Slashdot Mirror
Iran Deleted From the World's Banking Computers
dtjohnson writes "Iran is being deleted from the world banking system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) computers as of Saturday at 1600 UTC. Once the SWIFT codes for Iranian banks are deleted, Iranian banks will no longer be able to transfer funds to and from other worldwide banks, turning Iranian international commerce into a barter operation. SWIFT is taking the action at the request of EU
members to comply with international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons. The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."
Cutting iran off SWIFT may lead to development of new messaging system between Iran, Russia, China etc. This would make banks of those countries less dependent on western entities.
"...wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar..."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB17Ak04.html
(No, I haven't read the full article, it was linked on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse#Opening )
How do you track when someone swaps 100 tons of wheat or 100 bars of gold for some barrels of oil? You can't. If you "let" them use the international monetary system, you have a means of tracking all their activites. Follow the money and you find the bad guys. Giving them a pass on that lets them trade with whomever they want without any trace.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The SWIFT system was constructed by the west to manage bank transfers. You can be sure that Iran will alternatives to it - just as Iran has found alternatives to every other sanction the US has imposed ove more that 30 years. So what the west is actually doing is facilitating the deconstruction of a once universal system, and facilitating the construction of an alternative that the west does not control.
I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?
Iran views Israel as a projection of USA dominance. So to be honest, I think the most wise policy is to heed the suggestions of George Washington and drop our entangling alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations. If Israel wants to nuke Iran, let them. Just don't expect us to be behind them.
You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?
Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.
wiki article about Iraq sanctions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
paper on A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justication: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Hauser_MindLang.pdf
.
The dynamic at work is that every time the US has managed to make progress in negotiations with North Korea, the US has then prompty reneged on its side of the deal. Usually it's been the case that after the agreement was signed between the two countries, there has subsequently been a change in the US administration, and the new administration decides that they want to cancel all the treaties signed by the previous administration.
Generally, the agreements have been of the nature "The US agrees to build and supply modern large-scale nuclear power plants in North Korea, and North Korea agrees not to produce nuclear weapons." What North Korea really wants is huge amounts of electricity and agricultural aid (which is why it always signs such agreements, and is usually interested in negotiations).
Then, North Korea, seeing the actions of the US (such as building most of a nuclear power plant, then abandoning construction before completion because the new administration wants to be seen as "hard-line") as bad faith and breach of contract (and rightly so), resumes the activities that it had agreed to cease, because that seems to be the only way to get the US back to the negotiating table.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Incidentally, the issue regarding Iran is not that they are building nuclear weapons, or even trying to. The issue is that they are aiming to achieve complete mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, and thus nuclear energy self-sufficiency. This would achieve several things: first, all of the oil currently going to domestic energy needs in Iran could then be exported. Secondly, Iran could massively improve and expand infrastructure and industry, given a vast and self-sufficient supply of nuclear energy. Third, they would be able to export low-enriched nuclear fuel assemblies to other countries who want to have nuclear energy.
It's that third point that is really irking countries such as the US; currently, there is an exclusive cartel which enriches nuclear fuel and sells nuclear fuel assemblies. Thus, prices are fixed, and very high. An independent vendor outside the cartel would upset that monopoly and its price structure, not to mention that it might consider selling nuclear fuel assemblies (or even complete reactors) to poor countries populated by brown people, thus enabling those countries to improve their infrastructure and standard of living in turn. Something the US (and France, and the energy corporations therein, etc.) very much do not want.
It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up.
Which is why it's so silly to think of Iran as a rational actor as some have unfortunately claimed. No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.
Yes, there's the theory that by having them you prevent anyone from ever wanting to invade you. But that's only a reason to already have them, not to get everyone's ire by trying to get them. If you want to join the nuclear club, you do it in absolute secrecy, then make a big announcement after you're already armed. But once the secret's already out about your development efforts, it's time to apologize, state your clear intentions not to keep going all the way, and quickly dismantle whatever you've done.
Okay, so they're worried about us maybe invading them someday, but why would we do that? Because we seem eager to get into wars in the region? Well, not really, not really. We went into Afghanistan because we got attacked. We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs. The lesson here is not that we are jumping at the chance to invade countries all over the middle east, but that we will only do so if you attack us or threaten mushroom clouds. Granted the Iraqi WMD thing turned out to not be quite as big a deal as we may have once thought, but clearly the solution to not being next is not brazenly building nukes right next door.
Let's face it, Iran is already plenty powerful and influential in the region. We saw to that by bumping off their biggest rival, Iraq. They don't need a bomb, now, nor should they want a bomb. They seem to be trying to get one anyway. If they're this reckless about acquiring nuclear weapons, how reckless will they be once they have them? Scary stuff.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You