Nukes, a Drawing, Iran, and Nowhere Near Enough Information

It's been about two thirds of a century since nuclear weapons were used in a war. I'm not happy about the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the other hand, I'm not going to do the conventional hand-wringing, and apologize for an action that hastened the end of World War II. I've been over this sort of thing before. (October 16, 2009)

I'm also not going to express regret that so many people didn't get killed in a protracted land war in Japan: surviving to have children in the years following that war. Myself, and a great many folks in Japan, included.

Good News, Bad News, and Iran

The good news is that problems do get resolved. The Soviet Union bowed out of history a little before the 20th century ended, leaving Russia and nations under Soviet control with - a new set of problems.

Some of the bad news is that on September 11, 2001, airliners hit New York City; the Pentagon; and, due to the heroism of Flight 93's passengers and crew, another airliner crashed before reaching its target. Thousands of people were killed that day. Considering how many could have not made it out of New York City's World Trade Center, that 'bad news' could have been much worse.

Then there's North Korea's nuclear weapons program; Syria's whatever-it-was that Israel hit; and Iran's nuclear program that we're supposed to believe has nothing at all to do with weapons development.

Nuclear Wannabes

As Al Qaeda demonstrated in 2001, quite a lot of damage can be done without using nuclear bombs. But if someone wanted to make most of a city disappear in a single bright flash, a fission bomb is probably the easiest way to get the job done.

Of those three nuclear wannabes, I think Iran is the most obviously serious threat. North Korea's got a new leader, but the last I heard it's the same dynasty: with the same monumental economic issues. Someone in North Korea might start believing their own propaganda, might have a working nuclear bomb, and might have a missile that could send it to Japan, Hawaii, Siberia, or Alaska: but I think the odds are low. Syria may not be as much of a mess as North Korea: but leadership there has problems, too.

Iran, on the other hand, has economic problems: but not, apparently, crippling ones. The Ayatollahs, Ahmadinejad, and others, may not be quite on the same page: but Iran does have a functioning government.

Ordinarily, I'd say that's good news: but since Iran also has a dubiously-innocuous nuclear program and a habit of blaming the Jews and the 'great Satan America' for problems? Iran's government might, maybe, decide to launch nukes instead of words one of these days.

Two Thirds of a Century: Never Again?

I hope that nuclear weapons never get used in warfare again. While I'm at it, I'll hope that war ends right now.

An end to war - forever - will require some major retooling of habits and attitudes. I think it's a good goal: but I also think we're a long, long, way from anything resembling Tennyson's "Federation of the world." I've discussed that sort of thing in another blog:

• "Diversity in Unity: Two Millennia and Counting"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 18, 2012)
• " 'Just War:' Unpleasant, but Not a Contradiction in Terms"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 22, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Can't We Let the Police Handle This?

I hope I'm wrong about this: but my guess is that, sooner or later, someone with a nuclear bomb is going to decide that it should be used to kill people. Lots of people. Right now, one of the outfits that I think is least-unlikely to use a nuke against people is Iran's leadership.

Religious Crazies and Nukes

I don't have the conventional notion that all people with religious convictions are mass-murderers just waiting to go off. But Iran's leadership has the sort of 'criticizing me is attacking God' attitude it might take to launch a nuclear attack. I'm not making up that 'attacking God' thing, by the way:

• "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami"
  (June 28, 2009)

I noticed something in the news yesterday: it's an architectural rendering of a room with a whacking great machine that looks like part of a nuclear weapons testing system. That, and some vague - but plausible - information about a specific site in Iran is all that I've seen.

I really, sincerely, hope that whoever wins the American election this November has the good sense to realize that there are some folks with very dodgy attitudes out there: who may very soon have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to remote targets.

Here's what got me started:

"Drawing may provide insight into Iran's nuclear intentions"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (May 13, 2012)

"A drawing based on information from inside an Iranian military site shows an explosives containment chamber of the type needed for nuclear arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted there. Iran denies such testing and has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such a chamber.

"The computer-generated drawing was provided to The Associated Press by an official of a country tracking Iran's nuclear program who said it proves the structure exists, despite Tehran's refusal to acknowledge it.

" That official said the image is based on information from a person who had seen the chamber at the Parchin military site, adding that going into detail would endanger the life of that informant. The official comes from an IAEA member country that is severely critical of Iran's assertions that its nuclear activities are peaceful and asserts they are a springboard for making atomic arms.

"A former senior IAEA official said he believes the drawing is accurate. Olli Heinonen, until last year the U.N. nuclear agency's deputy director general in charge of the Iran file, said it was 'very similar' to a photo he recently saw that he believes to be the pressure chamber the IAEA suspects is at Parchin.

"He said even the colors of the computer-generated drawing matched that of the photo he had but declined to go into the origins of the photo to protect his source...."

Related posts:

• Iran and nuclear weapons
  • "Iran, International Nuclear Inspectors, and Russian Submarines"
    (February 22, 2012)
  • "Iran, a Nuclear Weapons Program to Cure Disease, and Centrifuges"
    (April 9, 2011)
  • "Iran, Dubious Equipment, and a Nuclear Weapons Program that Doesn't Exist"
    (March 18, 2011)
  • "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
    (August 22, 2010)
  • "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and 'What the heck did they tell him?' "
    (September 17, 2009)
• Nukes in the 21st century
  
  • "North Korea: Nukes, Missiles, and Underfed Soldiers"
    (November 24, 2010)
  • "Obama Limits Nuclear Weapons: That's Nice"
    (April 6, 2010)
  • "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
    (January 25, 2008)
  • "Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?"
    (October 26, 2007)
  • " 'The Jews Blew Up Our Reactor
    (Which Does Not Exist)' "
    (October 17, 2007)

Iran, International Nuclear Inspectors, and Russian Submarines

Iran's in the news again, or still. In a way, it's the same story we've been reading for years: U.N. inspectors aren't allowed to see sites involved in Iran's nuclear program.

International Inspectors and Business as Usual

This time, the Ayatollahs didn't want outsiders to see a "key military site." Can't say that I blame them, in a way. Iran's been insisting that its nuclear program doesn't involve weapons: or maybe that there is no nuclear program. Or that there is, and it's strictly for curing the sick and benevolent purposes like that.

Facts have a way of getting in the way of 'official' versions of reality. Whoever is running Iran at the moment probably realizes that international diplomacy will be easier, if the foreigners know as little as possible about what's actually happening in Iran.

There's nothing unusual about the situation, in a way. Iran's been giving Saudi Arabia stiff competition, in terms of making Islamic government look like a bad idea: and has been, ever since 1979. Sudan's rulers are serious contenders in that race: and that's another topic.

Russia, Submarines, and Cold War Stuff

I think one of the harder lessons for many folks to learn is that things change. Like the Cold War. When, from one point of view, the world was a battleground for a fairly simple confrontation:

• 'The good guys' - America
  • Mom
  • Apple pie
  • The flag
• 'The bad guys' - Russia Soviet Union and China
  • Slavery
  • Ugly clothes
  • Yellow peril

I'm oversimplifying the situation, of course. Another, equally-goofy, way of looking at the Cold War era was to see the world as divided between the oppressed proletariat and capitalistic warmongers.

Folks in Russia finally got tired of living in a workers' paradise, and China's leaders may be reevaluating their economic philosophies - yet more topics.

The point is, this isn't the late 20th century.

