Generell diskusjon rundt Den islamske republikken Iran. På tide for verdenssamfunnet å gripe inn?

[La Menthe]

The London Financial Times identified Obama’s major foreign policy problem as Iran in March. The occasion for the article was Hillary Clinton’s failure to convince Brazil to go along with the United States on calling for harsher sanctions and President Lula’s insistence that there should be engagement with Iran, commercial relations, and so on, and that it has a right to enrich uranium for producing nuclear energy, as do all signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

Lula’s position was considered sort of paradoxical. The question was: Why is he not going along with the international community, with the world? It’s an interesting usage, which is a very striking reflection of the depth of the culture of imperialism. Who is the international community? Well, it turns out, if you look, that the international community is Washington and whoever happens to agree with it at the moment. The rest are not part of the world. They’re kind of in opposition.

 

Well, in this case, Lula’s position happens to be that of most of the world. You can think it’s right or wrong or whatever, but just as a matter of fact, for example, it’s the position of the former non-aligned countries, the majority of countries of the world and the large majority of their populations. They have repeatedly and vigorously supported Iran’s right to enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, reiterating that it’s a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which does grant that right. But for having this opinion, they are somehow not part of the world.

 

Another group that’s not part of the world is the population of the United States. The last polls that I’ve seen, a considerable majority of Americans agreed that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy, but of course not nuclear weapons. And in fact, as the poll demonstrated, the opinions of Americans on this issue were almost identical with opinions of Iranians on a whole range of issues. And, in fact, when the poll was presented in Washington at a press conference, the presenter pointed out that if people were able to make policy, it could be that these tensions and conflicts would be resolved.

Well, that was a few years ago. Since then, there’s been a huge mass of propaganda about the threat of Iran and so on. And it’s very likely, I would guess, that if the poll were taken today, those figures for the American population would be different. But that was 2007, three years ago. So, at that point, Americans were not part of the world. Most of the majority of people of the world were not part of the world. And Lula, by repeating their view, is also not part of the world. It could be added that he’s almost surely the most popular political figure in the world, but that doesn’t mean anything in the US or Europe, not when he has a view that is the opposite of Washington.

So, what about the conflict with Iran and the threat of Iran? Nobody in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or anyone, for that matter. So, on that, there’s complete agreement. And in fact, there are significant problems about proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s not a joke. And Obama’s vision forcibly includes, stresses the need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to reduce or maybe remove nuclear weapons. Well, that’s the vision. What’s the practice?

Well, the practice became clear a couple of months ago. Once again, the Security Council passed a resolution, 1887—I think it was October—calling on—with criticism of Iran for not living up to commitments that were demanded by the Security Council and also calling on all states to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to solve all their conflicts within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty without any threats of force. Well, that particular part of the resolution was not exactly headlined in the United States, for a simple reason: it was directed at two countries, the two countries that are regularly threatening the use of force, the United States and Israel. The threat of force is in violation of the UN Charter, if anybody cares about that stuff. But that’s never mentioned.

 

And the threat of force is not just idle. So, for example, Israel is sending its nuclear submarines into the Gulf, and at their firing distance they’re undetectable, and they could fire nuclear missiles—of course, Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons— at Iran. The US and its allies are carrying out field operations, exercises, plainly aimed at Iran right near its boarder. So there are regular threats, verbal and in policy. Israel actually is sending the nuclear submarines and other warships through the Suez Canal, with the tacit agreement of Egypt, the Egyptian dictatorship, another US client in the region (which Obama called ''democratic'' in his visit Cairo). Well, those are all threats—constant, verbal and actual.

 

And the threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent. Whether they’re doing it or not, I don’t know. Maybe they are. But if they are, the reason, as I think almost all serious analysts would agree, is not because they intend to use nuclear weapons and missiles with nuclear weapons. If they even loaded a missile with nuclear weapons, assuming they had them, the country would be vaporized in five minutes. And nobody believes that the ruling clerics, whatever one thinks about them, have a kind of a death wish and want to see the entire country and society and everything they own destroyed. In fact, US intelligence estimates the possibility of Iran ever actually using a nuclear weapon, if it had one, as maybe one percent, so low that you can’t even estimate it. But it’s possible that they develop them as a deterrent.

One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, a couple of years ago, after the invasion of Iraq, wrote in the international press that he of course doesn’t want to see Iran have nuclear weapons. But, he said, if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy. The US had just invaded Iraq, knowing that it was totally defenseless. It was part of the reason why they felt free to invade. Everybody can understand that. The Iranian leaders could certainly understand it. So, therefore, to quote van Creveld again, "if they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they’re crazy."

