Archive Sections: letters | music | index | features | photos | arts/lit | satire Find Iranian singles today!
Ideas

The end of modernity
The geo-political relations between the US and Iran will produce a world wholly removed from the one we know now

 

Michael Odegard
April 20, 2007
iranian.com

Although the ideas in this paper are mine, my station in life makes translating these ideas into foreign policy totally impossible. I don't even know why I have these ideas unless its God's sense of humor -- to actually have so many answers to the world's problems and yet not nearly enough cash to get powerful people to listen to me. lol. The paper was written for a university class on Iran taught by a visiting Iranian professor. He gave me an A.

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to outline the possible and probable relationships which might soon come to exist, between the United States and Iran. These ideas, although far removed from more popular opinions regarding near-future relations between said countries (these being that the USA will destroy Iran and/or Iran will crumble from within) are, by my estimation, more likely to actualize than not. Although my contentions and logic might at first seem fantastic or utopian, I ask the reader to suspend their disbelief until the conclusion of the work. My arguments are cumulative and arranged so as to compound their soundness. In short, my thesis is a hypothesis: the geo-political relations between the US and Iran will produce a world so wholly removed from the one we know now, that historians will come to understand it as the end of modernity.

Manifest Destiny in the Middle East
When the Shah was deposed in the Iranian Revolution of 1979, most Iranians were probably unaware of the role they were taking on. Whereas the underlying motivations for the Revolution were linked to events like the sale of the Iranian tobacco industry to the British by Nasseruddin Shah (1890), the legacy of western control over Iranian oil (1908-1979) and the ban on wearing the chadur put fort by Reza Shah (1935) the outcome of the Revolution has proven more meaningful than any struggle for economic independence. The Iranian revolution has proven to be a formal and open defiance of ongoing neo-Hellenism of the entire region.

It is more than a coincidence how the original Hellenistic movement (323-200 BCE) also occurred in the Middle East. Since the conquests of Alexander the Great (336-323 BCE), western powers have lusted for control over the fertile-crescent and Persia. Following Alexander’s conquests came the Crusades (1095-1270) and eventually World War One (1914-1915). At War’s end, the Allies decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire [1], only to repeat this process after World War II (1939-1945). History then, illustrates a profound irony regarding western attitudes towards indigenous Muslims -- whereas westerns presume Muslims follow a prophet who demands his followers convert non-believers or be put to the sword, in truth has and continues to be westerners who force Muslims to adopt European ways or be put to death.

In light of the historical conflicts between a more materialistic West and more spiritual Near East [2], modern Iranians represent the Middle East’s most able cultural defenders. Like the Jacksonian idea of Manifest Destiny [3], the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeyni’s idea of Islamic jurisprudence is much the same.

Need for Islamic Unity

... colonialism has partitioned our homeland and has turned the Moslems into peoples. When the Ottoman State appeared as a united state, the colonialists sought to fragment it. The Russians, the British and their allies united and fought the Ottomans and then shared the loot, as you all know. We do not deny that most rulers of the Ottoman State lacked ability, competence and qualifications and many of them ruled the people in a despotic monarchic manner. However, the colonialists were afraid that some pious and qualified persons would, with the help of the people, assume leadership of the Ottoman State and [would safeguard] its unity, ability, strength and resources, thus dispersing the hopes and aspirations of the colonialists. This is why as soon as World War I ended, the colonialists partitioned the country into mini-states and made each of these mini-states their agent. Despite this, a number of these mini-states later escaped the grip of colonialism and its agents.

The only means that we possess to unite the Moslem nation, to liberate its lands from the grip of the colonialists and to topple the agent governments of colonialism is to seek to establish our Islamic government. The efforts of this government will be crowned with success when we become able to destroy the heads of treason, the idols, the human images and the false gods who disseminate injustice and corruption on earth.

The formation of a government is then for the purpose of preserving the unity of the Moslems after it is achieved. This was mentioned in the speech of Fatimah al-Zahra’, may peace be upon her, when she said: “ ... . In obeying us lies the nation’s orders and our imamhood is a guarantee against division.”[4]

The Ayatollah’s axiomatic ideology is no different than that espoused by Jackson. Just as Manifest Destiny galvanized American expansion -- such that Americans were given a sense of entitlement to land outside their formal borders -- so too Khomeyni’s treatise provides ideological fiat for Iranian expansionism. Furthermore, the chief colonial powers which rivaled early Americans in the North America are analogous to the mini-states which antagonize Iran. Israel, for example, is wholly supported by geographically remote powers. It has no oil, nor any other natural resources, nor industry with which it might warrant such tremendous support from western powers. It must be, then, that Israel enjoys such support for the same reason the Crusades were supported: so as to serve as a base of operations for the procurement of oil from neighboring lands. In this regard, the state of Israel is nothing like the original Israel and so it’s classification as a proxy-vassal nation is completely sound.

Indeed, Israel is not too dissimilar to Russian controlled Alaska, which existed as a merely strategic holding. Saudi Arabia, propped up by western military interests, proves itself as the most vital rival to Iran in much the same way colonial Canada once did for the USA. Afghanistan, like French held Louisiana, holds a ready abundance of horticultural wealth; yet lack of infrastructure renders it an area of great potential, and little more. So it is the Republic of Iran, then, has the most immediate supply chain with which it might annex neighboring territory. What Iran lacks, comparatively, in sophistication it would certainly make up for, in simple proximity -- just as early America was able to defeat more affluent and sophisticated powers.

