http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/09/is-war-with-iran-inevitable-nuclear-weapons
Can we honestly afford to be involved in another war in that part of the World?

Posted By: BrianwilsonCan we honestly afford to be involved in another war in that part of the World?

Never mind can we afford it, can that part of the world afford to suffer another western proxy?

I do wish we (in the western world) could learn to stop interfering in the affairs of other states purely to line our own pockets (and security of oil supply seems to be key driver for the US interfering in the Middle East generally and any Gulf state in particular).

I spent some time in Bahrain and Sharjah years ago; both had a culture, and laws, that were very alien to anyone from the West. Some things, like the fairly extreme suppression of women's rights in Sharjah, or public executions and summary justice by the police in Bahrain, had the immediate impact of seeming very wrong to me, as did the lack of democracy. On the other hand, crime rates were very low and the general standard of living in both states was high at that time (late 1970's). In particular, the Al Khalifa family, specifically the late emir, Isa, ruled Bahrain at the time with the closest I've seen to a benign absolute monarchy, with good health care, low taxation, a good standard of public infrastructure etc. In short all the signs of a successful society, without a shred of democracy (although it has to be said that his son hasn't done anywhere near as good a job over the last few years). The experience taught me to respect the culture and ways of other countries and not to presume that our own form of government or belief systems were either the best or the only valid ways to run a country.

Unfortunately our colonial cousins have yet to learn the lesson that their way of life and government isn't either the best, or even the most desirable, for every state on earth.

I don't disagree with your statement about the intent of the minority, but, like all cultures, extremist behaviour is driven by acts of aggression, or suppression, by others. We're seeing a kick-back against western (mainly US) intervention in these places. Anyone who doubts for one moment that the majority of US intervention in the Middle East hasn't been driven by their desire to either retain economic oil supplies or control political influence is mistaken.

The whole Muslim/Jewish/Christian conflict, which has been going on for a thousand years or more, gives a convenient hook for these extremists to latch on to, much the same as happened in the six counties in Ireland. The conflict there wasn't/isn't religious, it was/is about a desire by one sector of society to retain UK sovereignty whilst being opposed by another sector of that society. It was convenient shorthand for the press to label it a catholic/protestant conflict, but the truth is that it's about community, not religious belief, differences (as I'm sure some of our members here will confirm, and I speak as someone with an Irish background, and not from the six counties).

The same is true for Muslim extremists, and let's not assume that whole states hold that view, they don't. If you take Iran as an example, then the revolution that triggered the changes over the past 30 years in that country was a kick back against the monarchy that been put in place (in it's then form) by the British and Soviets after our invasion of the country. The US then supported the Shah for years, primarily as a measure to limit possible Soviet influence in the region. Unsurprisingly, when revolution happened the west, specifically the US and ourselves, became prime targets for the religious fundamentalists that took over.

Had we not put Shah Pahlavi in power, and had the US then not helped Shah Pahlavi maintain autocratic control and his programme of removing Islamic law within the country, it seems probable that the fundamentalist driven revolution may not have happened and we, in the west, might not find ourselves in the firing line for all that hatred.

The question is really what we do about it now, as we cannot undo history. The vast majority of Iranians are well-educated, rational and reasonable people. They are, however, led by a small cadre of extremists who continually express the views you've mentioned with regard to the west. In my view, the situation has parallels with the Third Reich, where a minority extremist group, led by an almost unbelievable tyrant, managed to turn a nation of clever and rational people into animals, all in the space of a few years.

I believe that forcible regime change is absolutely the wrong way to tackle this problem. Change need to come from within Iran, from the people themselves. I'd have no difficulty supporting change brought about that way, just as I have no difficulty supporting the actions that have been instigated in Arab states during the recent wave of revolutions. I do have a big problem with the US leading a dumb and ill-thought through military intervention though, because all it will do is create the next generation of extremists, every bit as effectively as Shah Pahlavi's suppression of Islam did more than 30 years ago.

Governments start wars, not the people.

I said: "The destruction of Western Culture is the INTENTION of fundamentalist States."

The use of the word "States" was deliberate and VERY considered.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>Governments start wars, not the people.</blockquote>

Very true, but they cannot prosecute a war without the help of their people. Take the example of the Third Reich. A lunatic leader comes to power, surrounds himself with a team of like-minded ruthless individuals and manages to turn a whole country into one of the most effective war machines that Europe has ever seen, killing millions in the process.

