... [Hidden] Dragon (informally.)

Without respect to a single statistic, it is important to have the idea, if you are an informed person, that the development and proliferation of massively destructive arms is dangerous.  Dangerous not only as far as the intended use of the weaponry and its proliferation (again,) but to the makers of such arms and the danger of retaliation.  It is clear, in the nuclear arms developments in countries like Iran, the purpose of such things is primarily twofold:  a.  Such things serve to signify and determine the arrival and importance of nation - states like Iran on the international stage, and b.  As a retaliatory threat against any attack on any area of Iranian influence in the Middle East.

No one has doubted for a long time that Iran is an important country and that even in the time of its recent revolution, as a country, it influenced politics and ideas in many areas, especially Islamic ideas, that have provoked major and salient debates and discussions for a long time, both among national leaders and men in the street.  That Iran wishes, and this apparently, to assert its nuclear power and by that nuclear threat(s,) not only in the Middle East, but in prepondering fashion, as a bargaining chip to invite and extract tribute from other nations in its immediate vicinity and beyond does indeed lack some sense in what it might otherwise do to make friends and influence people.  Many people, and this due to what came out in the debates among the so - called great powers in the 1980's, do understand the visceral fear Eastern culture has about western ideas and society approaching and then invading its regions, among other things.  The argument of Iran in its tacit avoidance of speaking about this gives cause for suspicion about its motives in developing a massively destructive arms complex.  The same is true of other states who are developing nuclear weapons as well.

The visceral fear about societal and cultural influences invading and corrupting Islamic culture are indicative of pre - nuclear age nationalism as applied to the modern world and its present and potential security risks without respect to not only what is (the international status quo, to use old language,) but what might be.  A reasonable person, when examining things like the financial expense and energy, and other outputs necessary to the inputs of a nuclear arms complex, and the proportions of effort in a country such as Iran as used to develop such a complex and its capabilities resulting from deployment of such arms, probably will not agree that this state should have them.  This level of analysis comes from a strict examination of the scope of developing and deploying such arms, maintaining them and so forth; and this against NPT and other rules that are widely accepted by the great powers.  In fact, the strident call for such nuclear attributes in that country appear to be out - of - balance with any analysis of the allocation of its national assets, investments, income and / or capital.

Why is this so apparent?  While people like me do not read nor watch Arabic or Farci broadcasts, nor do we read publications in these languages, the thing is there is a common and known premise upon which Iran carries out its policies as evidenced by news reports, mostly trusted in free countries, that country is doing the bidding of others who are fed up with western ideas about society and specifically about government (bicameral legislature, separation of powers, rule of law (constitutional, civil, and others,) equality and rights, freedom of travel and expression, and the list goes on,) and the approach of the great powers to a little country called Israel.  This begs the question "How can an Islamist have any regard for Israel with its reform - minded and cosmopolitan people and ideas?"  This question, and its variants and derivatives is an old, nationalist - type question that invites direct slurs and epithets on the part of people who are not prejudiced among their own, but they are thereby highly nationalist and belligerent, and the smaller the better the country with fewer people, the easier the target for this mindset - and this has been true on the part of Middle East neighbors for years.  The implications of this question by association to Israel can be scaled upward to apply to more populous and important places, even entire regions whose applecarts are for the upset by Iranian nuclear, and other political ambitions.  With respect to this, and with respect to Iranian influences and politics now in evidence everywhere, the post - nationalist question might be proposed as "What can we do [together] to make a new approach to nuclear proliferation in view of these nationalist ideas?"

That this could be accomplished, just proposing a new approach to nuclear arms in the Middle East and elsewhere with some acknowledgement of the belligerence that goes along with some forms of nationalism, might itself be a way to invite a response to end the currents of what people like me know to be overt racism in the area as a tabled or distinctly different avenue of discussion apart from the current linkage racism and nationalism have there.  This, combined with a discussion about the visceral fears of being struck from outside, would serve to de - escalate at least some of the tensions that caused, for example, the 2006 war, continuing problems in Lebanon, and the useless formation of paramilitary brigades and other activities counter to peace in the area.

