President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands.
In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.
America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.
The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.
Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.
The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire".
Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base.
It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.
New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation.
As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.
We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...549335,00.html
I really hope Bush doesn't attack Iran. If he does, I hope Blair doesn't join him. Unfortunately, it doesn't much matter what I think, or what any other member of the public thinks. These politicians will do whatever they want anyway. There were a million of us on the streets of London saying to Blair loud and clear: "Don't Attack Iraq". We could do nothing to prevent it.
I really hope Bush doesn't attack Iran. If he does, I hope Blair doesn't join him. Unfortunately, it doesn't much matter what I think, or what any other member of the public thinks. These politicians will do whatever they want anyway. There were a million of us on the streets of London saying to Blair loud and clear: "Don't Attack Iraq". We could do nothing to prevent it.
Peace
Mashallah nice to hear our brothers and sisters in London were speaking out against injustice.Yes,true no matter what they'll never listen,but that doesn't mean that we should give up.Keep on pushing it and inshallah your pleads will be heard .
I really hope Bush doesn't attack Iran. If he does, I hope Blair doesn't join him. Unfortunately, it doesn't much matter what I think, or what any other member of the public thinks. These politicians will do whatever they want anyway. There were a million of us on the streets of London saying to Blair loud and clear: "Don't Attack Iraq". We could do nothing to prevent it.
Peace
I hear ya. And they call this democracy? Try elective dictatorship.
The US air forces mentioned in the article could do serious damage to Iran if that option comes to the table.
People overreact when they hear Bush makes statements like "all options are on the table."
Of course he is going to use his military might in this issue. It does nothing but weaken the position of the US politically if we take away the massive threat of firepower. This is global politics and in global politics sometimes you have to use hard words, especially in dealing with a corrupt theocracy in Iran.
Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It is in the best interest of the entire world to stop that from happening.
My humble opinion.
The US air forces mentioned in the article could do serious damage to Iran if that option comes to the table.
People overreact when they hear Bush makes statements like "all options are on the table."
Of course he is going to use his military might in this issue. It does nothing but weaken the position of the US politically if we take away the massive threat of firepower. This is global politics and in global politics sometimes you have to use hard words, especially in dealing with a corrupt theocracy in Iran.
Iran should not have nuclear weapons. It is in the best interest of the entire world to stop that from happening.
My humble opinion.
In my humble opinion, no country should have nuclear weapons, but we don't see fullscale invasions of the Big Five (USA, UK, China, India, Pakistan)
Correct, but in a democracy the views of the people should be listened to, and it's blatantly obvious that Blair wasn't listening to the vast majority of the British population from as early as Feb 2002, when he gave his commitment to Bush that he would support him, come what may.
Correct, but in a democracy the views of the people should be listened to, and it's blatantly obvious that Blair wasn't listening to the vast majority of the British population from as early as Feb 2002, when he gave his commitment to Bush that he would support him, come what may.
We have a word for people behaving like that. 'Bootlicker' is the polite version.
In my humble opinion, no country should have nuclear weapons, but we don't see fullscale invasions of the Big Five (USA, UK, China, India, Pakistan)
You forgot a bunch. Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Israel and France, I believe....
Whoever has them now has them. I am all for scaling back the number of nuclear weapons but they will never disappear. The best that we can do now is isolate the nastier regimes who have them (North Korea, namely) and stop anyone else from developing them.
Correct, but in a democracy the views of the people should be listened to, and it's blatantly obvious that Blair wasn't listening to the vast majority of the British population from as early as Feb 2002, when he gave his commitment to Bush that he would support him, come what may.
How do you know this?
I think Blair sincerely believed that there was a credible threat in Saddam Hussein and that he had been allowed to play his games long enough.
The Americans have certainly carried the massive burden in Iraq and I think that the British people should be proud that their soldiers preformed so bravely and accomplished a great deed in freeing millions from Saddam's tyranny.
Just because the minority Sunni's are upset they lost their grip on power should not overshadow the great evil which was vanquished.
Akhee if this is your opinion than your own country should disarm their nukes before telling others too. I think america poses a bigger threat to humanity than north korea! Did north klorea drop atomic bombs killing thousands? Did north korea invade and occupy countres? Do they use chemical weapons? Do they abuse prisoners? I think america is the bigger threat, and before they open their mouth to other counries they must disarm themselves!
North Korea is still not giving up their nukes. U.S had to have negotiations with them over 5x and they are still shaking their heads no.
Some say Blair agreed to support Bush in Feb 2002, some say a bit later. Here's an article that suggests Blair's diplomats were assuring his unwavering support in March 2002, and that Blair himself may have committed Britain to the cause in April 2002:
when north Korea has nukes as their weapons it could take like 5 seconds to kill everyone.
There is a difference between having one or two nuclear weapons and having a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world.
Only two countries have enough nukes to achieve that kind of destruction, these are the UNited States and Russia.
Now, imagine a regime as crooked and evil as North Korea with the capabilty to wipe out the entire planet. It would give a new meaning to the term nuclear blackmail.
Nevertheless, I think that's stupid, pitiful, and domineering because no country can tell the other country what to do, but I guess that's Bush's way of propoganda.
Of course countries can try to tell other countries what to do.
It all depends on who has the strongest hand. This is how international power politics works. Its all about power. The reason the US pretty much runs things is because the US has a huge advantage over the entire world when it comes to this power and the means to deploy and use it.
Your naive views on North Korea show just how ignorant you are of the situation. I am sure you are a bright person, but in this instance I think you are speaking out of your rear-end and you should probably research the situation a little deeper before you form opinions.
Asallama Alaikum brother I don't expect you to agree with me because every one has different opinions.You can disagree all you want please just do so in a islamic manner.
Witness today's suicide car bomb attacks on a bus station and hospital, killing at least 45 innocnt Iraqis
That's what you only hear from the American media.They never tell the other side of the story.I atleast can see where both sides are coming from while you on the other hand just follow the American media and are blind about the situation.*No Offense*
You have no idea what you are talking about and should do more to be informed before you make statements like this.
Brother i'm well aware of what i'm talking about and know enough to make statements such as what I previously said.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks