News Case Scenario: Iran's Nuclear Program & Oil Prices

[russ_watters]

So, if Iran withdraws from the NPT, then they'd be entitled to nuclear weapons. It's signing the treaty and then not following it that is the problem.

Not exactly. It is being a signatory of the treaty that gives the international community the legal recource to do what is being done.

And of course they can withdraw. Entering into a treaty doesn't commit a country to that treaty for eternity...

Sure, but remember, the NPT isn't just about preventing the use of nuclear weapons, but also about promoting the use of nuclear power. Iran is being offered assistance in acquiring nuclear fuel for power in keeping with the spirit of the NPT. If Iran withdrew, it would lose standing to negotiate such assistance and while our demands of inspections would necessarily go away, so to would (I would thinik) our (the international community's) offers of assistance.

There's valid reasons Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be undesirable, but the NPT is one of the more trivial reasons.

If I ever made it sound like the NPT was the primary reason that I believed Iran should not have nuclear weapons, that wasn't the intent: the NPT exists primarily to provide the enforcement mechanism for a position that we'd want to take whether Iran was a signatory or not.

 

[apeiron]

Regardless of the truthiness of the claim about how much oil we buy from them, we live in a world community and even if we didn't trade with Iran, we would be inviolation of our international obligations if we ignored violations by Iran.

But out in the real world, everyone can see the hypocrisy of the US agreeing India can buy centrifuges because it is now an ally, yet not a signatory.

Yes, the US got the rules changed to ratify this deal - make it legal on paper. But I've met some of those who actually got their arms twisted behind their backs at the NPT negotiations in 2008.

So you can paint all this as high-minded, by the book, behaviour. But you are either being willfully misleading or hopelessly naive about the realities of international relations.

 

[russ_watters]

Err, no. I am happy to stick to the threshold issue you raised - the state sponsorship of foreign "freedom fighters".

You misunderstood the objection. You have raised some issues that are 20 years out of date and others that are 60. He's (and I'm) wondering just how far back we should go to find historical badness to argue about. That's a common crutch of a weak position, you're using: bringing up the past in order to try to avoid dealing with the reality of the present. And it's why people think incorrectly that they can trip me up and get me to argue inconsistent positions: they assume that I subscribe to that line of il-logic. I don't. So you want me to admit (or, rather, you hope I won't) that our use of the atom bomb fits the modern definition of terrorism? Sure, it does. Do you want me to admit that we made some bad choices about which regimes to support during the Cold War? Sure, we did. Now that that's out of the way, let's drop this intentional misdirection of yours and talk about the reality of the present and the issue that is the topic of this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

But out in the real world, everyone can see the hypocrisy of the US agreeing India can buy centrifuges because it is now an ally, yet not a signatory.

Yes, the US got the rules changed to ratify this deal - make it legal on paper. But I've met some of those who actually got their arms twisted behind their backs at the NPT negotiations in 2008.

So you acknowledge the deal was legal and you (apparently) acknowledge that Iran is rogue but India is not -- so what is the point of this comparison/objection? It seems it is based on nothing but the fact that different countries were treated differently. This shouldn't be a profound realization: different countries that act differently get treated differently.

 

[mheslep]

But out in the real world, everyone can see the hypocrisy of the US [...]

Do you really presume to speak for the entire world?

 

[apeiron]

Um...because that's not how the NPT works(or most non-war based treaties for that matter), nor would that make any sense now that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Well, umm, in fact the NPT is meant to be a mechanism for stopping the spread of weapons technology and if Israel were inside the framework, it would stop it selling on its secrets.

So why has the US done so little to force Israel into the framework?

Increasingly? The US has always acted primarily in a self-serving manner in most ways... as do all countries!

No, I would credit the US as being genuinely well-meaning earlier in its history. Of course, there was always self-interest, but also nobler aspirations for the world. Now the balance looks the other way.

