Category Archives: World

Links o' the day

First OS X Trojan spotted — no need to panic just yet.

Greens means compromise. Harry’s in fine form: “As the saying goes, you say tomato, I say total and abject capitulation.”

How to educate yourself online. Sure, we’ve all been wandering the net for years, but now and then it’s good to get a refresher.

Tesco employee suspended over Facebook. He tracked a customer down and sent her naughty pictures.

And you thought you had a bad day… You didn’t get arrested after crashing your car, getting shot and stripping off.

A friend of a friend bombed Bali. That’s one way for a politician’s speech to make the papers.

Japan may track defence officials using GPS.

'It's the Peace Corps with a weapon'

The United States is stepping up its operations in Africa, which it sees as the next major front against terrorism.

Using the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership, for the past two years America has been sharing weapons and tactics with nine amiable nations in central and west Africa. This, along with humanitarian schemes such as well building, aims to promote cooperation between the U.S. military and African armies in and around the Sahara in an effort to make the zone less hospitable to terrorist groups.

Writes Scott Johnson of Newsweek:

Sgt Chris Rourke, a US Army reservist in a 12-man American Civil Affairs unit living in Dire Dawa, in eastern Ethiopia, says it comes down to this: ‘It’s the Peace Corps with a weapon’.

Austin Merrill notes much the same. Having come across the US military while on assignment in Timbuktu

The Special Forces team — while I was with them — spent more time caring for sick children and planning how to improve villagers’ access to drinking water than it did coaching Malian soldiers at target practice.

America is trying to win the hearts and minds of people who might otherwise be opposition — or worse, a threat.

The US has offered what it considers appropriate aid in different countries. While things like inoculations were important in Mali, Humvees were vital to help Kenya “combat terrorism”. Meanwhile, reservists and national guardsmen in Ethiopia are building schools and bridges “to wrestle key local leaders, clan elders and unemployed youth over to their vision of Ethiopia’s future” (Newsweek).

Soon a dedicated strategic command, Africom, will be set up to centralise and expand US international interests on the continent. The agency would combine military, economic and aid programmes in one office and could launch as soon as October, although a host nation has yet to be decided. Critics say it could cement American relations with less-than-savoury regimes such as Ethiopia, which is touted as a base for the command.

The Pentagon says Africom will bring its hearts-and-mind campaign closer to the people; critics say it represents the militarisation of US Africa policy. Already, the United States has identified the Sahel, a region stretching west from Eritrea across the broadest part of Africa, as the next critical zone in the war on terror and started working with repressive governments in Chad and Algeria, among others, to further American interests there.

The continent is home to several terrorist groups, most notably the loose coalition in north Africa that is al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which formed in January and has claimed responsibility for recent bomb attacks in Algeria. As such, it is understandable that the US would want a major base nearby.

However, many in the region would oppose this because of concerns about imperialism, be it economic or political. Fears of a conflict with China — which has more consulates and embassies on the continent than the US does — also exist.

The timescale involved is sure to provoke opposition. This isn’t a short or even medium-term operation.

General Charles Wald, who has pushed the idea of an Africom-style organisation, has said avoiding another Iraq or Afghanistan is the ultimate goal.

This needs to be a different approach to what the military does. It ought to be capacity building and governance building. There’s a lot of money going into Africa, and a lot of people care. But it’s just not being coordinated properly. It’s time to start facing the fact that we’ve got to do this in a holistic, synergistic way. It’s going to take time—50 years at least. (my emphasis)

The US military has tried to allay such fears on the Africom website. Meanwhile, Ryan Henry, US principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, has tried to downplay concerns of a 21st century Scramble for Africa.

The command is focused on African solutions that are led by Africans… We do not see this command getting involved in operations. There will be no new troops assigned to Africa as a result of this and there will be no new bases associated with it. We think the solutions to Africa’s security problems need to be indigenously developed in Africa. Some outsiders can help, but they can’t do the heavy lifting.