 

Well, whether they are or not is another question. But there’s no doubt that the hostile and aggressive stance taken by the United States and its Israeli client are a factor in whatever planning that’s going on in top Iranian circles as to whether to develop a nuclear deterrent or not.

Endret 19. juli 2010 av The Englishman

[Gjest medlem-140898]

Det USA sier til Iran er dette: Fjernt alt med det som heter atomkraftverk, og deretter kan vi diskutere. Tror USA virkelig at iran er en av et av landene som forplikter seg med slike krav fra USA?

 

Iran før revolusjonen og etter har alltid sagt at vil lage et atomkraftverk som fremstiller elektrisk energi ved kjernekraft.

 

Og alle iranere I iran er engie med det, og alle lederne. Iran kommer ALDRI til å miste rettet, pga at USA føler seg "truet".

[La Menthe]

Regarding Iran's democracy and what the world should/can do about it.

 

 

The US and Israel are certainly issuing threats very publicly and openly, not only in the words, but even in the actions. So for example the last couple of years the United States has provided to Israel over a hundred advanced jet bombers, openly advertised as capable of bombing Iran. Israel already has, according to its own estimate, air and armored forces that are larger and technologically more advanced than any NATO power, other than the United States. It is not because Israel is capable of doing that, it is because by now it is virtually an offshoot of the United States, particularly in military and high-tech offshoot. Well that is a serious warning to Iran. Furthermore, deploying major naval forces in the Gulf right offshore from Iran is an obvious threat. If Iran was deploying major naval forces in the English Channel or the Caribbean, you can bet that the United States and London would be pretty upset about it, in fact they would go to war. Capturing Iranian officials in northern-Iraq is provocation. The United States is supporting terrorist groups in Iran, and that is also very provocative.

 

I should say, if anyone cares, these actions are a crime, they are a major violation of the UN-charter, which outlaws threat or use of force in international affairs. In outlaw states, like the United States or Britain, where law doesn’t matter much, there is very little comment on that. The threats are definitely there, and all of this could lead to an accidental war. The case of the captured British sailors is an example. There are no territorial boundaries in the Gulf that mean anything, you have naval forces there right next door to Iran, and you are likely to have an accident, and an accident can easily escalate and explode. So yes, there is a threat of war. The question we should really be asking is: Is there a way to avert it? It’s a very simple way: Turn the United States and Iran into functioning democratic societies. Public opinion in the United States and Iran is very carefully monitored by the leading institution in the world that monitors public opinion, The Program on International Policy Attitude. They did a careful study of Iranian and US opinion on nuclear issues just before 2008, and they are very interestingly identical. In both countries there is an overwhelming majority that thinks that all nuclear weapons should be abolished. What that means is that the nuclear states, like the United States and Britain, should observe their legal responsibilities, and it is a legal responsibility determined by the World Court, to take good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. Not to increase their nuclear capacity, as the United States and Britain are now doing, but to move to eliminate them.

 

If that can’t be achieved, a very large majority in both countries think that the entire Middle-East should be turned into a nuclear weapons free zone. That means that Iran, Israel and USA and British forces deployed in the region should not have any nuclear weapons capacity whatsoever.

 

Again, an overwhelming majority of Iranians and Americans think that Iran should have the right to produce nuclear energy, just as every signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty does, but should not have nuclear weapons. That is the framework for an agreement. All that would be necessary is to turn these countries to functioning democracies. That is societies in which an overwhelming majority of public opinion can have an influence on policy. Or even something weaker, countries in which an overwhelming majority of public opinion can be reported in the media. As far as I am aware none of this has ever even been reported, though it is obviously highly pertinent, and in real democratic societies it would be very significant. It’s there; you can find it on the internet, you can find it among dissident, but that is marginal. Try to find it in the mainstream press, do an internet search, I don’ think you will.

 

The American populace can certainly be able to do something to make their societies functioning democracies, to claim that they can’t do that is absurd. Can they do anything to help Iran become a functioning democracy? The answer is yes, they can. They can listen to pleads of the very courageous Iranian reformers and democracy activists, who are pleading with the United Sates to call of the threats. That is people like Akbar Ganji that are saying: ''drop the threats'', and for a good reason, which we all can figure out, When you threaten a government, it is going to react. When you threaten a government with attack and destruction, politically called ''regime change'', what are they going to do? Especially when the threat is very credible? It is not like Luxemburg is issuing the threat; this is the world’s superpower, acting to make the threat very visible, like naval deployments in the Gulf? How do they react? We know, we know how the American governments react when there are much more mild threats, they react with repression. And in the reactionary theocracy that dominates in Iran, they react with severe repression.

