In connection with the release of his memoirs, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a number of interviews this week in which he endorses the first-use of military force to stop Iran’s nuclear development. Blair’s statements on the matter prompted us to reflect on where European policies toward the Islamic Republic are really headed.
We start with the following exchange, from Blair’s interview with Charlie Rose that was broadcast on Tuesday, September 7, as a representative statement of the former Prime Minister’s views on Iran:
TONY BLAIR: [T]ake Iran—I completely understand the view that says—and there are friends of mine, friends of mine that I see in the U.S. who say to me, look, of course Iran shouldn’t have a nuclear weapon. But are you crazy? Are we really going, after everything we’ve been through, to take this on as well? Why not just manage the situation? We bring it about with sanctions. Why should the regime be so stupid as ever to use nuclear weapons? Look, it’s a situation that’s bad, we know, but it’s manageable, and it’s better to manage it than the alternative. That’s a perfectly sensible argument. I’m not going to sit here and say that’s a stupid argument. I can understand the leaders taking that view.
CHARLIE ROSE: The argument is we can contain an Iran with weapons.
TONY BLAIR: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: As we did Russia with weapons.
TONY BLAIR: Yes. In the end, my view is no, this regime is qualitatively different in their makeup. I see them now exporting terrorism, instability around the Middle East. I think the risk of not them so much using a nuclear weapon, because I agree that’s a remote contingency although, you know, you can’t ignore the fact the president of the country says Israel should be wiped off the map. If you were an Israeli, you’d worry about it. But there’s the risk of the leakage of the technology. Would they give that technology to one of these terrorist groups? I don’t know. So I can’t be sure. Now—OK, so you’ve got a situation you can manage it. You confront it. Who’s right? It’s really difficult.
CHARLIE ROSE: But your fear is that it’s unacceptable for them because they may lose it to some—or give it to somebody.
TONY BLAIR: Yes, yes…If in the end sanctions fail, diplomacy fails, I do not think it is acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I think you can’t rule out military action, and, indeed, it would come to that if they continue and sanctions and diplomacy simply can’t work. So, yes, it’s a very difficult balance.
CHARLIE ROSE: So what do you think the chances of sanctions and diplomacy working here based on what you know so far?
TONY BLAIR: I think it depends, actually, on how serious they think we are…I think the Iranians—I think if they actually understand the seriousness of intent, then I think you have a greater likelihood—I don’t say you’ll stop them, but you have a greater likelihood of stopping them. And that’s why it’s so important to send a clear, strong, and unequivocal message.
CHARLIE ROSE: What would you do about the diplomacy not being done?
TONY BLAIR: Do what we’re trying to do, which is to gear it up and make it work. But it’s hard. It’s hard. It always is hard because countries have their interests, and some countries take the first view which is, look, there are other things in the world to worry about, manage it. There’s a line of political argument that runs like that, and that’s why I say it’s such a difficult issue, this, because you can’t say that’s a stupid thing. Now, on balance, my view is it’s a risk not worth running…
That Blair would say these things about Iran does not really surprise us—this is the same man who says that he “can’t regret” the Iraq war. But we are struck that, while Blair’s position would put him squarely in the middle of the American foreign policy establishment regarding Iran, it is—in principle, at least—quite “un-European”.
Blair seems to advocate—in terms similar to the arguments of John Bolton, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and other Iran “hawks” in the United States—that the United States engage in “preventive war” against Iran because of a perceived risk that it might begin converting its (internationally safeguarded) nuclear activities into a weapons program and, then, give nuclear weapons to terrorists. (Blair says he believes that, if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would not use it. Why he doubts Iran would be sufficiently rational to refrain from giving a nuclear weapon to others who would use it is not clear. But that’s another issue.) Blair’s “case” for launching a “preventive war” against Iran is certainly not the “mainstream” European declaratory position. Virtually all of the senior “continental” European officials with whom we’ve spoken agree with us that there is only a diplomatic path for addressing issues connected with the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. From their perspective, for the United States or Israel to attack Iran because it is enriching uranium would be profoundly counter-productive, imprudent—and illegal.
This reading was confirmed on Charlie Rose’s broadcast the very next evening, by an observer whose insights are always interesting and often on the mark—John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist.
CHARLIE ROSE: [Blair] believed that Saddam had to be taken down, whether he had weapons of mass destruction or whether he maintained the potential to do it because of plans. He also believes that if Iran has nuclear weapons there’s a possibility they’ll fall into the hands of people who will use them, not Iranians but whoever else, and that therefore you cannot allow it. And he’s prepared to say that if sanctions and diplomacy and everything else doesn’t work then you have to have a military attack.
JOHN MICKLETHWAIT: Again, I think he’s coming out of his closet—if I can put it that way—more about Islam. He’s coming out and saying things more directly than he would perhaps do in office. But I think it’s there. Blair again has always had this deep abiding worry about nuclear weapons, about what people could do with them. And the history is very clear. This predates George Bush by a very, very long way. It’s something he was badgering Bill Clinton about. It’s part of him. And I think, again, give him some credit. He’s not actually meandering. He’s not pandering to people. These are not popular things to say. Nobody on this side of the Atlantic is gunning to go for Iran.
Of course, most “continental” European states took a similar view of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003—that the Bush Administration’s decision to take military action against Iraq, with the strong support of Tony Blair’s government in London, was fundamentally illegitimate. But, once the deed was done, those European states which had opposed the war—and whose judgments were roundly vindicated by the disastrous course of America’s post-Saddam occupation—rushed to “make peace” with the United States. Indeed, many of these states have taken their own Iran policies in deeply dysfunctional directions at least partly out of a desire to make the Iranian nuclear issue an arena in which U.S.-European cooperation could be restored.
That raises a series of questions which, for us, prompt serious doubt about Europe’s capacity to have a genuinely independent foreign policy. (Interestingly, many of our Iranian interlocutors have already given up on this prospect.) What would Europe do if Israel and/or the United States were to initiate military action against Iranian nuclear facilities? Say that the action was illegal? And then? How quickly would Europe seek to “make peace” with America after an attack on Iran?
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Nasser:
So I made an incorrect assumption and you corrected me.
But my broader point regarding doubtful second strike capability of Israel still remains.
Important:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI17Ak02.html
fyi,
This was your original argument: “You cannot fit a missile of range 1500-Km in a submarine of Dolphin size” because such a thing would defy the very laws of Physics. AND “As far as I know, torpedo tubes are for launching torpedoes.”
- “If the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Nasser:
You are mistaken if you think I keep on changing the subject.
You are making assertions that I do not find credible.
And I proceed to question them.
So you have addressed one of the issues that I raised.
Many more remain.
fyi,
“The development of the US submarine launched cruise missile (from a torpedo tube) took between 1971-1976. This was a publicly tested program. And US had the resources of a continent at her disposal. I am unaware of equivalen track recods of Israel in this arena. And please spare me the tale of Popeye Turbo; a poorly tested missile that suddenly is supposed to have reached a 1500 KM range with its first – suspected – test.”
- So now it is not the submarine that you have the problem with but the missile?! You keep changing the subject every time someone points out your mistake. But thats ok cuz now you seem to get it. Any submarine with a torpedo tube of 533mm or greater (that would be nearly all) would be capable of launching a cruise missile of far greater range than 1500km. Cruise missiles of far greater range are deployed from the back of trucks!
- Popeye Turbo was jointly developed by Lockheed. So I see no reason to doubt that it incorporated earlier US cruise missile technology; from the 70s no less. I also see no reason to doubt the reports of the successful missile tests.
- You accuse me of being in awe of Israel’s technical prowess but quite the contrary I say there is absolutely nothing spectacular about being able to launch SLCMs from submarines. All you need is a submarine with a sufficiently large enough missile tube, the missile, and a crew that knows how to load that missile into that tube and press fire! Even countries like Iran and Pakistan can do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur_missile
- I will say it again; the impressive part is not the range of the Popeye Turbo (which can be increased by just lengthening the fuel tank) or the fact that it can be launched from a submarine. The impressive feat is being able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead of sufficient yield to fit onto such a missile. Israel supposedly mastered that long ago. Or maybe thats all propaganda too?!!!
Nasser:
What you have written is only a plausibility argument.
The development of the US submarine launched cruise missile (from a torpedo tube) took between 1971-1976. This was a publicly tested program. And US had the resources of a continent at her disposal. I am unaware of equivalen track recods of Israel in this arena.
And please spare me the tale of Popeye Turbo; a poorly tested missile that suddenly is supposed to have reached a 1500 KM range with its first – suspected – test.
As for why US would lie; very simple: keep Israel’s enemies frightened and thus lower the cost of defending that state.
fyi,
“Here is what you and others are saying
Dolphins have torpedo tubes
USSR and could launch nuclear-armed cruise missles from torpedo tubes
Israel has cruise missiles
Thus Israel has second strike capability.
Well, I think this syllogism does not obtain; there are too many unknowns in it.”
- No fyi that is not what I said at all! Once again you simply did not even bother to read the whole thing before passing your judgment. I am saying despite being a engineer in five different fields you do not even seem to grasp the function of torpedo tubes or how cruise missiles are launched from submarines.
- The torpedo tubes in those US and Russian submarines used to launch nuclear SLCMs are of the same size as the ones in the Dolphin (standard size). Cruise missiles of even greater range than 1500km fit in those things and can be launched from them. Nuclear SLCMs of much greater range (RPK-2 Viyuga) can even be deployed from the Iranian Kilos! These missiles are not big clumsy ballistic missiles like say the Shahabs, so there is nothing Physics defying about being able to launch them from the missile tubes of a submarine. If indeed it is so much against the laws of science as you claim then how can cruise missiles of even greater range be fired from smaller surface vessels, light aircrafts, or small land based launchers?! In fact you can have a 533 mm missile tube with a cruise missile inside and place it underwater with some trigger mechanism and still be able to launch. So there is nothing miraculous or Physics defying about being able to launch SLCMs from submarines, be it from the Dolphins or something else.
