Hah! And not even the 'shot down' part has been acknowledged.
How do such things work? Can the Iranians sell the drone to Russia or China for a security council veto promise?
Fars News agency indicates the presence of Russian specialists at an earlier incident.
My feeling is that since rhetoric against Iran has stepped up and now possibly surveillance as well, this is leading up to a confrontation because of the nuclear issues. What I don't know is whether the loss of the drone will heat up or cool down the desire for war. It may depend on the circumstances. If it really was an accidental loss, then it likely doesn't matter. If it was shot down, then there will be some concerns. If, as Iran claims, it was lost due to electronic warfare, then this is a real problem for the US.
Basically, we're right at the heart of the middle east problem. Traditionally, the three great countries/ethnicities in the regions are the Turks, the Arabs and the Persians. Turkey has been part of NATO for a long time, but clearly, with the breaking up of the SU and the emergence of several new central Asian countries inhabited by Turks, Turkey's influence is on the rise, and opportunities abound. It has led to a resurgence of Turkish self-assurance which has already led to changes in their Israel policy and their diplomatic efforts vis a vis Iran (entirely unappreciated by the US). Also, clearly the Turkish economy has benefitted enormously over the recent years.
Arabs traditionally have looked toward Egypt as their natural leader. That hasn't been the case though since Nasser. The role of Arab leadership has instead been taken by the Saudis, mostly because of their oil and military support by the US. This is why the Arab revolution, in particular in Egypt, has not been supported by the West. It threatens to shift the balance of Arab leadership back from the Saudis to an unpredictable Egypt.
Finally Iran and Persians. Squeezed between Iraq and Afghanistan on both sides and looking across the Persian Gulf to a US backed Saudi Arabia, and considering the mostly disastrous meddling of US in Iran over the last 80 years, one shouldn't be surprised to find a great dose of paranoia. Of course, everybody would be happier if Iran were a more socially liberal country with respect for women's and gays rights and religious freedom. Now, the problem is clearly that an external threat to Iran, which is how NATO and the US are perceived (rightfully IMHO), will not help. Neither is propping up the Saudis where women's rights are in worse shape than in Iran. It is (rightfully) seen as hypocrisy. For completeness, there's more examples of hypocrisy involving Israel, but I don't want to go there since it will only detract from the issues.
Finally a few words on the non proliferation treaty. It is not fair, but it was a masterpiece of realpolitik. It acknowledged the presence of nuclear weapons in all countries which possessed them at the time. Besides the obvious goal of non-proliferation, it allowed each country to develop nuclear energy, and it had a promise of the five nuclear powers to disarm (eventually). Almost every nation on earth (with very few exceptions) joined the treaty, which made it work for a long time.
Nowadays, of course, the treaty is known to have been broken several times (e.g. North Korea, South Africa during apartheid), the promise of eventual disarmament has not panned out, and sadly, the three non-signatory nations (Israel, Pak!stan, India) have all developed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, US policy has been to interpret the treaty very narrowly in terms of enrichment and reprocessing.
What is needed is a new treaty rooted in the same spirit of realpolitik as the old one. First of all, it has to acknowledge all present nuclear powers in order to make it possible for Israel, India and Pak!stan to join. Then, it needs a firmer promise of total nuclear disarmament on a regional and global level. Clearly, during the cold war, nothing like that was possible. Nowadays, maybe. The good news is that with the end of the cold war, massive amounts of warheads have already disappeared. Cooperation between the by far largest powers, US and Russia, seems to work and a decent amount of trust and good will has been building. Moreover, the lure of nuclear power has waned considerably since the 1960s making the whole issue of nuclear technology a much less important topic.
Anyway, a renegotiation of the NPT would be useful, if only to acknowledge the changed realities. The shift in US policy toward India might also point in that direction.
ETA: shoot, I forgot about the filter. Maybe we should rename Pak!stan Uzbekibekibekistanistan. That should work fine for everybody.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram