Religions > Atheism > OT: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
12 Apr 2006 05:23:38 AM |
| Object: |
OT: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran |
If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1751841,00.html
The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, while
Blair's jihadist rhetoric is inciting a fourth crusade
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday April 12, 2006
The Guardian
This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary,
Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be
"completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In
Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and
"inconceivable" means certain.
A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is that such words
from the foreign secretary are anything but reassuring. Straw says of
Iran that "there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli". There was
no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons conjured from the fevered
imagination of Downing Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a
racing certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even now
cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that Iran is "far closer" to
a bomb than anyone thinks.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran |
14 Apr 2006 07:32:58 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2006 03:23:38 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes, it is Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1751841,00.html
The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, while
Blair's jihadist rhetoric is inciting a fourth crusade
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday April 12, 2006
The Guardian
This week's most terrifying remark came from the foreign secretary,
Jack Straw. He declared that a nuclear attack on Iran would be
"completely nuts" and an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In
Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going to happen and
"inconceivable" means certain.
A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is that such words
from the foreign secretary are anything but reassuring. Straw says of
Iran that "there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli". There was
no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons conjured from the fevered
imagination of Downing Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a
racing certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even now
cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that Iran is "far closer" to
a bomb than anyone thinks.
As for a casus belli, there was also none in Iraq. Tony Blair had to
beat one out of the hapless attorney general before his generals would
agree to fight. But Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms
by the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy Centre in
London on March 21. Blair was updating his 1999 Chicago doctrine of
global intervention. Then it was justified by humanitarianism and was
optional. Now it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle about
modernity". Those who are not of our values are to be subject to
pre-emptive attack.
Blair demanded that the west become "active not reactive" against alien
values (obviously Islamic) as "we risk chaos threatening our stability".
The crusade against them was "utterly determinative of our future here
in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek international
agreement before going to war, but should still fight without it. People
were crying out for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in their
salvation lies our own security".
The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's desire to wipe
non-democratic values off the map is akin to Iran's view of Israel. But
we know that when he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest
by a British leader in modern times and was the clearest imaginable
statement of a casus belli. He mentioned Iran three times. It was
gilt-edged, copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism.
To such a world view, Iran is a far more plausible target than Iraq. It
is a nation approaching 80 million people, whose values would be a real
catch for "beacon democracy". Elements within its regime want nuclear
weapons. The country is rich and capable of buying the relevant
components. The mullahs have sponsored terrorist groups abroad and
fiddled elections. In February, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad restarted
uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant, in defiance of the UN, and
yesterday Iran's nuclear energy chief announced that it had proved
successful. What does Straw mean, "no casus belli"?
Tehran has two more weeks to stop enrichment, after which sanctions seem
inevitable. Some ostracism of Iran's ruling elite might lead the
parliamentary moderates and clerical oligarchs to force Ahmadinejad to
back off for a time. But sanctions will split the world coalition
against nuclear proliferation, since Russia and China have close trading
links with Iran. The US and Britain would then be back to the same
"slide to war" as in Iraq. They would have to decide whether to fight on
alone or endure humiliating retreat.
A land force attack on Iran is, for forces that cannot even hold Iraq,
out of the question. But sowing mayhem through bombing military targets
(always causing civilian deaths) might instigate enough anarchy to stir
a putsch, a regional uprising or more subtle changes within the regime.
There are reports of US special forces operating inside Iran and funds
being channelled to opposition groups. The US is said to be aiding Sunni
Baluchi insurgents in the south, as they once did the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
Bush's description on Monday of leaks about nuclear bunker-busters as
"wild speculation" was part machismo, part tautology. Every weapon is an
option to a soldier. It would be unlikely even for the Bush government
(even with Blair's support) to put the west's status as world policeman
back in the stone age. But such talk indicates the brain-scrambling
effect of the Iraq war.
Iran is the first test of Blair's interventionism, and the auguries are
not good. Every sabre rattle in Washington must be music to
Ahmadinejad's ear. Whether or not a bombing attack might damage his
factories, it is unlikely to destabilise his government, rather the
reverse. It would heighten nationalist fervour and increase hatred of
the west.
Sanctions that stop Iranians going to conferences or shopping in
Knightsbridge are hardly of concern to mullahs. Any nation supposedly
forced to "choose between weapons and the economy" chooses weapons (look
at the US). The more the west threatens, the stronger is the case of
Tehran's hawks for a nuclear arsenal. Iran is within range of five
nuclear powers, including the US. What army would not want a deterrent
when the world is awash with crazies?
Confrontation without a willingness to use total force is bluff. Many
Iranian hardliners must be itching to cause more trouble in Iraq,
threaten tanker lanes in the Straits of Hormuz and set Asian opinion
further against the west. As for backing the Baluchi insurgents, this is
madness. The most lawless group in the region are, through the Taliban,
the chief enemy of British forces in Afghanistan. Is Blair aware that
the US is funding his enemies? This whole venture is degenerating into a
fourth crusade.
The much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and liberal democracy in
Asia is in retreat. It is ailing in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What might have been gained
through security and friendship has been wrecked by the war in Iraq. War
puts a premium on paranoia and encourages existing regimes to crack down
on dissent. These may be rogue states, but it is time for the west to
decide again which are "our rogues".
One country in the region that has retained some political pluralism is
Iran. It has shown bursts of democratic activity and, importantly, has
experienced internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not to
drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was a powerful state to
reassure and befriend rather than abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If
ever there was a regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is
Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American policy is doing.
It is completely nuts.
simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