- The technologically impressive part is thus not the capacity to launch SLCMs, something that even a backward country like Iran can do. But being able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead enough to fit on those missiles. And Israel accomplished that long ago!
- And you never explained why the US Navy and Jane’s would be spreading propaganda about Israeli missile tests. I
Kathleen,
The colossal US embassy in Baghdad is a monument to the sheer stupidity of George W. Bush and his advisers. Isn’t China going to be in the lead, in producing Iraqi crude?
Of course the US taxpayers should spend scores of billions of dollars every year, to facilitate Chinese oil deals in Iraq.
Kathleen,
The neocon conspirators in the Pentagon (Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle) thought they would cut a fat hog (get filthy rich) as a result of the overthrow of Saddam AND THE COMING TO POWER OF A SHIA GOVERNMENT in cahoots with them. Obviously they did not want chaos. Don’t get distracted by red herrings. The Sunni power structure was destroyed because the neocon conspirators were dealing with Shia (Chalabi family).
The arrogant ignoramus in the White House was not even paying attention to what was taking place.
Kathleen,
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell all agree, before the invasion of Iraq, that the Iraqi army and security services would be kept intact to preserve public order after the overthrow of Saddam. And the Saudi Crown Prince (now king) Abdullah had obtained specific assurances from the Bush administration on this point.
I encourage you to read further on this issue. The sad truth is that the arrogant ignoramus in the White House apparently was not aware he authorized the idiot Jerry Bremer to disband the Iraqi army and security services, which guaranteed a vicious civil war would erupt. Astounding incompetence on the part of Condoleezza Rice played a large part in this catastrophe.
Nasser:
Here is what you and others are saying:
Dolphins have torpedo tubes
USSR and could launch nuclear-armed cruise missles from torpedo tubes
Israel has cruise missiles
Thus Israel has second strike capability.
Well, I think this syllogism does not obtain; there are too many unknowns in it.
Important read
by Jeff Kaye and Jason Leopold
Government Report on Drugging of Detainees Is Suppressed
http://www.truth-out.org/government-report-drugging-detainees-is-suppressed63256#comment-221216
oops sorry for putting up another post. When I looked the other one was not up yet. Sorry
IMHO “Do you think the US and the UK invaded Iraq in order to secure oil supplies? Or was this argument a neocon ploy needed to help dupe the arrogant ignoramus in the White House? And Tony Blair too?”
IMHO my dear friend peace activist and Christian Peace Maker team member Peggy Gish who was in Iraq before the invasion and has been on the ground close to half of the time since the U.S. invaded has said that many of the Iraqi people that she has dealt with (hundreds upon hundreds) believe that the Bush administration purposely have destroyed their country. That sending in too few troops, disbanding the Iraqi army, allowing looting while protecting the oil sites, letting go of Garner and bringing Paul Bremer(who disbanded the Iraqi army) were not mistakes at all. The Bush administration thugs (Feith, Cambone, Luti, Cheney, Bolton) understood the hatred and violence that would be unleashed between the Sunni’s and Shiites when peace was not maintained.
According to Peggy (again interacts with hundreds of Iraqi people) and others many of the Iraqi people believe that the Bush administration wanted chaos in Iraq.
Peggy Gish and CPT were one of the first groups to document and record abuse in Abu Gharib in the late spring and summer of 2003
Gish taking reports
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4066835.stm. Peggy did a great deal of interviewing for those reports. Seymour Hersh used some of CPT’s abu Gharib reports in his story about the torture in that prison system
The largest U.S. embassy in the world, private contractors to protect oil executives etc. Hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions displaced. What a perfect environment for multinationals to take over control of the oil
Humanist,
Reza Shah achieved a modification of the contract, and the amended deal was considered a reasonable one for Persia to have accepted.
imho
Among the oppressed people the question of “blame” is often discussed.
I believe the issue is complex and embodies quite a few anthropological arguments.
I think, usually in everyday “routine” life when something goes wrong we blame ourselves especially if we have had similar experiences in the past. The same doesn’t apply for the cross cultural calamities. Think of the European colonial culture of exploitation and profit seeking and compare it with the Polynesian one of “no private ownership” and “communal sharing”. When we read the history of Polynesia, at times we can’t help blaming only the Europeans for actions when they thought they have “won” and the natives have “lost” all..
In recent history of Iran, the Iranian stooges of Europeans who were more than willing to sell their honor and Integrity for “pennies” bear a large chunk of the blame while also most of the Europeans who were involved were nothing but evil.
In the first Oil Contract between the English and Iran, Iran could get only 16% of annual profits but there was a clever clause in the contract stipulating Iran didn’t have the right to audit the books. The contract was brokered mainly by a pimpish Iranian who (most probably) got very little money in return.
The Financial Times reported today (“Sanctions choke Iran oil exports”) that Iranian oil exports have dropped to two million barrels per day, down from 2.7 or 2.8m that were achieved five or six years ago. “The bulk of the drop is due to Opec’s mandated production cuts in late 2008 and early 2009.”
imho,
Dick Cheney, in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, was in the lead of a campaign to protect the insanely large “defence” budget of the US. Cheney promotes the rape of the American middle class, to enrich powerful business interests (who have seen to it that Cheney himself grew immensely rich). Bluntly put, Cheney was an is a whore of the armaments manufacturers.
imho,
Idiotic decisions by the arrogant ignoramus who occupied the White House for most of the first decade of this century, inflicted more damage on the US than that caused by al-Qaeda on “9/11″. Notions of a “New World Order” have gone into the rubbish bin.
The US has no need to “control” Middle East oil, and of course no ability in any event. The gigantic military presence in the Gulf is there for the purpose of enriching armaments manufacturers and their tens of thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, stooge politicians, general, admirals, etc etc etc.
fyi,
Before you try to change the subject yet again, let’s get back to an earlier point you made. You said: “As far as I know, torpedo tubes are for launching torpedoes.” It seems your naval engineering degree is not even worth the paper it’s printed on since you do not even grasp the modern day function of torpedo tubes. Modern SLCMs can and are deployed from torpedo tubes of submerged submarines. Submarines don’t need to have vertical launching systems (which you need for SLBMs) for SLCMs because once fired horizontally from the torpedo tubes, the cruise missiles with guidance capabilities can surface on its own.
I will provide a few examples.
- Germany will soon be deploying the IDAS missile; the world’s first submarine based anti-air missile fired from … you guessed it, regular old horizontal torpedo tubes. And yes while submerged. “The IDAS system is also the world’s first missile which gives submarines the capability to engage air threats, and the first tube-launched missile that does not emerge in a capsule, but is fired directly from the torpedo tubes.”
- The Soviets deployed nuclear armed SLCMs, the RK-55 (range of 3000km) that were fired from regular 533mm torpedo tubes of the Yankee Notch submarines before they were decommissioned because of the START Treaties.
- Russia presently deploys the RPK-2 Viyuga nuclear SLCMs that are also launched from regular 533mm torpedo tubes of submerged submarines including Kilo Class Submarines (three of which Iran possesses).
fyi,
“I stand by what I have stated.”
- You have stated that cruise missiles cannot be launched from torpedo tubes. I suggest you go ahead and burn your naval engineering degree because that is a downright retarded statement.
“I will not attempt to prove a negative.”
- Noone can even definitively prove Israel has nuclear weapons at all. You are the one refuting conventional wisdom but refuse to cite a single source! Instead you try to wave your supposed engineering degrees to hush any criticism that points out your obvious mistakes.
“I just suggest to you that Israelis, in order to retrofit the submarines, must overcome certain laws of physics.”
- They don’t have to retrofit anything! They just have to put missiles they already have into the torpedo tubes of their U boat that they already have, and press fire. How exactly does launching cruise missiles from those submarines defy laws of physics? Because you, supposedly an engineer, say so?! Should I point out how cruise missiles of even greater range are fired from much lighter surface vessels and aircrafts!
“And a 120 Km or 300 Km range missile does not a second strike capability make.”
- The US Navy reportedly saw missile tests of 1500km. Jane’s, a very reputable defense publication (unlike your engineering department) finds this very plausible. You might dismiss this as mere propaganda but I see no reason for them to make stuff up. They are not known to be habitual liars like the Persians.
“Not to mention Command and Control Infrstructure to send the launch commands; the subs either have to surface to receive the radio signal or Israel has to have very long antennas to send very long wave length electromagnetic signals that could peneterate the ionized sea water.”
- You keep changing the issue every time someone calls you out on your mistake. First not even China has second strike capability, then it is the totally unrelated wet and dry compartments, then cruise missiles supposedly can’t be fired from torpedo tubes and then somehow everyone is spreading propaganda about the range of Israeli missiles. How about you prove your earlier points?
“I think you guys are too much in awe of Israelis.”
- I think you are butt hurt just cuz dear Iran is so far behind and you just refuse to admit when you are wrong. I’m not surprised; typical Iranian characteristics.
Nasser & others:
I stand by what I have stated.
I will not attempt to prove a negative.
I just suggest to you that Israelis, in order to retrofit the submarines, must overcome certain laws of physics.
And a 120 Km or 300 Km range missile does not a second strike capability make.
Not to mention Command and Control Infrstructure to send the launch commands; the subs either have to surface to receive the radio signal or Israel has to have very long antennas to send very long wave length electromagnetic signals that could peneterate the ionized sea water.
I think you guys are too much in awe of Israelis.
Look who’s giving medal to who:
Blair to Receive Human Rights Award
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26354.htm
I wonder why he didn’t get the Nobel Peace price
James Canning: “Do you think the US and the UK invaded Iraq in order to secure oil supplies? Or was this argument a neocon ploy needed to help dupe the arrogant ignoramus in the White House? And Tony Blair too?”
