An important article by a writer well placed to represent an Iranian perspective. Nationalism is indeed a common and respectable denominator.

Israel repeatedly says Israel has the right to defend itself - Iran does as well. The West's problem, though, is that a nuclear armed Iran holds many risks for the West and Iran's neighbourhood, while a nuclear Israel has been a stabilising constant for 40 years.

Pete
see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/iranian-googling-and-amateur-sigint.html

Pete,

any defender of democracy would reject the notion that oppression leads to stability. Most of us would maintain oppression only leads to temporary stability.

I doubt very much you could say Israel, with it's land-stealing and oppressive occupation, is heading for or leading the mid east to a period of sustained stability... especially in light of the democratising 'Arab Spring'.

40 years is nothing in terms of the history of the ancient Persians and Hebrews. However it is for Arabs, Israelis and Iranians.

The contest needs discussion in those terms and I agree the writer's perspective is highly relevant and enlightening.

Hi Ali Omedi

Thank you for bringing me up to date on what is happening in Iran. I loved the place.
I was working in Iran at Pahlavi University In Shiraz in 1967/8 and toured on most weekends to Issfahan ,Tehran, Yazd, Bashier, Masshed, Percepolis, to the Black Sea.

Our favourite trip was over the Zagross mountains to the Persian Gulf, and see the Backtarrii tribes migration from the summer pastures in the high mountains and down to the Persian gulf to pasture their animals.

I strongly support nuclear power generation for Iran and strong inspections by the IAEA to ensure that they do not build nuclear weapons. This is needed because most of Iranians we met said “what do we do when the oil runs out.”

They where right and a lot of Iran’s oil has been extracted in the last 42 years. No wonder they want nuclear power in 2012. Iran’s export deal with China in 2011 will enabled the products they need at a low price. When China builds their first thorium nuclear reactors Iran’s oil exports could remove them the clutches of the US ?.

In 1978 I remember a public meeting in Shiraz when a US diplomat told the local elite that the US wanted to exploit the oil at the bottom of the Persian Gulf and Iran should oppose the proposed 10 mile territorial limit. From the floor I strongly opposed that that diplomat and after the meeting, as I walked home a group of students tapped me on the shoulder. They thanked me for opposing the US policy because it was unsafe for them to speak out.

I already knew how dangerous for them it was to oppose the diplomat . Indeed their Vice Chancellor was also the Shah’s minister in charge of Iran’s secret police.

I agree with the Iranian students who want nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

Just a few sobering words.The CIA has stated on numerous occasions that Iran is not refining Uranium to a weapons grade ore.The nuclear wars have already started,when are they classified as being too big?

Iran has serious defensive weapons and now both Russia and China are backing Iran if it is attacked,the stakes are as high as they can get.

There is much evidence of the USA using depleted Uranium in the Middle East.Since the first Gulf War male sperm counts in Israel have fallen by 40%.Prof Chris Busby has found evidence in Fallujah,Iraq of Uranium being refined to weapons grade.He suspects some type of min-nuke or at the outside a neutron bomb.This evidence was found in the hair of Iraqi women who have suffered enormous and severe birth defects.

Now the US seem to think that this new nuke technology and the defensive missile shield ,gives them an edge over their enemies.

In 1961 Russia exploded the largest Nuke ever.Originally it was 100 mega tonnes but they scaled it down to 50 mega tonnes for radiation safety purposes.It was 1400 times larger than Hiroshima or 10 ten times all the explosives used in WW2.It's mushroom cloud was 64 km high.It caused 3rd degree burns in a 100 km radius and broke windows 900 km away.

Now how much more advanced must both Russia and USA be today, some 51 years after this event? Missile shields may stop them arriving directly on our heads but the radiation would be enormous.

Fukushima is 2.5 -3 times worse than Chernobyl.We won't know the damage for decades to come.Our genetic integrity is already under threat.Over population may be the least of our worries in the near future,since we may lack enough viable genetic material to pass on to the next generation.Perhaps the other mammals look forward to our extinction.

Hi imajulianutter

Taking your points in turn:

I think the Arab Spring has militarily weakened the Arab regimes effected, causing division in their armies and increassing nervousness amongst their dictators. This has placed Israel (untouched by the Arab Spring) in relatively stonger political, diplomatic and military position to dictate Isreal's definition of stability.

I'm talking power politics from the "barrel" of and not Israel's oppressive and undemocratic treatment of Sunni Arabs in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere.

The Middle East strruggles are not just Israel versus Muslims but at least four sided. The Shiite Persians, centred in Iran, have a hatred of Sunni Arabs extending back longer than 1,000 years.

