Home

Britain's Involvement In The Coming War With Iran

Posted February 27th, 2007 by Davide Simonetti
in

Tony Blair might be saying that there are no plans for an attack on Iran but we all know by now how much of a pinch of salt we need when listening to him. That there is an American build-up of fire power in the Persian Gulf is beyond dispute now and it's being widely reported. Britain, however tepid its support for war is, seems to be playing a similar game to America. Outwardly it is demanding tough sanctions on Iran and Blair never misses an opportunity to ratchet up the hate. But then we get stories of British fears about an attack on Iran and the claims that there are no plans to attack and how important diplomacy is.

"Nobody is preparing for military action and nobody wants military action," he told the Today programme.

"I think what is important is to pursue the political and the diplomatic channel. I think it is the only sensible way that we are going to get a solution to the Iranian issue.

"I personally think that you will never have a situation where you can say that there are no set of circumstances in which you could ever conceive of anything different to that.

"I can't think that it would be right to use military action against Iran." [My Links]

Compare this with US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates' recent statement:

“For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. We are not planning a war with Iran.” [My Links]

So, seeing as our government cannot be believed, it's worth looking at what Britain is actually doing in the Persian Gulf and on its military bases. A few clarifications first. British involvement can take a variety of forms, from purely 'moral' support to full participation in a bombardment and/or invasion. The latter seems unlikely due to the poor shape of Britain's overstretched military. It should also be noted that just because Britain has military assets in the Persian Gulf doesn't necessarily mean it will use them. However it's a pretty good indicator. And allowing America to use British bases to attack Iran counts as participation in that attack. That said, it is interesting to note that there is increased activity on American bases in Britain. Air refueling tankers have been seen heading through these bases. And in the Persian Gulf, Britain has doubled its naval presence.

Britain’s senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower.

[...]

The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf include HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

If we hear of British aircraft carriers and submarines in the Persian Gulf that will be yet another strong indicator of British involvement in an impending conflict. A while ago I suggested (somewhere) that a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq might be another indicator of an attack on Iran... hmmm! It really is about time the Government clarified its position on what it will do in the event of war breaking out. So it's a pity that our opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary on these issues has been postponed.

Does the poodle need to seek

On February 27th, 2007 barnacle_bill (not verified) says:

Does the poodle need to seek Parliament's permission for any "active" involvement in Iran?
Or are there no checks upon him?

I don't think Blair is

On February 27th, 2007 Davide Simonetti says:

I don't think Blair is obliged to seek Parliament's permission to go to war, although he did seek it before the Iraq war. I've just been checking up for the latest on the Royal Prerogative on Wikipedia and found this:

Before British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he would not formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Given that Blair had an overwhelming Labour majority in the British House of Commons and had the support of the opposition Conservative Party, there was little likelihood that parliament would vote down the motion recommending participation in the war. It remains to be seen whether a future government with a small majority or in a minority in the House of Commons will seek parliamentary approval before the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Clare Short has proposed a Private Member's Bill which would remove the declaration of war from the royal prerogative.

So according to this source there is pressure to force a Prime Minister to have Parliamentary approval before going to war but it isn't obligatory at the moment, which is what I thought but I'm glad I checked. Hopefully the pressure to totally remove the Royal Prerogative will increase but with Tory support for more war it won't make much difference.

Here's to hoping someone

On February 27th, 2007 Vasey (not verified) says:

Here's to hoping someone stops him if he tries it then.  Screw tradition, the Queen can't let him take us into a a pointless, unwinnable war.

Please can you stop spamming

On February 27th, 2007 Davide Simonetti says:

Please can you stop spamming us with 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are off topic and we have a policy about such comments.

Coment Removed: Tedious

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

Coment Removed: Tedious conspiracy stuff

Comment Removed: Post this

On February 28th, 2007 Tonys Akiller says:

Comment Removed: Post this conspiracy stuff on your own blogs.

I am disgusted at

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

I am disgusted at Blairwatchs censorship on such serious matters. Bon voyage through the sewer of blog censorship.

well I´ll see what I can do

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

well I´ll see what I can do to discredit you people here.

I saw Akillers post before

On February 28th, 2007 Sally likes wedges (not verified) says:

I saw Akillers post before it was deleted. It seems like his (or her) post was deleted to heal Davids bruised ego becasue from a quick google of what s/he was talking about seems to confer that Operation Gladio is an undisputed act of terrorism/conspiracy. Hardly nuts I'd say.

