Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Hidden with code "Other"
(posting of personal emails)
Stand-off doesn't need to end in conflict
12 Mar 2006
Israel, India and Pakistan refused to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Where were those United Zionist States of America and Kingdom? Israel has been receiving funds and assistance from everyone for committing war crimes and genocides! Why is it so? Is it because they have got "chosen arse" or is it because they are superior race?
Nazi Zionist Bruce,
Israel, India and Pakistan refused to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Where were those United Zionist States of America and Kingdom? Israel has been receiving funds and assistance from everyone for committing war crimes and genocides! Why is it so? Is it because they have got "chosen arse" or is it because they are superior race? Or is it because they deserve the gas chamber? Iran has every right to develop whatever energy it finds fit and proper. Else get ready for gas chamber. Remember, this time you won’t be able to convert it in to a “milking cow”!
From: "brucesim1950" <docsim1950 (at) hotmail.com>
Date: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: Stand-off doesn't need to end in conflict
No it does not have to end in conflict. As soon as the theocratic dictators in control in iran have been sent to their paradise there is no conflict
From: "austro_bangla" <austro_bangla (at) yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:53 am
Subject: Stand-off doesn't need to end in conflict
Stand-off doesn't need to end in conflict
Large font March 10, 2006
Pressure won't solve the latest dispute between the US and Iran,
writes Amin Saikal.
THE nuclear stand-off between Iran and the United States and its
allies has finally reached a flashpoint now that the United Nations'
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has
reported Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
It is reminiscent of the crisis between Iran and Britain that
resulted from Iran's nationalisation of its oil industry 55 years
ago. Iran stood its ground firmly then for reasons of national pride
and independence, and it is most likely to do so again this time. The
way the US resolved that crisis was by intervening and securing a
change of government in the country. Is the world heading towards
another military confrontation?
A characteristic of Iranians has generally been not to give in to
outside pressure that could impinge upon their freedom to determine
their destiny. This was on display in their behaviour before and
after Islam came to Iran in the seventh century.
While embracing Islam, they firmly rejected the accompanying Arab
rule. They even adopted the minority Shiite sect of Islam partly to
distinguish themselves from their Sunni-dominated Arab and non-Arab
neighbours. Similarly, they resolutely defended themselves against
the mostly Sunni Islamic Ottoman Empire from the 14th century until
World War I and against pressures arising from Anglo-Russian rivalry
for most of the 19th as well as early 20th centuries.
In the same vein, when Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister,
nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, ending nearly 50
years of British monopoly of Iran's oil resources, the majority of
Iranians supported him. Despite significant British pressure,
Mossadeq refused to budge. This finally led the CIA to overthrow
Mossadeq and reinstall the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi,
who instituted a secular dictatorship with full US support. But
neither he nor his US backers were forgiven by the Iranian people,
who took revenge in the revolution of 1978-79, toppling him and
enabling the Ayatollah Khomeini to institute an anti-US Islamic
If Washington thinks it can pressure Iran into submission on its
nuclear program, it may be mistaken. Iranian Islamist leaders are
united on the issue and have turned it into a symbol of Iran's
historical struggle of preserving its national identity and
independence. Although the US has sought to drive a wedge between the
Iranian regime and public, this may not pay off. First, the regime is
not as feeble as the US has painted it. It has a strong popular base.
Second, while it is a mistake to see Iran as totalitarian, it has
disallowed just about any form of liberal opposition, and this
includes the monarchists, on whom the US seems to have pinned its
hopes. Third, a majority of Iranians see that the US is hypocritical
by allowing its allies Israel and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons
capabilities, but denying Iran even a civilian nuclear capability
because it has refused to give in to American supremacy.
Tehran can be expected to press on with its nuclear program, no
matter what. If it comes to a military confrontation with the US or
Israel, it may well decide to wear it. To avoid a confrontation, the
international community must work on a compromise that can provide
face-saving for both sides. A solution may be in the suggestion that
one of America's European nuclear power allies provide Iran with
enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, and this be accompanied with
urgent moves by the US to assure Tehran against any threat. The time
has come for mutual accommodation between these two foes.
Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the
Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (the Middle East and Central
Asia) at the Australian National University.
Sources: Stand-off doesn't need to end in conflict
This work is in the public domain