The news today is recapitulation on both sides and no capitulation on either side. The BBC reports that the potential for a diplomatic solution, which first offered a glimmer of hope yesterday, remains. The Age reports that "Britain had sent Iran a written reply to its diplomatic note on the detention of the sailors in the Gulf but received no response so far." Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett had conciliatory words to an Iranian TV reporter. Hopefully, this will enter the history books soon.
An opinion article in TIME by Robert Baer says that war between the U.S. and Iran may be inevitable - perhaps only because Iran believes it is. In my view, such a war would be similar in its genesis to the war in Iraq: a war fought late, because sanctions are not enough. One might think that 27 years of sustained sanctions would convince Iran that the U.S. and her allies are not be taken hostage. Apparently they were not; nor were the 11 years of global sanctions against Iraq sufficient proof of commitment to convince Saddam to cooperate with Hans Blix.
A scare headline today, also in TIME and linked by Drudge, reads A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight. This is news because it is first being revealed now, but it is cause for breathing easier, not panic: the firefight happened in September, and nothing ensued. Iran is not - or at least, was not - trying to provoke a ground war.
But what if it is trying now? A war in Iran would do far less immediate harm to the U.S. than the war in Iraq, since we would not seek external regime change. Likely, we would implement a blockade and cripple the still-oil-dependent economy. Alternately, a surgical strike against Nanantz could kill two birds with one stone. James Taranto discussed these options in yesterday's BOTWT. However, such a war could do far more long-term harm. Iran, I firmly believe, is in the very long run one of America's best allies in Asia, and it is a nation that will be more powerful (unlike the Arabs) in 50 years than it is today.
If Iran fires first, or tries and hangs the 15 for "spying", then a limited military response is in order. Setting out a clear menu of responses - and following through - might not be a bad idea for the U.K. and U.S. The biggest ticket item on the menu must remain nuke-for-nuke: if Iran nukes a U.S. ally or provides a nuke to Hamas, Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, then we must nuke an Iranian city of comparable size. It's unsavory. We wouldn't want to do it; but, as the past hundred years have shown, the credible threat of full retaliation is the only way to avoid catastrophic conflict. Show me another means of avoiding conflict, and I'll show you a World War or a modern genocide.
8 comments:
There is a lot of speculations going on about the 'hostage crisis'. I just read an article that really gets to the real point of this whole thing. I highly recommend that you all take a look at it. It is VERY informative. You can find it here:
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/129553
-%27Hostage+Crisis%27+Or+End+Game%3F
Suzanne -
I find the conspiracy theory there quite amusing. In order to make the conspiracy hang together, the author uses the "coincidence" that the capture occurred 1 day before a scheduled UN vote on Iran. I agree: this probably wasn't coincidental.
But what makes the conspiracy theory hilarious is that the author blames the non-coincidence on the victims, not the perpetrators. Apparently, the Revolutionary Guard is acting in concert with the Western Imperialists to bring down Ahmadinejad!
Amazing journalism.
Chops,
I find it curious that you call it a "conspiracy theory". It calls out what is actually happening.
But, then, I guess you want to pass over the point that Blair is saying how disgraceful the hostages are being treated, when in fact, how the US and UK treat their hostages is so horrific there aren't enough words to describe them. We must keep that a secret, mustn't we?
"In my view, such a war would be similar in its genesis to the war in Iraq: a war fought late, because sanctions are not enough."
The war was started to strengthen the US empire-building effort in the Middle East. Read The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski, then follow it up by The Plan for a New American Century, mostly by Dick Cheney and other neocon cretins, for the full picture. Then go back and read some of the analysis of the same at the "conspiracy websites" you take so lightly. See what "maps to reality" the best.
Chops wrote:
"Iran is not - or at least, was not - trying to provoke a ground war. But what if it is trying now?'
Britain is pulling a classic Gulf of Tonkin-style provocation. Google that if you're too young to remember Vietnam. Blair pushed Iran so far it had to act on a blatant trespass of their borders, no to mention harassing the local fisherman.
And as mentioned by Suzanne, why is it appalling for some for the detainees to be shown on television (appearing to be relatively well-treated), but what the US inflicted in Abu Grahb was fine, until it got published?
Chops wrote:
"The biggest ticket item on the menu must remain nuke-for-nuke: if Iran nukes a U.S. ally or provides a nuke to Hamas, Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, then we must nuke an Iranian city of comparable size. It's unsavory."
The fact that you can be so blase about this idea just stuns me. And why are you so sure if such an awful thing were to come to pass, that it was not a false-flag operation? Google that one and see who comes up as the world's leading expert. One hint, they are already geographically well-place to pull such a thing.
So on the one extreme side you have people swearing radical Islamic Iran is hell bent on destroying Israel at all costs and on the other extreme side you have people swearing greedy capitalist neocons are hell bent on destroying Iran and dominating the Middle East oil fields... It all makes sense now.
Sariade, Google 'therapy' and your town of residence.
I'm glad I live in a country where such a stunning diversity of opinions can be published without retribution.
I declaim any nonsense such as approval of the abuses in Abu Ghraib.
Well in all objectivity we do have 'greedy capitalist neocons hellbent on destroying Iran' - or haven't you been paying attention?
Post a Comment