Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (2713)	2/13/2002 2:40:31 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

A Risky Message to Iran The New York Times By ABBAS AMANAT NEW HAVEN - Iran's recent promotion from a rogue state to a member of the "axis of evil" appears to be a belated rhetorical response to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's portrayal of the United States as the Great Satan. Demonizing Iran may play well with the American audience, but it has already caused discomfort among America's European allies. Actual military action against Iran would be disastrous. But after the United States' success in Afghanistan, there may well be willingness in certain quarters within the Bush administration to entertain that idea, given its statements that Iran supports terrorism and wants to develop weapons of mass destruction. Making an enemy of Iran - much less attacking it, even surgically - would have the effect of rallying the Iranian public behind the conservative clerics of the Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The losers would be the voices of moderation and political reform among Iranians deeply frustrated with the domination of the hard-line clergy. Mohammad Khatami's lethargic presidency, which has been battered by these hard-liners, can hardly fulfill promises for civil liberties, the rule of law, democracy and political accountability. But for the electorate that returned him to office with an overwhelming majority last year, Mr. Khatami is still the only option. An aggressive posture by America would give the regime's hard-liners new ability to embarrass Mr. Khatami, repudiate reforms and block further chances to normalize relations with the United States. Having made the rhetoric of "death to America" the centerpiece of the revolution, they cannot afford to abandon that cause now. There can be no underestimating the fear among the hardliners that the ultimate objective of the United States is to dislodge the clergy in power. Indeed, certain adventurous elements within the regime might even welcome a limited military engagement with a superpower as a way of brightening their sagging fortunes. Memories of the Iraq-Iran war as an effective means of suppressing the regime's domestic opposition are still alive. Although the top clerical figures in the Iranian government will resist the temptation of engaging a superpower, knowing well the risks involved, Washington's threatening words give them an immediate reason to intensify their anti-American diatribe, which indirectly is aimed at Mr. Khatami as well. Yet despite the internal power struggle, it is important to recognize that Iran is one of the more stable regimes of the Middle East. Destabilizing Iran would have a direct and immediate impact not only on the security of the Persian Gulf and the flow of Middle East oil (Iran has strategic command over the Strait of Hormuz), but on the international efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan. If militarily threatened, Iran is likely to engage in a range of actions to counter the United States and its regional allies. For instance, it is not implausible for Iran to respond by entering into an implicit alliance with its foe, Iraq, another member of the "axis of evil." The normally unthinkable option of coming to terms with Saddam Hussein may be possible if the regime in Iran were to face a threat to its survival. Both nations may see a benefit to accommodating each other's security needs; neither would welcome an increased American presence on their border or in the region. Furthermore, as an intermediary power between Iraq and Saudia Arabia, with which it has developed closer ties, Iran is positioned to gain a greater strategic advantage in the Persian Gulf than it had in past decades. Placing Iran on the enemies list may also encourage it to reassert its claims over the offshore Caspian oilfields that are in dispute with the Republic of Azerbaijan. Only last year, Iran reacted with a threat of military action when British Petroleum began its offshore oil exploration. This would be a serious setback for American oil interests and investment in that region. Increased tension between Iran and the United States would also allow Russia to regain its place in Iranian power politics as a counterbalance to Western powers. Heightened tension also gives the hard-liners within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and their intelligence affiliates, a pretext to back the Lebanese Hezbollah in a new round of attacks against Israel. Under greater American pressure, those elements in Iran may seek to gain Palestinian sympathizers by providing support to Hezbollah and indirect aid to Islamic Jihad. Iran's alleged involvement in shipping arms to the Palestinians aboard the Karine A, though denied by the Iranians, could become the start of a new trend. This kind of result would isolate the United States across a vast and crucial region stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. In terms of true security, the United States gains little by threatening Iran. And it stands to lose much: support in the Middle East for its actions in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and credit as a responsible guarantor of the global order. In the Muslim world, action against Iran would add weight to the belief that the United States is primarily interested in advancing an Israeli agenda at the expense of regional stability. The United States and its allies should recognize Iran's longstanding role in Afghanistan through its support of the Northern Alliance and its sheltering of more than two million Afghan refugees. The charge that Iran is producing weapons of mass destruction has never been substantiated. If Iran is developing a nuclear program, or chemical and biological weapons, a surgical military strike is unlikely to eliminate such projects entirely. The persistence of such threats in neighboring Iraq is a case in point. But unilateral military action by the United States, if successful, might well be used as license for other nations to take retaliatory actions against their real or perceived enemies. This potential effect is reason enough to oppose the use of force against Iran. Iran's transition into a less autocratic regime has been slow, but it is coming. As a leader of the international community, the