The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently. Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear. The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
AFP via Google: US Senate brands Iran Guard 'terrorist organization' (Sep 26, 2007)
The US Senate has called for Iran's Revolutionary Guards to be officially designated a "foreign terrorist organization," a day after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure. The Senate on Wednesday voted 76-22 for the non-binding amendment sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl and independent Joseph Lieberman to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or Pasdaran, on the US terrorist blacklist. Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions.
The Senate on Wednesday voted 76-22 for the non-binding amendment sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl and independent Joseph Lieberman to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or Pasdaran, on the US terrorist blacklist.
Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions.
The Guardian: Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons (June 7 2008)
Israel "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be "unavoidable" if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs. Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."
Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."
Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.
The only thing the EU can do is convince Iran of the seriousness of this threat so it takes steps to remove any excuse for an attack by either the US or Israel. This seems to be happening
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to lead a team of high-ranking diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, who will present a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has rejected it in advance.
As to the attack by the US... well, it cannot be prevented if the US is committed to carrying it out, but if those Senators confirm the rumours the EU diplomats should remind the US that is an illegal action.
You ask If an attack on Iran is allowed to happen, what are the chances that Europe will escape being drawn into a greater conflict? but I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies, or by Israel or the US, or why it should rush troops to the assistance of the US. I don't believe Iran responding to an illegal attack by the US is grounds for application of NATO's Article 5, but I could be wrong. In any case, if the US demanded it this could be the end of NATO
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies, or by Israel or the US, or why it should rush troops to the assistance of the US. I don't believe Iran responding to an illegal attack by the US is grounds for application of NATO's Article 5, but I could be wrong. In any case, if the US demanded it this could be the end of NATO
It would be Iraq 2.0. And since Iraq 1.0 (the original 1990 attack was the beta release) gained almost unwavering support from a lapdog EU I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.
It's the US which needs a diplomatic onslaught, not Iran. Not that it would help the outcome, but it would put some distance between an insane US regime and an EU which so far has been complicitly compliant, offering only token resistance.
If Brussels grew a spine, Iran could turn into the US's own Suez. But Brussels won't, so we can look forward to even more expensive oil, and one last military disaster.
I was shocked at the bile displayed by the guy from the Commission's US desk as he briefed us on EU-US relations when I visited the Commission last November.
No love lost, I can assure you.
But foreign policy is a National issue. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I'm talking about the career civil service people, not the political appointees. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Solana was the NATO civilian head during the Serbia bombing campaign - while I still respect his intellectual and diplomatic capacity I think he's a total sell-out. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
You exaggerate. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I mean unwavering tacit support for rendition flights, intelligence gathering and sharing, and other essentials.
Brussels is of course shocked that these things have happened - not that they continue to, naturally - but I don't remember there being a great deal of action to stop them.
The EU is good at making a disapproving noise about US adventuring, but doesn't seem interested in doing anything much that might put real pressure on the US - like sanctions, or even just giving senior US diplomats a formal stern talking to.
There certainly weren't any sanctions against any of the member states who chose to send troops to Iraq.
How illegal is a war if no one is prosecuted for it?
The European Parliament issued a scathing report on the rendition - completer despite their inability to subpoena anyone or to hear evidence that a member state considers critical to their "national security".
Dick Marty of the Council of Europe also produced a substantial report.
None of this is about "Brussels", it's about the national governments. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
To date Brussels has threatened sanctions against Italy, Israel, the Saudis and Iran, for various reasons.
The EU also threatened sanctions against Poland and Romania for hosting CIA jails. So Brussels certainly does have leverage, and is willing to consider using it.
But Brussels didn't threaten sanctions against any of the countries which sent troops to Iraq. In fact there was a Press Communiqué in 2004 which said:
The EU and the GCC stated their determination to assist the Iraqi people as they enter a new era in the history of their country. The EU and the GCC expressed concern about the security situation in Iraq, noting that this remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes. They condemned all violence and terrorist attacks, including the kidnappings and brutal murder of hostages. They deplored the taking of hostages in all circumstances and called on those responsible to release immediately and unharmed all remaining hostages and to desist from any further such activity. The EU and the GCC expressed their abhorrence at recent evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraqi prisons. The EU and the GCC condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The EU and the GCC welcomed the commitment by relevant Governments to bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian law.
