A War Avoided – Barely – Moon of Alabama

April 7, 2007

A War Avoided – Barely

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

Buzzing military bases in Iran would certainly and rightfully have been interpreted as an act of war. Some Iranian air defense would have hit some U.S. fighter – the U.S. would have responded with an all-out bombing campaign. A simple local conflict over an undefined border would have escalated into a region wide slaughter. The British sailors and marines would certainly not be free by now.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.
…
The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.
Guardian

Is the report true? I am not sure, but given the actors it is quite plausible.

So whoever took the decision in the UK to turn down the US offer – thanks.

Whoever ordered that offer to be made in the first place, should be court-martialled for intending to start a war of agression.

Could the U.S. Congress now please find some spine and restrict such offers and pointless aggressive actions?

Posted by b on April 7, 2007 at 07:23 UTC | Permalink

Comments

There are, thankfully, a few sensible people running things in Britain.
Likewise, someone in the USA must have listened when the British requested that the Americans NOT ‘help’ in this situation.
We came very close to Armageddon and fortunately no one made the wrong decision–except for the one sending the British sailors to the Gulf in the first place. What the hell are they doing there ‘inspecting’ freighters for contraband cars? That is a job for the Iraqis, not a foreign military power. I believe that like I believe Bush’s statements that everything is going swell there now.
Please, someone let the cooler heads continue to prevail. Other columns assumed we’d already be at war with Iran by Easter week–I can only hope that they will continue to be wrong.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | Apr 7 2007 7:51 utc | 1

a few sensible people running things in Britain
That’s stretching things a bit far.
OK – so they managed to employ some good doggie diplomacy long enough to get their 15 not so tough looking little schmucks out of there, but where the fuck did they manage to get such a gigantic obscene looking flag for this charade.
One minute they are pissing their pants, the next minute they are back to being bovver boys.
I think (maybe ever since Thatcher and that Falklands fiasco) – that the British ‘character’ has started to revert to type. They did seem to be maturing a little bit after they realised that they were no longer an Empire, but it seems that old habits die hard.
While I can’t stand that little shit Blair, he could not get away with these puerile antics without a willing and participating audience.
Ah, fuck them. I really don’t think they are going to be really happy until they get another “lovely war”.

Posted by: DM | Apr 7 2007 10:13 utc | 2

DM, I read some of the comments on that Daily Mail link. Interestly, a few commenters said “stop talking about it”. The Brits know that have been humilated and yesterday’s press conference made it worse.
I note also that Faye the smoking hijab was not there. She must be finalising her tabloid exclusive. If the MoD have anything to do with it, I expect the words “rape” and “threaten” to be there.
If not, her story may make yesterday’s PR stunt backfire even more in “craven” Blair’s face!

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 7 2007 10:52 utc | 3

If not, her story may make yesterday’s PR stunt backfire even more in “craven” Blair’s face!
it will be interesting to see how much the sailors/marines will be able to reveal eventually to London tabloids without violating sections of the “Official Secrets Act”.
after all, there have been reports of “surveillance” activities by the same kind of units the 15 belonged to.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Apr 7 2007 12:04 utc | 4

“What the hell are they doing there ‘inspecting’ freighters for contraband cars? That is a job for the Iraqis, not a foreign military power.”
the nature of Euro-centric colonization has always been to seize the opportunity to assert its moral superiority at every oppoprtunity. This is essential as the peeps at home & abroad must be conditioned to accept the colonizers world-view & morality as superior.
further, no one must be allowed to consider the stunting effect of the colonizers conduct on the the abilities of the locals to do well for themselves. All local existing structures and instituitions of merit will either be destroyed or neglected till they die. All memories will be erased as the locals are coereced into dependence and paralysis and compelled to live under deliberately artificialized alien instituitions and alien affinities.
if colonization was about forcibly exporting Euro-centrism, it would not be as bad as what it really is about – exporting moral superiority

