Is George W mad at the British? Will he give them warning before the Israeli’s strike. Or will the Brits have to make a fighting withdrawal without any preparation from Basra to Kuwait through the masses of Shiite militia and Revolutionary Guards.
The Madness of George W stresses the UK - US Special Relationship.
Posted by Jim S at April 15, 2006 09:58 PMWhat is necessary is to get international inspectors into the country to test the assurances from the Iranian leadership that they only want a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Is this really the line you want to take? And if the results of those tests from international inspectors is that the assurances from the Iranian leadership are bs, and they don't only want a peaceful nuclear energy program? Then what? I think you're painting yourself into a corner.
Posted by Jeff at April 15, 2006 10:03 PMAnd what's the alternative right now Jeff? Remember that Iran hasn't as far as we know violated the NPT. We have no legal standing to do anything right now that is being contemplated by Bush, whereas with Iraq, he could hide behind the UN resolutions. If Iran is exposed by the IAEA to be violating the NPT, then the Security Council can deal with it at that time.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 15, 2006 10:10 PMDespite the rhetoric, it appears that the WH is treating this like Iraq, not Libya. There is not word of any active diplomacy, only leaks about possible military action and exercises, and a veiled threat by Condi to take action next *month* at the Security Council. I think the adminstration would be doing much better if it leaked info about some sort of diplomacy, rather than about bunker-piercing nukes.
Posted by Kawnipi at April 15, 2006 10:29 PMI have doubts about this report. I think Blair is a fully signed up member of the War Party - despite the opposition of his country and his party - and this could be part of the usual confusing "noise" you get before a war to disorientate and confuse the enemy.
Sometimes the Washington war party seem on the verge of Armageddon, sometimes they're all sweet reason and "let's negotiate." Sometimes the Europeans are pulling back from the American and Israeli hawkishness, the next moment they're shoulder to shoulder with them.
Stephen Twigg, the think tank guy quoted, is the most loyal of Blairists. Admittedly Blair's position as PM is getting weaker and weaker as his base within the party erodes, but something about this pronouncement seems just too convenient. Sorry.
Posted by jon at April 16, 2006 12:38 AMThe real key to knowing whether Tony really has had enough will be the actions or inactions of the British military. Blair is under a great deal of political presure, and if he wants to hold on to his seat in Parliament he has to back away from any complicity in the next PNAC fiasco.
The British people have had enough. It's been quiet since 7/7, and they want to keep it that way. Staying out of Iran looks like a good idea to them. If Blair isn't listening to that sentiment, then he's gone.
Would that the people here would wake up and want the same!
Posted by pessimist at April 16, 2006 03:35 AMOf course, when the human wave assaults of martyrdom-seeking Basiji and Revolutionary Guards sweep over Basra, the British will be swept into the sea.
Posted by bob h at April 16, 2006 04:38 AMThere is an old Steve Martin line from his "Wild-n-Crazy" monologues where he relates--"You know those fire-and-brimestone stories about Hell and how you can spend eternity in suffering if you don't do EXACTLY what the preacher says? Well, wouldn't it be funny if it were all TRUE!!!"
I think we will soon hear absurdist riffs from the truly desperate NeoCons--when they start admitting "Okay, we screwed up in Iraq---yeah, we lied---BUT THEY REALLY DO HAVE NUKES IN IRAN!!!!" Then comes the fire and brimestone. It will come first from Bill Kristol I imagine.
I believe the European Union has a chance here to unite with Russia and China and truly highlight how deranged the present Administration is. I don't think this will happen, but imagine if it did.
How can you belittle a dimunitive? How can you belittle a shrub?
Posted by gtash at April 16, 2006 05:51 AMsorry--'diminutive'---I can't snark right.
Posted by gtash at April 16, 2006 05:55 AMYah, Blair can no longer do what he likes, with his slashed majority & all. He has recently lost a few parliamentary votes on far less controversial issues than taking our nation into yet another criminal enterprise, so selling this to parliament, let alone the people, would be thoroughly impossible.
