IRAN SETTING CONDITIONS FOR THE BRITS ?
In an open act of war, Iran knowingly and deliberately attacked a British Naval Vessel operating in the territorial waters of Iraq with the permission of that government, kidnapped and took hostage fifteen British military personnel and now this country that is defying the world, openly creating international incidents and acts of war is setting the conditions to ease tensions.
So what is the response ? Well the Brits who are the ones in whom this blatant act of war was perpetrated on first called for discussions with Iranian diplomats and basically told them, " you know you really shouldn't have done that. Please, oh please give our people back." The when Iran refused, which was predictable, the Brits run crying to the most corrupt and non result oriented organization in the world The United Nations, begging for help.
I am sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who head this terrorist and Islamic fanatic state are patting themselves on the back once again congratulating each other for holding the world hostage through the Brits and gaining with every passing moment more confidence that they are untouchable and can make the world bow to their will.
Iran is not a big player in the world scheme but because of appeasement and fear this rogue, terrorist state now has been emboldened into believing that they can play on the big stage and the world has no choice but to listen and comply.
The Brits in one of their initial responses to the attack on the vessel and the kidnapping of their people stated that they were, "afraid, " to push the issue for fear of how Iran will act. This is precisely how terrorism controls. Creating fear by fanatical actions thus forcing through that fear the desired response of appeasement and compliance to demands or conditions.
One of the greatest fears that Iran uses to its advantage is the continual threat that if action is taken against them they will shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the small body of water separating Iran from Oman and the only entrance or exit from the Persian Gulf. This act would shut down all oil shipment from the area.
This again is an act of terrorism by Iran creating fear in the markets and oil needy countries that the Middle East oil supply will stop flowing. I ask you, if Iran were to exercise this threat and attempt to shut down the Straits does anyone actually believe it will be allowed to happen ? For instance at this moment the USS Eisenhower and Stennis Carrier Groups are stationed in the Gulf and have been practicing war games in the vicinity of Iran as a show of force. With this much fire power, the equivalent of several COUNTRIES in just the two Carrier Groups, would Iran have the capability of actually shutting down the Straits and if so could it last for more than a few hours? I think not.
Yet daily this rogue terrorist regime is catered to with only weak and meaningless UN sanctions placed against them which Iran immediately ignores and the Mullahs and Mahmoud continue to grow in confidence that they can do what ever they please.
It would not take a massive invasion or even a prolonged attack to put this regime and their continual actions and threats against the world in its place. First there is a strong and growing movement in Iran against the regime and its fanatical Islamic beliefs. A Movement that if given the right incentive and sign from the west has all the indications that it is strong enough with backing to topple the Mullahs and Mahmoud. Second Iran though having a sizable manned force in comparison to others in the region, does not have the capability to withstand or defend against a planned, strong and devastating strike from the Stennis and the Eisenhower to knock this regime down a peg or two.
President Reagan proved that these fanatical regimes can be kicked in the pants and put in their place when Libya's leader Muammar Al-Qaddafi was acting similarly to the leaders of Iran today. In 1986, Lybia was a small player using terrorism as a tactic to play on the big stage and creating fear just as Iran is today. On April 15, 1986 President Reagan ordered a quick and decisive air attack on Lybia in retaliation for a West Berlin discotheque bombing April 5, 1985 and other terrorist acts committed by this regime. This action not only knocked Qaddafi down to size but his fear of further retaliation took him off the world stage completely and he has been virtually quiet ever since.
Iran is the Lybia of today and are using terrorist threats and actions as Qaddafi did, creating similar fear and appeasement. Until action is taken to put Iran in its place they will continue to hold the world hostage over the Straits of Hormuz and the regime with be further emboldened into believing that they are untouchable.
Additionally a quick and decisive strike coupled with what I am sure is covert activity with the growing groups against the current regime would most likely be the catalyst to the collapse of the Mullahs and the end of the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ken Taylor
So what is the response ? Well the Brits who are the ones in whom this blatant act of war was perpetrated on first called for discussions with Iranian diplomats and basically told them, " you know you really shouldn't have done that. Please, oh please give our people back." The when Iran refused, which was predictable, the Brits run crying to the most corrupt and non result oriented organization in the world The United Nations, begging for help.
