Friday, 6 January 2012

Will Britain Become Involved In The Latest US Military Operation?

The political arena of Iowa has been uppermost in the western media this week while a more important development has been taking place.

Under the label of the 'Austere Challenge 12' the US Army is looking to increase co-operation with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and will hold one of the largest joint exercises in the two nations' history in 2012. This drill has happened annually recently but in 2012 it is far bigger than previous exercises.

In an interview with CNN last week, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, said, "Preparations for a military option against Iran are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary."

The two armies will hold a massive ground forces exercise - Austere Challenge 12 - in Spring this year and the drill is unprecedented in its size.

It will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany - with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces for the event of a future large-scale conflict in the Middle East.

RT reports that America previously equipped Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with enough arms to wreck any chance of an Iranian nuclear weapon programme from nearby, but now the US have added forces on-the-ready in Israel and Germany.  The US is equipping Saudi Arabia with nearly £30 billion F-15 war places, a deal that comes shortly after Washington worked out a contract with Dubai to give the UAE advanced 'bunker buster' bombs that could decimate underground nuclear operations in neighbouring Iran.

Iran's threat to close down the Strait of Hormux, a vital path for the nation's oil trade, resulted in the US dispatching 15,000 marines to the area.

This action may be taking place in distant lands but I have to ask the question -will the UK become involved?  Sadly it will - if Obama clicks his fingers.


Oldrightie said...

The CIA and probably the Markozy set have some very damaging information about the UK Government. That's the only reason I can think of that makes any sense as to why we are so compliant with the US and EU demands.

Gedguy said...

Ever since the attack on the US embassy in Tehran, in the 70s, and their abortive attempt to rescue them, the USA have longed to get their own back on the post-Shah regime. But, I believe, it is more than just that. As the price of oil rises the USA, and the rest of the warmongering west, are eyeing up the money that could be made from having Iran on their side, or, more likely, under their thumb.
As to the Iranians saying they will close the straits, and I'll take that with a huge pinch of salt, the Iranians have said many things which were for internal consumption but used by the 'west' as an excuse to have a go at Iran.
Will the UK join in any attack on Iran? Of course it will. There will be huge profits to be made if Iran is taken over.

Anonymous said...

If, and it's a big IF, Iran decided to try to close the shipping channel they would be attacking their own neighbours at the same time. Would the oil states, who depend on the proceeds of oil sales, sit silently by and allow this to happen?

The UK would benefit from this happening. It would open up the possibility of selling oil at a higher price which would benefit the treasury. The pain from the increase in fuel and energy prices to the UK population would be too much following on from the green taxes we are all suffering.

Where is the democracy in all of this? There isn't any! Our leaders decide, push it through and do what they think is best. We sit and watch the news of this unfold. Our tax contributions are spent on pursuing it.

Where would an independent Scotland stand on this? Surely we wouldn't be taking part? Or if we did it would just be small logistical support?

Perhaps Alex should widen his rhetoric when faced with potential crisis such as this. Perhaps he could provide details of how Scotland would react. Even debate it in parliament and treat it as "a real event"?

Fourfolksache said...

Although this seems like news it's old news that the MSM choose not to write about - with few exceptions.
Take a look at the analysis that Craig Murray, the ex ambassador to Uzbekistan has done on the whole Fox -Werrity scandal uncovering their connection with Israel and US Neocons and you can see that the UK government is up to their neck in this! And how is the latter debacle portrayed - Mr Fox just got his knickers in a twist re how he used his mate as an unofficial adviser!
Instead there is an ongoing right wing Zionist and Neocon plot to invade Iran and our wonderful media are ignoring it. Why?

Anonymous said...

Cameron wouldn't dare to say no to Obama. Frau Merkel or Monsieur Sarkozy might displace him in the White House Rose Garden, and make him seem less important.

That cannot be allowed to happen any more than it could with any of the prime ministers I can remember.

So what's a few billion pounds of taxpayers' money and the lives of lower class people to Cameron, compared to looking less important than Sarko or Merko?

JRB said...

“Will Britain Become Involved …”

Pray to your God that the answer is - NO!

For this conflict, should it ever occur, could be far worse than anything we have experienced to date.

America has been busy trying to strengthen relationships throughout the Arab world, hence the arms sales, simply because her close alliance with Israel has led to an inherent degree of mistrust of American foreign policy within the Arab mind.

If conflict should arise in the area the relationships with America may not be as strong as the ties between all Arabs and their unanimous hatred of Israel. In addition there are those fundamentalists just willing for a Jihad against the twin evils of Christianity and Judaism.