Nonetheless, he is quite open about the US using Africom strictly for its own interests. AP security correspondent Mark Trevelyan writes:

Despite the emphasis on developing indigenous African security, Henry did not rule out the possibility that Washington would intervene with its own forces if it had intelligence pinpointing a top al-Qaida figure in an African country.

“It would depend on a myriad of circumstances. If we thought that someone was going to unleash an attack somewhere in the world that was on the scale of 9/11 or greater, we’re obviously going to do something about it,” he said.

America has already acted on its al-Qaida suspicions. During the 2006 Somali civil war, when the Islamic Courts Union ruled much of the south, US gunships attacked ICU positions. This was because of a belief that the union was backing, or at least had ties to, al-Qaida. After backing local warlords against the Islamists, the US supported an Ethiopian invasion of the country. A coalition of Ethiopian and Somali government forces defeated the courts, although a guerilla campaign can not be ruled out. Somalia is still a shambles.

Unfortunately, by accepting the deployment of Ethiopian forces outside that nation’s borders the US has encouraged wider regional tensions. Eritrea was accused of sending soldiers to support the ICU, and its conflict with Ethiopia has smouldered for years, occasionally erupting into all-out war. Tensions between Ethiopia — which fought a war with Somalia in the 1970s — and Somalis within its borders also complicate the situation.

The Ethiopian government’s record on human rights is getting increasingly worse. Allying itself to such a regime will only undermine the moral and political credibility of Africom, especially if the organisation is based there. However, the US will likely feel the benefits of having an ally in a strategic area outweighs such concerns. It has happened many times before.

Resolving this regional mess would presumably be a priority for Africom. Whether or not this would include working with African Union peacekeepers in Somalia or be limited to police training is unclear at this time.

It will be interesting to see what focus Africom takes: will it prioritise military training and support, or will it get more involved in humanitarian duties? Will it be effective? Can it be effective?

Lessons on dealing with nuclear rows

North Korea has agreed to declare and disable all its nuclear facilities by the end of 2007. Who says diplomacy and the right aid package can’t get results?

The DPRK may be part of the “axis of evil” but it’s a fairly quiet part right now. After all the understandable concern when it tested a nuclear bomb one might have expected a more hostile confrontation between the two.

True, there were some hairy moments, but promises of oil and food seem to have won the day — to the point the US is looking at taking Korea off the list of states sponsoring terrorism.

Bryan over at Hot Air, while pointing out that the deal deserves some measure of skepticism, notes that the DPRK is in trouble: famine, flooding and economic woes abound. World Vision said the flooding was so bad this year’s rice harvest was destroyed, along with bridges and powerlines.

It’s possible Korea can no longer afford to maintain its nuclear programme, although dictatorships don’t have a track record of such concerns.

There are lessons here that can be applied to Iran. The deal shows just how successful negotiations can be when needs are clearly identified and dealt with; in 2006 Bush vowed to give diplomacy “every chance” in Korea, and the results are there for all to see.

Korea’s woes do not exist in Iran, so there’s no clear incentive on the Iranian side to ender into proper talks. Ahmadinejad is the other factor. There is unlikely to be a resolution so long as he and his ilk are in power. But that doesn’t mean a proper forum can’t be set up to resolve the issue diplomatically.

Hans Blix has suggested a guarantee that Iran will not be attacked and a normalization of relations with the United States as the cornerstone of an agreement. It won’t be enough in and of itself but would be a start.

At the height of the nuclear row, there was speculation of and backing for a military strike against Korea, much as there is talk of planned offensives against the Iranian military. Such speculation came to nothing and eventually petered out as the diplomatic effort gathered momentum despite the occasional setback. However, I can’t rule out the chance that the threat or fear of attack had a bearing on Korea’s diplomatic amiability.

I also have a slightly more cynical theory: the US administration could not have sold strikes on Korea to the public because it’s just not on their radar. Judging by this video, some Americans’ grasp of geography is tenuous at best:


(Part of a longer montage here.)

