The leaders of IRAN: are they as crazy as it seems nowadays?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
its not at all clear whats happening internally in Iran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4594104.stm

No it's not. Whatever the nuclear ambitions may be, I hate to speak of Iran as monolith. They've got a pretty complex system with multiple power poles and I'm very reluctant to connect the president's statements to the nuclear programme. It does not fall under his jurisdiction and it has been predating his election for years.
Remember that during the Khatami years the Supreme Leader and the clerics very often frustrated the president's foreign policies, notably Khatami's goal to make overtures to the West. One of the main frustrations was exactly this nuclear programme so I don't see why the president can be linked to it now.

And re the nuclear programme itself, I don't think it's likely they intend to use it for offensive purposes, rather as deterrent. Not that should be less a cause of concern, since I suspect this may allow to behave more aggressively towards it neighbours in non-nuclear ways. Whatever the right a nation may have to posses nukes, Iran has proven it's not a responsible member of the world community.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sikander


The U.S. largely supplied the Brits with their bomb, and the Chinese supplied the Pakistanis with theirs, and the Pakistanis supplied North Korea, Iran and Lybia with varying degrees of support in developing their own programs. So your given shouldn't really be a given.

Ok so maybe its not a given although a later poster raised questions as to the amount of US support. As for the Chinese- Pakistan limk I don't know enough about it but I suspect any Chinese help would be to allow Pakistan to remainas a counterweight to India and it might have been a situation where the development was likely anyway so the Chinese wanted to brownie points from helping.

I would be most curious as to the level of Pakistan support for the other nations you cite. Other than Islamic brotherhood or money, I don't know how it advances Pakistan't interests to have these folks join the nuclear club

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ecthy
@Proteus, LOTM: Maybe that's their *domestic* incentive to this policy, that doesn't explain their theory on what will happen internationally. My question was merely oriented towards their internationa lends, not their domestic ends.

They clearly won't risk being bombed and, possibly, invaded just to stabilize domestics?

Perhaps they don´t think that they risk being bombed.
Maybe they think that the USA is weakened enough so that it can´t take any actions of its own and that it is highly unlikely that an international coalition against Iran might form (after all military actions against iran would probably destabilize the whole region and could lead to the muslim fundamentalists gaining more influence within the governments opf a lot of countries there).

Of course there also might be an incventive to really build the bomb, i.e. that the example of NK could have shown the iranian government, that having the bomb prevents your country from really being invaded by the "evil americans".
Or it could have shown them that threatening to produce nuclear weapons could at least make you able to blackmail the UN into releasing fincancial aid which helps building up your economy

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy
@Proteus, LOTM: Maybe that's their *domestic* incentive to this policy, that doesn't explain their theory on what will happen internationally. My question was merely oriented towards their internationa lends, not their domestic ends.

They clearly won't risk being bombed and, possibly, invaded just to stabilize domestics?

Three possibilities
1. The domestic motivation theory is wrong
2. They believe that they wont be bombed, invaded or even sanctioned. They think the Euros dont have the stomach for action, that US-Euro divisions will paralyze the West, and/or that the Russians, Chinese and third worlders will prevent action
3. They think they can withstand bombing, invasion or sanctions

[SlowwHand]

The leaders of IRAN: are they as crazy as it seems nowadays?

This implies there was a time in recent memory when they weren't crazy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon


No it's not. Whatever the nuclear ambitions may be, I hate to speak of Iran as monolith. They've got a pretty complex system with multiple power poles and I'm very reluctant to connect the president's statements to the nuclear programme. It does not fall under his jurisdiction and it has been predating his election for years.

it may not fall under presidential jurisdiction, but ive read that it is effectively controlled by the Revolutionary Guards organization, which is allied with the new president. Even if not, the presidents statements are the political context of the nuclear programme -

if you are contesting my statement of skepticism that the nuke program is part of a rational strategy i would say two things - first, Khamani, has NOT distanced himself from Ahmedinajads remarks, but has (more quietly) supported them. Second, even aside from those remarks,the actions taken in the nuclear program itself, with regard to breaking promises to the EU3, etc, are hard to reconcile with a rational view of the international situation - they seem to be counterproductive to a strategy of getting nukes - UNLESS, as Ecthy implies, and as Proteus states, they simply discount the possibility of effective action led by the EU.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it may not fall under presidential jurisdiction, but ive read that it is effectively controlled by the Revolutionary Guards organization, which is allied with the new president. Even if not, the presidents statements are the political context of the nuclear programme -

