The rise of ISIS

[flatlinejim]

I'm never going to be able to take any group called ISIS seriously after watching Archer.

Neeewwwp

[Mor]

let me guess another modern take on the loner vigilante super hero, now with special effects arrows Although my first associations wasn't any better, ISIS the Egyptian goddess (Cleopatra the game anyone?)

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/us-iraq-violence-idUSBREA0E0F020140115?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

 

There were 6 separate bomb blasts in Iraq today.

 

I'm going to try to remember to post everyone time there is a terrorist attack in Iraq, this is to highlight the continued activities of ISIS

[Walsingham]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/us-iraq-violence-idUSBREA0E0F020140115?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

 

There were 6 separate bomb blasts in Iraq today.

 

I'm going to try to remember to post everyone time there is a terrorist attack in Iraq, this is to highlight the continued activities of ISIS

 

Er.. you're assuming every blast is ISIS. They clearly aren't.

[Mor]

How al-Qaeda Changed the Syrian War:

 

Since its appearance last April, ISIS has changed the course of the Syrian war. .. It has obstructed aid getting into Syria, and news getting out. And by gaining power, it has forced the US government and its European allies to rethink their strategy of intermittent support to the moderate opposition and rhetoric calling for the ouster of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. .. [link]

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/us-iraq-violence-idUSBREA0E0F020140115?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

 

There were 6 separate bomb blasts in Iraq today.

 

I'm going to try to remember to post everyone time there is a terrorist attack in Iraq, this is to highlight the continued activities of ISIS

 

Er.. you're assuming every blast is ISIS. They clearly aren't.

 

 

Walsie they mention Al-Qaeda loyalists and those are groups linked directly to ISIS in respect to the violence in Iraq 

Edited January 15, 2014 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

But not every blast is AlQies.

[Walsingham]

"Saudi is just like Iran"

 

I promised I'd get to this eventually, and thanks to my spine being too painful to sleep here it is.

 

Overview

 

A comparison of the two countries should consist of three elements:

 

1. Context comparison - geography, demographics, economics, political structures, military structures, summary comparison

2. Policy - Key issues, responses, summary comparison

3. Uncertainties - Challenges, open questions

 

[Walsingham]

Context

 

Geography

 

Both countries are situated in a region commonly termed the Middle East. Although their relative position are quite different within this region. Iran sits on the Eastern edge, while Saudi Arabia sits to the South.

 

 

Iran is a large (18th largest), mountainous country, dominated the Zagros mountains which run North-South. Most arable land is along the coasts, with a particular concentration around the Persian Gulf. It is bordered in the North by the Caucasus, to the West by Turkey and Iraq, and to the East by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

 

 

Saudi Arabia is also large (13th largest), but chiefly desert country. Its position is dominated by the Red Sea to the West, and Persian gulf to the East. It is so completely empty of internal geographic features that a relief map (as above) is hard to distinguish from a poorly folded omelette. Its effective neighbours are Yemen to the South, the richer states of Oman and the UAE to the Southeast, while the states of Iraq and Jordan are to the North.

 

Demographics

 

Iran's population is estimated at around 77 million. The largest group present are defined as Shia, but an ethnographic and linguistic map of the country looks like a fruit salad there are so many different colours scattered around. The CIA publicly estimate only 61% of the population are 'Persians'. After the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 Iran has had a pronounced 'young' population. 2/3rds of Iranians are under 30.

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia doesn't get a fun ethnographic map, because officially it's almost homogenous Sunni Muslim. It has an estimated population of nearly 27 million. However, unofficial estimates are that a further 5.5 million non-national workers (about 20% of the total popn.) It is also important to note that this total has grown from around 6 million in 1970.

 

This means that although both countries have sparsely populated regions, Iran is over twice as populous.

 

Economics

 

Iran has an estimated per capita GDP of $7,000. Total GDP is estimated at 548 billion. The economy is dominated by oil and gas products, but also has significant agricultural and textile industries. Many of these industries are officially state controlled. Many more are effectively aligned with the state by being controlled by religious councils, or by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council (the BBC estimates as much as a 3rd).