Given the nature of “stability” in the Middle East---the codependency of governments in the region with the finance capital of western powers -- Iran is already exploiting a geographical advantage. This has become perfectly clear given the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Qods Force, a special operations wing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, is accused by U.S. officials of furnishing Shiite militias (USA Today) with explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), or roadside bombs, as well as rocket-propelled grenades and Katyusha rockets. Specifically, it supports, trains, and finances militias like the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of one of Iraq’s most religious Shiite parties whose base is in southern Iraq. “The Qods Force is to the Shiite militias as al-Qaeda in Iraq is to the Sunni insurgent groups,” writes Rick Francona, a retired military intelligence official and former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, on MSNBC.com. Some experts estimate as many as thirty thousand Iranian operatives may be in Iraq. The Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, says his country plans to train, equip, and advise Iraqi security forces. [5]

Tehran has a long history of close contact with militant groups in the region, especially with Shiite groups in central Afghanistan. According to Kabul-based analyst Ustad Faizullah Amini, who spoke to The Jamestown Foundation in December, Iran has been against the Talibanization of Afghanistan, but the presence of U.S. troops at its doorsteps has changed the direction of its foreign policy. Now, Tehran is willing to cooperate with different groups to reach the shared goal of defeating the United States in Afghanistan. After the September 11 attacks, an unidentified official source in Tehran said that Iran's new policy in Afghanistan would be to play all available cards in its hand to defeat U.S. efforts there (Asia Times, February 14, 2002). According to Amini, this fear has led Iran to act fast, and cooperate with all anti-American forces in the region regardless of their religion and language. In addition to Amini, many other regional experts argue that the current escalation of violence in some parts of Afghanistan is a direct result of Tehran's new strategy. [6]

Given the ideology as espoused by Khomeyni, the suggested Iranian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan seems more than likely. Moreover, such activities suggest Iran has adopted a CIA-like realism, so as to counter any US-sponsored monopoly on violence, in the region. What is not clear, however, is how refugees caught up in this tit-for-tat Machiavellianism are going to fare.

Indeed, the refugees of the Iraq and Afghanistan are not too unlike the semi-nomadic Native Americans who were assimilated via Manifest Destiny. With Iraq and Afghanistan being almost completely unstable, it seems prudent the Shi’a (at least) among them would welcome Iranian protection and support. Already Iran is spending money to aid those Shi’a who ask for it. [7] It is not unreasonable, then, to imagine a growing sense of allegiance between the Shi’a in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iranian Republic.

More than just a religious sympathy, the Shi’a Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have much to offer Iran. First and foremost, any new territory Iran might acquire as a reward for their support of disenfranchised Iraqis and Afghans would bring with it more oil reserves. Secondly, the destabilized territory neighboring Iran would prove itself a better potential battlefield given the Iran’s continuing reconstruction following the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Just as many Americans claim it is better to fight the War on Terror on non-American soil, so too Iranians must think it better to fight neo-Hellenism on the fringe of their sphere of control: Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, there is the reality of Iran’s young population. Being highly educated and somewhat unhappy living in the shadow of their elders, the outlying Shi’a territories would prove a fertile ground for these able Iranians. So long as the Iranian government lent enough support, these younger people would profit more from rebuilding said and potential territories rather than fighting over that which is not already owned, in Iran. Rebuilding what the USA and the Allies have recently destroyed is, to be sure, more productive than anything another revolution in Tehran might produce. For these reasons, an Iranian Manifest Destiny is more than possible.

Selective Nuclear Proliferation
As of late, there has been much talk about Iran acquiring the bomb. [8] Although Iran’s official position maintains Iranian nuclear power plants are only for peace and no weapons grade material is being made, this hardly seems likely. Given the outcome of US-North Korea relations (post North Korean nuclear weapons testing) [9], the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli air strikes on Iraqi nuclear reactors (1981), a nuclear Israel and continued US aggression in the region, Iran clearly needs the bomb. Without the bomb, Iran must adopt a completely conventional defense strategy which could only prove viable for a few months (at best) against the would-be attrition of a more industrialized USA. Therefore, Iran must successfully test a nuclear weapon or otherwise face the reality of an insolvent military -- when juxtaposed to the solvency of American military might.

As for the American interest in preventing any Iranian nuclear weapons test, this position is completely oversimplified and irresponsible. In fact, there is a greater chance of nuclear war if Iran does not acquire the bomb.

Ever since the Cold War, the USA has maintained a nuclear strategy founded upon deterrence theory -- mutually assured destruction.

A policy of deterrence involves a conscious effort by one country to manipulate another country’s incentives so that the potential aggressor, in thinking things over, finds the virtues of peace to be, on balance, substantially greater than those of starting war. But of course, two countries may very well be deterred from attacking each other even if neither has anything like a policy of deterrence toward the other. And, more importantly for present considerations -- successful deterrence -- does not necessarily prove that a policy of deterrence has been successful ...

... War is more likely to be deterred if high costs are a likely consequences of war itself rather than an imposition upon it. And this is more a matter of escalation than of technology. If a would-be aggressor anticipates that a war is likely to escalate until it becomes intolerably costly (in all, or virtually all cases, this would be well below the nuclear level), it will be deterred ... insofar as World War III has been prevented by military considerations, it is this fear that conflict will escalate that has been crucial. [10]

This strategy got the USA through the Cuban Missile Crisis and that span of time when the USSR rivaled America, around the world. Given this logic, however, the USA is nonetheless willing to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear powers.

The United States of America used atomic bombs on Japan because it was faced with the reality of massive casualties with no certainty of victory if forced to invade Honshu, with only conventional arms to bring to bear. So too, then, any War between the USA and Iran would prove extremely bloody. When one takes into account the weak stomach for war -- post Vietnam -- the USA seems to have, then the nuclear option towards Iran could be justified in the same way the bombings of Japan were. Yet, according to deterrence theory, a nuclear Iran would necessarily be an Iran which would make thermonuclear war less likely. It would also be less likely to force a war of conventional attrition upon Iran, given the possibility of Iranian thermonuclear defenses.

The idea of selective nuclear proliferation (the USA actually helping Iran acquire the bomb) exists as a creative solution to the present standoff between the US and Iran. The logic of selective nuclear proliferation is such that nuclear proliferation is the proliferation of deterrence theory. Whereas common wisdom suggests democracies do not war upon each other, there is an even better argument to be made on how nuclear powers never war upon each other. Certainly history has examples of democracies -- democracy being an irresponsible, yet popular, definition for western style Republics and constitutional monarchies -- declaring war on each other: The wars resulting in the ancient Greek world, post Athenian League, American Revolution, Mexican-American War, WWI, etc. History has no example, however, of any war between nuclear powers. Of course the USA couldn’t benefit from any generic pro nuclear proliferation policy, it could benefit from a selective nuclear proliferation strategy if America can set itself up as the world’s midwife for pregnant, foreign, nuclear programs. Its better have nuclear powers as allies than it is to have them as enemies and the notion of absolute suppression of nuclear weapons technology has already been proven to be pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking.

