Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VJ

Good prediction, I think the next goverment tries to woo it's voters by sticking it to US any chance it gets.

Lotm: The president has no real power in Iran. It's just a propaganda speech to get more support from the anti-US Iranian public. If you seriously think this had any sort of major impact on the foreign relations of any nation between any other nations, you're deluded.


...then again, you're the same guy who seriously believed Rice when she said US would cut support for Uzbekistan because of humanitarian results.

Did I? And it seems the US is departing Uzbekistan.

[lord of the mark]

Turkeys comments, in full

http://www.iranmania.com/News/Articl...rent%20Affairs

Turkey urges Iran to 'political sobriety'

Friday, October 28, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, October 28 (IranMania) - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country is Israel's main regional ally, urged Iran to apply "political sobriety" after the Iranian hardline President called for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Erdogan urged Tehran not to meddle in other countries' ties with Israel, but did not comment directly on remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be "wiped off the map," which sparked international condemnation, according to AFP.

"Every country has the right to conduct its relations with others in the way it deems it necessary. Other countries do not have the right" to interfere, Erdogan told Turkish reporters on the sidelines of a European Union summit Britain, in remarks broadcast live on Turkish television.

"I invite them (Iran) to political sobriety. It would be better for them to consider (only) their own affairs," Erdogan said.

In his speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad also said that "anyone who signs a treaty which recognizes the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," and warned Muslim leaders who recognize Israel that they "face the wrath of their own people."

Turkey, predominantly Muslim but a strictly secular state, has been Israel's main regional ally since 1996 when the two countries signed a military cooperation accord, much to the anger of Iran and Arab countries.

[lord of the mark]

'Japan's Foreign Ministry called the remarks "unacceptable in whatever context." '

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Post when an Arab state condemns Iran for these statements. That would actually be of note.

Or for that matter large non-white countries like Indonesia, or India, Pakistan, China, Brazil, Nigeria, whatever.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/638943.html

'China said Friday it disapproved of the Iranian president's calls to destroy Israel, saying such comments ratcheted up Middle East tensions and made Beijing uneasy.

China's Foreign Ministry released a statement criticizing the comments by Ahmadinedjad.

"This kind of opinion violates the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and intensifies tensions in the Middle East and goes against the interests of the Middle East region and its people," said the statement, which was in response to a media request for comment.

"China feels unease regarding this opinion," it said, but did not elaborate'

Large enough? Non-white enough?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

This is one of the largest non-sequitors ever posted.

Instead of directly answering the points and conclusions brought in my post, you are having a seemingly semantic arguement, on whether the word "irrational" would be best, to describe the Iranian policy.

I call it irrational and uncivilized when compared to western standards of diplomacy. Fine - call it "warmongering", call it "agression", call it "fresh tomatoe sause".

Just address my freaking point, you semantic slut!

Warmongering is NOT irrational. It is only irrational if it is done in a way that endangers the very existence of the warmongering state and therefore negates any possible advantage.

You calling it irrational is a personal definition. I am not using personal definitions, I am using the actual definition of the damned word.

As for youer point, I never said being a nuclear power would stop Iran from supporting terrorist groups-that was someone else. It is irrelevant to me, as gving backing to third parties to do dirty things you want done is an old, very rational practice in the international community.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Large enough? Non-white enough?

Yup.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

You have no actual basis upon which to ground this statement.

Yes, I do. Its called knowing the structure of the Iranian Republic. The Commander in Chief is Khameini, NOT the president.

In any case this is again not the real issue discussed.

Ahmedinjad, with all due respect, did not say what he said as a personal opinion - but as an iranian official. As such, the statement carries the weight of EVERYONE assosciated with the Iranian regime, especially their Supreme Leader, which, as you yourself claim - is the guy really pulling the strings.

Attempting to minimize Ahmedinjad's statement as "personal opinion of a puppet figure" is naive at best, and misleading at worst! Ahmedinjad is the political figurehead extraverting Iranian policy and views, as constituted in the darkest rooms of Iranian policy making. This makes his statement count.

As what? An annoyance? He said it during an anti-zionism conference, days before annual anti-Israel parades and protests that happen every year. How is any of this new? Khomeini said the same crap-even as he got covert weapons from Israel.

Everyone and their uncle knew the guy was a hardliner. Oh, yes, this is so shocking!....

Does nothing to undermine the basic tenant of Deterrence and why the consequences of Iran getting nukes is not the termination of Israel, but the end of Israeli nuclear monopoly in the ME. Obviously Israel doesn't want that. But like I care about that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, I do. Its called knowing the structure of the Iranian Republic. The Commander in Chief is Khameini, NOT the president.



As what? An annoyance? He said it during an anti-zionism conference, days before annual anti-Israel parades and protests that happen every year. How is any of this new? Khomeini said the same crap-even as he got covert weapons from Israel.

Everyone and their uncle knew the guy was a hardliner. Oh, yes, this is so shocking!....

Does nothing to undermine the basic tenant of Deterrence and why the consequences of Iran getting nukes is not the termination of Israel, but the end of Israeli nuclear monopoly in the ME. Obviously Israel doesn't want that. But like I care about that.