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Apr 7 2007 12:25 utc | 5

I went to the hardware store today to get nails, and parked beside a white Church van when I got there. One of those extended Chevy jobs, with seating for fourteen souls and a driver.
Large red script on both sides and the back proclaimed, The Rod of God Ministries. There were little Leviticus verses in royal blue scattered about for emphasis. Looks like a tough outfit, I thought.
It’s a warehouse style store, with acres of high shelves to wander among, and a high roof to echo every sound. While I was finding nails, I kept hearing kids crying up front by the checkout lanes.
When I walked up front to pay, I found a couple dozen local folks wordlessly watching two adults, a man and a woman, spank a couple of young boys right there in public. The boys were 8 or 9 years old, dressed in matching school uniforms of white shirts, blue ties, and khaki pants — which were dropped around their ankles, revealing matching briefs.
The man had a short mahogany paddle, with Bible verses carved into it. The woman held the boys by their hands while the man whacked them while the boys wailed in pain and humiliation. All the adults watching whispered amongst themselves, but looked on and did not intervene. In half a minute, the whole shameful show was out the door, into the Rod of God van, and gone.
Business as usual.
It will be just like that with Iran. The nations will witness and whisper, but no one will actually stay America’s hand.
Because the current momentum in the Middle East is a rising Shia populace within the eleven Arab nations over there, causing a lot of social and political and economic unrest within them, all of it encouraged, driven, funded and blessed by that non-Arab nation, Iran. By those Persians.
The nations don’t need this. No one needs a blossoming Shiite rights movement right now. Like a hole in the head they need this right now!
The world needs stable petroleum supplies coming out of the Middle East. The best scenario for maintaining stability is to let the eleven Arab nations who dominate the place keep right on dominating it, for as long as the oil lasts. The world doesn’t need Shiites pressing their demands for better than second class citizenship within those nations. Not right now. In fact, how ’bout never? Is never soon enough?
The world doesn’t need Iran becoming the de facto regional superpower, rivaling Israel in every category, and pressuring the Arab nations of the region to change their business and political and social practices and their international alliances.
That can get dicey. No one can control that. That’s unbridled change.
So, everyone will simply watch when America smites Iran with the Rod of God.
Europe won’t mind, when Iran is slapped down by Mister Bush. China won’t mind, and Russia won’t mind, when America digs deeper into the hole it has dug itself into so far. Israel won’t mind, and the Arabs won’t mind if the regional status quo is held in place.
As long as the whipping sets Iran’s economy and military and nuclear capacity back a decade or so, everyone sees a silver lining in that mushroom cloud Mister Cheney has planned.
If it goes that way, that’s okay with everyone.
The problem is that Iran is not helpless. Iran is Samson in a temple of petroleum pumps and pipelines, and will pull the whole place down before they’ll accept standing there with their pants around their ankles, begging the grownups to stop.

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 7 2007 12:30 utc | 6

Watched the video of the sailors/marines press conference – at least they trained for that … reading well formulated tripplechecked statements from prepared papers … “We were clearly 1.7 miles away from the border” – which border???

Posted by: b | Apr 7 2007 12:43 utc | 7

Antifa:
Really enjoyed your moment of epiphany there, until the last paragraph. Iranians are not children. The thugs are certainly not “grownups”.
The Iranians’ll fight back… but it’s Israel that’ll “pull the whole place down”. If they can’t have it, no one can.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 7 2007 13:48 utc | 8

@Antifa – I liked your post. I think your assessment sounds about right. They could bomb the shit out of Iran for a couple of weeks and nobody would twitch.
If they think they have their bases covered — that they can do this with just the loss of Iranian oil supplies for a while and no real danger of physical retaliation to other than their Arab friends — then it could still happen very shortly.
I think the questions are – do the neos stlll have their nuts, and do they still have the political clout?
This is what they want – so if they don’t do it now – then eventually the 5th Fleet will have to sail away, the troops will have to start going home, electoral campaigns will have to be run. To me it looks pretty much like now or never.
They obviously don’t give a shit about the consequences (or at least what they think will be the consequences). What are a few oil-pipelines when the Empire is at stake?
Trouble is, these damned unknown-unknowns. Even if everyone starts off by standing around with their hands in their pocket, things could change.

Posted by: DM | Apr 7 2007 14:02 utc | 9

My thoughts too b (#7). Maybe Faye didn’t pass the audition.
And Antifa, call me cynical, but my first thought about the exhibition at the hardware store was that it was probably planned for maximum effect to “show the public how it’s done”. Sick.

Posted by: beq | Apr 7 2007 15:25 utc | 10

Antifa #6 —
Sweet Jesus! Antifa. That is illegal in most states. Not in yours?–somebody should have called the cops (after suggesting to those “good christians” that they clean up their fucking act).
As to the analogy, yes, only, unlike those boys, Iran knows what it is facing, knows that its opponents have no moral authority, and what is coming is just one more stage in the fall of the West.
Oil is going to go off line for political reasons BEFORE the geological reasons kick in. Just sayin’.

