New Axis Formed: Syria and Iran

[face]

i need to vent this, because it's been irritating me recently...

now that the administration is putting the "heat" on Tehran and Damascus, the two have joined in solidarity against the US's aggressive tactics.

this union is nothing new for as you may recall:

1980 September - Start of Iran-Iraq war. Syria backs Iran, in keeping with the traditional rivalry between Ba'thist leaderships in Iraq and Syria.

1990 - Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Syria joins the US-led coalition against Iraq. This leads to improved relations with Egypt and the USA.


that last one may have surprised you, huh?

and while the EU is stressing the need for engagement, the US is calling for sanctions and embargoes.

some of you may have seen Imad Moustapha (Syrian Ambassador to the US) speak on C-SPAN yesterday. the impression i got from him was very positive (meaning: he's a good diplomat!). in all seriousness, he had some very valid points to make regarding the situation:
-Is Syria really the destabilizing element in the Middle East? most likely, no. it's in fact the issue of palestine which lies at the heart of all conflict (something our administration, or anyone for that matter, isn't prioritizing).
-Lebanon has elections coming up in April, where they can decide whether Syria stays or goes. (this i don't think is adequate; but Syria and Iraq are the only states that haven't made peace with Israel yet--Syria is in Lebanon as a buffer essentially).
-the golan heights remain under israeli control, a fact which most have forgotten about

and regarding the syria-iraqi insurgent connection: think about it it. would syria really allow insurgents to go into iraq from its borders? the last thing syria would want is the iraqi ba'th regime restored. and if you're talking about islamist insurgents, syria has a strong history of combating and erradicating any islamic radicals (most have been either deported, imprisoned, or killed). strategically, it makes sense for syria, and iran as well, to have a stable neighbor (iraq).

as for iran, the whole nuclear weapons program ordeal is a bit out of hand i think. president putin has backed iran, asserting their program is strictly for energy purposes. the US remains staunch in its stance that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

if i were iran, i'd have many reasons for (hypothetically) developing a nuclear weapons program. just look at iran's nuclear neighbors and you'll understand why:
-russia
-india
-israel
-pakistan

if all of your neighbors and enemies have nuclear weapons, in a pragmatic sense, wouldn't it make sense to arm yourself? i'm not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, but it makes perfect sense. the bush administration is basically saying that israel has the right to defend herself with an undeclared nuclear arsenal because they are our ally, but don't want iran to have nuclear weapons.


nevertheless, there are topics i haven't covered here (hizbullah) because i've already said enough as it is. it just bugs me to hear the same one-sided story coming from the administration, the media and elsewhere.

[mylexicon]

Who gives a shit if Syria and Iran joined forces. If a country
is developing nuclear weapons they don't need an ally to destroy things.
This "alliance" is just a tactic used to scare stupid Americans and to
give the media something to report.
military power they use it to threaten Israel. The only exceptions are
when they are too busy fighting one another.

I do agree that Iran has a reason to have nukes, but the problem is
they are on the nuke blacklist. You can't let felons have guns and
you can't let shady countries produce nuclear weapons. Thats just the
way it has to be until they can demostrate that they will not use war as
a first resort.

[face]

what nuke blacklist are you referring to? and what makes iran a shady country?

of the 9 countries that have nukes, only 5 (UNSC perm members) have signed the NPTreaty. israel never signed, but assured everyone that it would not be the first to "introduce" nuclear weapons in the middle east.

[mylexicon]

Iran Contra

I think that is enough to make Iran shady all by itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that countries not in the G10 are pretty much blacklisted
from having nukes. The only exceptions might be countries like Brazil
Mexico, Bolivia, or Chile. We probably wouldn't care that much if they developed them cuz they don't act up all the time.

[davetlv]

Actually a blacklist does exisit - techinically every country that has signed the NPT can't develop a nuclear weapons programme whilst the development of other forms of nuclear technology must be 'supervised' by the IAEA.

Although we have had this discussion here before . . .

Lets hypothasise - 2 countries living in same region.

Country 1 dedicated to the destruction of country 2 is rich in natural resources wants to develop nuclear technology supposedly for 'peaceful' purposes and is a signatory to the NPT.

Country 2 dedicated to the survival of itself as a nation, is not a signatory to the NPT and may possibly (lets say 98% certain) have nuclear weapons.

Country 1 has a history of arming and funding terrorist organisations which work towards the destruction of country 2 whilst at every opportunity calls for the destruction of country 2 through its religious leadership.

Country 2 has faced invasion after invasion by its neighbours (and defeated them) and has NEVER used the supposed nuclear arms it might possess.

Would you really trust Country 1 with nuclear arms?

[DragonFire]

actually i wouldnt never trust country 2 with nuclear weapons because it possesses a history for invading other countries like egypt and syria ..and it's pretty obvious that the us administration is not operating wisely by trying to fight terrorism and helping it increase by it's policies

[davetlv]

Please define what you mean by invade dragonfire?

As far as i can make out Country 2 has never invaded Syria or Egypt. . . maybe you are aware of something i dont know?

[mylexicon]

Dragonfire, if that was a joke

If not, plz crack a history book, plz......before you dumb the rest of the
universe down. Crossing another country's borders without any intent
to conquer that nation hardly constitutes an invasion. Especially if it was
done in self defense. Egypt and Syria got what the deserved. They put
that entire region in a precarious situation for no real reason. It stands
to reason that they should have to shoulder the burden for their actions.

