Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    If there is one region of the world in which the development of nuclear energy is thought of as a threat too far, it must be the Middle East. Is this is an irrational thought? Israel has had a nuclear capability since the 1950s, one which added nuclear weapons to nuclear power, and it is well known that the Shah of Iran wanted it before the Islamic Revolution, and that Iran has continued to develop a nuclear energy resource with much consternation. From being declared a 'Nuclear free Zone' the Gulf Co-operation Council' has since c2010 reversed that position, with Abu Dhabi and now Saudi Arabia both setting out onto the path of nuclear energy. Has deterrence lost its meaning, or would the development of nuclear weapons consequent upon the energy portfolio make the region a safer place?

    For those of you interested in this, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies has published a thoughtful paper on this topic which covers the politics, and in particular the eccentric economics in which a state can project spending billions on an energy resource which then runs at a loss. Perhaps they would be better of without it.

    http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp...r-Question.pdf



  2. #2
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    The USA's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton believes the only response the USA should have to the development of Iran's nuclear energy industry is to bomb it into nothing. Bolton was one of the major obstacles to a rapprochement with Iran when he refused the overtures from Iran's President Khatami in 2001, even though he has been associated with the 'neo-cons' in the Bush presidency whose policy on Iraq has been instrumental in the elevation of Iran's political influence in that country and indeed, across the regoin, which makes a mockery of Bolton's attempt to pin the blame on Obama for the latest developments in Iran, as when he says -

    The Obama administration’s increasingly frantic efforts to reach agreement with Iran have spurred demands for ever-greater concessions from Washington. Successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, worked hard, with varying success, to forestall or terminate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by states as diverse as South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Even where civilian nuclear reactors were tolerated, access to the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle was typically avoided. Everyone involved understood why.
    This gold standard is now everywhere in jeopardy because the president’s policy is empowering Iran.

    Bolton nowhere refers to any energy component of Iran's programme, being only interested in weapons development, yet also never mentions deterrence as a decisive element in nuclear capability that is said to be the guarantor that states possessing nuclear weapons will not use them. It has not occurred to him that Iran, constantly threatened with military attack by nuclear-armed Israel, may want strategic parity, even if this debate on nuclear weapons is stil hypothetical.

    More to the point, if the USA did bomb Iran, how would Iran respond? Bolton surely knows that Iran would, in some way, much as it paid a Palestinian 'guerilla' group to bring down a US passenger aeroplane in response to the US destruction of an Iranian airbus in 1988. Sounds to me like Bolton believes in permanent war.

    His article in the New York Times is here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/op...rssnyt&emc=rss



  3. #3
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    It has not occurred to him that Iran, constantly threatened with military attack by nuclear-armed Israel, may want strategic parity, even if this debate on nuclear weapons is stil hypothetical.
    I agree with everything else you said. But the logic of this to me says, "Iran wants to have nuclear weapons in order to prevent Israel from threatening to attack it based on its desire to have nuclear weapons." It just seems a little bit circular. Or are the threatened attacks based on something other than their nuclear ambitions?

    We had this discussion earlier, but I DO think that if Israel did not have nuclear weapons the Middle East would be safer. But I don't actually think it's a good region for parity...I think every country that develops them makes the region significantly less safe. Forget Iran's political differences with Israel. What about its political differences with other ambitious Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia? It's not a bilateral series of conflicts, but a mess of entrenched interests. If Iran has nuclear weapons how would that effect the balance of power between Sunni and Shiite in the region.

    But it's easy to decide on Bolton's article. There is no case for bombing Iran. It's not called for in the circumstances, it would not be effective, and it would lead to retaliation.



  4. #4
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    MAD was based on a kind of circular feedback too. The perfect balance of two forces can (for a short period) keep one side from overpowering the other. The stronger the forces (e.g. nuclear vs conventional) the more catastrophic the moment when the balance become less than perfect. The perfect balance of multiple forces, if achievable at all, will certainly not be stable.

    To think that someone like Bolton was once our representative in the U.N. sends shivers down my spine–and not the good kind.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  5. #5
    Hey! Get off my lawn. 5 Star Poster Odelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    2,164

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Interesting question. Current international nuclear policy consensus seems to be that any new actors is necessarily a bad thing.

    I wonder if the current As-is situation (yeah, I'm an IT geek) has been studied to sufficient degree to support such a uniform consensus. Has anyone done a wide study on the cause and effects associated with the nuclear weaponization of India and Pakistan? That looked like a disaster in the making as it unfolded and yet here we are 30 or 40 years later and not one nuke has been deployed. The questions I would like answered, if they are answerable, include:

    Did the nukes cause violence btwn the 2 nations to rise or fall?