UK politics from late 19th century and American politics during the 20th century were shaped around the control of petroleum. One must understand this is not just a banal commodity, an energy source the industrial world needs (even if it is) but also and specially a tool to control the world’s finance and wealth. Only in this context you can see the real importance of oil.
The neocons don’t need an argument as they openly draw the line in their PNAC (Project for New American Century) in which they clearly state that the US must avoid at all price the upcoming of a new world power. Now it happens that this design is in line with the Big Oil and Finance goals. More, when you have their masters Cheney having strong links with Big Oil, then you can estimate the extent of the projected power to achieve their dream of the New World Order (repeated so often by Bush father & son).
Sorry, my last post was for “Humanist” and not “Persian Gulf”. Pardon me for my mistake.
Persian Gulf,
thanks for your reply. Let me also point you to a link confirming what you said about scientific growth of Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Iran
No one knows better than Iranians themselves about what happened to their country throughout history, word of mouth and memories of the past that grand parents recount to their children. The more I read, the more I understand what they said.
Sometimes, people say stop blaming others for your failures (e.g. Nasser in this site I think). Although I agree partly to this statement, I always like to add that the weakness of a people at some time doesn’t give you the right to exploit them and use them for your goals without any qualms and humanism. This may be too much idealistic as greed is a human character you like it or not.
That said, we must get out of this matrix from time to time to see how we really are and keep repeating what is wrong for at least to not lose the sens of good and bad. To understand that this is not natural to think about “interests” rather than moral, even if this has been from the late 19th century, the main political doctrine of the west and particularly UK, and by extension the rest of the world.
you say:
“This is not the right time to protest the legitimacy of IRI, The Iranians have to wait until the dangers of war are disintegrated. Then…only a “Made in Iran”Iranian strategy to move towards a truly civil, secular and federal democracy can take the Iranians to the place they have been dreaming about for such a long time…””
I understand what you mean and hope that the Iranians are given enough time to make the right choice and come out with “something new” in line with their culture as they’ve always preferred to transform rather than copy on others.
Nelson Mandela ‘felt betrayed by Tony Blair over decision to join Iraq invasion’
Furious phone call to cabinet minister in protest at military action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/12/nelson-mandela-tony-blair-peter-hain-iraq-invasion
Nasser: Correct. People should remember that Israel really has an excellent technology infrastructure capable of doing a lot more than a tiny country like that normally would.
Israel is probably number one in the world for defense and information and security technology research (aside from the US). And much of their research and development is funded directly by the Israeli military. no doubt using some of the billions the US gives Israel every year.
An amazing amount of the surveillance technology used by the US government to do illegal wiretapping, Internet monitoring and the like is produced by Israeli or Israeli-US corporations. Which has been a problem for the US intelligence agencies because they don’t like it. The FBI has had conniption fits over the fact that Israeli companies were deeply involved in CALEA wiretapping technology and Israeli employees were caught selling wiretap info to drug gangs in Los Angeles.
Israel has been very smart. They learned early that the best way to spy on the world was to be the country supplying most of the spy technology to other countries.
Israel has also been trying to sell its “Wall” technology to North Korea to allow NK to restrict the flow of illegal defectors and immigrants into China.
Speaking of US foreign aid, I see today that the US is offering Saudi Arabia SIXTY BILLION dollars worth of jet fighters. File under the “why they hate us” label. What part of “corrupt Saudi monarchy” doesn’t Obama understand? Answer: To paraphrase the old General Motors joke, what’s good for the military-industrial complex is good for America – until some more Saudis fly planes into another US skyscraper.
Persian Gulf: I agree with others that a “like” mechanism is not helpful. This sort of thing has been tried on sites like Talking Points Memo, and tends to either be abused, gamed or ignored, and generally doesn’t affect the overall level of conversation unless it is very well implemented which most aren’t.
The only useful function it serves is basically like the “killfile” on Usenet. You can set the level to ignore various parts of the conversations or eliminate posts from certain individuals. It’s basically a “lazy” mechanism” to substitute for eyeball scanning and personal discrimination and responsibility. If it works for an individual, fine, but most people don’t need it.
Moderation of forum posts tends to end up the same way. Either the moderators are biased or they become, like Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment, “torturers” who enjoy the power of deleting posts and warning “malcontents” about their behavior. We call them “board Nazis.”
There are also those who take it on themselves to police un-moderated boards, such as Usenet newsgroups. People who posted non-English-language books on alt.binaries.ebooks.technical started a flame war that raged for months and still hasn’t finished because some readers arbitrarily decided that the newsgroup was for English language posts only.
This is the Internet. All this stuff is free. You get what you pay for.
On the other hand, a forum owner has the right to delete whatever they want. They own the forum. This site has done pretty well so far avoiding the need to do so because most people here, despite some heated arguments, have enough emotional control to avoid resorting to pointless name calling, unlike, say, Huffington Post.
The key to all this is intellectual honesty. If the posters have it, there will be no problem. If they don’t, nothing one does will help.
“If you can’t CITE someone with technical expertise specifically stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to launch ANY sort of cruise missile (regardless of range) from a submarine torpedo tube or any other form of launcher, then really you’re just blowing smoke.”
- Cruise missiles (SLCMs) ARE launched from torpedo tubes. I am guessing she must be a pretty crappy naval engineer if she didn’t even know that. Maybe fyi means that the dolphins don’t have Vertical Launching Systems, which is true, but noone is claiming that Israel has SLBMs!
Fyi: “I think most of you guys have no background in Mehcanical/Naval/electrical engineering or in system design and integration.
As far as I know, torpedo tubes are for launching torpedoes.”
What’s wrong with this picture?
Do YOU design cruise missiles and/or torpedoes or torpedo tubes?
If you can’t CITE someone with technical expertise specifically stating that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Israel to launch ANY sort of cruise missile (regardless of range) from a submarine torpedo tube or any other form of launcher, then really you’re just blowing smoke.
If you want to say that there is no PROOF that Israel has nuclear cruise missiles, be my guest. It is unlikely anyone outside of the CIA, NSA, Pentagon or the Israeli Navy KNOWS for sure what they do or do not have.
That’s not the same as being able to say they definitively do NOT have this ability, which is what you’re claiming.
fyi,
“I think most of you guys have no background in Mehcanical/Naval/electrical engineering or in system design and integration.”
– You’re entirely right. I suppose you have sufficient expertise in all these.
“As far as I know, torpedo tubes are for launching torpedoes.”
- You must have graduated at the bottom of your Mehcanical/Naval/electrical engineering class because you’re wrong. Cruise missiles can and are launched from torpedo tubes. The Los Angeles Class submarines fire cruise missiles including nuclear tipped Tomahawks from its torpedo tubes, for example.
“Wet and dry compartment does not a missile launch-tube make.”
– Did you bother reading the sentence?! The submarine is said to have four 650mm missile tubes AS WELL AS wet and dry compartments. How you mixed the two up, I don’t know. “The three initial Dolphin-class submarines were designed in accordance with Israeli demands, and include a “wet and dry” compartment for special operations as well as four 650mm torpedo tubes, which could be used for Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs).”
“It is concieveable, but hardly certain, that Israelis have nuclear armed torpedoes; that actually might be within their technical ability.”
- It is hardly certain that Israel has any nuclear weapons at all! Why not say that? I thought the Israelis liked it that way.
“You cannot fit a missile of range 1500-Km in a submarine of Dolphin size.”
– Why can’t you fit that into a 1,640 ton vessel? It is not a ballistic missile but a cruise missile. I realize other dedicated cruise missile submarines are much lager but so are the number And range of the missiles they deploy. US cruise missile submarines uses Tomahawks with a range of up to 2500 km for example. According to Jane’s, the Popeye Turbo is said to be 533mm in diameter with its original range being 300-350km but with lengthened fuel tanks can reach the range of 1500km. Jane’s supposes that was what was sighted during the missile tests in the Indian Ocean. Why do you suppose that is not possible? Seriously I have no interest in opening up an engineering book so please just tell me.
Speaking of the sighted missile tests you said: “Looks like some sort of propaganda to me.”
– The US Navy spreading propaganda about supposed missile tests…Yea sure why not. No seriously I can buy this. But why?!!!
Erdogan – Making of a Muslim Attaturk
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/erdogan-making-of-a-muslim-attaturk/
imho
I understand your point of view.
In the past I have theorized why Western powers prefer Islamic regimes. The full explanation of my thoughts takes many pages. Below I only refer to a few remarks.
I guess you already know their full stories:
- I have read about the Kissinger’s “Green (Islamic) Belt”. A plan for countries from Turkey to Pakistan.
- I have read about the diversion of Iranian 1979 Revolution towards IR through the pressures (encouragement or interference) of the Israeli and Western entities.
- I have read in the 80s Afghan Mojahedeen groups were created by Saudis, ISI and Americans.
-In the 80s archives of CBS News one can hear Walter Cronkite talking about “..the Islamic Republic of Pakistan…”. This is at the time when Zia-ul-Haq was in power (the “traitor?” who derailed democracy and Islamized the country)
- I have read Israel created Hamas.
- Even in the new constitution of Afghanistan the I word is placed in the right place (I = Islamic ‘Republic’ !)
From the point of view of a colonial Western strategist all the above makes good sense. (19th Century French writer Gustave le Bon tried to find out why the Islamic Civilization is steadily on the sharp decline, some Western strategists might have read his classic book or similar ones). There are about one and half billion Muslims in the world but they have been awarded only two Nobel Prizes in Science while Western educated Jewish people comprising a tiny fraction of the Muslim population have obtained more than 90.
