Thread: Which Path to Persia?

It's a pdf file but an interesting read if you can be arsed.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...n_strategy.pdf

JJ,

Can you summarize the contents & topic of your pdf? If I find it interesting, I shall click it and read it.

Thanks.

I found it a wishy washy read tbh, really just a summary of theoretical options.

The current concocted Iran hysteria, at least for public consumption, is based around a fundamental lie- namely that if Iran were to possess a nuclear weapon this would pose an existential threat to the US or, more importantly, it's opinion leaders in Israel. That is patent nonsense.

The article does allude to a more realistic concern however, namely that if Iran got 'the Bomb' it might be emboldened to be more provocative in it's foreign policy, especially via it's 'proxies' Hezbollah and Hamas. Both concerns would be largely diluted if and when Israel lives up to it's political commitment, and ends the illegal occupation and creeping colonisation of Palestine. If stability in the region is what is desired (and frankly, given the overtly zionist leaning tone of US foreign policy, I question that) then the ending of the occupation is far more important than Iran's alleged nuclear weapons development.

A third theory, rarely mentioned, is that the true reason for the Israeli/ US aggressive foreign policy is fundamentally economic. Iran is a major crude oil exporting nation, yet has to import much of it's refined oil at a high economic and strategic cost- this being a result of many years of western trade sanctions, and technology embargoes. Nuclear power generation capacity would reduce this critical economic and strategic dependence, and thus strengthen Iran- something that neither zionists/ right wing Israeli's, or (more quietly) the Sunni oil fiefdoms such as Saudi & Kuwait, want.

Coupled with Iran's choice to boycott the petrodollar. Which is the No.1 fear of the US government.

^ Then they are fearing the inevitable, which is hardly a winning policy.