 

Saudi Arabia has an estimated  per capita GDP of $25,000, although wealth distribution is very uneven. Total GDP is estimated at $727 billion. It has a joyously simple economy. It squirts out oil, and very little else. 90% of export earnings come from the petroleum sector. And 55% of GDP. By comparison the United Kingdom generates 55% of its GDP in the form of celebrity autbiographies.

 

This dependency on oil, and high revenue, is not all good news, as there are indications of rising youth unemployment. Efforts at improving education standards have just resulted in rising graduate unemployment and pessimism. The quantity of oil that Saudi Arabia produces is also defined on a command basis, due to the profound impact it has on the World economy.

 

Both countries are important suppliers of hydrocarbons to China, Japan, and India. Both countries are publicly pursuing increased trade links to China.
 

 

 

[Walsingham]

Politics

 

Iran is officially a theocracy, following the revolution lead by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The post-revolutionary period had show trials and purges and all sorts of fun stuff like that.

 

Iran has both elected and unelected institutions. The elected setup should be quite familiar to members. The people elect a parliament and a president. Iran gives the vote to anyone over 18 of either sex. Although an unkind assessor might ask who it is subsequently taken away from by imprisonment or fraud. Iran frequently claims to be the most democratic country in the middle east.

 

However, this elected executive and legislature is accountable to the SUPREME LEADER. The SUPREME LEADER ...sorry I don't know why I keep writing like that...

 

I'll try again.

 

 

The SUPREME LEADER appoints the head of the armed forces, the judiciary, the head of the media networks, and the constitutional 'umpires' of the Guardian Council. 

 

Note that poster child for insane drivel, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the President, not the SUPREME LEADER. Yet he gets away with a lot of stramash, choosing his own special advisors, contradicting state media and so on. This could well be (it is) because of his cultivating links to and the power of the IRGC.

 

The IRGC are the boys who exist to defend the Islamic Revolution's security, rather than national security. So attempts to portray them as a military force are disingenuous at best. However, they do possess significant military forces. Commandos, gunboats, sharp sticks etc. estimates of personnel are difficult to make accurately because the IRGC has its own funding streams. These include multi-billion dollar construction contracts, property ownership, and _allegedly_ drug smuggling.

 

Perhaps more importantly the IRGC run internal militias, called the basij, who were the chaps on motorbikes who beat the crap out of protesters in 2009. They also operate clandestine and covert commandos and terrorist groups internally and externally. Such as Hizballah. Combined with their economic power, the IRGC have a lot of unofficial clout.

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia, bless them, are much easier to describe. The Kingdom is an absolute Monarchy, and has been for some time - precisely how long depends on how you define Saudi Arabia, as a politically unified entity, or a dynasty, or a post-Ottoman hiccup.

 

One definite edge the House of Saud has over other absolute monarchies is in manpower. There are a LOT of princes. I mean a LOT a lot. Enough to man all the ministerial posts and governorships.

 

There is no defined order of succession in the House of Saud. Meaning that while outwardly the royal family are unified, it is inevitable that there is considerable bloodletting and shenanigans going on under the service. In this respect the Saudi political scene can be likened to a Yorkshireman's trousers.

 

Saudi does have a religious body of constitutional umpires called the ulema. They are supposed to exercise discipline over the heated religious types in the country.

 

Although not a democracy, the Saudi people did try to flex their democratic urges. This didn't get very far. It is notable that several of the political parties formed tried to use Islamic credentials as much as anything else. Although dodging behind a holy front is quite common as a tactic for trying to stand up to autocratic rule.

 

Overall, although official differences are marked, there are similarities between both states. Both countries have very poor human rights records. Although I personally assess the nature of the Iranian regime as more pervasively repressive.