I think another hard lesson is that not everything is about 'me,' or 'us.' Take Russia's navy getting back in the habit of having submarines with ballistic missiles patrolling international waters. I've run into the opinion that it's intended as a response to - or provocation of - the American government.

Maybe that's true: but it occurs to me that Russian leaders may have something besides 'Yankee imperialism' on their minds this time. Iran's uncomfortably close to Russia, may start building nuclear weapons soon, and might reasonably be seen as a threat. Those submarines might be intended as a sort of reminder to the Ayatollahs that actions have consequences.

Which gets me back to Iran, a nuclear weapons program that we're supposed to believe doesn't exist, and one of today's less calming situations.

Religious Crazies with Nuclear Missiles?

I sincerely hope that Iran's goofy president doesn't represent what most of the Ayatollahs really think is true. There's some reason to believe that - yet again more topics:

• "Iran lawmakers vote to force president to testify"
  J. David Goodman, New York Times, via San Francisco Chronicle (February 8, 2012)

I don't think that today's world is 'the Cold War all over again.' Crossing out 'commies,' and writing in 'Muslims,' doesn't make sense. Neither does trying to apply the other alternatively-sane worldview I outlined earlier.

Like they say, 'it's complicated.'

One of my concerns is that Iran's leadership has been doing a very good job of looking like ideologues with control issues. Convictions of 'foreign spies' reminds me of the 'good old days' of the HUAC in this country: and political correctness a few decades after that.

I'm about as sure as I can be that all Muslims are not on the same page as the Ayatollahs, or Al Qaeda, or Sudan's touchy rulers.

But I'm very concerned that Iran's leadership might decide that it's time to smite the unbeliever - with nuclear weapons. Russia's immediate neighbors - and parts of Europe - could experience massive, sudden, urban renewal if that happens.

I'm not concerned because I think Muslims, or religious people in general, are likely to kill folks they don't like. It's because I think Iran's Ayatollahs may be to Islam what the KKK was to Christianity: a dangerous bunch of folks with a distorted set of beliefs.

Here's what got me started:

"Iran nuclear row: UN inspectors barred from Iran site"
BBC News (February 21, 2012)

"The UN nuclear watchdog says Iran has stopped a team of inspectors from visiting a key military site.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says no deal was been reached on inspecting the Parchin site, south of Tehran, despite 'intensive efforts'.

"The inspectors had sought to clarify the 'possible military dimensions' of Iran's nuclear programme...."

---

"Iran Would Consider Pre-emptive Strike on Its Enemies, Fars Says"
Caroline Alexander, Business Week (February 21, 2012)

"Iran would consider taking pre-emptive action in response to threats, an Iranian military commander said, according to the state-run Fars news agency.

" 'We will no more wait to see enemy action against us,' Fars quoted Mohammad Hejazi, deputy head of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces for Logistic and Industrial Research, as saying in an interview...."

---

"Russian SSBNs to Resume Patrols in International Waters in June 2012"
Naval Today (February 7, 2012)

"Russian nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines will resume patrols in international waters in June 2012, said Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky.

" 'On June 1 or a bit later, we will resume permanent patrols of nuclear strategic submarines in the World Ocean', said Vysotsky on Feb 3 at Navy command briefing...."

---

Somewhat-related posts:

• Nuclear Iran
  • "Iran, a Nuclear Weapons Program to Cure Disease, and Centrifuges"
    (April 9, 2011)
  • "Iran, Dubious Equipment, and a Nuclear Weapons Program that Doesn't Exist"
    (March 18, 2011)
  • "Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent"
    (November 26, 2010)
  • "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
    (August 22, 2010)
  • "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
    (January 19, 2008)
• Living in a big world
  • "Egypt, Iran: It Can't Happen Here?"
    (February 10, 2011)
  • "Iran, Dissent, and Threats to National Security"
    (February 10, 2011)
  • "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
    (September 24, 2010)
  • "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
    (December 29, 2009)
  • "Pray for Neda: And Learn About the Real Iran"
    (June 26, 2009)
• Religion, and getting a grip
  • "Freedom, Even For 'Those People Over There' "
    (November 11, 2011)
  • "With Friends Like These, Islam Doesn't Need Enemies"
    (April 14, 2011)
  • "Lebanese Man Due for Beheading in Saudi Arabia"
    (March 31, 2010)
  • "Sudan, Women, Trousers, Culture and Common Sense"
    (September 7, 2009)
  • "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami"
    (June 28, 2009)

In the news:

• "U.N. watchdog says nuclear talks with Iran failed"
  Fredrik Dahl, Reuters UK (February 22, 2012)
• "Iran nuclear row: UN inspectors barred from Iran site"
  BBC News (February 21, 2012)
• "Iran Would Consider Pre-emptive Strike on Its Enemies, Fars Says"
  Caroline Alexander, Business Week (February 21, 2012)
• "Russian SSBNs to Resume Patrols in International Waters in June 2012"
  Naval Today (February 7, 2012)
• "Iran lawmakers vote to force president to testify"
  J. David Goodman, New York Times, via San Francisco Chronicle (February 8, 2012)

Background:

• "Iran"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated February 8, 2012)
• "Saudi Arabia"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated February 8, 2012)

Iran, a Nuclear Weapons Program to Cure Disease, and Centrifuges

Maybe Iran's ayatollahs really are planning to cure incurable diseases with research reactors.

Maybe Iran has no intention at all of producing nuclear weapons.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe not.

A pacific, beneficent nuclear program - even one pursued in defiance of United Nations demands - would be a nice change of pace from "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." (October 6, 2007)

If it wasn't the same lot in charge in Tehran, I might be more willing to believe what Iranian officials said today.

From recent news:

"Iran gained another nuclear achievement as it marked the National Day of Nuclear Technology.

"The Head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi said on Saturday that the country is to launch a unit of Ceramic Grade Uranium Dioxide with natural purity at uranium processing firm in central city of Isfahan soon....

"...He also added Tehran and Arak research reactors enjoy unique facilities to produce medical radioisotopes for incurable diseases."
(ISNA)

"Iran's foreign minister has confirmed claims by an exiled Iranian opposition group that a factory west of Tehran is manufacturing centrifuge parts.

"Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted by the state news agency IRNA, says the facility is no secret and that many other facilities in the country are involved in manufacturing parts for Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran has long said it produces centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, a process that the U.N. has demanded Tehran halt...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

"...The comments by Ali Akbar Salehi came two days after the Mujahedeen-e Khalq announced at a press conference in Washington that its spies identified the factory, called the TABA facility, saying workers there produced centrifuge casings, molecular pumps, tubes and bellows for the centrifuges.

"Iran has long said it is producing its own centrifuges for its uranium enrichment program. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead...."
(Associated Press)

Related posts:

• "Iran, Dubious Equipment, and a Nuclear Weapons Program that Doesn't Exist"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent"
  (November 26, 2010)
• "Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)

In the news:

• "Iran gains nuclear achievement, marks National Day of Nuclear Technology"
  ISNA (April 9, 2011)
• "Iran Confirms Facility Producing Centrifuge Parts"
  Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (April 9, 2011)
• "Iran confirms factory producing centrifuge parts"
  Associated Press (April 9, 2011)

Iran, Dubious Equipment, and a Nuclear Weapons Program that Doesn't Exist

Maybe it's all a big mistake. Maybe the equipment headed from China to Iran really isn't intended for a nuclear weapons program.

