The Coming Middle East War - Updated

>'Are there enough voices of sanity in the Labour party and military to stop him?'

In the military, intelligence, and Foreign Office establishments, a majority are probably agin it - as they were agin Iraq - but they don't have the final say.

As far as Nu Lab is concerned, their lemming-like mentalities seem fixated on only one reality - their next pay cheque.

Again, I say that a cross-party nation-wide coalition - just like the one set up after the Norway Debate of May 1940 - is the only way of saving this country.

It will not happen with British involvement. Simple as that. Politically it won't fly. Iraq is a complete mess, most people in the country want to pull out.
There's no way parliament would back it, even with supine labour back-benchers, demonstrations on the street would make the last ones look like picnic, the armed forces do not have the resources, generals would resign and so on. Put simply, Blair does not have the political strength he had in Jan 2003 anymore. Even if he is insane enough to go along with it, he'll be booted out by his own party who don't want Iraq mark 2.
This thing about Iran is just a neo-con fantasy, they can try and define reality all they like but the reality remains they are getting their arses kicked. They are being bled to death in Iraq, have lost control of congress and if they want to keep compounding the problem further let them. The further they push the more dead and buried the morons are in the next American election.
Anyone else notice that Brown stood up and slagged off Saddam's execution then two days later Downing Street comes out and says the same thing? Blair meanwhile hasn't said a word and now looks pretty stupid when even the likes of Bush have been condemning the shabby way Saddam was killed.

I think we all know what happens to messias the real world intervenes in their fantasies and nails them up.

I agree completely, there has been a barrage of stories smearing the Iraqi government recently.

First, the raid on the police station in Basra - everyone knows the Iraqi police are torturing people; everyone also knows the neocons are generally in favour of torturing people. Why raid them now?

Second, the bizarre incident where a bunch of Iranian intelligence officers were arrested for talking to SCIRI. Anyone with half an eye on Iraq knows that SCIRI is an Iranian-founded, Iranian-backed and Iranian-controlled movement. There is nothing secret about this. Yet it was presented as some kind of horrifying revelation - 'Iranian interference in Iraq!'

And now, one day after Maliki states he will sever relations with countries that criticise the execution, Blair and Brown come out screeching blue murder about it. (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if at some point it turns out that the US troops handed Saddam over to a bunch of Sadrist fanatics against Maliki's will, with the aim of creating an embarrassment to Maliki and Iran.)

Finally, Saudi have recently stated their displeasure with continuing support for the Iraqi government, which they view as being responsible for the massacres of Sunnis (they may be partly correct). There was also a leak suggesting they would rather have war with Iran than a continuation of these massacres.

It appears the neo-cons welcomed this revelation from the Saudis with open arms. After all, they have been agitating for war on Iran for years. Quite why, other than a grudge held since the Islamic Revolution, isn't 100% clear. My guess is that through their hard line right wing Israeli friends, they conceptualise Iran as a giant collective Palestinian suicide bomber, the head of the evil Islamic civilisation in the clash of civilisations. The concept that Iran would not fire nuclear bombs wildly at any and all infidels given the chance is an idea they tend to regard as laughable and naive. It's positively a righteous obligation for them to attack Iran; anything else is viewed as cowardice in the face of evil.

In the fact of such Islamo/Iranophobia, the fact that a regional war between Saudi and Iran would be disastrous for the world in every way barely hits their radar.

It is about the only way in which hardline Islamic clash of civilisation thinkers might get to run a state: will the people of Saudi stand for their country attacking Iran? Such a war, coupled with instability within Saudi Arabia, would also almost certainly cause an oil crisis - either due to fear on the markets or actual destruction of oil facilities - that would make 1973 look like a picnic.

But it appears that is the direction the neo-cons have chosen, and Blair has chosen again to back them to the hilt. He is a true believer in the clash of civilisations, no doubt about it.

On the Murdoch/Sunday Times story about the Israelis nuking the Iranians, its not the first time this paper's run this story:

September 3, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340486,00.html

April 09, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125207_1,00.html

January 27, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2011570,00.html

December 11, 2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

and as long ago as March 14, 2005

Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Conflict/Israel-plans-to-hit-Iran-nuke-plant-report/2005/03/13/1110649061319.html"

Hat tip to Laura Rozen on:

http://www.warandpiece.com/

and David Kurtz on:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011821.php

Dizzy has an interesting thought upon the poodle's continued leadership.
Expect to see a sudden national emergency that necessitates the poodle securing his position as PM under quickly introduced legislation.
Leaving Gordimmo to gnash his teeth as leader of NuLabor.