United States can support reformist change without appeasing the Islamic republic. It must remain critical of Iran's conduct on human rights and treatment of its voices of dissent. It should keep pressure on the hard-liners while being careful not to undermine the efforts of the weakened Khatami government to allow more social freedoms. And it must not lose sight of the complexity of Iranian society, which has its own sense of cultural continuity and yet desires to break out of the isolation imposed after the revolution. The dynamics of a shift into a democratic society should be encouraged, not disrupted at the very moment when reform is supported by most Iranians. The success or failure of Iran's transformation will have important implications for the peaceful resolution of the Muslim world's acute political and religious predicament. Abbas Amanat is a professor of history at Yale and the author of the forthcoming "In Search of Modern Iran." nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (2713)	2/25/2002 2:43:02 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Blair and Bush to plot war on Iraq Kamal Ahmed, political editor Sunday February 24, 2002 The Observer Tony Blair and the United States President George Bush are to hold a specially convened summit in April to finalise details of military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Blair will travel to Washington in six weeks' time in a clear signal that Downing Street fully backs Bush's plans to launch a war against Iraq if Saddam does not agree to deadlines to destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. 'The meeting will be to finalise Phase Two of the war against terrorism,' a senior Number 10 official said. 'Action against Iraq will be at the top of the agenda.' With evidence growing of a Labour Party backlash over American action against Saddam, the Government is now planning to publish for the first time detailed evidence of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. The document will reveal that Saddam is attempting to amass rudimentary nuclear capabilities and is also investigating a way to launch 'dirty' nuclear bombs - unsophisticated devices which would nevertheless wreak havoc if ever used. Western intelligence services also believe Saddam is developing biological and chemical devices which could kill and maim tens of thousands of people. The Number 10 official said that, as with Osama bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan, it is necessary to maintain public and international support for military action against Saddam. It was a 'public persuasion' issue and would be tackled in the same way as the unprecedented 'indictment' against bin Laden published by Downing Street last year with the agreement of the White House. Bush has been under increasing attack from Europe over his desire to see Saddam removed from power. His 'axis of evil' speech earlier this year, when he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as international pariah states, has been attacked by both the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, and the European Union commissioner for external affairs, Chris Patten. The Foreign Office in particular is irritated by the bellicose language, which officials said revealed that hawkish elements in Washington had won over the President's mind. But The Observer can reveal that Blair has told his inner circle that he believes the attacks on the President are misplaced and that it is only by the threat of action that reformist elements within Iraq will be encouraged to rise up against Saddam. In a series of long telephone conversation over the past two months, Bush has kept Blair aware of his plans for military action. Although there is no evidence of any link between Iraq and the attacks of 11 September, both leaders will make it clear that weapons of mass destruction are a legitimate target for military action. 'The alliance with the United States is strong, it will remain strong,' Blair said yesterday at a meeting of European leaders in Stockholm. 'We will deal with issues together. The Americans are absolutely right to emphasise the continuing importance of the war against terrorism and continuing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.' In an interview to be broadcast by the BBC's On the Record programme today, US Assistant Secretary of State, Beth Jones, admitted that 'nothing was off the table' when it came to Iraq. 'I think Americans aren't alone - there are many many people in the world who want Saddam to no longer be in charge in Iraq,' says Jones. 'There's no question about that. I think it's fair to say that nothing is off the table.' The April summit will significantly increase world tension on the issue as Middle East nations watch warily for any signal that Bush will act precipitately against Saddam. Many Muslim leaders fear a leadership vacuum and political chaos in Iraq, which could affect the standing of neighbouring countries in the region. It now seems likely that Saddam will be set a deadline to allow in weapons inspectors who will oversee the destruction of Iraq's weaponry or face military consequences. The Prime Minister is aware of a growing revolt within his own party and some elements of the British military against action in Iraq. Intelligence officials in Britain have told The Observer that there is concern about over-committing in Iraq and of making military promises that cannot be kept. They have advised Number 10 that the only 'window' for action is in the autumn and winter of this year, when the fierce heat in the region abates slightly. A poll of 100 backbench MPs by On the Record, to be released today, reveals wide spread disquiet about the developments. Asked if there was sufficient evidence to support an attack on Iraq, 86 MPs said no, while only 12 agreed, and three said they did not know. Similar levels of opposition to Bush's 'axis of evil' speech were also apparent. Asked about his attitude to attacks on Iraq, former Defence Minister Doug Henderson tells the programme: 'I think a lot of us would have severe worries - one, that the action wouldn't be successful, that Saddam wouldn't be toppled and it would be left with an invasion force in Iraq; or secondly, that we'd alienate too many of the other countries whose support we need to fight terrorism internationally.' observer.co.uk