Article

2004-09-21 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 03:40|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Self-reliance, fellow 'mericans. No guarantee that Blair won't wobble--already doing so on Iran. Time to put aside sentiment and recognize that no nation is completely reliable. Best to start forging more bilateral relationships founded on cold hard mutual interest, esp with crucial Eurasian and Asian powers like Russia and India.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 10:07:48 AM|| 2004-09-21 10:07:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 So the US State Department doesn't put out any idiots eh, lex?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 10:11:05 AM|| 2004-09-21 10:11:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 blair has always been further from us on Iran than on Iraq, thats not a wobble.

You think Russia is any better on Iran than UK? It aint.

True no nation is completely reliable - but US and UK mutual interests are as strong as US with anyone else, including Russia and India.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 10:13:45 AM|| 2004-09-21 10:13:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The ties the US and U.K. have are strained at the moment. Reading the U.K. press one has to realize there are a huge number of citizens of Britain who hate the US. It isn't just Iraq. The US is the great satan to them. Sir Dipstard just gave voice to that.

A U.S. State department employee or ambasador could have said the same thing. BFD.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 10:19:29 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-21 10:19:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The ties the US and U.K. have are strained at the moment.

At the moment, and as ever. There's no greater groundswell of anti-US sentiment than the was this time two years ago, in fact it's probably abated significantly. The UK Government is decidedly pro-US (although decidedly idiotarian in other respects of foreign policy), as is the main opposition (despite considerable bizarre affection for John Kerry, it remains firmly hardline re the WoT). There are as many anti-American idiots in the UK, especially in the media as there are in the US. Which is, I think, what you mean, SPoD. Anyone who expects a more pro-US populace in most other countries, including those in lex's Coalition of the Moonbats, is sadly deluded.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 10:25:51 AM|| 2004-09-21 10:25:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 lex: Best to start forging more bilateral relationships founded on cold hard mutual interest, esp with crucial Eurasian and Asian powers like Russia and India.

lex must not have talked to any Russians or Indians lately. The ones I know in the NY metro area are firmly anti-American and anti-Bush. Ditto for the Indians. And these are the ones who would presumably be more anti-American. Not so for the Brits and Australians in this country. I'm not prejudiced against either Russians or Indians. They just have a different worldview, one in which Uncle Sam is responsible for most of the world's problems - the product of decades of conditioning by the government and the local media.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-21 10:35:23 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-21 10:35:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Bulldog I expect the relations to be as ever, in each countires best interest. To paraphrase one of my countrymen who said early in our self seperation from the crown: It's better to hang together than hang seperately. I think that statement describes the relationship we have had as allies since early in the 20th century. The U.K. has more in common with the U.S. than most of the continet. The U.K. owns a hell of a lot of the US as well. We are bound by more than language and religion.

I need to drag myself to bed.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 10:43:28 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-21 10:43:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 UK Government is decidedly pro-US...as is the main opposition (despite considerable bizarre affection for John Kerry, it remains firmly hardline re the WoT).

Bulldog, don't the Brits see Iran as a terrorist harboring, terrorist supporting country? I think torn on the WoT rather than hardline is more accurate. Don't get me wrong-thank God the Brits have been there to help us when so much of the rest of the world sits on its pompous a**es. But "hardline" against terror and tolerant of Iran seem opposite stances.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 10:43:42 AM|| 2004-09-21 10:43:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Could it be that the global media are typically anti-American partly because the United States leads the world in the break down of hierarchical, centralized media authority and media culture?

In the UK, the LLL media are operating to an organized, centrally directed program provided by the trotskyite National Union of Journalists, which furnishes standard talking points to its members, sponsors many LLL activities and uses the power of the closed shop to enforce sanctions against political deviation.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-09-21 11:05:14 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:05:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 ...don't the Brits see Iran as a terrorist harboring, terrorist supporting country?

