Is Iran coming in from the cold?

[Lord Baal]

There is an outside chance that after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and threats made about Syria that the Ayatollah finally wised up that we would bomb them if our demands weren't met.

The question is whether the Iranians are actually afraid of bombing. I doubt they are, since any bombs dropped on Iran by the US or Israel would actually increase the current ruling elite's control of the state. It would also make many anti-US terrorist groups align themselves with Iran against the US and Israel, and sectarian violence in Iraq would worsen. Bombing is also unlikely to so much as dent Iran's nuclear program, given that most of the work is donw underground. If the US actually worked up the will to invade Iran, said invasion force would likely be up to its neck in its own blood.

It may be surprising to read, but there are many states out there who are not afraid of the US, and don't believe it can actually harm them.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I did say *outside* chance.

And while I agree with you, I have to point out that even if a country doesnt think a bombing is going to create appreciable physical damage, that doesnt mean it's an optimal outcome abd could create many other serious affects they wish to avoid.

Particularly, if in the case of Iran, they really don't want nuclear weapons. Then it makes sense to cut a deal that would avoid bombings, end sanctions and avoid all the complications that come with war.

Before the hate squad jumps on my back, I am not saying that Iran wants nukes and lie about it. I am also not saying they wouldn't have legitimate reasons to have nukes. I am saying that there policies on the matter haven't been that much more rational than our own (which admittedly created much of the tensions starting with Bush rebuffing Iranian overtures after 9/11 and then the axis of evil speech) and now it appears they may have had a reassessmebt of where the situation was going. And knock Obama as much as the haters will, he isn't Bush; he took the phone call today and appears willing to talk to them, rather than just continue threatening.

 

[Tahuti]

As it has already been mentioned, Iran has been trying to improve relations for over 12 years now. That clearly includes when Ahmadinejad was in office. He was the victim of a very effective propaganda campaign more than anything else. His comments were repeatedly taken out of context and deliberately misinterpreted.

That may or may not be the case, but it rendered him unable to make any effective deal anyway. To make a deal with him was politically impossible for the US. Which is why it now works since Rowhani has entered the show.

There is nothing "foolish" about defending yourself from incessant attempts to overthrow your sovereign government. If Iran developed nuclear weapons they would make themselves relatively immune from invasion just as North Korea has.

Except that the nuclear project, despite being not necessarily about nuclear weapons, has made Iran a target for pretty much everyone. It is pointless to develop nukes if you risk invasion trying to get to it.

 

[Lord Baal]

It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US would be willing to go to war with Iran. Iran is a militarily-powerful state that is capable of putting up an excellent fight against the US. It's nuclear facilities are deep underground, where bombing cannot harm them. They are capable of closing the Straights of Hormuz even if they are invaded.

Any US invasion of Iran will likely succeed, due to the US's obvious superiority. The question is; is the US willing to pay the cost of such an invasion? I do not believe they will be, as such an action would make Iraq look like a picnic. In such a scenario, what reason does Iran have not to pursue nuclear weapons? Especially since they've never once claimed to be seeking nuclear weapons in the first place, merely nuclear power, which is not only reasonable, but easily the most logical decision for Iran given its current needs.

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand you.

What reason does Iran have for pursuing nuclear power? Isn't it a major oil producer?

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/irans-return-to-the-oil-market-could-send-prices-diving/?__lsa=dbe3-cfcf

I know, in the very long term, it does have an interest in nuclear power, but I'd have thought it was one of the countries least in need of it today.

Unless its real agenda lies in nuclear weaponry it makes no sense for it to be spending money now on nuclear power. It would be better to wait 30 or 40 years until the technology has moved on and then just buy the plant in from elsewhere, wouldn't it? Otherwise it risks losing money on early adoption.

 

[Lord Baal]

I don't understand you.

What reason does Iran have for pursuing nuclear power? Isn't it a major oil producer?

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/irans-return-to-the-oil-market-could-send-prices-diving/?__lsa=dbe3-cfcf

I know, in the very long term, it does have an interest in nuclear power, but I'd have thought it was one of the countries least in need of it today.

Unless its real agenda lies in nuclear weaponry it makes no sense for it to be spending money now on nuclear power. It would be better to wait 30 or 40 years until the technology has moved on and then just buy the plant in from elsewhere, wouldn't it? Otherwise it risks losing money on early adoption.

Why should Iran use its oil in Iran when it can export all of it for profit?

 

[Tahuti]

It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US would be willing to go to war with Iran. Iran is a militarily-powerful state that is capable of putting up an excellent fight against the US. It's nuclear facilities are deep underground, where bombing cannot harm them. They are capable of closing the Straights of Hormuz even if they are invaded.

