Ahmadinejad calls for regional alliance to counter US

[Bernkastel]

From the Guardian.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for a security alliance of several former Soviet nations and China to form a united front against the west.

Ahmadinejad's address to heads of state at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), in Kazakhstan could deepen suspicions that the bloc is intended as a counterbalance to US influence across the region. In a summit declaration signed by all the member states, the organisation also attacked missile defence programmes.

"The one-sided and unlimited development of missile defence systems by one government, or a narrow group of governments, could cause damage to strategic stability and international security," the document says.

Much of Ahmadinejad's speech was devoted to an exhaustive series of thinly veiled accusations against unnamed western countries, which he described as "enslavers, colonialists [and] invaders". Opening his address, he said: "Which one of our countries [has played a role] in the black era of slavery, or in the destruction of hundreds of millions of human beings?"

The SCO was formed in Shanghai in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, to address religious extremism and border security in central Asia. In recent years it has attracted interest in full membership from Iran, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its scope has since broadened to economic issues.

Iran's entry into the SCO has been resisted by the existing members, who worry that its membership would lend the group a more explicitly anti-American quality, a concern that Ahmadinejad was seemingly unwilling to allay. Russia has been an active opponent of US-backed plans to create a missile shield in Europe and might have been behind harsh comments against the proposal in the summit declaration. Moscow sees the US missile defence plans as a potential threat to security. It has agreed to consider Nato's proposal to cooperate on the missile shield but insists the system is run jointly.

Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, who is also participating in the summit, the SCO's 10th, renewed calls for the US to respect his country's sovereignty. In recent months the president has become increasingly strident in his criticism of Nato air strikes affecting Afghan civilians, describing the western-led alliance as being at risk of becoming an "occupying force".

[Sea Skimmer]

Some of the stan’s might go for that since they rely on Iran for access to the ocean, but they offer basically nothing in military terms compared to Iranian forces and have about zero political clout outside of the arena of the NATO supply line to Afghanistan which is not going to be an issue past about 2015. Natural gas exports would give them a little pull I guess. Russia and China aren't going to tie themselves to Iran, it would gain them nothing and create all kinds of possible problems, all the more so once Iran has the bomb.

[K. A. Pital]

More likely that Iran will become a Chinese satellite, falling firmly in its sphere of influence with the SCO. This is blustering for internal consumption.

[Sea Skimmer]

I highly doubt they will become a Chinese satellite, or at least not to a larger degree then 1970s France was a satellite of the United States. That is to say, mutually opposed to a common enemy, America, but not really willing to cooperate on anything more then that. Iran is internalizing its weapons supplies, which takes a big power card out of play, building nuclear weapons ect… this doesn’t favor satellite status. Meanwhile for China its own internal problems are priority number one, and allying with a potentially unstable, and more democratic, muslim power like Iran doesn’t gain them anything in that respect.

Also while China needs Iranian oil, it also needs just as much oil from many deeply rooted Arab speaking enemies of Iran.

[K. A. Pital]

I highly doubt they will become a Chinese satellite, or at least not to a larger degree then 1970s France was a satellite of the United States. That is to say, mutually opposed to a common enemy, America, but not really willing to cooperate on anything more then that. Iran is internalizing its weapons supplies, which takes a big power card out of play, building nuclear weapons ect… this doesn’t favor satellite status. Meanwhile for China its own internal problems are priority number one, and allying with a potentially unstable, and more democratic, muslim power like Iran doesn’t gain them anything in that respect.

Also while China needs Iranian oil, it also needs just as much oil from many deeply rooted Arab speaking enemies of Iran.

Good for Iran then. With nukes, they'll become truly independent.

[General Mung Beans]

I highly doubt they will become a Chinese satellite, or at least not to a larger degree then 1970s France was a satellite of the United States. That is to say, mutually opposed to a common enemy, America, but not really willing to cooperate on anything more then that. Iran is internalizing its weapons supplies, which takes a big power card out of play, building nuclear weapons ect… this doesn’t favor satellite status. Meanwhile for China its own internal problems are priority number one, and allying with a potentially unstable, and more democratic, muslim power like Iran doesn’t gain them anything in that respect.

Also while China needs Iranian oil, it also needs just as much oil from many deeply rooted Arab speaking enemies of Iran.

Good for Iran then. With nukes, they'll become truly independent.

Eh? I'm not sure what you're saying here-that countries need nukes to be truly independent? And is Iran really more democratic than the PRC? Yes, yes Iran has "elections" but on the other hand China doesn't institute stoning for adulterers and blasphemers and whatnot.

[K. A. Pital]

Eh? I'm not sure what you're saying here-that countries need nukes to be truly independent?

Yes. Otherwise their sovereignity can get shat upon, like Egypt's in 1956, Iraq's in 2003, um... actually, if I'd be listing all infringements on sovereignity which would be unlikely in case the victim had nuclear weapons, that post would be as big as a whole page.

And is Iran really more democratic than the PRC? Yes, yes Iran has "elections" but on the other hand China doesn't institute stoning for adulterers and blasphemers and whatnot.

To a great and sad surprise, yes, greater democratic rights for the populace do not always result in a more civilized society. It doesn't change the fact that (as Skimmer correctly noted) Iran is more democratic than the PRC - the latter is a bureaucratic autocracy. Moderately well-run, but so were and are many other autocracies in history and now.

Democracy can legalize anything - racist killings, torture, slavery, forced sterilization, religious executions and honour killings if the cultural level of the populace considers these things acceptable. The nation will remain democratic, but democracy != modernity.

[Shroom Man 777]

Uh, Pakistan had nuclear weapons.