…
Couple of months ago I commented in Payvand:
“…no doubt, the Iranian regime is backward, corrupt and can never stand the tides of history, yet it is not like the Shah’s regime, it is mostly an Iranian one. That is why such an impressive progress on the fields of science and technology has been achieved. (Go to newscientist dot com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html )
This is not the right time to protest the legitimacy of IRI, The Iranians have to wait until the dangers of war are disintegrated. Then…only a “Made in Iran”Iranian strategy to move towards a truly civil, secular and federal democracy can take the Iranians to the place they have been dreaming about for such a long time…”
kooshy:
I can guess who you are. no, you didn’t write about your field of work, but you have mentioned where do you live and so on in the past. your field is probably not exactly what I have connected, but ,if you are the one I have in mind, you would be very close in terms proximity. they are not many Iranians interested in this business in the U.S, anyhow.
PG
“I don’t think adding “like” and “dislike” option would downgrade the website, rather it would be really helpful. keep up with the technology. it would also be in line with your own field of work!”
Persian Gulf, do you know what is, my field of work? can you guess? , I don’t think I ever wrote here, what field I work in, one thing I don’t do is tea leaf reading or keep score for any one.
kooshy:
I think the site is currently what you want. the reason I asked for the “like” option was: I am not that devoted,in terms of time, in reading all the comments. and I assume many readers are like me. actually, some of the comments are very long. you start to read them and then in the middle you realize you are not that interested in the topic. I want to see what people generally recommend to read, or like to read, or hate to read, depending on how you look at it.
and you don’t make ideas on the air. at some point, you have to readjust yourself and get an overall feedback. not everybody would explain the detail for you. by readjustment, I mean to know where you stand, not for the retraction purposes.
I don’t think adding “like” and “dislike” option would downgrade the website, rather it would be really helpful. keep up with the technology. it would also be in line with your own field of work!
More warmongering stupidity from Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Wall Stree Journal today: “To Pressure Iran, Squeeze Russia and China”. Gerecht in summation says: “Benjamin Netanyahu. . . will decide one of these days whether a nuclear-armed Iran is acceptable, or not.” Of course he offers no proof Iran wants nukes or is building them.
Tony Blair told Chris Mullin once that George W. Bush “sincerely believed in spreading freedom and democracy”. Who gives a fig about Bush’s sincerity? If he was doing the wrong thing, Blair should have done his best to stop him in his tracks.
Blair also claimed he “stood by America when it needed standing by.” Wrong again! The US needed competent advice from Blair, not foolish encouragement of the idiotic scheme Bush was putting into play.
Israel-Iran War: Not Inevitable
By Rex Wingerter, September 13, 2010
A chorus of pundits has lately been arguing that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities is either inevitable or commendable. Recently, Jeffery Goldberg predicts in The Atlantic that Israeli will strike by next July. Reuel Marc Gerecht, an editor for the Weekly Standard, urges that regional stability calls for Israel wasting no more time in launching a pre-emptive hit. These arguments predictably come from the neoconservative crowd who urged the United States to topple Saddam Hussein as an avenue toward reaching regime change in Iran.
But similar voices have been heard outside the usual cohort. Nearly a third of House Republicans have signed onto a resolution endorsing a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran. A so-called Bipartisan Policy Center report coauthored by two former U.S. senators has foretold of an Israeli attack. The Joint Forces Quarterly, a publication of the National Defense University, recently counseled that the United States must “prepare for the inevitable aftermath” of an Israeli strike on Iran.
Common to the views of both the predictors and the prescribers is an apocalyptic view of Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. Inexplicably absent from the argument is any consideration as to why Iran would initiate a first strike attack on Israel. President Ahmadinejad’s vitriolic anti-Zionist, Holocaust-denying spew is unconscionable, but it does not translate into a clear-cut intent to launch a nuclear missile against Israel.
Iran’s Rational Calculations
Ahmadinejad’s confrontational exhortations are aimed at rallying the “Arab street” and showing that a Persian leader cares more about the Palestinians than Arab leaders. But even this pro-Palestinian rhetoric has proven largely empty. During Israel’s three-week assault against Gaza, Iran offered no credible threats against Israel nor did it pressure neighboring Arab states to intervene to stop the carnage. Iran similarly left its Hezbollah allies to their fate during Israel’s 2006 war in southern Lebanon. And rather than endanger larger economic and political interests, Iran remained relatively silent when Russia and China violently repressed militant Islamic activists in Chechnya and among the ethnic Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region.
This behavior is illustrative of a regime that rationally calculates its national state interests. Israel is a nuclear-weapons state with land, air, and sea-based delivery systems, and the Jewish state would retaliate massively if Iran attacked. Iran’s leadership shows no predilection to commit suicide. The political crackdown in Iran following the June 2009 sham elections underscores Supreme Leader Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s intention to hold on to political power at whatever cost. They would not throw away this status in a futile attack against Israel. The substantial personal investments of the ideologically passionate Revolutionary Guard’s leadership in all sectors of the Iranian economy, highlighted in a 2009 Rand Corporation study, should temper its itch to launch an unnecessary war. Even zealots want to preserve their power and affluence.
Finally, a nuclear strike on Israel would likely destroy Jerusalem, a revered Muslim holy place. It would kill a substantial portion of the more than one-and-a-half million Israeli Muslim Arabs (23 percent of Israel’s population) and perhaps a chunk of the four million Muslims that reside in the West Bank and Gaza. Such death and destruction certainly would not be viewed as a victory in Iran or the Muslim world.
Diverse Israeli Responses
Ahmadinejad’s belligerency is reason for many in Israel to fear a nuclear Iran. But not all Israeli leaders believe that Iran is an undeterable mortal threat. “Iran well understands,” reasoned Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, “that an [attack] of this sort would set her back thousands of years.” Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi similarly believes that Iran’s prowess and Israel’s vulnerability is exaggerated. As he explained in a 2009 interview, “[Iran] is not an existential threat. It is not within the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel — at best it can cause Israel grievous damage. Israel is indestructible.”
The claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon is similarly misplaced. Army Lt. Gen. James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has offered a more accurate assessment. Testifying in April 2010 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he estimated that Iran was from three to five years from constructing a nuclear weapon. Moreover, that assessment may have overestimated Iran’s technological prowess: Cartwright’s judgment included Iran achieving simultaneous success in acquiring a sufficient amount of highly enriched uranium, assembling a workable bomb, and constructing an accurate missile. But even this presupposes that the Iranian regime has decided to build a bomb, a verdict lacking solid evidentiary support. Many observers believe that Iran ultimately will adopt the “Japan option” — possessing the capability to construct quickly a nuclear weapon if sufficiently threatened.
An Israeli strike would only set back but not destroy Iran’s nuclear industry. An Oxford Research Group briefing paper predicted that following an attack, Iran would quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (why stay when a non-signatory state bombs with impunity a signatory state?) and make no excuse for initiating a nuclear weapons program. Israel would feel compelled to attack again, setting off a series of escalating counterattacks. The entire Middle East quickly would devolve into twists of violence.
War Gaming
In a war game played in December 2009 at the Brookings Institution, an Israeli attack on Iran triggered a regional conflagration. According to the scenario, the fighting escalated to include Lebanon and Gaza, terrorist hits in Israel and Europe, missile strikes against Saudi oil fields, attacks on oil tankers, the mining of the Strait of Hormuz, and ultimately, massive U.S. military intervention in the Gulf region. An attack would greatly complicate current U.S. struggles to stabilize Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. A report by the International Crisis Group recently described in chilling detail how Israel, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran currently are poised in a precarious balance of terror. The slightest provocation or miscalculation could trigger carnage heretofore unseen in the modern Middle East, a catastrophe a strike on Iran surely would trigger.
An Israeli attack would bolster al-Qaeda’s propaganda that the United States is at war with Islam. Washington currently is at war in five Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia). The Arab world and other majority Muslim countries would view the United States as wholly complicit in any Israeli attack, a Christian state supporting a Jewish state to make war against a sixth Muslim state. President Obama’s standing in the Arab world, which a new Pew Research opinion poll shows has precipitously dropped in the past year, would nose dive into an uncontrollable free fall, canceling out his vow to reach out to the Muslim world.
Among the many lessons drawn from the U.S. invasion of Iraq was that unintended consequences invariably flow from a war, even one of your own making. Current assurances that an Israeli attack on Iran would protect U.S. allies and bolster regional peace and stability should be treated with the same respect that we now treat the Bush administration’s assurances that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
PG
“Is it possible to add a “like” option for the comments here? It would then save time for those readers who sometimes want to read comments that are liked the most.”
Don’t agree this site shouldn’t be downgraded as a polling station with likes and dislikes by fans, etc. like HP it should be rather a pace for exchange of ideas and opinions, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with other commentator’s opinions, one could expand by adding his/her comments and ideas to the discussion and drive the discussion more in depth than just for or against.
As an avid reader/lurker, I second Persian Gulf’s comment on September 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm.
imho,
The Saudis in effect set the price of oil. SA is the country with ample spare capacity to produce oil.
imho,
Do you think the US and the UK invaded Iraq in order to secure oil supplies? Or was this argument a neocon ploy needed to help dupe the arrogant ignoramus in the White House? And Tony Blair too?
The largest buyer of Iraqi crude, from Saddam’s Iraq (under UN sanctions), was the US.
imho,
Yes, it did take pressure from the US after the Second World War, to get the USSR out of Iranian Azerbaijan. Clearly, first the UK, then the US, were key to keeping Persia (Iran) from being occupied by the Russia, and later the Soviet Union.
Interestingly, the Communist party boss of Soviet Azerbaijan wanted to annex Iranian Azerbaijan even though this policy was opposed by Moscow.
imho,
In recounting the events of 1973 that led up to the Arab-Israel war that year, one should remember Kissinger foolishly spurned Brezhnev’s pleas to force Israel to get out of the Sinai, to avoid war. Kissinger was afraid this would give the USSR too much prestige.
I recommend Philip Stephens’ “What Tony really wants” in the Financial Times Sept 11/12. Blair claims the “sense of urgency” after Sept. 11, 2001 was reasonable basis for obviously rash act of invasion.
PS: Someone needs to toss a shoe and Blair.
