[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
--- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Iran is thus vulnerable to being crippled
> economically
> without a ground invasion and probably without
> large-scale international protests.
>
They are already toying with crippling their economy,
even partial sanctions would have the same effect as
bombings. And between now and the ten to twenty years
it takes them to actually build a bomb, they have just
provided White House with the all the excuses it needs
to start bombing.
> *It could mean placing safeguards on Israel's
> nuclear
> weapons, something like what is supposed to be
> partially done with India's nuclear weapons under
> the
> recent US-India treaty.
>
I still don't follow, what kind of safe guards?
>
> *Yeah maybe. But to have a nuclear-free Gulf you
> would
> need to do something about Israel's nuclear weapons
> as
> well as the US nuclear weapons in the region.
The point was that Saudis rhetoric has shifted from
nuke free Middle-East (read: Israel) to nuke free Gulf
(read: Iran).
> *I wouldn't recommend taking the Saudi's statements
> at face value. The Saudis have a history of
providing
> pre-texts for the US military adventures in the
> region.
>
Surely just because they secretly enjoy having
carriers in the Gulf... the article is an
interpretation of a researcher, not "face value"
> > No, the Russians didn't have a civil war involving
> > actual fighting,
>
> *I was refering to the war in Chechnia.
>
Ok.
>
> *These arguments didn't persuade other countries to
> renounce nuclear weapons, why should they persuade
> the Iranians ?
Nearly all nations have in fact concluded that having
nuclear weapons is not in their interest, Sweden which
had a covert program in early 70's and post-Apartheid
South Africa come to mind immediately.
> [China would provide strong support to Iran]
*Because > of China's growing energy needs.
[snip]
> *China needs energy and it takes it where it can get
> it, except for now it uses peaceful means. (One
> cannot
> help but note the hypocrisy of such criticisms.)
As if there is Chinese oil and American oil... Asia
and USA are dependent on Middle-East oil, possibly gas
too in the future. The over-bearing interest is steady
supply. If the situation isn't resolved peacefully,
that is Iran convinces the rest of the world it really
isn't after nuclear weapons and stops enriching
uranium... USA will probably bomb Iran. This will
raise oil prices, including those China pays. Also,
building a hugely expensive gas pipeline to a nation
one step away from war with the world's most powerful
army doesn't sound like sensible energy policy to me.
All this, and damaging critical relationships with
USA, to get some favors from one of the many energy
sources? I don't think so.
Despite all the noise about this and that conflict,
world's major economies have almost identical
interests. China is becoming one, whether they fully
realize the implications or not.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