>In the fact of such Islamo/Iranophobia, the fact that a regional war between Saudi and Iran would be disastrous for the world in every way barely hits their radar.

Again the US/UK could be the fall guys for a proxy war. Israel wants this war against Iran, so do the Saudis and other Gulf State leaders - but none of them will fight for it. To get standing armies in their own country of any size or consequences would lead to immediate military coups.

Hence the need for us.

"The Iraq invasion wasn't about WMD, it wasn't about oil, it was about who controls the region and it's resources."

Well, the second half of this sentence basically says it IS about oil as major factor within a complex.

Just today, news of Iraqi oil grab by Exxon, Shell, BP ...

See more here.

They'll try this, that's for sure. America can't accept this sort of flaunting to their plans in such a public and obvious way as iran is currently doing. The hilarious thing is that is currently so easy to destroy the facade of 'morals' and lies around the current administration that all iran has to do is point out the obvious and America, and rightly so, has well deserved egg all over their faces.

Tony doesn't have anywhere near the support he had before dumping us in iraq. Iraq did have one useful purpose however; people can now recognise the spin and the lies. This is a good thing because you can bet your bollocks to a barn dance that they are going to be returning in the run up to this new mess. Hell, they've already begun. Blair simply doesn't the the support of either the elecorate or his party to attempt to commit to something like this. Gordon has staggeringly only just started to tighten the noose around tony's neck and even the communist has begun to toss his hat into the ring.

America will go forward with this plan, new congress or not. Blair might try and tow the line but the streets will be so full of people's voices - thankfully noone will be listening.

It does seem as though, sort of, as a general consensus-thingy that Blair is actually stuffed all round. Ahhhh bless!

Blair to take part in an US/Israeli attack on Iran? I wouldn't have thought so. Don't forget that, unlike the pre Iraq war situation in 2003, Blair is now incredibly weak. Bear in mind that he is a control freak but the two events dominating his thoughts ie the future of Iraq and the result of the Yates of the Yard investigation are spinning beyond his control and influence.

So why hasn't he spoken up about Saddam's execution? Afterall we have had the blessed Margaret, John Prescott and now Gordon Brown making the sort of safe comments one could have scripted. Surely he should have taken the lead by saying something similar early on. Even "Downing Street" have commented but from the master - nothing.

Two thoughts cross my mind: he is perhaps waiting for his mentor, Bush, to make his keynote speech on Iraq in the next few days before committing himself, or maybe Iraq has so got to him that he couldn't bring himself to comment. Certainly Tony's face and body language suggest that he knows he is mortally wounded, nobody is likely to believe him again, are they? Rory Bremner's sketch of Blair trapped in his bunker underneath No 10 with just a secretary for company may not be so far from the truth!

If there is a bombing campaign of Iran by US planes, UK will be involved by default. US planes flying to the Middle East (eg stealth bombers) use airbases on UK soil, especially RAF Fairford.

any such bombing campaign is likely to result in massive public demonstrations that will put greenham common to shame. such an american action would probaly completely destroy whats left of the "special relationship" as the british political classes dive for cover. now the russians are gone we dont *need* americans.

the next govt should announce a completely independent nuclear deterrent, or one developed in full cooperation with our french allies. europe needs to stand on its own two feet and the best way to do this is through a powerful anglo french axis. germany may have money but they dont have guns and are incapable of force projection, but franco british military power combined with european economic strength can be the crux of a superpower. we'll also have a damn sight more influence than we do with america.

What is occuring now in the Middle East was planned centuries ago.

First of all we sent Hempher in to destabilize Islam, and he found and manipulated an angry, young Muslim called Wahabbi.

Then we stabbed the Palestinians in the back by asking them to rebel against the Ottomans with promises of independence, and gave them the Sykes-Picot Agreement and eventually a nuclear Israel instead, with an all powerful Israeli lobby in the USA.

How anyone can not call this "a clash of civilizations" is beyond me.

The USA is not really independent.

Its most powerful politicians are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which was formed with the Royal Institute of International Affairs to serve as a conduit for covert British rule.

Its central bank, The Federal Reserve, is a privately-owned bank, and its major Class A shareholders are the top British and European banking families.

The Middle East was designed by Great Britain too, via Sykes-Picot.

Thus, we now have a British-controlled USA v a British-designed Middle East, with Israel as the fart in the spacesuit.