‘TONY BLAIR: I think it depends, actually, on how serious they think we are…I think the Iranians—I think if they actually understand the seriousness of intent, then I think you have a greater likelihood—I don’t say you’ll stop them, but you have a greater likelihood of stopping them. And that’s why it’s so important to send a clear, strong, and unequivocal message.’
…..AND conveniently enough, of painting ourselves into a corner by being forced to live up to our “serious” threats by actually attacking them.
Dear Leveretts:
is it possible to add a “like” option for the comments here? it would then save time for those readers who sometimes want to read comments that are liked the most.
James Canning: “Was the Shah an American “stooge”? He kept oil prices as high as he thought possible, and helped to cause deep recession in the US – – ignoring American pleas to open the spigots.”
In 1970’s US economy was in recession. Massive capital flows left US for Europe and Japan and the Dollar fell at such lows that in 1973’s Bilderberg reunion in Sweden, it was decided a scenario to increase the oil price by 400% in order to, as Kissinger stated, “recycle the Petro-Dollars”. A look at the attendant list of that year’s reunion is revealing. Kissinger played simultaneously Egypt, Syria and Israel and triggered the Yom Kippur war resulting in the beginning rise in oil price.
One consequence was that the North Sea oil became profitable. Another was a secret accord leading to reinvestment of Saudi oil revenue into American budget deficit.
At this time (1974) the Shah didn’t want to rise the oil price fearing the west would rise the price of technological items he was importing. Kissinger asked him to do so.
The impact on world economy was devastating. States began to think nuclear energy (including the Shah of Iran). However this was obviously against Big Oil interests, hence the wave of ecology groups financed by Big Oil to counter any industry deviation from oil towards nuclear power (the green agenda).
As another consequence of this rising oil price, was the suffering of the developing countries (without oil resource) which became indebted as never before. Their list is long…
Also included in the US-Saudi deals (later imposed de facto on OPEC) was to sell oil only in US Dollar. This led to rising demands on Dollar since all states must have paid their energy imports in Dollar. Not only New York and London banks became giant financial houses in this process, but the Petro-Dollars instead of being used in the economy, were lent to developing countries under savage conditions of IMF. These poor countries began to lose their sovereignty over their resources and nation assets in a way they could hardly pay just the interest of their borrowed money. And if necessary, the gun-boat diplomacy of Thatcher was to remind them to not even think about not paying.
The second oil shock of 1979 wasn’t only because of Iranian revolution and the resulted oil export cut. Curiously Saudi oil production also fell and the Big Oil reserve was also at a very low level at the exact time.
The US/UK financial houses played with oil prices at their will as an adjusting parameter to their financial situation. In 1983, Bush came to see Saudi king to order him lowering oil price (by flooding the market) in order to stimulate US economy but essentially as a way to ease pressure on the US banks dealing with the poor states debt crisis.
It would be naive to think that OPEC members ever played any role in determining the price of oil.
Humanist: “What is scary is that the objective of spreading the “election lie”, as you say, was to demonize, de-legitimize, de-stabilize Iran in order to pave the route for destroying Iran like Iraq and set it back for decades”
Another (additional) explanation may be that this prevented for some time any genuine grassroot uprising of Iranians that could undermine the pillar of the Islamic Republic. As we saw in news, the slogans were very ambiguous and changed frequently and also the fact that opposition leaders were themselves part of the IR system would have guaranteed that the whole system wouldn’t change in case of opposition victory.
I don’t think a democratic Iran open to the world, attracting foreign capitals and deciding the fate of its own oil would be in US interests.
James Canning: “The British presence in Persia in the first part of the 20th century was largely the reason Russia was not able to occupy the entire country.”
Maybe, but first, this British presence didn’t prevent the soviet occupation of Iranian Azerbaijan province after WWII. The soviets, later backed down under the American ultimatum to leave Iran. Second, this remind me the same pretext for overthrowing Dr. Mossadegh… that he was an agent of Tudeh communist party.
Nasser:
“Wet and dry compartment” does not a missile launch-tube make.
I think most of you guys have no background in Mehcanical/Naval/electrical engineering or in system design and integration.
As far as I know, torpedo tubes are for launching torpedoes.
It is concieveable, but hardly certain, that Israelis have nuclear armed torpedoes; that actually might be within their technical ability.
Richard Steven Hack and others:
Just incosistent innuendo.
Looks like some sort of propoganda to me.
“Some reports suggest that Israel has adapted Harpoon cruise missiles, which have a range of 130 kilometers, to carry an indigenously developed nuclear warhead and guidance system, though other experts argue that such modifications to a Harpoon missile are not feasible.[6] Others believe that Israel has developed an indigenous cruise missile with a range of 320 kilometers that is believed to be a version of Rafael Armament Development Authority’s Popeye turbo cruise missile.[7] Still others believe that the missile may be a version of the Gabriel 4LR that is produced by Israel Aircraft Industries. Once encapsulated, it could be launched in 533mm torpedo tubes similar to the Harpoon.[8] Such speculation was further fueled by an unconfirmed test of a nuclear-capable, submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) in the Indian Ocean in 2000. Some reports claimed targets 1,500 kilometers away were hit.[7,9] Such a range, however, implies an entirely new type of missile.[7,8,10] However, the Israeli Defense Forces denies any such missile tests.[7,11]”
So which is it? Harpoon (range 130 Km), Unknow-Type Israeli Cruise Missile (range 320 Km), and Unknow-Unknown Israeli Cruise Missile (range 1500 KM)?
You cannot fit a missile of range 1500-Km in a submarine of Dolphin size.
The other cruise missiles, will not be able to deliver a nuclear payload.
Leverett: “But we are struck that, while Blair’s position would put him squarely in the middle of the American foreign policy establishment regarding Iran, it is—in principle, at least—quite “un-European””
What is the definition to be European in the first place ? There is no such thing as a European foreign policy. UK is part of the Anglo-American tacit alliance of controlling world’s oil and finance. Then comes Europe divided between France/Germany and old soviet bloc countries now joining the EC. Both of which needing (and depending of) the American financial system. They could at best “talk” of their divergent views without in any way influencing the US/UK decisions when it comes to securing oil.
That is exactly what happened in the last Iraq war. (And don’t tell me the Iraqi oil is not yet flowing; it is there untapped and will come out once it is needed – e.g. for flooding the market, falling the price and bankrupting Iran).
The problem with Iran is its rising influence and power in the region threatening US free hand on oil and Israel’s position as the only super power. Now if you consider the Iranian unprecedented new case as an oil rich country gaining access to nuclear power, you can understand why the “liar” Blair is so much barking about this prospect.
I’m not saying Iran being or becoming in any way a match for American or Israeli military. However it is easy to understand how this can complicate their free reign. So for now, short of being invaded, Iran is encircled. This is a message for who wants to listen that the control of ME oil must not be challenged.
Controlling the ME oil isn’t only about strategic physical access to the fields (which is already done) but also about the power to set the price in the so-called free market. Oil price has always been a parameter for adjusting the US economic and financial policy. Whether the price should rise or fall must be kept under the sole Anglo-American decision makers and must not be manipulated by countries such as Iran (or Iraq at the time). This was at least the “west’” oil policy during the entire 20th century and I’m yet to find a sign telling me it has changed.
Fyi: Information on the Popeye Turbo Israeli cruise missile from the Federation of American Scientists:
www dot fas dot org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm
Another article indicating Israeli missile tests in the Indian Ocean were confirmed, despite denials by Israel:
Submarine Proliferation
Israel Current Capabilities
www dot nti dot org/db/submarines/israel/index.html
A reprint of Walter Pincus’ 2002 Washington Post article on the subject:
Israel Has Sub-Based Atomic Arms Capability
www dot converge dot org.nz/pma/cra0532.htm
A Guardian article in 2003:
Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines
www dot guardian dot co.uk/world/2003/oct/12/israel1
So the consensus is that Israel has several different types of cruise missiles that could be either fitted with nuclear warheads or modified to do so, as long as Israel can make the warheads – which there appears to be little doubt it can do since it has decades of experience making warheads.
So if you have evidence to the contrary that proves otherwise, cite it.
I’m sorry about misspelling in web address, correct one is here:
http://www.innercitypress.com/undpblairlease.pdf
Tony Blair is afraid to walk down the street alone and will be for the rest of his life. It takes up to 20 heavily armed police to guard his home and between 5 and 16 close protection officers guard him when he travels around the world on his private money making ventures.
Depending on whom you believe it costs between £250,000 and six million pounds to guard him even at a time when the UK Government is cutting back on services for the poor.
To see how much it cost the UN for the lease of ten rooms for Blair at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem go to:
http://www.innercitypress.com/undbpblairlease.pdf
Abraham Foxman, chief of Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called the TIMES’ (a pro-Israel Jew-owned magazine) cover story, which depict Israeli Jews being more interested in day-to-day ‘good -life’ activities (cafe, porno movies, brothels, spitting on priests, racism, etc.) than negotiating long-lasting peace with Palestinians – “Time magazine cover story claiming Israelis are more interested in their booming economy than reaching an historical peace agreement with the Palestinians is another version of the anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews prefer money above any other interest”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/poll-anti-semitism-on-rise-in-spain/
Humanist,
Thanks. I will read the book and comment on it. Britain’s successful effort to prevent Russia, and later the USSR, from occupying all of Persia, does not get sufficient credit these days.
buddy bolden,
“The dolphin-class submarine, which you described earlier, are equipped with either Popey Turbo or Gabriel 4LR missiles, both of which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. In 2000, a version of the nuclear armed Popeye was tested in the Ocean, successfully hitting its target from a range of 1500 km. Second Strike Capability.”
- I just provided a few links that substantiates (fyi’s desire) these claims.
James Canning.
Thanks for the info. I always welcome criticism.
Please read the book and let me see what you think.
fyi:
The dolphin-class submarine, which you described earlier, are equipped with either Popey Turbo or Gabriel 4LR missiles, both of which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. In 2000, a version of the nuclear armed Popeye was tested in the Ocean, successfully hitting its target from a range of 1500 km.
