Observing Iran (catch all historical thread)

[Maphu]

Another good piece from Asia Times Online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak03.html

ElBaradei has asked for the simultaneous suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment activities and the UN sanctions on Iran. Whereas Iran has given the call serious consideration, the United States has all but rejected it.

According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, ElBaradei regards the regional situation as "potentially explosive" and wants to avert the escalation of a crisis that, if added to the present crises, could turn the situation "catastrophic".

In reaction to ElBaradei's proposal, Iran has put on hold its plan to install 3,000 centrifuges, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has stated that Tehran will seriously "review" the proposal...

But that is precisely what may be wrong with the US approach, which involves upping the ante against Iran in Iraq, in spite of scant evidence of Iranian wrongdoing. The US is also fixated on the idea of a permanent suspension of Iran's enrichment and reprocessing program, even though the program is sanctioned by articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no legal basis for the United States' request, given the absence of any "smoking gun" corroborating allegations of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program in Iran.

Obviously negotiations are not in the plans.

[SWJED]

Another good piece from Asia Times Online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak03.html



Obviously negotiations are not in the plans.

The commentary piece you linked to and quoted was by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, former adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiation team.

[Van]

I think we're neglecting two key points.

1) From Iran's perspective, they are surrounded. The U.S. has major contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan (~2300 km of ~5400 km of land borders) and we're moving carriers into the Persian Gulf. Folks, the Iranians can go on a major construction spree with the bricks they are defecating.
<https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/reference_maps/middle_east.html> Now consider that in their culture admitting fear is on a level with admitting paedophilia, and they are pretty panicky right now and probably being irrational by their own standards, much less the restrictive linear Western concepts of rationality.

2) Ahmadinejad isn't worried about legitimacy. He's concerned with popularity, distracting the crowds from looking critically at his policies, and suppressing anyone who voices dissent. To our benefit, it looks like he's realized that he can't beat down dissenters forever without losing popularity. If he can keep the masses distracted and fired up with verbal attacks on Israel, he can make up for the dissenters not beaten. The negotiations buy him time with the world, the genocide conference buys him face with his own people.

[Jedburgh]

CEIP, 20 Jun 07: Guidelines for Approaching Iran

....When devising a foreign policy toward Iran, two main challenges exist. First, Iran’s leaders themselves are not clear about what they want. They lack consensus on the country’s domestic direction, nuclear policy, relations with the United States, and Iran’s regional role. This lack of consensus is due to internal discord and rivalry, institutional paralysis, and a deep-seated mistrust of U.S. intentions. Second, Iran’s leadership often acts in pursuit of regime interests at the expense of national interests. For example, the economic reform and liberalization needed for accession to the World Trade Organization may spur economic growth in Iran, but they do not necessarily appeal to a regime whose power derives in part due to its control of approximately 80 per cent of the country’s economy.

In addition, the Iranian government has other characteristics that will complicate serious engagement...

[davidbfpo]

Delivered the other day, do not think this site has seen their reports, so try:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...airstrikes.php

Would Air Strikes Work? Understanding Iran's Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike by Dr. Frank Barnaby, with a foreword by Dr. Hans Blix, March 2007.

I know there have been similar analyses, read and make your own decision.

davidbfpo

[Jedburgh]

Delivered the other day, do not think this site has seen their reports, so try:

Would Air Strikes Work? Understanding Iran's Nuclear Programme and the Possible Consequences of a Military Strike, by Dr. Frank Barnaby, with a foreword by Dr. Hans Blix, March 2007.

I know there have been similar analyses, read and make your own decision.

Thanks, David. I seem to have missed that one.

Regarding "similar analyses", here's a few papers that have been posted here before:

CNS-MIIS, 12 Aug 04: A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

CSIS, 7 Apr 06: Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if Diplomacy Fails

CSIS, 30 Aug 06: Iranian Nuclear Weapons? Options for Sanctions and Military Strikes

CSIS, 5 Mar 07: Israeli and US Strikes on Iran: A Speculative Analysis

[Jedburgh]

Military Review, Jul-Aug 07: Surrounded: Seeing the World From Iran's Point of View

...An initial sense of the Iranian leadership’s current worldview may be best perceived simply by looking at a map of the Middle East as seen through their eyes. As a Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) officer once expressed to me while discussing Iran’s security situation depicted on a map on his office wall, most Iranian leaders now share, with increasing anxiety, the common view that the U.S. is following a policy of gradually encircling Iran with hostile American forces based in neighboring countries. They note that 30 years ago the U.S had only a couple of military bases in the region—ironically, located in Iran itself. Now, U.S. bases are in all the Persian Gulf states except Iran, and in one form or another, U.S. forces are in all of Iran’s neighboring states—Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey—except for Turkmenistan. Moreover, the U.S. has special ties with Pakistan (a supposed ally against Al-Qaeda), Turkey (a NATO ally that has a special defense treaty with Israel), and Azerbaijan (where hundreds of American military advisors with equipment are pouring into a country whose oil industry is already closely tied to U.S. interests). Along with this gradual buildup of forces, U.S. leaders from both political parties have kept up a steady stream of threatening rhetoric, publicly calling for regime change in Iran. This is a cause for special alarm, given U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001....