Maybe Iran really doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. The last I heard, that was still the official line.

Maybe Iran's rulers have facilities for making weapons-grade heavy metal, and maintain a stockpile of long-range nuclear-capable missiles, because they need to generate electricity.

Maybe.

I think Iran's ayatollahs are serious about wanting to 'defend' their particular flavor if Islam from the 'great Satan America.' And anybody else who doesn't agree with them. (December 31, 2007)

I also think that Iran's ayatollahs aren't the only outfit that doesn't like the idea of folks speaking their mind and being allowed to watch beer commercials. And that's another topic. Topics.

Here's what got me started:

"Malaysian police said Friday that they had found equipment they suspect could be used to make nuclear weapons smuggled on board a ship headed to Iran.

"National police chief Ismail Omar told The Associated Press that the cargo was seized from a Malaysian-registered ship traveling from China to Tehran while it was docked at a central Malaysia harbor. Authorities are investigating whether the equipment could be used to make nuclear weapons.

"Malaysian International Shipping Corp. confirmed in a statement to the AP that police confiscated two containers from the MV Bunga Raya Satu on March 8. It said a freight forwarder had declared the contents as 'goods used for liquid mixing or storage for pharmaceutical or chemical or food industry.'..."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

Related posts:

• "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
  (March 18, 2011)
• "Iran, Dissent, and Threats to National Security"
  (February 10, 2011)
• "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Iran's Mighty Army, President Ahmadinejad, Nuclear Weapons and History"
  (April 18, 2010)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea, Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  (September 18, 2007)

In the news:

• "Malaysia: Equipment Headed to Iran Suspected to Make Nuclear Weapons"
  Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (March 18, 2011)

Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings

I'm getting to Libya in the next post.

The powers that be in Yemen and Bahrain are having a shot - literally - at trying the Libyan colonel's approach to leadership. They're having their enforcers kill people who say they don't like the way things are run.

Historically, America's leadership hasn't been quite that rough on folks who aren't on the same page whoever is running things in Washington. Even here, though, it seems hard to understand that "disagreement" isn't "treason;" and that someone can have a different opinion without being 'the enemy." I've posted about that before:

• "Homeland Security Report: American Veterans are Potential Terrorists - I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 15, 2009)
• "Missouri Focus Group MIAC: Ron Paul Supporters May Be Terrorists"
  (March 23, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

Still, I'd rather live in America:

• "Police Abuse: America isn't Russia"
  (February 19, 2010)

Shia, Sunni, and Shooting the Opposition

Excerpts from today's news:

"Security forces and government supporters opened fire on demonstrators in the capital on Friday, killing at least 30 people. But the crackdown failed to disperse the protest, the largest seen so far in the center of the city, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh declared a state of emergency...."
(The New York Times)

---

"Hundreds of angry Iraqis demonstrated in the holy Shiite city of Karbala on Thursday, protesting the use of foreign troops in the crackdown against anti-government protests in Bahrain...."
(CNN)

---

"A senior Iranian cleric on Friday urged Bahrain's majority Shiites to keep up their protests—until death or victory—against the Sunni monarchy in the tiny island kingdom...."
(MercuryNews.com)

---

"Bahrain's Shiites are burying their dead amid a continued government crackdown in this Sunni-ruled island nation in the Persian Gulf...."
(ajc.com)

---

Some folks in televised news's op-ed segments have been saying that what's happening in Bahrain is a sort of proxy war between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. I think they've got a point. Sunni and Shia, two flavors of Islam, aren't equally represented in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, or even in Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen:

Country	Shia	Sunni
Bahrain1	70%	30%
Iran2	89%	9%
Iraq2	60%-65%	32%-37%
Saudi Arabia1	5%	95%
Yemen1	36%	63%

^{1 PBS (see Background)
2} CIA (see Background)

Religion: Important, Yes; Everything, No

I think that religion is an often-misunderstood factor in society. I think that the politically correct notion that religion kills people is silly: but acknowledge that some have done bad things for what we call "religious" reasons. (October 31, 2007)(and A Catholic Citizen in America (April 12, 2010, July 24, 2009))

I am also fairly certain that the folks in Bahrain, at least, have fairly solid economic reasons for wanting change. Again, without accepting the notion that economics and class struggle, along with psychology and/or instinct, explains everything.

For all I know, the way the Persian and Arabic languages handle verb declensions may be a factor in today's conflicts. I think philology may prove to connect with neurology, psychology, and maybe genetics - and that's several other topics, as well as speculative.

Saudi Troops Killing Shia Civilians in Bahrain: So What?

Another excerpt from today's news:

"...This week, military forces from the Gulf Cooperation Council -- including Saudi Arabia -- arrived in Bahrain to help the kingdom control a wave of anti-government protests, prompting the Obama administration and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to urge council members to act with restraint and to allow the citizens of Bahrain to demonstrate peacefully.

"Although Bahrain's protesters are making primarily economic and political demands, there is a sectarian dimension: Bahrain's population is 70% Shiite; the royal family is Sunni, as is the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recently has seen small demonstrations among its minority Shiites...."
(CNN)

I think that the Saudi royal family, and other traditionalists in the Arab world, are in an unenviable position. They seem to be dedicated to a way of life that's threatened. In a way, their troubles started in Europe and North America during the 18th century.

The 'good old days' of aristocratic privilege are gone. These days, even beating your wife, or your wife beating servants, is frowned upon in quite a few countries. (January 12, 2011, November 2, 2007) That, along with beer commercials and individual rights, must be hard to accept. For folks who grew up enjoying privileges, at least.

In the short run, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and like-minded folks may succeed in holding on to their old ways.

I think it depends in part on whether or not their enforcers run out of bullets, so to speak, before folks who want change run out of bodies and determination.

In the long run, I think their way of life is over. Monarchies may continue, along the lines of British royalty - and I'm not going to get started on the shenanigans there. I've written about the cultural angle of the war on terror before. (April 5, 2010, March 19, 2010, October 14, 2008, and elsewhere)

I also think that killing your subjects is a miserably ineffective way of instilling loyalty: whether practiced by an old-world monarch, or a self-styled revolutionary.

Which brings me to Libya: and that's another topic.

Related posts:

• "Beer, Basketball, the War on Terror, Today's News, and Me"
  (March 10, 2011)
• "Information Technology, People, and a Changing World"
  (February 23, 2011)
• "Bahrain, Libya: My Take on the News"
  (February 19, 2011)
• "Bahrain and the Information Age"
  (February 19, 2011)
• " 'They're all Muslims' - This Does Not Help"
  (December 29, 2007)

News and views:

• "Yemen death toll rises to over 20, 100 wounded"
  SANAA, via Edition: U.S., Reuters (March 18, 2011)
• "At Least 30 Protesters Are Killed in Yemen"
  Laura Kasinof, J. David Goodman, Middle East, The New York Times (March 18, 2011)
• "Iraqis protest against crackdown on Shiites in Bahrain"
  Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN (March 18, 2011)
• "Iran cleric tells Bahraini Shiites to protest on"
  Nasser Karimi, Associated Press, via MercuryNews.com (March 18, 2011)
• "Iran cleric tells Bahraini Shiites to protest on"
  Barbara Surk, Associated Press, via ajc.com (Atlanta Journal Constitution) (March 18, 2011)

Background:

• "Bahrain"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated March 8, 2011)
• "Iran"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated February 22, 2011)
• "Iraq"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated March 8, 2011)
• "Saudi Arabia"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated March 8, 2011)
• "Pilgrimage to Karbala | Sunni and Shia: The Worlds of Islam"
  PBS (March 26, 2007)
• "Yemen"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated on March 8, 2011)

Egypt, Iran: It Can't Happen Here?

