FYI. I think Baku is one of the lowest (elevation) cities on earth.
Posted on 01/23/2006 6:12:39 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
Why did French President Jacques Chirac last week threaten to use non-conventional - that is, nuclear - weapons against terrorist states? And why did Iran announce that it would shift foreign-exchange reserves out of European banks (although it has since retracted this warning)? The answer lies in the nature of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran needs nuclear weapons, I believe, not to attack Israel, but to support imperial expansion by conventional military means.
Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances, as I reported in Demographics and Iran's imperial design (September 13, 2005). Just outside Iran's present frontiers lie the oil resources of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and not far away are the oil concentrations of eastern Saudi Arabia. Its neighbors are quite as alarmed as Washington about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and privately quite happy for Washington to wipe out this capability.
It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States, told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned, although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the abyss?"
The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining WMD. There are a number of reasons for this sudden lack of squeamishness, and all of them lead back to oil.
First, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have the most to lose from a nuclear-equipped Iran. No one can predict when the Saudi kingdom might become unstable, but whenever it does, Iran will stand ready to support its Shi'ite co-religionists, who make up a majority in the kingdom's oil-producing east.
At some point the United States will reduce or eliminate its presence in Iraq, and the result, I believe, will be civil war. Under conditions of chaos Iran will have a pretext to expand its already substantial presence on the ground in Iraq, perhaps even to intervene militarily on behalf of its Shi'ite co-religionists.
What now is Azerbaijan had been for centuries the northern provinces of the Persian Empire, and a nuclear-armed Iran could revive Persian claims on southern Azerbaijan. Iran continues to lay claim to a share of Caspian Sea energy resources under the Iranian-Soviet treaties of 1921 and 1940. [1] For the time being, Azerbaijani-Iranian relations are the most cordial in years, with Iran providing natural gas to pockets of Azerbaijani territory blockaded by Armenia, and Baku defending Iran's nuclear program. As Iran's oil production dwindles over the next two decades, though, its historic claims on the Caspian are likely to re-emerge.
Ahmedinejad's apocalyptic inclinations have inspired considerable comment from Western analysts, who note that he appears to believe in the early return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam. I do not know whether Ahmedinejad is mad or sane, but even mad people may be sly and calculating. Iran's prospects are grim. Over a generation it faces demographic decay, economic collapse and cultural deracination. When reason fails to provide a solution to an inherently insoluble problem, irrationality well may take hold. Like Hitler, who also was mad but out-bluffed the West for years before overreaching, Ahmedinejad is pursuing a rational if loathsome imperial policy.
Given Israel's possession of a large arsenal of fission weapons as well as thermonuclear capability, it is extremely unlikely that Iran would attack the Jewish state unless pressed to the wall. Faced with encirclement and ruin, the Islamic Republic is fully capable of lashing out in a destructive and suicidal fashion, not only against Israel but against other antagonists. Whatever one may say about Chirac, he is not remotely stupid, and feels it prudent to warn Iran that pursuit of its imperial ambitions may lead to a French nuclear response. French intelligence evidently believes that Iran may express its frustrations through terrorist actions in the West.
By far the biggest loser in an Iranian confrontation with the West will be China, the fastest-growing among the world's large economies, but also the least efficient in energy use. Higher oil prices will harm China's economy more than any other, and Beijing's reluctance to back Western efforts to encircle Iran are understandable in this context. It is unclear how China will proceed if the rest of the international community confronts Iran; in the great scheme of things it really does not matter.
Washington will initiate military action against Iran only with extreme reluctance, but it will do so nonetheless, except in the extremely unlikely event that Ahmedinejad were to stand down. Rather than a legacy of prosperity and democracy in the Middle East, the administration of US President George W Bush will exit with an economy weakened by higher oil prices and chaos on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. But it really has no other options, except to let a nuclear-armed spoiler loose in the oil corridor. We have begun the third act of the tragedy that started on September 11, 2001, and I see no way to prevent it from proceeding.
So then Iran's actions, especially Mr. 'Imagonnajihad's' comments about the Holocost being a myth and that Israel should be wiped off the map or moved to Alaska or to Europe play into your theory how then?
