It's Not So Simple ...

 I hate seeing headlines like CBC's this morning in the wake of the US attack on Iran:  "In Wake of US Attacks, Iran Faces Pivotal Choice: Dash to Build a Weapon or Negotiate".

Very little in the world of foreign affairs can be characterized in such simplistic terms.  It's not "either/or", and in fact Iran has a number of options open to it that this ignores.  

Does Iran already have a nuclear weapon?  Officially the answer is "no", but that's inference based on the fact they have never openly tested such a device.  On paper Israel hasn't tested nuclear weapons either, but it is broadly understood to have a cache of nuclear warheads.  I don't have access to sources that could confirm or deny Iran's possession of nuclear assets.  At this stage, they could easily run a "test fire" to augment their "negotiating position, or just to make themselves less desirable as a target. 

The other aspect of Iran's nuclear capability is the ability to create so-called "dirty bombs" (basically a conventional warhead with a "surprise package" of nuclear waste wrapped around it).  Those are trivial for any country with a handful of reactors used for power generation to create, and are potentially just as deadly - especially if detonated high in the atmosphere. 

We also should not ignore the probability of Iran having covertly purchased nuclear weapons from other states.  It's quite possible that they have weapons purchased from elsewhere.  

Iran has many paths through which it could acquire nuclear weapons capability, not merely through its own program of development.  

Much has been made of "we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons", but like North Korea, such threats do little to stop a country that is determined to develop that technology for itself. 

Is this a "negotiate or else" situation?  Not even close.  Iran has many paths forward - it may choose to "negotiate", while concurrently "sprinting to build a bomb", or it may choose to reveal weapons it has already in its hands to make its "hand" stronger at the negotiating table.  

Similarly, because there are significant religious components to this situation, we can also suspect that they may choose to go "scorched earth" and simply unleash the most destructive weapons they have on hand.  

Of course, all of this is speculative on my part - I don't have any information not in the news media, and I merely infer from what I do see.  By no means should we assume that Iran is "cowed" by recent events, nor do I see a willingness on the part of Israel's government to engage in any kind of good faith negotiations. 

More on Baird and Iran

People, even the media who watch such things, seem mystified by the Harper Government(tm) stance on Iran.

It's no big surprise, really.  When I took this blog out from under wraps in May, I wrote a lengthy essay describing the "Modern Fascism" that Harper has been cultivating.  On foreign affairs, I wrote the following:

Naturally, he would play on this in such a manner as to play up the idea that Canada is being marginalized on the world stage and use that to build up a form an nationalism not unlike what happened in Germany in the post-WWI years as a result of the isolation and restrictions that the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles ) created.

With Iran, The Harper Government has done something which only makes sense in the context of Harper trying to isolate Canada on the world stage.  Like his position on Sri Lanka, Harper takes an absolutist "all-or-nothing" approach to the issues, and then withdraws any support for compromise - thus removing Canada's voice entirely from the discourse.

In the context of Canada's role on the world stage, he is taking a stance which is the polar opposite of where Canada typically plays well.  Where Canada has historically been the voice of compromise and reason, Harper's voice on the world stage is one of bluster and hostility.  We all know that Canada hasn't got the economic or military muscle to back up this belligerent stance that Harper is taking, so for the world, Harper's voice on the stage is easily ignored.

Here in Canada, we cannot ignore it.  At first, I assumed that Harper's approach to foreign affairs was merely a result of his lack of awareness.  That was in 2006.  Since then, I have become convinced that not only is it deliberate, but that it is part of a larger strategy on Harper's part to dismantle everything that he loathes about Canada's history.  If it serves to isolate Canada on the world stage in the process, so much the better for his propaganda campaigns.

It will take years to clean up the mess this nasty little man is making.

If Harper Wants To Be Skeptical About Iran ...

Baird's comments about the deal reached with Iran yesterday which theoretically is intended to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability are somewhat laughable.

"We're deeply skeptical of Iran and its ability to honour its obligations," he said. 

Baird added that Canada believes "every diplomatic measure" should be taken to ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. 

