Closing in on Iran

Modified Map of World War IV Diplomacy Variant by Tom Reinecker

The recent months have seen increased tensions between the West and Iran. Actually just heard the news of Iranian protesters attacking the British Embassy in Tehran in response to new sanctions. This is particularly because of the fact that the world is convinced that Iran has developed the capacity to build nuclear weapons, as their nuclear program has been underway for quite some time now. Having another “Islamic bomb” in the region is an idea that the world is not comfortable with of course, which is one of the reasons why attacking Iran is widely seen as something acceptable.

Israel has the greatest concerns about Iran and because of Israel, the United States is the most concerned party. Although the Iranian rivalry with Israel is nothing new but the recent threats have further escalated the tensions. Israel has been known for its tendency to carry out preemptive strikes against possible threats, such as the Operation Opera in 1981, which involved more than a dozen F-16s and F-15s flying deep into Iraq and pulverizing the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was allegedly a step to achieve Iraqi nuclear ambitions.

The question is whether it will be as easy to carry out such an attack on the Iranian nuclear plants. However, that hardly matters. What we should be concerned about is whether the conflict of Iran with the United States and Israel will develop into something larger or not. It surely has the potential to, even if it doesn’t. Iran,  like Pakistan but not as pathetically, is surrounded by enemies. Iran will also have to indirectly engage with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should such a conflict break out in the form of a war.

Should the United States and Israel attack Iran, it would be interesting to see how other powers would react to it. Most of the powers around the world except for the United States have been avoiding conventional warfare for quite some time now. Probably the only exception in recent times has been that of the Russian campaign against Georgia in the South Ossetia War in 2008. Other than that, the wars in the world has been pretty much about Terror, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also it would be interesting to see if Pakistan is also included as a target, which is not something out of the ordinary.

Israel has no direct threat from Pakistan. Pakistan has almost never threatened Israel but the United States has serious doubts about its commitment against fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. And perhaps rightly so. However, the conflict in Pakistan has been something of an everyday routine, especially ever since President Barack Obama has assumed office. This has been further escalated by the assassination of Osama Ben Laden in the Pakistani garrison city of Abbottabad, and the very fact that the world’s most wanted man was present there. But anyway.

The world is pretty much losing patience with America’s wars, though not everyone has the power, the influence, the money or even moral courage to speak against it. The only powers which could offer the United States a tough time in convincing the world to take action against Iran are Russia, China, France and Germany. India, an emerging global power, can certainly not be trusted in this regard, although India and Iran enjoy good relations. Actually, even better relations than Pakistan.

But then again, India hardly has poor relations with any country in the world. Even her relations with China are not as bad as many perceive. But India has done a great job in the area of diplomacy for decades and is now harvesting the fruit of its efforts. India would certainly not mind an attack on Iran as long as its interests are not harmed, especially since it is aimed to protect Israel. So would not Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who have their interests aligned with the United States and Israel and are not really fond of Iran.

France and Germany may go ahead with the war plan too, since after all, they are not comfortable with the defiant and reckless Iranian President in office and the intentions of the state with a nuclear bomb at its disposal. After all, Iran has a record of threatening Israel directly a number of times and enjoys great influence in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza Strip, Israel’s adversaries for a long time. Now, that leaves us with China and Russia.

China is an interesting case. It is pretty much like India. It focuses on its economy and tries to distance itself from armed conflict. China wants more buyers instead of more enemies, so it could allow the attack on Iran as well. This leaves Russia as the only hope that Iran has in the world. Alright, war is nothing new in the Middle East. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former American National Security Advisor, actually calls the Middle East and West Asia region the new Balkans in whatever he refers to as the Grand Chessboard. So we have had wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why is Iran important?

Fall of Iran will mean a complete shift of the balance of power in the Middle East in the favor of the United States. Iran is the second largest oil exporter in the world. Saudi Arabia is the first. If Iran attacks Saudi Arabia, it could mean great problems for the United States. Even more if Iran has enough capability to strike back at Israel. We have often heard about the possibility of a “Third World War”. Well, this is as close as we can come to a Third World War in the present scenario.