The aim is to create a terrible WW3 to result in an all powerful world government.

WW1 led to The League of Nations. That failed because the USA voted out of it, having only fought in WW1 for just over a year and not suffering too many casualties.

So Hitler was created by Wall Street and The City of London. So was Stalin. These two opposames fight in WW2. FDR allows Pearl Harbour to happen resulting in the USA joining in WW2 and fighting for 3 1/2 years with many American fatalities and injuries.

After WW2 with the world emotionally and physically exhausted the UN is accepted, even by the USA this time.

Since then the UN has been growing and taking control but not fast enough.

Thus a terrible WW3 is required.

9/11 was the emergency call to kick it off. We steam into Afghanistan and Iraq blaming ObL and Saddam, obviously for energy. Photos of the abuse of innocent Iraqis at Abu Ghraib are released". Saddam is turned into a martyr with tales of his dignity, tending plants, reading and citing the Quran, and then hung during a key Muslim religious festival. Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed are published. Israel lays waste to Lebanon without any condemnation from either the USA or the UK leadership, and actually receives DU bombs from the USA via the UK. All this incites Islam, which in turns incites Zionism, and the spiral of violence, vengeance and retribution continues...

It all stinks of a manipulated, contrived WW3 between Islam and Zionism, as requested by 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike.

It is certainly true that Britain cannot offer conventional military weight to an American devised and lead idea of a solution to Iran. It seems to me that the only remaining thing that we have as a nation in this arena is the duty poodle barking his masters lines quoting from the senior assistant to the vice-pres
"a key person to watch is British Prime Minister Tony Blair. We have been encouraging him to speak forcefully about Iran. We were delighted to see that he did this during his recent trip to the Middle East. We hope this shows Tehran that it is not just Washington who opposes them."
I am reminded of a toothless dog, it can woof at it's masters command but the best it can do when facing a tough stick is amusingly slobber on it. Woof woof Tony.
Ok joking aside, I want to see this fool impeached, I think it's still possible after he's left office (although I like others are dubious as to this actually happening, I believe they have already put in place the necessary legal framework to keep him there, if someone could clarify that I'd appreciate it I don't have the time to do the research).

Forgive us if this has been mentioned before (we have been on hols) but this is worth (another) mention.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/

We are sure the significance of this being hosted on the Downing St website will not be lost on contributors here.

If an Iran attack becomes imminent then the protest needs to look at the what the fuel protesters did, if you blockade the refineries it materially affects the whole country. Plus it makes the point this is about control of resources. Might remind the great and the good where they left their spines.

The UK military may well oppose going into Iran. but...

If Israel is used as our surrogate aggressor, and it wouldn’t be the first time that we have used Israel as the surrogate aggressor, Suez is a prime example, the Iranian and probably Syrian response on the ground would ensure that we would have to get involved.

All that's needed for Britain to join in the attack is one cruise missile launched from one Royal Navy vessel. I'm sure Tony can still pull that off - and will - and this is the main reason he's hanging on to office!

Number10 server slow to confirm just now on the BlairWarCriminal Petition .Sign HERE

Could have sworn that that there were 600odd signatures earlyish this morning, but I'm just now at number 300 and a bit .

Maybe imagined it, but anyone else can check that out..

Apropo yesterday's Sunday Times article about Israel preparing a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, there's a distinct whiff of concerted pump-priming going on over the possibility of 'unilateral' action by Israel and it has the stamp of US, UK and Israeli official sanction written all over it. It was an education to hear Liam Fox tip-toeing around the subject on Radio 4 last night too

Let's not forget that, unlike their strike on Osirak in 1981, the Israelis cannot get their ordnance to targets in Iran without extensive flight time through US controlled air space in a US occupied war zone that would take them to within a few hundred kilometers of at least one giant US air base. They would also have to over-fly some combination of Jordan/Syria/Saudi Arabia - a long and problematic return flight requiring in-flight refueling. So anyone suggesting that it might be done without US sanction/close involvement is either a fool or a government stooge.

It may be convenient to have us believe that the Israelis could do it in the face of US opposition, but the reality - as usual - is very different.

With a 2nd US carrier group preparing to deploy to the Gulf , my guess is a false-flag attack on a US warship as the trigger for concerted joint US/Israeli action is more likely.

Sabretache Blog

PS - It may be "about a lot more than oil", but if the principal Middle-Eastern Exports were citrus fuit and vegetables with no oil there at all, does anyone seriously believe that we would be anywhere near the place?