Lastly, a nuclear Iran (especially a nuclear Iran as co-created by the USA) not only diminishes the probability of nuclear conflict, but would also provide greater security in the world. Clearly Israel will never lead the Middle East in any way shape or form. There is simply too much controversy over how modern Israel was created and too much dissimilarity between a Jewish social contract vs. an Islamic social contract; yet the Middle East is in desperate need of an undisputed regional super power, less it remain forever in turmoil. If Iran can manage to acquire the bomb, then any Iranian Manifest Destiny would be thus insured and no-doubt produce a weak hegemony, in the region.

Centrifuge for Conflict
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan not withstanding, the Palestine-Israel, Lebanon-Syria and looming Turkmen-Kurd conflicts have materialized a centrifuge for major conflict in the Middle East. The USA has a national interest in the resolution of these conflicts, for economic reasons -- the American addiction to oil. Iran has a national interest in the resolution of these conflicts -- a Middle East free from puppet governments like that of Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979). Since both the US and Iran have interests in these conflicts, it seems prudent that they would work together so as to resolve them.

The King Abdullah of Jordan is often quoted, as is nearly every ruler in the Middle East, as saying the Palestine-Israel conflict is the most critical problem facing the Muslim world. Ever since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995) -- and the rise of the Likud government in Israel -- this problem has only grown more severe. Clearly, the USA is unable to bring enough pressure on Israel so as to engender a more moderate Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. What is more, the USA is either unwilling or unable to find another nation to work with it so as to mitigate the hate and facilitate a lasting peace in the Holy Land. Iran, however, could prove to be such a partner and thereby garner more respect from the USA and international community.

Instead of propounding the rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran could easily offer amnesty and safe passage to Palestinians, in Iran. Why would Iran do this? Iran can benefit from an influx of Palestinian refugees insomuch their would-be charity translates into their credibility as the region’s super power and keeps the faith as espoused by Khomeyni. Working in tandem with the hypothetical, Iranian, Manifest Destiny, any significant population of Palestinian refugees makes the idea of Iranian territorial expansion more justifiable. Doing so would demonstrate an Iran which would both give and take. Furthermore, the combination of educated Iranian youth and dispossessed Muslims from the region would make the possibility of significant, otherwise impossible, economic development quite real. Palestinians who have had their olive orchards and other assets liquidated by an overzealous Israeli government, could replant their crops and work with other Muslims who have been uprooted by western military campaigns. Land grants to these refugees, from the state (post peaceful and requested annexation of new territory a la said speculation regarding Iraqi and Afghan Shi’a Muslims), would allow economic growth without any great drain on the Iranian economy. Indeed, an influx of refugees would necessarily depress wages for unskilled workers so as to maximize profits for capital investors. In exchange for these wages and security, the Palestinians would, no doubt, be quite better off; yet their emotional connection to Palestine cannot be discounted, nor should it. Still, any significant immigration from Palestine to Iran would necessarily deflate the tensions in Israel, between Palestinians and Israelis. It is reasonable, then, to suggest such an environment would prove more hospitable to religious pilgrims and Muslims who would invest in Israel or Palestine. The United States, aside from (most probably) upstaged by Iranian peace-making, would have little to no objection to this hypothetical emigration out of Palestinians, and thus find a new reason to see Iran as an ally.

Assuming a Palestine-Israel conflict resolution, as brokered by Iran, the second most intense indigenous conflict is the cultural competition between Beirut and Damascus.[11] This conflict has less to do with security, economics and religious differences -- such as with Palestine-Israel -- and more to do with cultural egotism. Syria is, as matter of history, the state most closely identified to the former Ottoman Empire. Damascus was the capitol of the Umyyad Empire (661-744) and a city of preeminence in the Ottoman Empire for roughly 400 years. As such, a great sense of historical leadership must be imbued in the psyches of many Syrians. Beirut, conversely, rivals the culture of nostalgia as exemplified by Damascus insomuch Beirut simply has more to offer in the way of hope for the future and real economic potential vis a vis tourism and access to the Mediterranean Sea.

Cooperative economic investment, between the USA and Iran (into Lebanon and Syria, respectively), seems like a practical and realistic way to resolve this conflict. As recent events in Lebanon suggest, a continued Syrian presence in Lebanon is no longer a rewarding activity for the Syria. Aside from playing the role of a military counterweight to Israel, Syria has little to offer the region. Moreover, Iran is best suited to play such a counterweight and as such, Syria can be seen as a pretender. Since Iran has so much to gain from focusing on expansion, it might very well use Iranian oil wealth in Syria, in much the same way Venezuela is doing for neighbors in the New World. Without going into any detailed accounting of Syrian natural resources and the industries, the simple reality of an underdeveloped Syria makes for a fertile area for Iranian investment. Since the USA and Syria are too polarized for such cooperation, Iran may as well capitalize on this opportunity via outright finance capital investment. Indeed, this already seems to be happening.[12] So long as Syrians can focus on their own economic growth, their interest in playing the Israeli-counterweight would necessarily diminish.

The United States, insofar it can be confident of an inward looking Syria, would have a much greater reason to work with France and other western powers having a long standing interest in “the Paris of the Near East.” Furthermore, mutual economic development in both Beirut and Damascus would make for two new alternatives for dispossessed Palestinians and thereby lessen the tensions in Israel, to a degree. The last of the three conflicts which perpetuate the centrifuge for conflict is the Turkmen-Kurd conflict -- as it exists, insidiously.