As for sales of gulf oil – China sits quietly in the wings – cheque book at the ready.

pa_broon74 said...

This is a bit scary.

We would dowell to keep well out of it. If indeed Westminster did decide to go in, I feel it would be an opportunity for the SNP to take an opposite position which I would like to think they would.

As for arming Dubia with bunker busters and Saudi with everything else, they'll never use it. They just like to have shiny trinkets in the desert.

God knows the Iranian state is an ignorant one, its a regime that deserves to go, but have we not learned out lesson yet?

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Hopefully a game of bluff and counter bluff -mere posturing by the neo -cons of both sides.Sink a couple of super tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and the west will be running on empty.

Add to that the idiocy of the proponents of MAD. No legitimate state (with the possible exception of Israel) is going to risk being the instigator without the capability to inflict equal damage on its adversaries.

The real concern on the nuclear front is not states and their legitimate governments but movements who have no regard or responsibility for any state other than to advance the cause of the ideology they follow.

In that regard Pakistan is the main cause for concern. Not as the instigator but as the weakest link in the chain of nuclear technology and hardware.

Other than that, war or the threat of war has proven in the past to be the boost that balances out recession. Perhaps the White House and its neo-cons see this as a diversion from the financial crises their corruption and incompetence has thrust upon us.

If so, it only adds to the disappointment Obama's term in office has proven to be. Perhaps this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and the Occupy movement will occupy the White house!

subrosa said...

OR, I put a similar comment to a military person last year. I was answered by silence and slight embarrassment.

subrosa said...

The US were part of the destruction of the Shah's regime Gedguy, but as usual they want the world to be under their rules.

The Iranians know how to play the Americans. Problem is the Americans don't have the same skill.

subrosa said...

Let's not forget TT,Iran has friends as well as enemies, although their friends aren't nearly as vocal as their enemies.

Of course there's no democracy as we know it.

I would like to think an independent Scotland would refrain from pushing other countries into 'democracy' which of course means control by others.

We're a democracy controlled by others now.

subrosa said...

I read Craig's blog regularly Fourfolksache and of course the UK are involved in this. The Westminster government have not yet declared an 'interest' publicly which I consider is a serious error.

Thankfully there are still enough people in this country to dig deep into such areas. Craig is one of them.

subrosa said...

Depends on how the wind blows with the Merkozy if they decorate the Rose Garden Tris. :)

As you rightly say, status is far more important than substance in today's politics. Has it always been so? Perhaps.

subrosa said...

John (JRB), what an excellent comment. I thank you.

subrosa said...

Pa-broon, Alex Salmond took a stance against previous wars but that had no effect on Westminster. When we're independent perhaps we would have some slight influence, but a small country like ours is immaterial in the great scheme of things - except we would save the lives of the Scottish military.

I don't think the Iranian government is ignorant. I think it can be super smart at times. The US knows this too.

subrosa said...

The Iranians are good at the bluff game Crinkly but the Israel is as good. This exercise is more a show of strength which won't impress Iran much, but they will be observing carefully.

You're right about Pakistan although the UK won't join in any initiative there, because we require Pakistan for our own ends.

Obama, like Cameron, is a man far more concerned with his PR credentials than with policies which is unfortunate for their respective countries.

John Pickworth said...

I'm sorry to say that the UK would become involved if the Iranian's attempt to block the Straits... whether the Yanks choose to join in or not (although of course they would).

We're already positioning assets in the Gulf and alone, we'd be more than a match for the Iranians.

subrosa said...

We would have to pull troops out of Afghanistan John because we don't have enough boots on the ground right now.

Maybe that's the plan ...

John Pickworth said...

We're speaking about a potential naval conflict though. I doubt it wise or necessary to put boots on the ground.

Personally, I doubt the Iranians will be daft enough to put mines into the water (they got their arses kicked the last time they tried that) and missiles would be worse for them. My guess is they'll push it in the hope gaining some concessions but stop short of going weapons hot. Of course, the danger is someone makes a mistake!

subrosa said...

John, I worded my last response badly. I was thinking about air support because if things escalate the navy would require air support. We don't have it available and would have to draw from Afghanistan.

Even there it has never been adequate as you know.

John Pickworth said...

You are, of course, correct about the lack of air cover. Coincidentally (or not) we've just dispatched a rather handy piece of our navy that will part solve the problem. For the rest, we'll need help from a friendly Emirate with a landing strip and/or the Americans.

subrosa said...

Yes John, I read about the deployment this morning. There's much we're not being told of course.

Maybe Cameron thinks that by starting a row with Alex Salmond people's minds will be distracted.

Related Posts with Thumbnails