This isn't a 'political' blog. Not in the sense that I cheer on one person or party - and jeer everybody else.

On the other hand, politics is sometimes involved in the war on terror - and I've got fairly well-defined ideas about what makes sense and what doesn't.

'Stability' isn't Everything

It's my opinion that it doesn't make sense to prop up a dictator who likes to call himself a "president" - and holds elections at intervals to support his claim. Not in the long run.

It's been done - America's support of Latin American dictators was a notorious point of contention about a half-century back. (As I recall, some of them were 'presidentes;' some were - in my view - a trifle more honest about their preferred title.)

I think I understand some of the motivation in those cases. It's comforting, if nothing else, to deal with a "stable" government. There may even be positive aspects to having one leader for a long time - as an alternative to 'presidente of the month' situations. I also don't think that the Cold War was a capitalist plot: and that's another topic.

In the short run, supporting those 'banana republics' may have been expedient.

In the long run, I think the policy was a mistake. A reputation for supporting petty dictators - and calling it 'defending democracy' - did little to bolster support for America among adolescents and young adults who were already dubious about 'the American dream.'

That was then. This is now.

Mubarak's Egypt is a "stable" country. Or was, until a few weeks ago.

Hosni Mubarak, by the way, has been president of Egypt since he got the job on October 14, 1981. (Egypt, World Factbook, CIA (last updated February 1, 2011)) Maybe he's holding out for an even thirty-year reign. Presidency. Whatever.

The Best Form of Government - is One that Works

I've discussed my views of autocracy and other ways folks have developed to manage themselves in another blog. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 5, 2011) Briefly, I think that an autocracy - one person, or a small group, making all the decisions for a country - could work. In theory. In practice, autocrats don't seem to have a particularly good record for running their domains sensibly.

An advantage I see in the system America has is that, in theory at any rate, a proposed course of action gets discussed by so many folks that their individual quirks tend to cancel each other out - leaving something that has a modest chance of not doing too much damage.

There are more upbeat ways of expressing that idea.

Even Autocrats Should Listen to Complaints

President Mubarak and his buddies don't, apparently, like being criticized. Not many people do, I should think.

But most of us aren't able to make folks who disagree with us disappear or die. Mubarak's outfit seems have a 'zero tolerance' approach to criticism.

If they'd been doing a perfect job of running Egypt for the past three (almost) decades, most Egyptians might be willing to put up with the occasional missing relative.

'A chicken in every pot and Uncle Benny in prison' might not make it as a political slogan here in America: but I think folks are willing to put up with quite a bit as long as the system is modestly functional.

From the looks of things, Egypt isn't enjoying boom times just now. Maybe it's not Mubarak's doing: I don't know. This doesn't seem to be the best epoch, economically, in quite a few places.

• "Lehman Collapsed, the World Bank's Been Hacked, General Motor's not Bankrupt - Maybe: What a Mess!"
  (October 12, 2008)
• "Wall Street Bailout, Flying Fewmets, and Politics as Comic Relief"
  (September 29, 2008)

If it seems that I concentrated rather heavily on the United States in those 'economic' posts - you're right. That's the country I live in: and it's one of the major players, globally. Moving on.

The point is that Egypt, along with other parts of the world, seems to be going through economic hard times. Folks tend, I think, to get a trifle edgy when money's tight. Add that to a regime that's been making friends and relatives die or disappear for decades - and "edgy" could easily turn into "angry." In my opinion.

If only for the sake of good public relations: I think Mubarak and company would have been well-advised to make it look like they were willing to listen to complaints.

Hello, Information Age: Goodbye 'Orderly' Countries

I remember the 'good old days,' when most Americans relied on a few news editors, media executives, and publishers to tell them about what happened outside their circle of friends and acquaintances. Because we didn't have many other options.

From one point of view, it was a nice, orderly situation: Americans watched whatever was on the three major networks, plus PBS; and read whatever news editors and publishers decided was fit to print.

Things aren't quite so 'orderly' these days.

I haven't heard "divisive" used all that much lately - but I think it's a pretty good way of describing information that hasn't been approved by 'the right sort.' I also think that "divisive" isn't necessarily "bad." I've discussed this sort of thing before:

• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Cultural Chaos! Divisiveness! I Like It!

Change Hurts

I think many of the old-school information gatekeepers sincerely thought they were supporting 'freedom of speech' by deciding what the rest of us saw, heard, and read. However valid that assumption is, the America of my youth didn't last.

We got, in fairly rapid succession, and not necessarily in this order:

• International direct-dial calling
• Transatlantic real-time television broadcasts
• Fax machines
• Twitter
  • And a plethora of other online communities

Americans still, I think, rely on a few news editors, media executives, and publishers to tell them about what happened outside their circle of friends and acquaintances.

But now our 'circle of friends and acquaintances' can easily include folks all over the world.

For me, and others who don't mind finding out what someone besides old-school journalists and established authorities think: the Information Age is a great time to be alive.

The folks who used to have more control over what 'the masses' were allowed to know? I suspect they aren't quite so thrilled.

Which is, I think, part of why we're seeing recurring efforts to 'protect' us from the big, bad Internet. I think many - maybe most - folks who want to keep us from reading 'bad' things online sincerely feel that they're doing the right thing.

I also think that trying to control what others are allowed to learn is not a good idea - with a few exceptions. As I said when I started writing today's posts: it's not simple.

More of today's posts:

• "Today's World: Not Boring; Not Simple"
  (February 10, 2011)

Related posts:

• Egypt and all that
  • "Egypt: Again"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 10, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Egypt, Wael Ghonim, and the Information Age"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 7, 2011)
  • "Egypt: Changing Times"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 5, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Egypt, Dealing With Criticism, and Getting a Grip"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 4, 2011)
  • "Divisiveness, Cultural Chaos, and the Monkey's Paw"
    (January 30, 2011)
  • "Tunisia, Egypt, and the World: Speculation and Opinion"
    (January 24, 2011)
  • "Tunisia: Goodbye Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hello Information Age"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 15, 2011)
• Censorship and real power to the people
  • "WikiLeaks, Killing People Who don't Agree, and Living in the Real World"
    (July 30, 2010)
  • "Blogetery Shutdown, WordPress, Al Qaeda, the FBI, and C3PO"
    (July 19, 2010)
  • "How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them"
    (December 7, 2009)
  • "Argentina, Regulating Broadcasters, Grupo Clarin, Ted Turner, 800-Pound Gorillas, and Freedom of Speech"
    (September 18, 2009)
  • "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
    (June 27, 2008)

More:

• "Report: Egypt Shut Down Net With Big Switch, Not Phone Calls"
  Ryan Singel, Threat Level, Wired (February 10, 2011)
• "Report: Iran blocks reformist sites, detains opposition figures"
  Reza Sayah, CNN World (February 10, 2011)
• "Exclusive: Saudis told Obama to back Mubarak"
  Hugh Tomlinson, The Times (UK) (February 10, 2011)
• "3 People Reportedly Dead in Clashes in Southern Egypt"
  FoxNews (February 9, 2011)
• "Awlaki Tops Bin Laden as Top Terror Threat To U.S., Counterterrorism Official Says"
  Catherine Herridge, FoxNews (February 9, 2011)
• "Egypt on Day 16: Where are we now?"
  CNN World (February 9, 2011)

Iran, Dissent, and Threats to National Security

Like I've said before, stuff involving people isn't simple. Not as a rule, anyway.

