Iran starts its first nuclear reactor today

[Begoner]

Iran certainly will not unify the Middle East -- its population is mostly Shi'ite and non-Arabic while most Middle Eastern countries have a mostly Sunni Arabic population. Ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences are important everywhere in the world (Belgium is a good example of an industrialized country which lacks cohesion because of the differences between French speakers and Dutch speakers), but especially so in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Iran is seen by many to be a bulwark against American (and, to a lesser extent, Israeli) imperialism. A recent poll asked Egyptians whether they thought Iran was developing nuclear weapons or nuclear power for civilian use. Among those who thought the latter, 97% thought Iran should be allowed to continue along their current trajectory; even among those who thought the former, a shocking 81% felt that Iran had a right to its nuclear program.

However, the US seems to be taking a comparatively soft line on Iran presently. If the Israelis had their way, they would bomb Iran, thereby consolidating Ahmadinejad's power, galvanizing Iran's public, and virtually guaranteeing that Iran would manufacture a nuclear weapon. As things stand, however, the American-sponsored reform movement in Iran is a powerful destabilizing force that is preventing the regime from taking too hard-line a stance. Thus, it is possible that if the US does not take an overly bellicose approach, Iran will join Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, et al. in having a puppet government subservient to the US.

[Jimbean]

Iran certainly will not unify the Middle East -- its population is mostly Shi'ite and non-Arabic while most Middle Eastern countries have a mostly Sunni Arabic population. Ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences are important everywhere in the world (Belgium is a good example of an industrialized country which lacks cohesion because of the differences between French speakers and Dutch speakers), but especially so in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Iran is seen by many to be a bulwark against American (and, to a lesser extent, Israeli) imperialism. A recent poll asked Egyptians whether they thought Iran was developing nuclear weapons or nuclear power for civilian use. Among those who thought the latter, 97% thought Iran should be allowed to continue along their current trajectory; even among those who thought the former, a shocking 81% felt that Iran had a right to its nuclear program.

However, the US seems to be taking a comparatively soft line on Iran presently. If the Israelis had their way, they would bomb Iran, thereby consolidating Ahmadinejad's power, galvanizing Iran's public, and virtually guaranteeing that Iran would manufacture a nuclear weapon. As things stand, however, the American-sponsored reform movement in Iran is a powerful destabilizing force that is preventing the regime from taking too hard-line a stance. Thus, it is possible that if the US does not take an overly bellicose approach, Iran will join Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, et al. in having a puppet government subservient to the US.

From what I understand, I agree with everything you just said except the last sentence. What makes you think that Iran will be on truly good terms with the US?

[Begoner]

From what I understand, I agree with everything you just said except the last sentence. What makes you think that Iran will be on truly good terms with the US?

I don't think the Iranian population will be on good terms with the US, but the ruling elite might be; essentially, we could see a reprise of the 1953 coup that ousted Mosaddegh from power and replaced him with the Shah. Of course, there are two important differences: the Iranian public is currently more pro-American than it was in 1953 (especially Iranian youth) while the army is more anti-American. However, these two factors do not cancel each other out; while the former makes a coup slightly easier, the latter makes it significantly harder. Nonetheless, there are many Iranian politicians who would stand to benefit from American intervention -- namely, Ahmadinejad's opponents, the opponents of the clerical system, etc.; moreover, Mosaddegh was far more popular in 1953 than Ahmadinejad is now. If the US would can economically isolate Iran, putting additional stress on its already shaky economy, it can create the necessary turmoil to destabilize the current regime and attempt a coup (cf. Chile, 1973).

There are certain factors that render a coup more difficult to effect than it was in 1953 or 1973 (for one, the greater decentralization of the Iranian military), but if the US plays its cards right, it may usher a more amenable government into power.

Alternatively, if the US is willing to adopt a strategy that has a greater chance of success but is more time-consuming, it can wait until the reform movement seizes power. Then, it can provide economic support to Iran to allow the movement to consolidate its power until it is able to win the allegiance of the military, at which point democratic governance will be discontinued. The downside to this approach is that it is uncertain whether the reform movement will be able to ascend to power. Perhaps a good example of a failure of both approaches would be Cuba; initially, the US attempted to stage a coup in Cuba, but was thwarted in its attempt. Later, the US tried to destabilize the Cuban regime through sanctions; however, given its past behavior in Cuba, it was unable to obtain any significant amount of leverage with the people or government of Cuba. As such, Castro's regime has managed to maintain its grip on power for several decades, while the US can only wait for the wounds of the past to heal and a reform movement to gain momentum.