I think what's happened re Iran is, in the absence of clear US aggressive military intent regarding Iran, Blair's fallen back onto his default passive response to international threats. If the US (and UK) had been overflying Iran for years and been poised to move, and the US obviously so, then you'd proably see a much more beligerent attitude from Number 10. You've got to remember that Blair's a third way man by choice who needs to be spurred to commit to decisive action, which translates to inaction most of the time. Blair's also aware that British armed forces are stretched at the moment and provoking Iran unilaterally would probably result in embarrassment as Iran call's the UK's bluff (recall the Marines held hostage a few months ago). He's also aware of how difficult taking an aggressive stance against Iran would be domestically. He'd be out of office in no time, most probably pushed by his own party. He's also keen to mend fences with our appeasenik European neighbours. However, if Bush announced an ultimatum against Iran, I'd expect something like a replay of the 2002/2003 situation. Blair would side with Bush morally, though he'd have less left to offer materially. I'm sure, though, he'd prefer the situation simply didn't arise.

There's also the fact that Iran is not perceived as anything like the rogue state that Iraq was in the UK. Which is odd given that it is now certainly more of a threat. It gets relatively little coverage in the media, and I think few people 'understand' Iran at all. Popular revolt against Britain's invading Iran would be worse than Iraq.

Blair probably hopes something or someone will deal with Iran without him having to get his hands dirty - an attack on Iran's nuclear sites by the US or Israel, for instance, or a popular revolution.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 11:06:11 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:06:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 lex must not have talked to any Russians or Indians lately

Grasshoppa know betta than to derive policy judgment from man on stweet. Especially when that street is about 7,000 miles from Moscow or Mumbai.

I don't particularly care about anyone's "worldview". There were massive marches in London, Berlin and Central Park against Reagan during the INF brouhaha; more marches 18 motnhs ago; and there will be plenty of marches in the future. But these have zip to do with the calculations made by a Schmidt or a Thatcher or a Blair.

The point is where other nations' interests-- as they define them-- converge with ours. In the middle east, our interests and those of the Europeans, including the Brits, are diverging sharply. But our interests and those of Russia and India in that region, having been diametrically opposed throughout the Cold War, are finally beginning to converge on at least one crucial point: Russia and India are frontline states that are directly and imminently threatened by the jihadist arc. Britain, France and Germany are not. Russia and India have both begun to tilt toward Israel and have evinced real determination to destroy the jihadists.

Britain has less to offer us than Russia in the way of local assets to be used in containing Iran. And Russia is in danger of collapsing. So there's much more downside to Russia from not thwarting Iran, and much more upside potential--assuming Putin can finally rein in and professionalize his security services-- to reverse it.

Russia is far more important to the US today than any west European state, Britain included. This is because the repository of the FSU's nukes is a collection of failing (in Ukraine's case, failed) states. In these pathetic states, the government cannot protect its borders, secure its nukes, collect taxes or pay pensions, pass laws or enforce them, raise an army and create even a halfway competent fighting force, rein in its criminalized and incompetent security services, or put down a mickey mouse rebellion in Chechnya. Putin is Musharraf in whiteface.

I would dearly love to believe that the UK will always take our side in this war but as we've seen with Iran, Jack Straw's fanciful errand is undermining the cause of containment. WIll this change? Doubt it (see comments above about national interests as nations define them). Our task now is not to indulge in misty-eyed romantic notions of brotherhood or solidarity but to apply some cold logic and ruthlessness to the task of bringing around Russia and India regarding isolating, pressuring, containing a nuclear Iran. Nothing is more important now. If we fail with Russia and India, we're screwed.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 11:15:47 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:15:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I can appreciate his pragmatism, given his assets and the liabilities involved in such a confrontation. I am somewhat surprised, though (and I am only inferring this from what you've written) that the British people would prefer to put their heads in the sand regarding a.) the relationship between Iran and the WoT or b.) make nationally compromising deals with Iran in order to avoid confrontation (there would be no guarantee of a more secure Britain through such deals). Is this really just a case of playing the odds? If Blair would suffer popular support if he took a "hardline" stance with Iran, in the WoT, the British people have more in common with the French than I would have imagined.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 11:18:54 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:18:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Blair blew all his pro-US political capital on Iraq. If he's seen by his party and the UK public as supportive of any kind of military action against Iran, then his government will fall. Which means that vis-a-vis Iran, Tony's of no use to us. The best we can hope for is a low profile from him and an end to the Straw charade.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 11:21:52 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:21:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 If Blair would suffer popular support if he took a "hardline" stance with Iran, in the WoT, the British people have more in common with the French than I would have imagined.

jules and lex: It's more a question of perception. Do you think Bush's approval ratings would climb, or fall, were he to announce an intention to invade Iran tomorrow? Is the US public sufficiently wary of Iran in the context of the WoT to support an invasion of it at short notice? I'm sure Bush would lose himself the election there and then. You can't expect from Blair what you wouldn't expect from Bush.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 11:28:28 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:28:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 In the middle east, Britain defines its national interest differently than we do. Blair's support for us vs Saddam was an exception.

