Wednesday, January 24, 2007
STAND UP FOR SECURITY, STAND UP FOR ISRAEL
Any readers of mine who happen to be in Berlin this Sunday might one to consider this:
Any readers of mine who happen to be in Berlin this Sunday might one to consider this:
Labels: Israel
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
TRIDENT RENEWAL: HOW TO USE OUR NUKES
As explained below we cannot reverse nuclear arms already aquired in the countries that have them. So, a realistic policy should firstly work at reducing their numbers, an area in which Britain is leading by example. The next realistic step is to stop further proliferation. The risk of this exists in two broad regions: the Pacific and the broader Mediterranean and greater Middle East.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.
Looking into our own region, let's have a look at the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, coupled with a possible drawdown of US-UK regional military policies: Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as the first in line would go nuclear first. In turn this would pressure and open opportunities for Egypt, Lybia and Greece. Leading on from there Algeria and Syria can also not be discounted entirely. Once this is getting underway, who can say that other European powers, especially Germany will not be tempted as well? Additionally remember the strategic pressure represented by Russia.
This is bad for Britain's security. So, in order to counter this we will have to work on strategic arrangements and security deals that will lift the potential burden of Iranian/Russian nuclear blackmail from these countries. This would require resetting our alliances and making it clear that armed conflict will at some point draw in British military force, which must, and will, ultimately be insured with nuclear weapons.
Such a policy would not be able to reverse nuclear weapons in any of the countries in our strategic neighbourhood (Britain, France, Israel, US, Russia, Iran), but it would prevent the spread of such weapons to other countries.
(See also this article in the JPost by Emanuel Adler on the Israeli case, which makes a good point, similar to mine, and which ties in with this earlier posting).
Labels: defence, EU, France, Germany, global affairs, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Lybia, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey
TRIDENT RENEWAL: TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.
Who would that be for Britain/France/EU? And what other factors might drive their nuclear programmes?
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.
What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.
If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.
What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.
If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.
Labels: China, defence, Egypt, EU, France, global affairs, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
DISPIRITING TIMES
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
I know I have these sorts of moans every once in a while. Recently I have been having one of those phases again, where everything just seems to be going wrong for no good reason and people who should know better don’t.
Look at the Lebanon war’s aftermath. The outcome of Tzahal’s very lacklustre performance has left the Hizb’allah in place, albeit weakened. But what is happening now is that Lebanese and international troops are going to moved into position in between the Hizb’allah’s fighters. As these forces are neither willing nor capable of disarming the militia, that means that inevitable there will be a second round of fighting at some point in the future. And when it comes to that Israel will find itself seriously hamstrung by the presence of these forces. Diplomatically this will make serious Israeli action nigh on impossible. The result will be that Hizb’allah will become ever more stronger and aquire ever better weapons from Iran with ever more destructive consequences. Tremendously stupid outcome. Peace will only come about when the Hizb’allah ceases to exist as an armed force. This should be clear to any decent analyst. Perhaps that is the reason why so far troop commitments have been so weakly.
But talking of which, if all these countries can stump up thousands of troops for a dangerously counterproductive mission in Lebanon, why not reroute them and deploy them to Afghanistan. Here there are some real difficulties, and here it matters as we cannot allow the Taliban to retake the country. With the highly unpopular prospect of German forces being deloyed beyond their breaking point, I wonder why the Italians and the French can send their forces further eastwards. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the sly suspicion that there are people, particularly in Paris, who wouldn’t mind failure in Afghanistan too much as it is currently a NATO-mission.
I remember Geoffrey van Orden warning that the possible failure by NATO would do massive and possibly irrevocable political damage to the alliance. Together with ever stronger anti-Americanism this could finally seal Britain’s fate by taking away our alternatives to being sucked into the EU ever further. Actually, I didn’t really expect much of a debate about this. Still despressing though.