Will the Iranian people support their government if all the rhetoric turns to real action? Knowing one or two exiled Iranians (one of who insisted on being referred to as Persian) I doubt it. The government isn't popular in Iran, but at the moment it is seen by many as the lesser of two evils, with the poorer alternative being the suppression of Islam and westernisation along the lines of that promoted by Shah Pahlavi. Should it come to war with the west I think that might just be the tipping point for another revolution.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Joiner</cite>I said: "The destruction of Western Culture is the INTENTION of fundamentalist States."

The use of the word "States" was deliberate and VERY considered.</blockquote>

OK, sorry if I took that point the wrong way.

And wookey, I was merely taking up the point made by JSH in response to my response to Tom's post, and actually brought it back onto Brian's track with: "Brian's question is whether we can afford the COST of another war in that sector, given the parlous state of our own economy. It's got sod-all to do with oil."

I suppose in many ways it does actually have a lot to do with oil, in the sense that if Iran did decide to use its long-range capability against Isreal in retaliation for any Isreali pre-emptive strike, and if the current aggressive posturing of Russia (and China's hint that they'll get mightily pissed off if the West does "engage") does come to silos opening up again (bearing in mind that much of the nuclear capability of the old USSR is in the newly disengaged Islamic States) then we might just get the kind of conflict that would see the world reduced to a life without oil anyway.

That should sort things out. No need then to worry about the cost of a drawn-out conflict of the Iraq/Afghan type.

Mind you, Mexican stand-offs can often lead to satisfactory conclusions. The last one I was ever a tiny part of was the Cuban Crisis back in the winter of 1962, when a group of us were living out of the back of a 3-tonner on the dispersal pans of RAF Honington, nursemaiding the 10,000lb nuclear bombs on board our Victors which were on 4-minute standby. We were advised that in the event of their being scrambled we should sit in the middle of the airfield and face east. No point trying to hide.

Forget colonial forays into the backyards of the middle east to protect "our" oil. It's about to become a different world to the one that has so far guaranteed that when you turn that key in your ignition you get the satisfactory response of a gentle roar from the engine under that bonnet and the comfortable feeling that comes from knowing that when the fuel guage gets low there'll be a filling station somewhere nearby to fill up from. In fact the change started a few years back - they had the oil, we wanted it and were prepared to pay what they were asking for it. Even if they didn't like us, they still had the fighting amongst themselves to pay for, or the police state to support to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.

According to some on here, had they in fact turned off the taps they would have helped us to help ourselves. Think OPEC when it was in the headlines.

JSH, I agree almost line by line - v gd.

The west is pervaded with incredible ignorance and disinformation about the history, content and present state of Islam and the Muslim world. Since Jew-baiting has become more or less verboten, it's now open-house on Muslims. Systematic barrage of outrageous lies and propaganda is uncritically lapped up a credulous public,. even the most educated, and politicians, who shd know better.

Large sectors of society can't seem to function personally without having an enemy, some scum to blame, and politicians have always exploited this - it's so easy, keeps repeating - we never learn. We even like to think the American are even more pig-ignorant and willingly lied-to about such things than we sophisticated Europeans - but there's only a Rizla between. Just read something reliable about it - I recommend http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Nonsense-Guide-Islam-Guides/dp/1904456618/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1323686652&sr=8-13 and sections of Salman Rusdie's The Satanic Verses.

It's true Islam has gone badly astray, but so has Christianity, to world-devastating effect. At least Islam is the genuine, original thing, for better or worse, whereas Christianity is a wholesale forgery, a cynical re-write 400yrs later, of Christ's and his Apostles' original, for purpose of political control.

"As Judaism, It seems only Eastern religions remain relatively untainted. "

????? are you sure??

Ive yet to see a religion that isn't bigoted in one way or another, eastern religions are just as bad.

I dont agree withs Hitchens support for the war but here he is at his absolute best...

Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair Debate: Is Religion A Force For Good In The World?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA

Me? I'm a member of the Ironical Sect. We're the True Believers except that no one notices us there, on the sidelines, grinning.

Very true.