Also, in the 1930s Germany was also more democratic than the PRC. We saw what happened years later.

[K. A. Pital]

Uh, Pakistan had nuclear weapons.

Well, that's a bit different here now. The US sorta gave Pakistan a slap on the butt. Was that a violation? Sure. Iraq was more like rape. So if the US wanted to rape Pakistan and violate it all the way up to Islamabad, nuclear weapons would help. They can't help against assassinations of individuals, alas.

[Sea Skimmer]

Pakistan has nukes, but Pakistan does not control all of territory in the first place, and in large part because of its own choices not to aggressively fight the massive insurgency in the north west of the country. So since Pakistan cedes away sovereignty in the first place it’s no surprise that other people don’t give a shit about its sovereignty either. And then Pakistan has a whole range of other deep seated problems on top of that which is why they are no.1 on the list of places likely to cause a nuclear war.

[evilsoup]

...and yet, could you see the US invading Pakistan, as it did Iraq? Do you see people seriously discussing invading Pakistan, as they do with Iran? Nukes are the only way to gain complete sovereignty (well, you can do that with fucktonnes of conventional weaponry, like N. Korea or Israel). Which is why I fully support Iran in gaining them.

[Simon_Jester]

Iran getting nuclear weapons would not make me happier, and I would worry about what they would do with them a lot, and especially worry about the proliferation consequences for other countries in the region. One of the reasons we haven't seen nuclear wars since WWII is that proliferation has been kept down to the point where there are relatively few potential nuclear conflicts that could break out, so that the probability of any of them flaring up due to random accident or stupidity is low. And nuclear war is one of the few things that has the potential to kill as many people as the kind of catastrophic misrule and abuse associated with the more grievous atrocities of imperialism, so the prospect of it becoming more likely does not make me happy.

But that said, they are an independent country and it's not my job to decide what form of government they have, any more than it's their job to decide what form of government my country has, and I certainly understand why they're in a strategic bind that would make anyone want a nuclear arsenal. I don't think it's worth fighting a war to prevent them from getting one, either, because the war would kill a significant fraction of the people who might possibly be killed by a nuclear war involving Iran in the first place.

[evilsoup]

Hrm (half-serious)... I think that, had the USSR not developed nuclear weapons in the late-40s, we would have ended up with a major land war in Eurasia some time in the twentieth century. So proliferation is not always a terrible thing.

Of the countries in the middle east, Iran is the one that I am most comfortable (well ... least-uncomfortable) with having nukes: fairly stable government, some trappings of democracy (it could plausibly be reformed into a democracy, probably with the clerics represented in a House of Lords analogue), and it doesn't hold a particular grudge against Israel; it is unlikely to start a war over the Palestinians, BUT could provide a counter-balance.

[Block]

Hrm (half-serious)... I think that, had the USSR not developed nuclear weapons in the late-40s, we would have ended up with a major land war in Eurasia some time in the twentieth century. So proliferation is not always a terrible thing.

Of the countries in the middle east, Iran is the one that I am most comfortable (well ... least-uncomfortable) with having nukes: fairly stable government, some trappings of democracy (it could plausibly be reformed into a democracy, probably with the clerics represented in a House of Lords analogue), and it doesn't hold a particular grudge against Israel; it is unlikely to start a war over the Palestinians, BUT could provide a counter-balance.

I'm sorry, what? Seriously? They don't hold a particular grudge against Israel?

[Simon_Jester]

There's a grudge, but it isn't personal. Ahmadinejad rants about Israel, and they slip a little money to people fightin Israel, but they haven't lost any territory to Israel; there is no strong strategic benefit to Iran of having Israel cease to exist.

Whereas Egypt or Syria would profit from Israel ceasing to exist, with expanded territory and a more secure military position.

[General Mung Beans]

Eh? I'm not sure what you're saying here-that countries need nukes to be truly independent?

Yes. Otherwise their sovereignity can get shat upon, like Egypt's in 1956, Iraq's in 2003, um... actually, if I'd be listing all infringements on sovereignity which would be unlikely in case the victim had nuclear weapons, that post would be as big as a whole page.

Well technically that is true, there have been no wars between two nuclear powers outside the level of border incidents (such as between India vs. Pakistan) but on the other hand this means that the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty gets killed...

[Duckie]

The india-pakistan incidents sometimes went far above border incident. Some of them were just short wars.

[K. A. Pital]

The india-pakistan incidents sometimes went far above border incident. Some of them were just short wars.

Indeed. And none of them escalated into nuclear war - despite Pakistan not being the stablest of countries and despite having a big grudge with India.

In any case, Iran is not the worst nation in the Middle East.

[evilsoup]

Hrm (half-serious)... I think that, had the USSR not developed nuclear weapons in the late-40s, we would have ended up with a major land war in Eurasia some time in the twentieth century. So proliferation is not always a terrible thing.

Of the countries in the middle east, Iran is the one that I am most comfortable (well ... least-uncomfortable) with having nukes: fairly stable government, some trappings of democracy (it could plausibly be reformed into a democracy, probably with the clerics represented in a House of Lords analogue), and it doesn't hold a particular grudge against Israel; it is unlikely to start a war over the Palestinians, BUT could provide a counter-balance.

I'm sorry, what? Seriously? They don't hold a particular grudge against Israel?

The thing you have to remember about Iran is that they are not (majority) Arabs. There is no sense of solidarity with the Palestinians, beyond 'the enemy of my enemy' (and by 'enemy', I mean the US&allies). Also what Simon_Jester said, they haven't lost anything to Israel.