That language hasnt been used by anybody high up in Iran in years. When they did last use it, they werent close to nukes. That they would use such language when they are under such scrutiny on their nuclear program, implies an odd mindset.


And one should note something thats getting lost in the sauce. The Iran prez didnt ONLY call for Israels demise. He threatened arab and muslim states that recognize Israel. Turkey didnt miss that, and neither did the PA. You can bet Egypt and Jordan didnt miss it either, even if they havent spoken about it yet. Iran is affirming more loudly than ever its opposition to the Mideast peace process, a peace process that is actively supported by the EU, that is considered by many, including the EU, as key to the struggle against terrorism, and to peace, prosperity, and justice in the region as a whole. The EU will consider all this in its future actions, Im sure.


If Iran is counting on Russia and China, or Indonesia and India, to use their political capital to protect them against a united Western block, they are following a very risky course.

[lord of the mark]

From the site of the French For Ministry

"La déclaration du président Ahmadinejad constitue un élément nouveau et important pour la négociation entre les trois Européens et l’Iran. Le 27 octobre, une déclaration approuvée au sommet européen à Hampton Court par les 25 pays de l’Union européenne, a condamné sévèrement cette déclaration iranienne. La France va consulter ses partenaires allemand et britannique ainsi que les autres partenaires de la communauté internationale pour en tirer les conséquences. "


Nouveau et importante - too me, thats tres claire.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If Iran is counting on Russia and China, or Indonesia and India, to use their political capital to protect them against a united Western block, they are following a very risky course.

One less risky with time. The west's relative position is on a downward line, even if the slope is not that great.

And what is a "united western block" going to do, anyways? Sanctions regime? After the Iraq debacle?

That is what it boils down to- Iran is simply too large to ignore, in too strategic a location, and with too much energy supplies in it. Military options are few and unlikely to occur, and comprehensive sanctions won't happens, specially if the Iranians stick close enough to the NPT not to draw too much flak. European and American attempts at denyng Iran basic rights under the NPT did not sit well with the third world.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


One less risky with time. The west's relative position is on a downward line, even if the slope is not that great.

We keep bringing new countries in to the West. We've integrated eastern europe, and Japan is in. Over time we will bring new countries in. Dont count the West out.

In any case the third world is not rock solid behind Iran. Irans position makes even China uneasy. India voted against Iran in the last IAEA vote. The arab states of the middle east, Syria aside, feel threatened by Iran. the course of relying on the third world to offset the west is not risky only because of the power of the west, but because the third world ultimately doesnt care about Iran. If you buy the Iran line, as some here seem to, that this is about discrimation between Iran and Israel, and that the west is denying brown people the right to nukes out of racism, they would be concerned. But Irans own behavior, its secret nuclear enrichment program, its defiance of the IAEA, and this latest statement undermine that arguement.

Iran has no right to nuclear weapons under the NPT. Now in theory Iran could withdraw from the NPT, and then no one can tell them what to do under basic international law - the treaty of Westphalia and the UN charter, which guarantee sovereignty to states. Well how can a country which tosses the charter in the dust, which spits on the charter and on soveriengty, invoke it?

Iran is very different from Iraq re sanctions. As you i think would agree, Iran is not the totalitarian state Iraq was. There is already ferment in Iran - how long would the regime last under sanctions? The only protection Iran is the veto power of Russia and China. Thats a reed that can break under pressure, and the Iranians are hardly treating it with care, as the Russian and Chinese statements make clear.

[lord of the mark]

the last IAEA vote

"Yesterday's decision was far from unanimous, though. A total of 22 of the 35 board nations voted for the U.S.-backed European Union motion, while 12 nations abstained.
Those abstaining included Russia and China, both veto-wielding members of the Security Council, diplomats said. The others were developing nations.
Those supporting the resolution included the United States, European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. They were joined by India, Peru, Singapore and Ecuador, reflecting some support in the developing nations' camp. "

and that was before these most recent statements.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


We keep bringing new countries in to the West. We've integrated eastern europe, and Japan is in. Over time we will bring new countries in. Dont count the West out.

Eastern Europe was always the west. Second world is not third world. As for Japan, who knows.

In any case the third world is not rock solid behind Iran. Irans position makes even China uneasy. India voted against Iran in the last IAEA vote. The arab states of the middle east, Syria aside, feel threatened by Iran. the course of relying on the third world to offset the west is not risky only because of the power of the west, but because the third world ultimately doesnt care about Iran. If you buy the Iran line, as some here seem to, that this is about discrimation between Iran and Israel, and that the west is denying brown people the right to nukes out of racism, they would be concerned. But Irans own behavior, its secret nuclear enrichment program, its defiance of the IAEA, and this latest statement undermine that arguement.

The Third world doesn't cfare about Israel either. That is the point- its about state interests.

Iran has no right to nuclear weapons under the NPT. Now in theory Iran could withdraw from the NPT, and then no one can tell them what to do under basic international law - the treaty of Westphalia and the UN charter, which guarantee sovereignty to states. Well how can a country which tosses the charter in the dust, which spits on the charter and on soveriengty, invoke it?