Even if China does not directly get involved in the war, it will certainly not approve of the idea of an attack on Iran. Not that China likes Iran too much, but because it would not want the absolute hegemony of the United States in the world. Russia, also, is not as weak as many perceive it to be and would want to do all it can to block the United States to develop its influence in the parts of the world hostile to it. And with Putin back in office, it means a tougher Russia as far as opposition to the ambitions of United States is concerned.

So what if Russia actually comes to Iran’s help. Although it looks unlikely if you think about it. As Pakistan is also attacked every now and then by the NATO forces and I also expect more of that in the future, it is also possible that Pakistan sees a US attack imminent on its soil and joins hands with Iran for a war against the US forces in the region, especially in Afghanistan.

It is possible that such a conflict could expand to such an extent but it is also a good possibility that it could remain confined to the minimum, such as further imposing economic sanctions or maybe even operatives in Iran carrying out attacks. However, you can safely say that a US or Israeli attack on Iran could have some serious consequences on world peace. Especially if Iran has already developed nuclear weapons.

Whether or not Iran attacks Israel with its nuclear arms, if it is capable of that in the first place, it certainly can be expected to retaliate in a brutal manner if the US openly declares war against it. The safety of Israel will be the primary problem for the United States. Even Syria could jump into the conflict and it would also be interesting to see Turkey’s reaction, especially with the current conservative regime.

But looking into the sequence of events, the so-called war on terror has been actually a systematic and organized establishment of US fortifications in the Middle East. This looks like a careful plan to take further action in the Middle East and any power in the shoes of the United States would really have no reason to stop, despite pressures at home and a troubled economy.

Governments and states around the world are, or seem to be, more concerned with their larger role in the world instead of the welfare of their people, at least those of the major and minor geostrategic powers which regularly engage in armed conflicts. So it is safe to say that the wars of the United States are not going to end in the Middle East any time soon enough and the stage is all set for action against Iran.

However, it would be a good idea for other powers to block the United States from taking any such action to keep the balance of power from worsening, especially Russia and China, or even France and Germany. But that is needed even more so to avoid the possible destruction that could result from it.

The question to ask is this. Can the world afford a war against Iran?

Not because it is plausible or not, but because of the cost and the effect.

Or should we start preparing for World War III.  Middle East Style.

Hope not.

Advertisements

Failed Diplomats, Diplomacy and the Press

Source: misz007.livejournal.com

When Diplomats need to get anything done, they are not really bothered about what the general public would think of them. What is more important is what the states thinks of them. Diplomats deal in politics, but they are not exactly politicians. They are discrete but not always politically correct. They look after the interests of their states but not always the interest of their people. That depends. But they take care of their own interests, at least.

However, when they need to get anything done, interferences can really prove disastrous to their cause. This is one of the greatest flaws of the openness of the modern day diplomatic practices. But much more than that, the media. This has been happening more frequently in the recent years. However, that has not changed the art of diplomacy itself and things get done as they used to in the past.

But sometimes the kind of coverage that media the offer to diplomats and diplomatic processes can damage their work quite a bit. Especially when it comes to spilling out the beans pertaining to what the diplomats have been talking about in private. Media entities such as the Wikileaks have created a tremendous impact on the world of diplomacy. Well diplomats, welcome to the Age of Information, and Technology.

However, All diplomats secretly hate the press. Some do so openly. Actually, you would hardly be a diplomat if you really loved the press. Let alone be a journalist, which really makes it an oxymoron. But some diplomats do become journalists or columnists after they retire. The better ones become consultants and lobbyists. Actually, you can never tell diplomats to retire. They choose to retire themselves.

Some of them had actually foreseen the troubles of the future.

Today the greatest evil—and therefore the most immediate—is the press.

Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich of the Austrian Empire                      (1773 – 1859)

Ah, how the diplomats miss the good old days when there was nothing like modern press. Prince von Metternich was the Chairman at the Congress of Vienna and said that at a time when clearly the threat from the media was not half as much as troubling as it is in the 21st century.