The Kurds of Iraq, more and more, look as if they -- along with all Iraqis -- are soon to find themselves in a Civil War. The rush to War, on the part of the US, into Iraq and consistently insufficient troop levels makes this possibility a definite probability. Illustrating this dark future all the more are the recent mumblings from Congress in regards to an increasingly impatient and anxious American public. As more of the coalition forces leave Iraq -- even the UK having set a time table for withdrawal -- the Kurds would be remiss not to prepare for their own fight for independence. Given their minority status and the rich oil fields they occupy, a conservative prediction on the outcome of a full-scale Iraqi Civil War insinuates a Kurdish holocaust.

Entertaining this possibility, the Turkish position has been made rather clear: if the Kurds assert their independence and/or the Turkmen who also inhabit those oil fields are otherwise threatened, the State of Turkey will intervene by full scale invasion. [13] So it is, then, either way -- whether the Kurds are successful at independence or not -- the Kurdish controlled oil fields exist as a possible epicenter for unconscionable violence.

Unlike the Palestine-Israel and Lebanon-Syria chaos, any possible establishment of lasting order as supplied by the fledging Iraqi government seems remote. If Iraq does fall into a full scale Civil War what will the US and Iran reaction? Clearly, there is no benefit to be had from this hypothetical, save a mutual (regarding the US and Iran) distancing from it. This bleak and morally unsatisfying pseudo solution of disengagement is, however, critical to the long term relations between the US and Iran.

In regards to the possibility of Turkish invasion, both the US and Iran might work together so as to persuade Turkish disengagement. Still, the idea of a Kurdish holocaust is entirely unacceptable. If such turns out to be a real event then the possibility of US-Iranian peacekeeping becomes a remote possibility; albeit the best. Since recent events, as already commented on, suggest a certain US redeployment out of Iraq, then such an alliance would have to be one of arms (from the USA) in exchange for Iranian and other Muslim peacekeepers. In short, the chaos of Iraq advocates Iranian expansion a la overt territory acquisition and clandestine proxy war fighting.

The War on Terror
Overshadowing every aspect of US-Iran relations is the War on Terrorism. This war has been defined by President Bush II:

We're engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims. ... And against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. ... We will defeat the terrorists and their hateful ideology by spreading the hope of freedom across the world. ... The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations.[14]

In fact, the only international organization which has successfully directed violence towards the USA is Al Queda and it’s splinter groups. Al Queda and such subsidiaries are all, fundamentally, Sunni Muslim militants.

Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and their ilk are/were all disciples of Qubist sect, Sunni Islam. Indeed, not a single terrorist associated with the 9/11 attack has been a Shi’a.  This is important, in regards to US-Iran relations because Iran is a Shi’a nation. One can only guess as to why President Bush II decided to label Iran and North Korea as the “axis of evil,” when Al Queda is clearly the chief terrorist power working against American interests, world wide. Indeed, a great many things the President has said and done reflect a weak, if not totally absent, logic. For the sake of argument, however, I will not attempt to explain the President’s thinking nor engage in conspiracy theory. Instead, I suggest the real axis of evil is comprised of clandestine Sunni militants and the rulers of Sunni nations. To quote Osama Bin Laden:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.[15]

Cut from the same Qubist theology, Abu Musab al Zarqawi says of the Shi’a:

They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity. [Another is] a difficult, fierce battle with a crafty enemy who wears the garb of a friend, manifests agreement, and calls for comradeship, but harbors ill will and twists up peaks and crests (?). Theirs is the legacy of the Batini bands that traversed the history of Islam and left scars on its face that time cannot erase. The unhurried observer and inquiring onlooker will realize that Shi`ism is the looming danger and the true challenge. “They are the enemy. Beware of them. Fight them. By God, they lie.” History’s message is validated by the testimony of the current situation, which informs most clearly that Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam except in the way that Jews have something in common with Christians under the banner of the People of the Book. From patent polytheism, worshipping at graves, and circumambulating shrines, to calling the Companions [of the Prophet] infidels and insulting the mothers of the believers and the elite of this [Islamic] nation, [they] arrive at distorting the Qur’an as a product of logic to defame those who know it well, in addition to speaking of the infallibility of the [Islamic] nation, the centrality of believing in them, affirming that revelation came down to them, and other forms of infidelity and manifestations of atheism with which their authorized books and original sources -- which they continue to print, distribute, and publish -- overflow. The dreamers who think that a Shi`i can forget [his] historical legacy and [his] old black hatred of the Nawasib [those who hate the Prophet’s lineage], as they fancifully call them, are like someone who calls on the Christians to renounce the idea of the crucifixion of the Messiah. Would a sensible person do this? These are a people who added to their infidelity and augmented their atheism with political cunning and a feverish effort to seize upon the crisis of governance and the balance of power in the state, whose features they are trying to draw and whose new lines they are trying to establish through their political banners and organizations in cooperation with their hidden allies the Americans.[16]

More than just a terrorist leader, Osama Bin Laden is the modern equivalent of Ali Baba. His personal Jihad is, regardless of theology, his expansion of his criminal syndicate -- opium sales via his retainers in Afghanistan, arms sales via his retainers wherever he might find them and any wealth his mercenaries might cede to him after successfully extorting otherwise legitimate persons -- throughout the world. Since Al Queda’s market is principally a Sunni one, both the US and Iran have a common war against terror.

The other pole of the real axis of evil, are the Sunni rulers in the Middle East. This is the case not because the states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and others are directly sponsoring attacks against the West, but rather because these states have resigned themselves, through their rulers, to a cruel bargain: to tolerate governments resembling the former Pavarti regime. Such resignation of real sovereignty defies the logic of social contract theory -- that people tolerate their government in exchange for securities given to the people, by the government. With the Sunni nations, social contract theory is compromised by a third and fundamental dynamic: the people tolerate the government which tolerates the people insofar the people can be effectively leased to western powers. Indeed, there is much wealth in the Sunni nations; yet the wealth is stratified and almost totally belonging to the ruling class who are, most so than not, despotic oil tycoons.