Another point I have to raise is the possibilty that some of the Afghan troubles are due to Britain being the de-facto lead nation in the south. After the desastrous conduct of Britain in Iraq recently, the Taliban would be quite likely to conclude that this former lion was already half on the run. So why not prod and prick him a bit more and he might grant you a great victory by buckling under political pressure and doing a completely runner. And when you’ve got him on the run why not take a few more shots, he might even give himself up completely. There is no such thing as conciliation toward totalitarian and fanatical enemies. All such moves will be seen as weakness, which will simply invite more attacks. When will we learn?
And this is just the foreign arena. At home we have more immigration nonsense doing the rounds. I’m sorry but we if we let countries into the EU, we have to give them full membership. If we don’t they will simply go adrift and go slack on maintaining the already shaky membership conditions. The same will be the case for other potential new members. Once they start seeing that they will not be admitted properly they might stop trying. This will probably mean that they will also stop reforming their governance structures. The consequence will be less stability and security in the EU’s neighbourhood. This is exactly the thing the EU exists to prevent. That people don’t seem willing to see this simply point just annoys me.
If the consequence of more EU-migrants is wage pressure that is a problem that can and should be fixed at home. As for the real problem of poverty and unemployment in Britain, that is unrelated to immigration. This is down to economic overcentralisation withouth labour flexibility, to rotten educational and social circumstances of Britain’s poorest, who simply are either unwilling or unable to take up any kind of employment. This is the big problem underlying the current row. But nobody seems to be paying much attention to their plight.
Part of this is the media’s fault for pandering to headline grabbing tales of foreign welfare scroungers or alternatively of rampant racism in Britain. Because I’m in a bad mood I’m going to pick on the Daily Mail in particular. What we see here is a complete misunderstanding of some of Britain’s big challenges. We need to be engaged in the EU, and accepting migrant workers from new member states is a price we have to be wiling to pay, if indeed it is a cost, rather than an advantage. Ok, so I’m Eurosceptic too, but the Mail doesn’t seem to be serious about this. Sure it’s views on the EU are far more hostile than mine, by far. What matters however is the context in which this debate has Britain positioned. Because the one thing that really drives me bonkers about the Mail is its anti-Americanism, which certainly wouldn’t look out of place in the Indy or Groan. Now, fine you may say, the Daily Mail is for isolationism, which would certainly fit its generally closed-minded and parochial approach. Theoretically this is a legitimate view to take. However in practice this is simple nonsense. Spreading anti-Americanism is absolute poison for the Eurosceptic cause. The only political forces in Britain that can utilise anti-American sentiment are those of staunch Eurofederalism. Isolationism, for better or for worse, is a non-option in British politics. If you really want to keep us out of the EU, the attractiveness of the alternative avenues of influence, the special relationship and NATO needs to be fostered. In the current circumstances there is little emotional energy focused on the EU, but far too much on America. So if the Daily Mail wants to keep us out of the European superstate perhaps its commentary and reporting ought to reflect this. Blaming more and more of our ills from terrorism to trashy television on America will simply drive the British into the arms of Eurofederalism. Can the Mail’s chiefs really be so misguided as not to see this?
Just some things I needed to get off my chest. I’m feeling better already.
Labels: Afghanistan, economy, EU, immigration, Israel, Lebanon, media, politics, terrorism, USA
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
ANTI-SEMITIC TORY NUT
Stephen Pollard has a good reminder why it took me so many years to join the Conservative Party. What else can one possibly say about it? I would add that he once also so fit to conjure up images of Nazis-likeness againt the European Central Bank. In fact it might have been more appropriate for him then to say that Israel’s actions are akin to introducing the euro without a referendum. Bizarre? You say!
Stephen Pollard has a good reminder why it took me so many years to join the Conservative Party. What else can one possibly say about it? I would add that he once also so fit to conjure up images of Nazis-likeness againt the European Central Bank. In fact it might have been more appropriate for him then to say that Israel’s actions are akin to introducing the euro without a referendum. Bizarre? You say!
Labels: Conservatives, EU, Israel, nation
Monday, March 27, 2006
SUPPORTING ISRAEL
Via Mick Hartley here’s an interesting piece on support for Israel. But I don’t really want to be too serious today, so it’s good to see that on a related note Henryk Broder also has something on the topic:
Via Mick Hartley here’s an interesting piece on support for Israel. But I don’t really want to be too serious today, so it’s good to see that on a related note Henryk Broder also has something on the topic:
A man arrives at Ben Gurion International Airport with 2 large bags.
