Iran and the EU - A story of moot points

The European Union recently declared it will impose sanctions on Iran... in ten months... pointedly to let both European refineries find new suppliers of crude... and let Iran find new buyers for its crude... so oil prices would not fluctuate.

If you were annoyed by my repeated use of aposiopesis, my thoughts keep falling short when tasked with finding a point to what the EU is doing. If the EU wishes to defund the Iranian nuclear program, then the EU should accept some consequences to unilateral actions. Instead, Iran will turn to China and China will get cheaper oil, improving its own economy and ability to compete against made in EU and made in the US products. Iran gains closer relations to a nuclear power who doesn't dance to the west's beat.

Great job EU.

Iran fires a missile (again)

CNN reports Iran test fired missiles in the strait of Hormuz on Monday during naval exercises, to which the world has responded to by condemning Iran for threatening to close the international passage that supplies the west with oil, a strategic resource which drives the economies that provide the resources that support the west's capacity for war. Smart move Iran, except for the fact you reported on your own news network you have no intention of closing the water way.

You heard me correctly. Iran is huffing and puffing, but he will not blow our door down.

While I agree with the strategy as legal in war time, I also see the act as closing the strait as an act of war and starting a war is an illegal act for any nation. While my American audience will feel morally at ease about war with Iran, please keep in mind sanctions on Iran are a prelude to war and the U.S. is quite aware of this. If the U.S. wants to start a fight with Iran, it knows exactly what it has to do. If you think of the U.S. and Iran as two kids bickering in the back seat of a car you are driving, the U.S. is keeping a pointed finger an inch from touching Iran and taunting 'Not touching, not touching!'

So the ethical dilemma the United States is faced with is what tool can it use to negotiate Iran way from a legal civil nuclear program to ensure Iran isn't pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Sanctions will right now lead to war. Pride will always keep the U.S. from humbling itself and forming a close tie with Iran within Iran's program. Is war ethical if humble diplomacy can keep the peace?

More important to me is how will this affect the development of human civilization as we reach for the stars. We are a type zero civilization who has yet to survive the transition to type one. How the world handles this crisis will affect how we handle this kind of situation in the future and have a say in how often we go to war. We also will give a bad first impression during our first contact with aliens who may decide to be our judge and jury.

I think the world should cry out, no against Iran at the moment, but against the world itself for how we are handling the very real crisis of Iran with nuclear weapons.

Personality cults and governence

Those of you who follow international news know about two important events in global politics that are seemingly unrelated, but show similarities and dangers we should be aware of in democracies.

The elections in Russia are contentious, marred by protests and ripe for international criticism. However, the elections are still democratic in nature, even if the qualities elected give the elections a less than trust worthy reputation. Vladimir Putin is a tough guy. He trains with the national Judo team, rides horses and does every thing he can to show the public he is masculine, hard as nails and much like Teddy Roosevelt of the U.S. It is what the public wants in an elected official. It may not be the best kind of leader the Russian electorate can elect, but there are emotional factors in who we elect in any democracy and Putin is very good at exploiting these emotions. It is why he was so successful as a KGB agent and later in his presidency.... Wait.... economic reforms?.... growth?.... a Chechen war?.... Okay, maybe there is some good sense behind his tough guy exterior, but these factors are not highlighted by his political campaign. He is the head of a familiar term we hear more often further south.

On July 8th, 1994, Kim Il-sung died. A nation wept, a son took power. He was the first of an official personality cult in North Korea. His son took over where he left off and when Kim Jong-il died, a nation wept.... forcefully wept. No one liked Kim Jong-il. He ruled with fear. He also enforced the personality cult, which covered all the horrible qualities he had as a leader. Feeding the nation didn't seem that big of a deal compared to him shooting a perfect game of golf, being a ladies man in novels and so on. This is not so different from what we are seeing in Russia right now, except Putin is actually a pretty good leader. But what if he wasn't?

In the United States, when we elected Obama, we were thinking about health care and economic reforms. The fact he was black was novel, but not a fact in his favor. A lot of racists excluded him as a president off the bat and then there were many that were hesitant. There were many that voted for him because he is black too. On balance, I doubt it decided the election. So he didn't head a personality cult by being black. He headed a personality cult by selling hope. Not a bad product to sell. I think it is fair game too. He was however not ready for presidency. He had grand ideas of introducing the Swedish health care model to the U.S. and his advisers said no. He had plans for transport and his advisers said no. He had plans and his advisers said no. For all the insults we have for bosses and their yes men, it seems ironic when a president finally surrounds himself with no men, we have an ineffectual presidency.

When we elect our future leaders, we need to sit back a moment and ask ourselves if we are in love with a cult personality or if we are down to the brass tacks. It is something I will think about before I buy my next computer.