Chief among the Sunni nations is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The modern history of Saudi Arabia traces back to 1927, when the British Empire recognized the Kingdom, after successfully supporting (with arms and intelligence) Abdul Aziz Al-Saud. It is highly unlikely that Abdul Aziz would have been able to take Riyadah and win his subsequent battles without British arms and insomuch this is true, the subsequent expansion of Abdul Aziz’s authority was so much debt to the UK.

This debt would soon prove vital to western powers. In 1939, oil was discovered in the Kingdom. Like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, other nations of the peninsula would be propped up as the west propounded the same doctrine for supported totalitarian regimes which owed their real security to foreign, western powers.

Clearly, the US has an interest in Saudi oil; but what is the cost of this interest? The book Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire[1], outlines the inevitability of what we now call 9/11. If the USA is indeed “addicted to oil,” then it is probable America is, like a junkie, willing to do next to anything to garner favor from petroleum dealers. In such a scenario, Iran is unique as the region’s sole oil provider, who is unwilling to just, give the junkies what they want. In this regard, Iran is already America’s best friend in the region.

The majority of Muslims in the Middle East are Sunnis and the majority of states in the Middle East are ruled by Sunni rulers. Furthermore, the Sunni rulers are nearly all despotic -- with Iran being unique as a constitutional Republic -- and so it is not unfair to compare the Sunni rulers to those despotic rulers of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, this is even more reasonable a claim given how the Ottoman Empire gave one third it’s tax revenue to Europe in the 1870’s. Since the principle wealth of Near East kingdoms resides in oil reserves, and the majority of these reserves are sold (usually) at rather low prices to western nations, this comparison is apt. Moreover, the Ottomans ceded much of it’s sovereignty in the 1850’s to France and Britain which led to the once popular saying, “A European dog, in Palestine, has more rights than an Arab.”[18]

Shi’a Muslims, however, do not adequately compare to their Sunni kith and kin -- regarding their willingness to capitulate to western powers .Since the Revolution, Shi’a Iran has been a self-determining nation which continues to reject the traditions of the Ottoman Empire and autocratic Sunni-style rulers. Insomuch this is true, Iran is more diametrically opposed to the terrorists who staged 9/11, than the USA. This is true in light of an otherwise pacified, capitulating (or overtly terrorist), Sunni population. It would be a matter of the most conservative praxis, then, for the USA to make overtures of peace and alliance with Iran, if it can glean a moment of clarity from an otherwise obsessive-compulsive mindset regarding the consumption of oil.

Oil as Currency
For the better part of the modern era, gold existed as the standard measure for currency (1870s-1971). In 1971, President Nixon took the US Dollar off the international gold standard and shortly thereafter, all the world’s currencies would begin to hold US Dollars in reserve, so as to supplement their otherwise without standard, currencies. Today, this circumstance continues. Of course, central banks around the world are certain in their rubric for currency evaluation: GNP, debt, economic growth rate, political stability and consumer confidence. Yet, despite the functionality of such complex financial machinations (and the growing instability of a Dollar bereft with debt), oil exists as a commodity which qualifies as a prima-facie standard for currency.

More so than gold ever did, oil permeates every level of the global economy. Oil can be stockpiled, like gold. Oil can be refined, like gold. Oil is almost always required to move any good from one place to another. Oil is almost always required to provide power for workshops and facilitate nearly every activity in the service economy. As a matter of fact, oil is more than “black gold.” Oil is the ambrosia for the global economy. So why is there no international oil standard, for currencies?

There is no international oil standard because western economies would either enter into a depression or totally collapse if an oil standard were actualized. Few countries have strategic oil reserves and fewer still have oil reserves which they might tap. Are these good reasons for having no oil standard?

Clearly Iran and most nations in the Middle East would benefit from an international oil standard insomuch their oil reserves translated into treasury, but the pragmatism of such a move goes beyond the interests of the region. Any currency with a standard is better protected from undue stratification within (it is often said gold is a hedge against inflation and so too stockpiled oil, for a central bank, would be more centered for gravity against forces which might attempt to adjust the value of such a currency) since the currency itself can be liquidated for a real good. A real good as standard prevents otherwise dubious financial machinations which might, and probably do, yield corruption. For example, the way currencies are set up today, the wealth is constantly inflated in much the same way a stock share is split. While the Dollar slowly looses buying power over the course of time, there is no direct means for the Dollar to do the opposite. Indeed, the only way the Dollar can become stronger is for other currencies to become weaker. The end result of this system is the entropy of currency. While those who have managed to horde their wealth as it existed before Nixon dissolved the international gold standard, their “shares” of currency split ad infinitum at the expense of the poor. For example, the US Treasury once had a 20 Dollar gold piece in circulation, and of equal value, to the 20 Dollar bill. One could take either buy a suit, tie, shirt and pants; but today the 20 Dollar bill can only buy the tie while those who still have the 20 Dollar gold piece can expect the purchase the whole attire with a single such coin.

Whenever finance capitalists find it profitable, they will lower or raise interest rates based solely on whether or not they are making “enough” profit! Interest rates are moved by gain or loss of something real, like oil or gold as held by central banks. This is to say, there is no objectivity in modern banking practices. Indeed, modern currency valuation is entirely subjective and arguably arbitrary given how the CIA and other such organizations go about destabilizing political environs -- one of the key factors for currency valuation. Conversely, Iran and other countries which possess what is clearly the most important natural resource do not have currencies which reflect their actual possession of this commodity. To put it another way, the oil is not actually worth anything unless it is bough and sold in a market which denies and/or ignores oil’s obvious supremacy as an indicator of wealth.  

With this system, there is no external factor which might affect the value of a currency, such as the discovery of oil. To be sure, modern banking practices are absurdly liberal given their novelty in history. In the past, if a state had so many tons of gold, that gold was the state’s treasury. The more gold it had the richer the nation and vice versa. Certainly one cannot discount the economic importance of other commodities, manufactured goods and services; but oil remains as the single commodity which affects all other economic dynamics and so this is the principled difference between currency valuation and the valuation of an economy. In the most practical way, all commodities, manufactured goods and services are inextricably linked to the price of oil. This de facto reality should be formalized by central banks with intellectual integrity.

These differences -- between currency and economy -- are important to US-Iran relations in the most critical way. While the USA has a great economy, it has little domestic oil to run it on. Conversely, Iran has a comparatively weak economy and an overabundance of oil. So it is then, that a natural and mutually beneficial relationship might exist between these two states.  

What would happen if the USA and Iran both fixed their currencies to their oil reserves? Aside from the broader economic despair this would cause the global economy (given the preponderance of states with no oil reserves), both the USA and Iran would benefit from such a move as it would necessarily introduce the principle of what might be called currency exflation -- the opposite of inflation -- in the short term. Within the framework of this thought experiment, the territorial expansion, nuclear capability, economic partnership and military partnership arguments would all become probable. Furthermore, such a currency policy would no doubt curb America’s (and every nation) consumption of oil. This would have to be the case unless the USA resigned itself to eating seed corn. Unfortunately, such cannibalism upon future generations is already the present and unofficial policy according to the US Comptroller General.

Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, "I don't know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don't know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it's an issue of immorality."[19]

As a final point regarding an international oil standard, it must be noted that oil is more than any economy’s greatest natural resource. It is also the single greatest danger to the quality of life on the planet. As the scientific community has pointed out, the more oil we burn the more pollution we put into our natural environment. The more pollution in the environment, the more stress we put upon living things. The more stress living things experience, the more prone they are to disease. The more diseased living things are, the more susceptible they become to acting out violently and/or giving up on life. So it is, then, converting the no-standard economy to a standardized one would produce an immediate and dire economic scenario (a race, on the part of central banks to buy and hold oil at the expense of industries who would use it up); yet in the long run this sacrifice might very well prevent a far more disastrous future.

Global Warming and Ecocide
The greatest threat to the security of both the USA and Iran does not come from any nation. It does not come from any terrorist organization. The greatest threat to both countries is the real danger of global warming reaching a point of crisis such that the world passes the ecological tipping point, and irreversible natural cataclysm ensues. Already, scientists in both the USA and Iran have seen irrefutable evidence -- of the sort highlighted in Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth[20] -- of this. Another example is on how Chinese pollution is seeding the clouds above the western American seaboard.

In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.

Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer. [21]

So it is, then, that industrialization is now extolling an incredibly high tax upon those who do and do not enjoy such economic rewards.

Given this comparatively recent realization on the nature of “the enemy,” the more traditional national security doctrines which define status quo military posturing -- for the USA and Iran -- are no longer valid. Indeed, we find a far more powerful villain in gross industrialization than we might discover in any terrorist cell. While it is certainly easier to direct violence against a terrorist, doing so can only distract states from their fiduciary responsibility: providing security with a sense of priority. Throughout the modern era, military hegemony has been the doctrine. Juxtaposed to military hegemony is a much newer and as of yet, untested, national security doctrine: human security theory.

Human security is the latest in a long line of neologisms -- including common security, global security, cooperative security, and comprehensive security -- that encourage policymakers and scholars to think about international security as something more than military defense of state interests and territory. Although definitions of human security vary, most formulations emphasize the welfare of ordinary people. Among the most vocal promoters of human security are the governments of Canada and Norway, which have taken the lead in establishing a “human security network” of states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that endorse the concept. The term has also begun to appear in academic works, and is the subject of new research projects at several universities.[22]

In light of global warming and consideration of ecocide, human security theory seems to be the best doctrine for both the USA and Iran. Furthermore, it is quite possible that global warming has already gained too much steam while proponents of human security are too few to win clout in their respective regions. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to suggest US and Iranian proponents of human security must band together (forgetting their more immediate fraternity, with their countrymen) so as to expedite their rise to popularity.

... environmental problems, rather than inspiring the wave of ingenuity predicted by cornucopians, may instead reduce the supply of ingenuity available in a society. The success of market mechanisms depends on an intricate and stable system of institutions, social relations, and shared understandings ... .Cornucopians often overlook the role of social ingenuity in producing the complex legal and economic climate in which technical ingenuity can flourish. Policymakers must be clever “social engineers” to design and implement effective market mechanisms. Unfortunately, however, the syndrome of multiple, interacting, unpredictable, and rapidly changing environmental problems will increase the complexity and pressure of the policymaking setting. It will also generate increased “social friction” as elites and interest groups struggle to protect their prerogatives. The ability of policymakers to be good social engineers is likely to go down, not up, as these stresses increase.[23]

So it is, then, that the aforesaid theory of an international oil standard and/or a shared human security policy between, at least some, American and Iranian policymakers are essential in light of the possible decline in social ingenuity, round the world. It would behoove Iran to be one step ahead of the USA, regarding this potential paradigm shift and make such policy the overarching ideology with which is communicates, to the West. It is also more likely that Iranian policy makers could lead this paradigm shift, given how it would necessarily increase the price of oil and given the gross bias most Americans have, regarding low oil prices. Finally, there is hope that American military elites may be converted to human security doctrine so as to bring pressure on US policymakers to find ways to coordinate their activities with the military elites, who might also adopt human security doctrine, of Iran.

To coordinate military strategy, between the USA and Iran, becomes exponentially important when a real and literal world view is adopted. The leaders of both the USA and Iran should see the long term benefit of a mutual defense pact and treaty given their common enemies: ecocide and Sunni militarism. Since so much of the Middle East is rich in oil, while at the same time being cut up into banana republic-style mini-states, having a regional super power in the Middle East is necessary for greater control over oil exports. Iranian territory expansion would be a boon for the USA if and when it and Iran can reach an accord regarding their greatest common enemy. An Iran which encompassed many of the oil fields in what is today, Shiite populated Iraq, would be an Iran more able to pressure the despots of Saudi Arabia to also adopt human security doctrine. Moreover, an Iranian manifest destiny energized in part by a consciousness of impending ecocide, would certainly advocate an egalitarian message consistent with the Ayatollah’s vision of jurisprudence. Given this hypothesis, the centrifuge of conflict might more easily be diffused vis a vis common interest in ecological integrity. As for the war on terror, it too would benefit if both the USA and Iran adopted a human security theory for it does not exclude forward deployment of armed forces against the highly militarized and organized criminals as represented by Al Queda and the like. Indeed, such a shared ideology would prove a far more viable than the “coalition of the willing.” Absolute hegemony doctrine, however, hamstrings the war on terror as it would have both the USA and Iran work along divergent paths towards the ill advised goal of mere military supremacy.