The customs agent opens the first bag and finds it full with money in different currencies. The agent asks the passenger, "How did you get this money?"
The man says, "You will not believe it, but I traveled all over Europe, went into public restrooms, each time I saw a man pee, I grabbed his organ and said, "donate money to Israel or I will cut-off your balls."
The customs agent is stunned and mumbles: "Well...it's a very interesting story... what do you have in the other bag?"
The man says, "You would not believe how many people in Europe do not support Israel."
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
DEALING WITH IRAN: WHY WE NEED AN ISRAELI SECURITY GUARANTEE
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Iraq, Israel, nuclear weapons, Russia, USA
Friday, January 13, 2006
ARE WE READY FOR WAR WITH IRAN?
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, USA
Thursday, October 27, 2005
WHAT IRANIAN NUKES ARE FOR
In case you have never heard of Iran's key foreign policy ambition or you somehow think this is a legitimate regime with a right to sovereignty and the like, I guess today's news should finally bury those notions:
In case you have never heard of Iran's key foreign policy ambition or you somehow think this is a legitimate regime with a right to sovereignty and the like, I guess today's news should finally bury those notions:
There has been widespread condemnation of a call by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
At least it is finally clear now and in the open. Seeing that even Old Europe has been roused to condemnation, the Iranian regime's status as a hostile power should now be undisputable. How to deal with the situation is still an open question, but I might point out that Israel now has the full right to take preventive military measures against Iran. The pressure is growing for Western leaders to get their act together one way or another.
PS: For BBC critics I might point out that it is odd that the headline focuses on the condemnation of Ahmadinejad's comments rather than the comments themselves.
Labels: Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons
Monday, August 15, 2005
DAN PLESCH ON CURRENT IRAN SITUATION
As I have said, my mind remains to be made up in regards to dealing with Iran. Dan Plesch has a piece in the Groan that makes me rethink the possible military options:
As I have said, my mind remains to be made up in regards to dealing with Iran. Dan Plesch has a piece in the Groan that makes me rethink the possible military options:
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.
Now, the problem with that, as Plesch then explains, would be that it could tip Iran into chaos and probably lead to The ability to simply attack a few sites in Iran is not really in doubt anyway. Even Israel could probably pull this off:
While the problems facing air strikes are significant, Israel's military nevertheless believes it has the means to cause serious damage to the Iranian nuclear capability.
Israel's cruise missiles, launched from planes or submarines, give the country a capability that it did not have in 1981 when it attacked the Iraqi reactor with a conventional bombing sortie.
"It's a bit more challenging in Iran but the military option remains a real one," said David Ivri, a retired Israeli air force officer who commanded Operation Opera, the attack on Iraq's reactor.
"After all, the aim would not be to neutralise the Iranian nuclear programme. That would be impossible. But what we could do is delay it considerably.
"That was our aim in Iraq and that is what we achieved - a very long delay.''
The question is however, after the delay, then what? I once advocated preparing for UK-US invasion and occupation of Iran to forestall a possibly-nuclear Israeli strike. As Plesch notes (I don't think he himself means it):
America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack
Although Plesch himself turns this option down, everything else he writes seems to suggest that is the right course of action to take. He inadvertently makes a persuasive argument that all the problems that dealing with Iran could bring with it - more attacks on our forces in Iraq, destroying oil supply lines, initiating a vast terrorist campaign and the like - will become worse the longer we wait, so the sooner we strike the better. His proposed way out of this scenario however is the clincher that shows how little use his advice really would be:
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.
That sounds great. No really it does. Chances of that happening: nil. And the end of the day one should accept that the world is as it is. It would be hunky dory if all the big countries on the planet sat down at one table and agreed more or less overnight that abolish wmd. Fantastic stuff. And Plesch sure enough has good arguments on his side. But he ultimately makes the big taditional intellectual's error by failing to understand that changes in the real world do not occur by the right arguments and good ideas alone, but by managing conflicting interests. A very basic point one would have though, but one that Plesch slides right over. And ultimately this transforms his points a rather depressing "we're all going straight to hell and there's nothing we can do about it" doommongering.