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 7 2007 18:38 utc | 11

The man had a short mahogany paddle, with Bible verses carved into it. The woman held the boys by their hands while the man whacked them while the boys wailed in pain and humiliation. All the adults watching whispered amongst themselves, but looked on and did not intervene.
This may sound over- I don’t know what -but if such would happen here under my eyes, that guy would have had his nose smashed faster than he could think. A slap in anger on a kid may be barely justifyable – a beating on the naked ass – that’s assault and battery and various other crimes.
The world doesn’t need Iran becoming the de facto regional superpower, rivaling Israel in every category, and pressuring the Arab nations of the region to change their business and political and social practices and their international alliances.
Iran has never shown such intent at all – it doesn’t have the capacity either. It has barely enough economic power to feed its people. Persia has five warships – the U.S. has some 25 (at least) in the Persian Sea alone.
Iran has not a chance to rival or attack Israel. As the war on Iraq shows one needs ground forces to beat an enemy. Tehran is a 1,000 miles of desert tracks away from Tel Aviv.
Sofia, the Bulgarian capital is more near to Tel Aviv that Teheran!!! The ideological differences between Sofia and Tel Aviv are quite probably bigger thane between Teheran and Tel Aviv.
Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar have triple the number of more modern warplanes than Iran – and that doesn’t even count Pakistan, an Iranian neighbor with nukes AND modern warplanes.
The “Iran = superpower” line is pure propaganda talk – there is not a chance Iran could achieve a decisive regional military power in the next two decades.

Posted by: b | Apr 7 2007 20:09 utc | 12

b above says Persia has five warships – the U.S. has some 25 (at least) in the Persian Sea alone.
The Persian Gulf is a goldfish bowl. Some suicide Shia in fast consfiscated British inflatables could easily match a destroyer/frigate.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 7 2007 22:49 utc | 13

Russia and China will mind any US military assault, serving as a prelude to some noodling around with Iran’s oil fields. The insane ambition and hubris of the Bushies is not something to be observed as one might observe a spanking administered to 8 and 9 year olds.
What is being contemplated is a destruction of civilian infrastructure and loss of life, maybe a hundred times worse than Israel’s air war on Lebanon, last summer. The political implication of such an attack (if it occurred) would allow few in this world to merely stand around and whisper. There is no silver lining in such a transparent aggression, instigated as it would be, by an utterly failed and criminal administration. I doubt that the majority of Americans and Congress would be in a permissive mood, when it comes to the idea that a widely distrusted president might risk touching off a conflagration.
Chaos serving as a platform for further chaos. Corruption fertilizing more corruption. Aggression as the flight forward to the next aggression. Failure as the criteria for future failure. The feeding of our soldiers into the maw of war to prop up sagging political reputations. This is the evidence of an awful deterioration of public office, popular sovereignty, and law. No one across the face of this world ought to remain silent or speak in whispers, or even stay indoors, if an aggression like the one being contemplated comes to pass.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 8 2007 0:06 utc | 14

I doubt that the majority of Americans and Congress would be in a permissive mood, when it comes to the idea that a widely distrusted president might risk touching off a conflagration.
Congress just sent the Neocons a “bomb Iran for free” card at the insistence of the AIPAC. Can’t get more “permissive” than that, can you.
No one across the face of this world ought to remain silent or speak in whispers, or even stay indoors, if an aggression like the one being contemplated comes to pass.
Of course then it will be too late, won’t it.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 8 2007 6:37 utc | 15

#1: “fortunately no one made the wrong decision–except for the one sending the British sailors to the Gulf in the first place”
– and what action was really going on under cover of this smokescreen?

Posted by: Jimmie | Apr 8 2007 15:45 utc | 16

@ John Francis Lee
Bush is already in serious political trouble over his escalation with the present surge of occupation troops in Iraq. Congressional and popular opposition to widening the war, in this example, must pale by comparison to the huge outrage that would meet a premeditated attack on Iran.
If you are suggesting that Congress doled out a “bomb Iran for free card” when it took the “Iran language” out of the crucial bill that was necessary to tie timelines for troop withdrawal to supplemental funding, then I think you are reading too much into a tactical concession that Pelosi believed was needed in order to get the bill passed and sent forward to the President’s desk.
It is Bush who will be forced to veto the funding measure he so piously clamors for. He will veto the money for our needy young soldiers, not because the treasure isn’t being made available for the troops, but because he fundamentally denies Congress its authority to reorder the mission and set conditions for redeployment or withdrawal.
As for your other point, or implication, that it will be too late for all of us if Bush really does attack Iran; I believe that none of us really knows the answer to that question. It looks like April will be a very long and tense month. But if our Watergate history is any comfort to us at this point, we should remember that the aggression against Cambodia, Nixon’s invading and bombing certainly didn’t help him.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 8 2007 17:41 utc | 17

If you are suggesting that Congress doled out a “bomb Iran for free card” when it took the “Iran language” out of the crucial bill that was necessary to tie timelines for troop withdrawal to supplemental funding, then I think you are reading too much into a tactical concession that Pelosi believed was needed in order to get the bill passed and sent forward to the President’s desk.
I see some misconceptions in this:
– If something was part of a law-making discussion and was taken out before the law was legaly instituted, every judge will assume that this was intentionally and thereby explicitely NOT restricting. Congress has explicitely NOT restricted the presidents ability to attack Iran. It has in fact given hime the might to do so.
– There is nothing in the Senate or House bill that is effective troop withdrawl. Only the troops not needed to “protect those troops who train the Iraqi army” and are not needed to protect the bases are to be withdrawn. With such “restrictions” it is easy to come up with a demand of 200,000 US troops in Iraq. There is NO real withdrawl language in those bills and that is before conference …
My take: Pelosi and other leading Dems do not want troops out of Iraq before 2009 because that would help the Republicans in the next election …

