Tuesday, February 25, 2003
8:33 pm
The Foreign Affairs Committee and Iran - 25th February 2003, 20.33
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee was taking questions on Iran. First up was Dr Ali Ansari, lecturer in the history of the Middle East at the University of Durham, who appeared to view Iran as a democracy (of sorts).
The late shah's former finance minister, who now lives in America, Jahangir Amuzegar, says in the Journal of Foreign Affairs, January's edition, his final concluding sentences on his article about Iran's crumbling revolution are, "the theocracies' days are numbered; Iran's own internal currents assure this." Do you agree?
(Dr Ansari) In broad terms, yes, absolutely. I do not like to use the term theocracy, but the system as it stands at the moment is not sustainable if it refuses - and it is a minority here who are being very difficult - to adapt to the needs of the young people (and the needs and the pressure are there; Iran is unique in this respect in the Middle East). It is not sustainable as it stands.
On weapons of mass destruction: Dr Gary Samore, Director of Studies, International Institute for Strategic Studies:
(Sir John Stanley) We have been informed that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Kharrazi, has said on the official Iranian state media, "Iran has no plan to produce nuclear weapons and all efforts in this field are intended for peaceful means". Are you saying to the Committee that in your judgment that is a lie?
(Dr Samore) I think it is patently false. If you look at the facilities that Iran is building, the heavy water plant and the gas centrifuge enrichment plant, they cannot be plausibly justified as part of a civil nuclear power program....
So are you saying to the Committee that in your judgment the Iranian government is lying?
(Dr Samore) Yes.
Deliberately.
(Dr Samore) Yes.
In the quotation that I have just read from the Foreign Minister.
(Dr Samore) Yes.
On terrorism:
(Mr Pope) It seems that we are getting a clear picture about Iran. This is a country which is repressing many of its own citizens, it is exporting terrorism, partly financing Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic-Jehad . It is developing weapons of mass destruction. So this is no Sweden. But do you think Bush was right in the axis of evil to lump it in with North Korea and Iraq. It seemed to me that whilst not a great friend of the west it is of a different kind of a state to the other two and it was probably a strategic error on Bush's part to put Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. What do you think?
(Dr Samore) From an analytical stand point it is a very different type of problem. In the case of North Korea and Iraq you are dealing with fundamentally dictatorial states, one man rule. In the case of Iran it is much more complicated and that makes it both better and worse I think in some respects. It is better in the sense that one can hope to strengthen the moderate elements and produce an improvement in behaviour that way. It is worse in the sense that I find it very, very difficult to figure out how any action one takes will actually reverberate within the endless and very complicated and murky warfare that goes on in Tehran. Some people who are not particular fans of President Bush think that including Iran in the axis of evil was actually a very good thing because it strengthened the hands of the moderates who are able to say to other elements, "Your behaviour is putting us on a very dangerous list. The last thing we want to do is antagonise the United States." I think how our behaviour affects what is going on in Iran is very, very difficult to figure out. We may do things that actually have a beneficial effect even if, at first blush, they do not look too smart.
These exchanges clearly show how dangerous Iran is becoming: an unstable theocratic republic which is pursueing weapons of mass destruction and may soon find its publicly avowed ideological foes allied to all of the countries on its borders. One of the strategic consequences of invading Iraq is rarely publicised: the encirclement and containment of Iran.
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee was taking questions on Iran. First up was Dr Ali Ansari, lecturer in the history of the Middle East at the University of Durham, who appeared to view Iran as a democracy (of sorts).
The late shah's former finance minister, who now lives in America, Jahangir Amuzegar, says in the Journal of Foreign Affairs, January's edition, his final concluding sentences on his article about Iran's crumbling revolution are, "the theocracies' days are numbered; Iran's own internal currents assure this." Do you agree?
(Dr Ansari) In broad terms, yes, absolutely. I do not like to use the term theocracy, but the system as it stands at the moment is not sustainable if it refuses - and it is a minority here who are being very difficult - to adapt to the needs of the young people (and the needs and the pressure are there; Iran is unique in this respect in the Middle East). It is not sustainable as it stands.