Labels: defence, global affairs, Iran, Israel
Saturday, August 13, 2005
WOULD IRANIAN NUKES PERHAPS BE OK?
In the current Speccie Bruce Anderson has a great piece on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. His basic premise is, that Iran cannot be halted in its weapons programme, and we ought to consider accommodating it instead of trying to stop this. He argues that even a changed regime would be so weak internally that it would have to rely on the nukes to strenghten its position. Iran is a potential great power and will want to be recognised as such; nukes also serve this purpose. Anderson agrees, as I pointed out the other day, that military options to halt the programme are realistically non-existent. Therefore only a massive sanctions regime would be on the cards. However, as Anderson points out, such a policy would make Iran a poor, suspicious and internally weak country - that still possessed nuclear weapons. Not a good option as we can see with North Korea.
I have a very open mind about what to do about the Iranian nuclear programme, and I find Anderson's essay very persuasive on the whole. But there are a few points that I can't quite stop nagging about. As Anderson writes:
In the current Speccie Bruce Anderson has a great piece on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. His basic premise is, that Iran cannot be halted in its weapons programme, and we ought to consider accommodating it instead of trying to stop this. He argues that even a changed regime would be so weak internally that it would have to rely on the nukes to strenghten its position. Iran is a potential great power and will want to be recognised as such; nukes also serve this purpose. Anderson agrees, as I pointed out the other day, that military options to halt the programme are realistically non-existent. Therefore only a massive sanctions regime would be on the cards. However, as Anderson points out, such a policy would make Iran a poor, suspicious and internally weak country - that still possessed nuclear weapons. Not a good option as we can see with North Korea.
I have a very open mind about what to do about the Iranian nuclear programme, and I find Anderson's essay very persuasive on the whole. But there are a few points that I can't quite stop nagging about. As Anderson writes:
As an intellectual exercise, try to find a justification which one in 100,000 Iranians might accept for Israel having nuclear weapons, but not Iran.
Well I'm sure there are quite a few more Iranians who would accept that Iran's declared intentions towards Israel would justify an imbalance in military power. Strangely enough though, Bruce Anderson is quite happy with Israel's nukes and thinks the Israelis should definitely hold onto them (was in the Times some while ago, though I can't seem to find the link). So, presumeably Anderson thinks that this is an ok-situation. Well I'll just let that thought rest for a moment. But this does point to a wider problem in the region. How do you halt the regional slide into nuclearisation that would inevitably follow Iran's nukes? I can perhaps see a possibility that you could, generally speaking, defend Israel's Middle Eastern monopoly on nuclear weapons as Anderson himself does. But how, could you then go and say, it is also ok for Iran to have nukes, but not for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and who-knows-who-else? I still think in terms of proliferation security stopping Iran's nuclear weapons programme should be a goal in dealing with Teheran.
The other problem is of course that nukes would make Iran perfectly defended. Undoubtedly, an Iranian government will be nervous about attack when is sees the military forces of the Great Satan in all neighbouring countries bar Armenia (a very short piece of border admittedly, and even Armenia has troops in Iraq). While defence is a legitimate concern and Iran's fears of attack should somehow be met diplomatically, perfect defence also means that Iran has more freedom of manouvre abroad. Given its sponsorship of different terrorist and insurgent organisations, this would be a very negative development for security. Like the Eastern bloc during the Cold War, Iran could provide support for terrorism with impunity.
As I said I have an open mind and the approach that Bruce Anderson has sketched may turn out to be the best, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
The other problem is of course that nukes would make Iran perfectly defended. Undoubtedly, an Iranian government will be nervous about attack when is sees the military forces of the Great Satan in all neighbouring countries bar Armenia (a very short piece of border admittedly, and even Armenia has troops in Iraq). While defence is a legitimate concern and Iran's fears of attack should somehow be met diplomatically, perfect defence also means that Iran has more freedom of manouvre abroad. Given its sponsorship of different terrorist and insurgent organisations, this would be a very negative development for security. Like the Eastern bloc during the Cold War, Iran could provide support for terrorism with impunity.
