We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

If Iran has so much oil...


Graham*
Resolved

Likes # 0

Why do they need nuclear power stations?

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

"It was the West that was stupid, for not finishing the job first time around"

Agreed!!

Like this post
daz60

Likes # 0

Wasn't it the west's fault for starting the process in the first place.????

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

The west didn't start the process, the UN did.

Unlike the Second Gulf War, which was of dubious legality, the first was a properly constituted UN operation in defence of a UN member, Kuwait, which had been invaded.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

**"Hypothetically, say we do nothing but complain, tut, and wring our hands for the next 18-24 months until Iran tests a nuclear weapon. Then what?"**

Good question. You need to start from an understanding of the American line as far as Iran's nuclear programme is concerned, and that has been crystallised pretty neatly by President Obama very recently when he said:

“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

There's no doubt about that then, America will stop Iran from getting the bomb. The problem is, how do you tell when Iran is at or near the stage where it can test a nuclear device? The answer is, you don't; you make an educated guess, and then you carry out an aerial bombardment of Iran's nuclear development facilities. Or you watch while Israel does it.

Any such action will prompt an immediate reaction - by way of rocket and missile attacks on the Israeli civilian population by Hamas and Hezbollah, and possibly all out war involving Lebanon, Syria and the Gulf states.

In reality, Obama's fighting talk notwithstanding, the answer to the problem will probably be found by waiting and talking, and in doing everything possible to destabilise the Iranian dictatorship. A peoples' revolution could change the entire situation quite rapidly.

Obama knows that a strategy of patience and persistence is far more likely to bring peace to a troubled region than military action by America and its allies. That's been tried before, and the cost was considerable.

Like this post
sunnystaines

Likes # 0

The trouble with Iran is its run by people wrapped up and brain washed by religious mullahs who are quiet happy to die for the cause. [plus the danger of supply nucular material to terrorist]

korea,china,russia and even india/pakistan all have a sense of logic and are not a risk.

If war broke out the british would see a hike in fuel and its knock on effects.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"If war broke out the british would see a hike in fuel and its knock on effects."

That would be the least of the effects on the UK.

Any prolonged further episode of mainly Christians killing mainly Muslims and vice versa would see a war on a much greater scale than we have seen hitherto, which would certainly affect all continents.

Any peaceful solution must come from the Islamic, i.e. to all intents and purposes the Arab, world, and really so must any military solution.

Even though Iran is not an Arab nation, the Arabs are the major influence in the region.

As I've said before, this is an older civilisation than anything this side of the Euphrates, and they play long term.

Anyone bombing Israel will be revered in Tehran in a thousand years time.

Today's rhetoric is as the sands of the desert.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

I've heard that an Iranian film might get an Oscar next sunday, as the best foreign film...if it wins ...then well done Iran. (NOT)

Possibly...the IRAN government might get 'light-headed' and film it's nuclear weapon silos, and get nominated for next year's prizes. (NOT)

how do you say 'HEE HEE' in Iranian? (NOT)

Like this post
sunnystaines

Likes # 0

its a pity the arab spring never took to the farsi people of iran, a stable religous free gov't may sovle the crises

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"ts a pity the arab spring never took to the farsi people of iran"

But , as you sya, the Iranians are Tarsi, not Arabs. In fact they regard the Arabs a bunch of uncultured primitives.

They had their "spring" some time ago when they threw the Shah out.

This is them living their £summer", and do not be in any doubt that this is exactly the same place as the new Arab" democracies" will be in twenty years time, in thrall to the religious leaders.

As I've said before, you need an iron fist in a chainmail glove to rule in that part of the world.

The Saudis know it, the Jordanians know it and the Israelis know it. The Syrians are beginning to learn it.

Reform may come, but not in thye lifetime of anyone on this forum, and it is far more likely that their "reforms" will come this way, rather than the reforms espoused by the West will go theirs.

If I could mix my metaphors, take off the rose tinted spectacles and smell the coffee.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"Reform may come, but not in thye lifetime of anyone on this forum"

That's a wildly sweeping statement, if ever I heard one. It might have been said about Libya a couple of years ago.

As for demographics, you're right - Iran is not an Arab country - 89% of the population of Iran are Shi'a Muslims, whereas most Arabs are Sunni Muslims, although in Bahrain and Iraq the majority are Shiites. It's confusing, to say the least.

Saying (of Iranians) that "they regard the Arabs a bunch of uncultured primitives." is again a sweeping statement, and it's not altogether true. Iran has a mainly good relationship with Qatar and Oman, although the same can't be said of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. These relationships are complex and have been subject to subtle changes over time. Millions of Iranians speak Arabic, and about a fifth of the population of Iraq consists of Iranians (Kurds).Marriages between Iranians and Arabs are common along the shores of the Persian Gulf.

Old differences simmer constantly however, and go back many centuries. Lots of Arabs consider Iranians to have pagan origins, uncultured until Arabs brought them into Islam. On the other hand lots of Iranians do indeed see Arabs as uncultured and nomadic, the people who destroyed an ancient Iranian civilisation.

All this makes for a highly complex and often volatile atmosphere, one of mutual distrust on many levels. The fact is, all these people inhabit the same region of the globe,and have similarities in both cultural and religious beliefs.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Exclusive: Samsung exits laptop market including Chromebooks

IDG UK Sites

Is Apple losing confidence in itself?

IDG UK Sites

How a London VFX studio is ditching desktop workstations for cloud-based creative power

IDG UK Sites

iOS 8 tips & tricks: Get to know iOS 8's handy new features