Iran Moves Financial Holdings

[zerojunkie]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/20/iran.funds/


This could go any number of directions. It'd be very interesting to see what China does with it's veto if funds are moved there.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/20/iran.funds/


This could go any number of directions. It'd be very interesting to see what China does with it's veto if funds are moved there.

You're not suggesting that self-interest, money and energy resources would influence China's decision one way or the other with regard to any possible sanctions against Iran resulting from her pursuit of nukes are you?

[Hey Bubu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4632144.stm

"It is difficult to estimate the amount of assets that Iran has abroad, but the Asharq Al-Awsat Arabic daily said that about $8bn (£4.5bn) had already been moved, mainly to Asian markets."

[patpx]

Sounds to me they've heard the war drum and they're getting prepared.
Finally, a smart enemy.....we're doomed.

[Edwin Watson]

LOL, so not only does China have the oil fields, but billions in Iranian money sitting in their banks....

UN Security Council says wha?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

LOL, so not only does China have the oil fields, but billions in Iranian money sitting in their banks....

UN Security Council says wha?

What's the purpose and value of the UN and the Security Council again?



"what was that middle thing..... about the police?"

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

What's the purpose and value of the UN and the Security Council again?



"what was that middle thing..... about the police?"

I am not going to debate the virility of the UN or the UN Security Council, but one of the major sticking points for Iran and what they are trying to prevent is a referral to the UNSC.... and they are giving China and Russia (to a lesser extent) HUGE incentives to keep that referral from happening....

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

I am not going to debate the virility of the UN or the UN Security Council, but one of the major sticking points for Iran and what they are trying to prevent is a referral to the UNSC.... and they are giving China and Russia (to a lesser extent) HUGE incentives to keep that referral from happening....

lol - wasn't intending that you do so - was just mocking the UN (as is my wont)

and of course you're right that Iran is using financial leverage as a tool of diplomacy - all states do that when they can - its easier and cheaper than force (generally). And as you're also aware but it bears repeating... This case is just more objectionable because the end game of that diplomacy is Iran joining the nuke club... something few can disagree is bad.

[bfp]

You see... Amenedajad is doing this purely for economic reasons - void the fact that they're sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world.. void the fact that they're building huge mosques on one of the most well known roads in Iran, to get ready for the second Imam.

Chomsky said last week that the President of Iran would be crazy NOT to move forward with his nuclear buildup.

Okay?

[bfp]

Some intresting debate on Iran:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007986.php

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xian

...something few can disagree is bad.

You know, as much as I agree that it's "bad", I cannot help but look at the vision of Gene Rodenberry with great interest as to how he sees our species developing if this nuclear arms race finally hits its natural conclusion.

As we've discussed before, C, regards the palestinian situation - just let them kill each other until they're tired of killing each other and actually WANT to talk about it, rather than being forced to.

[bfp]

He meets with Hamas and Islamic Jihad yesterday, and then announces to the world that they're reducing oil production because we're "arrogant and dominant", while in the same breath calling for Europe to "open the doors of your [Europe] own countries to these [Jewish] immigrants so that they could travel to any part of Europe they chose?"

When does that Holocaust denial forum begin?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Krash

You know, as much as I agree that it's "bad", I cannot help but look at the vision of Gene Rodenberry with great interest as to how he sees our species developing if this nuclear arms race finally hits its natural conclusion.

As we've discussed before, C, regards the palestinian situation - just let them kill each other until they're tired of killing each other and actually WANT to talk about it, rather than being forced to.

Indeed. You point out one ofthe two ways to finally end a war between such differing cultures... either one side extermnates the other (not necessarily absolutely - but effectively rendering one side incapable of resisting the other) or the two so exhaust their will to fight that they can come to the table... this second option has often been looked at as simply a longer peaceful breathing period in an otherwise ongoing war but it can also lead to permanent peace. Its a horrible state withour regard to either notion.

I have heard arguments for doing nothing and permitting Iran to get nukes made by conservatives...go figure.

