The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

chinthee

Nobody wants this war. Nobody in America. Nobody in Europe, Nobody worldwide.

Iran only has to make small concessions to avoid conflict, and they won't do it because they're stubborn.

They will fall under the sword if they so choose.

keda

Not true. Many people want war. I guess you meant no civilised person wants war, but there are hundreds of millions that would just love to have the US embroiled on another front.

Iran might make small concessions, but these would be done for reasons of diplomacy and each will cost the US, yes the US not the wimps in Europe, the proverbial arm and a leg, and even so they would be neither binding nor irrevocable, since we know they are not to be trusted.

The important thing for Iran, is not to start a war but to prod others into doing so.

stroller

That's right, just got to read some right-wing blogs hosted in the US to verify this.

Maybe, and the situation is a quagrime, I don't see any solution, what would the consequences of a war be?

chinthee

Stroller, you don't understand. The consequences of a war is that the US consolidates even more power and more wealth. I'm sure you don't want that.

Therefore, we should all be wishing that Iran would back off its unreasonable position.

stroller

I would think there are more, and more important reasons than the US possibly gaining power and the usual crowd making more money to wish Iran would be more 'cooperative'.

But it's an interesting thought, do you think this is a motive for powers in the US to push for war?

chinthee

Now that you've asked for my personal opinion, I'll gladly give it.

I think this is still a struggle to contain Russia. To the extent that the US can control and hold Iran, it holds the south ports of Russia's oil supply, and I do know a great deal about this.

This is really not about world oil prices, or US or Iran's hegonomy in the middle east. It is really still about containing the arch enemy, Russia, and believe me, everyone will get crushed in the middle. They are nothing.

America will win this battle and China will be challenged to find a way to oppose it.

keda

Pretty clear, more of the same with the peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah, but more intensified.

stroller

Oh, very funny, keda.

Anyone else apart from "peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah" involved, perhaps?

keda

I see, so can I take it you're saying the consequences of a war between a Western country/ies and Iran would preclude the use of "peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah", or is the more intensified bit that you disagree with?

stroller

Try and make some sense, keda.

keda

Sure, if you have no coherent answer it or one that'll have TD members the world over then of course it doesn't make sense.

stroller

An interesting perspective, the plan for new US bases in Eastern Europe seem to support this view.
Any further insights, apart from control of the oil/gas, in what way is Russia still regarded a threat?

chinthee

Yes, well this also has to do with oil fields and pipelines from central asia. It's really beyond the scope of a simple internet forum discussion.

There are many counterbalancing forces at play:

Kazakhstan to Turkey-Europe-Usa oil

Azerbaijan to the above

Russia to the above

all the above to China via the new pipeline

And, importantly, the southern port option to Iran of all these sources including Iran.

Too much to discuss. Much to consider.

Milkman

It may not be that simple.

Shihab-3 rockets and other stuff is at Iran's disposal.

Again, the 3 players in a U.S. attack would be: U.S., Iran, and Israel.

Bad consequences.

India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes.

Attacking Iran will bring bad consequences, IMO. And Iran may not fall on its sword.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

keda

Fully agree, all part of the same global jigsaw that works only when all pieces are seamlessly in place...panic strikes when somebody (or God) just looks at one piece the wrong way, and catastrophe reigns when they start to reach out for it.

keda

Iran won't be falling on any swords, just provoking others to make them try.

But in the Arab/Muslim-Israel arena, with Pakistan owning nukes it's a good idea to continue giving them special treatment and tolerance, not because they might use them against Israel or the West, but because someone else might.

Butterfly

What's wrong with appeasement ? The US is doing it all the time with Israel and SA, why not with Iran ? Pakistan is far more dangerous and yet we let them get away with it. Oh yeah, Pakistan doesn't have oil.

sabang

The military action being threatened against Iran is basically some missile strikes, to try and take out (unlikely) or slow down their nuclear development program. I should point out, the West, and US in particular, rattling their sabres at Iran is nothing new- it's pretty much an ongoing story over the last quarter century so I doubt it is causing mass panic there.

An invasion is not on the agenda, and would be a disaster anyway. Iran is not Iraq- it is a bigger country, with a functional and large military. It also controls the narrow strait of Hormuz, through which 60% of the worlds oil passes, and is in missile strike range of Kuwaiti, Saudi, Iraqi oil installations and ports. Unlike Iraq, their military capacity has not been neutered by the UN, and we all know how the occupation of Iraq is going. So talk of 'falling on it's sword' is hyperbole.

If you think oil is expensive now, just see what happens if Iran is attacked. The northern hemisphere winter is coming up, and there is already concern about world oil inventories. I hardly need mention the knock on effect with the Dow and FTSE, all this on the back of the current liquidity crisis. Banks will be strait back in crisis, recession inevitable, depression quite possible.

In short, I don't think it will happen. While I have no faith in the Bush administration, they certainly care about safeguarding their financial interests, and feathering their own nests. To that extent, Iran has the world economy over a barrel, a barrel of Oil.

Who would benefit from an attack on Iran? Israel, because of it's ephemeral wish to maintain a monopoly on nukes in the ME; Venezuela and Russia because of the huge spike in oil prices. Not what the Republicans (or Democrats) particularly wish to see.

Adding to this argument, some other points:-

Iran has no territorial ambitions. It has attacked no other country in centuries. It is not even an Arab country. The worse case scenario, it getting nukes, would be for defensive purposes only, ie a deterrent against foreign invasion.

But Iran has also stated it wishes to develop nuclear technology for power generation purposes only, and will do so under the supervision of the IAEA (unlike Israel). There are sound economic reasons for it to do so, as I have pointed out before. There were riots in Iran recently when they raised the price of petrol at the pump. Under IAEA supervision, all fissile material is accounted for- it is unlikely they could filch material to make a bomb without being noticed, damn near impossible actually.

The people of Iran are also strongly behind the idea, and under IAEA supervision they are breaking no international laws.

However, just having nuclear power generation capacity would make Iran perceived to be closer to strategic parity with Israel- which many of us would argue is not necessarily a bad thing. An Israel which is not under threat of nuclear attack, but has reason to think twice about aggression outside of it's own borders would seem to me a step in the right direction towards peace in the ME.

Does the nuclear world want Iran to go nuclear? Of course not, they never do- nothing new there. Is it such a disaster to the World order if and when they do? Nope, it's a storm in a teacup. Even the mad Ayatollah would not use a nuclear device as an offensive weapon, given the life expectancy of his beloved Iran would then be 2 or 3 hours.

I'd get right behing the UN with this one, and let them develop nuclear power generation for peaceful purposes, under the close supervision of the IAEA. Those that think differently, I can see no real logical reason why except a hawkish pro-Israeli stance- but happy to listen to other reasons.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.