But Iran has the right to enirch uranium on its own, to have nuclear energy and nuclear reactors. Iran lost the IAEA vote because it was clearly in violation for not allowing the necessary inspections. But the fact is, the US and European demands will go nowhere because they do infringe on Iranian rights under the NPT.

Iran can follow the NPT up until it has enough of a nuclear infrastructure to then easily go nuclear. The US and Europe want to forestall this obvious way to get there (what NK did) but I doubt the third world will allow for a renegotiation of the NPT and allow the silly nuclear monopoly.

Iran is very different from Iraq re sanctions. As you i think would agree, Iran is not the totalitarian state Iraq was. There is already ferment in Iran - how long would the regime last under sanctions? The only protection Iran is the veto power of Russia and China. Thats a reed that can break under pressure, and the Iranians are hardly treating it with care, as the Russian and Chinese statements make clear.

China does not want instability in the ME. China also has tens of billions of dollars in contracts with Iran and needs cheap oil. I doubt there is anything Europe or the US could offer to ever get China to agree to a strict sanctions regime. You are really smoking something if you think statements like this mean anything long term, specially for uninterested third parties. Russia has its own games, and given thier continued nuclear cooperation with Iran, I really fail to see where you see strict sanctions coming.

The sanctions regime vs Iraq was unique, and given the mess that occured, not likely to ever be repeated. Iran is in a vastly better political position than Iraq was in 1990. As for "ferment" in Iran, an outside sanctions regime would be the last thing that would help ferment. Outside pressure helps solidify regimes in the age of Nationalism, not the other way around. Place sanctions on the regime, and everything because the fault of the sanctions, and given most Iranians probably do think Iran deserves or needs nukes, they will hardly view their own people as the enemy.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The Third world doesn't cfare about Israel either. That is the point- its about state interests.

Thats my point - the third world has no reason to get involved, at all. That makes relying on them to counter the west a mistake

But Iran has the right to enirch uranium on its own, to have nuclear energy and nuclear reactors. Iran lost the IAEA vote because it was clearly in violation for not allowing the necessary inspections. But the fact is, the US and European demands will go nowhere because they do infringe on Iranian rights under the NPT.

Iran can follow the NPT up until it has enough of a nuclear infrastructure to then easily go nuclear. The US and Europe want to forestall this obvious way to get there (what NK did) but I doubt the third world will allow for a renegotiation of the NPT and allow the silly nuclear monopoly.

Perhaps the third world states want an approach to the NPT that essentially makes it meaningless. Why those third world states that arent likely to get nuclear weapons, and whose security is endangered by neighboring states getting them, would want that is not clear. In any case, Iran, by its actions and statements, removes itself from the category of precedents for brazil, Indonesia, etc. This isnt about maintaining a nuclear monopoly - its about containing a regime thats in violation of basic international norms. This isnt 1975 - China, India, and almost every non-muslim state recognizes Israel, as do a slowly growing band of muslim states. This kind of thing is beyond the pale.

China does not want instability in the ME. China also has tens of billions of dollars in contracts with Iran and needs cheap oil. I doubt there is anything Europe or the US could offer to ever get China to agree to a strict sanctions regime. You are really smoking something if you think statements like this mean anything long term, specially for uninterested third parties. Russia has its own games, and given thier continued nuclear cooperation with Iran, I really fail to see where you see strict sanctions coming.

Oil is fungible. The goal of sanctions would not be to ban oil exports a al Iraq. Instead you ban new investments and sale of capital goods. In an economy that needs rapid job growth to match a growing population thats powerful.

The sanctions regime vs Iraq was unique, and given the mess that occured, not likely to ever be repeated. Iran is in a vastly better political position than Iraq was in 1990. As for "ferment" in Iran, an outside sanctions regime would be the last thing that would help ferment. Outside pressure helps solidify regimes in the age of Nationalism, not the other way around. Place sanctions on the regime, and everything because the fault of the sanctions, and given most Iranians probably do think Iran deserves or needs nukes, they will hardly view their own people as the enemy.

Which is why Saddam under sanctions decided to relax internal controls, since the people blamed all their problems on sanctions. Right? Nationalism doesnt make people irrational - they will still see that a change of regime helps them. BTW, i think you mean patriotism, not nationalism - if its nationalism thats operative the regime is in trouble, as a large percentage of Iranians are national minorities, on the one hand, and traditional Farsi culture is oppressed by the regime, on the other.

[lord of the mark]

the UNSC just passed a resolution condeming the Iranian statement - i havent seen the vote tally though. Evidently no one vetoed. of course thats just 'words' but in general getting a pile of UNSC resolutions against you is not a desirable thing.


Haaretz (in their newsflash) says Chile condemned the statement. I guess Chile is pretty white, huh?

Why, BTW, the focus in race in classiflying national responses to this? An affirmative action requirement? You still think support for Iran and opposition to Israel is some kind of Fanonist racial thing?