I'd like to lightly draw an outline of Iran and the future.
and why im a little frightened.
Iran and the Uk/Us have gone back oh so 35ish years - my history sucks.
The current focus is very much on Iran and nuclear energy, it has been for around a decade.
The main states at the UN will not allow Iran to enrich nuclear material because of their fear it could lead to more nukes.
Iran says it wants to use nuclear energy as a more efficient fuel and for research.
You see these two sets of ideas about things cause friction and even tension.
So, the secret facilities in Iran has been brewing an even more serious tension. More so with the UN having to order them shown.
But the whole logical cohesion is crazy:
Why cannot Iran make these nuclear fuels?
Why do they want to?
What do they want the fuel for?
Who is the international community to deny them autonomy?
It's a series of questions for which there is no clear and delineating answer. I'd suggest (and i know little on the subject)
I suspect Iran is both like the child who does the opposite of what he's told, and like the defenceless ant, small, proud, but not without confidence, when considering how they are perceived and how they have been treated by the Bush administration.
(and i'll provide no more references to the Bush administration's actions, just search google.)
They have been marginalised by the international community and nuclear energy certainly represents a milestone. Not to mention their lack of real defence against military superpowers like Russia and the US (in terms of the nukes).
The most reasonable answer i believe is the west: an overbearing parent.
Iran is a state and like most states has a vested interest in it's state. Why the international community denies and sanctions Iran on nukes is immaterial, they are ignoring it, they have interests to further.
(As for why I'm getting bad feelings... )
I do not think it of little relevance to point out the Iranian government's harsh criticism and attacks at the west and Zionism (from the Ayotollah Iran's supreme religous/political leader and from Ahmedinejad Iran's PM)
also the history of Iran & western relations: from when the Iranians took hostage US citizens. the UK/US invasion of middle east and an extremely suspicious and dictatorial re-election of Ahmedinejad...
the re-election was considered rigged. It is interesting to note how candidates for PM secure their candidacy, that they must be accepted by the Grand Ayotollah. As such Iran can be considered a religious government.
The most poignant issue to date, sparking my real fears is Iran's continued dismissal of UN resolutions:
They still can't build nuclear sites. (although we know they have)
THEY ARE PLANNING TEN.
and, as a form of disclaimer let us not forget the rose tinted glasses we have of our own country.
It just seems to me that a lot is and will happen surrounding Iran over the next 4 years, something is up and it is something we should all have at the forefront of our minds. Time is certainly running out.
When you say alot will happen over the next four years, I have to disagree. Had a republican president been elected into office in the US I would be more inclined to agree with you. However I believe Obama will adopt a policy of appeasment with Iran because he seems to be very keen on strengthening relations with the middle east and the west. (Hence winning the Nobel peace prize).
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree with you that we all should be worried as I know appeasment could potensionaly a diplomatic disaster. If Iran manage to become a nuclear power then the consequences could be troubling indeed. After all no one is really sure how close they are to acheiving this. We are but humble civilians =)
You believe the fact that a president is blue or red changes things?
ReplyDeleteReally this has little to do with Obama, this is about the UN. The last problem we had was that Bush was turning international issues into state issues.
The nuclear policies of Iran become much more ambitious and will continue to flourish.
And as for the next four years? With 10 new advocated nuclear facilities in the making, no new Iranian election.. (not that it matters cos of the ayatollah.)
Things will move forward and become much more precarious.
**unadvocated.
ReplyDeleteand UN appeasement would likely be a disaster < i agree there.
I doubt the UN would take much action without the backing of America. Lets face it with out the US the UN has little power. The Iraq war is a prime example that the UN has little power without America. Not only that any direct action is going to be unpopular with the public. And since most of the major powers are democracies...
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah I think the fact wheather a president is Red or Blue is very important at the moment. No one wants a repeat of Iraq or Afganistan and governments are highly conscious of that.I think the UN will do very little with Iran until the very last moment when there is no other alternative but direct action. which is along way off yet. It takes years to develope Nukes... sadly even longer to get rid of them =(
Although I do wish GB would do something aboit Iran constantly kidnapping our sailors... Both military and civilian lol, because this is getting ridiculous.Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Iran is the next war in a few years...
ReplyDeleteThe UN does not need US backing.
ReplyDeleteThe iraq war is an example of arrogant foreign policy. The US is one of the most powerful states and thus is one of the most dificult to sanction.
the UN is and has been working with iran continuously.. so it is not the case of "last minute"
and why does having a red or blue pres. matter? neither have an ideological reason to stay in iraq or go to another war?
and they aint kidnapped anyone. the sailors were in Iranian waters.
Lol.
Dude, look at international relations in the 1930's with the League of Nations. The world looked to Britain to deal with Germany, Italy and Japan on behalf of the L of N.
ReplyDeleteNow the world looks to USA to deal with Iran, North Korea etc. It's a repeat of the 30's mate. Honestly take a look, you'll see what I mean. Like the L of N, the UN has little power when it comes down to it. Perhaps if it was to be more aggressive it would be more succesful.
And with the sailors, would we do all that if Iranian sailors entered our waters, no we wouldn't.
Oh and if Israel trys to do something about Iran, I wonder if we'll fully support them... Here's hoping...
Lol. im going to do a blog on my philosophy of history.
ReplyDeleteLoN was small... there were few countries in it and mmany refused to join. the amount of countries exploded post ww2. the un has 192 countries.
and what does this "look to" mean? it's about co-operation not leading from the front.
"Now the world looks to USA to deal with Iran," the world? who? no they don't. this is the case with bush bt barrack works different... he doesn't try to lead in that sense.
"And with the sailors, would we do all that if Iranian sailors entered our waters, no we wouldn't" and why is this important? it's not even verifiable. Just because we wouldn't doesn't mean they shouldn't.
"Oh and if Israel trys to do something about Iran, I wonder if we'll fully support them... "
fully? maybe though finance (tht is possible) but no... we wouldnt support war.