As I said I have an open mind and the approach that Bruce Anderson has sketched may turn out to be the best, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
Labels: defence, global affairs, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
ROUNDING UP
As you may have noticed my blog has fallen into one of its irregualar posting phases, apologies for that, especially because it’s going to last a little longer too, as I currenlty don’t have quite the neecessary peace of mind to blog properly at the moment. But at least you can look forward to some changes in a few weeks time, including a full site redesign and a proper concept for issue I will cover, which I will then cover consistently to boot. And that is surely something to look forward to.
Anyway, as this week’s stop-gap measure here’s a round-up of some interesrting bits and pieces:
- David Aaronovitch argues we were not lied to over Iraq’s wmd. Well, he makes it sound very compelling and as a hawk I’m inclined to agree, but something still doesn’t quite fit. I supported regime change anyway and continue to do so, but I’m not so sure about this issue. Let’s be honest Mr Blair hasn’t always been a hundred per cent accurate with the facts on other issue either has he? If it did turn out Blair lied, I would not change my mind about Iraq, and it wouldn’t change my mind about him either.
- Turkey continues its effort to become part of the European mainstream political culture:
As you may have noticed my blog has fallen into one of its irregualar posting phases, apologies for that, especially because it’s going to last a little longer too, as I currenlty don’t have quite the neecessary peace of mind to blog properly at the moment. But at least you can look forward to some changes in a few weeks time, including a full site redesign and a proper concept for issue I will cover, which I will then cover consistently to boot. And that is surely something to look forward to.
Anyway, as this week’s stop-gap measure here’s a round-up of some interesrting bits and pieces:
- David Aaronovitch argues we were not lied to over Iraq’s wmd. Well, he makes it sound very compelling and as a hawk I’m inclined to agree, but something still doesn’t quite fit. I supported regime change anyway and continue to do so, but I’m not so sure about this issue. Let’s be honest Mr Blair hasn’t always been a hundred per cent accurate with the facts on other issue either has he? If it did turn out Blair lied, I would not change my mind about Iraq, and it wouldn’t change my mind about him either.
- Turkey continues its effort to become part of the European mainstream political culture:
Turkey renames 'divisive' animals
Even animal names can become contentious in politics Turkey has said it is changing the names of three animals found on its territory to remove references to Kurdistan or Armenia. . . . Some Turkish officials say the names are being used to argue that Armenians or Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were found. . . .
Well, it doesn’t really bother me too much, I support Turkish membership (just about) in an EU which is more a cooperative low-key stability structure rather than an integrated state for geopolitical reasons alone, so I guess this doesn’t really affect my views. But if I were on of those Europhile integrationist types who wants Turkey to join in his happy big new nation I think I would feel distinctly uncomfortable to see Turkey continuing its campaign to deny to Armenians and Kurds that they have any historical connection to territory that formed their ancient homelands for millenia before it came under Turkish control.
- John Rosenthal explains how the outrage about Rumsfeld’s “Old/New Europe” remarks was fabricated. Given the nigh on hysterical reactions by many parts of European opinion you think he was certainly hitting some raw nerve.
- If you have never heard of the Jewish refugees of the Middle East this gives you an idea.
- Libby Purves tells us to mind our language: what do we mean when we talk of “Middle England”? Purves says it’s simply daft or/and an insult and we should stop. Quite right.
- and finally . .. the porn joke of the week (yeah I know I’m getting desperate); even though it does attach itself to a serious story:
- John Rosenthal explains how the outrage about Rumsfeld’s “Old/New Europe” remarks was fabricated. Given the nigh on hysterical reactions by many parts of European opinion you think he was certainly hitting some raw nerve.
- If you have never heard of the Jewish refugees of the Middle East this gives you an idea.
- Libby Purves tells us to mind our language: what do we mean when we talk of “Middle England”? Purves says it’s simply daft or/and an insult and we should stop. Quite right.