All levity aside, the prospect of a deal in North Korea does raise the possibility of a peaceful solution in Iran. I would put forward the promise of investment in the Islamic republic’s oil and gas fields. Direct US finance would be problematic for the Iranian government, but cash through a third party (perhaps the UN or EU) might work.

Let’s see what happens.

Next stop: the Moon

Russia plans to start building a base on the Moon by 2027. It aims to land cosmonauts in 2024 and have the facility finished and staffed by 2032.

The former superpower had suggested being part of a joint expedition with NASA, but after this was apparently rejected — although the US agency said in April that it had not received any such proposal — the decision was taken to go solo.

The first step will be finishing work on the ISS, followed by refurbishment of the Soyuz craft. How cosmonauts are going to get to the Moon has gone unmentioned. It might be using thisKliper craft, but there’s just as likely no plan in place at all.

Unless the government rows in behind the federal space agency, Roskosmos, this proposal will never get off the ground (pun, dire as it was, most certainly intended). The agency only has an annual budget of $1.3bn, compared to NASA’s $16.8bn.

In 2005, NASA estimated its coming lunar programme could cost $104bn over 13 years (Apollo cost half that over eight). There’s no reason Russia can’t come up with a way of doing it more cost-efficiently, but doing it on the current budget seems idealistic at best.

It will inevitably turn to space tourism to raise funds. Five have flown so far — each paying $20m-$25m a pop — and one Russian gentleman is set to go into orbit in 2009. It also charges NASA somewhere in the region of $20m per person per flight on its Soyuz capsules to the space station.

Roskosmos chief Anatoly Perminov has said launches of foreign satellites and other commercial services are expected to generate $800 million in sales for Russia’s national space and rocket industry in 2008. This would be useful hard cash for a lunar programme, especially with the timeframe the agency has in mind. It’s unlikely to be enough though.

Collaboration would be the easiest and most efficient avenue to take, but without NASA on board that seems dead in the water. Russia is considering developing satellites and such with several Arab countries, but it’s fair to say these do not have sufficiently developed space programmes to be technically useful in a lunar expedition. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t contribute financially.

Russia isn’t the only nation with the Moon in its sights. China — which sees a successful space programme as a major tool in establishing its international reputation and prestige — and Japan are planning lunar flights by 2022 and 2025, while India might steal a march on both with a mission by 2020.

India is to spend $1.5bn over five years developing the requisite technology, and what it can achieve in this timeframe and on this budget will indicate if Russia can achieve its goals.

Ultimately, the more resources dedicated to lunar exploration and occupation the better. Earth won’t last forever…

Toward a showdown in Iran?

As posted earlier today on International Analyst

Iran has agreed a timeline with the International Atomic Energy Agency to answer all outstanding questions regarding the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme.

However, it will not be enough to reverse America’s decision to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group.

This is a bold and dangerous decision. It will be the first time the list, which includes the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida, will feature a government agency.

The US claims the Guards, particularly its elite Quds Force, has been training and supplying weapons to insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan while supporting extremists across the Middle East. In 2006, Condoleezza Rice described Iran as “a kind of central banker for terrorism”.

Iran — which America has since 1984 accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism and which George W Bush labelled part of an “axis of evil” in 2002 — has strenuously denied these claims.

Revolutionary Guards leader General Yahya Rahim Safavi refused to mince words, telling the conservative newspaper Kayhan: “America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future. We will never remain silent in the face of US pressure and we will use our leverage against them.” The nature of this leverage is unclear.


George W Bush: Included Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’

The move comes under a presidential bill that authorizes the US to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities.

According to the Washington Post, this allows America to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that “provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists. Whether or not it has a major impact in real terms will only become clear over time, but it is worth looking at the possible effects.

Rasool Nafisi, a Washington-based expert on the Middle East and Iran at the private Strayer University, Virginia, says:

“[I]f the policy is carried out, the movement of IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp] members abroad would become very, very hard — especially in neighbouring countries. They could easily be detained as terrorists. So I think that’s a major blow to the status and movement of the IRGC. Secondly, because it is a large conglomerate with a tremendous amount of assets and is involved in business, it would not be able to do business with Afghanistan, with Iraq, with neighbouring countries; and that’s going to be another major issue.”

