The Iranian banknote goes nuclear

In four days time Iran will print a new banknote with a nuclear logo on one side and a picture of the Ayatollah Khomeini on the other. Great.

But the attitude problem of the in-your-face note (Tom Gross records that on top of the design issues, exactly six million are to be printed) is less interesting than the economic problem it is designed to remedy.

According to AsiaNews:

The Iranian banknote serves to hide increasing inflation. The underdeveloped Iranian banking system is feeling the effects of economic sanctions imposed by US financial authorities on all business dealing with the US and Iran - thus the Islamic Republic finds itself in a delicate phase of dollar/euro transition. 

But perhaps the most serious problems are found within the Iranian economic system: badly governed and for the most part controlled by the regime, in which corruption and speculation triumph, resulting in chronic inflation.

The conventional wisdom is that Iran's nuclear ambitions cannot be thwarted. This isn't true. Sanctions may not work, but they could. If they are going to, Europe has to join in. Why won't it?

It is an irony that the same people who argue that sanctions and containment worked in Iraq are against using them in Iran.

Comments

[Recusant]

"Irony" - I wish.

It's because those "same people" take their cue from what the US is doing. And do the opposite

That's right, they don't have a philosophy, they're Reactionaries.

[M. Fernandez]

The same people who argued that sanctions would work against Saddam in the 2003 are the same people who wanted sanctions removed completely in the late nineties.

These people don't have values, they choose the path of maximum profit and least bother. Pacifism is ruse for doing nothing. Leave it to the Americans and complain no matter what they do.

See Mark Steyn's article, "Keeping Calm" at http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogcategory/13/99/

[Joan Moira Peters]

What needs to be emphasized is that Iran is requested to
suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing in accordance with IAEA resolutions but Iran's right to a civil nuclear power generation programme is not under dispute.
Iran has not specifically threatened a nuclear attack on any nation even though there have been generalized threats with regard to Israel. Moreover, it cannot be known whether these threats were in fact a defensive, rhetorical response to what Iran may have perceived to be a possible Western threat to its future security and, at the same time, perhaps the seemingly malign elements of President Ahmadinejad's speeches were in fact, an attempt to guage public opinion. From news reports, it seems that what many Iranians want, just as people everywhere, is peace.
Yet, words, spoken for whatever reason, or, as it has been claimed, mis-reported words, are capable of causing fear and insecurity among those to whom threats are directed, in this instance, the people of Israel.
However, it is extremely unlikely that the current Iranian government would launch a nuclear attack. Modern Iran was founded upon the principles of Islam, not a liberal version of Islam but a highly conservative one. Yet it has followed a theological route which emphasizes the mercy and compassion of Allah, thereby allowing for the setting aside of punishments such as amputations and stoning. Likewise, torture is officially outlawed.
Every culture has its individual contribution to make to the international political scene and Iran has developed its unique Islamic political system which will find its own way of interpreting the meaning of social progress.
Islam has clear teaching on war and aggression, and it is virtually inconceivable that Iran's Supreme Religious Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate responsibility for the nation's political decisions, would order a nuclear attack, nor that President Ahmadinejad would advise such action, unless Iran was itself in immanent danger of nuclear attack, which is no doubt the position adopted by other nuclear powers.
However, what is, no doubt, of concern to the West, is the fact that there are various strands of political and religious thought within Iran, and it cannot be predicted with certainty that an extremist element could not, sooner or later, gain pre-eminence and political control which could present a threat to international security, with or without the means of nuclear weapons.
In this light, Iran may appreciate why the United Nations has imposed sanctions.
It could be argued, from Iran's standpoint, that a future Western government could similarly prove a threat to Iran. However, this
is not the case, for whereas the foreign policy of Western governments may differ, to a degree, between liberal and conservative, the international community can feel secure in the belief that even the most conservative Western government would not launch a nuclear attack unless there was an immanent threat of nuclear attack on itself or its allies. Again, there cannot be the same confidence in this respect with regard to the designs of extremist elements within Islam and there is the added fear that nuclear weapons and terrorism could form a deadly combination. The events of 9/11, for example, alerted the world to the threat which terrorists pose.
My feeling is that there would be, in the international community, growing respect for Islam, as described above, were it not for the fear of terrorism. Even at the present time, Government-funded, private traditional, independently administered Islamic schools which encourage conservative Islamic religious attire, are able to thrive within Western liberal democracies, such as Britain; with a liberal Islamic dress code stipulated for non-sectarian State schools.
Once Islamic governments begin to feel secure that they can progress in their own individual way, without the concern that foreign powers are perhaps seeking to ultimately impose on them an alien ideology, then the international community might find that any type of direct or indirect support that terrorists may have been given by Islamic governments, would fade away. Many Muslim scholars have denounced terrorism, and one would hope that the majority of Muslims do also.
With regard to the British Navy personnel being held in Iran, we
must trust that Iran will treat them well, and free them as soon as it can, not only out of regard for their welfare, but also to
bring to the international political arena, an era of renewal, demonstrating a standard of fair treatment and compassion in times of international political difficulties, strife and conflict, as well as in times of peace.

[Joan Moira Peters]

NOTE TO MODERATOR: I would greatly appreciate it if you could end my comment (above) with a full stop after "peace", deleting the final words which read:"...the attainment of which would be facilitated by all sides adopting the right attitude - which calls to mind the philosophy of one who was neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim, namely, Confucius." (It could give the impression that I have studied Confucian philosophy in depth, whereas I have not. Moreover, it is an inappropriate conclusion in the context.) Thank you.

