PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A crisis in 3 easy steps... [Iran]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EmptyBee wrote:
Regardless, it would have to be spectacular in nature to get the public to endorse another war. Another 7/7 scale attack wouldn't suffice I feel.


For the US public at least, I'm not sure that you couldn't do it with "only" (gulp) another 7/7 style attack.

As RogerCO suggests, if you could "prove" a link between 7/7 and a national government then that would change everything.

Imagine if 7/7 had had something unique about it and that MI5 "proved" that this could only have come from (lets say) North Korea and that we weren't just looking at home-gorwn alqueda operatives but an NK-sponsored and resourced attack, what then?

TonyB would have been using one of those "limited retaliation" warheads that all Tridents now sail with.....

Any kind of attack like that "proven" to be by a foriegn power constitues an act of war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"How Bush would gain from war with Iran"
by Dan Plesch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1549198,00.html

Quote:

The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.


But I especially dislike:
Quote:

In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters.


Man, is that a depressing thought? To be dragged into another shocking PNAC venture for no other reason than a new Trident system, how bad have things got for the UK? I'd rather sign up in return for a guarenteed cut of the oil.

Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran arrests 'agents with British links'
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=152789696&p=y5z79x4xz

Quote:

Iran claimed today that it had arrested anti-government separatists with links to British intelligence services, accusing them of involvement in violent protests and a recent spate of deadly bombings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Iran trap
Scott Ritter
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A678E7E-2612-4B21-8D21-04E6D5FC5D54.htm

Quote:

In doing so, the EU-3, and to a lesser extent the IAEA, have fallen into a trap deliberately set by the Bush administration designed to use the EU-3 diplomatic initiative as a springboard for war with Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentagon document would alter nuclear weapons plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001577.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department has written a draft revision of its nuclear operations doctrine that outlines the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an enemy's attack with weapons of mass destruction, according to a copy of the document available online on Saturday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EmptyBee



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 336
Location: Montgomeryshire, Wales

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
Pentagon document would alter nuclear weapons plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001577.html


So...

Quote:
Asia Times, Aug 11th:
Recently, former Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi asserted in the American Conservative magazine that, as of late summer 2005, the Pentagon, "under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office" was "drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan mandates a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."



Quote:
From the Reuters article Sept 10th:
Other scenarios envisioned in the draft doctrine include nuclear weapons use to counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces, for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms, to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of weapons of mass destruction, and to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction supplied by an enemy to a "surrogate."
The document said "numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and about 30 countries have programs for weapons of mass destruction.
"Further, the possible use of WMD by nonstate actors either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state, remain a significant proliferation concern," the draft said.


...it looks like that American Conservative article was right on the money.

The prosaic explanation for this public revival of the doctrine of pre-emption is that the US is just upping the ante in the high stakes poker game of international diplomacy. After all, their hand isn't looking particularly good at the moment; arguably Iran is holding the best cards. Spreading around 'drafts' of frothingly hot-headed policies could be just to intimidate Tehran.

While we've not seen fuel tankers or any of the other dire predictions there's rumours flying around of a terrorist "Ramadan Offensive" and now this 'al-Qaeda' video threatening LA and Melbourne. Let's hope it's just talk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ballard



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 826
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:19 pm    Post subject: Preemptive Nuclear Strikes - Now Only A Matter of Time Reply with quote

http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/preemptive_120905_6619.shtml

Looks like they are getting ready to 'remove' Irans nuclear capability...
_________________
pɐɯ ǝuoƃ s,plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

US Calls Nuclear Statement by Iranian President 'Very Aggressive'
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-18-voa10.cfm

Quote:

A senior U.S. official who spoke to reporters called the speech "very aggressive" and said Mr. Ahmadinejad's repeated assertion of an Iranian right to enrich uranium appears to cross "red lines" set by the three European Union states that have negotiated with Tehran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran warns it could quit nuclear treaty, issues oil threat

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/09/20/afx2234113.html

Quote:

Larijani also warned that states which lined up with Britain, France and Germany against Iran -- OPEC's number-two producer -- would suffer economic consequences.

