The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
France has made some pretty "assertive" statements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718838.stm Germany, too. Iran is in the inenviable position of having gotten ALL of the permanent members of the security council upset. Even North Korea has not managed that.
Perhaps the discussion could be changed from "It's all America's fault" to "There is a global problem here." It seems to me that not only do the interests of the EU and the EU-3 coincide, but those of everybody else, too.
It might not be the short term issue of whether Iran can assemble a nuke in the next, say, five years, but what is needed to enable long-term stability in the Middle East given the many problems including widespread poverty, economies based on resource extraction, religious fundamentalism, corruption, etc.
That doesn't seem to be an issue that is specifically related to America's currently poor international relations...
The first began to attack Iraq just prior to Saddam's takeover of Iraq, then they began to fund Hisbulla and other groups in Lebanon in order to reduce the Christians to dhimmintude (it worked) and covertly were helping the Afghan puppet govenment to resist it's Soviet masters, thereby prompting the Russian invasion.
The real first gulf war (eight years, one million military dead) was a way to consolidate power on behalf of the Ayatollas. Also the institution of a toy government and fixed elections gave the illusion of democracy on the world stage.
The reason that there's so much yelling and screaming about the nuclear program is international law. Iran signed a number of treaties concerning the subject and they appeared to be violating them. Same with North Korea.
Now before you ask "what about Israel?" here's the answer: Israel never signed any nuclear treaties. If you don't sign a treaty, you cannot violate the international law created by the treaty. It's called "soveregnty." When people attack the Bush administration for "breaking treaties" don't believe them. The treaties in question were either never signed or never ratified. Kyoto, for example was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 98-0.
Just after the Ameican invasion of Afghanistan started in 2001, the Iranians invaded too. It was in TIME magazine and everything. They withdrew just after Bush's notorious "axis of evil" speech, which was primarily a warning to Iran to get the hell out of Dodge.(we were going after Iraq anyway, and let's face it, the government of North Korea IS evil)
There have almost been two nuclear wars between India and Pakistan in the last ten years and Europe knows that if Iran has the bomb, it's going to be used and Israel is going to retaliate, killing millions and millions (even Tel Aviv isn't very far from the Palestinian territories, and an iranian nuke-tipped missile could wipe out much of Palestine by mistake), the French and Germans don't want that.
The cartoon riots are another reason. Islamic imperialists have been whooping up the people in a frenzy over the fact that Denmark is refusing to institute Shihara. The riots in the Paris suburbs have had their effect as well.
The US has little to do with it.
Since the Shah was overthrown in 1979, the Radical mullahs ruling Iran have been trying to take over the region. The first began to attack Iraq just prior to Saddam's takeover of Iraq
The first began to attack Iraq just prior to Saddam's takeover of Iraq
Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq War
The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes.
The Iran-Iraq was was a proxy war waged by Saddam on behalf of the US. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq War The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes.
According to Efriam Karsh's The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 Iran's army began shooting at Iraq's in May, and on 4 September 1980 Iran shells Ihanaquin and Mandaili in Iraq followed by a small battle. This was all prior to the big invasion on the 22nd of September.
I've always thought that two legally authorized armies shooting at each other for an extended period of time was a war.
The rise of an Islamic republic in the Shia-majority Iran under Khomeini in early 1979 provoked militancy among Iraqi Shias, to the extent that the increasingly powerful first vice president of the republic, young Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, acted severely against them, much to the unease of the oder President Bakr. While Khomeini took to appealing to Iraqis to overthrow the "non-Muslim" Baathist regime, Baghdad encouraged the ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan to demand autonomy and sabotage oil installations. The differences between Bakr and Saddam on how to tackle the Shia problem became irreconcilable. So on July 17, 1979, the eleventh anniversary of the Baathist seizure of power, Saddam Hussein became chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and president of Iraq after forcing Bakr to step down.
On the fifth anniversary of the 1975 Iran-Iraq treaty of International Boundaries and Neighborliness, Saddam declared in the newly convened Parliament that he was abrogating the treaty forthwith. This was the prelude to the Iraqi invasion of Iran. The Iran-Iraq War On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, a country three-and-a-half times as large and four times more populous than itself. Its army crossed the border at several points while its air force bombed Iranian military installations and economic targets. Angered by the Iranians' hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, the Carter administration had encouraged Iraq, through diplomatic back channels, to attack Iran. Now, however, Washington declared itself neutral in the war.
This was the prelude to the Iraqi invasion of Iran.
The Iran-Iraq War
On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, a country three-and-a-half times as large and four times more populous than itself. Its army crossed the border at several points while its air force bombed Iranian military installations and economic targets. Angered by the Iranians' hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, the Carter administration had encouraged Iraq, through diplomatic back channels, to attack Iran. Now, however, Washington declared itself neutral in the war.
Damn typing gnomes....
Much more importantly, there were numerous border clashes from 1971 onwards which Karsh seems to skip over, which throws some light on his (or is it your?) attempt to rewrite a definitive origin of the conflict.
The Pakistanis have hated the Indians since well before independance. Aside from the Bangladeshi war in 1971, there's been a constant war on the Kashimiri "line of control" for decades. The Sichan glacier in the Himilayas was the scene of what might be termed "live fire war games" between India and Pakistan during the 1980s and '90s. Every spring the two armies would shoot canon at each other. A couple of dozen people would get killed by the other side's live fire, but for the rest, it was good training.
