The University of Calgary Gauntlet®
  2009-10-01
(NOTE: Archived content:
Current issue here)

[image]
Previous Issues

News
Spiritual star rocks the Saddledome
Arctic Institute features bear-escaping journalist
University Bookstore, SU pair up to lend students textbooks
Afghan correspondent talks war on campus
Conference tackles reasons behind war
Discussions open on secondary suites
The battle for an affordable education
Edmonton college wins university crown
Undergrads have chance to shine at November research symposium
Research driven to stop suffering
Walking to stop child trafficking
MP calls on government to act on behalf of detained journalist

Opinions
Editorial: Money talks, transparency walks
The complexities of the abortion debate
Bracing for the next Cold War? A closer look at Iran
For Harper, there's always time for Tim Hortons
MindFight: Diploma exams should be... All multiple choice!
MindFight: Diploma exams should be... Entirely written!
Nova Scotia garlic farmer hates technology

Sports
Dinos follow Nill to top of the conference
NHL Preview: Western Conference
NHL Preview: Eastern Conference
Sportspinions: Wait, why is Vick back in the NFL?

Entertainment
Fashionistas flock to Fashion Week
Film Fest, week two: a lot of twisted love
Rubik's roots really help them to rock
Mangan offers upbeat music for the depressed
Elias find themselves a Lasting Distraction
Brown bears wielding grappling hooks and other improvised delights
Spun: Mumiy Troll
Spun: Parlour Steps
Spun: The Fugitives
Spun: Patrick Brealey

Features
Going for broke
How to apply for loans



  Bracing for the next Cold War? A closer look at Iran





[Print] Print this story

ADVERTISMENT

ADVERTISMENT

You will be hard pressed to find a commentator on Iran who thinks lines from a James Bond movie are insightful. But when M quips "Christ, I miss the Cold War," in Casino Royale, she may not be too far off the mark, even if she wasn't talking about Iran. Iran's growing belligerence regarding the potential weaponization of their nuclear program should be considered real enough to produce real action.

What was so good about the Cold War? Not much really, but while few of us were old enough to remember, there was one thing that all analysts, even M, appreciated about it: it was predictable. Gone are the days when anything was as transparent as a leader repeatedly threatening other nations. Nor is it possible to find a leader who says he was fairly elected, but whose citizens clearly don't want him, and have already tried to get rid of him but just need a bit more help.

Iraq was a new version of an old problem; unrest is still rampant there more than six years in and a clear end isn't in view. Afghanistan is even more complex because the overthrow of its leadership was the original target, but now that they aren't leading they seem to be more of a problem, not less. In both countries there are still major issues with convincing the public (of those countries, but also the ones supporting the wars abroad) that liberation is a virtue worth the costs.

The debate now between U.N. Security Council governments, as well as other European countries and Israel, is attempting to address how to handle the threat of Iran. Each country has different reasons to worry, and some may benefit from an increase in Iran's power. The central debate, of course, is around anticipating Iran's nuclear proliferation goals. So far Iran's claim that their desire is to produce nuclear power, and not weapons, hasn't done anything to appease skeptics. Then there are the different lengths each nation thinks are required in restricting Iran through sanctions and threats of military action, should it come to that.

Israel is the most threatened. Not only is it within reach of the mid-range missiles Iran tested this week, but Iranian president Ahmadinejad hasn't given a single internationally-directed speech without expressing anti-Semitic sentiments and conspiracy theories.

Europe likely has the most to lose after Israel, should Iran develop nuclear weapons. While they aren't within range yet, many in the intelligence community suggest Iran is already working on long-range capabilities. But if it did get to that point the U.S. would be equally threatened.

The biggest worry, and the reason why this is the most important foreign affairs issue of U.S. President Barack Obama's term in office, is that some countries have a lot to gain should Iran become a bigger power. China is the clearest case. Beijing has an interest in not allowing anyone with such a desire to obtain nuclear weapons, but they have much to lose if tough economic sanctions are imposed on Iran. This potentially makes it difficult for the UNSC to pass sanctions because of China's veto. Tougher still will be America and Europe getting through negotiations without isolating China.

What's more, there are clear signs that Iran is taking steps to make agreements with other countries should tougher economic sanctions be enacted. Iran lacks the capacity to produce its own gasoline, and this would be the first supply restriction to place on them. This makes Venezuela, Iran's latest ally, a concern deserving greater attention.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced at the start of September that Caracas would be supplying Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day. Further, the pact the two nations have made, which stipulates full military support for one another, is disconcerting. The benefit to Iran is clear: Venezuela reportedly has at least 50,000 tons of uranium ore on reserve; in exchange, Venezuela has sought help from Iran to become a nuclear power.

For a change we have a clear threat with a clear enemy, and although debate is possible about the required action, the threat is serious enough to know that tough action is a necessity.

Share this story: del.icio.us digg Fark NewsVine Reddit YahooMyWeb


Reader Comments:

 Add your comment or send a letter to the editor

Posted: 2009-10-14 10:44:21
#1 - I sense a clear and penetrating ideology within your arguments. The ideology that equates a neoliberal capitalist democracy with freedom and the ideal state(or at least an absolutely better one). Both the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were imposed on their people. We invaded their nations with the force of arms and benevolently 'gave' them the wonderful gifts of democracy and freedom. The suffering caused by the casualties of both nations were surely worth the result. Right? And after we barge our way in and change things to how we believe all people should want them, we wait for things to settle themselves. Well, taking a closer look at Iraq or Afghanistan, we can see that something isn't working. As a citizen of one of those nations would you be willing to exercise your illusion of choice by proudly showing up at the polls and casting that ballot? The illusion of choice that I refer to is a ballot that includes the names of men like Hamid Karzai-- a Western-imposed puppet. So much for freedom when the persons that are supposed to lead your country are prepped by and indebted to Western capitalist democracies.

Please, don't let my view of American/Western foreign policy imply my feelings towards Iran or its leadership. Iran is mostly a sad nation with a buffoon for a leader. If I had to characterize Iran I would say that it reminds me of a cornered animal. The threatening rhetoric and wild claims we hear from Ahmadinejad shouldn't be taken so seriously. His words are designed to provoke a response and our Western nations are almost playing into his game by giving his words so much attention and weight. The Iranian government wants to convince its people that the US( and its allies) are the enemies of the Iranian people and are constantly trying to find ways to topple and destabilize the regional power. The last thing we should do now is perform any sort of military intervention (or provide direct support to incite a revolution). Such an action would play perfectly into the plan of the Iranian government, as they could then claim that we are the aggressors and perhaps then it would exercise those nuclear muscles -- much like a cornered animal that strikes with its claws as a last defense. So, am I advocating that we do nothing when it comes to the question of Iran? At least for now. Perhaps we could give them more space for a while instead of plotting on how to best punish the nation for pissing us off with its unwillingness to conform to the Western model of nationhood. This would show to the Iranian people (who should be the ones to incite change) that we really do not have ill intentions towards them. If this succeeds, Ahmadinejad's government will fall into irrelevancy and things may (for the most part) yet settle themselves.


–Anon, Student


 Views expressed are those of the posters and do not necessarily reflect that of the Gauntlet.

ADVERTISMENT

ADVERTISMENT

RSS icon RSS Feeds:
[ Main - News - Opinions - Entertainment - Sports ]
Volunteer at the Gauntlet®
.