 

 

~~~~~~

 

 

And here I finally feel sleepy. Anyone else want to continue?

[Zoraptor]

You don't need that level of detail, the assertion was not that Saudi and Iran are directly equivalent, more that they're similar in a geopolitical sense. If I were asserting that they were equivalent I wouldn't have noted any differences between them.

 

I won't continue since whatever I say will will naturally slant to my stated position- else it wouldn't be my position in the first place- though I probably will add something later to rebut/ clarify any points I see as contentious.

 

(NB, don't know if it's a repost from somewhere/ written previous, but you've still got Ahmedinajad as being the Iranian President above).

[Walsingham]

That's me being sleepy and not double checking my facts.

 

Disappointed you feel detail beneath your refined analysis. You can't just claim two nations are the same. You need a system for adjudicating that. Which I've put forward.

 

~~~

 

My overall point is that the two countries have very different strategic situations, which they are trying to manage using very different economic and military assets.

 

This has lead them to very different policy decisions. I had been going to contrast Saudi Arabia's foreign exertions with those of Iran.

 

Ultimately, Iran's woeful per capita GDP and self-perpetuating antagonistic international stance will only make its power centres increasingly paranoid and aggressive.

[Mor]

 

 

Context

 

Geography

 

Both countries are situated in a region commonly termed the Middle East. Although their relative position are quite different within this region. Iran sits on the Eastern edge, while Saudi Arabia sits to the South.

 

 

Iran is a large (18th largest), mountainous country, dominated the Zagros mountains which run North-South. Most arable land is along the coasts, with a particular concentration around the Persian Gulf. It is bordered in the North by the Caucasus, to the West by Turkey and Iraq, and to the East by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

 

 

Saudi Arabia is also large (13th largest), but chiefly desert country. Its position is dominated by the Red Sea to the West, and Persian gulf to the East. It is so completely empty of internal geographic features that a relief map (as above) is hard to distinguish from a poorly folded omelette. Its effective neighbours are Yemen to the South, the richer states of Oman and the UAE to the Southeast, while the states of Iraq and Jordan are to the North.

 

Demographics

 

Iran's population is estimated at around 77 million. The largest group present are defined as Shia, but an ethnographic and linguistic map of the country looks like a fruit salad there are so many different colours scattered around. The CIA publicly estimate only 61% of the population are 'Persians'. After the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 Iran has had a pronounced 'young' population. 2/3rds of Iranians are under 30.

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia doesn't get a fun ethnographic map, because officially it's almost homogenous Sunni Muslim. It has an estimated population of nearly 27 million. However, unofficial estimates are that a further 5.5 million non-national workers (about 20% of the total popn.) It is also important to note that this total has grown from around 6 million in 1970.

 

This means that although both countries have sparsely populated regions, Iran is over twice as populous.

 

Economics

 

Iran has an estimated per capita GDP of $7,000. Total GDP is estimated at 548 billion. The economy is dominated by oil and gas products, but also has significant agricultural and textile industries. Many of these industries are officially state controlled. Many more are effectively aligned with the state by being controlled by religious councils, or by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council (the BBC estimates as much as a 3rd).

 

Saudi Arabia has an estimated  per capita GDP of $25,000, although wealth distribution is very uneven. Total GDP is estimated at $727 billion. It has a joyously simple economy. It squirts out oil, and very little else. 90% of export earnings come from the petroleum sector. And 55% of GDP. By comparison the United Kingdom generates 55% of its GDP in the form of celebrity autbiographies.

 

This dependency on oil, and high revenue, is not all good news, as there are indications of rising youth unemployment. Efforts at improving education standards have just resulted in rising graduate unemployment and pessimism. The quantity of oil that Saudi Arabia produces is also defined on a command basis, due to the profound impact it has on the World economy.

 

Both countries are important suppliers of hydrocarbons to China, Japan, and India. Both countries are publicly pursuing increased trade links to China.

 

 

On the topic of Geography and Economies dominated by oil and gas products, I think its important to note that their largest single source of crude oil and trade route into the world is the Persian gulf, which is situated between them. It what makes them economically and geopolitically important for the rest of the world and the reason why its such a major point of regional contention, for offshore production opportunities and strategic points i.e. Iran territorial dispute with Bahrain, UAE and Oman(also one of the reasons that motivated Iraq to engage Iran and later Kuwait)

 

On topic of Demographics, I hope you don't mind if I simplify it to the view that middle east is predominantly Arab/Sunni, while Iranian is predominantly Persians\Shia. As far as I know the Iranian young population isn't uncommon in the middle east, where most countries median age is under 30.