Any US invasion of Iran will likely succeed, due to the US's obvious superiority. The question is; is the US willing to pay the cost of such an invasion? I do not believe they will be, as such an action would make Iraq look like a picnic. In such a scenario, what reason does Iran have not to pursue nuclear weapons? Especially since they've never once claimed to be seeking nuclear weapons in the first place, merely nuclear power, which is not only reasonable, but easily the most logical decision for Iran given its current needs.

Well, the main problem was Ahmadinejad and the rather bad reputations of Iran's proxies. It's quite obvious the West would find such a state developing nuclear technology quite suspicious, or to put it better, faces political pressure to be hostile to such a state. Especially when Israel feels genuinely existentially threatened, and a lot of the West's Arab allies think so as well.

Of course, Iran would have been amazingly dumb if it actually developed nuclear technology for military purposes, so I find it unlikely this was ever the case, but you have to note that the current US-Iranian rapproachment was only made possible due to Iran's faltering proxies (Hamas has become an enemy and Assad and Hezbollah have become useless) and the fact that Ahmadinejad is no longer president. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric - misinterpreted and taken out of context or not - would have made any Western-Iranian deal politically impossible for the West anyway. Hassan Rowhani's presidency may very well have to do with a possible desire on Iran's Supreme Leader's part to become reasonably friendly with the US.

 

[Silurian]

Why should Iran use its oil in Iran when it can export all of it for profit?

Also in thirty or fourty years time will there be so many suppliers of the technology.

 

[Cutlass]

There is an outside chance that after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and threats made about Syria that the Ayatollah finally wised up that we would bomb them if our demands weren't met.

I don't really believe that. But they may be realizing that their past way of doing business wasn't getting them what they want.

We could bomb Iran. But that won't stop them. We can't occupy Iran. It just would not be acceptable to try.

 

[Azale]

There are many reasons why keeping Iran as an enemy would be beneficial to the U.S. In a game of geopolitics, especially when you're a superpower like the U.S., the end game isn't always "let's all be friends". Enemies, real or imaginary, can be very beneficial.

There's just so many variables. We'll have to see how this plays out.

I've read this post 10 times and I still don't know what you're trying to say. "America creates enemies for propaganda purpose, but lets wait to see how it plays out"

Looks like you have it figured out?

The US cares about regional stability and continuing the flow of oil. They would also like to keep the price low and keep rivals such as Russia and China out of the region. Iran is superbly capable of fulfilling all of those requirements. It doesn't matter if Iran dominates the region - which it can't - so long as it dominates it at the US's behest.

The US allowed (aka, tied itself to the mast of) China's rise as well as that of the EU. They are embedded in the American global system of hegemony. Is that a fair comparison to what Iran's role would be?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't really believe that. But they may be realizing that their past way of doing business wasn't getting them what they want.

We could bomb Iran. But that won't stop them. We can't occupy Iran. It just would not be acceptable to try.

It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US would be willing to go to war with Iran. Iran is a militarily-powerful state that is capable of putting up an excellent fight against the US. It's nuclear facilities are deep underground, where bombing cannot harm them. They are capable of closing the Straights of Hormuz even if they are invaded.

Any US invasion of Iran will likely succeed, due to the US's obvious superiority. The question is; is the US willing to pay the cost of such an invasion? I do not believe they will be, as such an action would make Iraq look like a picnic. In such a scenario, what reason does Iran have not to pursue nuclear weapons? Especially since they've never once claimed to be seeking nuclear weapons in the first place, merely nuclear power, which is not only reasonable, but easily the most logical decision for Iran given its current needs.

What I was getting at is the threat of an attack may have been enough to change their calculus in the matter. Again, even if such an attack is toothless, it could lead to all-sorts of knock-down effects, up to and including open war. Therefore, it's possible that the Iranians, even if they thought they could handily deal with a limited strike, figured that the path that follows from that was undesirably. Particularly if they don't really want nuclear weapons - while negotiating to avoid any such strike would solve a lot of problems. So they decided to talk to the US instead of continue ignoring us and everyone wins.

Even still, I did say it's an outside chance all of my suppositions are correct. I have no way of knowing what they're thinking and surely their thinking is is much more complex and nuanced than I give credit for.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

t is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US would be willing to go to war with Iran. Iran is a militarily-powerful state that is capable of putting up an excellent fight against the US. It's nuclear facilities are deep underground, where bombing cannot harm them. They are capable of closing the Straights of Hormuz even if they are invaded.