- and finally . .. the porn joke of the week (yeah I know I’m getting desperate); even though it does attach itself to a serious story:
A £6m campaign to spread information about the EU Constitution could be illegal, a Conservative MEP has said.
EU officials claim the drive will only inform and not promote a "yes" vote in referendums on the Constitution.
But Den Dover, who led the fight against the plan approved by MEPs on Tuesday, said it was part of an agenda to win support for the treaty.
I wonder if in any way he is related to Ben Dover? Or is it just a chnage in the nome de guerre? I think we should be told.
Labels: Armenia, blogging and the blogger, EU, Iraq, Israel, nation, Turkey
Sunday, January 09, 2005
GOOD LUCK PALESTINE
Today the Palestinians are holding leadership elections. Hopefully this will give them a chance to put the negative legacy of the Arafat years behind them.
I want to focus on only one aspect that is very important for an Israeli-Palestinian peace: anti-Israel rejectionism. While it’s understandable under the conditions that many Palestinians harbour animus against Israel, there is no reason why these resentments should be supported and strengthened by politicians, both Palestinian and foreign. This is deeply destructive and makes the route to peace unnecessarily harder than it would be already.
Above all -and this counts mainly for many Western observers- it rests on a non-sense, namely that all would be well in the region if it weren’t for Israel. In the current edition of Foreign Policy this notion is debunked by Josef Joffe:
Today the Palestinians are holding leadership elections. Hopefully this will give them a chance to put the negative legacy of the Arafat years behind them.
I want to focus on only one aspect that is very important for an Israeli-Palestinian peace: anti-Israel rejectionism. While it’s understandable under the conditions that many Palestinians harbour animus against Israel, there is no reason why these resentments should be supported and strengthened by politicians, both Palestinian and foreign. This is deeply destructive and makes the route to peace unnecessarily harder than it would be already.
Above all -and this counts mainly for many Western observers- it rests on a non-sense, namely that all would be well in the region if it weren’t for Israel. In the current edition of Foreign Policy this notion is debunked by Josef Joffe:
It won’t do to lay the democracy and development deficits of the Arab world on the doorstep of the Jewish state. Israel is a pretext, not a cause, and therefore its dispatch will not heal the self-inflicted wounds of the Arab-Islamic world. Nor will the mild version of “statocide,” a binational state, do the trick—not in view of the “civilization of clashes” (to borrow a term from British historian Niall Ferguson) that is the hallmark of Arab political culture. The mortal struggle between Israelis and Palestinians would simply shift from the outside to the inside.
Accepting this is one first step the Palestinians will have to take in building a new politics, a politics that will make co-existence with Israel easier or in fact possible at all.
Of course this is a message that all outsiders must also keep at the forefront of thinking about the problems, in order to have realistic expectations about what can be achieved in a wider geopolitical context by an Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Sadly probably not all too much, as Amir Taheri noted quite recently.)
My hope is however that this will at least give the Palestinians a step forward, they certainly need some peace and have suffered enough in the past years and that will be good in itself.
PS: If your German’s up to scratch there’s an article in the Zeit, the German weekly Joffe edits, on the upcoming Palestinian elections that makes for fairly upbeat reading. I hope the author’s right that this could bring about a turning about for the Palestinians.
Of course this is a message that all outsiders must also keep at the forefront of thinking about the problems, in order to have realistic expectations about what can be achieved in a wider geopolitical context by an Israeli-Palestinian peace. (Sadly probably not all too much, as Amir Taheri noted quite recently.)
My hope is however that this will at least give the Palestinians a step forward, they certainly need some peace and have suffered enough in the past years and that will be good in itself.
PS: If your German’s up to scratch there’s an article in the Zeit, the German weekly Joffe edits, on the upcoming Palestinian elections that makes for fairly upbeat reading. I hope the author’s right that this could bring about a turning about for the Palestinians.
PPS: Just reread above post. Apologies for the muddledness of it, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say myself anymore.
Labels: Islam, Israel, terrorism
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY WITH SYRIA
This report in the Telegraph on Syrian volunteers joining the Iraqi insurgency makes for disheartening reading.
