The Third Option?

Submitted by van der Ley (Canada), May 9, 2006 at 17:13

I don’t’ see such a diplomatic unholy alliance materializing at all, as there are too many conflicting interests:

(1) China: The Chinese have their own agenda. The wealthy chinese minority (from government bureaucrats to business people) act behind closed and well-guarded doors. There has not been any real “opening” of Chinese society, and, in general, cheap Chinese exports are a product of appalling work conditions. Add to it China’s aspirations to be a dominant power, it is understandable how they will ride the current crisis, and be somewhat aligned with Tehran;

(2) Russia: a reluctant ally during WWII (against the other fascists, the Nazis), Russia also has a lot to gain by fuelling the fire: after the collapse of the USSR, various flourishing “underworld” activities, based on all forms of trafficking (weapons, drugs, people…), have fuelled a parallel economy large in both size and scope. Russia has a vested interested in the Middle East and, recently, has openly expressed its ‘close ties’ with the Islamic world and strengthened its relationship with China.

(3) Europe: The Old World has openly sided with Islamic theocracy. From “islamonline.net”: ‘BERLIN, April 11, 2006 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The European Union is set to remove derogatory terminology about Islam like "Islamic terrorism" and "fundamentalists" in its new lexion [sic] of public communication to make clear that terrorists are hijacking the religion, an EU official revealed on Tuesday, April 11. "Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," the official told Reuters.’

(4) The menace of a nuclear conflict is not a deterrent for Tehran. A theocracy which tenets exalt death over life is not going to blink an eye when faced with the prospect of the potentially devastating effects of such a conflict.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".