The blacklisting represents a continuing policy of isolating and containing Iran, which following the collapse of Iraq and Afghanistan only has Israel as a serious rival in the Middle East. As such, labelling the Guards as terrorists is strategic.

The US has been allies with Israel for many years, while Iraq and Afghanistan are within its sphere of influence, at least nominally, so long as troops remain on the ground. Strategically, it makes sense to isolate a relatively powerful and unallied nation that could swing the balance of power against America.

Certainly it has concerns regarding an Iran/Syria pact, however loose such an arrangement between the two so-called rogue states might be. When one throws Gaza into the mix the chances for greater instability in the Middle East grow significantly.

Meanwhile, Robert McMahon, writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, feels the US plan “set in motion what is expected to be a lively round of new diplomacy aimed at getting Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program”.

Days after the US decision was reported, Iranian officials met with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to discuss their country’s nuclear programme — although the two were not related.

In an agreement hailed as a “milestone” by IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen, both sides have established a timeline whereby the Islamic republic will answer outstanding questions. The US has said it must co-operate with inspectors and end nuclear work if it is to avoid further sanctions — though these face opposition from China and Russia.

However, by designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation, the US will discourage foreign investment and the sale of goods and supplies to the country — few firms wish to be associated with terrorism.

The Guards, while having few business interests abroad, is a major force in the Iranian economy and has significant interests in construction and the oil industry.

By indirectly pressuring foreign companies and potential investors, the US is undermining the economic weight and effectiveness of the Guards, who exist to safeguard the Islamic revolution. Sitting governments are the natural target for blame in a failing or weakened economy and this would open the door to unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime. Strikes and demonstrations helped topple the Shah in 1979 and usher in the Islamic regime (though there was no financial crisis at this time).

With some 45% of the state’s budget based on oil revenues, anything that could restrict the Guards’ business interests here will eat into government finances.

Iran has one large economic vulnerability — petrol. Although it is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, domestic consumption is so high it must import 40% of its petrol. If the Guards have any interests in this sector it could have a massive knock-on effect for the country, which is in the midst of petrol rationing. There were bitter protests when the scheme was brought in and further restrictions on supply could lead to more.

In addition, a fall-off in available capital will have a detrimental impact on the nation’s infrastructure, feeding into any political dissatisfaction.


Condoleezza Rice: Described Iran as a “kind of central banker for terrorism” but has lead the diplomatic initiative

There is, of course, no concrete evidence that the United States has political change in mind by adding the Guards to the terror list, though a more amenable Iran would certainly be a great advantage when it comes to oil access. Sanctions and blacklisting are not effective means of ousting rulers; Saddam remained in power despite the suffering of his citizens due to UN sanctions more swingeing than the limitations imposed by including a group on a list of terror organisations. Gaddafi ruled Libya despite the country being an international pariah for years.

Even so, Iranians may be left with the impression that America desires regime change through stealth rather than force. Also, economic weaknesses could exacerbate ethnic tensions within Iran, and this in turn could allow the US to gain valuable allies within the country — it is believed to be backing rebel groups near the Iraq border.

US intelligence sources and officials have linked Iranian elements to several attacks on US forces. The most significant of these was in Karbala, Iraq, in January.

Media reports in July claimed the Quds Force had been involved in the deaths of five US soldiers. However, an analysis by The American Prospect’s Gareth Porter of what the military spokesman actually said that day shows his only words regarding Iran were that men captured over the attack claimed the Quds “knew of and supported the Karbala attack”. This is not the same as being involved — and the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, had in April denied any Iranian involvement in the Karbala incident.

Nonetheless, these sorts of reports are what are feeding those in the Bush administration who favour conflict with Iran.

One has to remark on the double standard the US is displaying toward Iran.