[Jimbean]

I don't think the Iranian population will be on good terms with the US, but the ruling elite might be; essentially, we could see a reprise of the 1953 coup that ousted Mosaddegh from power and replaced him with the Shah. Of course, there are two important differences: the Iranian public is currently more pro-American than it was in 1953 (especially Iranian youth) while the army is more anti-American. However, these two factors do not cancel each other out; while the former makes a coup slightly easier, the latter makes it significantly harder. Nonetheless, there are many Iranian politicians who would stand to benefit from American intervention -- namely, Ahmadinejad's opponents, the opponents of the clerical system, etc.; moreover, Mosaddegh was far more popular in 1953 than Ahmadinejad is now. If the US would can economically isolate Iran, putting additional stress on its already shaky economy, it can create the necessary turmoil to destabilize the current regime and attempt a coup (cf. Chile, 1973).

There are certain factors that render a coup more difficult to effect than it was in 1953 or 1973 (for one, the greater decentralization of the Iranian military), but if the US plays its cards right, it may usher a more amenable government into power.

Alternatively, if the US is willing to adopt a strategy that has a greater chance of success but is more time-consuming, it can wait until the reform movement seizes power. Then, it can provide economic support to Iran to allow the movement to consolidate its power until it is able to win the allegiance of the military, at which point democratic governance will be discontinued. The downside to this approach is that it is uncertain whether the reform movement will be able to ascend to power. Perhaps a good example of a failure of both approaches would be Cuba; initially, the US attempted to stage a coup in Cuba, but was thwarted in its attempt. Later, the US tried to destabilize the Cuban regime through sanctions; however, given its past behavior in Cuba, it was unable to obtain any significant amount of leverage with the people or government of Cuba. As such, Castro's regime has managed to maintain its grip on power for several decades, while the US can only wait for the wounds of the past to heal and a reform movement to gain momentum.

What you are saying is quite possible. What really seems to be important is on the US side of things. Based on many different facets of information, I would think that if the US wanted to strike Iran, they would do it before upcoming election. I think after that, it is going to be too late because of the condition of the economy by that time.

[Jimbean]

It is very difficult to say. To be honest, I do not know. However, based on recent actions, and the overall conditions of the economy and how people react to it, it would be my guess that the western and American elite were going to take us into WWIII before the crash. I mean they would need another bailout to make it go sidewards for another 18 to 24 months, but there is no sign of a media/social/political buildup to that decision.

[Begoner]

What you are saying is quite possible. What really seems to be important is on the US side of things. Based on many different facets of information, I would think that if the US wanted to strike Iran, they would do it before upcoming election. I think after that, it is going to be too late because of the condition of the economy by that time.

I agree to some extent -- many economists would say that starting a war in the midst of our current economic crisis is foolhardy, including those who are most prominent in American politics today. However, despite their ideological grandstanding, the relationship between war and a nation's economy is tricky. For example, if a nation is suffering from persistently high unemployment, it can start a war, allowing those "idle" people to enlist in the military; moreover, military spending acts as a Keynesian stimulus to boost demand (at least in the short term; the downside is that a lot of debt is incurred in the process, too much of which can detrimentally affect growth in the long run). Many countries are scared to death of unemployment because it often breeds social unrest (especially in the absence of a social safety net); as such, they're willing to take extreme measures to curb it. If you look at Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, unemployment was rampant. However, upon ******'s rise to power (prompted partially by the high unemployment), his war preparations helped reduce the unemployment rate from over 30% to 4% over the course of 5 years (the previous prime minister had insisted on austerity and fiscal discipline, which had been a disaster). Similarly, many economists argue that WWII allowed the US to finally emerge from its economic slump. Of course, with a weak economy, it is sometimes unwise to start a war -- Russia could not both fight Germany and provide for its citizens in 1917, which sparked a revolution. A "successful" military policy is able to siphon off the excess labor that is underutilized without detrimentally impacting existing productive activities (that is, if the economy is too oriented towards war, dissent can easily develop, especially if the war is not viewed very positively). Overall, I think the US is in a good position to start a war in spite of its economic malaise, and, ultimately, those very people who are calling for immediate austerity will be those calling for immediate war -- they change their views to suit the political winds. If they want to have a war, economic conditions aren't going to get in their way.