Take good guys and bad guys for example.

It's 'obvious' in some circles that the good guys are forward-looking visionaries dedicated to improving the lot of the masses - whether they want it or not. And the bad guys are, what else? The American empire and the military-industrial complex and the Marines. Yes: I'm over-simplifying. A little.

It's equally 'obvious' in other circles that the good guys are fine, upstanding 'real' Americans with good, honest American names like Smith and Jones and Robertson: who stand for motherhood, apple pie, and good 'Christian' values like women not holding jobs. For that lot, the 'bad guys' are those foreigners who look, talk, and dress funny and don't have 'real' American names - - - another oversimplification.

I've been over this before:

• " 'Towelhead,' 'Retard,' and Talking Sense in a Global Society"
  (February 24, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Want People to Take You Seriously? Drop the Attitude

Here's some news from Iran. I don't think much of the Ayatollah's government: but I'll get back to that after the excerpt.

"Iranian authorities have blocked reformist websites and detained several opposition supporters and activists, opposition website Saham News reported Thursday.

"The arrests come days after Iran's two leading opposition figures called for a rally next Monday in support of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

"Iranian authorities on Wednesday warned against any attempt by the opposition movement to hold the rally, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

" 'We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will confront them with force,' Revolutionary Guard Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani told IRNA.

"Opposition leaders and former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdhi Karrubi requested permission to hold the rally earlier this week, according to Saham News, Karrubi's website.

"It was unclear whether the government has denied the request...."
(CNN (February 10, 2011))

I don't think 'detaining' folks who don't agree with the government - and say so - is a good idea.

I don't think it's a good idea when it's done in Iran. Or anywhere else.

I don't think America's leaders are immune from the temptation to equate dissent with treason. America has even locked citizens up for not looking like 'real' Americans. Happily, this country also learns from mistakes. (October 2, 2010)

I'm personally interested in freedom of speech - and the rights of minorities - because I'm an American citizen - and a member of a religious minority. It's all too easy, I think, for folks who grew up in a country's dominant culture to assume that anyone who isn't like them - is the enemy:

• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (August 3, 2009)
• "Pro-Life People - 'Domestic Terrorists and Violent Racketeers:' Who Knew?"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (June 1, 2009)
• "Fear of Right-Wing Extremism: Commie-Hunting in Reverse"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 19, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

Despite what some folks seem to think, as a practicing Catholic, I have to be a good citizen. It's one of the rules. Specifically:

"It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2255)
(Cited and discussed by me in A Catholic Citizen in America (September 24, 2008))

I am of the opinion, though, that there's a huge difference between working with the establishment, "for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom" - and blindly supporting everything some government executive says.

Which is, in my opinion, where Egypt's permanent president and Iran's Ayatollahs are going wrong.

And where, with just a little nudge, America could go wrong.

I'll get back to that.

next, something from the United Kingdom about Saudi Arabia, America, and giving orders. Sort of.

More of today's posts:

• "Today's World: Not Boring; Not Simple"
  (February 10, 2011)

Related posts:

• Egypt and all that
  • "Egypt: Again"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 10, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Egypt, Wael Ghonim, and the Information Age"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 7, 2011)
  • "Egypt: Changing Times"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 5, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Egypt, Dealing With Criticism, and Getting a Grip"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 4, 2011)
  • "Divisiveness, Cultural Chaos, and the Monkey's Paw"
    (January 30, 2011)
  • "Tunisia, Egypt, and the World: Speculation and Opinion"
    (January 24, 2011)
• Terrorists, real and imagined
  • "WikiLeaks, Killing People Who don't Agree, and Living in the Real World"
    (July 30, 2010)
  • "Blogetery Shutdown, WordPress, Al Qaeda, the FBI, and C3PO"
    (July 19, 2010)
  • "How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them"
    (December 7, 2009)
  • "Argentina, Regulating Broadcasters, Grupo Clarin, Ted Turner, 800-Pound Gorillas, and Freedom of Speech"
    (September 18, 2009)
  • "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
    (June 27, 2008)

Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent

Public Radio International calls Stuxnet a real threat. They could be right about that. Telegraph.co.uk calls it a virus.

Iran's government says that the nuclear weapons program they don't have - wasn't affected by Stuxnet. That's - unlikely.

Bombs? That's So 20th-Century

I've written about Iran's nuclear program before. While it's remotely possible that one of the world's leading producer of petroleum desperately needs nuclear power plants - which in turn require weapons-grade uranium - I think it's more likely that Iran's ayatollahs wanted nuclear bombs.

I think can see their point, in a way. Quite a few folks outside Iran don't act the way the ayatollahs want them to. Nuclear weapons might seem quite effective - either as an upgrade to their means for converting the unbeliever, or to incinerate folks who wouldn't cooperate.

That's not to say that I approve of the lot that's running Iran. "Understanding" isn't "approval."

I think it's very likely that's what Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce nuclear weapons. I also think that aging religious fanatics with nukes present a very serious threat to anyone within range of their missiles: which includes quite a lot of the Middle East, Russia, and a disturbing fraction of Europe.

If Iran Wanted Nukes, Wouldn't They Have Them By Now?

One of the problems with the notion that Iran wanted nuclear weapons was the way that predictions kept being wrong.

It was like Iran's nuclear program was slowing down.

In some circles, this would 'obviously' mean that the vast right-wing conspiracy, or some other mysterious force, had made up the whole 'Iranian nukes' idea. After all, if Iran wanted nukes, they'd have them by now - and since they don't have them, they didn't want them.

Looks like there was a 'conspiracy' involved. Sort of.

Also, apparently, a very, very sophisticated worm: a sort of Information Age secret agent.

Stuxnet: One Very Smart Worm

Stuxnet is, in a way, scary. I hope that whoever designed it has figured out a way of disabling the thing. I'll get back to that.

According to an article I read today, Stuxnet is a very, very sophisticated set of code: a worm that's designed to damage, but not destroy, particular machinery in Iran's nuclear program. Also not affect other systems it infects - and cover its tracks so effectively that Iranian counter-intelligence apparently assumed that people working on the project were damaging the equipment.

Some of those people were killed - others simply disappeared.

Moralizing While Cities Get Nuked?

I am not comfotable with the idea of (presumably) innocent people being killed by Iranian security, when the culprit is malicious code. Or, rather, whoever made Stuxnet.

On the other hand, I am not comfortable with the idea of people in Tel Aviv, Beirut, Stavropol, or some other city, getting vaporized because folks who could have stopped the Iranian nuclear program - didn't.

I know, by the way: A lot of the folks in the cities I mentioned are Muslims. I've gotten the impression that quite a few Muslims die because some other Muslim decided they're not doing Islam the 'right' way.

Stuxnet: No Skynet

Smart as Stuxnet is, I'm about as certain as I can be about anything that it won't wind up taking over the world, like The Terminator's Skynet.