However, let us not forget that the press is also a tool for diplomacy. What can be used against you, can be used for you and vice versa. Therefore, the press is your greatest backstabbing machine, while it serves as your propaganda mouthpiece. This is what gives a literal meaning to the expression “War of the Words”.

Learn from the press. If and when you run out of content, create content. But if you underestimate the press, it is not always unsure of what it is doing. Actually it almost always is sure.

Diplomats who fail to change with time, adopt new techniques, adapt their stance and approach and accept new challenges are doomed to fail.

In the world of diplomacy, everything happens for a reason. Even if it is nothing. Therefore, if you see some smoke in the press, there is always a suppressed fire managing to surface some of its flames through the rubble piled up to cover it. Diplomatic scandals are the same and if a diplomat faces the music, it means that he or she did something terribly wrong as far as his or her own interest was concerned.

Diplomats who don’t watch their back pay dearly for it. Brutal truth, digest it if you can. Diplomacy and Backstabbing go hand in hand. Diplomats must choose their allies wisely and should be even more careful with the people who they call or consider their friends. Never trust people who are too hungry for attention. Or never trust them too much.

Diplomats cannot afford to have such friends. Or at least cannot afford to trust them with their lives. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

I respect diplomats, marketers and pimps.

Their jobs are not easy. But you have to be sure that you don’t get stabbed.

The world of diplomacy is just so amusing and entertaining. That’s what drives them. Apart from the kill.

If you are not a good liar, you can leave diplomacy to your grandmother. But if you do fail, you need to retreat safely.

I think you are pretty much defined by how and where you retreat.

Diplomats are, after all, humans. They can make mistakes too.

But then again they must never make mistakes unless on purpose.

Putting a Price on Food

Source: shc.edu

Maybe we are missing something as humans. What we are really missing is realizing that we actually are animals and that we started out in the wild. Agriculture was not always there and neither were sophisticated cooking techniques. No doubt that resorting to the wild survival instincts would be frowned upon in the civilization. But why in the world would anyone do that when you have no other choice? After all, you need to survive.

Maybe it is a little audacious to declare that it is something humans are missing. Well, not all of them are. Maybe it is taken for granted in the civilized world, where food is abundant.  But it doesn’t matter as you could always get the food in the wild, unless you are living in a desert, or worse, a drought-stricken land. Hey, people have been surviving in the deserts for centuries. All you have to hope is that life exists there in one form or the other, because that is all you can eat. You eat life.

After all, animals eat and survive too and why expect that humans would be any different? No one is supplying them food, or even caring about how they get them. They survive, or they die.

Why do people get to the point of starving to death anyway? Why do they let themselves get to that point of no return? The point when someone from the civilized world has to come to them and feed them and photograph them and to publish the pictures around to collect funds for paying for their food? Why don’t they simply go hunting in the wild like their ancestors and eat anything that moves.

I think food is the most basic necessity that you could think of. It is the most basic of the basic human rights. Wait, not just human rights. Food is the right of any living entity, even bacteria. Nature, that is anything that is beyond the control of humans, provides for that right. It is just that humans have enough power to take that right away from their fellow creatures.

Yes, human beings are the only creatures who put a price on food.

Alright, I am not implying that those who grow and produce food must not get their share . Certainly, I don’t mean that the farmers who grow their food and the traders who sell it should be deprived of their rightful share of money, no doubt about it. But that does not take away the responsibility of those who have willing created a system that deprives millions of humans of enough food.

Just imagine that for a second. People starving to death. What good is a government if it cannot feed its people? To my mind any government that is not able to feed its people or offer them peace, freedom, medicine and security, has no reason for its existence. What other justification do we have for a government?

Humans are certainly not the only creatures to hoard food. We are just the only ones who hoard to deprive others of it and to store much more than the needs of a particular group of people responsible for it.