One problem: Ahmedinijad is such an easy propaganda target that Blair will probably get away with the same old 'New Hitler' crap that was used re. Saddam. I'm not convinced that the Cabinet will try and stop him, either from getting HMG to join in, or from offering verbal or other 'support' to the US (they've not exactly got a track record in doing so). As for a Saudi/Iran war, why do I always have the impression that - for all their massive arms deals - the Saudis wouldn't be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag?

General Wesley Clark reckons that an attack on Iran is almost a done deal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html

edit: As to the petition on No. 10's site, when I looked earlier this morning, there were 360. Just now there are 324. I imagine that Tony has added an auto delete script (after forwarding subversives' names to the relevant authorities).

What does the UK have left to attack Iran WITH exactly?

Nukes.

Further to my 10:51 comment, there's a good summary of the up-to-date position on the whole 'Got to stop Iran getting nukes' issue Here

Sabretache Blog

Nukes.

It wouldn't be nukes. It would be a purely symbolic act of solidarity with Bush and two fingers to everyone else. One cruise missile off one British submarine.

The British, like the Americans, have pretty much exhausted their armies - their air forces are both mainly tied up with Iraq and Afghanistan - but our navy (what's left of it)...

It wouldn't be nukes. Just one conventional cruise missile launched off one RN submarine - hardy noticed amid the flock of American and Israeli missiles and bombers honing in - but a symbolic signal of solidarity with George and two fingers to the rest of us. He wants to irrevocably lock us into it before he leaves. That's why he's hanging on.

I dunno, but one thing is for sure. and that is Blair and Bush are monsters...Simple really... took me ages to figure that out too.

Even my captcha validation says manpig!!!

Thanks Frog,
I was looking for something like that.
Signed

legion, t'was jk5 c23h on sunday night, but I did the twiddly html today.

I'm 'pretty' sure it was at 609 earlyish this morning, when I posted and I confirmed at number 320 a coupla hours later...

On OIL, Colin Powell said its their oil, Tiny Blair proposed a trustfund for it, now we have more details on the Carve-up, robbery, whatever.

From a number of accounts I've seen over the past nearly four years, Iraqi engineers and particularly the (unionised !) maintenance men are expert fixer-uppers,such as our own car-mechanics were once upon a time. Travel in North Africa, the ex-commy countries,the 'underdeveloped' world you meet real mechanos !

This 'deal' stinks. If Gordon Brown goes along with it, (get someone to ask him the Question), hammer the fucker. Why not ask Honest Dave Cameron on his website ? According to Guido, or was it Iain Dale, he ain't yet answered their probing questions on His Financing .

Glad someone else heard Liam Fox on R4 last night, pretty clear there that the Conservative Party takes its translations of speeches in farsi direct from Likud Central Casting.

A sad state of affairs indeed when top BBC journos don't ask " and whose translation are you basing that on, Mr Fox ?"

Weell, nothing new !

But it does amuse me when some Righties accuse the Beeb of Leftwing bias .

Upon which, ole frog must go outside to rinse his paintbrushes, otherwise they'll turn to ****ing concrete, resembling that which is between the ears of our Dear Leader.

Sod these metaphors, he has sludge between the ears, along with most of our Goddam Parliamentarians.

353 just now !

FUN for all, twould be interesting to see, and easy to check...

quarsan said "The Iraq invasion wasn't about WMD, it wasn't about oil, it was about who controls the region and it's resources." - i.e. oil.

When I read "the Saudi's want Wahabiism to be the dominant form of Islam and to protect their powerbase" I cringed at the amateurness, and blushed at the hypersimplicity on display here. Come on quarsan, hold you hand up. You really don’t know what your talking about here, do you? Repeating some nonsense that a Murdock Hacks scrawls in their weekly ignorance column is fine for a unidigital percentage glimpse of the religio-politics at play in Saudi and the surrounding territories. Stick with Brit politics - at least you know about that.

Well, other than perhaps your suggestion that the British army will mutiny if ordered to attack Iran. What an utterly absurd suggestion.

There is more to the region than just oil. I apologise for your cringing as a broad analysis, those are the basic threads. You may hold the opinion that we're just recycling murdoch, but ringverse and I are very well travelled in the Middle East and have been studying the region for many over a decade.

The UK military will strongly object to any planned assault on Iran and have no desire whatsoever to get involved. Mutiny? Well look at General Jackson's response when asked to fire on the Russian approaching Pristina airport in the Bosnia conflict.