Furthermore, the fact the US is half the world's military spending is not a moot fact. Not all self-interested parties are equal. Though asymmetrical warfare demonstrates that ways can be found to level the playing fields somewhat. Which of course is now what the war on terror is all about.

Please explain how Iran is not being treated fairly. Or is it your claim that "fairness" should be determined based on how other countries are treated instead of whether Iran is being treated as the NPT intends? If so, that's an illogical and immature way of looking at justice. Even if I agreed that Israel is not being held to the proper high standard (which is not supportable based on your factually incorrect and illogical assertions), that would mean that it is Israel that is not being treated fairly, not Iran. It would imply that our treatment of Israel should change, not that our treatment of Iran should change.

I love your version of facts and logic. What is wrong with being softer on Iran, harder on Israel, as a way of arriving at an international equilibrium?

I'm not actually arguing for any particular change in course on either country. The situation is just not that simple.

But what I am objecting to is the dumb-*** good guys vs bad guys analysis that you keep offering on every issue concerning US foreign relations. All these analogies about what would you do if you buddies were attacked in the bar?

The real issues are more to do with strategic errors. The US has locked itself into an anti-Iran stance through some blinkered short-term thinking. And this has unwanted consequences, such as problems of putting piplelines through from the Caspian sea, and causing a new emerging axis of Iran-Turkey-Syria.

The real question here is whether the US is playing the great game with skill or growing ineptness? Not who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

The general feeling is that the US has been pretty inept because its own military dominance blinds it to other approaches. By contrast, China is being very crafty in playing the long game.

 

[Proton Soup]

Regardless of the truthiness of the claim about how much oil we buy from them, we live in a world community and even if we didn't trade with Iran, we would be inviolation of our international obligations if we ignored violations by Iran.

is that a reference to your ideas about moral absolutism (i think that is what you called it), or something else?

 

[apeiron]

So you acknowledge the deal was legal and you (apparently) acknowledge that Iran is rogue but India is not -- so what is the point of this comparison/objection? It seems it is based on nothing but the fact that different countries were treated differently. This shouldn't be a profound realization: different countries that act differently get treated differently.

You continue to be hard of understanding.

Clearly the US is making the laws here. It defines who is rogue according to its interests. There was huge resistance from the international community to the US/India deal, but the US bulldozed it through (threats over free trade deal, etc).

Now you may say tough - if the US wants to bully its allies, it can. But the US is being increasingly unilateral in its behaviour. Do you wonder why from an international perspective, some of us are rather tired of the situation.

Again, if the US happened to be an efficient bully, then we might all think it fair enough to tag along. But who wants to follow a blundering bully?

 

[apeiron]

You misunderstood the objection. You have raised some issues that are 20 years out of date and others that are 60. He's (and I'm) wondering just how far back we should go to find historical badness to argue about. That's a common crutch of a weak position, you're using: bringing up the past in order to try to avoid dealing with the reality of the present. And it's why people think incorrectly that they can trip me up and get me to argue inconsistent positions: they assume that I subscribe to that line of il-logic. I don't. So you want me to admit (or, rather, you hope I won't) that our use of the atom bomb fits the modern definition of terrorism? Sure, it does. Do you want me to admit that we made some bad choices about which regimes to support during the Cold War? Sure, we did. Now that that's out of the way, let's drop this intentional misdirection of yours and talk about the reality of the present and the issue that is the topic of this thread.

No, I'm thinking about current examples like what happened in Kyrgyzstan this year after the now toppled president started talking about kicking the US out of its Manas airbase.

You and your intentional misdirection .

 

[apeiron]

Do you really presume to speak for the entire world?

No, just the politically aware. Which I agree may be just a small subset.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, I'm thinking about current examples like what happened in Kyrgyzstan this year after the now toppled president started talking about kicking the US out of its Manas airbase.

You and your intentional misdirection .

Citation?

 

[rootX]

Citation?