On the other hand, like I said, I really hope that whoever designed Stuxnet has a way of disabling it - or that one of the many commercial anti-malware firms works out a method.

It looks like it was designed very carefully to perform one function - and only one function. On a particular computer system, in a particular place.

Still, anybody can make a mistake.

As to 'is it moral to use a worm like Stuxnet' to keep religious crazies from having nukes? If someone hadn't developed Stuxnet, the world's best and brightest might be discussion how if they'd just had a chance to talk with the ayatollahs, some city would still be on the map.

I'm inclined to think that "alive" is better than "dead," all other things being equal.

Here's a rather long set of excerpts from that article I mentioned:

"....--The worm also knew that the complex control system that ran the centrifuges was built by Siemans, the German manufacturer, and -- remarkably -- how that system worked as well and how to mask its activities from it.

"--Masking itself from the plant's security and other systems, the worm then ordered the centrifuges to rotate extremely fast, and then to slow down precipitously. This damaged the converter, the centrifuges and the bearings, and it corrupted the uranium in the tubes. It also left Iranian nuclear engineers wondering what was wrong, as computer checks showed no malfunctions in the operating system.

"Estimates are that this went on for more than a year, leaving the Iranian program in chaos. And as it did, the worm grew and adapted throughout the system. As new worms entered the system, they would meet and adapt and become increasingly sophisticated....

"...This went on until June of last year, when a Belarusan company working on the Iranian power plant in Beshehr discovered it in one of its machines. It quickly put out a notice on a Web network monitored by computer security experts around the world. Ordinarily these experts would immediately begin tracing the worm and dissecting it, looking for clues about its origin and other details.

"But that didn’t happen, because within minutes all the alert sites came under attack and were inoperative for 24 hours.

" 'I had to use e-mail to send notices but I couldn't reach everyone. Whoever made the worm had a full day to eliminate all traces of the worm that might lead us them,' Eric Byers, a computer security expert who has examined the Stuxnet. 'No hacker could have done that.'

"Experts, including inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, say that, despite Iran's claims to the contrary, the worm was successful in its goal: causing confusion among Iran’s nuclear engineers and disabling their nuclear program.

"Because of the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program, no one can be certain of the full extent of the damage. But sources inside Iran and elsewhere say that the Iranian centrifuge program has been operating far below its capacity and that the uranium enrichment program had 'stagnated' during the time the worm penetrated the underground facility. Only 4,000 of the 9,000 centrifuges Iran was known to have were put into use. Some suspect that is because of the critical need to replace ones that were damaged.

"And the limited number of those in use dwindled to an estimated 3,700 as problems engulfed their operation. IAEA inspectors say the sabotage better explains the slowness of the program, which they had earlier attributed to poor equipment manufacturing and management problems. As Iranians struggled with the setbacks, they began searching for signs of sabotage. From inside Iran there have been unconfirmed reports that the head of the plant was fired shortly after the worm wended its way into the system and began creating technical problems, and that some scientists who were suspected of espionage disappeared or were executed. And counter intelligence agents began monitoring all communications between scientists at the site, creating a climate of fear and paranoia....

"...Speculation on the worm's origin initially focused on hackers or even companies trying to disrupt competitors. But as engineers tore apart the virus they learned not only the depth of the code, its complex targeting mechanism, (despite infecting more than 100,000 computers it has only done damage at Natanz,) the enormous amount of work that went into it—Microsoft estimated that it consumed 10,000 man days of labor-- and about what the worm knew, the clues narrowed the number of players that have the capabilities to create it to a handful.

" 'This is what nation-states build, if their only other option would be to go to war,' Joseph Wouk, an Israeli security expert wrote.

"Byers is more certain. 'It is a military weapon,' he said.

"And much of what the worm 'knew' could only have come from a consortium of Western intelligence agencies, experts who have examined the code now believe.

"Originally, all eyes turned toward Israel's intelligence agencies. Engineers examining the worm found 'clues' that hinted at Israel's involvement. In one case they found the word 'Myrtus' embedded in the code and argued that it was a reference to Esther, the biblical figure who saved the ancient Jewish state from the Persians. But computer experts say 'Myrtus' is more likely a common reference to 'My RTUS,' or remote terminal units.

"Langer argues that no single Western intelligence agency had the skills to pull this off alone. The most likely answer, he says, is that a consortium of intelligence agencies worked together to build the cyber bomb...."
(FOXNews)

Langer's picks are

• The United States
  • Which has the technical skills needed
• Germany
  • With access to Sieman's product design
• Russia
  • Familar with
    • Iran's nuclear plant
    • Sieman's systems

He could be right about all that.

Then, there's this - I suppose you could call it a literary reference.

"There is one clue that was left in the code that may tell us all we need to know.

"Embedded in different section of the code is another common computer language reference, but this one is misspelled. Instead of saying 'DEADFOOT,' a term stolen from pilots meaning a failed engine, this one reads 'DEADFOO7.'

"Yes, OO7 has returned -- as a computer worm.

"Stuxnet. Shaken, not stirred."
(FOXNews)

Related posts:

• "Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
  (August 22, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)

In the news:

• "Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions"
  Ed Barnes, FOXNews (November 26, 2010)

Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department

Noted:

"US designates Iran's Jundallah as terrorist organization"
CNN (November 3, 2010)

"The United States has officially designated Iranian extremist group Jundallah as a foreign terrorist organization, the State Department said Wednesday.

"Jundallah, also known as the People's Resistance Movement of Iran, operates primarily in the Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders Pakistan.

"The State Department said Jundallah 'has engaged in numerous attacks resulting in the death and maiming of scores of Iranian civilians and government officials. Jundallah uses a variety of terrorist tactics, including suicide bombings, ambushes, kidnappings and targeted assassinations.'

"Most recently, the Sunni group claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in July at the Zahedan Grand Mosque. The attacks targeting Shiite worshipers killed 27 people. Iranian leaders said the United States was behind the attacks...."

I've made the point before, that Islam isn't a single, huge, monolithic block of Osama bin Laden clones. The Islamic crazies who have decided that God told them to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them are dangerous to their own neighbors. They seem at least as likely to kill another Muslim for being insufficiently 'Islamic,' as to go out and find a non-Muslim target.

And, in the Middle East, we're probably seeing Hatfield-and-McCoy situations that were old when Abraham moved out of Ur. That part of the world has folks whose cultures go 'way back.

I'm not making excuses for the terrorists, mind. On the other hand, I think it's well to remember that we're not dealing with folks who have America's habit of not killing your neighbor over some centuries-old snit.

Related posts:

• "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
  (August 22, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
  (December 29, 2009)
• "Iranian Newspaper Calls Hamas Terrorists, Gets Banned"
  (December 31, 2008)

9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees

As I've written before, blaming events of some conspiracy is quite popular. Tales of conspiracy sound cool, are full of drama and intrigue, provide a single explanation for just about everything, and allow folks to deflect blame on 'Them.

Who 'They' are varies:

• The commies were popular among conspiracy buffs a little over a half-century ago, here in America
  • Remember McCarthyism?
• Foreigners are a perennial favorite around the world
• Yankee imperialism may be dropping in the charts - or not
• And of course there's that old standby, the Jews

In some circles 'everybody knows' that the Jews are behind everything - and are running the Catholic Church. I am not making that up.