LiamFoxWatch -- from today's Indy.

"--
"I am a hawk on Iran," said Mr Fox. "We should rule absolutely nothing out when it comes to Iran.

"They are notoriously good poker players and it is a very high stakes game they are playing."

His remarks follow reports in the US that Israel is ready to use nuclear "bunker buster" bombs to knock out the Iranian nuclear plants.
--"

A game ?

Let us hope that the Chief of the Defence Staff looks blair straight in the eye, and gives him the word. Just one .

"Bollocks".

This may be followed by a pungent discourse in military language, along the lines of "haven't you done enough damage already ?"

Then, if necessary, out on the street to announce resignation to the paperazzi and TV .

PS to BW .

Maybe you could have a permanent link at top of the homepage, like the ref to Craig Murray, giving the different translations and analyses of the Ahmadinejihad speeches. I know Davide has done some work on it.

You are quite right : the Saudis won't fight, or if they do their military contribution is likely to be nugatory. If they have a role at all it is to support the impression that there is a large "coalition" against Iran and to provide financial and logistical assistance.

Similarly, the UK won't fight in any meaningful way : its role will be similar to that of the Saudis (see above), minus the financial support.

I feel there is little doubt that Israel could use tactical nuclear weapons. After all, who or what is going to stop them : certainly not "massive demonstrations" on the streets of London or anywhere else. And, more importantly, who is going to sanction Israel after the event? The UK? The EU? THe USA? Russia? The answer, of course, is nobody. So they will get away with it (with their gasoline needs taken care of by the USA), while the rest of us can get to grips with gasoline rationing and worse.

Hi,

I'm the one who posted the petition, and it has been a cause of anguish, surprise and pleasure. Initially it had very little interest, the website was under a lot of pressure and they were unable to update the site, and it was the holiday period which meant it appeared there was very little interest in my petition – which now only stands at 585.

Anguish because it has so few signed up, it is miniscule by comparison with the largest petitions. Surprise because it has continued to grow over the period, and pleased because of the diversity of people who have signed it.

While it remains small I would urge all who haven't signed it to do so; to pass on the link to everyone they know; and to add a link to their own site and any community sites they view or subscribe to - even those less political than this one, we can talk to each other all week, and still be doing the same next week. Just because we know what Blair is all about does not mean the millions of people out there who don't live a web life that involves inhabiting our small community don't despise Blair for who he is, what he has done, and what he is doing. It does not mean they will not sign the petition – they hate him just as much as us, but for different reasons. As long as it remains 'we ting' it will have served no purpose - if it does, it will have been a failure and have served their purpose.

I found your post by a Google search – I hope future searches will list pages of links to the petition. If they do, there is a possibility the petition will become reality, unlike the Channel4 film “The Trial Of Tony Blair” which despite being very good, is a fantasy. We - and here I mean the millions who disagree with Blair - his wars, Privatisation, and the whole of his agenda – can make it reality.

Cheers
Tony

BlairWarCriminal petition.

Hi Tony . I checked the
link, no joy, checked my ISP, phone line (gale here), all working perfectly. Entered the number ten site itself, no problem, just the link specifically to your petition.

Now at 585, one this morning, position roughly 75.

Seems they are regretting allowing it to take root at all , therefore sabotaging, as DickCheney said.

So much for integrity, petitions just another selective spinning weapon.

LiamFox Watching Iran.

Well, people, if you stop cowering underneath the sheets and read http://www.cfoi.co.uk/about.html you might realise why.

QUOTE:
"Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is one of the largest political groups in the UK. Over two thirds of the Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) are members and CFI has activists all over the UK."
ENDQUOTE

Look at dear Mr. Fox's wikipedia entry. Shaking hands with a warcriminal, trying no doubt, to emulate his hero Rumsfeld. Hopefully Olmert will get the same fate as the person who shook hands with Rumsfeld!, but at least after something called a fair trail. Older readers might be able to remember what one of them was.

Here's more from Foxy's wikipedia. Notice the use of the world STRONG as opposed to just a member. Hummmm...

QUOTE:
"He is a strong supporter of Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel."
ENDQUOTE.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/liam_fox/woodspring says he is "VERY STRONGLY FOR the Iraq war.

What a nice man Mr.Fox is. Thing is, this isn't common to Foxy baby. The "Friends of murd.., oops, "Friends of Israel" is the dominant political force IN ALL OF THE 3 MAJOR PARTIES. But we dont wanna know that. Do ya?