[Jimbean]

I agree to some extent -- many economists would say that starting a war in the midst of our current economic crisis is foolhardy, including those who are most prominent in American politics today. However, despite their ideological grandstanding, the relationship between war and a nation's economy is tricky. For example, if a nation is suffering from persistently high unemployment, it can start a war, allowing those "idle" people to enlist in the military; moreover, military spending acts as a Keynesian stimulus to boost demand (at least in the short term; the downside is that a lot of debt is incurred in the process, too much of which can detrimentally affect growth in the long run). Many countries are scared to death of unemployment because it often breeds social unrest (especially in the absence of a social safety net); as such, they're willing to take extreme measures to curb it. If you look at Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, unemployment was rampant. However, upon ******'s rise to power (prompted partially by the high unemployment), his war preparations helped reduce the unemployment rate from over 30% to 4% over the course of 5 years (the previous prime minister had insisted on austerity and fiscal discipline, which had been a disaster). Similarly, many economists argue that WWII allowed the US to finally emerge from its economic slump. Of course, with a weak economy, it is sometimes unwise to start a war -- Russia could not both fight Germany and provide for its citizens in 1917, which sparked a revolution. A "successful" military policy is able to siphon off the excess labor that is underutilized without detrimentally impacting existing productive activities (that is, if the economy is too oriented towards war, dissent can easily develop, especially if the war is not viewed very positively). Overall, I think the US is in a good position to start a war in spite of its economic malaise, and, ultimately, those very people who are calling for immediate austerity will be those calling for immediate war -- they change their views to suit the political winds. If they want to have a war, economic conditions aren't going to get in their way.

In particular, a war is bad for the economy in the long run because of the long term effects of debt, the unemployment situation after the war, and the means of production being switched to non-productive products.

I think in our particular situation, a war could serve as a bailout and cause the economy to go sideways (so to speak) for a year or two maybe. I am sure you know as well as I do that this is a very tricky situation.

I suppose if they go ahead and allow for the economy to collapse, then they will implement an Argentina style martial law.

If they do another bailout, the economy will last a little while longer... and then what?

If they attack Iran, the economy will last a little longer, temporarily solve the unemployment problem, get Iran, and establish a police state here in the USA by allowing terrorist attacks from Hezbollah operatives thus going after the patriot movement, etc.

Attack some other country to get a similar effect as attacking Iran (i.e. North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.)

What other options do they have?

[Creepy-male]

It was bound to happen eventually, the US can't be always paranoid about nuclear technology.... fuck the US instead should just develop better technology, instead of trying to politically control the arms race out of paranoia... you know how badass our technology would be if we just minded our own business and dedicated effort into our own technologic advancement.

Of course this is all complex because there is no one man that makes these decisions, it is subject to social currents, arms makers, politicians, businesses, science/academia, militaries spread across the global climate. But still rapid interventionalism can come to a point where it creates the problem in and of itself.

[Jimbean]

It was bound to happen eventually, the US can't be always paranoid about nuclear technology.... fuck the US instead should just develop better technology, instead of trying to politically control the arms race out of paranoia... you know how badass our technology would be if we just minded our own business and dedicated effort into our own technologic advancement.

Of course this is all complex because there is no one man that makes these decisions, it is subject to social currents, arms makers, politicians, businesses, science/academia, militaries spread across the global climate. But still rapid interventionalism can come to a point where it creates the problem in and of itself.

The whole name of the game is not being better than Iran. Iran currently does not fit into the western elite's global political plan; so they want to take them down or at least replace them.

[Creepy-male]

The whole name of the game is not being better than Iran. Iran currently does not fit into the western elite's global political plan; so they want to take them down or at least replace them.

Yea prety much although the way you say it makes it sound so much like alex jones conspiracy talk... anyways the thing I was saying is the united states political plan could be tweaked to me more isolationist rather than interventionalist.

The first nation to colonize the solar system will clearly have a marked advantage over other world powers.