For decades, Iran has been a subject of multilateral international sanctions which have failed to produce cumulative effects on influencing Iran’s policy on its nuclear program. The “toughest sanctions to date,” as quoted by President Obama, will come into full effect on 28th June 2012. Once again, sanctions fall under the umbrella of attempting to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear proliferation program.

According to an International Atomic Agency Report 2011, Iran is aiming towards obtaining nuclear weapons and the punitive methods used by the U.S. government will not just subvert the central bank of Iran but will also have an effect on its energy and transport sector. Pressure has also been exerted on other governments to join in with the implementation of a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran.

Ranking fifth in the world in its oil reserves and second in gas reserves, Iran is clearly an important energy resource base and a major supplier of oil and natural gas to countries like India, China and Japan. In January 2012, the European Union froze assets of Iran’s central bank within its zone and will be extending oil shipment ban later in July. The severity of these sanctions has made it impossible for companies, banks and governments to do any business dealings with Iran.

The debate about whether or not Iran has a right to nuclear energy is as old as Queen Elizabeth’s ascent to the throne. For Iran, acquisition of nuclear energy has become a matter of national pride and in response to this fourth round of multilateral sanctions taken by the UN in 2010, Iran has responded by stating its right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Iran is a study of complexity and intrigue. It is difficult to understand a society that tethers between the modernism of Shah’s time and adherence to the early years of Islam. Iran’s image in the global world is tarnished, and according to a BBC poll in 2012, Iran tops their list as the country that offers “the most negative influence in the world.”

With the collapse of Saddam’s Baathist regime and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, an altered and delicate balance of power exists in Southwest Asia. Iran’s strategic importance has made itself a point of convergence of the interests of major players, particularly the US. One only needs to look at the map of the Middle East to know the strategic importance of Iran to the US.

In last 10 years, the strong and divisive fissure in U.S. foreign policy to coerce Tehran into adapting a new stance on the war on terrorism has also failed. Sanctions imposed by the Bush administration in 2006 barred Iran from dealing with US financial institutions, even indirectly. As a result, continuous rounds of sanctions have severed diplomatic ties between the two countries. The restart of the Iranian nuclear program and the US retaliation in terms of sanctions, further induces strong images of adversaries that are monolithically aggressive, diabolical, and untrustworthy. For adversaries who hold equally negative images of the other, the ability for each side to misperceive the enemy’s intent has become more pervasive. This means that it is highly possible that the mutual fear between the US and Iran may result in war.

In the present, the impending talks of attacks on Iran are chiefly driven by concern over the safety of US energy supplies, which is similar to the 2003 Iraq war. However, it is certain that the US will never mention oil as a reason for attacking Iran and furthermore, weapons of mass destruction will be cited as the principal justification for war. It is a concern that waging a war against Iran will worsen the cycle of war and violence in the Middle East since that has been continuing since time immemorial.

There is a pursuing debate among international community about the efficacy of these sanctions. With the impending global recession, and ongoing crisis in the Middle East and North African regions (MENA), boycotting Iranian oil will have an adverse effect on world supplies, especially for developing countries. Even though Iranian oil exports are down by 25%, the government has refused to compromise its stance on its nuclear program.

We shouldn’t forget that Iranian anger over centuries of foreign meddling in their sovereign affairs hasn’t yet disseminated. Iranians have yet to learn to forgive the US and its allies over the ousting of Mossadegh in 1953. If the international media can manipulate and present Iran as something out of the stone ages, then Iranian media has also been ambivalent in showing America and its allies as their version of the axis of evil.

Also, the Shiite faction across the world is fiercely loyal to Iran and has taken its impalpable oath of allegiance to the Ayatollah of Iran. Ali Khamenei’s term is coming to an end, but to think that the new government will be easy to manipulate like the puppet governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan could merely be more wishful thinking. Already, the sanctions have fueled bitter resentment against countries participating in them. Perhaps it’s a time for Euro-Anglo-American bodies to renew their policies and ascertain a modus vivendi that will build ties and, more importantly, will guarantee the stability of the Gulf region.