A majority of Brits, like most Europeans, detest Sharon, would probably like to see Israel divest its nukes, and in any case percieve large market opportunities in that very young and wealthy country of 75 million that is Iran.

We should not expect Britain to support military action by us or Israel against Iraq. To do otherwise would be to repeat Anthony Eden's colossal blunder.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 11:30:16 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:30:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 When did you have the opportunity to consult the majority of Brits and find they harbour a visceral hatred of a man most of them probably couldn't even name, lex?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 11:34:30 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:34:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Russia and India have both begun to tilt toward Israel and have evinced real determination to destroy the jihadists.

Britain has less to offer us than Russia in the way of local assets to be used in containing Iran. And Russia is in danger of collapsing. So there's much more downside to Russia from not thwarting Iran, and much more upside potential--

nonetheless i have yet to see any evidence that Russia percieves Iran as a threat, beleive that AQ is supported by Iran, etc. As far as I can see Russian policy toward Iran is similar to EU, or even more pro-Iranian. Russia has cooperated with Iran in the Caucasus (in favor of Armenia and against pro-Turkish and pro-US Azerbaijan) and in Afghanistan (where both support Northern Alliance warlords, and are hostile to even pro-US pashtuns like Karzai)

I note Russian Israeli security cooperation, but do not see this reflected in Putin statements on Arafat, etc, which continue to line up with the EU, AFAIK.

And neither Russia nor India have lifted a finger to help in Iraq, where Iran is currently aggressively trying to take advantage, while of course UK has helped to the point of overstretching its forces.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 11:34:41 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:34:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 any case percieve large market opportunities in that very young and wealthy country of 75 million that is Iran.

as does russia.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 11:36:08 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:36:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Do you think Bush's approval ratings would climb, or fall, were he to announce an intention to invade Iran tomorrow? Is the US public sufficiently wary of Iran in the context of the WoT to support an invasion of it at short notice?

Agreed, BD. But this is all the more reason that we must do everything in our power-- bribe, bully, horsetrade-- to enlist crucial frontline states in the task of containing Iran. As I say, Russia's support is everything. Especially if they and the Indians ramp up their nascent cooperation with Israel. Surround Iran and box them and their proxies in.

Buy off Putin's nuclear industry, whatever the price (I should think $5B would do it-- perhaps in tandem with a variety of other carrots such as WTO fast tracking, market access for Russian steel imports, investment guarantees for XOM and ChevronTexaco to explore the Sakhalin and other oil deposits etc). But please stop wasting so much time and bandwidth over the Straw errand and the IAEA. We don't have much time left.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 11:38:06 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:38:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 In fact UK position on Israel, while definitely less sympathetic than US, is different from France. On banning EU aid to civilian wing of Hamas, UK joined with Germany in supporting the ban, and disagreed with France. I would say however that on Israel UK is no closer to US than Germany is.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 11:38:23 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:38:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 liberalhawk: Russia's non-resource export industries are limited to the nukes and weapons. Each can be bought off for a relatively small sum. And trust me, anything in Russia can be bought if the price is right.

But there's no way you can buy off the FTSE or DAX or CAC-40 multinationals.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 11:40:47 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:40:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 lex: Russia and India are frontline states that are directly and imminently threatened by the jihadist arc.

You and I know that. But the Russians and Indians don't think that. You are superimposing American views on these two countries. They don't share your views. If they did, Iran wouldn't be the kind of problem it is today. You may think we have a common interest in containing Iran. Russia and India don't. They think the US is a bigger threat than Iran, and are jockeying for advantage. Worldviews matter, because they color a nation's interpretation of the facts.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-21 11:40:56 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-21 11:40:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 11:54:10 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:54:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 so far russias policy on Iranian nukes IS to support the EU initiative.