    Did the nukes cause the relationship to worsen or better?

    How were the effects of a Muslim nation acquiring nukes different from every other nuclear nation, none of whom are Muslim.*

    *I recognize that some of the former Soviet states are now principally Muslim and might have control of nuclear weapons.



  6. #6
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Odelay View Post
    Interesting question. Current international nuclear policy consensus seems to be that any new actors is necessarily a bad thing.

    I wonder if the current As-is situation (yeah, I'm an IT geek) has been studied to sufficient degree to support such a uniform consensus. Has anyone done a wide study on the cause and effects associated with the nuclear weaponization of India and Pakistan? That looked like a disaster in the making as it unfolded and yet here we are 30 or 40 years later and not one nuke has been deployed. The questions I would like answered, if they are answerable, include:

    Did the nukes cause violence btwn the 2 nations to rise or fall?

    Did the nukes cause the relationship to worsen or better?

    How were the effects of a Muslim nation acquiring nukes different from every other nuclear nation, none of whom are Muslim.*

    *I recognize that some of the former Soviet states are now principally Muslim and might have control of nuclear weapons.
    There is an argument that possession of nuclear weapons has limited effect on security as the use of proxies enables states with nuclear weapons to wage war without bringing the nuclear element into play. Consider the proxy wars the USA fought in Latin America, and the USSR in Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a consequence of the Cuban Missile Crisis which created such tension and fear that senior policy-makers and the military in the USA and the USSR backed down from making inflammatory statements, although there were subsequent nuclear threats during the spat between China and and the USSR in 1969 (which led directly to the rapprochement between the USA and China), and during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

    Possession of nuclear weapons has not stopped the violence between India and Pakistan although a ground war has not happened for some time, mostly because Pakistan always loses, though India believes terrorist attacks from Pakistan have been sanctioned high up in the ISI or the Pakistan military.

    You may be aware the USA has for some years had a strategic plan to 'neutralise', 'evacuate' or 'render-safe' Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is discussed in a fascinating article in this link on Pakistan and the weird relationship it has with the USA. You might not be able to sleep if you read this late at night. Hard to believe the biggest nuclear threat may come from a road accident in Karachi...
    And you might want to ask your Senators what exactly Pakistan spends that $2bn dollars a year it gets from the American tax-payer, but don't expect an itemised statement in reply.
    http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/the-p...clear-arsenal/


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    The parameters of an agreement with Iran over its nuclear development that were agreed in Lausanne on the 2nd of April have been hailed as a triumph of diplomacy. The agreement is due to be signed in June. A summary of what has been agreed reads as follows:

    As Iran pursues a peaceful Nuclear program Iran's enrichment capacity, enrichment level and stockpile will be limited for specific durations and there will be no other enrichment facility than Natanz. Fordow
    will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center and Iran's research and development on centrifuges will be carried out based on a mutually agreed framework. A modernized heavy water reactor in Arak in will be redesigned and rebuilt with the assistance of an international joint venture that will not produce weapons grade plutonium. There will be no nuclear processing, and spent nuclear fuel will be exported. Monitoring of the provisions of the JCPOA including implementation of the modified code 3.1 and provision of the additional protocol, will be done based on a set of measures. To clarify past and present issues regarding Iran's nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency will be permitted the use of modern technologies and will have announced access through agreed procedures. Iran will take part in international cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy including supply of power and research reactors as well as nuclear safety and security. The European Union will terminate the implementation of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions, and the United States will cease the application of all nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions simultaneously with the International Atomic Energy Agency-verified implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments. To endorse the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a new UN Security Council resolution will be approved which terminates all previous nuclear-related resolutions, and incorporate certain restrictive measures for a mutually agreed period of time..."
    Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The agreement is opposed by Israel and its allies in Congress and has caused such concern in Arabia that President Obama has invited the leaders of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to a special conference in Camp David later this Spring.
    One of the key elements in the agreement sets back any attempt Iran might have to enrich uranium, but as the New York Times put it, referring to Mohammad Zarif's statement:

    What he agreed to in Lausanne, at least according to those fact sheets, would drastically cut Iran’s capability for 10 years and then allow it to build up gradually for the next five.After that, Iran would be free to produce as much uranium as it wishes — even building the 190,000 centrifuges that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei talked about last summer. That is bound to be a major concern for Congress, the Israelis and the Arab states, because it amounts to a bet that after 15 years, Iran will be a far more cooperative international player, perhaps under different management.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/wo...ear-talks.html