Blair and his cronies are much despised, Buscho 10x more so -- the people would not stand for it.
Posted by eroica at April 16, 2006 06:42 AMWhat dat? Poodle Blair isn't following his Master to his next excellent adventure?
Sounds like Blair is afraid the voters may throw his ass out of office.
Posted by Christopher at April 16, 2006 07:35 AM
Stv, thnks fr yr nsghts. cpl tms. W nt Brtn bckng t n th rnn bllyng. W dn’t knw why. Bt w cn thnk. Th N nspctr tk pk nsd rn, vr th bjctns f th S. Tmmrmn sspcts tht th rnns lrdy hv cpl f nk mssls. n f th pstrs dscntd Tmmr’s dt bcs f hs prsnl bs dsrng n rnn nvsn. sbmt tht ny bs f Tmmr’s wld prcld nk dt bcs f t’s nhrnt dtrrnc t th S.
Brtn wthdrw crp spprt ftr th N nspctr pkd n rn.
ls, frm th rnn vw, t s crtcl fr thm t nk p sm mssls. Thy ndrstnd tht t ws nks tht prcldd crp wrld xpnsn prr t th 70’s. Ths, frm th WH prspctv, thy r 100% ccrt tht rn wnts nks. Hwvr, wht ds th C thnk bt Tmmr’s dt? W ws th S gnst th N nspctn. Prhps w d sspct th xstnc f rnn nks, nd wnt t kp r lls! s rpn wthn pssbl rng f pssbl nk tppd mssls?
Nw f rp ds n 180 n N snctns drctd gnst rn, thn w wll knw tht rnn nks my b prbbl. f nt, thn th rnns sccdd n chrd f nk pssssn fr th dsrd ffct, t lst cncrnng rp.
Lt m spclt, hr. Th wrld wll nt spprt th WH; bt th WH nd srl wll trn tht dsrspct nt rspct, lbt rspct fr ‘sprr’ tch pwrs f ‘shck nd w,’ r whtvr hgh schlr phrs thy my chs. My pnt hr s tht w wll s h-tch wpns thr vrtly r cvrtly t vrcm rnn ntnlsm. nc th dst sttls, r lttl Bsh wll lk lk n f th lttl Rmn Csrs. Th bttm ln s tht th crps wll shn s brght s thy prcv th pwr f th Sn. Ths lttl crp ft sss, nd thr WH pnks, wth ccmpnyng Hll bdwttrs, wll prvl. Jst crp.
f crs, th bv s spcltn, dn’t blv wrd sy.
It's much easier to get rid of a primeminister than it is a president. Blair may have been told he will get the boot if he drags GB in. Second, don't be so sure about Israel. They are not as excited about this mis-adventure as we might expect them to be. They now realize that Rummy and company have totally botched Iraq and may not want to see a repeat in Iran.
Posted by Ron In Portland at April 16, 2006 07:48 AMAs kawnipi astutely observes, despite Nero's claims that "diplomacy" is the means by which this crisis will be resolved, there is absolutely NO diplomacy going on involving the US---only leaked reports of war planning.
If Iran's nuclear program is such an immediate crisis, and if diplomacy is supposedly our preferred means of resolution, when exactly will direct talks be undertaken? Given such hot rhetoric, no talks means the "diplomacy first" line is complete, unadulterated bullshit lying---so what else is new?
It's up to the rest of the world to try to restrain Nero's nuclear, messianic end times lunacy. The center/left can do nothing at this point, no institution even speaks for us, let alone possesses a check on the Emperor.
Days of Judgement, Armageddon, Second Comings, eternal damnation, divine revelations, righteous wrath---it's all a little too much for a limited, drug addled, dry-drunk brain to handle. The more "fundamentalist" one is, the farther they should be kept from political power. Unfortunately, we found that out a little too late. Happy Easter, indeed.
Posted by euzoius at April 16, 2006 07:53 AMSwiftboating of Blair begins in 5..4..3..