The EU and the GCC expressed concern about the security situation in Iraq, noting that this remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes. They condemned all violence and terrorist attacks, including the kidnappings and brutal murder of hostages. They deplored the taking of hostages in all circumstances and called on those responsible to release immediately and unharmed all remaining hostages and to desist from any further such activity.
The EU and the GCC expressed their abhorrence at recent evidence of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraqi prisons. The EU and the GCC condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. The EU and the GCC welcomed the commitment by relevant Governments to bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian law.
This was in a formal statement by official representatives of the EU, speaking for the EU.
So it's not impressive that it doesn't read like a forceful condemnation of an illegal war and occupation, or of a government which had been saying since 2002 that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to its interrogators.
The lack of a single security policy by the E.U. member states is what I see as the Achilles' heel of the European Union. Until Europe can speak with one voice internationally, powers such as Russia, China, and the U.S. will continue to play one European nation off another nation.
I find this paradox to be an interesting, but flawed creation. I wonder what the U.S. would have been like if the member states each had their own foreign policy?
It could possibly be prevented, but it depends on how badly European nations wanted to prevent it. More on this in a bit.
You ask If an attack on Iran is allowed to happen, what are the chances that Europe will escape being drawn into a greater conflict? but I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies...
You answer this yourself in regards to Iraq. You write, "A spillover of violence from Iraq would be of concern to Europe, the Middle East is relatively close and accessible". Spillover from Iran. Even if it is attacks on Americans in Europe, it will be messy.
So could Europe block an attack on Iran if Europe or Russia aligned itself with Iran? I do not know. Would it make the situation too hot, or would the U.S. think twice before risking war with Russia or any number of European nations and go ahead and attack Iran?
If the U.S. is not prevented from attacking and invading Iran, what is to stop the U.S. from continuing these invasions? Internal U.S. collapse?
Is U.S. being appeased by allowing it Iraq? Will it stop with just Iraq?
I have been convinced that yes and no for years.
The US hasn't put itself on a war footing internally (economically and politically) as it did in WWII. I think the US has the potential to go on for much longer. Especially if the public can be told that the rest of the world is out to get them, which is what they would be told if NATO allies allied with Russia to block an attack on Iran (or after such an attack). Eurabia, the Russians and the Chinese are coming! Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia! Like I said above, where the UK's chip would fall is an interesting question. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
There isn't the industrial base needed for a war footing. Not that the next war would necessarily be industrial - at least, not for long - but politically the population wouldn't support a war without physical coercion, and physically the US doesn't have the energy needed to re-industrialise itself.
Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, Ford and General Motors might beg to differ. The one thing we do still have is the war making ability. It might take a coup to bring it off properly, though. Especially if the Dems win in the fall. If the Repubs win that might itself constitute a de facto coup.
Victory would probably only be possible through massive genocide and the environmental consequences would likely make it pyrrhic--nuclear winter if things went nuclear; world wide plagues if biological; massive genetic damage if chemical. If the US went for control of Iran it is hard seeing Russia and China taking this quietly. Plus we would have to deal with Pakistan and Afganistan. The religious would truly have reason to hope for the rapture.
What would prevent this is simply lack of sufficient military capability. To bring this off it would be necessary to double the size of the ground forces. That would take more than a year. With the Bush administration expiring in seven months about all we could do now is inflict the maximum damage from the air. They might do that, figuring that that would get McCain elected and commit him to finishing what they had started. Stay tuned.
That we are having such a discussion is itself an eloquent explanation of why I refer to us as a nation of dumb fucks. Dumb fucks with a taste for psychopaths.
If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
[AR Geezer's Crystal Ball of Doom™ Technology] When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