 

Also on a side note on GDP figures, I think that the large share of oil\gas revenue skew the actual state of their economy.. I pretty sure that Iran is more advanced.

 

 

 

 

Politics

 

Iran is officially a theocracy, following the revolution lead by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The post-revolutionary period had show trials and purges and all sorts of fun stuff like that.

 

Iran has both elected and unelected institutions. The elected setup should be quite familiar to members. The people elect a parliament and a president. Iran gives the vote to anyone over 18 of either sex. Although an unkind assessor might ask who it is subsequently taken away from by imprisonment or fraud. Iran frequently claims to be the most democratic country in the middle east.

 

However, this elected executive and legislature is accountable to the SUPREME LEADER. The SUPREME LEADER ...sorry I don't know why I keep writing like that...

 

I'll try again.

 

 

The SUPREME LEADER appoints the head of the armed forces, the judiciary, the head of the media networks, and the constitutional 'umpires' of the Guardian Council. 

 

Note that poster child for insane drivel, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the President, not the SUPREME LEADER. Yet he gets away with a lot of stramash, choosing his own special advisors, contradicting state media and so on. This could well be (it is) because of his cultivating links to and the power of the IRGC.

 

The IRGC are the boys who exist to defend the Islamic Revolution's security, rather than national security. So attempts to portray them as a military force are disingenuous at best. However, they do possess significant military forces. Commandos, gunboats, sharp sticks etc. estimates of personnel are difficult to make accurately because the IRGC has its own funding streams. These include multi-billion dollar construction contracts, property ownership, and _allegedly_ drug smuggling.

 

Perhaps more importantly the IRGC run internal militias, called the basij, who were the chaps on motorbikes who beat the crap out of protesters in 2009. They also operate clandestine and covert commandos and terrorist groups internally and externally. Such as Hizballah. Combined with their economic power, the IRGC have a lot of unofficial clout.

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia, bless them, are much easier to describe. The Kingdom is an absolute Monarchy, and has been for some time - precisely how long depends on how you define Saudi Arabia, as a politically unified entity, or a dynasty, or a post-Ottoman hiccup.

 

One definite edge the House of Saud has over other absolute monarchies is in manpower. There are a LOT of princes. I mean a LOT a lot. Enough to man all the ministerial posts and governorships.

 

There is no defined order of succession in the House of Saud. Meaning that while outwardly the royal family are unified, it is inevitable that there is considerable bloodletting and shenanigans going on under the service. In this respect the Saudi political scene can be likened to a Yorkshireman's trousers.

 

Saudi does have a religious body of constitutional umpires called the ulema. They are supposed to exercise discipline over the heated religious types in the country.

 

Although not a democracy, the Saudi people did try to flex their democratic urges. This didn't get very far. It is notable that several of the political parties formed tried to use Islamic credentials as much as anything else. Although dodging behind a holy front is quite common as a tactic for trying to stand up to autocratic rule.

 

Overall, although official differences are marked, there are similarities between both states. Both countries have very poor human rights records. Although I personally assess the nature of the Iranian regime as more pervasively repressive.

 

 

Nice. Though I think IRGC exploits and the Basij role/reach in the Islamic Republic society should have gotten a little bit more attention. Also i'd emphasis their autocratic nature if only for the sake of whoever eventually try to apply Western models here.

[Zoraptor]

That's me being sleepy and not double checking my facts.

 

Disappointed you feel detail beneath your refined analysis. You can't just claim two nations are the same. You need a system for adjudicating that. Which I've put forward.