But what struck me, when I reread it this morning, was that to some extent more able siplomacy could have cut back very much on the size of the problem. Here is a representative voice:
This report in the Telegraph on Syrian volunteers joining the Iraqi insurgency makes for disheartening reading.
But what struck me, when I reread it this morning, was that to some extent more able siplomacy could have cut back very much on the size of the problem. Here is a representative voice:
Like many Syrians, he is convinced that his country will be invaded next and that it is only by keeping the US bogged down in Iraq that Syria will be spared.
"All we know is that Syria is the next station in the American plan. The Americans are all Jews and unbelievers," said Abdullah.
Now, leave aside his rather surprising finding that the 97% of Americans who are not Jewish are apparently atheists, he is making a clear point about the Syrian regime’s sense of threat. This should have been avoidable to some extent, by making it clear that there was going to be no push into Damascus after the one into Baghdad. Of course that wouldn’t have eradicated this kind of activity of supporting the insurgency and passive support of the Assad regime, but it would have been substantially less. This would be something to look at: to get Syria to do a Gaddafi. It would help us with our troubles in Iraq, would make an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal easier and would be beneficial to Syria by avoiding potentially damaging confrontations with the West.
Labels: Iraq, Israel, Lybia, Syria, terrorism
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
STATE OF THE WORLD & ISRAEL-PALESTINE TODAY: LAUGH OR CRY?
(Via Meryl Yourish) I really didn't know if I should laugh or cry at this:
(Via Meryl Yourish) I really didn't know if I should laugh or cry at this:
After European representatives launched a campaign against Israel's separation fence, and voted against Israel at the UN general assembly, the EU is planning a separation fence of its own. The EU plans to build a fence to separate its new members - Poland and Hungary - from its new neighbors - Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - to prevent the free movement of migrants seeking to enter the EU.
Well, one fence is there to stop the taking of European jobs; the other is there to stop the taking of Jewish life. Looks a bit like those odd priorities surfacing yet again.
To be clear, the EU has every right to build that fence. Whether or not it's sensible policy is another matter. In effect it looks a lot less like Israel's barrier, but the one the US has on its border to Mexico. That was built originally for the same purpose of suppressing illegal migration. But hang in there a moment; it's not just that any more:
To be clear, the EU has every right to build that fence. Whether or not it's sensible policy is another matter. In effect it looks a lot less like Israel's barrier, but the one the US has on its border to Mexico. That was built originally for the same purpose of suppressing illegal migration. But hang in there a moment; it's not just that any more:
President Bush has launched a drive to halt illegal immigration across America's porous southern border, amid growing fears that terrorists may be using Mexico as a base camp before heading to Arizona, Texas and California.
A string of alarming incidents has convinced Bush administration officials that lax immigration rules, designed to cope with the huge numbers of illegal entrants from Mexico, have become a significant loophole in the war on terror.
Over the past month, border agents from Arizona and Texas have anonymously reported recent encounters with dozens of Arab men, who have made their way across the 2,000-mile Mexican border
It is feasible that something similar might occur, with terrorists trying to use the weaker policed states to the east of the EU as a bridge into Western Europe. Then Europe's new wall would begin serving a security interest.
Well, I think you can guess what's coming next now can't you? Yep, here's Larry Derfner explaining his reluctant acceptance of Israel's barrier:
Well, I think you can guess what's coming next now can't you? Yep, here's Larry Derfner explaining his reluctant acceptance of Israel's barrier:
Maybe it will turn out that Israel's wall is there not only because we can't solve our security problem with the Palestinians but also because we are a middle-class society rubbing up against a poor one. That's a much more deeply rooted problem than even the intifada or the occupation.
Perhaps, and tingling little shudder runs down my spine as I write this, perhaps, Gary Younge was right all along. Actually he isn't. The rich don't create the chaos, but I often feel we don't really do anything against it either. But that would be an honest and balanced argument. Walls all over the place! It all boggles the mind.