Posted by: b | Apr 8 2007 18:04 utc | 18

Well Bernhard, your conclusion that “Pelosi and other leading Dems do not want troops out of Iraq before 2009 because that would help the Republicans in the next election” strikes me as being too cynical. Pelosi and the leadership cannot get away with that, politically, because in such a circumstance they would lose not only their base, but most other Americans as well. The war and occupation is sinking our own country and we don’t have that kind of time. This fact is now widely appreciated. The administration is discredited, deeply discredited; and the Congress would be derelict and worse to allow a power drunk executive to just order another round of war.

– If something was part of a law-making discussion and was taken out before the law was legaly instituted, every judge will assume that this was intentionally and thereby explicitely NOT restricting. Congress has explicitely NOT restricted the presidents ability to attack Iran. It has in fact given hime the might to do so.

The salient point is that the President has not been authorized to attack Iran. Such an attack would violate the UN Charter. Such an attack would stand in contradiction to the diplomatic offensive that Bush’s own administration made in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Those who offered the “Iran language” in the Timeline legislation could not get their measure included; but this does not bring about a reversal of roles with regard to the President and Congress. Congress declares war, authorizes war under a limited mandate, and can exercise its authority to end a war if it sees fit.
A premeditated aggression of the kind that is supposedly under consideration, would be an exponential leap beyond the Security Council theatrics and post-9/11 hysteria and the well-prepared lies that lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

– There is nothing in the Senate or House bill that is effective troop withdrawl. Only the troops not needed to “protect those troops who train the Iraqi army” and are not needed to protect the bases are to be withdrawn. With such “restrictions” it is easy to come up with a demand of 200,000 US troops in Iraq. There is NO real withdrawl language in those bills and that is before conference …

I am not happy that the withdrawal is not a 100 percent withdrawal. But I do think that under the particular circumstance, a complete withdrawal after an interregnum will be the eventual result, in spite of what may be set up by the Timeline bill. The point is, that the large Army of Occupation, along with the bloodsucking mercenaries and contractors, will have to be removed. Dismantling the colossal logistics support and withdrawing the Occupation Force is the immediate aim because the public has rejected this particular war and its endless costs, an outlay which is is simply insupportable.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 8 2007 19:59 utc | 19

I believe we’ll be in Iraq for decades. The powers that be have decided.

Posted by: Ben | Apr 8 2007 20:53 utc | 20

I believe we’ll be in Iraq for decades. The powers that be have decided.
Won’t happen.

BAGHDAD – The powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his militiamen on Sunday to redouble their battle to oust American forces and argued that
Iraq’s army and police should join him in defeating “your archenemy.” The U.S. military announced the weekend deaths of 10 American soldiers, including six killed on Sunday.

Posted by: DM | Apr 8 2007 23:02 utc | 21

The ‘Surge’.

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
4-2007 35 6 0 41 5.12 8

Higher exposure of US troops?

Posted by: DM | Apr 8 2007 23:08 utc | 22

The administration is discredited, deeply discredited; and the Congress would be derelict and worse to allow a power drunk executive to just order another round of war.
Do you imagine that the Neocons are going to ask for permission to rubble-ize Iran? They’ll “just do it”. Congress’ only chance to have any input was the resolution explicitly pointing out that the regime did not have authorization to attack Iran. That it had to consult with the Congress beforehand. And that lame resolution was stricken at the order of the AIPAC.
Congress declares war, authorizes war under a limited mandate, and can exercise its authority to end a war if it sees fit.
And it does not see fit to end this one. Or to prevent the next.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 9 2007 1:05 utc | 23

imho, the debate over including the language prohibiting attack on iran has clouded the issue. congressional and u.n. approval is required before a “legal” attack on iran. it does not/should not have to be declared expressly in legislation. however, part of the compromise with the house progressives was a stand alone resolution on iran. when congress reconvenes this week after the recess, it will most likely become part of the conversation again. whether the administration will veto or ignore this legislation (like everything else) is another question.
to dismiss the dems in congress as supporting staying in iraq until 2009 simplifies the current debate. some may be that politically cynical, but not all. 10 senators have announced support of the feingold/reid legislation. others, like levin and obama, have indicated that the dems will capitulate. however, the fact that reid and feingold came forward with it immediately indicates to me that there will be a battle. and it will be one of many and we will be fighting for our constitution.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 9 2007 14:30 utc | 24

Back to Main