I recall slight media attention on the troubles in Kyrgyzstan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8611141.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8623021.stm

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/pm_0423.pdf

I did not follow these disturbances and don't have any knowledge of Kyrgyzstan politics.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I know about the base, and about the ouster, I mean the apparent allegation that the US was behind the change in government

 

[hagopbul]

to all i believe that with people like us world will always stay alright ...

now i don't like to say it but after looking to your posts i think that i was wrong in more than one point

apparently that the government of Iran is the main problem i insist that iran is a weak technological country

physics,chemistry was illegal in iran.

how to solve all this ...

easy 3rd world country need always to hero figure so if we find some one from the people , brave , better than ahmady naga , with high moral and an ever lasting code of honer living in iran

had a Secret identity maybe :)
like V for Vendeta

if we find this one ...we don't speak about it ,make the Iranian speak about him
must be Shia not Suna

at that point

with some time and gossip Iran will change

 

[mugaliens]

A lot of people are of the mistaken impression that the leap from mild uranium enrichment for nuclear power generation purposes to uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons product purposes is a small one.

It is not.

The problem, however, is that nuclear reactors are notoriously capable of supplying plutonium, which can be separated by chemical means.

However, that approach faces another steep slope, as plutonium shell implosion is notoriously complex, and most nations simply don't have the means by which to accomplish it.

Meanwhile, the uranium bullet approach is quite easy. It's just that enriched uranium production is so danged difficult.

So - let 'em have their nuclear power plants? I think if it's being overseen by the Russians, we don't have much to worry about. For one, the Russians already have that capability. For another, it's not in their best (or even worst) interests to allow the development, much less the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I think if the Iranians start coloring outside the lines, the Russians will not be very happy...

 

[mheslep]

So - let 'em have their nuclear power plants? I think if it's being overseen by the Russians, we don't have much to worry about. For one, the Russians already have that capability. For another, it's not in their best (or even worst) interests to allow the development, much less the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I think if the Iranians start coloring outside the lines, the Russians will not be very happy...

Yes an unstable ME via nuclear proliferation, or some other means, is very much in Russia's interest as they are the 2nd largest oil and gas exporter in the world.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes an unstable ME via nuclear proliferation, or some other means, is very much in Russia's interest as they are the 2nd largest oil and gas exporter in the world.

Isn't that a lot like claiming China would trounce on the US because we're their largest importer? Or perhaps their supplying us with microchips is their way of encouraging the US towards IT services, thereby removing us from competition in the manufacturing sector?

Hmm...

 

[mheslep]

Isn't that a lot like claiming China would trounce on the US because we're their largest importer? Or perhaps their supplying us with microchips is their way of encouraging the US towards IT services, thereby removing us from competition in the manufacturing sector?

Hmm...

No that misses the point. There's no suggestion that Russia would attack the US or Europe, or even have a proxy do it. They simply have a large interest in keeping the price of oil and gas high, and encouraging a rogue nuclear armed state on the Straits of Hormuz is a great way to accomplish that.

 

[hagopbul]

No that misses the point. There's no suggestion that Russia would attack the US or Europe, or even have a proxy do it. They simply have a large interest in keeping the price of oil and gas high, and encouraging a rogue nuclear armed state on the Straits of Hormuz is a great way to accomplish that.

but plaing with fire is not a safe way to make money

 

[apeiron]

No that misses the point. There's no suggestion that Russia would attack the US or Europe, or even have a proxy do it. They simply have a large interest in keeping the price of oil and gas high, and encouraging a rogue nuclear armed state on the Straits of Hormuz is a great way to accomplish that.

Russia doesn't want an unstable ME with rogue states, but rather an ME stably organised around its interests - a subtle but important difference surely? Like the US, its interests are self-interests - rational on the face of it, but liable to end badly.

But it definitely is as ever about the oil and the pipelines.