[Joan Moira Peters]

Is it possible that the dispute over whether the British Navy crew were in Iraqi or Iranian waters might be due to conflicting views on the exact position of the line which divides the waterway?
In 1975 Iraq reportedly signed the Algiers Accord, recognizing the line running down the middle of the waterway as the official border, then in 1980 that treaty was abrogated and then recognized once again in 1987. Perhaps the Iranians hold that the borderline is closer to the Iranian coastline, which would solve the dispute.
Doubtless, everyone, particularly the relatives of the British crew, were pleased to see on television that they were being treated well and that they had even commented that the food was good and the people friendly. The crew certainly looked quite relaxed and healthy. I do not see how the Iranians could be criticized for televising the crew and if all of them are televised, so much the better.
One must accept that the Iranians obviously felt that they had the right to use the occasion to draw attention to their political viewpoint regarding Iraq.
However, now that they have done so, hopefully the crew will be released very soon.
The Iranians for their part, should realize that the British government was extremely alarmed that their sailors had been captured.
Since, according to the British Navy’s calculations, the crew had been illegally abducted while exercising their United Nations’ mandate within Iraqi waters, the British government considered it had the right to justly demand - and gain political support for - the crew's immediate release. Unfortunately, this response on the part of the British government was interpreted by some in the Iranian administration as a form of undiplomatic arrogance, yet what lay at the root of the mutual antagonism which developed between the two governments, was the discrepancy, as described above, between the Iranian and British claims in respect of the exact position of the crew at the time of their capture.
However, it now seems that all sides are looking to a peaceful resolution to events.
Perhaps the crew could be given the opportunity to experience some aspects of everyday life in Iran, should this be possible without exposing them to any danger. If the situation could thus be transformed into a cultural exchange prior to the crew's departure, that could only have an additional positive effect on their overall experience, as well as on international cultural relations.

With regard to Iraq, the Iranians apparently resent the U.S. presence there, yet they must surely recognize that the former regime was unbelievably cruel and oppressive. Many British people, and perhaps Iranian people too, will have seen the television programme in which an Iraqi citizen described what life was like in those times, and what horrific genocide and torture took place. I expect many viewers, like myself, turned away when the images depicting torture practices were about to be described and screened, as it was going to be so cruel and terrible.
The Iranians must concede that it was right to bring an end to such a regime.
Yet at the same time, there has obviously been a concern that the U.S. military intervention might result in the introduction or even the imposition of an American way of life on Iraq and this is why there has been resentment at the presence of the U.S. and its allies.
There is much to admire in the American and Western way and culture. For example, the Americans, at the government and private sector level, and on the personal level, donate massive amounts every year to overseas aid and charities both at home and abroad, and are, according to a recent study, the most generous people in the world in this respect. Moreover, there is great emphasis in the U.S. and the West on personal fulfillment, each person being enabled to reach their full potential as individuals.
The Muslim people too, are justly proud of their heritage and its social, political and cultural accomplishments, to take one example, the equitableness which prevailed under Muslim rule centuries ago in many parts of the world. Again, in Islam, there is an emphasis on the happiness which is based on a religious family life and community relations. Yet in the West, there have been reports regarding subjection and violence towards women in Islamic societies. However, it is virtually impossible to verify the truth of reports of abuse, at least one of which was posted on the internet and statistics are invariably quoted in isolation without a reference or comparison to Western statistics so that there is not an unbiased evaluation. On a positive note, I recall a book on Islam in which a Muslim woman relates that she had never had a problem with Islamic marriage, on the contrary - she treated her husband like a king and he treated her like a queen.
There is, within Islam, an awareness of the possibility of the Islamic world being so influenced by interaction with alien cultures that the Islamic way might eventually be undermined, even if not purposefully, and thus it is understandable that for many Muslims, the future of Islam is best assured by anchoring political and social life in Islamic principles and in some instances, as in Iran, by developing a form of democracy which is distinctly Islamic. Some other religions such as Christian sects, have a similar attitude in this regard. Another factor which may enter into the calling for a society and/or a political system built around Islam, is that there are some aspects of Western culture which are not merely alien in a general sense, but are diametrically opposed to Islamic values.
An alternative response to international multiculturalism is expressed by those Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies, yet who adhere strictly to an Islamic way of life as far as possible, and who may, perhaps, be more likely to sway an alien culture towards Islam than the reverse.
However, to return to the situation in Iraq, the U.S. has consistently asserted that its aim was to free Iraq from the cruel oppression and to enable the Iraqi people to rule themselves.
The episodes of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military will not, nor should be forgotten. That abuse was committed by renegade elements, and those responsible were returned to the U.S., charged, put on trial and punished.
Also of great concern was that, according to news reports, torture of Iraqis by Iraqis was still taking place in Iraqi controlled prisons during the U.S. military intervention and it must be verified that that terrible torture in Iraqi prisons has finally been brought to an end.
For it seems that there is increasing acknowledgment by Iraqis, of the positive effects of the U.S. intervention, in terms of its intention to assist Iraq to establish law and order and to bring in a new era of benevolent self-government, peace and security, and, moreover, the Iraqis have specifically requested the U.S. to postpone its departure from Iraq until the time is right. What must be avoided is any possibility of the former cruel oppressive regime, or any elements, being able to emerge/regroup with the intention of regaining the power to cruelly oppress. Instead, it is to be expected that the new Iraqi government will be enabled to function in accordance with the highest ideals of Iraqi culture through appropriate governmental structure, which will doubtless accommodate, in some way, both Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and minority aspirations. This may result in the practice of either a conservative form of Islam or a liberal form of Islam which relates to the exercise of government wholly or partially, according to the extent Iraq prescribes.