    A cynic might argue that Iran is selling itself short to play the longer game, yet so far the Iranians have insisted that they do not intend to develop a nuclear weapons capability. As to the future, well perhaps one should recall that the first attempt to develop nuclear weapons took place when the Shah of Iran was one of the closest allies the US had in the Middle East. In theory, had the US been pro-active in its development, Iran could have been well on the way to developing its nuclear sector by the time the Shah was overthrown in 1979. Whether or not Iran will be a nicer place in 15 years time is impossible to know -but then the same is true of Israel, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and the other actual or potential nuclear states in the world.
    How this will play out in Congress is going to be interesting, if predictable, but may also become a factor for Presidential candidates to think about -to support or not to support the agreement, not least if Iran, however reluctantly, is seen as a key ally in the 'war' against IS in Iraq and Syria. Allies don't have to be friends.
    One other thing -Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is how these negotiations were even possible, and Iran is expected to abide by the rules of the IAEA, and open all of it's nuclear facilities to inspection. The Iranians have said they will not cheat on the deal, affirming their commitment to international law and the rules of the IAEA.

    Israel is not a member of the IAEA and does not allow inspection of its nuclear facilities, yet believes it can make as many claims about Iran's ambitions to develop nuclear weapons as it likes, and use that as the case against Iran. Perhaps if Israel were to join the club it might be taken more seriously on this issue.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Stavros; 04-05-2015 at 02:52 PM.

  8. #8
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Anyone concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons should be pleased about the resolution. Of course, the Israelis and Republican members of Congress are not, but I'm not sure what their expectation could have been. The Iranians may have been cagey about it, but they would not have suffered through sanctions if they had not been determined to develop weapons.

    I only partly agree with the Israelis when they say that Iran having a nuclear weapon was a regional and international concern as well; it was mostly (80% or thereabouts) an Israeli concern. And the U.S and its diplomatic allies moved heaven and Earth to put pressure on Iran through sanctions and to isolate it internationally. The final outcome had to be accomplished through negotiation. Their breakout period will be a year, and they will now see a strong upside for maintaining compliance with the provisions above. Let's hope June approaches without anything scuttling the deal.

    I can't begin to guess what Iran will be like in 15 years..it's unlikely given the attitude of its various religious leaders that it will have better relations with the United States or any relations with Israel. Even during negotiations we heard the usual "Death to America" rhetoric by Khamenei and a few diplomatic statements about desiring in the long run that there be no state of Israel (this latter point Iran has expressed consistently but they could not have thought they were allaying the concerns of their diplomatic partners by reiterating it). It's impressive that Obama was able to remain undeterred and flesh out an agreement that forestalls what I think would have been an enormous ramping up of volatility in the region while his diplomatic partners engaged in such rhetoric. The Iranians, for their part, have chosen the prosperity of their people over Middle Eastern hegemony.



  9. #9
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post
    I can't begin to guess what Iran will be like in 15 years..it's unlikely given the attitude of its various religious leaders that it will have better relations with the United States or any relations with Israel. Even during negotiations we heard the usual "Death to America" rhetoric by Khamenei and a few diplomatic statements about desiring in the long run that there be no state of Israel (this latter point Iran has expressed consistently but they could not have thought they were allaying the concerns of their diplomatic partners by reiterating it). It's impressive that Obama was able to remain undeterred and flesh out an agreement that forestalls what I think would have been an enormous ramping up of volatility in the region while his diplomatic partners engaged in such rhetoric. The Iranians, for their part, have chosen the prosperity of their people over Middle Eastern hegemony.
    I think within Iran there is a division between the hardliners for whom the Islamic Revolution must be maintained and protected, and those more pragmatic elements who are more concerned with the economy and social issues. Rouhani's election in this context was seen as a victory for the pragmatists, but Khatami was also a pragmatic leader in 2001 and he could have gone a long way to repairing US-Iranian relations had the Bush administration not been so cold on the idea, and Khatami was then succeeded by Ahmadinejad who was a gift to American hawks.

    As to your last point: The Iranians, for their part, have chosen the prosperity of their people over Middle Eastern hegemony. The Iranians may want influence, but I don't think the Iranians have ever sought hegemony in the Middle East. They are Muslims but Shi'a at a time when it has been made an issue, and are not Arabs. The Ayatollah Khomeini once slated Saddam Hussein, in the early phase of the war between their two countries, because Saddam made a remark about 'the Arabs' going to war with 'Persians', and Khomeini wagged his finger to point out he preferred 'Arabs' to 'Muslims' implying -correctly in my view- that Saddam was at war with Islam, the point being Iraq was encouraged to invade Iran and start a war as part of the broader attempt to stop the Revolution in its tracks, something that most Revolutions have experienced since 1776.