In short, for Russia, Iran is its entry point into the Middle East; it is a gateway to regaining lost influence in a key strategic region for very sound reasons – energy being among the most prominent. Russia will pursue its interests across this region with vigorous consistency. In the Middle East this implies growing coordination with Iran both bilaterally and through the multilateral GECF on multiple exploration and production projects. It will seek to gain an ownership position in as many projects of economic and geostrategic significance to its principle downstream interest in ring fencing the European market for natural gas which is already hemmed in by pipeline infrastructure and limited diversification in regional gas availability. Russian efforts to coordinate natural gas production and upstream development with Iran and Qatar would tighten Russia’s stranglehold on the European gas market and deepen European gas dependence.

But even if the above makes perfect sense, why should Russia tolerate a nuclear weapons state next door? Possibly, this has to do with the fact that Russia might not see an Iranian nuclear arsenal as an existential threat – it knows Russia ranks low in Tehran’s list of mortal enemies. If anything, one could make the argument that Russia stands only to benefit from a nuclear Iran, since such development would drive oil prices upwards – something Russia can only welcome, since it will earn Russia both cash and influence.

http://www.ensec.org/index.php?opti...egotiations&catid=102:issuecontent&Itemid=355

 

[nismaratwork]

Russia doesn't have the capacity, any more than the US does, to cause the ME to be organized and peaceful. I'm not sure there is such an entity given the nature and complexity of the conflicts, and the trans-generational hatred.

As for ending badly, I have to say, it's going to be really ugly when oil "runs out" or ceases to be sufficient to prop up the Arab economies. Civil unrest is too mild a term...

 

[apeiron]

Russia doesn't have the capacity, any more than the US does, to cause the ME to be organized and peaceful. I'm not sure there is such an entity given the nature and complexity of the conflicts, and the trans-generational hatred.

As for ending badly, I have to say, it's going to be really ugly when oil "runs out" or ceases to be sufficient to prop up the Arab economies. Civil unrest is too mild a term...

Agreed, but for Russia and China, they are dealing with dangers of rogue/failed nations on their doorstep. The US is rather more distanced from any mess it creates.

As to the oil running out, we probably only need to see oil production become constrained to witness big geopolitical shifts. While oil has matched demand, a free market approach has worked. But if production becomes constrained, then suddenly it will become about which customers can barge their way to the front of the queue. That is when all the recent strategic jockeying for position with airbases, pipeline politics, wars on terrorism, nuclear technology sales, and suchlike show who has been playing the game well.

For example, has the US been smart or dumb in supporting a strong Israel? Has it created an unnecessary complication that will allow others like China to slip in, or is having a viciously armed proxy in the region going to be a crucial part of the puzzle?

Of course, actual war is what most would want to avoid as it would be the fastest way to disrupt the flow of oil.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed, but for Russia and China, they are dealing with dangers of rogue/failed nations on their doorstep. The US is rather more distanced from any mess it creates.

As to the oil running out, we probably only need to see oil production become constrained to witness big geopolitical shifts. While oil has matched demand, a free market approach has worked. But if production becomes constrained, then suddenly it will become about which customers can barge their way to the front of the queue. That is when all the recent strategic jockeying for position with airbases, pipeline politics, wars on terrorism, nuclear technology sales, and suchlike show who has been playing the game well.

For example, has the US been smart or dumb in supporting a strong Israel? Has it created an unnecessary complication that will allow others like China to slip in, or is having a viciously armed proxy in the region going to be a crucial part of the puzzle?

Of course, actual war is what most would want to avoid as it would be the fastest way to disrupt the flow of oil.

I agree with your analysis of Russia and especially China's position, and to answer the last, I think support of Israel is wise. Nobody else has that kind of influence in the region, and when you combine that with a strong domestic lobby in favor of it, it's a win-win. Israel is a de facto nuclear deterrent, intelligence asset, proxy, and training partner... and since the only thing the US loses in that relationship is good-will, I'd say it's a fair trade.

If China wants in, it has to do so through Iran, and then they're competing with Russian AND French interests... we have a much more direct line in the ME. Israel, by maintaining a low level of conflict is both stalking horse, and a means of settling what could become wars before they interrupt oil supplies.

 

[mheslep]

Russia doesn't want ...

