[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
--- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> *As I said before, I think that a partial balance of
> fear is better than none.
Partial balance sounds like a wishful way of
describing imbalance... The very real deterrent is the
prospect of guerrilla war in a large country with
difficult terrain that any attacker would have to
face. If you think White House and Pentagon are so
completely clueless that they might undertake such
venture anyway, you might as well assume they couldn't
care less about nuclear deterrent.
> > Can we trust Israel not to take the first strike
option?
> >
> *Not sure. But it seems clear that, if Iran is asked
> to renounce nuclear weapons, it must be offered firm
> safe-guards against a US or Israeli attack.
I've heard this argument before, but I've never heard
anyone explain what exactly does it mean. In absence
of any real trust, a non-aggression pact, ignoring the
difficulties of Iran signing such with a state they
don't even recognize, is worth the paper it is written
on.
> Europe's approach to the problem so far has been to
> expect that Iran will give in if it is asked nicely,
> which strikes me as a rather condescending approach.
What Iran was offered was lifting of most sanctions,
increased investment, gas pipeline through Turkey to
what is the second biggest (about ten times that of
China or India) and growing gas market in world, while
also the one closest to Iran, and nuclear fuel
processed by Russians and paid by EU... Against the
background of EU considering full sanctions after the
2004 election farce, that is asking very nicely.
>
> > Or Saudi-Arabia and Gulf Arab states: It seems
> > logical
> > that should Iran acquire nukes, they would either
> > follow or seek US protection.
>
> *There is no evidence that Iran has designs against
> Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states.
Almost every reachable US base in the region, and thus
a target for would-be Iranian nukes is in the Gulf. As
Saudi Foreign Minister put it in BBC interview: ?Where
are they going to use these weapons? If they hit
Israel, they are going to kill Palestinians. If they
miss Israel, they are going to hit Saudi Arabia or
Jordan.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615832.stm
More broadly as Rachel Bronson from CFR puts it:
"One of the things we?ve seen from the Saudis is a
call for a nuclear-free Arabian gulf. In the past
they?ve talked about a nuclear-free Middle East with
clear reference to the Israelis. Now they?re very
focused on their immediate neighbor to the east and
their immediate efforts are to try to ensure a
nuclear-free Arabian or Persian gulf.
"...the important thing is what it says about Saudi
Arabia?s threat perception and how serious [it?s]
taking the Iranian threat. When the Saudis look at the
region, they see the Iranians gaining momentum in
Afghanistan, gaining momentum in Iraq, having
continued influence in Lebanon, and potentially
gaining momentum in Gaza and Palestine. So they?re
very concerned about Iran from a regional point of
view, but also for the specific unconventional
weaponry.
(...)
"They?re worried this is a return back to
Khomeini-ism. The Iranian revolution was truly
problematic for the Saudis and actually was part of
the reason they reverted to a much more radical
interpretation of Islam themselves. This was in
response to what was happening across the gulf to
their east."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10328/
> *That seems to be a rather pessimistic scenario, but
> Russia in effect had a civil war with one side
> nuclear-armed and Pakistan might be on the way to
> having it. And it could happen in China and India as
> well.
>
No, the Russians didn't have a civil war involving
actual fighting, and in general that we have had such
good fortune that Nuclear Weapons have not been used
since WWII doesn't guarantee anything in the future.
More states with nukes, higher the probability they
will be used.
> > China would seriously resist
sanctions on Iran if USA and EU are set on them,
just to make sure an Islamist state bent on exporting
its revolution all over including Western China gets a
nuclear weapon? < <
>
> *I think that it would.
Why?
> Also, Iran is a country with
> almost the population of France (and a highly
> educated
> one too) with a larger territory and much more
> natural resources.
>
Iran has a slightly smaller economy than Finland, and
its current or further growth prospects do not seem
good. Populations 70 and 5 million respectively, and
not growing.
> *There are serious plans for constructing an Asian
> pipeline through Iran involving China, India,
> Pakistan
> (who have also been received into the SCO) and
> possibly even Indonesia. Russia would also benefit
> because it could use it to sell its own oil. We are
> talking Asian integration, and you're right to point
> that the EU would probably not like this any more
> than the US.
EU has been actively supportive of regional
integration in South-America and Africa, I don't see
any reason why it would have problems with similar
developments in Asia. The problem with China
politically is different, Fareed Zakaria explains it
very well:
"Chinese foreign policy is still mostly motivated by
parochial concerns. Its officials are determined that
Taiwan not become an independent country. They seek
energy, and take it where they can get it. But this
narrow foreign policy means that China is not asking
itself large and difficult questions. Does Beijing
want to be a stakeholder in the current international
system? If so, on what terms? And most important, will
it be willing to pay the price that comes with great
global power?"
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/042406.html
Stopping nuclear proliferation is in global interest.
Balancing global trade too. And dealing with climate
chance. If the global community can not deal with
security, economy and environmental issues, we will
have global anarchy. This will lead to isolationist
policies, which will hurt everyone, but particularly
those that have benefited most from globalization.
China and India that is. It seems to me that the
Chinese leadership increasingly understands this.
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:
