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.

Tweet

Our Next War?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the British military are preparing for potential military action against Iran.

Only a year ago The Truthseeker had an interesting article which is so ridiculous it could be true. However, Libya interrupted the plans, although our presence there was officially halted this week.

"Where next?" thought Obama and phoned his lapdog Cameron. "Next is Iran and I want to bring the schedule forward.  Must keep the momentum of war going or the people will begin to notice the money we waste on such foolish adventures."

"Right behind you," said Cameron.

According to the Guardian, the US may want to take action before next November's US election.  Obama can't afford to lose because of unjustified US military intervention in other countries and he knows Americans will think a military operation now is purely political because Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme has been public knowledge for some years now. According to 'sources' there is 'new' intelligence which has declared Tehran is moving some new, more efficient centrifuges into the heavily fortified military base dug beneath a mountain at the city of Qom.

A British source:

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't. So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure. President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Yes, I have little doubt our warmongering leaders will take us to war with Iran -  and soon.

 source

Tweet

The MoD v Iran - Iran Wins By £400m

Here is a good example of governmental waste of taxpayers' money. Quietly successive governments spend millions of our hard earned cash on issues such as this.

Do we really want more of the same? Because if we vote for any of the three main parties that's what we'll get. No PPC wants to discuss such matters, mainly because they don't have a clue about them, but these types of issues, along with the 'aid' dished out willy nilly by DFID, are why we cannot invest in the future of our children.

It's a long story going back 30 years when Britain sold the Shah of Iran 1,500 state of the art Chieftain tanks (pictured above) and 250 repair vehicles costing £650m. It must have seemed unbelievable to the British government of the time when the Shah of Persia paid them up front for the equipment.

The deal was negotiated by a government-owned company named International Military Services Ltd.

The problems arose when, with just 185 tanks delivered to Tehran, the Shah was deposed. The deal floundered and the Iranians asked for their money back. London refused and ever since have fought a bitter legal court case in an obscure international trading court based in the Netherlands. They want to hold onto what remains of the Shah's money.

The Thatcher government panicked and quickly agreed to sell 279 Chieftains to Jordan. What was not public knowledge was that, under the cover of that deal, Britain also sold 29 surplus ARVs to Hussein's Iraq, shortly before it began the 8 year war with Iran which is said to have claimed half a million lives. Publicising this would have contravened Britain's position of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war and all IMS records elating to it were shredded apart from a letter signed by Lord Strathcona, a junior MoD minister, authorising the transaction.

However, all these years later (and let's not forget the compound interest), Britain is to return nearly £400m to Iran's defence ministry after finally admitting defeat. Financial restrictions imposed by the EU on Iranian banks mean that Iran will not be able to access the money and it will be held in a trust account overseen by independent trustees.

One British source said: "Given the context of current relations a large payment of this type looks like a propaganda gift."

The MoD insisted that the pay out will not come from its own over-stretched budget. In anticipation of a defeat, as far back as 2002, Britain paid nearly £486m into the High Court to meet the cost of any settlement. Westminster state that this money came from the Treasury and the government-owned International Military Services Ltd.

Can you believe that this money, expected to be about £390m including decades of compound interest, has not affected the expenditure for our troops in the last decade? That is what the UK government want us to believe.

Do read the whole article. It shows the hidden costs of a UK government where both tory and labour governments' allegiances to the arms trade came far above that of the country's national industries. What isn't mentioned is the 30-year legal costs.

There are reasons (here is one) why we have 10,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan and they are nothing to do with keeping the streets of Britain safer. It is said that the US Congress is pushing for war on Iran for the benefit of 'special interests'.

Lives are far less important than money - big money - where arms and reconstruction are concerned.

Tweet

Iran Becoming a 'Military Dictatorship'

Hilary Clinton has been in the Middle East to gather support for tougher sanctions against Iran.  She has accused Iran of becoming a military dictatorship with a scathing attack on the growing influence of the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard.

During talks with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, Mrs Clinton stressed the urgent need for exerting more pressure on Iran.  She played down the possibility of any US-led attack against Tehran, saying that "the sanctions being pursued currently by the US should offset the need for military action.

"We are planning to try to bring the world community together in applying pressure to Iran through sanctions adopted by the UN that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guards of Iran," she said earlier in Doha.

Mrs Clinton also said the US had frozen the assets of the Revolutionary Guards and the subsidiaries of a construction company it had previously taken action against because of its alleged role in producing weapons of mass destruction.

Forgive me if I sense shadows of Iraq.  Global Research contributor Eric Sommer has his opinion which adds another dimension.

source

Tweet

Is Another War in the Offing?

I found this staged announcement, from Obama, Brown and Sarkozy, chilling when I watched it live last week. In fact I'd go as far to say the presentation had a sinister aura.

First thought that sprang to mind was 'this is a precursor speech to war with Iran' and I'm not the only person to think so.

Of course there are always other opinions and James Cusick provides one:

Over the next few crucial months, Obama may need to look to Brown as his “global” ally and Brown will be more than happy to take the role as international global statesman as they both focus on the crisis of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

By accident, and certainly not by any choreography, Brown has been handed a global crisis that could transform his last months in office. The crisis centres on a secret Iranian nuclear enrichment plant and demands that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors be given access to the hidden plant at Qom in Iran. In the absence of co-operation by the Iranians, a new regime of sanctions will be imposed with the potential backing of Russia.

The worrying part is that, when questioned, David Miliband immediately refused to rule out the option of military action.

Iain MacWhirter contributed to this subject today too:

Perhaps a small new war might save Gordon’s bacon. The refusal by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, to rule out military action against Iran for developing a second uranium enrichment plant, suggests that Britain is not going to complain too loudly if Israel bombs it, as they did the Osirak plant in Iraq in 1981. There is nothing like heightened international tension to bolster a political leader.

Once I read that when politicians get the taste for war they never stop being warmongers. I do wish I could remember who wrote that because it becomes more believable each day.

Tweet