If anything, one could make the argument that Russia stands only to benefit from a nuclear Iran, since such development would drive oil prices upwards – something Russia can only welcome, since it will earn Russia both cash and influence.

Exactly so.

 

[qsa]

I agree with your analysis of Russia and especially China's position, and to answer the last, I think support of Israel is wise. Nobody else has that kind of influence in the region, and when you combine that with a strong domestic lobby in favor of it, it's a win-win. Israel is a de facto nuclear deterrent, intelligence asset, proxy, and training partner... and since the only thing the US loses in that relationship is good-will, I'd say it's a fair trade.

If China wants in, it has to do so through Iran, and then they're competing with Russian AND French interests... we have a much more direct line in the ME. Israel, by maintaining a low level of conflict is both stalking horse, and a means of settling what could become wars before they interrupt oil supplies.

I think the US is making a grave mistake in supporting “Israel”.

First, it will go the way the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Mongolians, and the European colonials went from the ME.

Second, it is just a leftover of the colonial era and it exists in a very unnatural way with it surrounding which cannot be maintained indefinitely, and it is detrimental to everybody including the Jews (which were tricked into this dangerous affair).

Third, after WWII the situation was ideal for very good cooperation between Europe and the Arab world (and Muslims) since culturally (both have their religion from the same area), geographically and historically the Arabs are much closer to Europeans than anybody else in the world. But creation of Israel created much distrust and lingering animosity with no benefit to either. The Arabs must sell their oil to make money; they cannot drink it or use all of it.

Forth, you cannot grantee your low intensity conflict.

Fifth, the whole affair of large countries vying for control of the natural resources of other countries is a sure way for a mega war where ugly weapons (available now at many countries) will be used with unpredictable consequences. And who needs enemies at that time.

Let’s say a thief gets away with it and becomes rich, will you copy him!

 

[nismaratwork]

I think the US is making a grave mistake in supporting “Israel”.

First, it will go the way the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Mongolians, and the European colonials went from the ME.

Second, it is just a leftover of the colonial era and it exists in a very unnatural way with it surrounding which cannot be maintained indefinitely, and it is detrimental to everybody including the Jews (which were tricked into this dangerous affair).

Third, after WWII the situation was ideal for very good cooperation between Europe and the Arab world (and Muslims) since culturally (both have their religion from the same area), geographically and historically the Arabs are much closer to Europeans than anybody else in the world. But creation of Israel created much distrust and lingering animosity with no benefit to either. The Arabs must sell their oil to make money; they cannot drink it or use all of it.

Forth, you cannot grantee your low intensity conflict.

Fifth, the whole affair of large countries vying for control of the natural resources of other countries is a sure way for a mega war where ugly weapons (available now at many countries) will be used with unpredictable consequences. And who needs enemies at that time.

Let’s say a thief gets away with it and becomes rich, will you copy him!

Do you have any basis at all for your "First"? Your second is somewhat true, but utterly irrelevant, and third again is an extraordinary claim requiring commensurate evidence. Fourth, yeah, there are no guarantees, but if the conflict ends being high intensity then at least we don't have to be the one dropping the nukes. Fifth is and has always been unavoidable, whether it's uranium, oil, gold, salt, or just water. I'd really love to see you back up your first and third statements...

 

[mheslep]

Israel is no more a 'leftover of the colonial era' than is the United States.

 

[Proton Soup]

Israel is no more a 'leftover of the colonial era' than is the United States.

does that make the US France ?

 

[qsa]

Do you have any basis at all for your "First"? Your second is somewhat true, but utterly irrelevant, and third again is an extraordinary claim requiring commensurate evidence. Fourth, yeah, there are no guarantees, but if the conflict ends being high intensity then at least we don't have to be the one dropping the nukes. Fifth is and has always been unavoidable, whether it's uranium, oil, gold, salt, or just water. I'd really love to see you back up your first and third statements...

