Senate [Middle East discussion] Syria's civil war, Egypt's elections, cyberwar with Iran, and more

Update on the talks:

The foreign minister of the EU, Catherine Ashton, cited significant differences. New talks will be held in Moscow in three weeks. The point of contention is Iran's desire to enrich Uranium to 20% fissile purity, which the Iranians insist they won't exceed, as they claim they will use this for medical purposes. However, the Western powers have concerns over this, as 20% enrichment clears some hurdles that make it easier to reach bomb-grade 90%.

In exchange, the 5+1 countries are offering relaxed restrictions on airplane spare parts and offering nuclear safety assistance. However, Iran sees this offer as too little for too much. As an Iranian official put it, like bartering diamonds for peanuts. The comprehensive sanctions, including more embargoes announced to come in the near future, are Iran's primary concern.

Again, I find a five months old op-ed predicting the current state of affairs.


Excerpt:

Things to not bode well for these talks in Moscow. Unless they have something substantial to offer Tehran in return for ending its nuclear programs, the talks are doomed to fail. On another note I wonder how China is viewing its fellow UNSC members (and Germany) placing pressure on Iran. China depends on Iran for oil and I don't see them willing to jeopardize those relations for the sake of nuclear proliferation talks, China is not threatened by Iran so it goes against Beijing's national interest to support talks with Tehran like this.

Also your signature point about Sherman is rather humorous

BBC World's report on the talks

I don't know if this is just my perspective or not, but to me it appears like many news outlets present the Iranian officials' quotes about their right to peaceful enrichment as if it's a right that the Iranians are just making up for themselves. While actually I watched the press conference and the Iranian spokesman made it a point to specifically stress that the signatories' right to peaceful enrichment is enshrined in the NPT. It may seem like just a bagatelle, but it isn't. Thankfully, Ashton asserted during the talks yesterday that they indeed do have this right.

My thoughts on this:

1. Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon and the only question is when.
2. Once Iran is in possession of a nuclear weapon, the world will continue to spin and nuclear Armageddon will not descend on Israel or the world.

I don't know about 1, but I agree on 2. I once read an excellent op-ed about this (shocker ) that laid out what I think is the Iranian regime's real motivation for having ever wanted nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime is no longer the fiercely revolutionary band of young idealists on a mission against the West and capitalism that it was immediately after the revolution. The power structures - both the conservatives and the reformists - though they disagree on the degree of domestic policy and the extent of religiosity in the public sphere, want to be accepted into the international community, and see Iran as a rightful part of it. In their eyes, there's no reason why they shouldn't enjoy the same preferential treatment that all the other corrupt dictatorships in the region with just as dubious human rights records enjoy, and they want in. I'm not sure if they still are pursuing weapons or not, although I have no doubt they did prior to 03, but in any case, the nuclear weapons were/are an attempt to force this acceptance. The US doesn't care much for the Pakistani government, but is forced to accept them and even protect them for fear of a Pakistani power vacuum in which nukes fall in the hands of someone even worse than what's in place. With Pakistan having nukes, the US can't afford to have a policy of regime change in Pakistan. I think this is what the Iranian regime hopes to achieve by pursuing nuclear technology. Regime change is a stated official goal of the US when it comes to Iran. The Iranian regime wants an insurance policy to counteract this. With nukes, it will naturally become in the interest of the rest of the world to protect stability in Iran, rather than the opposite.

Regardless, I don't think the US should have a stated policy of regime change. If and when that change comes, it will be because the Iranian people demand it, anyway, not because the US prefers it. People in Iran are dissatisfied with the current system, so the two interests are in line in this particular instance, but in my humble opinion, governments should not be in the business of instigating regime changes in other countries. It's a slippery slope. If governments entitle themselves this right, where does it stop? Iran might be a dictatorship, but who's to stop governments from abusing this entitlement and start ousting democratic regimes as well, just for the sake of beneficial economic interests, for example?

Precisely. And it is for this reason why Iran will not halt its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I haven't verified this data, about the path to Pakistan's nuclear capability, but it seems about right. You will note that the path and the world reaction to it looks eerily familiar:

More importantly, think about the trajectory of Pakistan's position in the world since they tested their nuclear weapon and became part of the "nuclear club". Now Pakistan, once a pariah of the West, is called "one of America's strongest allies in the global war on terrorism" from not one, but two Presidents--of different parties! Iran isn't blind. They know that their conventional military forces, no matter how much they invest in them, will never present a credible threat to the world. Without that threat, they feel they have no leverage to influence their environment and that's what they really want. Sanctions will not stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Frankly, even attacking them won't really stop them. It's going to happen eventually. They want it. They're right to want it.