I read this blog a lot and

On February 28th, 2007 Antipholus Papps (not verified) says:

I read this blog a lot and commend you for the work you do, but I'll second the comments above chastising you for censoring comments about 11 September 2001.  Given that the WTC attacks were the trigger for the atrocities our country has committed, that they are constantly trotted out by government ministers as justification for aggressive war and the destruction of civil liberties, and given that the official narrative is quite clearly a crock of shit, I don't find it off-topic.  Yes, people can get quite swivel-eyed about it and any conspiracy theory will attract the type of 'true believer' you'd avoid at a party, but I think that sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la' is unbecoming to an otherwise excellent blog.  But it is your blog, so...

Anyway, to address the topic of this thread, this disgraceful country will be involved in any war crimes committed by the US or Israel.  We are the axis of evil.

That is truly bollocks, no

On February 28th, 2007 lindsay (not verified) says:

That is truly bollocks, no one will ever know what really is happening with all countries n there own right producing propaganda at some level.

 

The world is truly run on a need to know basis and you and me obviously DO NOT NEED TO KNOW!

 

Evil, how can there be evil if the is no god or devil??? just man kind

 

well Blairwatch you have

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

well Blairwatch you have just lost many friends due to your odd stance on 911.

you finally made on the front page of Whatreallyhappend.

wrh has a large readership.

www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Let me get this straight.

On February 28th, 2007 Tonys Akiller says:

Let me get this straight. You delete my post because I provided actual real, undisputed, factual and thoroughly documented evidence about state sponsored terrorism in Italy. Acts of terrorism that killed probably hundreds of innocent civilians.

Are you not in the least bit ashamed? Does respect for their memory not cry out to you from the grave least that these horrors are never forgotten? And that it provides proof, if proof be needed, that western governments kill civilians (including their own) for political means?

It was clear and logical why I did this. To prove what Howard Zinn says of governments, and that is  "Governments lie". My post contained no conspiracy theories, no rays from space and what have you, no lizards from mars or whatever ridiculous straw man people choose to pull out of their hat.

It is also factually proven that the The Kean Commission Report is a collection of lies and spin and that Bush himself parrots 9-11 as his justification for all his global wars, global torture, oppression, economic slavery and the usurping of basic rights freedoms. To stop discussion of significant events relating to what people believe is a modern day Operation Gladio, this time in New York Sept 11 2001, is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

This current extraordinary rotten period of British politics is entrenched in 9-11. If you don’t want this important info 'cluttering' up threads, then please provide a sticky thread where these thing can be discussed. There are many Brits (& others) who reject all these Blair Lies and like >50% New Yorkers, realize the cover-up.

Thank you.

"you finally made on the

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

"you finally made on the front page of Whatreallyhappend."

er, you mean made on to the front page of whatreallyhappened.com ,again...

Sadly i have witnessed yet

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

Sadly i have witnessed yet again BlairWatch censoring anything and all to do with 9-11 calling all those who bring the subject up neo-nazis and nuts. yet BlairWatch itself knows that 9-11 was the pretext to all wars since and further M.Eastern wars.

9-11 in truth plays a huge huge role in many debates and topics of British geo-policies, but BW cares little for truth. I am saddened by this continuous attitude from BW.

I can count only 4 people close to me who have given up on Blair Watch due to its deliberate ignorance and censorship of  the catalyst of the wars we see and have witnessed these last few years. Why is this?

Now if i can count 4 people leaving BW as a trusted blog i am curious to how many others can say the same, i guess the numbers grow?

You see a true real journalist be it paid/free or even voluntary blogging would certainly take very serious the subject of 9-11 and the many many unanswered questions and who has gained? Because like i have said the results we are all seeing due to that terrible day?

I could mention proven black-ops committed by Western Govs to blame others for gains even causing wars, point being it has happened many times and still happens, so to just easily and off hand slander those good people who are trying to see into the true nature of 9-11 and its real purposes is so wrong.

Northwoods project alone proves the way America thinks and is prepared to commit for its own geo-policies. Pearl harbour was known and allowed to happen fact and proven through declassified docs, we have the Vietnam war another fine example of lies to start a long costly deadly war 4 million Vietnamese dead and for what?
And here we have Blair lying and supporting illegal wars, committing high crimes and using 9-11 for his justifications. And yet 9-11 is totally censored here?

I will not say anything more, i only hope this post survives and i also hope that we still the true honest genuine posters and bloggers who refuse to bury their heads and plug their ears from what we are certain to see history portray as the greatest government sponsored crime against its own to further a bloody cause to grab control of the Middle East and its domination of the area and wider area for years to come.

I say thank you to all those who will keep their stance strong and dig dig dig even when we have Blair Watch pulling those same people down and slandering them with names such as nuts and neo-nazis.

To cut to the chase, bollox

On February 28th, 2007 Anonymous (not verified) says:

To cut to the chase, bollox to any site that plays boss. No shortage of other places where discussion is welcomed and the answers questioned.