That’s right folks, the poodle has finally barked back at his master:
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran’s attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.
Will wonders never cease? First the Generals revolt and now Tony Blair? What the hell is going on in BushWorldTM these days?
More below the fold . . .
But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain’s military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. “We will support the diplomatic moves, at best,” a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. “But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike.”
Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on “collision course” with Tehran.
The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair’s “favourite think-tank”, will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: “It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed… We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.
“There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran.”
While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West – particularly Washington – many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.
Diplomacy. What a concept. Of course, you lose the personal thril of watching buildings and Axis-of-Evil people get all blowed up by one swift stroke of your mighty penis Air Force, but still, maybe it’s worth a try, even if it is hard work.
Seriously, if we attack Iran we really will be going it alone. No Brits, no Israelis. No one except George Bush’s massive, messianic ego to keep our troops company. And the blowback? Well, as some fictional movie general once said: “Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed . . . “
Steven, he has not choice int his matter anymore. He has spent his political capital long time ago. The ppl have gotten tired of him and do not trust him anymore. He will leave soon, mind my word. He will leave and not soon enough, in my opinion.
What the hell is going on in BushWorld™ these days?
I don’t know but I think I like it.
Not so fast. Not for a nano sec do I buy into anything these double-super-liars are offering. Fool me Once.
Here’s the Guardian, UK “Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops”
And do you suppose the Brits will not be arm-twisted to join in? The Sunday Times, a Murdock asset, is already shilling.
40,000 Iran (‘trained’) suicide bombers ready to hit Britain and US
In sync with, Let’s go get them there so we won’t have to fight them here.
There is a madman at the helm.
Exactly, as Billmon puts it, “when you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.”
Go Read: “This is no drill,” his analysis of an article ‘Bombs that would Backfire’ by Richard Clarke and Steven Simon…
The telling lines in the Clarke editorial for me:
So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer.
I posted this in Booman’s diary, but it’s worth repeating. In addition to the Editorial by DiFi that Lisa cited, Dennis Kucinich spoke out Friday in a letter to Bush:
Of course, as Billmon says & Rice made clear to the Seante last fall, they feel no compulsion to go back to congress for another resolution.
There’s also an article in the New Yorker (Mar 6, 2006), “Exiles: How Iran’s Expatriates are Gaming the Nuclear Threat” by Connie Bruck that deserves greater attention. She gives an account with great background material on the current activities of the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, the people & politics of the MEK terrorist group that we’re currently running from Iraq into Iran, and a glimpse into the administration’s inner deliberations on Iran policy for the past 6 years in pursuit on regime change (which again like Iraq is the #1 priority, not nukes). A diary could easily be constructed out this article alone.
Excellent catch Arcturus.
Again Kucinich, bless him, is one of few voices – way way in the desert.
This bunch, they’re not searching for answers, facts or reconfirmation. Not required. The decision is made. Gotta have that strip of oil before China get too entrenched in Iran. Like the man thinks, this he’ll not leave for future prez. Also
The boys have looked at the weapons inventory, it’s getting old, need to have a turnover. Iraq war was not enough to do a complete refresh, recycling. The MIC needs new orders to continue war profits.
We’re good to go. Time to move to Argentina.
Britain is letting the world know, in a roundabout way, that the Bush Administration is very intent on — and quite far down the road in planning — an attack on Iran.
If Blur wont support King George there cant be much chance of him getting any UN resolution, and barring ultra corrupt poodle boy Howard and some client states like Colombia Bush will not even be able to get a coalition of the wankers.
Blair’s generals are probably telling him that, if Iran is attacked, the 8000 British troops stationed around Basra and in Southern Iraq will face millions of very angry Shiites.
The British troops will be in an untenable position even if the UK does not participate.
If I were the British I would be planning for a hasty retreat now.
The Brits will know when the attack is to take place, and will take measures to get their troops out before it happens. That troop withdrawal is our canary in the mineshaft. When it happens, duck and take cover.
Blair doesn’t really have much choice in this.
Firstly, any attack on Iran without at least 2 prior Chapter 7 resolutions, the second of which explicitly authorises the use of force, will be unambiguously illegal and would constitute a crime of aggression; there is no history of prior UN resolutions which would permit the UK’s attorney general to create a legal fudge thereby allowing the UK’s armed forces to participate, or more broadly, permitting the UK to allow the use of facilities ( Fairford or Diego Garcia ) for such an attack.
The UK judicial system is obliged to prosecute war crimes and there is no statute of limitations – this is well understood by lawyers, the armed forces and the foreign office; no one is going to put themselves in legal jeapordy over this. It is becoming impossible, for example, for IDF commanders who have served in Gaza and the West Bank to travel to the UK these days, as they may be subject to arrest and prosecution over Israeli breaches of law ( there’s also the issue over the unlawful killings, per recent inquests, of Tom Hurndall and James Miller in Gaza in 2003 in the background).
Secondly, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, and the facilities that the US would be attacking are all “safeguarded”, and subject to inspection, monitoring and verification by the IAEA. A by-product of a US attack – which would probably constitute a breach of US obligations under the treaty – would be the end of the NNPT; whilst some Washington exceptionalists might consider this a good thing, their enthusiasm is not replicated internationally.
Thirdly, as has been mentioned, there are 8,000 UK troops stationed in Basra and Amarah; their presence is not exactly popular, and UK military commanders know that they would be hostages to fortune in the event of a US attack on Iran – losing a substantial number of troops would be, to say the least, politically toxic for a generation.
Fourthly, Blair is unpopular and embattled over the ongoing Iraq fiasco and domestic corruption. He doesn’t have the political capital to go with Bush on this – the prospect of a no-confidence motion would have the PLP scrambling to pre-empt with the Gordon Brown option.