Iran and World War III
I was surprised that no one here had posted on the revelation last week that Iran had abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003. This news is incredibly fortunate because it removes the casus belli that the Bush administration has so long espoused in its harsh rhetoric against the Islamic Republic. The down-side of this is that now European leaders are finding themselves in the same position the Bush administration was in in re Iraq in 2003.
They are still encouraging the international community to keep up the pressure on Iran regarding their nuclear program. The Bush administration seems more than willing to keep the pressure on Iran. Hopefully reason will prevail in this, but it seems more likely that the US and key EU members will keep pushing the situation closer and closer to violence. News that should have allowed the world to heave a collective sigh of relief has done nothing of the sort.
This is also a good example of technological imperialism. Even though the US intelligence community has conceded that Iran’s nuclear program is not military in nature, the Bush administration as well as the governments of Germany, France and the UK all seem determined to keep peaceful nuclear technology out of the hands of less-developed states. For example, the conflict over building heavy water reactors is a perfect instance of technological imperialism. While in the US the preferred form of nuclear power plant is light water, the Canadians prefer to use heavy water reactors. Like Iran, Canada is a signatory of the NPT. Why have the Iranians been accused of violating the NPT by seeking to build heavy water reactors but the Canadians haven’t? The dispute in Iran is merely a continuation of the Western imperialism that spawned the Islamic Republic in the first place.
Why did the administration release this information, anyway? It seems very surprising, given the incredible secrecy of the Bush White House.
It has been amusing to watch Bush still try to say that Iran is a threat now that the cat is out of the bag on the nuclear issue. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf, Bush?
David M Manes
14 Dec 07 at 9:34 pm
The administration had nothing to do with the release of the NIE. The intelligence agencies did it in a “cover your ass” move so as to keep people from blaming them the way they did after the invasion of Iraq and the US failure to discover WMDs.
Kyle Johns
14 Dec 07 at 10:43 pm
I second the welcome message.
There’s almost always a policy of contain the radical, fundamentalist Islamicists (usually shi’ite). Why did the Bush Administration support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War? Because Iraq was perceived as an Islamic fundamentalist-based government.
I came across an interesting paragraph in the NIE report which states that “all NIEs are reviewed by the NIE Board,which is chaired by the DNI and is composed of the heads of relevant IC agencies. Once approved by the NIB, NIEs are briefed to the President and senior policymakers The whole process of producing NIEs normally takes at least several months.
Several Months! What in the name of Ghengis Kang was Bush and his administration doing during this interim period? Did they not think that the National Intelligence Board would release this report? Bush was, up until a week before the report was released, insisting on the threat of Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program.
It just seems very rhetorically flippant to make such insidious declarations, such as “prepare yourself for World War III” to be undermined by an agency that you have very open communications with.
S.C. Denney
14 Dec 07 at 10:54 pm
Steve, te Reagan administration’s support during the Iran-Iraq war was given to Iraq. Saddam was seen as a Westernizing figure who was anti-Soviet (the Baath party had its roots in national socialism and its founder was actually an Arab Christian). Most of the radical Islamists that we are in conflict with aren’t Shia. The Shia are a minority in the Muslim world and only make up a majority in Iraq and Iran. More radical and a bigger threat to the West is Wahhabiist Sunni Islam. This is the Islam of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. I honestly welcome the Shia. The majority of them seem to be very modern and pro-Western (especially in Iran).
If Bush and Cheney continue their warmongering, I seriously hope both of them are impeached and removed from office. Who’s in favor of President Pelosi until January 2009?
Kyle Johns
15 Dec 07 at 12:20 am
Kyle: I realize that the Bush administration obviously did not choose to author and release the NIE, but I guess I’m surprised that they didn’t influence it or try to suppress it. They have been doing things like that all along, often in the name of national security.
There is no way that Bush was unaware of this new intelligence when he was talking about WWIII against Iran. Nobody believes that.
Steve: “What in the name of Ghengis Kan?” Sounds familiar…
David M Manes
15 Dec 07 at 4:57 pm
Wow, I really like the new graphic at the top of the page. Yours, Denney? The rest of the layout is a bit plain, though…
David M Manes
15 Dec 07 at 7:54 pm
Your right, Kyle. Perhaps I was oversimplifying the issue by simply stating the the U.S. opted to support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war simply because Iran was fundamentalist — which they were — and we despised politically.
The reason we supported Iraq was, as you said, due to the Pro-Western (particularly US) sentiments of Saddam.
But hasn’t Sunni Islam been an odd bed-fellow of the US since the end of World War II? It helps explain the close relationships between the US and the Saud family (Saudi Arabia), Iraq, and Egypt.
Wahhabiist are indeed the quintessential radical sect within the Islamic religion. The Global Salafi Movement (or the Wahhabiists) are the most real threat to the security of the West, especially the United States. Salafists come primarily move Eastern Middle East countries, like Afghanistan and Far East countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan. These regions are hot-bed recruitment regions for groups like Al-Queda.
Is it possible that we have polarized Shi’ia Islam and forced it into a defensive position? Shi’ites are much more conservative than their Sunni counterparts. Shi’as see themselves as the defenders of the true and legitimate faith.
I am interested in the real culture of this sect of the Islamic religion. I am inclined to agree with many scholars who say that Ahmadenijad doesn’t accurately represent the Iranian populations attitude towards the international system. I believe it to be the conservative older-generation holding onto the remnants of an old tradition.
S.C. Denney
15 Dec 07 at 10:38 pm