*history *military *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy, History, Military) - requested by MrFisk.

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

This video made me realize how you almost never hear a case for peace with Iran in the US media. You hear one of two things, an American or Israeli giving the case for war, or a neutral political analyst relaying the tough talk of Israeli politicians one one hand and Ahmadinejad on the other.

But Fareed makes a convincing case.

>> ^entr0py:

This video made me realize how you almost never hear a case for peace with Iran in the US media.

It's worse than that: How often do you hear a case for peace anywhere made in the US media?

History is something very important for everyone.

When a nation was the sole owner of nuclear weapons, they were actually used against a nation.
Since then, when many more countries got them, they were never being used again. Not even conventional wars were started against nuclear countries since then. However, nuclear states continue to attack non-nuclear countries. And those who learn from that are the bad guys?

MAD was always a peacekeeper and will continue to be.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

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

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

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

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, February 20th, 2012 11:51am PST - promote requested by RedSky.

British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded

>> ^coolhund:

History is something very important for everyone.
When a nation was the sole owner of nuclear weapons, they were actually used against a nation.
Since then, when many more countries got them, they were never being used again. Not even conventional wars were started against nuclear countries since then. However, nuclear states continue to attack non-nuclear countries. And those who learn from that are the bad guys?
MAD was always a peacekeeper and will continue to be.


Right up until the day that isn't true anymore...

>> ^Quboid:

British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded


George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.

While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.

There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


Your armchair analysis is pretty thin.

One of your main premises is about how Israel occupies a bunch of 'worthless desert'? And you then believe that is a strong driver in Israel's interest in Iranian oil reserves?

Middle East politics goes a lot deeper than that. The 'worthless desert' Israel occupies is BAR NONE the most sought after and fought over piece of land in the entire middle east over the last century. You can not ignore the importance of the cultural and religious pressures in the region that make up the complex relationship between Israel-Iran-Saudi-Syria-Egypt-... and on and on.

Survival is still Israel's driving focus. Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their attacks on Israel. If Israel even suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that is a very short path to a very legitimate concern for Israel to be taking very seriously. Sure, it's 90% likely that Iran isn't foolish enough to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, but that remaining 10% is still understandable enough cause for Israel to be nervous and considering their options.

Are the leaders in Iran, for all the rhetoric, rational? I tend to think they are (at least as rational as the Israelis), and believe they are seeking a nuclear deterant, not to destroy Israel.

I think Isreal has to learn to be more diplomatic toward its neighbors, and stop leaning on brute force, their nuclear arsenal, or superpower sponsors.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Quboid:
British politician and professional blow-hard 'Gorgeous' George Galloway talked about this. He's a bit of a nut, but he nails the Iran issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk&feature=player_embedded

George isn't a nut, he's a shill for whichever despotic dictator will pay him the most money to argue for their cause.
While he was a voice against the Iraq war he was also taking millions in direct donations from Saddam's oil for food scandal.
There are critics of wars who do so for good reasons, and then there are those like George who do it because the dictator being condemned is paying them handsomely to defend them out here in the west.


He's allegedly a shill, but he's definitely a nut.

@bcglorf
and your armchair analysis sucks. ?? wtf? why do you always have to be confrontational?
Seriously man, you've destroyed any credibility you might have by being confrontational in the first sentence. You immediately red-flag yourself as someone who is emotional and reactive rather than rational. Communication is a skill that can be developed. there are many nice people here that can help you.

strategically, Israel is fairly worthless. To radical crazies, it might mean something, but right now, the largely secular population of Iran doesn't really care about it. They care about Israel's actions, not their land.
The holy land was fought over in the past when things like mythology trumped other things. In a future that will seeing a reduction in both available energy and food supply, it is quickly losing any strategic appeal. Real power is interested in other gains....geo-political gain...and religious foolery remains primarily a pretext for strategic actions.

@RedSky
thanks great analysis and addition. altho whether Iran has a nuclear weapon or one in development IS certainly in doubt.
as for oil reserves, 10-11% is alot.

this is reality:
http://videosift.com/video/Theres-No-Tomorrow

any world leader with half a brain understands this.

and top military US brass agree that Iran is a "rational" actor
http://videosift.com/video/RealNews-US-General-Iran-a-Rational-Actor-but-is-US-one

Would Iran attack Israel in order to secure a piece of desert with no resources? Unlikely at best. Israel is closely allied with the greatest military power the world has ever seen, and has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. It would be instant suicide for Iran. But for Israel, past hostilities with arab nations has been an opportunity to expand their small country and expel non-jews from their territory.

For Iran, if we look at a longer timeline, which is what older civilizations are more likely to do, power will shift in the future to those that control the most important resources.

If you are Israel, your preference is probably for the US to go in and take out any potential threats now and control as many resources as possible, rather than wait for a world-wide oil glut to empower Iran and financially ruin their biggest ally - the US.

As for the spread of Islam, like most religions, it closely follows a spread of poverty, and the poorer nations of the world are still reproducing at a higher rate as human life is a labor commodity.

But in the future, who your god looks like will be trumped by much more primary necessities, namely food. And for states - internal stability.

Shelving what Christian and Jewish nations say about what about what i means to be an islamic nation...

Iran probably wouldn't attack Israel because it's mutually assured destruction.

However until they have nuclear weapons they have everything to fear from Israel for whom there would be no consequence from a unilateral strike.

also Israel's track record for choosing military action over diplomacy, coupled with a level of ultra-nationalism and nonsecular religious motivation...

From a secular / political standpoint, Iran seems like fish in a bucket until they are equally armed.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran' to 'Iran, israel, fareed zakaria, russia, nuclear' - edited by xxovercastxx