Endret 20. juli 2010 av The Englishman

[La Menthe]

Det USA sier til Iran er dette: Fjernt alt med det som heter atomkraftverk, og deretter kan vi diskutere. Tror USA virkelig at iran er en av et av landene som forplikter seg med slike krav fra USA?

 

Iran før revolusjonen og etter har alltid sagt at vil lage et atomkraftverk som fremstiller elektrisk energi ved kjernekraft.

 

Og alle iranere I iran er engie med det, og alle lederne. Iran kommer ALDRI til å miste rettet, pga at USA føler seg "truet".

 

 

In theory it ought to work very well, there is no fundamental reason why the countries have to be at odds. The fact of the matter is that it is not discussed much in the West that for 50 years the United States has been torturing Iran. First it was the overthrow of the parliamentary government under Mossadeq, and inserting a brutal dictatorship under the Shah. The supporting of Iraq under the murderous war in the 80’s, finally ending the war almost directly by shooting down an Iranian airliner. Then there was the implementation of sanctions under Bill Clinton in 1995 which have continued until today, and since then there hasn’t been a moment in which the US hasn’t been torturing Iran.

Iran has very serious internal problems, and this can only be handled internally. The US and the outside world can assist, and unfortunately it hasn’t. There were periods during the Khatami government when the US could have taken a constructive attitude towards Iran, which would have helped the reformist, however they did the opposite. They actually sent a proposal to Bush’s administration at the time where they proposed to solve every single issue that they had, they even mentioned in the proposal that they were going to accept the two-state solution, and that was a very bald movement of Khatami’s administration. But the proposal was rejected. And right after Iran was quite supportive of US activities in Afghanistan fighting Taliban, Iran was rewarded by being charged of being a part of ''The Axis of Evil''.

 

 

The Obama/Bush administration and European countries have pressured Iran for some time, and are always calling for sanctions, because they consider Iran as a major threat to stability. On the other side you got India, Israel and Pakistan, who are not pressured, but they already have nuclear weapons, and haven’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, like Iran has done.

 

Iran is a threat because it doesn’t follow Washington’s orders. As a military threat it is almost nonexistent, its military budget is the size of Kuwait’s military budget. Unlike the countries that you mentioned, Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran has not been engaged in any kind of aggression for a couple hundred of years. Actually the only aggressive act that Iran has ever taken was in the 1970’s under the shah with the backing of the United States, when they took over 2 Arab islands.

Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is undoubtedly a rotten regime, but not by the standards of the countries that the US supports. So by the standards of, say, Saudi-Arabia or Egypt, you can hardly criticize Iran’s human rights record. It is not doing what Israel is doing. Israel for example, with US support, has invaded Lebanon 5 times in the last 30 years, without any credible pretext.

Endret 20. juli 2010 av The Englishman

[La Menthe]

 

Dessuten er det i Irans interesse å bli værende en regional stormakt sik de har blitt etter innvasjonen av Irak og da tjener det dem at Irak bruker lengre tid på å stabilisere seg.

 

First of all, Iran has always and will always be a regional power, just like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey (and maybe perhaps Iraq when it has gained its sovereignty).

 

Iran has nothing against democracy or stability in Iraq, it is the United States that actually does. The problem of the United States is that they have to ensure that there must be a new regime imposed. And the new regime must be completely undemocratic. And there is a reason for that. If there is any element of democracy in the new regime, the population will have some voice in what’s happening (that is the most fundamental part and principle of democracy). But the majority of the population is Shiite, which means that to the extent that if the majority has any voice, it is going to be moving towards relations with Iran, which is the last thing the United States want. We can go into the reasons for that, but it is obvious that the US doesn’t want it. Furthermore, the Kurds in the northern part, who are another big part of the population, are going to press for some kind of autonomy, and Turkey will go berserk if that happens, as will the United States.

So somehow you have to have a regime-change which restores something exactly like the one under Saddam Hussein; A Sunni-based military regime, which will be able to control the population.

Furthermore, this is totally explicit. Right after the Gulf War in 1991, the US had total control of the area. There was a big Shiite uprising in the south, including a rebellion by Iraqi generals. They didn’t ask for any aid from the United States, the only thing they asked for was that the US allowed them access to US-controlled Iraqi military equipment. George Bush Sr. had a different idea; he authorized his friend Saddam Hussein to use airpower to crush the Shiite resistance.

 

Right at that time, Thomas Friedman, who is a diplomatic correspondent (diplomatic correspondent is a term which means states department spokesman at the New York Times) for The New York Times, said the best thing for the United States would be a military junta with an iron fist which would rule Iraq the same way Saddam Hussein did, but with a change of name, because Saddam Hussein had already a bad reputation by now.