On the bit about not being able to hit the underground facilities - I'm not sure that's a given. After all the US has known about this and had lots of time to work around it. No one expected the stealth helicopter raid into Pakistan to nab OBL, or the Stuxnet virus but they were systems that were developed in secret and successfully deployed. So I would assume hitting bunkers is a problem our massive military industrial complex is looking into with some sort of workable solution. The X-37B, for example, is perfect for delivering a Rod From God from orbit, which *might* do the trick. Not that I would know about that or any other solutions. I just don't believe that the military doesn't have any solutions.

As for Iran being able to defend itself, oh sure, they're more capable than Iraq or Afghanistan. But until they are able to figure out how to take down B-2's, F-22's, tomahawks and stealth drones, I'm not sure how much they'll be able to thwart a bombing raid. Now they could conceivably launch cruise missiles at our ships and mine the Straight of Hormuz, but even then success in either of those endeavors are far from ensured. We've been preparing for those eventualities, would have allies from at least Israel, presumably, and even going it alone could bring overwhelming power to bear.

Granted, all of those things I think are highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean the Iranians want to have to deal with that eventuality if they can avoid it, which it now appears they can avoid it altogether and crucially, are willing to do through negotiation. Then there's the prospect of sanctions being dropped and possibly even for relations to be normalized. So they have a carrot and a stick and even if the stick isn't very credible, it's still there.

What is really a shame is that this situation has come to pass to begin with. We should have tried to make amends after the hostages were released in '80. I can't really see any reason why we shouldn't have, though of course the Iranians haven't always been willing to make amends with the US either.

 

[Tahuti]

The US allowed (aka, tied itself to the mast of) China's rise as well as that of the EU. They are embedded in the American global system of hegemony. Is that a fair comparison to what Iran's role would be?

Not at all. Iran cannot ever seek to overtake America's role the same way the EU and the PRC possibly could. Iran can however take Saudi Arabia's role in being that one US ally in the Middle East besides Israel, and that would be no minor thing, however.

 

[Silurian]

Iran produces 5% of the world’s oil. Any extended attack on Iran would stop the Iranian oil supply.

35% of the world’s oil goes through Iranian territorial waters in the Straits of Hormuz. Iran could stop the oil tankers for a limited time and could disrupt them for longer. The Iraqi’s sustained over 10000 casualties fighting to capture Khorramshahr from the Revolutionary Guard, who were untrained at the time and armed manly with small arms. How many marines will die?

Iraq has a Shia government and Basra and the oil ports are in Shia areas. How much of the 4% of Iraq's share of the worlds oil would be disrupted in Iraq.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (in the oil producing area) has large Shia minorities. How will attacks on the oil production facilities or workforce disrupt production?

How much will the price of oil rise?

 

[Borachio]

Why should Iran use its oil in Iran when it can export all of it for profit?

Er... because primary product exporters do less well than those into manufacturing or financial services?

It makes a lot more sense for Iran to use its oil for cheap power generation than the comparatively much more expensive nuclear power, imo.

It would make more sense for Iran to manufacture fertilizer for example. And let's not forget that selling oil tomorrow is likely to be very much more profitable than selling oil today. Should Iran decide that really needs to sell crude even then. It's a finite resource and it makes little sense to sell it cheaply.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Er... because primary product exporters do less well than those into manufacturing or financial services?

It makes a lot more sense for Iran to use its oil for cheap power generation than the comparatively much more expensive nuclear power, imo.

It would make more sense for Iran to manufacture fertilizer for example. And let's not forget that selling oil tomorrow is likely to be very much more profitable than selling oil today. Should Iran decide that really needs to sell crude even then. It's a finite resource and it makes little sense to sell it cheaply.

Well, you could also say that by going nuclear, it frees up more oil for industrial manufacturing. If they're not burning it all, they can make more things with it.

 

[Borachio]

Well, yes, that's a good point.

I still think nuclear power is an expensive technology for a country like Iran to pursue, given that it has 3% of the world's oil reserves. If it's sole interest is power generation.

It makes even less sense for it to sell the crude oil in order to finance its nuclear power building programme.

Still, I've not seen the figures on this. I'm only guessing out of my bottom.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yeah, I'm no expert on the situation, or on economics in general. Just a layman's observations.

 

[Silurian]

Fertilizer is fairly expensive to ship.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. Bulk fertilizer costs $150 a metric tonne? Sounds very cheap.

How much is crude oil? $100 a barrel, atm? How much is a barrel in tonnes?

Why is fertilizer much more expensive to ship than oil?

edit: what? a barrel is 160 litres. That's a lot less than a tonne.

How come we don't run motor cars on fertilizer then?