NOw this MAY be because the US isnt pursuing aggressive enough diplomacy, but I doubt that. I really dont think Putin, or the Russian street that Putin still relies on (he aint no dictator, not yet anyway) really takes the same view we do on Iran.

Note how when they attack islamists in their press their careful to call them wahabis. Now theres truth to that, but I think the Russians use it in part to focus not on Saudis and Pakis, who have for the last 30 years been their opponents in south and central Asia - and they very much resent the US relationship with both states. Iran is a counter to Paki, KSA AND the US. Which they still resent for our actions in the Balkans (on the side of the UK, btw).

Note UNSC res on Sudan, where US and EU were together, and where Russia and China abstained and threatened veto.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 11:54:30 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:54:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Jules - I dont know. Good point

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 11:55:15 AM|| 2004-09-21 11:55:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?

We won't pay tribute, we won't engage in a decapitation (for the same reasons as Iraq) and containment's practically already in place, and ineffective. A revolution would be nice (for Christmas, please!), but has been mooted for years without result. Unless I'm missing something, military invasion, or at least the real threat of it, is the only credible alternative to neutralising Iran's nuclear ambitions and letting them stew in their own froth.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 12:02:38 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:02:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 You may think we have a common interest in containing Iran. Russia and India don't. They think the US is a bigger threat than Iran, and are jockeying for advantage

I doubt that a majority of the hardline hindu BJP party would agree with the above. I also doubt that Putin and his circle share this view. Putin, like every Russian leader since Brezhnev, is presiding over a dying Russia whose boundaries will, if this decline is not reversed, inevitably revert to a Muscovite core surrounded by bandit fiefdoms and a Chinese-dominated Far East. Doesn't that dire prospect demand a rethinking of Russia's relations with the mullahs' jihadist bandit state?

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 12:02:39 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:02:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Maybe the Brits can lead by contributing some good ideas on how to weaken Iran without a direct invasion. I am a complete novice at this sort of thing, but WTH, I'll throw out a couple of ideas anyway...trade embargos? Freezing assets? It seems like we should target what Iran relies on the West for most. Or are we going to be victimized by a timetable of inaction, leading to a nuclear-armed, theocratic Iran across the diplomatic table?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 12:07:17 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:07:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Why, in this discussion about Iran, is it presumed that military action is the only way for Britain, or any other brain-utilizing nations, to counter Iran in the WoT?

Some form of military pressure-- at a minimum the credible threat of military action-- will be necessary. This need not be a direct strike, certainly not by the US. It would probably be in the form of enforced no-fly zones, joint border patrols, and the like. But without such pressure, no diplomatic solution to this mess will have any impact at all.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 12:10:13 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 From http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/laenderinfos/laender/laender_ausgabe_html?type_id=12&land_id=63

Excerpt-The economy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is predominantly in the hands of the state and religious foundations. The Government formulates economic goals in five-year plans. Under the current Third Economic Plan, which entered into force on 21 March 2000, 30% of the business sector is to be privatized by the year 2005. Iranâs gross domestic product (GDP) amounted to USD 117 billion (+6.5%) in the business year 2002/2003. Based on a population of approximately 66 million, this was equivalent to a per-capita income of approximately USD 1,500. The most important sectors of the Iranian economy are the oil and gas industry, the petrochemical industry, agriculture, the metal industry and the motor-vehicle industry. Iranâs economy is struggling with a high inflation rate (15.8%) and high unemployment (approximately 17%) as well as widespread corruption and a sizable underground economy. Investment conditions for foreigners have markedly improved, however, as a result of investment protection legislation, tax reform and the unification of exchange rates.
Foreign trade
Thanks to high oil prices and the recent relaxation of import controls, Iranâs current account and balance of payments have developed positively.
Current account
(in billion USD, 1 USD = 8,000 rials)

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 12:13:13 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:13:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 trade embargos? Freezing assets?

The EU won't sign up to the above. In any case you misread the mullahs' priorities. They're kleptocrats. They don't give a sh*t about national economic growth or expansion; their only interest in economics is in lining their own pockets, which can be done even more handsomely in a sanctions environment. Dubai's next door, and there are plenty of bankers in Lugano and Geneva willing to help siphon and stash the mullahs' millions as well.