Space Weapons and Remote War Fighting
If, for the sake of argument, all the suggested changes as outlined in this paper were to occur, there would no doubt be a certain amount of world wide chaos. Regarding the argument for the conversion to human security theory from the present hegemony doctrine, the probability of US force redeployment (worldwide) becomes great. Without status quo forward deployment of US forces, many nations would be destabilized. How might the USA mitigate this probable chaos? More so than former Secretary of Defense Donnald Rumsfeld suggested, the US military would need to be profoundly modernized. This possibility is not as fantastic as many would assume.

Admittedly, the notion of space weapons is easily dismissed as science fiction by those with little to no understanding of existent, prototype, weapons systems. Still, this potentiality is real enough to have caused the Russian Minister of Defense to have made recent remarks concerning the militarization of Earth’s orbit.

The United States clashed with China and Russia during a disarmament debate Tuesday over how to prevent an arms race in outer space, and Washington criticized Beijing for its recent test of an anti-satellite missile.

Russia and China, in turn, condemned the “one state” that refuses to consider a treaty banning space weapons -- a reference to the U.S.

The meeting of the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament came a month after China launched a warhead from a ballistic missile to destroy one of its old weather satellites -- a test that was widely criticized as a provocative display of the Asian country’s growing military capability.[24]

Moreover, the recent success of Chinese missiles illustrates the reality of a USA which no longer has a clear monopoly on missile power.

Several countries continue to develop capabilities that have the potential to threaten U.S. space assets, and some have already deployed systems with inherent anti-satellite capabilities, such as satellite-tracking laser range-finding devices and nuclear-armed ballistic missiles," he said in his written testimony on Jan. 11, the same day China's test was conducted.

The test, first reported by Aviation Week, destroyed the satellite by hitting it with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile.[25]

What might the USA do, then, to check the perfection of modern arms in communist China? Since the 1800s, and the discoveries made by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz[26] , the possibility of electric magnetic pulse weapons has been real. In light of scientific advancements made since Lorentz, it is not out of the question to suggest electric magnetic pulse cannons in orbit might solve for both contingencies mentioned in this section (chaos resulting from a US human security defense doctrine and the rising threat of China, as a hegemonic Far East superpower).

The Univsersity of Texas at Austin's Institute for Advanced Technology (IAT) Electromagnetic Systems Division showed off it's electromagnetic rail gun (RailGun) technology demonstrator at the 24th Army Science Conference (ASC 2004), and DefenseReview was lucky enough to get to view it being fired. IAT's demonstrator rail gun fired a lightweight aluminum projectile (approx. .45 caliber) through a soft target (cardboard or foam, I think) at high speed, and, well, it was pretty neat. Founded in 1990, IAT is an autonomous research unit tasked with aiding the U.S. Army and Navy with "basic an applied research in electrodynamics, hypervelocity physics, pulsed power, and education in related critical technologies". In other words, they research, build, and test electromagnetic RailGun tech for the Army and Navy.[27]

To those who would reject EMPC space weapons as a sound means for national defense, in light of US experiments regarding this technology, in the 1970s, the argument for mechanized parts can be made. Specifically, it is prudent to suggest the failures of the US Navy in the 70s (regarding rail guns) -- the fusion of the rails after sustained firing and the tremendous recoil of these weapons -- can be solved by allowing the rails to move on the horizontal plane while enjoying the increased liberty for movement, zero gravity affords. [28]

So as not to get lost in super-speculative science, and again for the sake of argument, it is sufficient to say some sort of weapon can be put into space. No matter what type of weapon this might be, it would certainly enjoy the widest arc of fire and longest ranged weapon, as humanity has ever seen. With such violence, these weapons could be used remotely and so provide supporting and direct fire for allied forces and upon any enemy. Although the idea of space weapons might seem like continental philosophy -- jumping from peak to peak while ignoring the valleys and such antagonistic details -- it is not. Lastly, the inability of America’s modern army to soundly defeat similarly equipped, albeit irregular, guerilla, fighters, then a whole new era of war fighting is destined to emerge.

If the USA is not interested in starting a space-arms race, then imagining a United Nations with permanent standing armed, orbital platform, forces is realistic. Since the UN’s principal role as a peacekeeping entity has proven, on the whole, less than solvent, such weapons would provide it with fiat. Insofar as the command and control of space weapons was shared, highly scrutinized and absolute, every nation which would participate in acts genocide, unwarranted invasion or outright crimes against humanity, would likewise be far more unwilling to do so as such behavior would produce their instant and total extermination (free from the environmental consequence of radioactive fallout). Indeed, space weapons -- especially when compounded with a human security doctrine -- can only compound the efficacy of deterrence theory.

How might the USA retain it’s sovereignty in a world overshadowed by UN sanctioned orbital weapons? To this point the answer is simply the extension of remote war fighting -- as exemplified by predator drones and like equipment.[29] Since the USA is faced with not only the substantial disappointments regarding collateral damage, post traumatic stress disorder and the holistic expense of maintaining a large body of professional infantry, it is prudent to consider the benefits of a further evolved remote war fighting machine. Since the success of America’s recent mission to Mars, it has become totally within the realm of possibility to retool US infantry forces with supplemental war rovers: rovers like those which went to Mars, only armed and armored. Likewise, the US Navy would be wise to produce cruise missile like torpedoes while phasing out more modern (less advanced) war machines such as submarines and aircraft carriers. So it is, then, the USA would be able to insure it’s sovereignty with remote controlled war fighting machines in space, sea, air and on land. If this scenario does prove to one day be the objective reality then Iran would no doubt be forced to forever content itself with regional military interests or face total destruction without any reasonable chance to cause even a single US casualty. Such a scenario would no doubt ease any American concerns over their loss of hegemony in the Near East. So it is, then, that Iran should adopt the prescribed Manifest Destiny -- prior to the USA retooling their armed forces -- so as to marginalize those policymakers who advocate the destruction of Iran.