There doesn't have to be just one diabolical cabal of conspirators, of course: although I think that it's more aesthetically pleasing when there's a central conspiracy with minions. Iran's president combined two conventional bad guys in a rousing speech this week at the United Nations:

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hit the replay button once again Thursday, delivering a dubious rewrite of history that led to yet another walkout by the U.S. and its allies at the U.N. General Assembly.

"The U.S. delegation at the U.N. General Assembly walked out on the Iranian president's highly anticipated address Thursday after he unleashed his oft-repeated belief that the U.S. used the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to justify a war on terror that is still being fought.

"He also claimed that most Americans and nations believe that the U.S. government 'orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.'..."
(FOXNews)

I suppose Ahmadinejad knows his audience, and thinks implied Yankee imperialism and the Jews are a more plausible combination than, say:

• The Illuminati and the Knights Templar
• Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group
• Any of the above and space-alien shape-shifting lizard people

Ahmadeinejad and the Ayatollahs (sounds like a rock group, doesn't it?) aren't the only ones to present conspiracy theories in pairs. Consider:

• Big Oil and the Bush family
• Obama and Islam

To true believers, of course, any of these conspiracy theories aren't theories at all: they're facts, and anybody who doesn't agree is either a dupe or a fellow traveler. Or a member of the conspiracy.

You can't argue with logic like that.

Me? I must be a dupe, a fellow traveler, or a member of Them: I don't take conspiracy theories all that seriously. Except as they affect the actions of policy makers and other leaders. Or, as in the Iranian president's case, are presented by leaders.

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, that the Jews are running the Catholic Church, or that space aliens are targeting our nuclear bases.

Related posts:

• "Nuclear Weapons, Space Aliens, Conspiracy Theories, and Getting a Grip"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 24, 2010)
• "Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, and the Lizard People"
  (January 14, 2009)
• "Georgian Invasion an American Plot: Who Knew?"
  (August 28, 2008)
• "'911 Was an Inside Job! Our Boys Need to Know!'"
  (June 10, 2008)
• "The CIA Created Al Qaeda: Who Knew?"
  (April 2, 2008)
• "9/11: Anarchist Conspiracy!!!!"
  (October 19, 2007)
  • Here's one the conspiracy theorists seem to have missed
• "This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off"
  (July 27, 2007)
• "Professor Ward Churchill: 9/11 Truthteller, or Nincompoop?"
  (July 25, 2007)

In the news:

• "In full: Obama speaks to BBC Persian"
  BBC US & Canada(September 24, 2010)
• "Obama: Ahmadinejad's speech 'offensive' and 'hateful' "
  CNN (September 24, 2010)
• "Exclusive Interview with Iran's President"
  FOXNews (September 24, 2010)
  • Video
  • Also see:
    • "Obama: Ahmadinejad's Sept. 11 Statements 'Hateful'"
      FOXNews (September 24, 2010)
• "Ahmadinejad Condemns Capitalism, U.S. and Its Allies Walk Out"
  FOXNews (September 23, 2010)

Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers

In today's news:

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unveiled Iran's first domestically-built unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an 'ambassador of death' to the country's enemies.

"The 4m-long drone aircraft can carry up to four cruise missiles and will have a range of 620 miles, according to a state TV report - but not far enough to reach arch-enemy Israel.

" 'The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship,' Mr Ahmadinejad said at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran...."
(Press Association)

This carrier drone is impressive. On the other hand, Iran has had the X-55 LACM in its arsenal for years. (GlobalSecurity.org) That cruse missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers, or about 1,864 miles. America's comparatively safe from an attack using the X-55 LACM. Southern Russia? Not so much. I've written about that before.

Middle East: Where Pre-Industrial Cultures Face the Information Age

I've made the point before, that many people in the Middle East had been out of the loop for centuries - millennia in some cases. After the fall of the Persian and Roman Empires, with a few relatively brief exceptions, events in the rest of the world went on without troubling customs which had been old when Abraham moved out of Ur.

Then people in Europe and North America developed technologies that required petroleum. Lots of petroleum. Suddenly outsiders came, bringing strange new ideas with them.

The old-school cultures of the Middle East might have weathered that, but a few decades ago the Information Age started. I've managed to adjust to a world where I can communicate with people on the other side of the world: but I'm an American, and my ancestors had already gotten used to changing technologies.

It's not just technology, although today's infotech is affecting folks in the Middle East.

Again, my ancestors came from Europe and settled in America: where they learned how to deal with other folks who didn't have exactly the same set of cultural preferences. Without killing them.

I have some sympathy for the old-school folks, who were dragged from a comfortably insulated society of burqas and honor killings to a world of bikinis, beer and dog food commercials. It must be a terribly unsettling experience.

Andy Capp, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons

There's an old Andy Capp comic strip, where a police officer is repeating what Mr. Capp told him: something like 'I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first.'

That's funny, I think.

That's not, as a rule, a philosophy which I think should be applied to international diplomacy.

It'd be nice if Iran really did use their new robot bomber strictly as a deterrent. Then they might feel a little safer from the Jews and the Great Satan America.

My concern is that they'll decide that someone in range of their various short-, medium-, and long-range weapons is a threat; or is insufficiently Islamic, or whatever: and have a shot at killing some of the offending parties.

From what shows up in the news from time to time, my guess is that I'm not the only one with that sort of concern.

Can America 'hit him back first?'

In strictly practical terms: probably. Almost certainly, in fact. And then there would be cries (self?) righteous indignation from most of the national governments whose bacon we kept from frying. Unless there wasn't much of Iran left, there would probably be attacks against everyone and anyone within reach.

Not a good situation.

The alternative isn't too pleasant to contemplate, either: but there's the chance that the Ayatollahs will finally mismanage their government into oblivion, and let someone else have a crack at running the country.

Stranger things have happened.

Related posts:

• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and 'What the heck did they tell him?' "
  (September 17, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

In the news:

• "Iran president unveils drone bomber"
  Press Association (August 22, 2010)
• "Iran unveils drone aircraft to counter 'aggressors' "
  Reuters (August 22, 2010)

U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?

It's possible that Iran's Ayatollahs have made one insane speech too many.

A Washington Times article yesterday said that the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States was okay with using military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. And said so in public.

Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba apparently would like to give sanctions a chance - but if that doesn't change Iran's policy, well: "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran" is the way the article says that he put it.

Apparently other Arab diplomats have said essentially the same thing privately: the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) ambassador is the first one to go public.

I don't think this is anything to celebrate: any sort of military strike on Iran is likely to be messy. On the other hand, I'm rather relieved that at least one diplomat from the Islamic world seems to have decided that on the whole, he'd rather be alive, than pretend that Iran is okay because they're "Islamic."

It's a sort of victory for common sense.

Related posts:

• "Zimbabwe, Iran, and Uranium: Oh, Jolly"
  (May 4, 2010)
• "Boobquake! I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 23, 2010)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami "
  (June 28, 2009)
• "Nuclear War in the Middle East: Messy, Lethal, and Brief"
  (December 24, 2007)

In the news:

• "U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes"
  The Washington Times (July 6, 2010)

Neda Agha Soltan: One Year, No Arrests, Three Official Stories

Iran's Ayatollahs and their government stand firmly behind their explanation for Neda Agha Soltan's shooting death last year. She was definitely shot by:

• The CIA
• Terrorists
• Folks who thought last year's election had odd results

And, since they're running Iran: what they say is so, is so. Officially.

