On Sunday 2005-02-20 20:36, d.brin wrote: > 4/ So, how are our relations with Iran now that it is the dominant > regional power, with a sympathetic Shiite government in a weak and > chaotic neighboring Iraq, its former enemy? > > Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, > promised yesterday a "scorching hell" for any aggressor as tens of > thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic > revolution. > > A month after President Bush warned that the United States hasn't > ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami > responded before a crowd gathered on a snowy square in Tehran. ... > > "Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?" > Khatami asked at the crowd. "If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will > turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors." > > His statements drew chants of "Death to America!" from the crowd. > > Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in > Iran. Indeed, Khatami himself indicated in his speech that the talk > of a possible U.S. invasion was pushing him into a united camp with > Iran's hard-liners against foreign meddling. > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002177190_iran11.html > > Remember Khatami? He was our great hope among the liberal reformers > in Iran. Now he says he is being driven by the US into the arms of > the hardliners. Our invasion of Iraq has basically killed the reform > movement in Iran, with hardliners dominating elections since then.
I do not believe that the USA's invasion of Iraq has killed Iran's reform movement. The opposition WANTED to contest hardliners in Iran's last national parliamentary elections, but were prevented from doing so because in Iran the judiciary is the foremost branch of government. The constitution specifies that Islamic legal scholars constitute the judiciary. Furthermore, per the Iranian constitution, judicial authorities must vet potential candidates for elected administrative or legislative office. American foreign policy had little or nothing to do with the so-called defeat of the opposition. Opposition candidates were simply judged insufficiently orthodox and not allowed to run. This was EXACTLY the intent of the constitution which sought to implement Khomeni's revolutionary theory of government by Islamic jurisprudents. Nevertheless, American warmongering has certainly put any Iranian reform movement into a holding pattern. Reform is not dead, but it is torpid. Who cares about reform when your nation's mortal enemy is at the gates? Reform will remain torpid until Washington's cold war brinkmanship pulls back significantly. Furthermore, I have no doubt that if America's defense and foreign policy team decide to invade Iran, the Iranians (who unlike the Iraqis indisputably see themselves as a single nation, baring some small minorities like Kurds) will oppose invasion and occupation with a united front. Iran could make Iraq look like a stroll in a suburban park. I am not certain that Iran is planning to test a nuclear device. If I were Iranian, I would definitely want the option to get a bomb quick. I would want fissionable material on hand with lots of bomb components. I would even want prototypes ready to fuel, arm, and test. Even if Iran had a liberal regime and good relations with Washington, any sane flag-rank Iranian officer would STILL insist that Washington provide nuclear guarantees AND would want to have the failsafe of weapons grade fissionable material stored in quantity. Pakistan has the bomb and could become insanely anti-Shia any day. The Russian sphere of control borders Iran. Russia has the bomb. Russia has previously occupied parts of Iran. The Arab Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, are irrationally anti-Shia. They are a military threat, though no match for Iran's conventional forces. Note, however, that Wahhabi zeal has sometimes resulted in the defeat of superior military forces. If relations with Washington were to change, Saudi Arabia or a consortium of Gulf States might be forced to develop a nuclear capability. Iraq is currently occupied by a hostile superpower's forces. Though it looks like a friendly regime will soon come to power, powers corresponding to what is today called Iraq have often fought wars with Iran. Turkey is a close ally of a hostile superpower. Turkey is not favorably disposed to Shias, minorities, or theocracies. Over the centuries Iran and Turkey have fought wars. At present, however, relations are stable. The United States, an economic and military superpower is actively hostile toward Iran. Iran and the USA have effectively been in a coldwar since the 1979 revolution. Worse, the current administration is looking to further isolate Iran, ramping up coldwar style pressure, and has shown a real willingness to use full military options even when they strike external observers as both expensive and less than completely necessary. Furthermore, the American administration invaded Iraq that had no credible nuclear deterrent and no ability to bombard a major allied city. On the other hand, North Korea had both moderately credible access to atom bombs AND the ability to easily bombard Seoul with weapons of North Korea's choosing. The message for Tehran is obvious. The Bush administration has a ready propensity for warfare against enemies or geopolitical opponents. America is a HUGE strategic threat to Iran as a nation (not just to the regime of Iran). The example of Korea shows that the Bush administration CAN be deterred. To deter the Bush administration you must either have a credible atomic threat or be able to bombard a major allied city. Preferably one has both. Since no valuable allied assets are near Iran, it follows that Iran MUST be an American ally, have both atomic weapons and the ability to deliver them to Istanbul, Tel Aviv or Riyadh, or have iron-clad assurances from Moscow or Beijing that Iran is under one of the near-superpower's umbrella. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