 

~~~

 

My overall point is that the two countries have very different strategic situations, which they are trying to manage using very different economic and military assets.

 

This has lead them to very different policy decisions. I had been going to contrast Saudi Arabia's foreign exertions with those of Iran.

 

Ultimately, Iran's woeful per capita GDP and self-perpetuating antagonistic international stance will only make its power centres increasingly paranoid and aggressive.

 

Don't let me stop you, I was just clarifying what the limitations of my position was, ie that I'll happily concede that there are differences in things like demographics and population size so you don't need to go through all that in detail.

[Walsingham]

OK. Sorry to jump to the wrong conclusion.

 

However, I'd suggest you really ought to pay attention to demographics and pop size. Don't leap into discussing more complex issues without getting the foundations straight.

 

To use an analogy, if we were arguing about whether a celebrity, Steve, was going to take up ballet, we can talk about surface behaviours all day. But if we first constrain the discussion by pointing out that Steve weighs 250kgs, is five foot two,  and eats mainly twinkies then we have some useful background.

 

Geography doesn't change. Demographics only change slowly. Policy can be altered by a change of office. But policy always has to be sensible in the context of geography and demographics.

[BruceVC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/world/middleeast/iraq-bombings-and-fighting-kill-dozens.html?_r=0

 

More bomb blasts and killings in Baghdad and general violence as the Iraqi security forces try to recapture Anbar province from ISIS

[Mor]

There is a new "breaking story", suggesting that Saudi Arabia bought ballistic missiles from China in 2007, with quite approval from the US. I don't know if its true, after all breaking stories tend to be loose on the accuracy in favor of high ratings. However, I wont be surprised by it. As i noted before in recent years Saudis have become the biggest buyer of US arms.

 

I hope that Iran rants concerning the nuclear talks, is nothing but posturing for the purpose of internal propaganda and it will fold. After all no one buys the "right to enrich" BS, it is not about if they can enrich for "peaceful" purpose, its about trust. For a decade Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards. The concern is that they get what they want and then opt out of their commitment, similarly to how North Korea did it. If they do, then we have a nuclear arm race in the middle east.. which is not a very exciting prospect.

[BruceVC]

There is a new "breaking story", suggesting that Saudi Arabia bought ballistic missiles from China in 2007, with quite approval from the US. I don't know if its true, after all breaking stories tend to be loose on the accuracy in favor of high ratings. However, I wont be surprised by it. As i noted before in recent years Saudis have become the biggest buyer of US arms.

 

I hope that Iran rants concerning the nuclear talks, is nothing but posturing for the purpose of internal propaganda and it will fold. After all no one buys the "right to enrich" BS, it is not about if they can enrich for "peaceful" purpose, its about trust. For a decade Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards. The concern is that they get what they want and then opt out of their commitment, similarly to how North Korea did it. If they do, then we have a nuclear arm race in the middle east.. which is not a very exciting prospect.

 

Mor I have been following this story for a while now and the one point that I missed through the years about Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear technology is that they genuinely feel that they haven't been treated fairly by the international community. There are countries much more unstable than them like Pakistan and NK and they have nuclear technology and weapons. So why can't they be allowed to get this technology?

 

Now I know under Ahmadinejad Iran made several statements and committed several deeds that were very concerning but I really feel the country is following a more liberal and reasonable direction under Rouhani. So we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, we don't really have a choice as the USA is not going to go the military route unless all options are exhausted. And we are seeing Iran making the agreed on changes to there nuclear program so its looking good

[Mor]

Iran genuinely feel that they haven't been treated fairly by the international community.

So is north Korea

 

There are countries much more unstable than them like Pakistan and NK and they have nuclear technology and weapons. So why can't they be allowed to get this technology?

It's not about who is more stable or less, its about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons everywhere.(and reducing the stocks that we already have) Everyone want them, especially the "underdogs", if Iran get them its only a matter of time until Turkey and Saudi get them(they are already thinking about it) etc etc etc

 

Now I know under Ahmadinejad Iran made several statements and committed several deeds that were very concerning but I really feel the country is following a more liberal and reasonable direction under Rouhani.

Ahmadinejad?! don't tell me you buy this whole Rouhani the liberal crap. Iran has been misconducting well before Ahmadinejad read this The figure head change is purely political move, underneath it still the same supreme leader Ali Khamenei... Their policies hasn't been changed. They still playing for time hoping that with time public relations will allow them to pass the sanctions and keep at what they do.

[BruceVC]

 

Iran genuinely feel that they haven't been treated fairly by the international community.

So is north Korea

 

There are countries much more unstable than them like Pakistan and NK and they have nuclear technology and weapons. So why can't they be allowed to get this technology?

It's not about who is more stable or less, its about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons everywhere.(and reducing the stocks that we already have) Everyone want them, especially the "underdogs", if Iran get them its only a matter of time until Turkey and Saudi get them(they are already thinking about it) etc etc etc

 

Now I know under Ahmadinejad Iran made several statements and committed several deeds that were very concerning but I really feel the country is following a more liberal and reasonable direction under Rouhani.

Ahmadinejad?! don't tell me you buy this whole Rouhani the liberal crap. Iran has been misconducting well before Ahmadinejad read this The figure head change is purely political move, underneath it still the same supreme leader Ali Khamenei... Their policies hasn't been changed. They still playing for time hoping that with time public relations will allow them to pass the sanctions and keep at what they do.

 

 

You've raised some good points but we differ on Iran's international intentions. I believe that they want sanctions lifted and they want to be part of the international community again. In order to do this they are prepared to make serious concessions around there nuclear program, these concessions are tangible and needed. Now they could be lying and planning to somehow develop nuclear weapons, not nuclear technology needed for a source of energy, but we will have to wait and see.

[Walsingham]

Bruce, your optimism puts flowers to shame.

 

On the one hand I can't offer any proof that Iran has hostile intent. If I could I wouldn't be doing it here. I'd be handing it over to some boring looking men in suits, for cash.

 

On the other hand I find it extraordinary that you find it credible that Iran is seeking nuclear power for energy generation:

1) It's got HUGE mountains and deserts if it wanted renewables

2) It's got HUGE carbon non-renewable reserves if it wants to burn those

3) It currently operates a national security policy based on relentlessly attacking every other local power and source of stability using every means at its disposal

4) They've suffered enormous national hardship, and many researchers in the program have been murdered...

 

...and all they'd have to do to solve the problem is stay completely the hell away from nukes. Investment would pour in, the brain drain might reverse, peace and plenty for tehir exploding population.

 

The picture you're painting is just not credible.

[Zoraptor]

Bruce, your optimism puts flowers to shame.

 

On the one hand I can't offer any proof that Iran has hostile intent. If I could I wouldn't be doing it here. I'd be handing it over to some boring looking men in suits, for cash.

 

On the other hand I find it extraordinary that you find it credible that Iran is seeking nuclear power for energy generation:

1) It's got HUGE mountains and deserts if it wanted renewables

2) It's got HUGE carbon non-renewable reserves if it wants to burn those

3) It currently operates a national security policy based on relentlessly attacking every other local power and source of stability using every means at its disposal

4) They've suffered enormous national hardship, and many researchers in the program have been murdered...

 

...and all they'd have to do to solve the problem is stay completely the hell away from nukes. Investment would pour in, the brain drain might reverse, peace and plenty for tehir exploding population.

 

Uh. They're under sanctions- and the US will apply those sanctions to companies that ignore their own 'special' set of sanctions amounting to a total economic blockade too, so anyone selling to Iran gets zero US business- hence (1) and (2) might as well be "harness the power of djinn (which exist)" to all practical purposes. The US sanctions were imposed in 1987 in response to, er, Iran's brutal, uh, invasion of, hmm, Iraq, yet another act of aggression and instability as that war started when Ayatollah Khomenei personally head butted Saddam Hussein's fist in a truly egregious manner...

 

Besides, renewables are Rich Person power sources, not poor. Solar is ludicrously expensive for actual power generation, though useful enough for subsidiary stuff like hot water heating.

 

So, the US has basically made it impossible for Iran to develop enough power generation by conventional means and is now complaining that they're gone nuclear.

[Walsingham]

Not sure if that was deliberate, or if I and wiki have got confused. Iraq invaded Iran. If you confused, we'll call it evens after my getting Ahmedinejad as the wrong answer.

 

I don't understand why you're blowing the old "it's all the Great Satan" Grauniad trumpet. The US, especially under Obama, is clearly open to relaxing sanctions. They'd almost certainly have offered opening up investment into the bargain, to avoid a costly and uncertainty military option.

 

There are so many ways in which rapprochement could benefit Iran. Yet it persists. Doing so for the sake of limited (because how much could they ****ing build under sanctions?) nuclear energy in 20 years just won't wash.

[BruceVC]

 

Bruce, your optimism puts flowers to shame.

 

On the one hand I can't offer any proof that Iran has hostile intent. If I could I wouldn't be doing it here. I'd be handing it over to some boring looking men in suits, for cash.

 

On the other hand I find it extraordinary that you find it credible that Iran is seeking nuclear power for energy generation:

1) It's got HUGE mountains and deserts if it wanted renewables

2) It's got HUGE carbon non-renewable reserves if it wants to burn those

3) It currently operates a national security policy based on relentlessly attacking every other local power and source of stability using every means at its disposal

4) They've suffered enormous national hardship, and many researchers in the program have been murdered...

 

...and all they'd have to do to solve the problem is stay completely the hell away from nukes. Investment would pour in, the brain drain might reverse, peace and plenty for tehir exploding population.

 

Uh. They're under sanctions- and the US will apply those sanctions to companies that ignore their own 'special' set of sanctions amounting to a total economic blockade too, so anyone selling to Iran gets zero US business- hence (1) and (2) might as well be "harness the power of djinn (which exist)" to all practical purposes. The US sanctions were imposed in 1987 in response to, er, Iran's brutal, uh, invasion of, hmm, Iraq, yet another act of aggression and instability as that war started when Ayatollah Khomenei personally head butted Saddam Hussein's fist in a truly egregious manner...

 

Besides, renewables are Rich Person power sources, not poor. Solar is ludicrously expensive for actual power generation, though useful enough for subsidiary stuff like hot water heating.

 

So, the US has basically made it impossible for Iran to develop enough power generation by conventional means and is now complaining that they're gone nuclear.

 

 

But more importantly, and Walsie this is where you are mistaken, is that the UN sanctions have had an undeniable negative impact on there economy. The UN sanctions have effected there currency, oil exports and all other exports. They have had assets frozen and they couldn't access there international funds in overseas banks. These steps would bring any country to its knees. I'm not saying Iran out of the goodness of there heart has decided that they want to abandon the development of nuclear technology for military reasons ( if this indeed was there intention) but they have realized they cannot sustain the financial consequences of the sanctions. I think people keep underestimating how much sanctions had contributed towards the more reconciliatory attitude from Iran, this is something we should be celebrating as it means less chance of military action which would just further destabilize the whole region

[Zoraptor]

Not sure if that was deliberate, or if I and wiki have got confused. Iraq invaded Iran. If you confused, we'll call it evens after my getting Ahmedinejad as the wrong answer.

Yes, Iraq invaded Iran in reality. I was being snarky at the general attitude that Iran is The Aggressor all the time.

 

I don't understand why you're blowing the old "it's all the Great Satan" Grauniad trumpet. The US, especially under Obama, is clearly open to relaxing sanctions. They'd almost certainly have offered opening up investment into the bargain, to avoid a costly and uncertainty military option.

The US, under Obama, rejected the deal that would have seen the Turks (note, Mor) and Brazilians supply Iran with nuclear fuel, for more sanctions. Albeit that when he still had to worry about re-election, and being mean to Iran seldom loses votes.

 

There are so many ways in which rapprochement could benefit Iran. Yet it persists. Doing so for the sake of limited (because how much could they ****ing build under sanctions?) nuclear energy in 20 years just won't wash.

They've got a nuclear reactor already.

 

Ultimately, whether it was a deliberate tactic or not the US made it extremely difficult for Iran to generate power conventionally. So we have the rather odd situation of one of the champions of nuclear power, the US, throwing a wobbly at someone pursuing nuclear power. The still current public US intelligence position is that Iran stopped pursuing a bomb in 2003.