I am sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who head this terrorist and Islamic fanatic state are patting themselves on the back once again congratulating each other for holding the world hostage through the Brits and gaining with every passing moment more confidence that they are untouchable and can make the world bow to their will.
Iran is not a big player in the world scheme but because of appeasement and fear this rogue, terrorist state now has been emboldened into believing that they can play on the big stage and the world has no choice but to listen and comply.
The Brits in one of their initial responses to the attack on the vessel and the kidnapping of their people stated that they were, "afraid, " to push the issue for fear of how Iran will act. This is precisely how terrorism controls. Creating fear by fanatical actions thus forcing through that fear the desired response of appeasement and compliance to demands or conditions.
One of the greatest fears that Iran uses to its advantage is the continual threat that if action is taken against them they will shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the small body of water separating Iran from Oman and the only entrance or exit from the Persian Gulf. This act would shut down all oil shipment from the area.
This again is an act of terrorism by Iran creating fear in the markets and oil needy countries that the Middle East oil supply will stop flowing. I ask you, if Iran were to exercise this threat and attempt to shut down the Straits does anyone actually believe it will be allowed to happen ? For instance at this moment the USS Eisenhower and Stennis Carrier Groups are stationed in the Gulf and have been practicing war games in the vicinity of Iran as a show of force. With this much fire power, the equivalent of several COUNTRIES in just the two Carrier Groups, would Iran have the capability of actually shutting down the Straits and if so could it last for more than a few hours? I think not.
Yet daily this rogue terrorist regime is catered to with only weak and meaningless UN sanctions placed against them which Iran immediately ignores and the Mullahs and Mahmoud continue to grow in confidence that they can do what ever they please.
It would not take a massive invasion or even a prolonged attack to put this regime and their continual actions and threats against the world in its place. First there is a strong and growing movement in Iran against the regime and its fanatical Islamic beliefs. A Movement that if given the right incentive and sign from the west has all the indications that it is strong enough with backing to topple the Mullahs and Mahmoud. Second Iran though having a sizable manned force in comparison to others in the region, does not have the capability to withstand or defend against a planned, strong and devastating strike from the Stennis and the Eisenhower to knock this regime down a peg or two.
President Reagan proved that these fanatical regimes can be kicked in the pants and put in their place when Libya's leader Muammar Al-Qaddafi was acting similarly to the leaders of Iran today. In 1986, Lybia was a small player using terrorism as a tactic to play on the big stage and creating fear just as Iran is today. On April 15, 1986 President Reagan ordered a quick and decisive air attack on Lybia in retaliation for a West Berlin discotheque bombing April 5, 1985 and other terrorist acts committed by this regime. This action not only knocked Qaddafi down to size but his fear of further retaliation took him off the world stage completely and he has been virtually quiet ever since.
Iran is the Lybia of today and are using terrorist threats and actions as Qaddafi did, creating similar fear and appeasement. Until action is taken to put Iran in its place they will continue to hold the world hostage over the Straits of Hormuz and the regime with be further emboldened into believing that they are untouchable.
Additionally a quick and decisive strike coupled with what I am sure is covert activity with the growing groups against the current regime would most likely be the catalyst to the collapse of the Mullahs and the end of the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:20 AM
9 Comments:
Ken, there are two issues that need to be considered.
1. It is very possible that the Brits were in Iranian waters. If you do not believe that the Brits and U.S. special ops are not infringing on Iranian territory then you are being naive. We have CIA and likely military special operations taking place on Iranian soil gathering intelligence on strike targets.
2. When you say, "Iran is not a big player in the world scheme" you are greatly mistaken. The number 2 oil producer in OPEC is a significant world player. They have huge energy deals with Russia, India, and China. That makes them a significant world player.
Oil prices rose today to $66/barrel as a result of the issue. If there were military strikes on Iran, oil prices would shoot to $80/barrel, if not higher. It would have a major negative effect on the global economy. That is why the Brits (and I am quite certain the U.S.) are pushing diplomacy over military action.