What is "allied"? The Revolutionary Guard falls directly under the Supreme Leader's jurisdiction, and even if they feel sympathetic towards the president, he cannot directly order them to do anything.
And what does political context mean in practice? There was a different "political context" under Khatami but efforts to halt Iran's program were already frustrated back then.

if you are contesting my statement of skepticism that the nuke program is part of a rational strategy i would say two things - first, Khamani, has NOT distanced himself from Ahmedinajads remarks, but has (more quietly) supported them. Second, even aside from those remarks,the actions taken in the nuclear program itself, with regard to breaking promises to the EU3, etc, are hard to reconcile with a rational view of the international situation - they seem to be counterproductive to a strategy of getting nukes - UNLESS, as Ecthy implies, and as Proteus states, they simply discount the possibility of effective action led by the EU.

What's rational? If they seek nukes as a deterrent, in spite of potential retaliation, would that be rational?

I'm just not willing to connect the president's statements to the nuclear program. We already knew what the establishment was like before, so I don't see what the outbursts change in that context.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Colon

What's rational? If they seek nukes as a deterrent, in spite of potential retaliation, would that be rational?

rational would be to pursue them, but to do their best to avoid directly defying the EU3.

I'm just not willing to connect the president's statements to the nuclear program. We already knew what the establishment was like before, so I don't see what the outbursts change in that context.

The statements, because they make it costlier for countries like Russia to stop sanctions against Iran, are irrational for a country trying to achieve nuclear weapons. Now, the men directing the nuke program fall under Khamani. They, and he (Khamani) know that ahmadinajads statements make their job (of getting nukes with minimal opposition) more difficult. One would therefore expect them (assuming THEY are rational) to attempt to restrain these statements somehow. I see no evidence that they have done so.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sikander


The U.S. largely supplied the Brits with their bomb, and the Chinese supplied the Pakistanis with theirs, and the Pakistanis supplied North Korea, Iran and Lybia with varying degrees of support in developing their own programs. So your given shouldn't really be a given.

Actually the Pakistanis got most of their help from the west. I don't recall his name, but a Pakistani scientist residing in Europe managed to get himself employed in positions where he had access to critical information needed to make atomic weapons. He returned to Pakistan with the data and Pakistan soom had its own bomb.

[GePap]

Military action is not a serious consideration in the Iran situation. Only the US and Israel even have the will, and Israel's hand is too weak, and the US is stuck in Iraq, and Iran could, if it wanted, make both Iraq and Afghanistan failures, and regime change form the outside against Iran is a non-starter. Neither is the dumb notion of a blockade, and as for economic sanctions, the only ones that would really matter are in the realm of energy- I can;t think of any realistic scenerio in which Iranian energy sales would be restrcited- the negative effect on the price of hydrocarbons would be too negative.

As for the fact most medium states folow the NPT- its ebcause most medium powers are status quo. The revisionist ones have an incentive, and one could certainly claim that any revisionist middle power will seek nukes- Israel, India, and Pakistan can all eb classified as revisionist at the time they began their nuclear programs. Brazil, SA, and Argentina all began nuclear programs (SA went all the way) under revisionist regimes.

[Pekka]

Crazy? Absolutely they are. Trustworthy? Never.

Just facts right there.. Trying to understand applies to folks who aren't crazy like that.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Pekka
Crazy? Absolutely they are. Trustworthy? Never.

Just facts right there.. Trying to understand applies to folks who aren't crazy like that.

Understanding people don't necessarily make them right.

[Pekka]

correct but I believe we should always try to understand other people, our enemies even more so.

However, this current dude is obvious, he has shown his deck of cards, he just can't hide it longer, thus he failed, and he will regret it. We will not kneel before him. Once the bringers of justice smear the early morning green with the life of the looney, shall we raise the horns so that the walls of insanity will crumble, through blood if necessary, and this day will come, so sayeth the great SC.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Pekka
so sayeth the great SC.

He has broken a cardinal rule of diplomacy: Showing your entire deck of cards. A frank discussion isn't necessarily bad but it could lead to grave consequences (to use diplo-speak )

[Pekka]

Right. That's because he is weak. Weak trying to appear strong, there was no need for all these statements he has made lately, even if he thinks so.

Our best option is to remain silent I figure. He wants a dialogue, he wants something. He wants to engage in a debate, make few threats, and get something in return to cool down. Very... Soviet Union. I'd say let him flex his verbal muscles, and he will look even more stupid. He doesn't have the back up for the talk.