As the US completes its final withdrawal from Iraq, American special forces troops have been diverted to positions in Jordan opposite a Syrian tank concentration building up across the kingdom's northern border. As of last Thursday Dec. 8, military convoys, air transports and helicopters have been lifting US troops across the border from Iraq. They have been deployed in position to ward off a possible Syrian invasion in the light of President Bashar Assad's warning that he would set the entire Middle East on fire if the pressure on his regime to step down persisted. Russia has dispatched the flagship of its fleet, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov as well as the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, to the eastern Mediterranean where it will visit a naval base Syria, in a show of support of Bashar al Assad the Syrian president facing calls for his indictment for war crimes. TEHRAN â MP Parviz Sorouri of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that Iran plans to practice its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the worldâs most strategically important chokepoints, which represents about 30% of the worldâs seaborne oil shipments. If oil sanctions are imposed on Iran, there is no reason to allow the enemies that are known for their hostility toward Iran to ship oil through the strait, which lies within Iranâs territorial waters, he said. "Iran will make the world unsafe," if the world attacks Iran, Sorouri said. Barack Obama has been given short shrift after requesting the return of the downed US drone, with Tehran unrepentant over the affair. âThe American espionage drone is now Iran's property, and our country will decide what steps to take regarding it,â said Iranian defence minister Ahmad Vahidi. âInstead of apologising to the Iranian nation, it [US] is brazenly asking for the drone back.â Diplomatic ties between London and Tehran are also in tatters after British representatives were pulled from the embassy in the aftermath of a violent protest by Iranian students. The attack came after the Treasury took the decision to cut all links with Iranian banks over concerns that they were involved with Tehranâs nuclear programme. Foreign secretary William Hague has promised âserious consequencesâ for the attack, with retaliatory actions as yet unseen. With a war of words on two fronts, is Iran on a collision course with the West? Are Russia and Syria playing their hand? Matter of time before the bombing of the "Iranian nuclear sites *cough* is carried out - probably be the Israeli's to kick it all off!!
China has stated its intention to intervene on Iran's behalf in the event of any aggression from the West. Things seem to be coming to a had somewhat
Yeah if Syria and Iran have a suicide wish Russia always goes with what it thinks is in its interest, and war with the USA for the sake of those countries is not in its interest.
Could get interesting but if the USA does attack Iran, can't really see Russia and China stepping in to defend them. Am concerned that, so far, the USA/UK/EU has managed to bring down two of the tyrants in the Middle East that were helping to keep the peace i.e. Saddam and Gaddafi, what exactly is the plan here? Libya and the newly revolted Egypt are going to be hardline Islamic states, more Irans...
That story also says the visit has been planned for months In any event I put little trust in what the media say. They're all biased to their pet causes. For example read the recent smearjob by Sky News on Goncalo Amaral who dared point out the gaping holes in the fantasy story the McCanns came up with.
Its messy alright, a good view on the situation --------------------------------------- US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta made some perhaps unintentionally interesting remarks regarding US policy toward Iran earlier this month, and it is fair to suppose that the venue in which he made them was not accidental. Each year, the Brookings Institution, a prominent US think-tank, hosts the Saban Forum, a gathering of US and Israeli officials, along with the usual retinue of journalists, academics and observers, to discuss issues of common interest and concern. This year's theme was "Strategic Challenges in the New Middle East", and participants sought to focus thought and discussion, in the Saban Centre's words, "... on historic shifts... and their implication for US-Israeli security and interests in the Middle East region". Of course, the tacit assumption that US and Israeli interests in the region are somehow mystically conjoined is an increasingly dangerous one, and a fallacy that the Saban Forum, like other such Washington confabs, does much to promote. Other "strategic challenges" in the Middle East notwithstanding, the threat posed by Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons hung like an incubus over this year's proceedings, and in addressing those concerns in his keynote speech, Secretary Panetta delivered the sort of mixed message which Israeli officials have come to expect from the Obama administration. Standing before huge Israeli and US flags, the secretary delivered prepared remarks in which he strongly asserted that "determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" was one of three "pillars" of US policy in the region. And while he extolled the importance and encouraging efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions, and carefully noted that resort to military force must be a last, and not a first option, Panetta also pointedly stressed that the administration had "not taken any options off the table". His department, he said, would be charged with preparation of a military option if so requested by the commander in chief, and would not shrink from doing so. All in all, it was a vigorous, straightforward restatement of administration policy, designed to reassure an Israeli audience. But in response to questions, the defence secretary said perhaps more than he intended, revealing more of the administration's true thinking than would have passed muster in his cleared remarks. A military strike on Iran, he said, would not destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, but only delay them - perhaps a year or two at best. The relevant targets, he added "are very difficult to get at". Obama wedded to containment? And against such limited and tenuous gains, one would have to weigh some daunting unintended consequences: a regional backlash which would end Iran's isolation and generate popular political support for its clerical regime both at home and abroad; attacks against US military assets and interests in the region; and "severe economic consequences" - read: sharply increased oil prices - which would undermine fragile economies in the US and Europe. Finally, he said, initiation of hostilities could produce "an escalation... that would not only involve many lives, but ... could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret (emphasis added)". Hardly a ringing call to arms, that. William A Galston, a Senior Fellow at Brookings who attended this year's Forum, has written perceptively for The New Republic about Israeli reactions to it. Apparently, the studied ambiguity which the administration is attempting to maintain regarding its willingness to employ military force against Iran is not having the intended effect on its chosen audience - which is not the Iranians, but the Israelis. According to Galston, among the many Israelis of differing political stripes with whom he spoke at the conference, no one - not one - believed that the Obama administration would ever exercise a military option to prevent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Obama, they have concluded, is wedded to a containment policy; if Iran were nonetheless to acquire a nuclear capability, they are convinced, his administration would reconfigure its containment policy to suit. As Galston points out, this is completely unacceptable to the Israelis. For them, a nuclearised Iran poses an existential threat which they - unike the Americans - literally will not tolerate. This fact is recognised within the administration, and particularly within the US Department of Defence, with which potential hostilities with Iran, however initiated, would be its responsibility to deal. No one really paying attention should be surprised by this. Just days before the Panetta speech at Brookings, General Martin Dempsey, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave a notable interview in which he made clear that, while the US sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the prudent course to pursue vis-a-vis Iran, "I'm not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don't and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it's fair to say that our expectations are different right now." Asked whether he thought Israel would inform the US before striking Iran, Dempsey responded, "I don't know." That is political-military speak for "No". In short, current US policy, as the Israelis understand it - and as opposed to how it is being articulated by the administration - is unacceptable to Israel. This is no doubt troubling to them, but not a grave concern, for two reasons. First, the Israelis need not rely on the US to initiate hostilities with Iran, if it should come to that. They can do so themselves, confident that the US will then be forced to deal with the consequences, including the Iranian retaliation which Panetta described and all would expect.
