Supply and demand: Iran's new nuclear ambitions
I've generally been quite optimistic about Iran's future, even with the recent election of populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, even with its return to the nuclear game (although nuclear weaponry could still be a decade away).
But this... this isn't good:
Okay, maybe, but what about those other Islamic countries? And, beyond that, what about those terrorist organizations that operate in said Islamic countries? I doubt I'd support any sort of major military operation against Iran, at least not right now, but something drastic would have to be done to prevent Iran from exporting its "nuclear know-how". And, of course, that something (say, special operations and airstrikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities) would have to be done by the U.S., unless the U.N. were to get its act together (which is unlikely) or the major European powers were to act on their own (also unlikely).
Ahmadinejad may just be posturing. As Franklin Foer notes in his wonderful book How Soccer Explains the World, one of the more underappreciated currents in Iranian culture is nationalism (as opposed to, say, jihadism). It may be good politics to stand up to the U.S., Europe, and the U.N., flaunting Iran's power in front of the world's cameras, but it's a dangerous game to play. If Ahmadinejad isn't careful, if he continues along this path to the proliferation of "nuclear know-how," the U.S. will have no alternative but to take military action.
Iran is a land of great possibility. Indeed, I suspect that most Iranians want their country to move closer to the West (and especially to the U.S. -- hated by the rulers, loved by the people) and towards liberal democracy. But how is that to happen, how is Iran to realize its great possibility, if it continues to threaten, if only for now in its rhetoric, the security of the West?
But this... this isn't good:
Iran is willing to provide nuclear technology to other Muslim states, Iran's hardline president said Thursday, notching up his rhetoric as his government rejects international pressure to cut back its atomic program.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comment after talking with Turkey's prime minister during a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said.
Ahmadinejad made repeated promises that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, the report said. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."
Iran has said it is determined to continue processing uranium so its nuclear program can be self-sufficient in meeting its own reactor fuel needs. It insists the program is intended only to generate electricity and denies having any ambition to build atomic weapons.
Okay, maybe, but what about those other Islamic countries? And, beyond that, what about those terrorist organizations that operate in said Islamic countries? I doubt I'd support any sort of major military operation against Iran, at least not right now, but something drastic would have to be done to prevent Iran from exporting its "nuclear know-how". And, of course, that something (say, special operations and airstrikes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities) would have to be done by the U.S., unless the U.N. were to get its act together (which is unlikely) or the major European powers were to act on their own (also unlikely).
Ahmadinejad may just be posturing. As Franklin Foer notes in his wonderful book How Soccer Explains the World, one of the more underappreciated currents in Iranian culture is nationalism (as opposed to, say, jihadism). It may be good politics to stand up to the U.S., Europe, and the U.N., flaunting Iran's power in front of the world's cameras, but it's a dangerous game to play. If Ahmadinejad isn't careful, if he continues along this path to the proliferation of "nuclear know-how," the U.S. will have no alternative but to take military action.
Iran is a land of great possibility. Indeed, I suspect that most Iranians want their country to move closer to the West (and especially to the U.S. -- hated by the rulers, loved by the people) and towards liberal democracy. But how is that to happen, how is Iran to realize its great possibility, if it continues to threaten, if only for now in its rhetoric, the security of the West?
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:44 AM
1 Comments:
I think you are right that he (it takes too long to write his name) is appealing to Iranian nationalism. I think he realizes that a large segment of the population doesn't by the Islamic state business anymore so this is presumably a way to bind them to his rule. He is obviously playing a dangerous and silly game here and it's not likely to help him at home unless the US does something stupid like attack militarily (which I think the mullahs might actually prefer). He also realizes, however, that the threat of sanctions may not be that real--India and China would both oppose sanctions.
I think that this is all a way to distract the Iranian public from the real problems. People voted for this guy because they perceived that the liberal reformers were ineffectual and weren't really improving the quality of life. But this guy's plans are screwy so I doubt things will be getting any better.
Frankly, I think the way to handle places like Iran and Venezuela (where we have another demagogue in power) is to ignore the rhetoric. Don't play into their hands by becoming the Great Bully. Obviously, we have to be concerned about the Iranian nuclear program, but do so in a way that makes clear what their leaders' policies are costing Iranians (easier said than done I grant). Right now, many if not most Iranians like the US better than their own government--let's not screw up and reverse that because in the long run that would be counterproductive.
And, in fact, there is little we can do. A military attack would likely be ineffective short of regime change. And we don't want to do that again, do we?
By
Anonymous, at 9:27 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home