Any time you have an invasion you are bound to have a resistance. Colonialism succeeded in sparsely populated not used to the old world ways of doing business. But the ME is different, it has been the center or close to the center of world civilization for the past thousands of years. It has very good experience with invaders being the center of the old world and linking Europe, Asia and Africa. As a matter of fact, ME itself has been a quite successful invader; it held Spain for 700 years. Invaders main mistake and reality is they tend to push things to the brink thinking that will save them only to backfire. You can skim the history through Wikipedia, it is fascinating.


As to third point, the history of ME and Europe has been a zigzag of conflict and cooperation throughout history. But with WWI the western powers promised the Arabs independence in case they helped to defeat the Turks. Of course, the West backed off that promise after the defeat of the Turks and they wanted to dominate. After WWII it became clear for the western empires that the situation was unsustainable and colonialism was over. And so for the first time in history it looked like Europe and the ME have settled into their natural borders with no reason for conflict; except for three problems: the Suez Canal, France’s claim to Algiers and Palestine. The first two were solved, but the last one became very tough because UN 194 was not implemented. The Arabs and Europeans are neighbors and they should respect each other and cooperate just like good neighbors. It is estimated in 20 years the Arab population (not counting IRAN, TURKEY and other Muslim countries) population will reach near 500 million. If the Palestine problem is not solved, Europe and the Arabs have a lot to lose.


As to your point of not dropping the nukes I hope you are right, but I am afraid that the US has hinted at using them and Israel being silent on its possession-hinting its possible use. The Arabs do not have them and their strategy is non nuclear in solving this problem, eventually.

 

[nismaratwork]

Any time you have an invasion you are bound to have a resistance. Colonialism succeeded in sparsely populated not used to the old world ways of doing business. But the ME is different, it has been the center or close to the center of world civilization for the past thousands of years. It has very good experience with invaders being the center of the old world and linking Europe, Asia and Africa. As a matter of fact, ME itself has been a quite successful invader; it held Spain for 700 years. Invaders main mistake and reality is they tend to push things to the brink thinking that will save them only to backfire. You can skim the history through Wikipedia, it is fascinating.


As to third point, the history of ME and Europe has been a zigzag of conflict and cooperation throughout history. But with WWI the western powers promised the Arabs independence in case they helped to defeat the Turks. Of course, the West backed off that promise after the defeat of the Turks and they wanted to dominate. After WWII it became clear for the western empires that the situation was unsustainable and colonialism was over. And so for the first time in history it looked like Europe and the ME have settled into their natural borders with no reason for conflict; except for three problems: the Suez Canal, France’s claim to Algiers and Palestine. The first two were solved, but the last one became very tough because UN 194 was not implemented. The Arabs and Europeans are neighbors and they should respect each other and cooperate just like good neighbors. It is estimated in 20 years the Arab population (not counting IRAN, TURKEY and other Muslim countries) population will reach near 500 million. If the Palestine problem is not solved, Europe and the Arabs have a lot to lose.


As to your point of not dropping the nukes I hope you are right, but I am afraid that the US has hinted at using them and Israel being silent on its possession-hinting its possible use. The Arabs do not have them and their strategy is non nuclear in solving this problem, eventually.

Who is invading anything, and why on Earth would I want to rely on wikipedia for a history lesson? What I'm getting from you is the usual pro-palestinian line, not a concrete argument.

You still need to justify the extreme statement:

First, it will go the way the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Mongolians, and the European colonials went from the ME.

Unless you just meant that inevitably there is always a change of power over the course of centuries... which is meaningless for this debate.

Your statement about Israel being a colonial leftover is also ridiculous in this context, as others have noted. Instead of backing up your previous statements, you've just slung about some propaganda. I suppose that it's technically true that no Arab nations are seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but that's because Iran is a Persian nation. If you include them, then your point dies, and if you include Iraq in the 80's you're wrong all around.

Do you have a point to make here beyond sweeping generalizations and "doom to the invader" statements? I'm not really interested in another thread that devolves into quibbling about the Palestinians, who by the way, Arab nations want nothing to do with except as a political tool.