On one hand, it is engaging with the Islamic republic on issues such as security in Iraq, while on the other hand it is blacklisting a major agency of the Iranian government. This represents a split in the Bush administration about how to deal with Iran: ‘doves’ such as Condoleezza Rice are eager to pursue and optimistic about a diplomatic approach, while ‘hawks’ such as Dick Cheney want to take a hardline and confrontational stance.

Some in the administration are keen for an attack against Iran, perhaps at Israeli instigation. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric on Israel has increased tensions between that nation and his own. He has at various times called for the state to be eliminated, said the Holocaust was a myth and most recently said Israel was “the standard bearer of Satan. His aggressive words — though he has also said he respects Jews and his grievance is with the state of Israel — could in the minds of some military figures justify actions against Iran.

Steven Clemons of The Washington Note reported some time ago:

“The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz [one of Iran’s nuclear sites] using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).”

This would provoke an Iranian military response, thus forcing George Bush — who has described Iran “as a very troubling nation right now” — to abandon diplomacy in favour of armed retaliation. In 2006, he delivered a speech in Cleveland where he said that while America’s “objective” was diplomacy, it “will use military might to defend our ally Israel” because of Iran’s “stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel”. This lends further weight to Clemons’ report.

Former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing for, says American neo-cons believe “the IRGC is the one obstacle to democratic and a friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over”.

While stressing this is a “delusion”, he points out that the administration may feel justified because

“the IRGC has had a long, established history of killing Americans, starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983. And that’s not to mention it was the IRGC that backed Hezbollah in its thirty-four day war against Israel last year. The feeling in the administration is that we should have taken care of the IRGC a long, long time ago”.

While there may be a burning desire among some US hawks to attack Iran, unless it has adequate provocation the US can not afford to turn economic and ideological conflict with Iran into military action. In a CBS/New York Times poll in March, only 10% of people favoured this strategy against Iran. Meanwhile the US military, which is designed to fight a two-front war, has no troops left to deploy. All of its resources are committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even if it did have the manpower and might to send against Iran, geography is against them. Iran is a mountainous country and its population is three times that of Iraq — and America has had a tough enough job securing that nation.

However, short-term action is possible given the size of US forces in the Persian Gulf. Faced with the inability to invade Iran, a series of air strikes may become a tempting option — particularly if intended to knock out specific targets such as nuclear plants and research facilities.


Dick Cheney: One of the main hawks in the Bush administration

The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the recent agreement between the Iran and agency as an attempt to deflect “attention from its… bomb-making activities”. So it would appear the administration is unwilling to compromise on the nuclear programme, although Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Ayatollah has declared a fatwa against such weapons.

However, the fact its programme was kept secret for nearly two decades has led to mistrust on the part of nations such as Britain and the US. Iran has also failed to stop enriching uranium despite UN resolutions urging it to do so.

According to Noam Chomsky, the US invasion of Iraq

“virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ‘had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy’. The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the US will attack at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support”.

America’s plan to give Middle Eastern nations billions of dollars in defence aid to contain Iran’s military and nuclear ambitions is another tension-building move. As the Syrian foreign ministry said of the plan: “He who wants to make peace does not start out with an arms initiative.”

It would appear the US administration is thinking long-term in its attitude toward Iran, which Rice has described as the “single most important single-nation strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East we would like to see”, and the region as a whole.

Of the three nations named by Bush as “the axis of evil”, only Iran remains a major player. Saddam Hussein has been vanquished, while North Korea has engaged with the IAEA on its nuclear programme. It has even taken the extraordinary step of shutting down its reactors and acquiescing to UN inspections. Iran, while co-operating with inspectors, has not shut down its enrichment programme, saying it needs nuclear plants to generate electricity (which it imports) and therefore free up more of its vast oil and gas reserves for export.

America’s actions will be eagerly accepted by elements within the Iranian regime. Although president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a former member of the Guards who wrote to he US administration in 2006 saying that his nation condemned all forms of terrorism — can be overruled at any time by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he would probably welcome conflict with the US.

It would be a significant propaganda victory for a man who has failed to deliver on pre-election economic promises and whose government only has a 39% approval rating (according to a recent poll by Terror Free Tomorrow). An American attack would allow him to rally his people behind him by focussing their attention on an enemy — a classic political move. Although naming the Guards as a terrorist group is intended to curtail its activities, it could just as easily consolidate the organisation’s position within Iran.

It could also give Iran a reason to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

The Iranian people have no quarrel with America, or at least with Americans. Clemons points out that on September 11, 2001, “Tehran was the only place in the Middle East where thousands of people walked out into the streets holding candles and expressing grief and empathy for Americans who died that day”.

Attacking Iran would only bolster the regime. One should never underestimate the rallying effect an external enemy can have on a population, especially in the short term. Not only could such a move consolidate the government’s position, but it could direct it to seek more concrete alliances elsewhere.

Ultimately, China will have a defining say in actions against Iran. Sanctions can not clear the UN Security Council while the Asian superpower’s veto is in effect, while any terror blacklisting by the US can be undermined if China decides it will ignore it.

Iran has observer status with the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, an emerging bloc addressing security concerns in Central Asia whose members include China and Russia. Iran has applied for full membership of the group, which governments and observers in the west have described as an emerging military bloc.

China accounts for 13% of Iran’s exports and 10.6% of its imports, while Russian suppliers make up 4.5%. This is a solid enough foundation for a stronger alliance. One thing weighing against Iran’s membership of the SCO is the group’s mutual defence treaties. Although Russia, which helped Iran with its nuclear programme, backs full membership for Iran, it would be easy for other members to argue it only wants to join so it can activate these treaties in the event of military conflict with the United States.

However, as China’s economy grows and modernises its desire for oil increases. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 40% of oil-demand growth worldwide since 2001 has come from China alone. In Africa, and particularly Sudan, China has allowed its oil and mineral needs to dictate its foreign policy.

With this in mind, it is not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that energy demands could motivate it to seek a more secure alliance with Iran — particularly if a proper pipeline infrastructure could be built between the countries. This would have to pass through the likes of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and its construction could get around the terror blacklisting if a Chinese firm builds it.

Iran’s oil fields need enormous investment, and China has the capital and will to become involved in this. The two would seem a perfect fit should Iranian companies such as those run by the Guards become unable to do business with other nations, though it seems unlikely China and the US will risk a major showdown.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Says his country condemns all forms of terrorism

The signs are ominous. A strike against Iran may come within months. But what would be the outcome of such an attack?

British military historian Corelli Barnett has gone so far as to say it would cause “World War III”. This is an apocalyptic point of view but it would certainly be a disastrous move, both for America and for the region. The international standing of the United States, which is already tarnished because of Iraq, would be depleted even further.

Iran may lack the ability for its military to retaliate on American soil, but it has the missile capabilities to do severe damage to US forces in the Persian Gulf as well as installations across the Middle East. While the US has the capability to intercept these attacks, it only takes one rocket to cause great loss of life. Israel may also come under attack, as it did during the first Gulf War.

Even a short-term land engagement could lead to many deaths on both sides, as well as potentially sucking the US into another long-term occupation/military deployment that would only serve to crush its credibility in the Middle East.

While Iran may not have the armaments of the United States, it does have an important weapon: oil. Any attack on Iran, the second-biggest producer in OPEC, would immediately cause a rise in oil prices. If the country were to cut off its supply the price per barrel would soar. In addition, Iranian oil may instead go to countries non-hostile to it.

As well as the economic weapon, it could ramp up its contacts with militant groups across the Middle East and elsewhere in an effort to strike at American targets wherever possible. It could easily ramp up its involvement with the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas to wreak unpredictable havoc.

While there is a history of enmity between Iran and Iraq, this is due to Saddam Hussein’s attempt to take advantage of the Islamic revolution. The recent announcement that oil pipelines would be built between the two seems to indicate that either Iraqi officials don’t take reports of Iran-trained militants fighting inside its borders seriously, or that the positives outweigh the negatives. A Shia to Shia accord may also be a factor here. Regardless, it makes sense for Iraq to build regional alliances ahead of the inevitable withdrawal by US forces.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have said Iran is necessary for peace and security to come about in their nations — and if Iran is weakened or collapses the ensuing power vacuum will mean chaos in three bordering nations. This will inevitably draw Pakistan into Iran in a bid to protect its frontier; though given its track record along the border with Afghanistan there is a sizeable chance it will not succeed.

Are there other options than force? Diplomacy will always be a possible avenue, though it can be slow and delayed. Academic Marc Gopin and US Congressman Gregory Meeks have advocated reaching out directly to the Iranian people, thus going over the heads of the ruling administration:

“[T]he perfect way to isolate the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian president, and the radical clerics, is to invite the Iranian people into an ever more hopeful relationship with the West… The internal vulnerabilities of Iran’s ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers.”

This is an idealistic approach but it illustrates there are alternatives to force. Whether they will be attempted or not remains to be seen.

David O’Mahony

Fuel to eradicate poverty

Jacques Diof, director general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, feels the bioenergy sector has the potential to drastically reduce hunger and poverty.

If we get it right, bioenergy provides us with a historic chance to fast-forward growth in many of the world’s poorest countries, to bring about an agricultural renaissance and to supply modern energy to a third of the world’s population.

It’s a bold claim, but he’s got the background for us to take him seriously. In the article he sets out three things which need to be addressed for bioenergy to have the desired effect: lowering of trade barriers against ethanol imports, ensuring smallhold farmers can organise themselves to produce the biofuels on a large scale, and certification to ensure bioenergy products meet environmental standards.

I like the last point. One of the arguments against biofuels — particularly ethanol — is that it will result in more forestry clearance etc to allow more crops such as corn to be grown. As the soil in the Amazon rainforest is generally poor and quickly washed away once the trees are removed, ensuring the products meet environmental standards will have a beneficial effect on ecosystems.

I have also come across articles and news reports claiming ethanol isn’t as clean a fuel as commonly thought, largely because it takes more energy to produce a litre of ethanol than it does to produce a litre of oil. However, I would argue that this is because companies have had more time to refine oil production.

Diof says his three measures

would allow developing countries – which generally have ecosystems and climates more suited to biomass production than industrialised nations, and often have ample reserves of land and labour – to use their comparative advantage.

A fair and sound point in terms of economics, and the core of his argument that bioenergy can reduce poverty and hunger. Creating a valuable trade resource for less developed countries would not only foster economic self-sufficiency but generate wealth for better public and private services that a wider population base can afford.

Diof continues:

To focus debate exclusively on bio­fuels for transport is therefore to miss much of the point about bioenergy’s potential for poverty reduction. This lies more in helping 2bn people to produce their own electricity and other energy needs than in keeping 800m cars and trucks on the road… Helping 2bn people living on less than two dollars a day switch to affordable, homegrown, environmentally sustainable bio-power would represent a quantum leap in their development.

He’s thinking on a grand scale, and for that I applaud him. However, I am not convinced his dream will become a reality. Diof has urged the formation of an international bioenergy market and unless this happens in a balanced and fair way it will be dominated by existing major trade powers.

If that happens the potential benefits for less developed countries will be hindered, though not necessarily eliminated. We may face into a situation similar to that regarding chocolate and coffee production, where small sums are paid to farmers in poorer countries and the refined goods sold on for significant profits.

I’m not advocating some sort of global socialist approach to bioenergy. What I would urge, though, is that the governments of developing countries ensure they have a major role to play in the formation of an international market. This could go a long way toward using bioenergy wealth for the good of people who need it rather than corporate enrichment — although I’m not naive enough to suggest such enrichment won’t happen.

While we’re on the subject of alternative fuels, take a look at these pictures from CNet. They show a system of wave-power buoys that’s being installed off the coast of Oregon, USA.

Meanwhile, Spiegel Online is reporting that the rise of biofuels is threatening the humble gummy bear because a rise in crop prices threatens to jack up the price. I kid you not.