What we must remember are the most fundamental things and stop confusing ourselves with the completely unnecessary complex concepts that we are bombarded with everyday. Every human being is important, no matter where they live and every human being deserves food.

Food is more important than ideology.

Food is more important than politics.

If you are not feeding people, do not expect them to behave in a civilized manner. Because behind every civilized being is a wild creature who would do anything to survive.

But feeding people, like the ones starving in Somalia, is just not a priority of our species. Our priority is to pay for filthy, unnecessary and completely avoidable luxuries, but not feeding the starving. Imagine that, as a species, we do not have spare money to feed those who are dying of hunger and would surely fall prey to dangerous epidemic if no action is taken.

Source: bellirosa.com

We could fund to send man to Mars. Yes, we have money for that. We also have the funds for building a supersonic jet that travels from London to Sydney within an hour. Yes, we have money for that. We even have money to build the most useless and the most ostentatious, tallest building in the world. You know where it is. It is like an erect penis, but sterile. Yes, a lot of money for that. Alright, I would not even mention wars. it is more or less a justifiable expenditure, wouldn’t you think. At least it relieves a lot of people of their misery.

Without any difficulty, the entire population of the world can be comfortably fed for a sum making up a very tiny fragment of the entire wealth of the world and only just a little more can be dedicated to agricultural research to boost productivity. If a unified global effort is made in this direction, not a soul in the world will go hungry, ever. You don’t even need to go and check any statistics to verify this fact. However, what you should go and verify is whether the leaders of the world have any intention to put this matter on their priority list.

It just simply isn’t there.

This means that we actually want people around the world to be hungry. To starve to death. There are initiatives like the World Food Program from the United Nations which is doing an excellent job but yet not doing enough. But then again, who runs the WFP? We do and it is anything but one of our top priorities. That is just one way. There are several others and providing food is just one little dimension. But at the end of the day, it is food that matters.

Then there are naïve questions such as why people live in barren lands where there is no hope. Actually the question makes sense but not a single answer to it would. The questioner should be told that relocating costs money, that no one likes to leave their home even if it is barren, and if they do, who would accept those people? Which country in the world would accept a migrating population of starving people? If even a single country actually does that, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Also, they don’t figure out that conditions have deliberately been created to cause the hunger in the first place. They would rather choose to die in their homes with dignity and peace by avoiding insult to injury. Furthermore, it is a myth that hunger is the problem of countries going through drought in Africa only. The problem is actually worldwide and even seemingly prosperous countries have considerable starving populations.  The severity, however, varies.

But it seems that it is in our interest to create conditions that lead to the starvation of certain populations in the world. Politics remain the greatest hurdle and it will continue to be in the future. Not that anything can be done about it. We cannot even agree on simple objective facts, let alone solving any complicated and difficult problems. Maybe we should try eliminating the starving population once and for all by creating a great war instead. But wait. We are actually doing that, but it is a slow and painful death.

The face of war has changed, or maybe it has not. Maybe people never realized the kind of war that has been waged on them for centuries. It is the war of inequality, deprivation and injustice. Not that there is any justice, or ever will be, but at least people can be provided with their fundamental rights, which fellow beings, just like them, with no other superior evolutionary characteristics except for money and power, enjoy for no other apparent reason.

We all share responsibility for the fact that populations are undernourished.

                                                                                – Pope John XXIII (May 3, 1960)

We are responsible for it. We have created it. Not some God, unless humans are one.

So it seems.

It is just another ugly fact which we may choose to overlook, and we will.

It is genocide. It is ethnic cleansing. And of not just one race.

A Holocaust that has been going on for centuries.

It is mass murder. It is a crime against humanity.

We commit it every day.

We are putting a price on food.

We are putting a price on life.

The Difference Between a Democracy and a Dictatorship

Source: motherjones.com

The difference between what is popularly known as a Democracy and a Dictatorship is this.

Dictatorship is one man maintaining and forcing an absurd opinion, law or a line of action which you can do nothing about.

While,

Democracy is a lot of people maintaining and forcing an absurd opinion, law or a line of action which you can do nothing about.