191 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Sure, the administration has some effect, but look who is CIA Director today - David Patreaus who was part of the military leadership in the War in Iraq from the beginning. As far as military matters, Obama did not depart sharply from Bush and as far as the reality of all interests, public, private, foreign and domestic, the military and the government policies have a great deal of inertia. Look at US policy from the end of WW2 to today and we've been engaged in the same sort of military actions over and over no matter who is in the White House.

As far as Nuclear Power, it makes complete sense for Iran, as anyone who is familiar with the region will tell you, because Iran's major export is oil. It makes no sense for them to continue to depend on their oil production for domestic power when that would simply lose them money from their exports. In a sense, for Iran using oil is doubly expensive since not only do they have the expense of producing it, they lose money from oil they don't sell. That's why they want to replace it with alternative sources and for their country, nuclear makes the most sense.

[David Meadows]

As far as Nuclear Power, it makes complete sense for Iran, as anyone who is familiar with the region will tell you, because Iran's major export is oil. It makes no sense for them to continue to depend on their oil production for domestic power when that would simply lose them money from their exports. In a sense, for Iran using oil is doubly expensive since not only do they have the expense of producing it, they lose money from oil they don't sell. That's why they want to replace it with alternative sources and for their country, nuclear makes the most sense.

It doesn't entirely make sense, they've still got to buy uranium. Unless the oil-uranium exchange rate is incredibly favourable for them.

[Ogul]

Sure, the administration has some effect, but look who is CIA Director today - David Patreaus who was part of the military leadership in the War in Iraq from the beginning.

Like I said, career military. He was working in Bosnia during the run-up to the war, he played NO role in shaping it. When the Iraq war started he was in charge of the 101st. He played a role in ground tactics, but played no role in actually shaping policy until much later in the Bush administration.

As far as military matters, Obama did not depart sharply from Bush and as far as the reality of all interests, public, private, foreign and domestic, the military and the government policies have a great deal of inertia. Look at US policy from the end of WW2 to today and we've been engaged in the same sort of military actions over and over no matter who is in the White House.

That's a matter of perspective, but it's not some grand conspiracy of individuals in power, it's that whoever is in power is serving the US agenda, and that agenda happens to include military strength.

As far as Nuclear Power, it makes complete sense for Iran, as anyone who is familiar with the region will tell you, because Iran's major export is oil. It makes no sense for them to continue to depend on their oil production for domestic power when that would simply lose them money from their exports.

Any sort of fuel can be exported. If they can produce enough uranium to run nuclear plants, then they could sell that uranium for as much money as the oil or natural gas it would replace. Nuclear power is one of the most inefficient and expensive ways to produce electricity there is. Like I said, if electricity were their goal, solar power would be idea for them, given the climate, and any developments they made would be much more valuable on the global market than any second-rate nuclear engineering they cobble together.

In a sense, for Iran using oil is doubly expensive since not only do they have the expense of producing it, they lose money from oil they don't sell.

You do realize that the US produces a lot fo oil too. That every county in the world that produces oil also uses it? This is not a situation unique to Iran, and going nuclear isn't the best solution to that.

[Johnny Henning]

In the long term, once they have the nuclear power systems set up, they maximize oil profits in the future when oil demand (from China, Russia and India) is going to be higher. Like any nuclear power program, you're looking at investment for future growth not immediate returns.

You have to remember that it was the US who started their nuclear power program when the Shah was in power, so we certainly believed in the economic sense of it UNTIL a hostile government came into power there. Certainly, the US believes nuclear power is an option to reduce oil and gas consumption domestically far more than any other alternative.

However, in the bigger picture, someone needs to finally realize this "Cubanization" of hostile nations like Iran and North Korea never really works. It only punishes the citizens of the nation, eventually makes them less able to influence and strengthens the hostile government in power. On top of that, it locks us in a costly cycle of military action or near military action that accomplishes nothing or makes the problems worse

Ogul's post about Patreaus basically says what I'm pointing out. As far as our foreign policy, we keep making the same mistakes because the same people, organizations and companies are always involved no matter who holds office.

[David Meadows]

You would think that if they really wanted to invest in alternative power sources to reduce their reliance on their own oil, they would look at solar before nuclear. Their climate should be giving them a bit of a hint on that.

[garjones]

However, in the bigger picture, someone needs to finally realize this "Cubanization" of hostile nations like Iran and North Korea never really works. It only punishes the citizens of the nation, eventually makes them less able to influence and strengthens the hostile government in power. On top of that, it locks us in a costly cycle of military action or near military action that accomplishes nothing or makes the problems worse

History really does tend to suggest that doesn't it? I think it helps embolden them and they certainly stay in power a very long time. You can't say its a policy that's worked on any level with Cuba, 53 years of an approach that changed nothing.

Every time some US politician goes into some tizzy fit because Chavez said something nasty about the country I can't help but feel they are doing exactly what he wants them to do and the worst thing they could do from his perspective is completely ignore him.

You would think that if they really wanted to invest in alternative power sources to reduce their reliance on their own oil, they would look at solar before nuclear. Their climate should be giving them a bit of a hint on that.

Iran has just about every climate. Deserts in one place and freezing temperatures and heavy snow in another.

[Johnny Henning]

You would think that if they really wanted to invest in alternative power sources to reduce their reliance on their own oil, they would look at solar before nuclear. Their climate should be giving them a bit of a hint on that.

You know what? Maybe they are looking at wind & solar power. http://itee.uq.edu.a...s/H-Kazemi1.pdf

6. CONCLUSION
The potential of wind and solar energy is about 6500 MW
and 19.23 mega joules per square meter in Iran. From 1994
to 1998, 10.5 MW of wind turbines have been installed and
more than 134.6 GWh electricity has been produced by
them. By this amount of production, wind turbines have
prevented 4.18 million metric tons of emission of carbon
around the world and 5.1 million US$ has been added to the
revenue of Iran. In addition, because of the ability of Iran to
make some parts of wind turbine, the price has dropped to
537.5 US/kW for a nominal 550 kW type. By 2005, 23600
MW of total installed generation will be added, 1.7% of it
will be based on renewable energy power plants consisting
of wind, solar and geothermal sources

Of course, solar panels require parts and materials that Iran may not be able to import or produce under the sanctions, and it is not an "either - or" proposition with nuclear vs solar. Like I pointed out, their nuclear program, started with US aid, began in the 50's. It has a lot more development involved and the reliability of the technology is better known from the experience of other nations. As far as wind and solar, they are still in pretty early stages of implementation around the world even in developed nations.

[David Meadows]

Iran has just about every climate. Deserts in one place and freezing temperatures and heavy snow in another.

But it's way up near the top of the table for days of sunshine per year, surely?

[garjones]

But it's way up near the top of the table for days of sunshine per year, surely?

I'm sure it does in the southern regions, it's just a lot of people don't realise that Iran has ski resorts and isn't quite your typical middle eastern all sand and sun country.

I think the main issue would be that solar hasn't really proven itself as a method for mass energy generation anywhere. It's used primarily to divert from an existing system and increase efficiency rather than replace more conventional uses. Wind and hydro have been much more effective in that area. That would be allied with the fact that Iran's population went from 19m in 1956 to 75m in 2009 so that's rapid growth that needs sustaining, just slightly behind India in speed of growth and way higher than China.

I don't really know how essential nuclear would be but those are mitigating factors.

[Johnny Henning]

Still, all this is going around the bigger point - what right does the United States or Israel have to dictate what sources of energy the Iranians choose to pursue when despite their rhetoric - or at least what we hear from our news sources - it's been the United States and Israel who are responsible for the most recent military action in the region? - and we've had soldiers fighting right on the borders of Iran. So, really, who is a threat to whom?

[garjones]

You mean like this story from The Onion?

TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.

[Johnny Henning]

That's a nice one.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I think it would be a terrible thing if the US would cooperate with Israel in an attack on Iran right now while sitting back and allowing Assad to slaughter the people of Syria. That would turn them into an even bigger bully in the eyes of the world than they are already.

It's only bad options at this point. I agree an attack against Iran right now would be a terrible mistake, which would possibly dwarf the mistakes made in Iraq. Continuing with diplomacy and the occasional outburst of threatening rhetoric and sabre rattling is the better option.

That speech Netanyahu made a few days ago for the AIPAC made me cringe very badly, by the way.

[Johnny Henning]

Honestly, more trade with these nations, even if we hate their governments, is the only real long term strategy for change. Our foreign policy has been to either cut off all trade and impose sanctions on nations with hostile governments or support friendly dictators no matter how undemocratic or oppressive they are. In the end, our friendly dictators seem to fall before the hostile nations do. And the US is left playing catch up in a region where we're losing influence and political desirability.

Really, it's Israel that is literally acting like the "rogue third-party state" of the Onion satire and pushing military action as the only option. It seems they really only want to attack Iran and will allow no other options.

