What does this mean? After Russia's public pressure for more money, Iran is Ahmadinejad is naturally feeling defensive. The whole ruse that Iran didn't pay the money to Russia for enriched uranium sounds bogus. The Iranians are neither stupid nor crazy. Of course they would pay. And if it was merely an matter of cash, the squeeze for more could have been made privately.
My suspicion is that Russia never intended to hand over the goods to Iran in the first place. They want to manufacture it and export it to other countries, to include Iran.
So that brings us back to the original question: what does this mean? Perhaps the Iranian military is not strongly controlled by Admadinejad. Perhaps a little taste of what we did to them, i.e., capturing the Iranian diplomats, helps set a boundary.
Can we be reasonably sure that the Iranians DON'T want a war with U.S. and Great Britain? Up until now, that has seemed the case. Of course, no one is talking about uranium enrichment now. That's probably the point of all this.
5 comments:
Iran claims the British illegally entered Iranian waters.
This would not be the first time the British Marines screwed up with maritime navigation. Remember when they invaded Spain by accident? They were supposed to practice a marine beach landing invasion of a British territory, but screwed up and invaded someplace that belonged to Spain. OOPS!
Someone forgot to add 6 degrees west for compass variance I suppose.
If the Brits accidentally invaded Iranian waters, then this will be resolved like the US Navy spy plane pilots stuck in China was resolved. Some words will be exchanged, the guys will be let loose, and everyone will say they won.
If the British were NOT there by accident, then who knows what is going on. That could be interpreted as an act of war. What Iran would do about it is hard to say. I would shit my pants if I were them in this case because it means the air strikes are on the way.
In either case I would let the Brits go.
It's not a matter of whether or not they should be let go. It's a matter of what is going on that they would do something like that.
Is Iran that sure that Britain won't wage war on them? They shouldn't be.
Iran has done this before, but the people were never held more than a few days. But the equipment was never returned.
China held some of our pilots for that? A week or two? No war there.
If Iran does not give the men back quick, or returned them in less than perfect condition - then there will be major problems. What other choice would Brittan have?
PS - there is a new addition to my site. Click the link above the most recent post title.
Don't forget that the waterway where these sailors were taken, the Shatt-al-Arab, is the border between Iran and Iraq, and it was Iranian aggression there that sparked the Iran-Iraq war (1980 to 1988).
Iran is testing the will of the US and Britain, and making good on their recent threat to use "illegal" methods to oppose UN sanctions.
Notice:
1) They did this the day before a UNSC vote on sanctions, guaranteeing a vote against them
2) It was the Ayatollah Khameini who made the threat about "illegal" methods, not Ahmmadinejad.
They are giving notice that they are at war with the West. Unless the US and Britain react with great strength, Iran will see this as a victory.
I'm sorry, I know this isn't of this topic, but I'm really not familiar enough with it to elicit an adequate response.
Rather, this comment is about your heading. The lone voice in a capitalist wilderness not out to pick your pocket? I don't like the undertones in that (I undestand that what I like is of little consequence). The implications of such a statement run deep. You liken capitalism to the wild by using capitalist as and adjective with wilderness. I have to disagree; it's very orderly, and, in fact, is the only economic system that is really successful. It may seem 'dog-eat-dog' and 'heartless,' but it is, in fact, the opposite, as it is only capitalism that fully recognizes the rights of man. Other kinds deny certain ones or blatantly abuse them. A wilderness tends to carry a conotation of a dark, gloomy forest, undesired. However, I don't believe that's a fitting word to use with capitalism.
Of course, that correlates directly with the next point. Not everybody in a capitalist society is out to pick pockets. They are out to succeed, of course--who is not? However, you imply that the only way this can be done is illegally, which is false. Now, they may try their hardest to get you to spend your money unwisely, but, ultimately, that's up to you. Now, that's not to say that everyone is rational. Far too many, as you imply, are not. But not all of them. You, then, in that sense, are not the lone voice.
Thank you.
Post a Comment