Second-Strike capability.
James Canning,
“The British presence in Persia in the first part of the 20th century was largely the reason Russia was not able to occupy the entire country.”
- Very true though hardly ever acknowledged. The Brits propped up the Ottomans too against the Russians before their idiotic decision to enter WWI.
“I don’t think the British had any desire for a reduction in the population of the country.”
- I don’t know what their desires were but the famines were very real. British policies in India caused much much worse famines, particularly in Bengal. Amartya Sen has written extensively on this. I realize you are a anglophile and have a huge crush on William Hague :) but imperial Britain was pretty monstrous.
“Was the Shah an American “stooge”? He kept oil prices as high as he thought possible, and helped to cause deep recession in the US – – ignoring American pleas to open the spigots.”
- Thanks.
Dan Cooper.
Thanks. In my view your comments are great.
I believe the grand lie of “widespread fraud” or “rigged June 2009 Iranian election” was the masterpiece of the media you are referring to.
I think that maybe was the “biggest lie of century”.
Why was it the biggest? Simply because except a few involved academic pollsters or intelligent agency insiders it fooled nearly everybody including many of the respected nonconformist academics or analyst such as Noam Chomsky, Eric Margolis, Juan Cole or others. Chomsky and Margolis believed there was a fraud but their astute suspicious minds smelled a rat making them say”…but Ahamadinejad won”.
Now American researchers are finding out “there exists not a singe credible evidence of fraud in that election” Refer to a 38 page report by Eric A Brill ( iran2009presidentialelection dot blogspot dot com/ ) or watch the videos of the statisticians of University of Maryland (WPO) in this link
youtube dot com/watch?v=NKG-hUyk1_0
In that video the talk of Jan Cohen the Washington Post’s director of polling is very telling. He, instead of coming up with convincing data, scientific analyses or mathematical modeling reasons regurgitated the same neocon allegations. Statisticians present in the conference must have smiled when he made a fool of himself by saying “ …in covering the Iranian election results we concluded there are many signs of manipulations and outright fraud in Iran’s disputed election results…”…
Concluded? Many signs of fraud? Manipulations? Outright fraud?
He couldn’t provide a single evidence for those explosive and very consequential allegations. They have borrowed the Nazi techniques for deceiving the public. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. That is how they spread lies.
Now 70% of Americans believe “Iran must be stopped since it has the bomb and is a threat to US”.
What is scary is that the objective of spreading the “election lie”, as you say, was to demonize, de-legitimize, de-stabilize Iran in order to pave the route for destroying Iran like Iraq and set it back for decades. It is very scary since these lies are manufactured by a group of extremely resourceful and powerful crazed warmongers who wont sit still until they achieve their goals.
fyi,
- Israel does have nuclear capable SLCMs. Israel carried out missile tests in view of the US Navy to give not so subtle hints of their abilities. “In June 2002, former State Department and Pentagon officials confirmed that the U.S. Navy observed Israeli missile tests in the Indian Ocean in 2000, and that the Dolphin-class vessels have been fitted with nuclear-capable cruise missiles of a new design.” You even make the ridiculous assertion that China does not have second strike capability! Not everyone is technologically as incompetent as Iran.
- You said: “To my knowledge, the supposed alteration of the Dolphin-class submarines, to enable them to launch a missile while submerged, is not possible. Certainly Israel does not have that capability.”
According to Janes: “The three initial Dolphin-class submarines were designed in accordance with Israeli demands, and include a “wet and dry” compartment for special operations as well as four 650mm torpedo tubes, which could be used for Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs). However, the German Defense Ministry has stated that these larger tubes were intended to fire Harpoons. Upon delivery to Israel, liners were to be fitted to decrease the diameter of the tubes to accommodate the 533mm Harpoon containers. However, the Dolphin-class is equipped with six 533mm torpedo tubes as well, which are capable of launching Harpoons. It seems possible, therefore, that the 650mm tubes might have been designed to accommodate indigenously built, long-range SLCMs. The German government has acknowledged that it could not rule out different equipment being installed on the submarines.”
- http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html
globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/popeye-t.htm
plrc.org/docs/970508G.pdf
Humanist,
the process of lawmaking in the US Congress has been compared to making sausage. One does not want to know how the deals get done, or what goes into sausage, but enjoys the result.
Humanist,
The British presence in Persia in the first part of the 20th century was largely the reason Russia was not able to occupy the entire country. I don’t think the British had any desire for a reduction in the population of the country. Churchill caused the British government to buy 60% of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, to ensure adequate supplies of oil for British warships (which he ordered be converted from coal).
Often Blair’s world-views reminds some of us of what once Gladstone (a British PM) had said:
“To be a good Prime Minister you have to be a good butcher”.
Butchering whom? the British? I think “Not”. With ample evidence from the darker side of human history he must have been referring to Indians, Africans, Middle Easterners and the like.
I also remember the feelings of nausea or disgust I was experiencing when I was reading a specific parts of Churchill’s memoirs in reference to non-European nations or people.
I believe in analyzing Blair’s rhetoric it is not hard to prove he possesses the same type of twisted imperialistic and racist world-view as some of his “old-time” predecessors.
Indirectly related to the above, I earnestly recommend the reading of a very eye-opening book on the history of Britain and Iran. The book is written by M.G. Majd (an Iranian-American) and is entitled:
“The Great Genocide and Famine in Persia 1917-1919″
The book is the result of academic research using the declassified US documents.
Is it believable the British, just years after finding the oil, when they had occupied Iran, decided to starve the Iranians to death? Is it believable they managed to exterminate about half of the population of Iran? Is it believable, in that period, about “eight million (or more)” Iranians were deliberately annihilated? ( “butchered”?).
Read the book and find out.
No wonder Majd couldn’t find any publisher for his research work. Finally after a long phase of attempts he could find a publisher in USA.
The story of how the Western publishers / reviewers / academia tried to stop the publication of this book is very telling.
Read the book. (And other similar books by Majd). You will be taken to the dark spheres where both in front of your eyes or on farther horizons you will witness the unimaginable cruelties the human beings are capable to inflict on “others”.
After reading the book, you may also draw the same conclusions I have resolved ie:
“In settling the disputes, nearly all the time, the use of any type of violence is stupid, animalistic and ubiquitously destructive while all types of intelligent cooperative dialogue are always constructive and the resultant agreements are beneficial to both sides (provided of course the stronger side is sane)”
Read the book !
Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, has denounced Hillary Clinton’s rather stupid comment last week that Iran was “morphing into a military dictatorship with a. . .
sort of religious-ideological veneer”.
Mottaki suggests that Clinton’s point might better be applied to the US.
Raad,
Most rich, well-connected non-Jewish American I know, would prefer better relations with Iran. And are you aware that almost the entire hereditary peerage of the UK opposed the idiotic invasion of Iraq?
If Tony Blair is knowingly lying yet again, about a supposed Iranian threat to “wipe Israel off the map”, in order to line his own pockets, this fact needs global publicity.
Faram,
I think any attention brought to the history of Persia, by means of the loan of the Cyrus Cylinder, is a good thing. More awareness on the part of the general public, of the profound history of Iran, is a good thing. And the tweaking of the entry in Wilipedia is very interesting too!
buddybolden,
I of course agree with you that the gross ignorance of the American public is a matter of choice, to a fair degree at least. They require spoon-feeding for their news consumption, if it pertains to foreign affairs, diplomacy, etc.
Was the Shah an American “stooge”? He kept oil prices as high as he thought possible, and helped to cause deep recession in the US – - ignoring American pleas to open the spigots.
http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=153671&language=en
Of course these things don’t bother American advocates of human rights in Iran!
Important stuff:
http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=153737&language=en
buddy bolden
That is a canard.
Please substantiate it.
fyi:
Israeli most certainly does have second strike capability. They have nuclear-armed submarines capable of hitting targets throughout the Asian subcontinent.
Nasser:
Wrong again.
To my knowledge, the supposed alteration of the Dolphin-class submarines, to enable them to launch a missile while submerged, is not possible. Certainly Israel does not have that capability.
If you know otherwise, please substantiate your claim.
Time for this talking is over.
The West lies and lies and lies some more and expects Iran to bend and KowTow. That will not happen. If Ahmadinejad is the leader you seeks to protect the nation and secure its border, then despite my detestation of him, I wll support him against invaders or fight against Western sabotage and terrrism (just follow the explosions across Iran on its gas pipelines in the past three months).
Obama has been thoroughly mendacious and untrustworthy; speaking with a forked tongue on “extending a hand” to the Iranian regime meanwhile working on anything but. If he is as good as it going to get, then the Iranian govt should not only direct all their industrial base towards defence but also go after nuclear deterent asap.
If there will be a war with the West, let no one be in any doubt that the West wanted it, planned for it, prepared and brainwashed its people for acccepting it and in the last analysis will be seen to have started it.
The hyprocisy of US/EU revolts me.
Faram
Since 1979 revolution in Iran, The specific interest groups (the Israel Lobby in USA and around the world) have been attempting to denigrate all things Iranian.
They own 90% of the world’s “main stream media” and they do as they wish.
Their propaganda against Iran has been relentless.
This has been part of Israel lobby’s psychological operation to brainwash the Americans and the international public opinion that whatever Iran does is evil and whatever Israel does is legitimate and justifiable.
Thanks for the site and its Interesting article by Teymoor Nabili:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/09/11/cyrus-cylinder-wikipedia-and-iran-conspiracies
“In May 2007, Wikipedia’s own description of the cylinder said:
“The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights, and it was translated into all official U.N. languages in 1971. A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City
But that was before Iran’s presidential election last year, and the subsequent ratcheting-up of anti-Iranian activities.
Wikipedia’s current entry tells an entirely different story.