Endret 20. juli 2010 av The Englishman

[After Dark]

Som kjent gikk det i Juni tidligere i år gjennom en avtale mellom Brasil og Tyrkia og Iran, noe USA ikke har satt veldig sto pris på. Men hvorfor skal disse G20-landene, som synes å være på en ganske autonom linje, være skremt for hvem USA sier at de skal forholde seg til?

De burde ikke være bekymret. De er uavhengige, suverene land, og de kommer ikke til å tolerere at USA gir dem ordre.Men det som er viktig her er at denne avtalen Brasil og Tyrkia nettopp har gjennomfør i fellesskap med Iran er den samme avtalen foreslått av USA i oktober 2009, den samme avtalen Obama ba Brasils president Lula å få i gang i november, den samme avtalen vi nå vet at president Obama skrev til president Lula 20.april, og oppfordret Brasil og Tyrkia til å prøve å få i gang med Iran. Så spørsmålet er hvorfor denne 180 graders reverseringen i amerikansk politikk på bare noen få uker? Dette er noe den amerikanske regjeringen må kommentere.

Den brasilianske pressen ga ut brevet fra Obama til Lula som ble sendt 20.april, og hva som sto i dette brevet var: Vi vil vurdere et tillitsbyggende tiltak, ikke bare en overføring av lav anriket uran fra Iran, men faktisk angi det beløp som USA vil vurdere for å ha nådd de tillitsbyggende målene. Grunnen til at dette er så viktig er at helt siden denne avtalen ble kjent, har amerikanske embetsmenn og kommentatorer i USA, motstandere av diplomati og tilhengere av konfrontasjon, forsøkt å undergrave denne avtalen på alle mulige måter.

Men 20.april sa ikke Obama bare at han ville de skulle få i gang en avtale, han spesifiserte også mengden av lavanriket uran som han ville skulle overføres ut av Iran og vurderes av USA for å være trygge og selvsikre foretak. Han sluttet seg til detaljene av avtalen som Lula og statsministeren i Tyrkia senere, altså nå, har oppnådd.

 

Dette er motsetningen USA ikke har forklart oss. De sa før at denne avtalen var gunstig, og nå sier de plutselig at dette tilbudet er verdiløst, og at den eneste veien å gå er med sanksjoner. Hvorfor?

Mange analytikere mener at Obama forventet at Iran skulle avslå avtalen, med tanke på at den er ganske strengt, og var beredt på å bruke det som en del av sin propagandakrig mot Irans atomprogram.

 

Oppfatningen om at USA kommer til å avgjøre hva kriteriene er for land som Brasil for å være en global leder er helt latterlig og absurd. Selvfølgelig tolererer ikke Brasil det, de tillater ikke å ta imot ordre fra USA, det er også opplagt at Tyrkia heller ikke lar seg ledes av USA. Det strider mot fornuften å hevde at forfatningen for å være en global leder gjør krav på at du må gi opp muligheten til å ha en autonom drivekraft. Tydeligvis kommer det ikke til å fungere. Brasil og Tyrkia nekter å la seg påvirke av amerikanernes bøllete tone.

 

USA kommer ikke til å tolere at Iran utvikler atomvåpen! De har hatt problemer med Iran før og selvom Obama har erstattet Bush og ført en mykere linje er USA og Iran fortsatt å regne som fiender. Dessuten har det vært mye beskyldninger fra USA og at Iran har åpnet grensen sin til Irak for opprørere som kjemper mot de amerikanske og allierte soldatene samt mot det nye regimet. Iran er også i søkelyset for finansiering til og opplæring av medlemmer av Hamas og Hizbollah, to grupper som USA annser som terroristorganisasjoner. Og Iran har flere ganger truet Israel som er USAs viktigste allierte i regionen. (Ikke at Israels sikkerhet interesserer meg). Dessuten er det ikke bare iranske atomvåpen mot israel samt amerikanske mål i Midtøsten USA frykter, men at Iran skal utgi våpnene til organisasjoner som Al Qaida og Taliban.

 

Det er dessuten ikke til å nekte for at IAEA har klaget på manglende samarbeidsvilje fra Iran, at Iran har oversett pålegg fra FN og at det har resultert i sanksjoner eller at Iran ønsker seg høyanriket uran framfor lavanriket, hvilket er misstenkelig...

[Gjest medlem-140898]

Vel USA annser alle som terrorister om de ikke sammerbeider med dem. Usas ideologi : Enten er du med oss, eller er du imot oss(en terrorist).