Economic sanctions throughout history have had corrosive effects on the population of a sanctioned country. Though the government of Iran is confident in its ability to ‘weather’ such sanctions, this is the biggest challenge the country will face since the end of the bloody Iran-Iraq war. With the evolving recession crisis worldwide, it will be interesting to see how Iran will overcome these further imposed sanctions.

Image Courtesy of  [john]

The article Isolated Iran vs. the Rest of the World appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

As the United States has removed itself from one extended military conflict in the Middle East – in Iraq – another one possibly looms on the horizon, brought on by Iran’s suspected nuclear program and, among other things, Israel’s desire to abolish it. The U.S. has a tricky and nuanced road to navigate, made only more complicated by Israel’s role, the rising price of oil, and the presidential election in November. When Americans were asked about various items related to the potential conflict with Iran, the responses reflect the complicated nature of the issue.  Seven in ten Americans agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States (72%), yet what action the United States should take in response is less clear.

Over half of U.S. adults say that if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program that the U.S. should support Israel (56%), yet fewer than half of Americans say Israel should take action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (45%) and fewer believe that the U.S. should take this action themselves.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,451 adults surveyed online between March 12 and 19, 2012 by Harris Interactive .

While a majority of all U.S. adults agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States this belief is stronger among older generations; 77%-79% of Baby Boomers (ages 48-66) and Matures (ages 67+) agree, compared to 63%-71% of Echo Boomers (ages 18-35) and Gen X (ages 36-47) who do.  The older generations are in similar agreement about the U.S. supporting Israel if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program: over three in five Baby Boomers (63%) and Matures (68%) say the U.S. should support Israel, yet just 55% of Gen X and 45% of Echo Boomers respectively say the same.  There is a less strong opinion on whether Israel should take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Approximately half (47%-51%) of Gen X, Baby Boomers and Matures say Israel should, although just 38% of Echo Boomers agree.  If Americans are uncertain about how Israel should act, they are even more uncertain about what the U.S. should do:

• Overall 45% of U.S. adults agree that the United States should NOT take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, 39% disagree and 16% are not at all sure;
• Matures (aged 67+) are most likely to say that the U.S. should not take action against Iran and Gen X is least likely to say this (40%).

Political Differences
Military engagements and involvement with Israel are usually politically charged issues, but that sense is even more escalated in an election year. Republicans, Democrats and Independents show a different mind when considering Iran’s nuclear situation:

• While a majority of all political parties say that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States and that if Israel takes action against Iran the U.S. should support Israel, Republicans are the most likely to say these things (83% say Iran poses a threat and 70% want the U.S. to support Israel). Democrats and Independents agree that Iran poses a threat (70% and 73% say so respectively), yet these groups are less strongly in favor of supporting Israel taking action (51%-57% agree the U.S. should do so);
• When asked directly if Israel should take military action against Iran’s nuclear program Republicans agree they should (59%), yet significantly fewer Democrats and Independents say the same (40% and 45%);
• On the other hand, a majority of Democrats say that the U.S. should not take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (52%), yet fewer than half of Independents (46%) and Republicans (37%) agree.

Taking a more philosophical look, interestingly a majority of Americans — in all political parties — disagree that Iran has the right to continue working on its nuclear program (65%-71% of Republicans, Democrats and Independents say this).

So What?
Although most reports indicate that neither Israel nor the U.S. is likely to take immediate military action against Iran – the results of which could be enormous and costly — the continued discussion and analysis on what each country should do might have consequences of its own, particularly if Iran sees the ongoing discussion as provocation unto itself.  It will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the discussions and decisions moving forward — it seems unlikely that he would want to enter into a new military engagement, yet the potential threat from Iran is felt by Americans, the pro-Israel lobby is strong, and the U.S. demand for oil continues to be pervasive.

