Monday 16 January, 2006
Dragon and the clouds of war
War drums are beating loudly in the Middle-East once again, and this time it is Iran that is targeted by the Western powers. The set-up is deceptively simple: Iran says it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, while the West suspects that Iran wants to get into the nuclear armament race. US and its allies want Iran to give up the nuclear program, and are calling UN Security Council together to discuss it. This follows the build-up to Iraq war pretty closely, and one might think the end result will be the same.
Except Iran is not Iraq, and this is not 2002.
Iran is located in mountainous region where heavy tanks are of little use. While the Iranian army would of course be crushed by US military might, the resistance in this forbidding place would be much stiffer, with Russian-made Sunburst missiles and suicide squads.
And then there is the oil. Iran is the second-largest oil producer in OPEC.
While Iran does not supply oil to US directly, the world’s oil supply is incredibly tight, so losing the Iranian oil would easily push the crude barrel to the catastrophic 100$+ and lead to worldwide economic collapse, as there is no spare capacity to replace the four million barrels of oil Iran produces. In addition, Iran has made huge oil deals with China recently, and the oil-hungry Sleeping Dragon is unlikely to let their vital energy to slip to US companies without protest. With the world’s utter dependence and addiction to oil, the war could herald the beginning of the long-prophesized energy wars. We have no transportation, medicine, agriculture, plastics, clothing or modern weaponry without cheap oil. China knows this full well and is unlikely to give up its dreams of global dominance without fight.
But all this might not matter, for US is lead by the most war-like of all its presidents, who believes he is on a mission from God. This has allowed him to rake up more foreign debt than all the other presidents combined, most of it being owed to China. Looking at Bush’s track record, it is hard to imagine that he would let this opportunity to launch another war to slip by. And what about the Iranians? They have backed themselves into corner. They have nothing to lose, and their leaders are at least as fanatical as Bush is.
On one side are the mad Mullahs of Iran. On the other side is Rapture Christian Bush…
Help!
Posted by Dragon at 16 January 23:01, 2006http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4616336.stm
ISRAEL
As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.
THE HOLOCAUST
They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets.
# 2 - Dragon (on January 17, 2006 11:47 AM):
Just to echo Gareth, my disgust with the current Iranian leadershp knows no bounds. It really looks like a lose/lose situation.
# 3 - Sean W (on January 17, 2006 12:49 PM):
It is a lose / lose situation, no doubt about it.
Come what may though, you have to question the role of the world when it comes to making war against another nation.
Pretend, just for a moment, that the US was a solid power who only wanted what was best for the world (large temporary suspension of disbelief).
There aren't going to be a lot of moderates who view the Iranian regime as good, no arguments there. They want to kill and massacre people over differences in religion and interpretation of religious text.
Knowing that they will do that, does the US, or another nation, or the world court, or the UN have the right to go in and initiate war against them to deter them from doing so?
It really is a question of do the ends justify the means?
If the answer is yes (and I'm not answering, I'm just posing it for the purpose of the next sentence clause), then why not let the US do the dirty work for the world? It doesn't really matter why they want to do this, if doing it solves a greater evil and you believe that the ends justify the means.
If the answer is no, then are we, as members of the world, guilty of allowing attrocity to occur when we may have stopped it by backing a tool (not necessarily the right tool) that would have done the job.
It's questions like this that made me question my role in the universe during university. It also made the world a scarier place.
Peace.
S
# 4 - Dragon (on January 17, 2006 05:18 PM):
UN charter does indeed allow nations to use armed force against states that do not comply with the UN resolutions. This is of course rarely enforced due geopolitics.
However, the danger of letting US persecute the war are manifold: giving US companies exclusive access to Iranian oil will give them stranglehold on world's energy markets.
Also, Iran actually DOES have a valid reason to pursue nuclear power: it is estimated that despite their immense oil reserves, Iran will become net importer of oil by 2008. Iranians need energy from some source, and while the shah was still in power, US was actually providing Iran with nuclear technology.
Of course it is pretty much certain that Iranian regime wants the bomb far more than energy for the poor masses of Iran.
World hangs on balance here. Next few months will tell us a lot.
# 5 - Sean W (on January 18, 2006 09:31 AM):
on a lighter note, but just as horrible of an ethics question...
is it now wrong to go and buy energy shares, particularly oil (say Encana http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ECA.TO&d=t) in anticipation of problems?
Peace.
S
# 6 - Gareth Lewin (on January 18, 2006 10:20 AM):
No, it's not wrong.
In fact, I'm looking into buying uranium shares, since I believe that it's the future.
Consider this, apparently in 20 years, the world will need double the energy it does now.
# 7 - Dragon (on January 18, 2006 07:25 PM):
Uranium, energy, oil, gold and silver seem like no brainers.
I am palnning to put half my wealth in energy shares, the other in precious metals.
Of course this is all moot if we run out of cheap oil, but there is nothing you can for that scenario.
You can't add any more comments, but if you wish you can email the author.