Unofficially, a remarkable number of people in Iran still say the election was rigged: brave words, since criticizing the election results is the same as waging war against God. According to Ayatollah Khatami. (June 28, 2009)

From today's news:

"A year after Neda's death, Iran movement continues"
CNN(June 20, 2010)

"...Today, the Iranian regime's crackdown seems to have driven protesters off the streets. But the movement is not weakening, some analysts say. Instead, it's evolved into an online underground civil rights struggle, they say.

" 'I think they're going to continue to move forward, whether in the form of a green movement or another type of movement,' said Karim Sadjadpour, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'It's just, basically, this march of history.'..."

As I wrote last year, quite a few of the people "waging war against God" in Iran are among the brightest and most educated young adults. That's one demographic that is not going to sit down and be quiet like good (by the Ayatollahs' standards) little Muslims.

I think Karim Sadjadpour has a point: in one sense, the Ayatollahs have already lost. They've managed to alienated a significant number of the Iranians who will - or would be - Iran's leaders in a few decades. Whoever they arrange to have elected next is unlikely to generate much support - particularly among Iranians who understand today's information technology, and know how to use it.

The Ayatollahs may last for years, maybe decades. They have the guns, the enforcers, and the incentive to kill anybody who doesn't agree with them. But it looks like they've lost the support of their subjects. At least, the ones who have what it takes to run Iran. Eventually, I think the Ayatollahs will run out of ammunition, enforcers: or Ayatollahs.

Related posts:

• "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
  (December 29, 2009)
• "Neda Agha Soltan's Death was 'Staged' - Officially"
  (July 1, 2009)
• "Protesting Election Fraud is "Waging War Against God" - Ayatollah Khatami"
  (June 28, 2009)
• "Pray for Neda: And Learn About the Real Iran"
  (June 26, 2009)
• "CIA Shot Neda: Old Story, New Names"
  (June 26, 2009)
• "Iran: 'Terrorists' Killed Neda Agha Soltan - Officially"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "Neda Agha Soltan, Iran, Cell Phone Cameras, and the Information Age"
  (June 23, 2009)
• "Remembering Iran's Neda Agha-Soltan"
  (June 22, 2009)
• " 'RIP NEDA, The World cries seeing your last breath ... We remember you.' "
  (June 21, 2009)

Zimbabwe, Iran, and Uranium: Oh, Jolly

As a rule, I'm glad to hear that someone with people issues finally makes a friend. In this case, I'm not so sure that it's good news.

This excerpt is longer than most, but I think it's important - interesting, at any rate - as background. I'll be back after the BBC.

"Zimbabwe's Mugabe backs Ahmadinejad on nuclear Iran"
BBC (May 4, 2010)

"President Robert Mugabe has backed Iran's 'just cause' on seeking nuclear power, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues his Zimbabwe visit.

"Zimbabwe's leader said both countries had been 'unjustly vilified and punished by Western countries'.

"Iran is subject to a range of UN diplomatic and trade sanctions, although it insists its nuclear project is for energy, not to build a weapon...."

"...Iran's leader also castigated Western nations, saying: 'They want to seize the markets of the countries [Iran and Zimbabwe] and destroy their economies,' reports the AFP news agency...."

"...Mr Mugabe and some of his closest allies are subject to targeted sanctions by several Western nations.

"These include a travel ban and an assets freeze but not trade measures....

"...He [Mr. Mugabe] has criticised it [the Movement for Democratic Change, or MDC] recently for failing to get the sanctions on him lifted.

"They were imposed after the US and the EU accused Mr Mugabe of rigging elections.

"He says they were really a punishment for his policy of seizing land from white farmers."

Ahmadinejad and Mugabe: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

I'm not on the same page as this fellow:

"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history."
George Bernard Shaw, The Quotations Page)

On the other hand, he did have a point. I think this fellow was closer to the mark:

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience."
(George Santayana, "The Life of Reason," Volume 1, 1905, The Quotations Page)

What's generally remembered out of that passage is: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

History doesn't repeat itself, but I think that when events start following a familiar pattern: it's well to look at what happened the first time.

Iran isn't in the best shape, economically. It's being run by people with strong allegiance to a particular ideology - and an arguably weak grasp on reality. Iran's leaders are looking for allies in some odd places. And, Iran's leaders blame powerful European nations - and the Jews - for their problems.

That may not sound familiar, particularly if you're an American and less than, say, 40 years old. This country hasn't exactly encouraged a study of history in recent decades.

I was born during the Truman administration, and studied history. Take the names off, and what's going on in Iran today is reminiscent of what was going on in Germany between what Americans call the Great Depression, and the start of World War II.

I sincerely hope that the EU leadership, and others in responsible positions, remember that Iran's leadership may not be entirely peace loving and trustworthy.

Zimbabwe and Simplicity

About Zimbabwe? It's part of a former British colony. Zimbabwe is doing about as well, adjusting to self-rule, as many other African countries. President Mugabe is currently running the place - but he's got competition.

Zimbabwe had a Prime Minister before President Mugabe's rule: the Prime Minister was Robert Mugabe. Same fellow. Under one title or another, he's been in charge since 1980.

A thousand years from now, whoever is making things happen where Zimbabwe is now may be as outstanding as Zimbabwe's namesake, Great Zimbabwe. Today? Not so much.

If Zimbabwe has uranium, and Mugabe thinks Iran will help him keep his job - Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program could give him a boost. And, in my opinion, we'll have gotten much closer to seeing what the Russian Federation will do if the Ayatollahs decide to nuke Moscow.

Do I think this is a simple matter of how Mugabe and Ahmadinejad hit it off, and what some dude in Moscow does?

No.

Some stories have that sort of 'James Bond / Dr. No' simplicity. This is the real world: where over 6,000,000,000 people in about 200 nations arrange themselves in groups that don't necessarily line up with today's national borders - or what their leaders feel like doing.

Simple, it isn't.

Related posts:

• "Boobquake! I am Not Making This Up"
  (April 23, 2010)
• "Iran's Mighty Army, President Ahmadinejad, Nuclear Weapons and History"
  (April 18, 2010)
• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)
• "Iran's Supreme Leader and God"
  (November 13, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
  (December 29, 2008)
• "War on Terror: Zimbabwe Has Trouble, Too"
  (June 23, 2008)
• "Holocaust Remembrance Day: May 1, 2008"
  (April 30, 2008)
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)
• "Jews Flee Iran, Fearing Persecution: Sound Familiar?"
  (December 25, 2007)
• "Resolutions "Worthless Papers" - Iran's President Ahmadinejad"
  (October 24, 2007)
• "Iran and Russia and Germany and Japan"
  (October 19, 2007)

Background on Zimbabwe:

• "ZIMBABWE"
  Countries and Their Cultures
• "Zimbabwe's history: Key dates"
  BBC (to 1998)
  • Yes, I know: the BBC is British
  • Zimbabwe was a British colony
• "Zimbabwe"
  World Factbook, CIA (last updated April 22, 2010)
  • EEEK!
    • It's the CIA!
• "Majority Rule in Zimbabwe"
  GlobalSecurity.org
• "Drafting of New Constitution to Begin in Zimbabwe"
  GlobalSecurity.org (January 5, 2010)
• "Zimbabwe Opposition Says Ruling Party Not 'Genuine' in Power-Sharing Deal"
  GlobalSecurity.org (October 28, 2008)