Yeah. We'd do well to stop with this "regime change" business. It was one thing to push that with the USSR since the Soviets had apparent designs on expansion and potentially engagement with the west. But every other time, it's worked out pretty badly for us in the end. And one can argue that the USSR thing hasn't worked out so great for us either now that we're the "World's only superpower"

There's an even more obvious link between Iran and Pakistan regarding nukes. They are next-door neighbors, they aren't enemies but aren't always on the best of terms, and violence from Pakistan has spilled into Iran.

If you had an unstable nuclear neighbor to your immediate east, a neighbor with nukes a bit further to the west that has carried out preemptive strikes on its neighbors before, a massive nuclear power to your immediate north, a nuclear superpower invading 2 of your nuke-less neighbors and publically naming you as next on their hit list, and hardly any friends apart from a couple of significantly less-powerful regimes/parties, wouldn't you want to develop nuclear capability too?

And seeing the treatment that Pakistan and even North Korea get from the United States, the rational thing for Iran to do is develop nuclear power and at least the capability to create a nuke.

Also, I think I read a news story once that the United States was actually helping Iran develop nuclear capability in the 1970's, before the revolution, to ward off the Soviets. Though a lot of the tension between Iran and the United States today wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't overthrow their democracy in the 1950's. We reap what we sow.

To be fair, you two, Pakistan enjoys its current position much more as a result of its cooperation in "the War on Terror" than it's development of nuclear weapons. One can literally trace the change in rhetoric to within weeks (or, at most, a few months) of the 9/11 attacks, and Musharraf's foreign policy recalibrations in its aftermath.

I doubt that Iran would ever use nuclear weapons, but still, I don't think it's irrational to want to keep a regime that says they're going to boycott the 2012 Olympics because they think the logo secretly spells "Zion" from acquiring them, much less some of the more explicit sabre rattling against Israel(even if it probably is just saber rattling). For the record I'm against any state acquiring nuclear weapons that doesn't already have them, and support significant disarmanent among those that do have them. I am vehemently opposed to economic sanctions, however, as they impart suffering to the general citizenry as opposed to the regime.

Hindsight is 20/20, though. If Chamberlain had decided to pre-emptively depose the fledgling Hitler regime, all we would know now is that England perhaps unjustly attacked a relatively weak German state. It's not as if we'd be sitting here thankful that the greatest conflict in global history was averted by a prescient genius's pre-emptive strike.

Blowback's a b***h!

I think you missed the point. My observation was less to do with why the western world has become more tolerant of Pakistan--your point is completely valid--and more to do with how I imagine Iran likely perceives things.

It's not irrational to want to keep them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It's irrational to expect to stop it from happening. Economic sanctions will not stop them. The only thing that could stop them is a full force military engagement that results in a destruction of the regime and a seizing of all their nuclear materials. Since no one is seriously considering that option (thankfully), I think we need to wrap our heads around the reality of a nuclear Iran is a matter of when, not if.

I agree. The political world was surprised by how evil Hitler actually was despite all the warning signs. I'm sure that the specter of that weighed heavily on the post-war efforts of the CIA. But "regime change" is a terribly dangerous business to get into. We've already learned that if you "cut off the head and a new one grows" (I imagine that if the West had assassinated Hitler, it would not have averted WWII) so we usually try to ferment wholesale regime change. Sometimes that may work out well. But historically, we experience a lot of blowback and we currently enjoy a position in the world as meddling, arrogant, bullies. That's in no small part due to our propensity to conflate "leading" with "dictating".

News from Syria... another massacre has been confirmed, including many children. UN and US officials are calling for urgent action.
Looks like the false "ceasefire" that Kofi Annan negotiated is completely dead now.



http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/201252616111118780.html

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-condemns-syria-atrocity-houla-222337999.html

I think this is just a conspiracy to stimulate the failing map industry.

It's disheartening that Clinton's strong words won't be followed by similarly strong action from the UNSC. Surely Moon and Annan have no illusions that peace between Assad and the dissidents cannot be achieved. However the issue of sovereignty inevitably prevents any real substantial action being taken to dismantle the regime by foreign states or organisations (NATO)-- not that I support the take downs of legitimate governments.

The way I see the crisis ending is by the suppression of the opposition and the world moves onto the next trouble spot.

Why can't we do something similar to the Libyan operation in Syria?

Syria is even more geopolitically important, and in our strategic interest, than Libya was.

I wouldn't say Syria is a full-scale civil war yet, more like the governnent putting down a rebellion. That's my opinion, however. If NATO saw fit to intervene though, the Libyan plan of action was quite successful. Quick decisive military strikes to disable military capabilities and then allow the crisis ti be resolved domestically. Gaddafi's murder leaves something to be desired; even a tyrant deserves their time in court.

Because Libya was politically isolated. Deposing Qadaffi wasn't the first in a line of dominoes that would thereafter fall. Syria is allied with UN Security Council nations and also Iran.