[face]

signatory or not, i think it's funny how the state can't admit anything officially, even though everyone knows what's up. i think we have specific legislation here that forbids satellite photography over certain areas in israel (read: dimona).

what would vanunu do?

as for iran, i wouldn't say it's solely dedicated to the destruction of israel (no need to use code words here). some leaders may strongly believe in the 'cause' but most people use the issue as a rallying point and a scapegoat for internal shortcomings, etc.

so again, NPT or not, it's not a matter of trust. iran is probably nowhere near being a nuclear power, so it's not like they are in violation of the treaty. north korea withdrew itself from the NPT once it was armed.

the aggression towards syria and iran, from the usg standpoint is rationalized by the following points: harboring/funding terrorists, destabilizing the region, violating human rights, lacking democracy, and oppressing women.

those last 4 are all meaningless and irrelevant. so when dr. rice enumerates a list such as this, the last few are to be ignored. for example, do we really care about liberating women in iran? has anyone asked iranian women if they want to be liberated? and as for human rights and democracy, what of our partners/allies egypt, sa'udi arabia, israel, etc.? are they exempt?

it's all too hypocritical, as was pointed out during dr. rice's senate grilling not too long ago.

here's an interesting article (translated from russian into english): http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91...4_nuclear.html

[face]

Iran Contra

I think that is enough to make Iran shady all by itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that countries not in the G10 are pretty much blacklisted
from having nukes. The only exceptions might be countries like Brazil
Mexico, Bolivia, or Chile. We probably wouldn't care that much if they developed them cuz they don't act up all the time.

uhhh...iran contra is a horrible example. it shows how messy our foreign "policy" was. selling guns to iran in exchange for hostages in lebanon, and then using the funds to overthrow the sandinistas in nicaragua?

we were supporting and funding saddam's iraq, while at the same time arming iran to the teeth (not to mention "fighting off" communist influence in latin america).

and as for the non-G10 countries, i refer you to the link i posted in the previous post.

[mylexicon]

actually Iranian women do want to be liberated especially the younger
ones.

That Iranian female lawyer who is fighting the current regime had the
support of her nation until the government threatened to kill her.

Then the Western media stepped in. To further her fame and power she
was awarded the nobel peace prize--which she probably deserved anyway
despite the political reasons she received it.

BTW if you want to refute what Rice said don't quote a russian source.
There is a blatant bias there, b/c as we all know, Russia is sucking Iran's
dick right now. Use something more impartial like Australian or Japanese
publications. Those countries probably couldn't care less about Iran.

[face]

iran has gone through several phases of anarchy and revolution in this century alone. if secularization and female liberation is what people want, they know how to take care of it. i'm not trying to oversimplify the issue, just pointing out that they have gone through a lot and their relationship with the US has deteriorated since kermit roosevelt stepped in there in the 1950s.


i don't see anything wrong with the russian article. it's just summarizing what El-Baradei said anyway. and australia being impartial? talk about sucking dicks...john howard-->george bush.

[mylexicon]

Iran Contra isn't a bad example unless you are a moral relativist.

It's obvious our actions weren't without fault, but the corruption was
exposed; though most of the people who deserved punishment didn't
receive it.

Iran still had no right to use hostages as political bargaining tools, and
to make matters worse many hostages weren't being held Iran.
Iran actually outsourced terror and hostage involvement to the
nearby terrorist den of Lebanon. Then when Iran did receive our arms
they would release several hostages and capture several new ones.

Iran believe that it was acceptable to capture and detain people for
long periods of time in order to force Israel and the U.S. to surrender
large quantities of weapons. They are willing to do anything to get their
way.......and worst of all the Iran regime sees that as one of its biggest
strengths.

[mylexicon]

the Australian government isn't impartial but the media and the state
in Australia aren't as heavily intertwined as they are in Russia.

The only critisism I have of the article itself is that states modern nuclear
development facts. Then argues that they should be allowed because of a loophole in relatively antiquated international nuclear agreement......
that happens to be the exact same excuse the Putin is currently giving.

It is tertiary to the situation at hand, which is: Can Iran be trusted to
handle such immense power responsibly?

[davetlv]

signatory or not, i think it's funny how the state can't admit anything officially, even though everyone knows what's up. i think we have specific legislation here that forbids satellite photography over certain areas in israel (read: dimona).

what would vanunu do?

Does everyone really know whats up? Sure we might know the in the 1950's Shimon Peres was responsible for developing a nuclear programme of some sort and in the 1980's a an employee of Israels nuclear facility made certain claims about its capabilities (which have not be substantiated), but do you really know?

Some people here believe that Israels nuclear programme is nothing more than a ruse; making our neighbours fear the fact that Israel might have nuclear weapons is as much of a deterrent as them actually having the weapons. Whilst other people here believe that there are something upwards of 200 warheads. . . but no one knows! We just suppose!

As for Vanunu. I'm not sure why people outside of Israel keep bringing this traitor up. This man worked for a govenment agency, signed the official secrets act and then tried to sell what he knew. A traitor by any other name. From before he started work ar Dimona he knew what the consequences of speaking out would be, of breaking the official secrets acts. He was lucky he only got 18 years in prision for his actions, in other countries the murder their traitors.

As recently as 2003 in USA you were considering executing your traitors (although in the end Brian Regan cut a deal and got life imprisonment), like you did to the Rosenbergs in 1953.