Putting Israel aside - in this OLO article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9915 I discussed the dangers of Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Eqypt developing their own dual purpose nuclear facilities partly in response to the increasing Iranian nuclear threat.

A nuclear arms race of three more Middle Eastern countries triggered by Iran is not in anyone's including Iran's interests.

Regards

Peter Coates

The sad part Peter Coates is that if Ali Omidi had written something on racism,gay marriage or Hollywood,there would have 40 posts here by now.It is like Media Pavlov's Dogs.If you don't hit the right buttons,there is no reponse.The masses are totally conditioned by the Corporate Media and this is why the West is in such a mess intellectually/economically.Fortunately Pres Putin is a man of intellect who can smell the reality.

This is an extremely important topic and the masses are oblivious to the players,the truth and the dire ramifications for us all.

The Truth Movement is proposing an Iranian invasion War protest on Saturday 23rd March 12 noon at the Sydney Town Hall.If you want to stop a very possible WW3 be there.Will keep you updated.

I think that Pete has summed it up about right. The thing is,
Saudi Arabia has made it clear that if Iran has the bomb, then they
will have the bomb too. Next every tinpot country in the region will
want the bomb or buy the bomb.

If Iran thinks that it will be a safer place, with everybody in
the ME armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and with their
fingers on the button, then they will be in for one horrible shock.

In one thing Arjay is correct. When they blow each other up, the
fallout will sadly blow all the way to Australia. Perhaps we'll
have a planet spinning with cockroaches and ants on board. They
handle radiation far better then us.

All this for Iranian pride. I really don't think its worth it.

So now nationalism is a valid excuse for pestering the world?

If this article, Ali, proves anything, then it is that Iran is even more dangerous than we ever thought.

Germans of the Third Reich also believed that they belong to a great empire and did not consent to their borders.

Arjay

I wouldn't be too hard on the "masses" because nuclear Iran has been a cry-wolf issue for at least a decade - with frequent headlines emerging every time there is not just one US carrier battle group within 1,000 kms of Iran but two or three. The Australian and US publics have mostly tuned-out after a few years.

While over time Iran can only become more organised to manufacture the necessary nuclear explosive (HEU and/or Plutonium) the coming US Presidential election (November, 2012) may be the main reason Israel is talking airstrikes. Israel can:

- create a war with Iran (in, say June 2012) that is a plus for Obama as the US public will rally round him (not an untried Republican candidate) or

- Israel can create a war later (just before or after November 2012) that Obama or a winning Republican rival can't stop because they are preoccupied with the Presidential Election or handing over power (known as "lame duck limbo").

Yabby

I agree the Saudis after:

- completing missile (designed for nuclear warhead) deals with China, and

- suspected financing of much of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program

can rapidly buy nuclear weapons or negotiate oil for weapons deals to catch-up and pass Iran's nuclear efforts.

The Saudis may not even need to wait years to build a reactor or to highly enrich Uranium (HEU). The promise of oil is now worth that much.

However Israel may be waiting for a pretext to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, in retaliation against:

- missiles from Iranian supported Hezbollah being fired over the Lebanese border into Israel or

- the blowing up of an Israeli Embassy, assassination or

- other outrage, or

- an Iranian "attack" on Kurdish northern Iraq (where Kurdish factions fight each other constantly anyway and Turkey invades northern Iraq fairly frequently).

Need to watch Israeli or US pretext campaigns and other signs.

Pete

Many Europeans are proud of their Age of Expansion and past imperial glory, but I doubt that many would want to regain their old empires.

This essay reeks of the same controlled narrative of the German Third Reich arising out of delusions of regaining the mythological glories of a great Germanic past, when it really grew out of the desperate social conditions inflicted on Germany by triumphal Western powers and a rigged US-European financial system.

There are some spectacular omissions from this essay, including the forced abdication of British-appointed monarch Resa Shah in 1940 by the British themselves, the overthrow of elected Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 by the well documented CIA-MI6 Operation Ajax, and the British government’s ownership of more than 50% of Anglo-Persian oil, which directly kept Iranian oil royalties hovering around a meagre 16% for several decades until 1979.

These and other omissions make a farce of the author’s attempt to put Iranian concerns that ‘foreign powers ARE CONSIDERED TO BE a barrier to Iran’s progress, and [that] the reasoning has manifested a degree of xenophobia’. (capitals mine) These are not considerations or perceptions, they are stark reality.