Weakened by rhetoric Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Israelis know that they can pursue such a course, in extremis, without serious fear of repercussions, including a cutoff of US support - diplomatic, military, or otherwise. They know that, where Israel is concerned, policy is not made in the White House, and still less at the Pentagon. It is made in Congress, which stands in thrall to Israel. Remember, this is an administration which thought it could pressure Israel into abandoning its illegal settlement programme and making a just peace with the Palestinians; it has since been taught a political lesson which it is unlikely to forget. And so, in this as in all other instances, the White House, bereft of effective sticks, is reduced to importuning the Israelis, trying to convince them of the seriousness of US purpose in confronting Iran and the effectiveness of its current sanctions policy, while hoping against hope that the Israelis would not take the sort of precipitate action which all would eventually come to regret. In fact, the Iranian drive for a nuclear weapons capability has relatively little to do with Israel, and much to do with the threat posed by Washington, whose ability to intervene at will in the region with overwhelming conventional force has been amply demonstrated three times in the past 20 years. The White House dares not say this, however, lest it convey weakness to Iran and a lack of resolve both to Israel and to its political critics in the US. Indeed, Secretary Panetta was back at it in his address to the Saban Forum when, after making reference to Iran's support for terrorists, he asserted that "... a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability". Having hyped the Iranian threat incessantly for the past three years, asserting that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have devastating and unacceptable consequences for US interests, the administration has put itself politically in a position from which it cannot escape on its own. The president's Republican adversaries are parroting the same rhetoric, and fairly slavering at the chance to brand him as soft on the Iranian threat; even his Democratic colleagues would quickly abandon him if forced to make a choice, as the recent Senate vote on toughening Iran sanctions, which went considerably further than the administration wanted, has made clear. Thus does Obama find himself effectively in a corner. He has bet everything on the efficacy of a sanctions policy toward Iran, and while it may succeed, very few experts believe it can. The putatively most powerful man in the world is now hostage to the whims of Israel and Iran, foreign countries neither of which he can control. Unless one of them chooses to release him, there is no way out save moving forward, on a direct path to war. ---------------------------------- Robert L Grenier is chairman of ERG Partners, a financial advisory and consulting firm. He retired from the CIA in 2006, following a 27-year career in the CIA's Clandestine Service. Grenier served as Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre (CTC) from 2004 to 2006, coordinated CIA activities in Iraq from 2002 to 2004 as the Iraq Mission Manager, and was the CIA Chief of Station in Islamabad, Pakistan, before and after the 9/11 attacks. Previously, he was the deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, and also served as the CIA's chief of operational training. He is credited with founding the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division. Grenier is now a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and speaks and writes frequently on foreign policy issues.
World War III? Yes please - I've been promised this **** for decades, yet still nothing? Two Tribes by 'Frankie Goes To Hollywood' was the closest the world ever got to WW3... Bring it on I say - The human race is a disgrace so let's ****ing bomb the ****e out of each other... just like we deserve.
It appears to be a miscalculation as to the causes of anti-Western hatred among the Arab public US/UK/EU leaders think it is oppressive secular tyrants like Hussein and Gaddafi lying to their people and cutting them off from dissenting views. The elected Islamic regimes that follow the removal of the oppressive leaders (and not just removal by Western countries as shown by Hamas being elected in Gaza after the removal of the oppressive, corrupt PA) prove that it is the cult founded by Mohammed (piss be upon him) that is the root cause of anti-Western hatred.
It really is one big mess and it all comes down to Irans oil and influence in the region Saudi Arabia does not want Iran becoming the dominant arab political force in the region Israel cannot attack without US help Saudi Arabia does not want a war between Israel and Iran that will put its oil fields in the firing line Possibility of huge sympathy support of Iran locally and internationally should it come under attack China needs Irans oil and wont want any fluctuation in supply Europe's economy could not stomach the effect on the price of energy and oil a war would cause Iran seems to possess a technical ability that will have frightened the Americans (ability to remotely hijack a drone and bring it down) I honestly do not forsee any real significant military action
Stupid islamophobe, you really are thick. Do you not think that the death and destruction waged upon the region by western influences for over a century might have something to do with it?
