say they intend to kill you, BELIEVE THEM! Their intent is given; the only way to prevent it is to deny them th