How do they fit into your idea that this is somehow about not allowing Iran to manage its own economy?
Your attempts to apply today's contexts to yesteryear....or to apply yesteryears contexts to today really get quite tiresome.
Shouldn't you be voting for your leader today? ;)
Ahmahdinejad is the one openly and candidly threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Maybe, perhaps, it's Iran using the oil bourse as leverage, and not the U.S. using it as an ulterior motive.
At any rate, oil dependency is a fact of life for the globe. If you want to shed the Israeli angle, war for oil is war for humanity. I can't think of a better reason other than the fact that Western civilization could literally come to an end if a madman with a nuclear weapon owns the bulk of the world's oil supply.
You can be cynical about our motives, but you can be sure of the outcome if we do nothing.
FYI. I think Baku is one of the lowest (elevation) cities on earth.
Ahmahdinejad is the one openly and candidly threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Maybe, perhaps, it's Iran using the oil bourse as leverage, and not the U.S. using it as an ulterior motive.
Israel's problem is not our problem, so I fail to see how this is anything more than a distraction in a much bigger issue.
. . . Western civilization could literally come to an end if a madman with a nuclear weapon owns the bulk of the world's oil supply.
Iran doesn't own the bulk of the world's oil supply, nor would it own the bulk of the world's oil supply under any circumstances.
What are they going to do, wrap it in a white flag? I'll believe it when I see it. The French only care about the French. If it serves them to sell out, they will in a heartbeat. Chirac is just another Chamberlain, willing to sell out other's security for the sake of his.
Islamic terrorism is only Israel's problem EH?
I scoff at that utter foolishness. So do the rest of the reasonable people on this planet.
That excuse held for many years but that time has passed. So let it go please. Israel is not the only target of the Islamic terrorist groups and you know it so try admitting it for a change.
Look man, if Iran is truly seeking out peaceful electrical generation thru nuclear technology then they would not have a problem with working with the world to do so in a safe manner? Chernobyl comes to mind eh?
Iran's own actions show that this is not their true goal. Especially with the rejection of Russia's offer to aid them with enrichment and power generation processes.
You did get one thing right in your post....you do fail to see......maybe opening your eyes a bit might help that problem out.
I think that's the point. The fact that he's worried the French are at risk implies that the whole continent is at risk. I think it underlines the severity of the situation. I don't believe he necessarily cares about other countries, but we'll gladly accept his support.
Iran can try.
Fortunately, there can never be a "then"...
So what university do you teach at? The inconsistency you perceive is the result of: our generosity towards our allies, and our desire to maintain stability, and our humanitarianism. I happen to think the Kosovo episode was wrong headed, but that it proceeded from good intentions. Of course, it was under a different administration and thank God they're gone.
And MY point was words are only words. Lets see him BACK IT UP with action. So far, I haven't seen him do much of ANYTHING except run his cake hole. I HIGHLY doubt he has the "manhood" to do the thing he has stated he would do. I think he was dipping into the champagne a little to much when he was flapping his froggie lips.
Uh... I think the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq might not agree with that.
That's a distinct possibility (probability?). But it's still a vast improvement over the obfuscation by the French regarding iraq.
That would be Azerbaijan...
Well, it may not be Canuckistan's problem, but it clearly and certainly is the rest of the world's problem...
You don't have to agree, EH?
Because the Saudis find it to their benefit.
What does "Canuckistan" have to do with this?
Sunni's, shiites, and wahabi's...regardless of sect are taught by their Koran that muslims must side with muslims first. They embrace war and death and the only reason there is not all out civil war right now in Iraq is because we remain there.
Without our presence complete chaos would ensue. Gaza is a great example of what I am talking about. "who" they war against isn't the issue....the fact they make war is.
Forget not that Iraq is among the most secular of muslim nations and was even before we went in. Meaning that it is more accepted than in other muslim nations to be something less than a 24/7 muslim bobbing your head to Koran verses.
I see your point and even agree with it to an extent but I disagree that they are doing that all on their own. Without our presence there civil war would be in full effect with each side united in the battle to oppose the 'enemy'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