    There was an attempt by Gamal Abdul Nasser to impose Egyptian hegemony on the Middle East, particularly after his so-called 'triumph' at Suez in 1956 and the creation in 1958 of the 'United Arab Republic' with Syria. There is no doubt Egypt in the 1960s was seen as the most powerful of the Arab states, yet the war with Saudi Arabia over the Yemen drained its resources, and the war with Israel in 1967 exposed as hollow most of Nasser's rhetoric, indeed, apart from the October War of 1973 which started out promising but ended in another defeat, Egypt never recovered its position after Nasser's death, and was seen to detach itself from regional politics with the shift away from the USSR to the USA (Americans = better pay and better weapons), and the Treaty with Israel in 1979.

    Look south, for Saudi Arabia has not only sought regional hegemony since Ibn Saud re-established control of Riyadh for his family in 1902 -spending the next thirty years swallowing most of the Nejd and the Hejaz through military force- it has used its vast oil wealth to internationalise its deviant brand of Islam and to demonise all the alternatives. Two attempts to drive the British out of TransJordan were repelled -mostly by the RAF- in the 1920s, and it is beyond doubt that the Saudis are furious with the Iraqi zealots for declaring the existence of an 'Islamic caliphate' because that is their long term goal, and yes, it does include Jerusalem, and no, it doesn't accommodate the Jews, or the Christians, whose historical record in the Hejaz has been all but wiped out by the Saudis.

    Although in purely doctrinal terms there are differences between the ideology of Abdul Wahab and say, the ideology of Abdullah Azzam and Sayed Qutb which formed the 'intellectual'/'theological' basis of al-Qaeda, and the more extreme thinkers associated with IS, all share the same mono-cultural perspective is Islam that derives from Abdul Wahab's view that everything that has happened in Islam since the death of Muhammad has been a perversion of the faith.

    Saudi Arabia funds madrassas and schools from South America to North America, from the UK and western Europe to the Indian sub-continent, Africa to Australia. However, it is not clear that everyone wants a slice of the Saudi pie, and as Robert Fisk pointed out the other day, their military adventure in the Yemen -the most energetic use of Saudi Armed forces sine the 1960s- could be a major mistake.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10140145.html

    At some point the USA may have to confront the fact that it has no real allies in the Middle East. Israel is a strategic liability; Saudi Arabia funds Islamic terror worldwide as well as in the USA; Iran is unpredictable at best, untrustworthy at its worst.

    How the candidates in the next Presidential election deal with this may be of interest, but consider: many of the senior leaders in IS in Iraq are former political and senior officers of the Ba'ath party and the Iraqi armed forces -the two institutions that were supposedly demolished by Paul Bremer III when he was head of the 'Coalition Provisional Authority'. If the aim of US policy in the Middle East is to protect and advance the interests of the USA, it would appear that the USA has not only achieved almost nothing since losing its ally in Iran in 1979 (see below), the USA is more alienated from the region than at any time since the first tentative moves in the region were made in the 1790s. It seems almost bizarre to recognise that the one success the US can lay claim to, the Peace Treaty between Israel and the PLO in 1993, forms part of supposedly the most intractable conflict in the region, even if Clinton exploited an existing dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians for his own benefit.

    I can't remember where the phrase originates, but 'You aint seen nothing yet' seems par for the course.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  10. #10
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: The Middle East and the Nuclear Question

    I accept that. I think I meant that the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon is to have a certain prestige but also implied power in regional conflicts. I don't take the Israeli line that Iran is suicidal and would launch a first strike. I also don't think they really believe that Israel one day would decide to launch a series of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against their nation though I understand the desire for strategic parity. I think a nuke has a more important strategic purpose; to signify in any regional or more broadly international conflict that they are dangerous and should be handled with care.

    Smaller nuclear powers (Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) can act with a sort of impunity that non-nuclear powers cannot. A nuclear power becomes impervious to any international consensus or to intervention based on that consensus. Perhaps a nuclear weapon would be an insurance policy against Western powers deciding to interfere and carry out "regime change". The weapon would also have all sorts of pragmatic uses in terms of shifting the balance of power and affecting the posture of other countries towards it. I understand Iran's desire for a nuclear weapon but they were given a strong reason to abandon the project and they accepted it.

    Your comment about Khatami not having a good diplomatic partner underlines an important issue. The need to have leaders who are willing to work towards solutions; in any multi-lateral negotiation it is very unlikely that reasonable people will be in power at the same time. It's an enormous setback every time a Netanyahu, a George Bush, or an Ahmadinejad is elected.



Similar Threads

  1. Middle East Drifting
    By zulusierra in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 04:29 AM
  2. here in the middle east
    By cody99 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:45 PM
  3. turkey and middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. middle east
    By takyouk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 08:48 AM
  5. FROM THE MIDDLE EAST
    By avrix in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •