Britain's far left Guardian is reporting that the UK government has refused a request by the US to allow the Americans to use any British bases either for a buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf or to participate in a pre-emptive strike on Iran's illeagal nuclear facilities.
That includes the use of British bases in Cyprus and even US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories:
"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." {...}
"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."
The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.
The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.
The article also implies that the Americans are the tools of those crazy warmongering Jews, which is not an untypical stance at all for the Guardian:
"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way." {...}
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that Iran's nuclear programme would reach Israel's "red line" by "next spring, at most by next summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.
That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material, should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to abandon Iran's observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention.
In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".
He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."
If the Guardian has it right, and they likely do, I guarantee that Britain's reluctance to stand with its ally has nothing to do with 'international law'. For that matter, rather than observing the non-proliferation treaty as this piece suggests, Iran has broken it with impunity.
No, Britain's reluctance comes from a very different source, its restive Muslim population. The UK already has enough turmoil and unrest on its hands from this group just for remaining in Afghanistan. No British politician wants to alienate them by participating in or assisting in any way an attack on a Muslim nation, no matter how justified.
Especially if it could be seen as 'aiding the Zionists'.
The British Government, in so many words, is scared witless of the monster it so willingly imported. And that fear trumps any alliance, special relationship, or even self preservation.Are they all as stupid as the people who run the Guardian, to think it's going to stop with Israel and the Jews?
The UK has already made sharia mandatory equivalent to British common law when it comes to family law and civil matters for Muslims, and has now been reduced to arresting anyone on trumped up charges who objects to the trend of appeasing Islam in the UK at all costs. And they've taken to gratuitously insulting our leaders in a way no British politician has ever been treated in America.
It doesn't seem like they have much further to go before they become just another semi-hostile Muslim country.
Again,m if this is true, it's not exactly a surprise. This isn't the first time Britain has dialed out on America when it came to its responsibilities as an ally. As far as I'm concerned, if the UK feels its relationship with America isn't of primary importance any more, well and good.
I hope they're aware it can work two ways.
4 comments:
i don't totally agree with ff on the reason why the brits are acting this way. imo, it's more sinister than ff characterizes it.
the brits went into libya, was that to liberate libya or for oil concessions? ff did not mention that conflict.
i simply think that the brits are done with their part of the special relationship. the reason for that is as ff states. the monster they have let in. i simply think it has gone a step farther than ff indicates.
as for the working two ways, i don't agree with that at all. those marxists in the US that want so much to be like europe won't allow it.
Again with the fearmongering. There's 5% of Muslims in Britain, this includes everyone from salafis to the sufis. "Being scared witless" of a "monster" here is like being scared of BNP.
Hint: no one cares about BNP.
You've also failed to address the official justification as stated. Iran indeed does not present an imminent danger, and attack on it would be objevtively a breach of international law, which permits attacks only in self defence, by the UN charter, to which both UK, US as well as Iran are parties.
Maybe Britain doesn't think attacking Iran is worth it for more reasons than just Muslims going on an apocalyptic rampage. Which is of course laughable.
And while you notice that Sharia has become a voluntary alternative to British civil law, it's also worth noting that people can be sentenced to years in imprisonment for glorifying terrorism alone. Britain's tough but fair.
'Fearmongering'? When a Peer of the Realm, Lord Ahmed can get a Parliamentary invitation to a Dutch politician to address them rescinded by threatening to bring thousands of rioting Muslims into the streets, I think it's gone a bit beyond fearmongering.
And such examples of Muslim violence and threats of violence are far from rare. What about posting public notices to homosexuals that certain neighborhoods are now off limits to them? And are you aware that in Britain, there are now no go areas in some British cities where our police now only dare go in groups?
As for sharia, it is assuredly not an voluntary choice for British Muslims in most domestic and civil matters, as non-sharia courts are under pressure to refer any Muslims who come before them in civil and family matters to these sharia courts should they seek to have their complaints adjudicated by British justice.
And whilst no one may care particularly about the BNP or the Freedom Party, the fact that members of those groups were arrested on trumped up charges is a matter of concern for all Britons regardless of religion. Or so it should be.
Any one who correctly points out the threats posed by Islamic terrorists and the nations who support them is invariably accused of "fear mongering" or worse. Iran and their media allies have done a great job of spreading their narrative and demonizing America and anyone who would support it.
The truth is Iran poses a greater threat to America than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or likely ever could have. Perhaps Iran does not pose the same threat to Britain that it does to America. Nevertheless NATO was formed for this purpose. If one member of NATO is being threatened, then the other members are being threatened and they come to aid of the nation being threatened. Iran has threatened death to America, is developing the means to carry out the threat, and is very close to being able to do so.
If Britain and other NATO members were to make it clear that they have America's back in any confrontation with Iran, we would be more likely to achieve the negotatied settlement to this that every one claims they want. By not doing this this either means that: 1.)western European nations and other NATO members are not on America's side and actualy support Iran in its attempts to destroy America, 2.)the leaders of these nations are blinded by their ideology and are unable to make a correct decisions, or 3.)these leaders fully suppor the standard narrative on this conflict and think America "has it coming" and would like to see America their "strategic competitor" knocked down a few pegs.
Post a Comment