Methodology
This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between March 12 and 19, 2012 among 2,451 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

The Harris Poll  #39, April 10, 2012
By Samantha Braverman, Sr. Project Researcher, Harris Interactive

Image Courtesey of  Steve Rhodes

The article What Do Americans Think About Iran’s Nuclear Threat? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

AJC expressed grave concern about India’s relations with Iran. In a letter to the Indian ambassador to the United States, AJC stressed that any effort by India to intensify its commercial activity with Iran could undermine the U.S. and EU sanctions that aim to stop Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

“We are alarmed and dismayed by this apparent move to elevate commercial interests over vital security concerns,” wrote AJC President Robert Elman and Executive Director David Harris in a letter to Ambassador Nirupama Rao.

The full text of the letter to Ambassador Rao follows:

Her Excellency Nirupama Rao
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Embassy of India
2107 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

Dear Ambassador Rao:

As you are aware, AJC has been a long-time friend of India and an advocate of increasingly close cooperation between Washington and New Delhi.

In that spirit, we were deeply troubled by recent news reports of Indian efforts to intensify trade relations with Iran at the very moment that Washington and fellow democracies are applying new economic pressures in the banking and energy sectors to persuade Tehran to halt its pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability.

We were particularly struck by the announcement this week, by Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar, that “a huge delegation” of Indian business representatives would soon travel to Iran to capitalize on opportunities created by European withdrawal from the Iranian market.

This suggests that New Delhi is attempting to take advantage of sanctions adopted by like-minded nations for the explicit purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation by a dangerously aggressive regime — and which could, in turn, trigger an escalating arms race — in a highly volatile region.

In light of India’s history of support for International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iranian transgressions, and repeated expressions of Indian Government concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, we are alarmed and dismayed by this apparent move to elevate commercial interests over vital security concerns.

India has asserted that it will only abide by UN Security Council restrictions on trade with Iran, but not go beyond. Yet, as in the recent case of Syria, further measures are today impossible because of a threatened veto by one or two permanent members. We fear that India risks not only the erosion of the latest steps laudably adopted in Washington, Brussels and elsewhere, but also its standing as an admired partner in safeguarding regional and global security.

We thank you for conveying AJC’s concerns on this urgent matter to your Government, and look forward to the prospect of discussing it with you at your earliest convenience.

With the assurance of our profound esteem and best wishes, we remain,

Respectfully,
Robert Elman, President
David Harris, Executive Director

The article AJC Dismayed by India’s Expanding Ties to Iran appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to the latest media reports, the threat of a possible Israeli attack on Iran seems to be impending. Moreover, Israeli leaders have publicly stated that a military action against Iran is being considered as a preventive form of defense in case Iran fails to halt its nuclear program.

Columnist David Ignatius in his opinion column on Washington Post, wrote that Leon Panetta, the U.S. Defense Secretary, thinks there is the possibility of an imminent attack by the Jewish State against the Islamic Republic, nevertheless not specifying what has led him to this conclusion.

To quote Ignatius, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.”

At this point, the burning questions are many; Will Israel really attack Iran? What would be Iran’s reaction? What will the Western countries do in case of a real attack – especially the United States? Will the attack cause a chain reaction? Are Iran’s allies and “friends” ready to intervene and take part in a possible conflict? Will this be the triggering event for a third World War? Might it be an atomic war – meaning an actual catastrophe for humanity?

It may sound like a far-fetched theoretical scenario, one that we might experience in the comfort of a cinema armchair or sofa, as the heroes and heroines fight off catastrophe on screen, but in the current state of the world, it could become a reality.

If we look back on history, it almost seems that the creation of the state of Israel did nothing more than cause constant instability and insecurity in the Middle East, involving even far-away countries in the West in its never-ending dispute. The majority of world nations have diplomatic relations with the Jewish State, and for some countries like the United States, this relation is exceptionally strong.

On the other hand, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, relations between Iran and Israel have turned hostile and Iran has instead developed good relations with Israel’s opponents and with so-called “rogue states” and their allies. Therefore, it is not surprising that the possibility of a conflict between Israel and Iran might lead to a world disaster.

The question of Iran’s nuclear program, linked to the possibility of a working Iranian nuclear bomb factory, has arisen again recently and it is considered the “safety factor” that would legitimize an Israeli attack and, potentially, the intervention of the United States and other Western countries on behalf of Israel’s cause. It would be presented as a question of world security, as a threat against the entire humanity which must be be stopped, a danger for the world’s populations – especially those of Israel and Western countries – to be dealt with.