Now we see a strenuous attempt to portray the cylinder as nothing more than the propaganda tool of an aggressive invader, and a complete dismissal of the suggestion that the cylinder, or Cyrus’ actions, represent concern for human rights or any kind of enlightened intent.
Gone also are the eariler references to Cyrus’ immense reputation throughout the ancient world, as documented in the Old Testament and by the people of Babylon themselves.
And if you take a look at the page detailing the history of edits made to the page, you’ll see a large number of re-writes during 2009/2010.
I can’t help but wonder whether, just maybe, this could be the much more deliberate product of a specific interest group attempting to denigrate all things Iranian, however tangential their relationship to the present Islamic Republic.
Could changing the history of a nation be part of the demonization process?
The “first decleration of human rights” delivered by the Cyrus’ cylinder had been very genuine since its discovery more than a century ago. But it is fake now because of the last year election in Iran!!!?
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/09/11/cyrus-cylinder-wikipedia-and-iran-conspiracies
“Israel does not have second strike capability.”
- Yes it does. Israel can launch nuclear armed cruise missiles from its submarines, giving it second strike capability.
- US Congress believes that even Pakistan has second strike capacity. “Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.”
buddy bolden:
Israel does not have second strike capability.
US-Israel vs Turkey-Iran
Though Kinzer believes that American cannot bring peace in both Iraq and Afghanistan to serve their long-term interests in region without the help of Iran – he believes that Ankara would be the best “guide” for Washington to navigate its foreign policies in the Muslim world.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/us-israel-vs-turkey-iran/
James,
I’m not sure what your question is so I’ll just stick to your points. I certainly don’t think that Israel’s hostility towards Iran is solely based on Iran’s supposed “desire” for a Nuke. Frankly, since they have second strike capability, I don’t think Israeli leaders care about a bomb one way or another. I use the word “leaders” in that sentence because I can’t claim to know the intentions of the public. I know here, as in the US, large sections of the public ARE terrified of a nuclear Iran, if only because that spectre is being played out every hour on the hour, in a 24-hour cycle of dis-information. Perhaps the Israeli media has a similar effect on the public mood there. I couldn’t say.
Israel’s hostility towards Iran, imo, is due to Iran’s influence in the region. As far as I can tell, Iran is the only country in the region that can effectively limit
Israel’s power.
I don’t really think of it as a giant scam though. There may be a lack of dissent in the msm, but information is readily available. Citizens have to go out of their way to be informed. The last half decade is full of examples of American and Israeli atrocities against predominantly Muslim nations. It’s plain as day, for anyone who would dare to look. So it’s not so much a scam as it is willful ignorance by really lazy people.
As for the Shah, why would Israel be hostile to an American stooge?
Rehmat:
don’t forget it’s the Persian Gulf. correct your bold mistake in your latest post. I don’t care what your agenda is. you can’t play a game for this issue.
Ahmadinejad in US backyard
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/ahmadinejad-in-us-backyard/
buddy bolden,
Was Israel frantic about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, when the Shah was in power?
Is Israel’s hostility toward Iran only ostensibly based on fear Iran is trying to build nukes, when in fact the real reason is Iran’s obstruction of the Israeli effort to crush Palestinian nationalism? It is a giant scam, in other words? A giant scam aided and abetted by numerous stooges of the Israeli government, to be found in the US and other countries in the west?
kooshy,
Wouldn’t Dorr’s position be stronger if he said Iran currently does not want nuclear weapons, but if the US is so reckless and stupid as to attack Iran, the Iranian government might change its position?
kooshy,
Robert Dorr apparently assumes the Iranian leaders are lying when they say, time and time again, that nukes are immoral and they do not want them, for Iran or for any other country. Is that doing a good service to the cause of peace?
@kathleen
“Why not talk about pushing Israel to sign the NPT the very same agreement that Israel wants its neighbors to abide by? ”
Well the Israelis don’t simply want their neoghbours to abide by the NPT, they want their neighbours to go above and beyond what the NPT calls for. Every state has a RIGHT to nuclear energy and technology. EVERY STATE. Unless of course your state is populated by a muslim majority. In which case, you’re lucky to even have a coal burning plant.
U.S., allies should accept a nuclear-armed Iran
By Robert F. Dorr – Special to Air Force Times
An attack on Iran is coming — if you believe what some analysts in the nation’s capital are saying.
Israel, they predict, will make a pre-emptive strike to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon — and probably sooner rather than later if U.S. conservatives rack up big gains in the Nov. 2 elections.
Let’s hope the pundits are wrong because the Air Force will almost certainly be drawn into the fight — and it doesn’t need to help wage another ill-fated war.
“I’m worried we’re being sucked into something,” said a senior-ranking airman who works on the F-22 Raptor. “It isn’t in our interest.”
The airman is right, even though leaders around the world insist a nuclear-armed Iran poses an unacceptable threat to stability.
The U.S., indeed, has real issues with Iran. It played an unsettling role in Iraq and it may have been behind the June 25, 1996, attack on the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 airmen and one Saudi — a vicious bombing for which no one has been apprehended.
But Iran is also a modern, educated country made up of young adults with diverse opinions. Millions — more interested in blue jeans and rock music than in confrontation — would welcome improved relations with the U.S. An attack might permanently sidetrack this potential for good will. To the average person in the Middle East, an attack from Israel rather than from the U.S. is a distinction without a difference.
The U.S. should shift policy, decide to accept and live with a nuclear-armed Iran and persuade other nations to do the same.
The reason is simple. Iran might be slowed but it cannot be stopped from building a nuclear weapon. Its research labs and plants are scattered, buried and reinforced. An attack would slow development of a nuclear bomb but not halt it.
Until now, nuclear weapons have conferred stability, not undermined it. No nation — except the U.S. — has employed an atomic bomb against another. Having nukes would almost certainly encourage Iran to behave better.
Although many Americans want to support Israel, the feeling is not universal. A big reason is the size of the check the U.S. is writing. Just one example: Israel’s F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program, estimated at $30 billion, will be paid for by American taxpayers.
Washington has an opportunity here. President Obama should publicly and privately disavow any intention of attacking Iran. In the strongest possible language, U.S. officials should tell Israeli leaders — in front of the cameras — to back off.
Americans can live with an atomic-armed Iran. The consequences of a reckless and irresponsible military strike — maybe not.
The people in Tehran aren’t the ones to be feared. There are some in Washington, though, who should be.
———
Robert F. Dorr is an Air Force veteran and a retired U.S. diplomat. Zenith Press will publish his book “Mission to Berlin” in March. Dorr’s e-mail address is robert.f.dorr@cox.net.
Nasser – Because both Bosnia and Kosova war were to make sure that no Islamist or pro-Iran government emerges in Judo-Christian Europe. I added it as some added truth the writer mised in the article – something like Jewish Talmud which had no insults like Jesus, Mary and Christians – for the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims – but it’s the Zionist Jews who are spearheading the attack on the Prophet and the Muslims.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/anti-semite-comic-strip/
Bravo to Erdogan! He is quoted today as saying: “We think further [US/EU] sanctions based on allegations and speculations are unfair and no one can expect Turkey . . .to apply such restrictions.”
Kathleen,
Great post re: falsity of Blair’s contention Iran has threatend to “wipe Israel off the map”. Is it possible Blair has so deluded himself as to be unable to comprehend the fallacy of the contention? Or is the sad truth he is a calculating liar trying to help deceive the American public YET AGAIN about what the real security situation is in the Middle East? Personally, I think Blair is a whore.
I think the neocons and other warmongers who urged the US to ignore European concerns about the stupidity of invading Iraq when there was no proof of an Iraqi threat, counted on being able to massage things after the fact, to restore good relations.
The EU needs to recognise that the Israel lobby has totally compromised the ability of the US to act in the best interests of the American people, in matters pertaining to Israel and the Middle East. And that the best interests of the EU are thus being compromised by the Israel lobby in the US, in an indirect fashion.
Colm O’Toole,
David Cameron displays a genuine personal aversion to foolish British military adventures in the greater Middle East.
Is it possible Blair is so stupid as to believe Iran wants to destroy Israel by military means? Religious delusions can produce very stupid beliefs in intelligent people.
The EU and the US simply don’t have the ability to wage another war. Their energies are depleted and Iran is the regional powerhouse.
Tony Blair as scare-mongerer! Claiming Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” by military means. And claiming Iran is building nukes.
Small wonder the liar took the UK into war with Iraq on knowingly false pretenses!
Leveretts:
Surely you must already know the answers to the questions in your last paragraph?
Because of the heft and weight of the United States in the international arena, all states, including the European states, have to deal with her in any event. One cannot, in my opinion, pick EU states selectively.
And without doubt, in case of US attack on Iran, no state will sanction US – not EU states, not Russia, not China, not Syria, not anyone.
The EU political union was always one of aspiration and vision rather than practicality.
Nevertheless, these polities have certain things in common:
-genuine discomfort with anything that even has a whiff of religious politics.
-belief that only Jews are entitled to have a religion, all other religious people in the world are benighted fools.
-the elevation of Shoah to the level of a semi-Religion: The goddess of Human Rights, the goddess of Freedom, and the goddess of Shoah comprising the new European post-Christian Trinity.
You can see the implications of these clearly in EU policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Blair is so twisted. No conscience. Close to a million dead (Lancet report which was so conveniently swept under the rug) in Iraq as a direct consequence of the Bush/Blair/Cheney invasion and the thug wants to take out Iran. Nuts absolutely nuts
When Bush, Cheney, Feith, Blair, Ledeen and team get free trips to the Hague to be tried for war crimes then and only then will I believe in justice and the rule of law.
The peasants out here no the chant from congress members, Eric Holder, Obama etc “no one is above the law” is a myth.