 

Det som rart at de disse "såkalte terroristgruppene" er medlem i i regjeringen(Libanon og Palestina). Altså mange folk liker dem. Selvfølgelig støtter Iran disse. Iran støtter Hamas og Hizbollah, mens USA støtter Israel.

 

Hvem sa at iran skal produsere atombombe ?

[After Dark]

Når Iran vender ryggen til hva FN sier og overser alle sanksjoner samt at IAEA klager på manglende samarbeidsvilje, hvor er da grunnen til å tro at Iran ikke vil ha atomvåpen?

 

Forøvrig er Iran medlem av Ikkespredningsavtalen så de har å gjøre som IAEA sier!

[Gjest medlem-140898]

For noen år siden så sa IAEA klart og tydelig at det er ingen grunn å frykte at iran skal lage atombombe.

 

Du og vet også at IAEA er dominert av vesten, og dette medfører jo at USA presser IAEA.Usa er så desperate, at de til og med kidnappet en iraner ved hjelp av Saudi Arabia pga det her. Dessverre for dem så dreit de seg ut, og fikk ikke noen informasjon.

[After Dark]

IAEA har også sagt at det er grunn til å frykte at Iran lager atomvåpen og de har klaget på manglende samarbeidsvilje. Iran har i tillegg oversett hva FN sier og oversett sanksjoner. Så nei, Iran samarbeider ikke med det internasjonale verdenssamfunnet og retter seg ikke etter de påleggene de har ved å være en del av Ikkespredningsavtalen! Det finnes heller ingen beviser for at den atomforskeren ble kidnappet. Det man derimot vet med sikkerhet er at etter det kontroversielle valget og demonstrasjonene som fulgte var det flere iranske ambassadører og diplomater som ikke lenger ville tjene regimet og heller ikke turde å dra hjem.

[Gjest medlem-140898]

Iran åpner for atomsamtaler

 

Iran ønsker å starte forhandlinger med Det internasjonale atomenergibyrå (IAEA) om en atomavtale, sier Irans utenriksminister Manouchehr Mottaki.

 

Iran vil mandag overlevere et brev til IAEA, sier Mottaki. I brevet svarer Iran på spørsmål fra USA, Russland og Frankrike.

 

Målet er å få på plass en avtale hvor Iran gir fra seg anriket uran i bytte mot atombrensel.

 

– Når brevet er levert, kan vi umiddelbart starte forhandlinger om detaljene i bytteavtalen, sier Mottaki. (©NTB)

 

http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/utenriks/iran-aapner-for-atomsamtaler-3254542.html

Endret 26. juli 2010 av medlem-140898

[After Dark]

Og samtidig fortsetter de å trosse FN:

 

http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/utenriks/iran-advarer-mot-skipsinspeksjon-3254488.html

[After Dark]

Iran vil trosse de nye sanksjonene fra EU, men ønsker å gjennoppta samtaler om atomprogrammet:

 

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7225568

[China Burger]

Norge utvider straffetiltak mot Iran:

 

http://nyheter.no.msn.com/innenriks/artikkel.aspx?cp-documentid=154233251

 

Det var på tide, eller hva?

[Gjest medlem-140898]

Norge er jo ikke et selvstendig land. De har ikke noe mening. Det er ikke rart at de følger alle andre land. Norge er en del av "USAs plan", når det gjelder krigen i Afghanistan.

 

Så jeg er ikke overrasket.

[China Burger]

Norge er jo ikke et selvstendig land. De har ikke noe mening. Det er ikke rart at de følger alle andre land. Norge er en del av "USAs plan", når det gjelder krigen i Afghanistan.

 

Så jeg er ikke overrasket.

 

Er ikke Norge ett selvstendig land?

 

...er Iran en selvstendig nasjon, bare fordi dem trosser alle andre land

 

 

Hvem er det bildet av på din avatar, er det en gamel persisk konge?

Endret 27. juli 2010 av ola the icebox

[Gjest medlem-140898]

Nader shah :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_shah

[monzilla]

Er ikke Norge et selvstendig land? Det er det dummeste jeg har hørt.

[After Dark]

Norge er et selvstendig land, men er svært tett knyttet til USA, EU og NATO og følger gjerne i deres fotspor. (Dog ikke alltid, bare tenk på Mullah Krekarsaken). Norge er dessuten et land som engasjerer seg i å bli kvitt en god del typer våpen (klasevåpen og atomvåpen feks.) så at de deltar i arbeidet med å forhindre iranske atomvåpen er ikke overaskende.

[After Dark]

Russland mener de ekstra sanksjonene USA og EU har innført mot Iran utenfor FN er uakseptable:

 

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10043669