There were two major crises, Kargil in 1999 and the 2001-02 mini-war. I still remember a report on MSNBC or CNN at the beginning of 2002 when they had an "expert" saying--while video of two side blasting away, mind you--"If things get worse, they might start shooting at each other." Had not Colin Powell and Richard Armitage conducted shuttle diplomacy, there would have been a nuclear war.
In 1999, while Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff was visiting Washington, Clinton learned that the Pakistani General Staff was planning to nuke Indian troops in Kashmir, which was succeeding in pushing the Pakistanis out of the Kargil plateau, which they had invaded a month before. There were already thousands of casulaties. Clinton got Sharif to force the GS to stand down.
Bill Clinton saved the world that day, and nobody knows it. Whatever you think of Bush (and it ain't much in any case) He also prevented a nuclear war in 2002.
It's noticeable that you skip the main point here (Iran-Iraq) particularly avoiding tsp's fine post.
As for your line:
"The Pakistanis have hated the Indians since well before independance."
it certainly sums up well the quality of your information sources.
Ah, messy, you do love to lecture don't you...
No more than anyone else around here. However I've never figured out how to post a diary...
On the right hand side, above recommended diaries is a little box, headed with your username (e.g. Messy). Inside the box is a link "New Diary Entry." Click on there and it's fairly simple.
The riots in the Paris suburbs have had their effect as well.
It was in TIME magazine and everything.
I don't know which of these two makes me laugh the most.
messy, you're a riot all on your own.
It was in TIME magazine and everything.I don't know which of these two makes me laugh the most.
Right. The TIME article was in the 4 February 2002 issue and is titled "Theran's Game" by Romesh Ratnesar, and can be found on pagees 40 to 44.
Apparently, starting about the time the Taliban was thrown out of power, the Iranians began to send weapons and advisors to Western Warlord Ismail Khan. Look it up.
It's up to you to look it up.
messy, when you say "Apparently"...
If you can't attack the argument attack the literary style.
And, while we're about it, "Time" magazine does not represent a particularly solid reference as to real facts, particularly in the years we're talking about. (At least, you won't find many people here who'll give it an ounce of credit). Also, please try, if you refer to a source, to give people an online link. We haven't all got a pile of old hard-copies of Time to go through...
We're working on that: that's the point. I'm trying to work out what the interests of all the players are.
I can't get past the underlying assumption of much of this discourse, which is that -- to put it crudely - n*gg*rs shouldn't be allowed to have guns. why is it acceptable for a rogue state like the US to bend other states to its will using the implicit threat of nuclear strikes and the explicit strategy of carpet bombing, yet totally unacceptable for Iran or other ex-colonial countries to own nuclear weapons and negotiate from a position of partial strength rather than abject inferiority?
nuclear weapons are an insane technology to start with. the size of the US nuke arsenal is evidence of some kind of psychosis (how many times over do you really need to kill every human being on earth, anyway?). so for me the question of the double standard cannot be ducked. Iran is a nation plagued by an unstable and repressive state dominated by religious and nationalist extremists. so, increasingly, is the US. of the two, the US has committed more recent aggressions, and is currently governed by an zealot-elite whose published documents (PNAC etc) espouse global empire as a desired goal.
it seems pretty clear that the only reason "we" don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is because we plan to do a bit of B&E and GBH in the near future and would rather the householders were not armed. my $.02... that's what at least some of the players are after. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
It's just a way of "kicking the can down the road"--ignoring what are clearly problems, and putting others who see them as real problems in the position of feeling they have to act.
IMHO, that is a road to another Iraqi style disaster.
In fact, why bother? Why not just go down to Venezuela and do it there? And Canada.
I guess America is just too soft these days--and hopelessly inefficient at building an empire.
However, the question can be plausibly answered.
The US is not a totalitarian state and on top of that it thrives on trade, rather than internal production.
Further, this has only really been a unipolar world for about 15 years now. So it's not as though for most of the period of US strength there has been an opportunity to act in a brazenly unjust manner.
To detail a bit: US politicians are held in check by the preferences of their electorate, who are generally decent enough not to believe rounding up locals to steal their oil is wholly just, and also don't like boys coming home in body bags.
On top of this, the dependence on trade means that world opinion of an event of such magnitude matters. (Again, this is linked to democracy. Economic sanctions from around the world on US actions are likely to lead to people losing political power due to economic instability.)
Finally, it is only since the end of the Cold War that the US could conceive of acting in the manner you advocate without risking Cold turning into Hot. The psychology of establishments takes time to change. The US top brass has spent 50 years growing and defending it's empire assets through local proxies. We shouldn't expect a policy sea change without evidence of a sea change in the top brass. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been part of the defense industry-government merry-go-round since Nixon's time at least. They come up with the odd new idea, but like all of us are unlikely to overturn the superstructure of beliefs they have worked in all their lives.
by gmoke - Nov 8
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 12 comments
by Oui - Oct 26 34 comments
by gmoke - Oct 26
by Oui - Nov 9
by Oui - Nov 79 comments
by Oui - Nov 614 comments
by Oui - Nov 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 212 comments
by Oui - Oct 3130 comments
by Oui - Oct 2634 comments
by Oui - Oct 267 comments
by Oui - Oct 2547 comments
by Oui - Oct 254 comments
by Oui - Oct 2423 comments
by Oui - Oct 246 comments
by Oui - Oct 20
by Oui - Oct 1915 comments
by Oui - Oct 193 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1811 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 186 comments