More dangerous 2 mideast peace

[freakyfreaky]

Israel or Iran?

Why?

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slides...349894499.jpg/ (Israel Defense Minister in DC today for meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mideast_6

(IDM says no option, including military attack, is off the table re: dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions)

[freakyfreaky]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

Here, I'll help out.

This Yiddish speaking son of J-ewish refugees and scholar thinks that Israel as a xxxish state has to go and that Zionism may ultimately lead to unsavory results; 113 of his colleagues pushback ADL's Foxman for scurrilous attacks. http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=14790

As for me, simplistically, I don't see how you can think that taking out the spoke of the tire aka the region helps keep peace in the Middle East when you already have spokes (Afghanistan, Iraq) in the tire broken beyond any immediate repair, and other bent spokes (Turkey, Pakistan).

Destabilizing Iran to promote peace that you already cannot control. You want a strong, sovereign, responsible Iran that can protect its borders from the instability about it including Kurds in and about it to the norh and Azeris within it and to its north that have a lot of oil money and shiny new toys partly supplied by Israel that it is itching to use and hungry tigers in India, China and Russia looking to exploit new commodity opportunities.

I just do not see how shaking the boat for 70+ million people to keep 3+ million people relatively safe (in a state that was artificially created) promotes stability in a region that is already teetering on the point of no return.

[freakyfreaky]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

Here is what the honorable Vartan Oskanian thinks (about Iran). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ponstechnology

A neighbourly option for IranAllowing Iran to become a full player in the regional economy will help to overcome its siege mentalityComments (47) Vartan Oskanian guardian.co.uk, Sunday October 19 2008 13.00 BST Article historyFor years, debate about Iran has oscillated between two bad alternatives. Some are convinced that a nuclear Iran is the worst of all possible scenarios, worse even than the fall-out from a pre-emptive strike. But neither a nuclear-armed Iran nor air strikes against it are wise options, certainly not for this region.

The repercussions of bombing Iran should be clear: closure of the Strait of Hormuz, rocketing oil prices, possible retaliation against Israel (regardless of the origin of the attack), and even greater turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the only certainty of any pre-emptive strike is irreparable and long-lasting damage to regional security and political and economic stability.

Of course, the alternative is no safer. A nuclear-armed Iran would change the entire region's security environment, and, given the enmity between Israel and Iran, two such nuclear powers facing off against each other would pose a threat.

The way out of this dilemma is to understand what Iran wants – and how to accommodate it without jeopardising anyone's security.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Iran wants to develop uranium enrichment technology for industrial use. Everyone agrees that Iran has the right to do so. But the world is split over whether to believe that Iran is actually doing what it says.

If, as some argue, Iran is being disingenuous, then once it achieves this first phase – uranium enrichment for industrial purposes – it can easily slide into weapons-grade enrichment, leaving the international community out in the cold, with no channels of communication, no observation teams in place, and no monitors ready to sound the whistle.

That is why the world must not remain focused on the already-lost first phase. Iran has more than 3,000 centrifuges despite all the international sanctions and threats. Instead, the world must focus on the second phase, because it is weapons potential that is the looming danger, and it is here that internationally-mandated mechanisms for oversight and supervision exist.

The Iranians have always said that they will continue to honour their commitments and open their doors to observation as members of the non-proliferation community. But the international community must be more respectful of Iran's current industrial aims if it wants Iranian cooperation.

The first step is to assuage Iran's feeling of being besieged. Fortunately, there are voices in America and elsewhere that advocate engaging Iran at the highest level. But to talk with Iran effectively one must understand Iranian values and thinking.

Iranians have a sense of seniority, if not superiority, born of a rich and ancient culture that has survived into modern times. But they also have a historically ingrained sense of insecurity, owing to frequent conquest and domination, which is being aggravated today by the presence of American troops to their west in Iraq and to their east in Afghanistan. Their outlook nowadays is the product of these two worldviews – suspicious of others' motives and proud of themselves as smart, tough negotiators and not without their own resources.

In my meetings with the current and past leaders of Syria and Iran, as well as in my meeting with Saddam Hussein, I heard them all say the same thing: the west is out to get them. Their explanation was that the west is uncomfortable with the motives and behaviour of ideological states _ Syria, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam were states with causes _ Islam, Arab unity, or anti-Zionism.

For Iranians, as bearers of faith and national pride, responses that seem to others self-righteous and irrational are, in fact, necessary and acceptable.

The case of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is a historic example of a willingness to go to hell with your head held high. Saddam knew that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he was unwilling to concede the right of inspectors to ask.

As in North Korea, Iran's neighbours might provide the right mechanism to create a more transparent relationship between Iran and the world. In the so-called "six-party talks", North Korea's neighbours offered tangible incentives to Kim Jong-il's regime to abandon its nuclear programme. The most prominent of these was an end to North Korea's economic isolation.

Iran, too, feels besieged, though it is not isolated: it depends heavily on trade, and not just as a seller of oil. Two-thirds of its population is under the age of 30, and unemployment is high; it needs to attract foreign investment for its oil and gas industry, and to finance road construction and other infrastructure projects.

Comparisons with neighbouring Turkey are instructive. Before Iran's Islamic revolution, it led Turkey in foreign direct investment, income per head, and GDP growth. Now Turkey has moved ahead, and may even join the European Union.

Other regional comparisons further reinforce that trend. The Qataris have outstripped the Iranians in exploiting the huge gas field they share. Tiny Dubai draws in far more foreign investment: Iranians go there for banking, trade, and fun.

Iran's neighbours need to convince Iran's rulers that Iranians, too, can participate in the region's growth, and even become regional leaders. Only an open Iran, fully integrated into the regional economy and granted a role commensurate to its size and economic potential, will be able to moderate its siege mentality.

Here, a vital step would be for the west to begin to envisage Iran as a potential alternative supplier of gas, by offering to link Iran to the proposed White Stream and Nabucco pipelines that are currently under development to bring Central Asian gas to Europe.

The world's judgments about Iran's motives and actions should not be distorted by Iranian pride. We can only understand Iran's real intentions by engaging the Iranians – not cornering them.

Vartan Oskanian, Armenia's minister of foreign affairs from 1998 until April 2008, is the founder of the Yerevan-based Civilitas Foundation.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008.

[ara87]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

They're equally dangerous, however the United States beats them both

[freakyfreaky]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

2003 Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi of Iran opines that conflict between U.S. and Iran would stifle attempts in favor of democracy in Iran but not topple the government, that the U.S. must engage Iran without conditions and that Ahmadenijad speaks for the people in the same manner that Bush speaks for Americans - you cannot always take either of them seriously. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5533058.story

[freakyfreaky]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

Iranian journalist/mid-east expert lays out case for why the U.S. needs Iran more than ever. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirin..._b_139690.html

[freakyfreaky]

Re: More dangerous 2 mideast peace

For once, I actually agree with Erdogan and he agrees with me.

Erdogan claims Israel is greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. (Now, if he'd only admit that his forefathers committed genocide against Armenians)

http://www.asbarez.com/79015/israel-is-main-threat-to-middle-east-peace-says-erdogan/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8607795.stm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303591204575169980169518418.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/08/c_13241473.htm