The argument suggests that if Pakistan and India can avoid blowing each other up Iran can manage as well. It suggested further that it could sabilize the region with Iran acting as a regional hegemon and curtailing terrorist activites to avoid a direct war and subsequent nuclear exchange with Israel etc. It suggested it would be a new cold war - with lots of people living in relatively more safety with relatively greater fear of a severely greater harm. The hope woudl then be that the cold war could de-escalate without an exchange. However, with some of the more aggressive comments made by prominent Iranian politicians it seems wiser to assume that if they get nukes they will use nukes.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xian

Indeed. You point out one ofthe two ways to finally end a war between such differing cultures... either one side extermnates the other (not necessarily absolutely - but effectively rendering one side incapable of resisting the other) or the two so exhaust their will to fight that they can come to the table... this second option has often been looked at as simply a longer peaceful breathing period in an otherwise ongoing war but it can also lead to permanent peace. Its a horrible state withour regard to either notion.

I have heard arguments for doing nothing and permitting Iran to get nukes made by conservatives...go figure.

The argument suggests that if Pakistan and India can avoid blowing each other up Iran can manage as well. It suggested further that it could sabilize the region with Iran acting as a regional hegemon and curtailing terrorist activites to avoid a direct war and subsequent nuclear exchange with Israel etc. It suggested it would be a new cold war - with lots of people living in relatively more safety with relatively greater fear of a severely greater harm. The hope woudl then be that the cold war could de-escalate without an exchange. However, with some of the more aggressive comments made by prominent Iranian politicians it seems wiser to assume that if they get nukes they will use nukes.

An interesting analysis, one that I would tend to agree with - in general. It does amuse me, however, that NATO vs the Bloc relied on (successfully?) MAD to keep the peace, yet we're not willing to allow the same fear to keep the peace anywhere else - and I don't think it's because we trusted the russians to keep the greater safeguards either, btw, because history has proved that trust to be a misplaced one.

All things being equal, all arguments are suddenly judged on their own merits - I tend to side with you though, C, I don't want to be in a position of equality with Iran, I prefer to have a controlling hand, I just don't think it is one that will lead to a long term solution.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Krash

An interesting analysis, one that I would tend to agree with - in general. It does amuse me, however, that NATO vs the Bloc relied on (successfully?) MAD to keep the peace, yet we're not willing to allow the same fear to keep the peace anywhere else - and I don't think it's because we trusted the russians to keep the greater safeguards either, btw, because history has proved that trust to be a misplaced one.

Whether we were right or wrong to trust the Soviets to be responsible... we did trust them to be reaponsible. Whether we are right or wrong to distrust the Iranians.... we distrust them. One can offer as distinguishing ev idence though the very "nuke Israel" comments from Iran whereas I'm not aware of people close to the button in the Soviet Union (or China) or the US (UK and France either) who were such advocates of using the bomb. I think that piece or evidence is sufficient to warrant to differing reaction to a very similar situation.

Originally Posted by Krash

All things being equal, all arguments are suddenly judged on their own merits - I tend to side with you though, C, I don't want to be in a position of equality with Iran, I prefer to have a controlling hand, I just don't think it is one that will lead to a long term solution.

Its easy to agree that one would prefer to trust one's one culture and leading states to be the hegemon holding the big club which guarantees the peace. However, I do think that the West has demonstrated a greater capacity for tolerance and judiciousness that would still make it the preferred club holder from an objective analysis.

As for a long term solution... History is full of interesting turning points where the long held military defenses are suddenly rendered largely useless by either new technology or new techniques. The Japanese ban on firearms was an interesting example. Gunpowder (cannon) used against fortified positions... and anti-personel artillary etc etc.

We're quite probably at a new point where the tremendous resources poured into our military in the US which has created a military which can destroy any other in relatively short order can be rendered pretty much neutered by a small number of well financed and resourced people with sufficient drive to do something like 9/11. It is no large reach to think that they could do that with a dirty bomb or nuke (or Chem/bio - substitute your own favorite poison here). New tools available to new people willing to use them without the restraint previously demonstrated by the older regimes can be a very big problem.... the good news is that the threat from Islomofacism is of relatively less significance then that formerly posed by the USSR or in the future (probably) China - however the bad news is that the likelihood that the lesser harm will occur (evidenced by 9/11, Khobar, Munich, USS Cole, Marine barracks in Beirut, Lockerbee, Achille Lauro etc etc) is greater....