More Promises for Tourism - Iran.

Media Photo

In looking at a recent map in the popular press about Iran, the image showed six nuclear installations in various parts of that territory, the operations of which are at stake in the latest multi - nation talks involving mostly the U.S., European participants in the talks, and Iran, the home country allegedly now in violation of non - proliferation rules about nuclear energy and how it has used this mode as a medium for aggression, or for some other again allegedly belligerent purpose in the Middle East.  It is possible, and while the Iranians are really smart about this, there are many more nuclear installations in Iran at this time than meet the public eye about the current NPT and related talks.  I do not know if Iran is a signatory of the international nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty, but assume this country is not insofar as the terms of its pledging to such an agreement would have long since done away with the activity Iran appears to engage in with respect to processing plutonium and other belligerent and offensive technical gestures in the areas of things like rocketry, Rouhani's sophisticated wrangling administratively about such things, and other, lesser moral infractions that are hurtful and angering to those countries with a defensive attitude and policies on such things and an ideological umbrella to dispel any effort at legitimizing political jostling with respect to nuclear power and its offensive capabilities that are a simple extension from the technologies, materials, processes and other factors that make for a successful and peaceful nuclear strategy.

It is not absolutely clear in my own view as the literature with respect to the NPT is varying in its approach to this issue, while quite vast, and one is obviously not at liberty to read all of it; probably a task for a very large team of people, even in places like Iran.  There is, however, one powerful overriding them that materializes on a high level when a people even begins to desire nuclear power and then nuclear weapons, even if they are so - called defensive weaponry along former - soviet style terms:  When nuclear weapons are on a country's political and scientific agenda, mutual assurance, a common - sense and practical view with respect to either wide - area or massively destructive weaponry, when forgotten as it apparently has been de - emphasized in the approach to Iran due to issues involving places like Israel, for example, and other Mediterranean countries like Turkey that could popularly be sympathetic to Iran, can become an overriding factor in replying to the offenses of those who have nuclear power, but who are non - signatories and who are non - compliant with NPT

Media Image

provisions or even with fundamental nonnuclear provisions such as the 1960's ABM treaty (in spirit and by the letter of the law.)  It shows from the talks involving U.S. State Secretary Kerry that mutual assurance is a reality, but so far is largely not addressed in meetings with Iran, and needs be addressed in scheduled meetings when parties arrange for this again, presumably now in December 2013.  With respect to Iran and the dancing of politics around mutual assurance, it will be captivating and at least interesting to see how and in what way that country certifies its nuclear inventory, potentialities, policies for offensive or defensive weapons already in place or in development, ... .  The issue that remains a danger is anti - U.S. sentiment even among the great powers now, not just the nuclear powers and proliferators, and the antipathy is only palpable - so sophisticated and technical as not to be overt.  This as well during any future talks with Iran on the nuclear subject matter, needs to be addressed and remedied and the type of cowing that Iran is subjecting its peaceful neighbors to at this point, including Saudi Arabia and others, needs be looked at as well.  It is possible that Iranian nuclear policy right now is just as dangerous for Iranians as it might be for anyone targeted by its arms outside that country.  The news in December about such matters, if publicized, might make Iran a peaceful country again and Iranians and Americans abroad can get along again.

BBC Story.

... [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