It is not appeasement - it is protecting the West's own financial self interest. If this was some African country with no oil reserves, the Brits (and us) would have blown the country off the face of the earth. But, Iran is a very important producer of energy for the world, so the West is forced to tread carefully.
Months ago I told you we were not going to attack Iran for the very reasons I have stated here. Nothing has changed - the West is still addicted to oil and will not destroy a critical supplier without exhausting all diplomatic efforts.
Rob, I realize that covert actions are taking place in Iran to;
1.Plan and support the opposition
2. Contingency for possible military action to gather intell etc.
Also Iran has used the oil card as a terror tactic and that is as much terrorism as any other act. It instills fear into the west.
As I mentioned in the post the Straits would only be out of commission if at all for a short time.
Futures specualtors have considerable control over the market as is evidenced by the quick rise when anything might, and I stress might effect them. Yet in the same thought when that oil threat does not appear the same futures market is extrememly slow if at all to correct the over reaction. This drives the oil prices as much if not more than actual events or even supply and demand.
A quick resolution to Iran with strikes as mentioned and the support and assistance in over throwing the Mullahs with the opposition in Iran could very well stabalize the market to the betterment of prices as Iran no longer poses a threat to the west and its neighbors. Of course there would be a temporary spike but that would lesson as it is seen that the threat has been resolved.
When refering to Iran as a small player I realize that they are a large oil supplier and that does effect world placement,in the grand world scheme they use that as a means of control and in making themselves far more prominant they they actually are. Also the constent appeasement and caving to the regimes terror tactics only emboldens them to continue and allows escalation giving them the idea that they are untouchable. Which in itself is terrorism as their actions are gaining compliance rather than standing firm in preventing further Iranian activity.
It is also very possible with stategic strike for the temporary take over and control of Iranian oil facilities to prevent the regime from holding its own oil as hostage over the world and then when control in the country is re-estabished after the current regime falls returning oil control to Iran.
There are so many other scenerios other than the current showing an angry face and rhetoric while all the while allowing Iran to continue with its terror strategy and dominate the region.
I dare say also that as with Lybia if a strong stance is taken against Iran as mentioned in the post, even the current regime will do a double take in contnuing their current path and actions.
Your over-simplified analysis is exactly the reason we have the mess we have in Iraq. The idea that we could impose a regime change in Iran and then the world would automatically be a better place is simply ridiculous. You don't have to know about the foolishness of installing the Shah of Iran, all you have to do is look at the horrible conditions we have created in Iraq for its people. On top of that, oil production in Iraq has remained below that of pre-invasion levels.
Even if we had the troops and a strategy to magically take over Iran's oil production - which we don't and would never happen. Iranian moderates would not stand for a Western hijacking of their oil production - no matter how good our intentions were. For that matter, OPEC would NEVER, EVER go along with such a plan. And we would have to have explicit approval from the other OPEC partners - this would include the Saudis and Venezuela.
On top of that, India and China, are energy starved economies that have significant independent energy deals with Iran and would NEVER, EVER go along with such a plan.
Of course, the Russians have significant business/military hardware dealings with Iran and would be against such a plan.
Finally, to compare Libya and Iran is just plain crazy. Libya is tiny in comparison. It has about 5M people - Iran has about 70 million people. Iranian oil production and exports far surpass that of Libya.
Isn't it amazing all the things that Bush has accomplished?
Like it or not, we (meaning both America and the UK) will eventually engage Iran in another war, much like the one in Iraq. The difference here is, if we go to war against Iran, we will be fighting primarily their military, in uniforms, not only terrorists in civilian clothes.
I'm tired of Bush...
------------------------
houseofpolitics.com
You guys are so naive when it comes to real-politick.
Using GPS, the Brits have established that their people were in Iraqi waters.
This is simply another example of Iran's pushing the envelope because they know from experience that no one's going to punish them with anything more than "strong language".
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
It's over folks, all your greatest dreams of war with Iran are dust.
Post a Comment
<< Home