The mullahs are not "pragmatists." They launched a war against us twenty-five years ago, and they wish to continue battling us with as many weapons and proxies and allies as they can summon. The goal is to reduce their access to weapons, wean away their allies, and crush their proxies ruthlessly wherever they venture forth.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 12:17:33 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:17:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Ok, lex, given what you say, and the fact that the Brits' military is overstretched, the US's is pretty stretched, and the rest of the world is fiddling while Iran approaches the last stage of its nuclear program, do you support continued inaction/indecision or a US invasion of Iran (alone)?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 12:24:01 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:24:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Look, I don't want to minimize this challenge. Of course Russia has sought to counter us in the middle east. But this is a different century, and in this century a nuclear Iran crawling with AQ and other jihadist proxies is an existential threat to all nations targeted by the jihadists.

If what I propose is a diplomatic revolution, so be it. Wouldn't it be nice to see our leaders ahead of history's curve this time around?I don't see that we have much choice but to try to win over India and Russia. The 9/11 effect is over, and the hard fact is that most of Europe is not and will not be a reliable ally in the middle east.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 12:26:38 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:26:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Consider the source of these comments. Just once I'd like to see them quote a pro-US or pro-Iraq comment from someone. The little pigs just keep rooting around for comments just like this one - and when the find one - they give it full court MSM press. Big deal.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-21 12:29:52 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:29:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 do you support continued inaction/indecision or a US invasion of Iran (alone)?

Won't happen. No better way to destroy the pro-US sympathy of young Iranians than to invade their country (and don't kid yourself that a "moderate" or "pragmatic" Iranian administration would not pursue nukes as well, for nationalist ends.)

Also, no popular US support-- we're facing battle fatigue at home and are up to our ears trying to subdue a country one-third Iran's size. Let Israel do the mokriye dela.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 12:36:13 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:36:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 . They don't give a sh*t about national economic growth or expansion; their only interest in economics is in lining their own pockets

a national economic collapse would risk revolution however.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-21 12:52:17 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:52:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 I don't know what mokriye dela means. So, since we can't do an invasion, is inaction the answer?

Obviously not. So we need to stop thinking in terms of our failed attempts to deter countries in the past and shape more targeted deterence that focuses on those in power in Iran.

What things do they value most?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 12:52:44 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:52:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 mokriye dela lierally means "wet work". Old Spook can provide details.

As to what the mullahs value most, that's pretty clear: 1) preserving their grip on power and thwarting potential rivals at home; 2) lining their pockets, which depends almost entirely on #1); 3)striking directly at Israel and annoying and harrassing the US elsewhere in the region; and 4) establishing shi'a proxies in southern Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 3:29:20 PM|| 2004-09-21 3:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Thanks for keeping this thread going, lex.

Iranian Objectives (contributions of lex, paraphrased):
Monopoly of power
Money
Aggression against Israel and the US [this strikes me more as a tactic or a strategy, but ok]
Shia promotion/alliances

Strategies:
Thwarting political rivals
??? What are the main avenues for them to make/keep money???
Acquiring/amassing nuclear weapons & other WMDs
Infiltrating Iraq to consolidate Shia base, others???

If those are the objectives (that's what they value), that's what we sabotage. Any ideas on counterstategies?

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 3:57:00 PM|| 2004-09-21 3:57:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 What the hell happend to the formatting?
It was normal when I went to bed.
EEK...

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 4:52:31 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-21 4:52:31 PM|| Front Page Top

21:44 Fawadi
16:45 Randall R.
11:17 Anonymouse
01:25 Iraq 2004
08:01 Anonymous6579
06:38 Silk
06:35 Silk
04:04 Ben
01:19 Anonymous6578
00:55 Anonymous6577
00:31 Anonymous6576
00:17 Anonymous6575
18:25 Memesis
18:16 Bulldog
17:05 lex
01:20 ricky
01:13 lex
00:56 Asedwich
23:55 Super Hose
23:51 Long Hair Republican
23:43 WhiteHouseDetox
23:34 WhiteHouseDetox
23:27 Biff Wellington
23:25 Memesis