Blair repeats that inflammatory and false claim again that Iran “wants to wipe Israel off the map”
“TONY BLAIR: Yes. In the end, my view is no, this regime is qualitatively different in their makeup. I see them now exporting terrorism, instability around the Middle East. I think the risk of not them so much using a nuclear weapon, because I agree that’s a remote contingency although, you know, you can’t ignore the fact the president of the country says Israel should be wiped off the map. If you were an Israeli, you’d worry about it. But there’s the risk of the leakage of the technology. Would they give that technology to one of these terrorist groups? I don’t know. So I can’t be sure. Now—OK, so you’ve got a situation you can manage ”
it. You confront it. Who’s right? It’s really difficult. ”
Prof Cole debunked this dangerous, inaccurate and often repeated false statement years ago. Why do Rose and other MSM media outlets allow this to be endlessly repeated? So dangerous
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
“The precise reason for Hitchens’ theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having “threatened to wipe Israel off the map.” I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel’s Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.”
Flynt called Charlie Rose out on it when Rose repeated this false and inflammatory statement when Flynt and Hillary were on. Yet Rose let’s it slide by again. I have heard George Stephanapoulous, Scott Simon, Chris Matthews, Diane Rehm, Neil Conan, Bob Schieffer, Rachel Maddow etc etc allow this debunked statement to be repeated by John Bolton, Reuel Marc Gerecht etc etc ad nauseam over the last six years.
I have heard Rachel Maddow, and Terry Gross of Fresh Air (the worst user and abuser of this statement repeat this false statement themselves. When will Rose stop allowing this to be repeated on his program?
Hundreds of thousands dead, injured, and millions displaced in Iraq are just not enough for Blair, Bush, Feith, Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz and the rest of the warmongering blood thirsty thugs.
Why not talk about pushing Israel to sign the NPT the very same agreement that Israel wants its neighbors to abide by? Maybe all of those weekly threats coming out of Israel towards Iran could be dampened down. Maybe if Israel signed on and opened up their massive supplies of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to be inspected some folks in Iran, Syria etc might relax a bit.
In the UK Tony Blair is mockingly refered to as Reverend Blair because of his self-righteous, messianic style.
So one “Reverend”, Terry Jones, wants to burn Korans in memory of 9-11, another, Tony Blair, wants to go straight to the source and burn the entire Middle East through a war with Iran, for the same reason.
What’s the matter with these “Christians” anyway?
‘TONY BLAIR: I think it depends, actually, on how serious they think we are…I think the Iranians—I think if they actually understand the seriousness of intent, then I think you have a greater likelihood—I don’t say you’ll stop them, but you have a greater likelihood of stopping them. And that’s why it’s so important to send a clear, strong, and unequivocal message.’
This idea of sending a ‘clear strong’ message is a very worrying one. In terms of the Western policy -also it mythology- , the clear message to show ‘the seriousness of intent’ has always sent by the innocent blood. Its prime example is the Iranian AirBus shot down by the American USS Vincennes.
As a European I find this a bit off base. Firstly no one considers Tony Blair as anything but an Neo-Con puppet. He is hated by most of the EU establishment and people.
I do not see any current European leader calling for attacks on Iran. The most extreme leaders in this regard would be David Cameron in England and Sarkozy in France but even they are towing the line that sanctions are the way to go. Even with these two Sarkozy has 32% approval rating (almost Bush levels of support) after only 3 years. Cameron is stuck in a hung parliament with the rigidly anti-war Liberal Democrats and has announced that UK troops will be out of Afghanistan by 2014 (the next election).
On top of that EU foreign policy since 2003 has changed greatly. The EU now has a Foreign Affairs Minister (Catherine Ashton) and is making huge progress in fostering a Unified European Foreign Policy apparatus with massive job openings in Brussels.
But the main thing to consider is the EU public not the EU elite. The amount of people against the War in Iraq and Afghanistan is overwhelming (mid to high 80% against the wars in Germany, 78-79% against the wars in the UK, 70% in France) At a time when the Economy is as bad as it is in Europe (2 Million French protesting/ Greece with unrest) the last thing the EU elite are considering is another war that is certain to fail.
Look, we live in a world where the war criminal (phony Tony, Bliar) has come out of his closet and is given a megaphone to spout vitriol towards Iran. He is given multi-million dollar book deal to write his memoire (A Journey: My Political Life/ or how I got a million Iraqis killed).
He is now got himself a new job as the head of the quartet. Tony (I am full of angst about Iraq) is Europe’s strongest politician, which doesn’t say a lot about Europe. The poodle is making his rounds, peddling his book, and taking a “victory” lap. This bloodthirsty warmonger has not seen enough blood yet.
Europe is in a sad state of affairs!
“How quickly would Europe seek to “make peace” with America after an attack on Iran? “ → Milliseconds! Milliseconds!
It should be clear to all and sundry that Tony Blair is Israel’s Middle East Piece Envoy. It’s not the world’s best kept secret that Israel wants a much bigger piece of the Middle East than historical Palestine. Iraq and Iran were both stumbling blocks. Iraq has been neutered (in America’s War for no oil).
But Iran is another kettle of fish entirely. It hasn’t been disarmed and is not in breach of any substantive undertakings. Turkey has been treated with sufficient disrespect, post-Mavi Marmara, by America’s “European allies” that it has virtually no choice but to become a military ally of Iran if it is attacked by America. An attack on Iran by Israel would be tantamount to a suicide mission. I’m now convinced that both China and Russia will support Iran in every possible, and unsubtle, way short of direct military action against the invaders. China is ready. Russia is ready. It’ll be up to Uncle Sam to decide when to begin WWIII.
Iran will NOT be attacked.
More than anything else I have read so far on the prospect of an Iran attack, the appearance of the flagrantly pro-Greater-Israel Tony Blair on the scene, at this particular time, merely confirms that the Iran Talk is a diversion from Israel’s increasingly violent and illegal expansion in the West Bank.
It pains me that anyone pays any attention to Blair, a man so disliked here in his home country that he’s had to go into hiding. Ignore the loudmouth.
Obama’s call for unity:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_sept11;_ylt=Ah6XEuVUutHvjH.dfKWQCtCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNmY2d2Z3FpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwOTExL3VzX29iYW1hX3NlcHQxMQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzcEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA29iYW1hcmVtZW1iZQ–
Leveretts: “What would Europe do if Israel and/or the United States were to initiate military action against Iranian nuclear facilities?”
Basically nothing, in my view.
“Say that the action was illegal?”
Some might, i.e., those in the opposition parties at the time. And just by that fact, they would quickly be attacked by the party in power and forced to toe the US line.
“And then? How quickly would Europe seek to “make peace” with America after an attack on Iran?”
Almost immediately. Especially if Iran were to be really aggressive in its retaliation.
OTOH, if European interests were to be seriously by the war’s effects, say, oil price hikes that seriously damage their economies, sooner or latter Europe would start looking at the US as the cause of their problems. They could pretty much ignore that with Iraq since Europe really wasn’t significantly impaired by that war. An Iran war would be much worse and more far-reaching economically and geopolitically. So at some point Europe would be pointing fingers at the US President for not getting a legal justification for such an attack.
Which also raises the issue: is it possible for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution based on Article 39 saying Iran’s program is actually a “direct threat to peace in the region”? Can the US force the Europeans to go along and also avoid a veto by either the EU or Russia or China? I can’t see Russia or China EVER going along with that, so that implies there will be no UN Resolution authorizing force against Iran.
So that leaves the US President with the necessity to “go it alone”, like Bush did. This gives the Europeans an out if they want to take it. Obama has already explicitly said during his campaign and possibly after that he will not allow the UN to restrain the US in this regard, meaning he is willing to attack Iran unilaterally without UN authorization. In this, he is no better than Bush, and this mere fact alone proves that he is as culpable in war mongering as Bush is.
Another issue is: what would the Europeans do if it is ISRAEL, and NOT the US, that initiates the attack? And then further, what if the US decided to stay out of it – what would the Europeans do then? I suspect in the latter case, the Europeans would condemn the Israeli attack. But if the US joined in at some point LATER, that would put the Europeans between a rock and a hard place – condemning Israel, but hesitant to condemn the US.
Perhaps the question should be generalized: To what extent is Europe prepared to let the US run roughshod all over the world? As long as the US concentrates on puny third world countries like Afghanistan and Somalia, nobody seems to care. Even Iraq was not considered significant, although it took some effort to get the UK on board despire Blair’s warmongering. Iran is considerably bigger and more strategic and has avenues of retaliation Iraq did not have.
I suspect the Europeans are going to be VERY hesitant to approve an attack in advance. But once done, I suspect the UK will be fully on board and the EU will be supportive, if privately seriously irritated.
Rehmat,
Why the inclusion of Bosnia and Kosovo in your list?
If one links this piece with the previous one on China, it becomes clear that Europe and North America will lose and Asia (especially China) will win. The Europeans especially are shooting themselves in the feet out of sheer stupidity at a time when they need Iran and China NOT to move closer together.
Tony Blair, the war-monger extraordinaire. Now puts his trash on paper and goes on a book tour. Who will buy?
Honestly, Blair should be charged with war crimes, the sooner the better. He was bought and sold a long tome ago.
It should also be noted that no European leadership is possible from the UK…
Tony Blair is full of gas pumped by “Friends of Israel” lobby in Britain.
Tony Blair, the former Zionist Prime Minister of Britain in a recent BBC interview said that the western colonial powers are occupying or supporting the occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Philippines, Bosnia, Kosova, etc. is because they want to save the world from “radical Islam”.
Naturally, the bigot western Zionist leaders don’t believe that imposing a European Atheist Jews’ illegal entity in the name of Judaism on once Muslim-majority Palestine or Rabbi Oveda Yosef’s, leader of Israel’s Shas Party, call for the mass-murder of Muslim and Christian Palestinians, as ‘Radical Judaism’ – nor Anne Coulter’s call for “invasion of Muslim lands, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity” or the anti-Islam filth preached by Israeli puppets like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Ron Parsley, as “Radical Christianity”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/zionists-myth-of-radical-islam/