When Iran was firmly under Western control of its military and financial operations, the West had no concerns whatever about Iran having nuclear ambitions, as this 1970s advertisement by a US power company shows:
http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shah_shills_for_nuclear_power.jpg

And as for Iran having ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, this chilling map of US bases surrounding Iran makes a farce of the author’s pontifications that it’s all about regaining a lost Persian empire.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/nz4ee4cb31.jpg

Pete, I think that Israel is kind of between a rock and a hard place here. They would be fully aware that if those nations around them, to keep up with Iran, arm themselves with nukes too, with all those
fingers on the button, at some point Israel will cop one or two
and given that its only a small patch of dirt, thats the end of Israel.

So disarming Iran before it becomes a nuclear power, is about the only
option that they have. Once it has the bomb, its basically game over.

Not all expressions of nationalism "[reek] of the same controlled narrative of the German Third Reich", Killarney. Some are merely statements of a preference to make unilateral decisions on one's own country's future. I wonder how we would feel in Australia, if China decided that we were too incompetent to handle our own nuclear future, and insisted that we toe whatever line they felt inclined to draw.

There also appears to be a level of inconsistency (I won't say hypocrisy, although it is a close call) in our own dealings with nuclear countries. India, for example, is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but we seem comfortable to send them our uranium. Iran is a signatory to the Treaty, but we choose to believe they have only evil intentions. Nice.

As Dr Omidi points out:

"Unfortunately, the West and Washington’s policies at present are merely inflaming Iranian nationalism. As George Perkovich, a US scholar on Middle East once observed: 'Nothing fuels nationalism like resistance to public diktat by arrogant, perhaps hypocritical outsiders'."

Amen.

Pericles

'Not all expressions of nationalism "[reek] of the same controlled narrative of the German Third Reich", Killarney.'

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I agree with what you say, and the rest of my post should validate that. The 'controlled narrative' I referred to was the one created by the Allied powers ABOUT the rise of the Third Reich.

I found the author's constant harping on the ancient Persian empire was a 2-edged sword - (perhaps inadvertantly) feeding into Western fears that today's Iran has expansionist ambitions. I also found his insistence on putting 'nationalism' in inverted commas a bit worrying - as if he is implying that it's not really nationalism at all, but a sense of exceptionalism (and we all know where that sort of national group-think can lead).

I fully agree with the rest of your post, except that I have no qualms about using the word 'hypocrisy' in the West's dealings with Iran 's nuclear ambitions. Even if Iran did intend to develop nuclear weapons, it won't make them any more dangerous to world security than India or Pakistan. Even though I loathe nuclear weapons and wish they could all be banned, I can see that for a country surrounded by hostile nuclear powers, developing your own nukes may well be your only hope real hope of long-term survival.

Hi Yabby

I think we're on the same track. Note I said:

"A nuclear arms race of three more Middle Eastern countries triggered by Iran is not in anyone's including Iran's interests."

in my post before the last one.

Israel has an overwelming ability to retaliate against Iran - which may well make Israel safer than other Middle East countries.

Of the Middle Eastern countries Israel has a vastly more powerful nuclear arsenal - estimated to be 100+ thermonuclear weapons (ie H-Bombs). This arsenal was aquired with the help of national governments (mainly France, UK, Norway) providing a reactor, plutonium plant, heavy water, joint test facilities in the Sahara Desert and H-Bomb test data gleaned from France's South Pacific nuclear tests.

Compared to that few believe that Iran could develop comparable H-Bombs in the next 20 years.

While Israel may be safer it is the only Middle East country with the military capacity to carry out successful airstrikes against Iran's nuclear sites. Israel is also the only Middle East country that can rely on the US to carry out follow up strikes and other actions (like a mass cyber attack on Iran's entire Internet network) to prevent Israel failing.

So Israel may act not because its most vulnerable but because its the only Middle Eastern power that might be successful against Iran.

Pete

*Compared to that few believe that Iran could develop comparable H-Bombs in the next 20 years.*

Pete, I don't think they need to. You can't outbomb each other
with H'bombs, as everyone loses, not just one side.

The Iranians may have gone further than most people think if this report from AP is correct.

Images appear to show cleanup at Iranian nuclear site

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/07/3793273/images-appear-to-show-cleanup.html

>>VIENNA -- Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger, diplomats told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

[...]

Two of the diplomats said the crews at the Parchin military site may be trying to erase evidence of tests of a small experimental neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion. A third diplomat could not confirm that but said any attempt to trigger a so-called neutron initiator could only be in the context of trying to develop nuclear arms.>>