Posted by Daryl at April 16, 2006 09:10 AMSwiftboating of Blair begins in 5..4..3..
I heard through the reliable source grapevine that Blair is gay.
I also heard he has plans to overtake the U.S. in about 5-10 years. So I think it's plausible that we use our intelligence sources to examine the tactical possibility of invading Britain after we invade Iran.
How's that for starters?:D
I don't know...those East Enders are going to be tough to beat.
Posted by Daryl at April 16, 2006 12:36 PMbritain has nukes. this will not stand
Posted by cheney at April 16, 2006 03:56 PMAs if Bush cares.
We're in the hands of the Republican Congress until the election.
Pat Roberts, unfortunately (!, maybe also people like Warner, Specter, Graham, and Hatch), will decide if we take the insane war walk into disaster in Iran,
Posted by jerry at April 16, 2006 07:16 PMSo I think it's plausible that we use our intelligence sources to examine the tactical possibility of invading Britain after we invade Iran.
Hold on, England is my home country. Don't even think about it.
tempus
Posted by tempus at April 16, 2006 09:13 PMAs far as i can tell, Iran is a done deal. We're going to bomb the hell out of them. This is Bush's program, and good for the US Military/Industrial Complex. What does Bush care about any opposition. He's a jerk and not smart enough to see that brute force doesn't win in the end. The Information Clearing House has great articles on Bush. And the Trilateral Commission is still pushing the world's buttons, and using the US military to gain its way. And China is just smiling and waiting for the US to flop, playing that old game that the US played so well for so long, "Let's you and him fight." Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are right wing morons who ought to be buried alive up to their necks in the sands of the Iraq desert. They never heard of diplomacy. They're entirely rotten and unAmerican to the core, unwitting agents of bin Laden at best. At worst, plain monsters. Oil mafia.
Posted by Jim LeCuyer at April 17, 2006 10:39 AMBlair's repudiation of a military option comes as no surprise. Whilst there is some truth to the stated reason - the pressure of MoD deployments precludes any possibility of direct UK support, the real reasons are as follows:
Firstly, unlike with Iraq, there is no prior history of UN resolutions under Chapter 7 which would enable the UK AG to manufacture a legal fudge that would satisfy the requirements of the UK military that the attack would not constitute a crime of aggression, and that they wouldn't subsequently end up in the dock ( this is possible under UK domestic legislation, and is in fact being applied to IDF commanders, who have rapidly stopped travelling to the UK in the wake of the Almog incident).
It would require at least 2 UNSC resolutions, the second of which explicitly authorised the use of force, for there to be legal grounds that would permit UK participation - and it needs to be borne in mind that without this, the US cannot use either Diego Garcia or Fairford as platforms for military action.
Secondly, the presumptive targets are "safeguarded" facilities that are subject to inspection, monitoring and verification by the IAEA. As long as IAEA inspectors certify that no "illegal" activities are taking place at these sites, and that there is no diversion of materials to undisclosed programmes, these sites cannot be bombed without, as a consequence, being a substantive breach of US obligations under the NNPT. Now there may well be a cabal of Washington neocons who couldn't care less if they destroy the NNPT, but I doubt that this position is shared by the plurality in the USA, and is absolutely rejected by the UK.
Thirdly, any attack on Iran - whether the UK were complicit or not - would have immediate repercussions for the MoD contingents stationed in Basra/Amara; UK field commanders have intimated that the Iranians can take Basra with 10 clerics and a sound truck, and in the event of a Shia uprising their position is untenable. This essentially puts UK forces there as hostages to fortune; the loss of even 5% of the UK contingent would be politically toxic.
Fourthly, Blair's domestic political position is eroding - there are rumours that he has cancelled a trip to Washington, as he does not wish to be seen with Bush, and is even considering a direct personal diplomatic intervention with the Iranians in a bid to solve the "crisis".
Posted by dan at April 18, 2006 06:43 AM