But how are these walls protected and patrolled? Via some lengthy link-jumping I just bumped into this photo-album of an Israeli soldier in which he records some scenes at a checkpoint. While some will certainly say this puts a more positive light on the Israeli army's checkpoints and their behaviour there than I would normally have assumed, I think this really underlines the whole insanity of the situation. The whole thing is deeply unpleasant for both sides, but, as is so often the case, normal people try to create themselves some normalcy wherever they are, just to stay sane. And then suddenly, mostly out of the blue, the faux normalcy is ripped to bits by explosions and gunfire.
But leaving political anthropology aside, this photo really caught my attention. Have a look at the byline:
The arab kids like to hang out with Dana
Kids? Yes, but they're all male and around 11-12 years old. I'm not surprised they like hanging out with Dana, they are after all at an age at which they kind of start getting curious about certain things in life and if I were them I think Dana wouldn't be a bad place to start at all . . . (That's enough pseudo-sexual innuendo for one day. -ed.)
Labels: global affairs, Israel
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
IRAN'S DEMANDS - THEY'RE JOKING, RIGTH?
The thing with the mad mullahs is, you never really know if they're serious or not. The other thing is, you never really know if you should laugh or cry. (A decision rather easy with this, undoubtedly one of my favourite news stories of all time.) But these latest ramblings are a bit much:
The thing with the mad mullahs is, you never really know if they're serious or not. The other thing is, you never really know if you should laugh or cry. (A decision rather easy with this, undoubtedly one of my favourite news stories of all time.) But these latest ramblings are a bit much:
I'm rubbing my eyes. But while we're at it I think a security guarantee against nuclear attack would be a cool idea - for Israel. Just a quick reminder , it's Iran that's threatening to wipe Israel off the map with nukes. That's a threat that Israel has not reciprocated. In fact Israel would have all the right in the world to strike Iran first, and may well do so too.Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
Ah, the cool, so very British understatement: "gone down very badly". Really? And there was me thinking what a great idea this really is, a sound basis for constructive diplomacy.Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.
No surprise I'm afraid, that Iranian position. They're certainly becoming desperate. It's a very logical manoeuvre to change the subject and throw a spanner in the works if you realise you're about to lose in diplomacy. As for that more confrontational strategy, it's well past the time to start thinking about it. But just let me be clear that thinking and acting are not the same. I don't think acting heavily against Iran would currently be a good idea. Perhaps thatThe EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.
Labels: Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons
Sunday, August 10, 2003
START OF ANOTHER LEBANON WAR? First reports have been coming in that Ariel Sharon is to meet with high-ranking security officials. This comes after the Hizb’allah fired shells at an Israeli village, killing one civilian, from its positions in southern Lebanon and Israeli armed forces retaliated by attacking terrorist positions there. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that this is happening. After then-Premier Barak ordered the Israeli army out of the security puffer zone as a good-will gesture to help the peace process along in early 2000, the Hizb’allah has repaid this with a large-scale build up of its forces along the border to Israel. At one point it was reported that up to 10000 rocket launchers were in place to bombard the Galilee. Despite getting peacefully involved in Lebanese domestic politics and receiving support from the EU for its hospitals and schools, the Hizb’allah remains opposed to the existence of a Jewish presence in the Middle East. Hence it remains committed towards the goal of destroying the state of Israel. Additionally it has been voicing off how it will destroy all of Western civilization and claimed to have fighters in Iraq who are attacking coalition troops there. It has also been fomenting terror, organised crime and instability on a global scale, from places as far apart as Colombia and Sierra Leone. If the Israeli government now decides to move against them, it would surely be a good thing. There should be no calls on Israel to refrain from retaliation -as there normally is after Palestinian terrorist attacks- because there can be no compromise between the workings of the Hizb’allah and peace in the Middle East. It would surely be more desirable if the Lebanese and Syrian governments dismantled this terrorist network. However they have so far shown neither the will nor the means to do so. Therefore it is the next best option that Israel does this instead. That will probably mean more violence and blood shed in the short-run but it will improve the longer-term prospects for peace if groups that are implacably opposed to peace are removed from the equation. I’ll post some more on this later as soon as I’ve got some more background and sources on the events.
