Hmm...mebbe this Iran thing will work itself out

[bj229r]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/25/iran.oil.ap/index.html

Admittedly it's more fun to bomb stuff...but watching them squirm has its merits too

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could disappear by 2015, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found.

Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the report published Monday.

Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports.

The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. (Watch to see how Iran's oil policies are hurting the country Video)

But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."

He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates.

At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.

"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."

"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.

"The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself.".

[DREDIOCK]

Course Iran could always become an expansionist nation to include lets say...Iraq once we pull out

[eagl]

Iran would probably do a hell of a lot better job running Iraq than, say, the Iraqis...  

The "best" solution actually would probably be to partition the country.  Give the kurds their chunk and give each neighboring country whatever chunk matches their dominant ethnic population.

Just wipe that whole mistake right off the map.

[lazs2]

I agree.. they want to live like tribes so let em..  Partition out the country.   When Iran collapses partition it.   They want to live in the dark ages with a dark ages religion I say let em.

lazs

[Viking]

Unlike Iraq, Iran is not divided culturally. The Persian culture predates all European and most (if not all) Asian cultures. Iran will not "collapse" like Iraq.

[storch]

yup the whole region as a political map was created by the europeans after the first world war.  let them return to their tribal feudalism and rubbing each other out in the name of muhammad.  that would be far better for us in the long run.

[storch]

true GS but the region outside of persia is a mixed bag of tribes.  they may unite long enough to occassionally fight the persians but as soon as that is over they return to killing each other.

[cpxxx]

T E Lawrence (of Arabia) drew a map after WW1 with his suggestions for the division of the Middle East into various countries based on his experiences. He was of course ignored. Who knows, things may have been quite different if his suggestions were taken up.

He didn't include Persia of course as they remain quite a separate race. It doesn't matter if Iran became expansionist or not. The Arabs would not tolerate being ruled by the Persians anymore than they would tolerate being ruled by Americans.

[Viking]

Yes Cpxxx, but southern Iraq used to be part of Persia, so the Shi'ite Iraqis are culturally Persians. Iran could (easily) annex Iraq.

[babek-]

Originally posted by cpxxx
T E Lawrence (of Arabia) drew a map after WW1 with his suggestions for the division of the Middle East into various countries based on his experiences. He was of course ignored. Who knows, things may have been quite different if his suggestions were taken up.

He didn't include Persia of course as they remain quite a separate race. It doesn't matter if Iran became expansionist or not. The Arabs would not tolerate being ruled by the Persians anymore than they would tolerate being ruled by Americans.

Iran was not created like the arab nations after WWI. Its an 2500 year old country which had succesfully absorbed foreign invaders like the macedonians, the arabs and the mongols.

Iranian diplomats were travelling through Europe during the reign of Shah Abbas.

Nadir Shah - a genius of military warfare - conquered India using modern tactics and military special forces, including british mercenary riflemen.
His son travelled to Europe and his son was fighting for the austrian forces under Queen Marie Theresia as the Baron of Semlin as a decorated cavalry commander.

These are only very few examples.

There are long traditions between european nations and Iran, which were built long before WW1 and lasted long after WW1.

The arab nations on the other hand - like Iraq or Kuwait or whatever, these were created by the allies after WW1.
Like in Africa artificial borders were drawn, mixing or dividing ethnical groups.

Iraq is a very good example - with its 3 different groups.

Its right that the sunnite arabs or the iraqi kurds would never tolerate an iranian leadership in Iraq.

But the iraqi shi ites would do so.

On the other hand Iraq will never be allowed to be cut into 3 different pieces.
Not because of shi ites and Iran.
But because of the kurds and the effect of an independent Kurdistan on the NATO-partner Turkey with its own large kurdish minority.

[john9001]

"succesfully absorbed foreign invaders"

wow, talk about "spin".

[storch]

Originally posted by john9001
"succesfully absorbed foreign invaders"

wow, talk about "spin".

he's correct, much in the same way we Americans accept and absorb foreign invaders.  persians are by no means arabs and have much in common with indo-aryan europeans.

[babek-]

Originally posted by john9001
"succesfully absorbed foreign invaders"

wow, talk about "spin".

OK - lets check:

Macedonians: The iranian parthian dynasty absorbed hellenistic elements, elininated the seleucid empire in Iran and for 500 years it was the rival of the Roman Empire.

Then the iranian Sassanid dynasty followed.

Arabs: They conquered Iran and tried to assimilate Iran like the other nations which became arabs. But the iranian fought against this, they saved their culture, their own iranian language.
On the other hand they absorbed the religion of arab conquerors - creating the shi ite religion. They absorbed arab writing used and expanded it with iranian letters. Finally the arabs were eliminated from Iran.

Mongols: The stormed over Iran but finally even the mighty mongols in Iran were absorbed and even became moslems. And faded away.  

So - whats wrong in the sentence "succesfully absorbed the foreign invaders"?

Its a clever move to take the best of a foreign culture and simultanuously (hope this word is speed right - but I dont think so) keep the own national identity.

[babek-]

Originally posted by storch
he's correct, much in the same way we Americans accept and absorb foreign invaders.  persians are by no means arabs and have much in common with indo-aryan europeans.

Correct.

Iranians and Arabs are bitter enemies.

They are of different race and culture.

Arabs are semite race people - iranians not.

"Iran" means nothing else than "Land of the Aryans" and the Shahs of Iran used the title "Aryamehr" = "Light of the Aryans". From the time of the Achaemenid dynasty of Cyrus the great until the Pahlevi-dynasty.

That has nothing to do with the Nazi-Aryan-term.

But especially after the arab attempt to assimilate Iran to the Arab family the arabs are defined as the traditional enemy of iran.

[bj229r]

Iran, Egypt and Turkey are the only real countries in the M.E.