THS

Another, belated review of "America and the World," by ...

…  Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft:

This political book, written with David Ignatius examines current affairs and gives a new detailed synopsis of the role of the U.S. in the world, primarily from the time of the Marshall Plan through the Cold War and related nuclear threats, up to the fall of the former soviet union and then through 9 / 11 and beyond.  The text presents the idea that modern life, especially that in western society is in a new form of complexity not even seen since the fully bureaucratic days of Byzantium, for example.  The book begins with its proposals about historical events and their significance to us at this point (now 2008,) and then moves on to examine various questions, such as the Israelis and Palestinians and their state of affairs vis – a – vis the prosecution of the Iraq war.  With respect to Israel, there are great influences calling for a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, even at great sacrifice to the Jews, and this is in part what here is interpreted more and more as a ‘status quo’ to begin resolving this and other Middle East issues.  In fact, to abandon the ideals of an Israeli homeland at this point in time would be to equally abandon important U.S. state policies and roles in associations like the G – 20, N.A.T.O., our positions on nuclear non – proliferation and Eastern Europe, in favour of the polity of states like Iran who essentially exploit anti – Israeli groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.  Some of the text is dedicated to illustrating the last part of the Bush Administration and efforts to resolve the conflicts of Hamas, Beirut, and the role of Syria against the Jews, though this effort was shown as, and in fact was not overridingly successful.

The Taliban are perceived in the theme of this examination of historical events through Brzezinski and Scowcroft as a significant threat to U.S. national security, and as the memorable opponents of the soviets in Afghanistan as well.  One is also reminded the Pakistanis and the Taliban were trained by western military people, again against the soviets and the situation as it is today with the Taliban is extremely rancorous with respect to western governments.  

With respect to economics, though mostly politics in the Far East, the authors illustrate principally the rising power, economic and political, financial and so on, of the P.R.C. in terms of the enlightened self – interest not only of its Asian neighbors, but of western officialdom as well.  The rivalry between the P.R.C. and its Asian contemporaries with the west is nonetheless portrayed as ruthless in economic terms.  The issues of Tibet and T’ai wan, and South Korea are easily interpreted as very tense situations with P.R.C., a communist – party based government still dealing with the legacy of T’ian An Men and Deng Xiao Ping; and the recognitions of the legitimacy of smaller Asian associations such as A.S.E.A.N.  Special mention is made of North Korea and the need for its own adherence to nuclear anti – proliferation rules and other regional security issues including the naval incidents of late.  

Special mention is also made in large part of Russia and its current leadership after the very significant Gorbachev and Yeltsin years:  Apart from the conundrum surrounding the mutual political and administrative status of Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, there seem to be four major issues with Russia, and all are unsolvable:  Nuclear non – proliferation, N.A.T.O. and the former soviet and COMECON (and Warsaw Pact) states, the vagaries of the petrol business, and relations with P.R.C.  With respect to Eastern Europe, still, Western Europe is illustrated as at times a fitful ally and then again as a close political and administrative partner that is attempting on the state level to rise above issues of nationalism in its institutions.  It is here where the authors bring in their partitioned time – lines on American politics and the world, dating back to the age of John Quincy Adams, then forward to the Wilson presidency, and then post – 9 / 11 events.  Brzezinski notes at this point the older European community was much more cohesive on a regional level given the two devastating world wars and the Cold War during the 20^th century, and needs at present better political coordination.  With respect to World Wars I and II, N.A.T.O. is still an issue unto itself that affects the sovereignty of most Europeans, regardless of nationality or where they reside in the region.

To begin the conclusion of the text, the authors enter into a discussion about the importance of human dignity and human rights, and its influence on their ideas about doctrinaire enlightened or “guileful” realism in affairs.  There is also some discussion of a new world order in which cultural identities have primacy, hearkening to the world of 20^th century Wilsonian political ideas.  The new administration in Washington, D.C., while it promised a number of important things, especially about changes in government, is seen currently as bogged down in its own efforts, and with respect to foreign policy there has been progress and reform in the integration of departments and agencies as far as communications and functioning are concerned.