[garjones]

I think it would be a terrible thing if the US would cooperate with Israel in an attack on Iran right now while sitting back and allowing Assad to slaughter the people of Syria. That would turn them into an even bigger bully in the eyes of the world than they are already.

To be fair, as I mentioned earlier, Obama went and gave a speech this week where he said they were interested only in diplomatic options and his relationship with Netanyahu was openly described as no more than 'functional' (we've already heard the leaked Sarkozy conversation where he pretty much said he was a pain in the arse).

There's a lot of rhetoric from the Republican candidates of all kinds of aggression but at this stage that's all talk. It's unlikely any of them will win and even if they did, when faced with the economic and political realities of a decision like that may very well not act on it. Half of what these guys are saying now will disappear off the agenda at the end of the year because the nature of the contest means they have to appeal to the right to get nominated and then appeal to the centre to get elected.

[David Meadows]

Honestly, more trade with these nations, even if we hate their governments, is the only real long term strategy for change.

It's true. When Iran has a MacDonalds on every corner and are watching Disney at the multiplex, they'll start to realise that (a) America isn't so bad after all and (b) we'd better keep them happy so they don't cut off our movies.

[Arjan Dirkse]

It's true. When Iran has a MacDonalds on every corner and are watching Disney at the multiplex, they'll start to realise that (a) America isn't so bad after all and (b) we'd better keep them happy so they don't cut off our movies.

I can;t tell wether or not you're being sarcastic there...

if anything I'd say an increase of Disney and McD's justifies an increase in hate for the USA.

[Jim Ohara]

Really, it's Israel that is literally acting like the "rogue third-party state" of the Onion satire and pushing military action as the only option. It seems they really only want to attack Iran and will allow no other options.

You need to be somewhat fair to Israel. They're a people who suffered more than any in modern history, they're surrounded on all sides by countries that will never accept them, and they have to put up daily threats and constant attacks. They live in paranoia and have been hit hard many times. That makes for a pretty hardcore people.

Really Israel is no worse than the US during the cold war, and in fact is somewhat better. America was never actually attacked by Russia, but it didn't stop them from scaring the shit out of the entire planet and delivering the real possibility of global nuclear war. In the end peace just took time, it took the retirement of the bitter/panicked generation and a new generation that saw he cold war as an episode in foolishness. And it took many other countries to coax that along. The same will happen in the Middle East. This is all just dick waggling - at least I hope those in power are smart enough to know that. We're in real trouble if any of them are serious about dropping bombs.

[Johnny Henning]

if anything I'd say an increase of Disney and McD's justifies an increase in hate for the USA.

Certainly, it would debilitate the nation much more effectively than any military option.

You need to be somewhat fair to Israel. They're a people who suffered more than any in modern history, they're surrounded on all sides by countries that will never accept them, and they have to put up daily threats and constant attacks. They live in paranoia and have been hit hard many times. That makes for a pretty hardcore people.

Wait, I'm talking about all of Israel, not just the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Seriously, though, in modern history, the vast majority of Israelis living today can't hold a candle to Vietnamese, Cambodians, Congolese, Somolians, Ethiopians - and on and on in the third world as far as suffering goes. Even the North Koreans have it worse.

Really Israel is no worse than the US during the cold war, and in fact is somewhat better. America was never actually attacked by Russia, but it didn't stop them from scaring the shit out of the entire planet and delivering the real possibility of global nuclear war. In the end peace just took time, it took the retirement of the bitter/panicked generation and a new generation that saw he cold war as an episode in foolishness. And it took many other countries to coax that along. The same will happen in the Middle East. This is all just dick waggling - at least I hope those in power are smart enough to know that. We're in real trouble if any of them are serious about dropping bombs.

Yeah, I admit I am overstating the case here a little on the anti-Israeli side, but it's just that in my lifetime, the sort of rhetoric we're hearing now leads to war or some kind of military action more often than it doesn't. Or at least often enough that I've become extremely wary of it.

[Jake]

See, I look at this all from Iran's perspective. In 2002, the leader of the United States pointed out that there were three bad countries: North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. The first was on its way to nukes it has today. The US never messed with them. The second fronted like it was close to nukes but really wasn't. We went in, knocked the shit out of the regime, and unleashed nearly a decade of hell. The last? With the US spending the better part of a decade fighting wars on two of its borders, I bet Iran figures it better either get nukes or do a damn good job keeping us guessing on whether they're getting nukes.