"A nuclear Iran is not just a threat to Canada, or its allies," he said. "It would also seriously damage the integrity of decades of work for nuclear non-proliferation. It would provoke other neighbouring states to develop their own nuclear deterrent."

The supposition that Iran does not have nuclear weapons capability already is something of a bad joke, in my opinion.  While the western powers have been "boycotting" Iran for years, it has retained close ties with both China and Russia, and there has been significant trade in both weapons technology and intellectual scholarship between those nations.

At the very least, I would suspect that Iran has acquired a nuclear arsenal through trade with either China or Russia over the last thirty years.   They may well have it as a well guarded secret, but it certainly would not surprise me.

"Effective sanctions have brought the regime to present a more moderate front and open the door to negotiations," he said. "The Iranian people deserve the freedom and prosperity that they have been denied for all too long by the regime's nuclear ambitions. Until then Canadian sanctions will remain tough and will remain in full force."

I do not think that sanctions have ever significantly caused any regime to change its stripes.  What has more likely happened in Iran is that the power structure has gotten comfortable over the last couple of decades and no longer feels the need to be quite as bellicose as they were in the days following the revolution of 1979.  In other words, it has moderated not because of the sanctions, but in spite of them.

If Iran is in fact pursuing a program of developing nuclear weapons, I suspect strongly that the program  is already at the point where Iran has decoupled its civilian and military programs from each other - and hidden the military programs well out of the way.   Iran is a mountainous country, I do not doubt that they have quietly built plenty of facilities in strategic locations that would not be entirely obvious at the outset - even in this era of satellite surveillance.

Iran has made the commitments in this agreement now because they believe they can meet them without compromising their existing programs and plans.  Not because any amount of pressure from western powers is going to make them stop those programs.

 

Where The Immovable Lobbies The Intransigent

I don't really know whether to laugh or cry about the Vatican's rumoured intervention in the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

But seriously, given the rigid adherence to dogma that Pope Benedict XVI has demonstrated - even when there's concrete evidence that calls the dogma into question - doesn't it seem a trifle ridiculous to be intervening in a case in Iran which is based on religious law that is just as rooted in the intransigence of a few to consider reason in the first place?

Really - what kind of logic arrives at stoning someone to death for supposed adultery? ... and is that logic any different than the reasoning that demands that only men be priests and calls GLBT people "objectively disordered"?

Assuming the Vatican even opens such a conversation with Iran, I can only imagine the laughter of the Ayatollahs who control the puppet strings of power behind the scenes after the phone call.

(That said, I consider the sentence on Ms. Ashtiani's head barbaric and a ridiculous overreaction to the situation in the first place)

Credibility: Zero

There is little more disappointing than the transparent attempts to "prove" that Iran has nuclear weapons.

Okay, a bunch of smugglers have "plans" for a nuclear weapon of some sort, and maybe they had been talking to the Iranian government. Big deal - at most we have a conjecture that there is something being developed in Iran. Let's be realistic here - anyone with some basic physics these days understands the basic design principles behind a nuclear weapon. It's documented in hundreds of textbooks that are readily available. The extra steps to get from theory to implementation aren't exactly difficult - they are more of a matter of logistics than research.

Even if Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, it seems to me that's like worrying about whether China, Pakistan or India has nuclear weapons - they all do, and chances are someone is crazy enough to use them. Whether there is an actual threat as a result of any of the involved countries having these weapons is open to discussion.

The issue is never what weapons a country has at its disposal. Instead, one must ask what the intentions of that state towards other states? Iran turned inwards in 1979 and aside from a regional conflict with Iraq, has mostly focused on rebuilding itself and quietly establishing itself as a trading power in the Middle East, well entrenched with both China and Russia.

Does that make it a threat to US interests - beyond the usual goading about Israel, there's little real evidence of that, unless one considers trade with China or Russia to be a threat to the US.

I continue to suspect that the current round of sabre-rattling at Iran has more to do with Republican election strategy than it does sound foreign intelligence and policy decisions.