On weapons of mass destruction: Dr Gary Samore, Director of Studies, International Institute for Strategic Studies:
(Sir John Stanley) We have been informed that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Kharrazi, has said on the official Iranian state media, "Iran has no plan to produce nuclear weapons and all efforts in this field are intended for peaceful means". Are you saying to the Committee that in your judgment that is a lie?
(Dr Samore) I think it is patently false. If you look at the facilities that Iran is building, the heavy water plant and the gas centrifuge enrichment plant, they cannot be plausibly justified as part of a civil nuclear power program....
So are you saying to the Committee that in your judgment the Iranian government is lying?
(Dr Samore) Yes.
Deliberately.
(Dr Samore) Yes.
In the quotation that I have just read from the Foreign Minister.
(Dr Samore) Yes.
On terrorism:
(Mr Pope) It seems that we are getting a clear picture about Iran. This is a country which is repressing many of its own citizens, it is exporting terrorism, partly financing Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic-Jehad . It is developing weapons of mass destruction. So this is no Sweden. But do you think Bush was right in the axis of evil to lump it in with North Korea and Iraq. It seemed to me that whilst not a great friend of the west it is of a different kind of a state to the other two and it was probably a strategic error on Bush's part to put Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. What do you think?
(Dr Samore) From an analytical stand point it is a very different type of problem. In the case of North Korea and Iraq you are dealing with fundamentally dictatorial states, one man rule. In the case of Iran it is much more complicated and that makes it both better and worse I think in some respects. It is better in the sense that one can hope to strengthen the moderate elements and produce an improvement in behaviour that way. It is worse in the sense that I find it very, very difficult to figure out how any action one takes will actually reverberate within the endless and very complicated and murky warfare that goes on in Tehran. Some people who are not particular fans of President Bush think that including Iran in the axis of evil was actually a very good thing because it strengthened the hands of the moderates who are able to say to other elements, "Your behaviour is putting us on a very dangerous list. The last thing we want to do is antagonise the United States." I think how our behaviour affects what is going on in Iran is very, very difficult to figure out. We may do things that actually have a beneficial effect even if, at first blush, they do not look too smart.
These exchanges clearly show how dangerous Iran is becoming: an unstable theocratic republic which is pursueing weapons of mass destruction and may soon find its publicly avowed ideological foes allied to all of the countries on its borders. One of the strategic consequences of invading Iraq is rarely publicised: the encirclement and containment of Iran.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
February
(95)
- One sided kind of special So the Americans are po...
- Eurosocialism - 26th February 2003, 20.44 Interes...
- Unlucky Luckhurst - 27th February 2003, 20.23 Tim...
- A Dawning Realisation - 27th February 2003, 20.12 ...
- Another bill arrives for Last Year's War I don't ...
- Pax Americana? 26th February 2003. One thing ta...
- 10% ... or thereabouts of the Parliamentary Conse...
- Labour are revolting - 26th February 2003, 23.20 ...
- Something Understood - 26th February 2003, 22.48 ...
- Trust The People? - 26th February 2003, 22.33 If ...
- Delaying Tactics - 26th February 2003, 22.25 Gisc...
- Everyone argues Chirac is an Arab. He isn't, he's ...
- The Foreign Affairs Committee and Iran - 25th Febr...
- Bolstering Sierra Leone - 25th February 2003, 20.0...
- Another Ruritania gives up its sovereignty - 25th ...
- Meanwhile, in last year's war I don't think this ...
- Expect to see this in the Guardian - 24th February...
- Franco-British Defence - 24th February 2003, 19.57...
- Dealing with the EU - 24th February 2003, 19.42 D...
- Frittering away our interests As well as worrying...
- Sleepwalking into Empire Yet another reason not t...
- Germany: Stagnant and Unsettled - 23rd February 20...
- Now they'll use Iraq to get the Euro Just to show...
- Zimwatch: American diplomat was detained - 23rd Fe...
- Where Blair and Bush differ - 23rd February 2003, ...
- Who holds the Champagne? - 23rd February 2003, 12....
- Prices for Crises We're often accused of being Gu...
- Raimondo but Rong Justin Raimondo gives a hearty ...
- The Federal Union - 22nd February 2003, 16.10 Man...
- Enarquey - 21st February 2003, 20.57 Another arti...
- Entrails Watch - 21st February 2003, 20.42 Croati...
- The Grand Old Man of Terror - 21st February 2003, ...
- Does It Matter? 21st February 2003. Never seem t...
- Listed One of the amusing things about writing on...
- Why did they march? - 20th February 2003, 21.45 T...
- Entrails Watch - 20th February 2003, 21.25 Attemp...
- Amendments to the Second Draft - 20th February 200...
- But do they want to win? Robert Fisk is probably ...
- Operation: Overstretch - 19th February 2003, 23.13...
- Zimwatch: Developments - 19th February 2003, 19.34...
- Backfiring - 18th February 2003, 20.22 If anybody...
- Biscuit thief Blair Tony Blair seems to have real...
- United in words, not deeds - 17th February 2003, 2...
- Appeasement, first time round There was a time wh...
- A Definition of Solidarity - 16th February 2003, 2...
- An Omanist - 16th February 2003, 20.35 Here is an...
- The Sovereignty Con - 16th February 2003, 19.46 R...
- Not quite the History we had in mind Andrew Dodge...
- Where did they all come from? 750 000, almost twi...
- The United Nations is the new Princess Diana - 15t...
- One Percent - 15th February 2003, 18.17 The Daily...
- How will the March go? With this massive anti-war...
- Minority Reports An interesting post in the afore...
- Countering Pan-Arabism - 12th January 2003, 19.45 ...
- Anti-Europeanism - 12th January 2003, 19.27 Readi...
- NATO no go A curiously prescient article on the w...
- Now that Blair has put tanks on our streets, a few...
- Not just in and out U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occup...
- Still not proven Another day, another loon. This...
- Pinning down the Federasts Too daunted to trudge ...
- A Confident Response - 11th January 2003, 20.23 J...
- No obligations The Turkish Prime Minister says th...
- NATO is no longer a military alliance - 10th Janua...
- 12 Years too late With this vote against helping ...
- Beelzebub has a devil for a son - 10th January 200...
- Would we do this to an American? When wittering o...
- The UN Trap Chatshow Charlie Kennedy has promised...
- Official - They have no shame I really do not wan...
- On hating America, and Belgium I hate to break th...
- The Second Draft (Part 6) Article 13: The coordin...
- The Second Draft (Part 5) Article 11: Exclusive C...
- The Second Draft (Part 4) Article 9: Application ...
- The Second Draft (part 3) Title III: The Union's...
- The Second Draft (Part 2) - 7th February 2003 Art...
- The Second Draft - 7th February 2003 Giscard D'Es...
- Spectator - 6th February 2003, 22.20 Boris Johnso...
- Read the Small Print It seems that Blair's intern...
- Blowback The problem about all these foreign adve...
- Collective Security - 5th February 2003, 21.45 Mo...
- Nice Europe - 5th February 2003, 21.14 This may b...
- A Statement of Values - 5th February 2003, 21.07 ...
- Bridging the Channel - 4th February 2003, 20.37 O...
- Iraqi Overstretch - 4th January 2003, 20.17 Docum...
- Meanwhile in the Hindu Kush It's probably an idea...
- Oh Dear It appears that the links between Al Qaed...
- A Possible Opportunity - 3rd February 2003, 23.42 ...
- Op-Ed Diplomacy - 3rd February 2003, 23.25 With t...
- Zimwatch: Good and Bad Omens - 3rd February 2003, ...
- Red Card - 2nd February 2003, 22.23 The latest at...
- Malta Referendum - 2nd February 2003, 18.28 Malta...
- That Learning Curve - 2nd February 2003, 15.53 La...
- Al-Qaida targets British Admiral - 2nd February 20...
- In Churchill's Shadow - 1st February 2003, 22.37 ...
- Reliable - 1st February 2003, 10.14 A Gallup poll...
- Nasa Shuttle lost on re-entry - 1st February 2003,...
-
▼
February
(95)
0 comments:
Post a Comment