After all, it would not be the first time we hear a rhetoric like this. Other wars of this century were waged with the same or similar purposes, other conflicts were created to follow the logic of the “war on terror” which the U.S. and UK were particularly adamant about. Iraq is the perfect example of this, having been invaded in the ‘belief’ that Saddam had WMD’s which he did not have. Now, with Iran, all I can think is “here we go again.”

There is no certainty of a factory for nuclear bomb, as there is no proof of an Iranian plan to attack Israel or the U.S. at an unspecified time in the future. As far as I remember, the only country that used the atomic bomb against another country’s population in the history of man were the United States – also known as “the democracy exporters” –, and Israel, even if it is widely believed that they have nuclear weapons as well, has never been attacked or invaded for disarmament, and is not considered as a potential threat (by Western countries).

What is difficult to understand is why the world should continue to tolerate the never-ending aggressive attitude of Israel and furthermore, why the state of Israel should believe they have the right to attack Iran on the assumption that “[t]he Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map” – as the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told to Ronen Bergman.

Iran is not a democratic and liberal country, that is absolutely true, and surely there is a possibility that it has or plans to gain nuclear weapons but is this not the case of other countries in the world too? Should Israel attack all those countries too, at will? Should other countries attack Israel for the same reasons?

The U.S. and Israel, together with the UK and other Western countries, have so far been the only powers who saw fit for themselves to decide other countries’ future and dominate the Middle East. Nevertheless, the world’s power balance is changing, the financial crisis is getting stronger, and in a potential global war scenario the world society could split up into two new opposing deployments with new big powers rising to prominence with a potential U.S. at one end and a likely China at the other. Has the time come for a new world war?

The article Israel vs Iran, the Possible Scenario appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

It is natural for certain nations to display its military might or capacity to retaliate when facing, or believing itself to be facing, opponents. So is the relations between Iran and the US; no formal diplomatic relations exists between the two governments but continuous animosity towards the opposing power’s military advancement has fraught the informal relation.

Recently, there has been a war of words and perilous threats between these countries amid increasing threat launched by international community to wage an economic war against Iran. Iranian officials warned that in the wake of further sanctions, it will close down the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but strategic waterway near Iran.

Iran threw more fuel on the fire when it successfully test-fired a long range missile during a naval exercise on December 24. The very public 10-day naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz was named “Velayat90”. There has been intensified ambiguity over Iran’s intentions of developing nuclear technology in the past several years, and when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently presented a report, it strengthened the case against Iran regarding those intentions.

For a long time, this subject has been a matter of disengagement between Iran, IAEA and the international community at large and damaged the composure and compassion among the parties involved.

Economic Warfare

Economic sanctions should be considered a new type of ammunition today; at the outset of broken diplomacy and strained relations, it has been increasingly significant to rely on a blow to trade and financial markets to cause economic devastation in the enemy country.

In this case, diplomatic relations between US and Iran has been suspended for the last 3 decades but during the recent Bush administration, US exports took a hike from $8.3M in 2001 to $683.2M by 2008. US Census Bureau showed that this figure fell by 50% after President Barack Obama came to office.

Meanwhile, the United Nations ratified at least four rounds of sanctions during the period of four years from 2006 to 2010 in reaction to Iran’s failure to stop uranium enrichment and cooperate with IAEA. And the EU has put in place restrictions on trade and assets and imposed a ban on export to Iran of key technology equipment.

On the surface, it looks feasible to say that sanctions will have a ravaging impact similar to that of military action, since economic war will slowly ruin the internal markets of the country and its ability to compete internationally.

However, Iran seems to persist in keeping up appearance, recently wrapping up ten days of naval drill near the Strait, which showed off helicopters, missile-launching frigates, hovercraft and submarines. The drill was in a 2000 KM stretch of water beyond the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of Persian Gulf and as well as in some parts of Indian Ocean.

The article Iran Displays Military Might Despite Sanctions appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.