Bom! Bom! Go The Drums Of War

Gee - Bush II couldn't be any more transparent about stirring up fear of the evil Iran threat in time for this year's presidential elections, could he?

US President George W Bush says he wants to pursue diplomacy to deal with Iran's controversial nuclear programme, but "all options are on the table".

Mr Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said further sanctions against Iran were possible.

"The first choice is to solve it diplomatically and that's exactly what we're doing," Mr Bush said.

He was speaking after talks in Germany, on the latest leg of what is likely to be his last tour of Europe.

Uh huh...coming from a man whose idea of diplomacy involves holding the trigger of a gun to the other party's head, I don't think that he's really trying that hard. Similar noises were made about Iraq a few years ago too.

I'm guessing that the current focus on Iran has more to do with sagging Republican fortunes in the US than it does anything else. The Rove formula for electoral success tends to require that the population be scared of something - preferably a remote and easily demonized adversary - it distracts the masses from what's happening at home.

Right On Schedule...

As the US Presidential race moves out of the nominations process and shifts into active campaigning, we see the latest Rethuglican war drum being beaten.

Does anyone else find it suspicious that the first thing that hits the news as the Democrat nomination cycle wraps up is Iran's nuclear program?

Last time this came bubbling up was 2006 - while George II was busy trying to get re-elected. Okay, so it's Israel making the threats - it's not as if Israeli leadership's connections to the Rethuglicans are news or surprising.

Is Iran a military threat? Perhaps; but I'm not about to assume that it is without some credible evidence. The world has been misled into two wars in the Middle East already - starting a third war in Iran would be foolish indeed. Not to mention likely to create an atmosphere of hostility. Right now, I'm inclined to suspect that the Iran drum is being beat again to give the Rethuglicans a "fear card" to play in the coming election.

Iran's a "Destabilizing Influence"?

Geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

President Bush says the following about Iran:

The US president said Tehran was "not a force for good" and vowed that the US would continue efforts to isolate it.

"I believe it is in the interests of all of us that we have an Iran that tries to stabilise not destabilise, an Iran that gives up its weapons ambitions and therefore we are working to that end," he said.

So, Iran is a "destabilizing influence"?? What the hell does that make George Bush's America? It's not like you can say that either Afghanistan or Iraq is exactly "stable" yet. And one can hardly say that the United States has been diligent in their efforts to capture Bin Laden:

Mr. Bush has said before that he would order the U.S. to act inside the Muslim-majority country if there were firm intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders.

Mr. bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is believed to be living in the tribal border region of Pakistan. His ability to avoid capture remains a political sore spot for Mr. Bush.

It is truly disappointing to see Bush continuing to set the stage to "justify" invading Iran, when he hasn't cleaned up the mess he made in two other nations.

Putting It All In Perspective

Lynn Cockburn takes all the broad-brushing by the wingnuts and puts it nicely back in perspective for us.

The ordinary Iranian is not insane. It's the political leaders in Tehran who are nuts.

I have proof. Of both. Over the past few years, I've taught English to quite a number of new Canadians from Iran. They were all determined to learn English as fast as possible, get jobs in their chosen fields and find out as much as they could about sexual habits prohibited by the Mullahs.

As if to reinforce my long held suspicion that most religious leaders are in it for the power kick they get out of things, Lynn points out:

Another man, an avid swimmer, remarked that one of the many reasons he was glad to be in Canada was that he could swim with his wife and two daughters, something he had never done before.

And one woman, a doctor, said she knew it wouldn't be easy to get her medical licence in Canada and would take any job for now. "I'll drive a bus," she said.

My students were funny, sometimes outrageous, hardworking and open to new ways of living. What they weren't is radical or extreme.

Bingo. That's the real point that we need to focus on. Most people are just that - people. It's the political powerbrokers and religious "leaders" that are the problem - not so different from us when you think about it. Our leaders are just as nutty, our religious leaders (the vocal ones), just as looney - only it's a brand of looney we're used to.

Not so subtly, she has just told Michael Coren and his ilk to Shut Up!