The inability of the US Congress to act in a rational manner when it comes to matters pertaining to the security of Israel means that the stage has been set for a replay of the environment that existed in Washington D.C., in the months prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when the Bush administration was able to hype up a nonexistent Iraqi WMD threat by noting that it did not want a “smoking gun” to come in the form of a “mushroom cloud.”[30]

Insofar a more immediate invasion of Iran might occur, prior to space weapon deployment and a conversion from human soldiers to remote controlled arms, this seems unlikely. Recent Chinese and North Korean demonstrations of power, compounded by force distractions (regarding a potential invasion of Iran) in Iraq and Afghanistan would make any such move profoundly unsound -- excluding the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran. Therefore, it is well advised for Tehran to quickly adopt a human security propaganda campaign (if not sincerely adopting it) while they endeavor to test their first nuclear weapon. If Iran does not test a nuclear weapon before warfare advances beyond the modern paradigm (for the West), then the USA would have the option of invading Iran, remotely.

Conclusion
This paper has been, admittedly, an exercise it hypothetical scenarios. The facts given to support the suggested moves, for both the USA and Iran, require more elaboration than a mere paper can provide. It is my hope that someone with more time and access to topical information might expound upon these ideas and thereby write a book. Still, the chain of reasoning as found herein exists as something anyone interested in creative solutions to the otherwise static problem regarding said relations, should consider.

We have every reason to believe that, one day, people will consider their lives defined by an era far removed from the way of life we understand as “modern.” If stability comes to the Middle East via a regional super-power, Iran becomes a nuclear power, America and Iran become allies in peacemaking while combating Sunni-style militarization, agree to an international oil standard while adopting human security as their mutual national defense doctrine and can agree to share in the power of space weapons via the United Nations, then such a world would have to be the next era for mankind.  Comment

Notes
[1] The Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence (1914-1916), Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) and Balfour Declaration (1917)

[2] Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the Near East juxtaposed to the complete lack of any original, popular and lasting religious discovery in the West.

[3] Manifest Destiny as put forth by President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic party (1845--up to present day) proclaims US control over the whole western hemisphere. It was the ideology for legitimizing the Oregon Territory, Texas annexation and subsequent annexations of otherwise foreign territory.

[4] Khomeyni, Ruhollah. Islamic Government: Governance of Jurisprudent. Honolulu: UP of the Pacific, 1979.

[5] Council on Foreign Relations: Iran’s Involvement in Iraq

[6] The Jamestown Foundation: Iranian Involvement in Afghanistan

[7] Mullahs of Iran Pledge $1b in Aid to Iraq and Iran Pledges Relief Aid to Afghan Refugees

[8] TIME: Iran's Nuclear Threat

[9] WSWS: US-North Korean nuclear agreement: clearing the decks for Iran

[10] Mueller, John. Retreat from Doomsday: the Obsolescence of Major War. New York: Basic Books, 1989. Pg. 247-250.

[11] Was Syria responsible for the assassination of Rafik Hariri? There are many suspicions that it was, but no proof. On February 14, a massive car bomb in Beirut killed Hariri and more than a dozen others and wounded more than 100. Syrian officials deny involvement. In September 2004, the Baathist government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad pressured Lebanon's parliament to amend the constitution and extend the presidential term of Emile Lahoud, a Maronite Christian widely seen as a Syrian puppet. Then-Prime Minister Hariri, a billionaire businessman who had led the post-civil war rebuilding of Lebanon, resigned in protest in October. See >>>

[12] Xinhua: Iranian First Vice President terms visit to Syria as useful

[13] Infoplease: Understanding the Turkey-Kurd Conflict and USIP: Turkey and Iraq: The Perils (and Prospects) of Proximity

[14] White House: National Security

[15] Mideast Web: Who is Osama Bin Laden?

[16] CPA-Iraq: Zarqawi message

[17] Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: the Cost of American Empire. Ontario: Fitzhenry & Whiteside LTD, 2000.

[18] This is regarding the Ottomans agreed to let European courts hold trials for Europeans charged with crimes, in the Ottoman Empire.

[19] CBS News: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?

[20] An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenhiem. Perf. Al Gore.UIP, 2006

[21] Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts Shadow Around Globe

[22] Paris, Roland. “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air.” International Security 26:2  (1991) pg. 87

[23] Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflicts.” International Security 16:2 (1991): pg. 102

[24] MSNBC: U.S. clashes with China, Russia over space arms

[25] Military.com: Chinese Missile Destroys Satellite

[26] Bio: Hendrik A. Lorentz, and more specifically, Lorentz Force: F=q(vxB)

[27] DefenseReview.com: IAT Electromagnetic Systems Division Developing Rail Gun Tech for U.S. Military

[28] As an aside, I would be remiss for not including my own opinion regarding this technology. It seems to me all the problems of existent rail guns and, moreover, the shortcomings of existent designs can be overcome if such a weapon is designed so as to manifest what I call a “force cascade” a la:

{[f0 = c/4 x 1]F=q(vxB)}F =9x109Q1Q2/r2

[29]
* MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
* TT-26 - a radio control (telemechanic in Russian terms) flame-thrower tank, 1935-1936. Armament: flamethrower, one machine-gun. 55 tanks were built. Used together with the TY-26 tank only.

[30] Ritter, Scott. Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change. New York: Nation Books. Pg. 218 .

COMMENT
For letters section
For Michael Odegard

* FAQ
* Advertising
* Support iranian.com
* Editorial policy
* Write for Iranian.com
* Reproduction

RELATED
Opinion

Diaspora

Masters & Masterpieces of Iranian Cinema
by Hamid Dabashi

© Copyright 1995-2013, Iranian LLC.   |    User Agreement and Privacy Policy   |    Rights and Permissions