'Those countries that have economic transactions with Iran, especially in the field of oil, have not defended Iran's rights so far,' complained Larijani, the hardline secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

This top decision-making body, he said, was 'very determined to make a balance between these two things.

'So based on how much they defend Iran's national right will facilitate their participation in Iran's economic field.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw those stories on the news, and said out loud "war with iran is only a matter of time" Sad

What a sad state of affairs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
I saw those stories on the news, and said out loud "war with iran is only a matter of time" Sad

What a sad state of affairs


I still have serious problems imagining how on earth anyone in the west would consider going after Iran with military power. The global consequences would be terrible, even after a "limited" airstrike. And dont even mention nukes - even more incomprehensible.

Well, IF Bush & Co attack Iran, I guess it would be even more of a runaway success than the current success in Iraq...
Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
revdode



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Hungary

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
I saw those stories on the news, and said out loud "war with iran is only a matter of time" Sad

What a sad state of affairs


I felt the same. I must be spending too much time with conspiracy theorists Smile

I'm still clinging to the fact that America just doesn't have the resources to go after Iran in any way short of pushing the big red button. I just can't see what that would get them other than special 2005 edition glow in the dark crude oil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
fishertrop



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I can see more than one credible way that the US can get into actual conflict with the Iran and it go mostly according to their plan, at least in the short term.

The crisis that a conflict with Iran would surely cause just has to be "presented" in the right way.

Whilst I'm neutral on the likelyhood of a shooting war, I really have no problems at all seeing viable plans that the US might have sat waiting for the green the light.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacG



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2863
Location: Scandinavia

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishertrop wrote:
Personally, I can see more than one credible way that the US can get into actual conflict with the Iran and it go mostly according to their plan, at least in the short term.

The crisis that a conflict with Iran would surely cause just has to be "presented" in the right way.

Whilst I'm neutral on the likelyhood of a shooting war, I really have no problems at all seeing viable plans that the US might have sat waiting for the green the light.


Nonono, I agree with the various pretexts to *initiate* an assault on Iran, but who -in their right minds- would pursue it considering the imediate consequences?

1) Iranian crude extraction would be interrupted. Some 3 MBl/d and in decline, but is it not better than nothing at all? Specially in the wake of Katrina and Rita?

2) Strait of Hormuz. A hell of a lot of ME oil pass the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is on one side of said strait. I say no more.

3) The Iranian guys suddenly seem to be so very cozy with the Chineese guys. The same Chineese guys were super cozy with Saddam and found themselves mightily pissed off when their contracts with Saddam were suddenly cancelled by a certain guy from Texas and his pals.

4) Iraq. Still a terrible mess. The bearded Shia guys in Iran seem to have a lot of feelings towards their bearded Shia fellows in Iraq, and want to do a lot more to support them than what they have done before.

5) Saudi Arabia. Look pretty stable at a quick glance, but initiated sources (like the Saud family) say it could become quite a mess anytime. A lot of radical Sunnis want to support their Sunni fellows in Iraq, and not everyone is overly happy with the king. Or the royal family at all.

The whole thing look like a hornets nest, and the only wise thing to do is to avoid poking poles into it. I mean, come on, how do we handle the region with some 60+ % of the remaining oil reserves when we feel some pain from a couple of tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico? Does it seem super smart to... er... nuke them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DamianB
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 553
Location: Dorset

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fighting talk......
Quote:
A senior Revolutionary Guards commander warns if Iran was attacked by Israel or the United states, oil prices on the international markets could reach $400 a barrel, , according to Persian-language news websites.

So far negotiation between the Islamic Republic and the West over its nuclear program are carried out in the framework of one of three doctrines; ?Carrot and Stick?, ?Good Cop, Bad Cop?, and ?Trigger Mechanism?, said Brigadier General Hassan Abbasi, the head of the Centre for Research on Security Without Borders Doctrines.

Abbasi described the European Union?s latest doctrine concerning Iran?s nuclear ambitions as the ?Chicken Strategy?, where ?both parties follow a collision course at such fast speeds until one side eventually backs off?.

?This is the first time when the strategic balance between both sides is equal and Iran?s strategic stance is no longer from a position of weakness?, Abbasi said.


Aljazeera.com
_________________
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Living in the Future All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group