[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
--- Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
*If it comes to a ground invasion then the Iranian
numerous army and large territory would be a
deterrent, but it's not a deterrent against bombings,
including bombings or Iran's oil producing facilities.
Iran is thus vulnerable to being crippled economically
without a ground invasion and probably without
large-scale international protests.
> > *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.
*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.
(Snip)
>
> "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.
*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. And Iran
could have reasons to worry about the nuclear weapons
of its other neighbouring states as well.
> "...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.
*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.
>
> > *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,
*I was refering to the war in Chechnia.
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.
*These arguments didn't persuade other countries to
renounce nuclear weapons, why should they persuade the
Iranians ?
> > > 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?
*Because of China's growing energy needs. As for
exporting Iran's Islamic Revolution all over, China's
Muslims are Sunni and mostly fairly secular. If China
has some worries about the spilling of Islamist
influences from abroad these would probably have more
to do with Pakistan, yet that didn't prevent China
from maintaining an alliance with Pakistan and
probably assisting it with its nuclear program.
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?"
*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
for Taiwan, the fact is that China and Taiwan are very
closely tied economically, and that the majority of
the Taiwanese are not really interested in
independence. The Taiwan issue is really largely
manufactured.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
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:
