 Country #1 has natural resources that Country #2 doesn't
To make a "predator" happy, a "prey" can offer
nothing but "its flesh."
M. Ghajar
May 17, 2005
iranian.com unedited
Nuclear proliferation is hot as has always
been.
This time, it is Iran which incidentally has the capability to be
self-content in this technology: Iran has the ores. What remains
is acquiring (or developing) the technology. The issue of nuclear
technology for Iran in our times is comparable to the issue of oil
technology some 60 years ago and movement of nationalization of petroleum
which forced a national oil company. The success of Jebhe-ye Melli,
and Mossaddegh, temporarily brought us the economic decline of 1951-1953
as a result of boycott of Iran's oil by Britons followed by the Americans.
Famine killed hundreds maybe thousands of Iranians. Not the famine,
but the boycott was aligned with the interests of the United States
and Britain. So they did it. This made me think about a possible
logical stream that can explain this point very good and helps let
get rid of some illusions.
I have come up with the following.
In general:
Assumptions:
1) Country #1 is a sovereign country.
2) Country #2 is a sovereign country.
Facts:
3) An "order of magnitude" means 10 times.
 4) A Sovereign country considers its interests.
5) Sovereign countries "only" consider their "own" interests:
The head of a sovereign country has taken the oath to do whatever
it can to
benefit "ITS OWN COUNTRY".
6) Sovereign countries do not have a responsibility to benefit "other" sovereign
countries, although they may if they "want" to.
7) "Want" in (5) happens if there are "mutual interests," at
least partially.
8) "Mutual interests" in (6) might exist only if the powers are in
the
same order of magnitude, at least "regionally." Aside:
Let's suppose the countries are Iran and the United States. Unites States
is at least three orders of magnitude stronger than Iran (1,000 times)
both economically
and militarily (consider 150,000 Hiroshima-size nuclear warheads). In addition,
it has occupied practically all neighbors of Iran. Therefore there could
probably not
be "mutual interest" -- in its natural definitions -- unless
Iran tries to endanger the United States interests in the region by acts
of
terror (which
at least for the moment I am not trying to suggest Iran is terrorist or
is really decided to use this weapon) which is being
proved to be not quite effective.
Therefore, Iran is not in the category of countries which we can easily assume
the US can have mutual interests with.
Now let's get back to the general case:
Facts:
9) Country #1 has natural resources that Country #2 needs them. Let's call
Country #1, "flesh."
10) To make a "predator" happy, a "prey" can offer nothing
but "its flesh."
Definition:
11) A country which is at least one "order of magnitude" weaker AND
has "flesh", can be called "the prey" and the opponent country
can be
called "the predator."Conclusion:
United States WILL NOT do anything "exclusively" to help Iranian people.
It's simply none of its business. American people's tax money does not go into
Iraq or Iran unless there's a good outcome for the US "
only." These are the direct results that came from the simple analogy given
above.
 Iran needs no intervention. Iran needs independence instead. We must be left
to ourselves. Did any country start the renaissance in France by sanctioning
it or by military invasion?! The government and the people always evolve together.
In any given time, people deserve their government. Everything has to happen
gradually. There exist no short-cuts. We do not need a savior when our people
do not know what exactly a democracy is or should be, or rather, what exactly
they want. Of course I am not implying the United States actually has a democracy
as they have their own huge problems. Our people once chose a theocracy when
it could truly choose a democracy three decades ago. If we are proud Iranians,
we should want the nuclear technology exactly the way Dr. Mossaddegh wanted
a national oil fifty years ago. They might sanction us. Good for them, but
we will get our nukes instead. That will bring us in a level in which we can
really negotiate with the powers, not as a good dog, but as a potential ally
or trouble-maker. If we stay to be "prey", the current situation
will continue. Although instead we can always stick to China AND Russia AND
India AND Europe collectively, in order to remain, hoping not to be manipulated
by them this time."
|
Country #1 has natural resources that Country #2 doesn't
