Now ask yourself this question: how would the regime react if the tough guy in the White House said, “If we find any evidence of Iranian support for the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, we’ll consider it an act of war and will react accordingly”?
Which Bushitlercheney should have done years ago. It’s still the right thing to do.
Lots of lessons here:
1. They talk a lot but they’re afraid, profoundly afraid (can you imagine the RG generals talking to the Supreme Leader? “But Excellency, they will kill us all…”);
2. They will not risk direct confrontation, because any defeat will encourage the Iranian people to bring them down;
3. They talk a lot about the glories of martyrdom, but the martyrs they have in mind are the Arabs they send into battle or on suicide missions against us;
4. The trouble with American leaders is that they want to be loved, whereas a healthy dose of fear will do wonders for the region.
Sigh. Dare I say it? Yes I can: Faster, please.
They learned the lesson of Czechoslovakia,that if the Czechs had stood firm Hitler would not attack and there would have been no Munich and no “Peace in our Time” folly.And Hitler would have been overthrown.
The part of Sudetenland that was given to Czechoslovakia in 1918 was part of the Habsburg monarchy (Austria)till 1918. It is better knows under the term Böhmen. Even in the 1960s there was a very popular musical group called the “Böhmerländer Musikanten”. One of my neighbours is from Böhmen. She only told that they were instructed to pack a bag in 1945 and had to go. She was young and she survived. But back to 1918. 3,5 Millions German speaking people suddenly found themselves within Czechoslovakia. First, they have been willing to be part of the new country but the Czech treated them very badly. First, there have been German teachers in the small villages. Then a Czech policeman with many children moved to the place and that required a Czech teacher. Later on, though most of the population was German, the German teacher had to go. People got very unhappy. An old man told me years ago, that though he spoke the Czech language fluently, he was rejected from the University in Prag. They told him that he should move to Bavaria or Austria in order to study. After all, he was a German and in this country (Czechoslovakia) was no place for Germans. That is how all started. The Czechoslovakian government did not only fail to integrate Germans, according to all German voices from Böhmen, the Czechs did not want Germans in their country. Lessons from that: If you want to integrate native people into a country, give them the same rights than you give to your own people and perhaps a bit more.
And what a nice, grandfatherly fairytale this makes. Sudetenland; Boehmen; Austria … You need to get your historical geography right first, perhaps by reading up on history that would at least help you choose names better. Boehmen is no term, only something in the German dictionary; else, it would be the Kingdom of Bohemia, with borders well-defined over the centuries. In 1918, the Habsburg monarchy ruled over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not Austria. If anything was “given” to the nascent Czechoslovakia, it was the Slovak appendage, taken away from the Hungarians. Sudetenland is a country that never existed, thus it cannot have been given away. In the Middle Ages, German speakers from Bavaria, Saxony, etc. were brought into Bohemia by the successive kings of Bohemia as settlers. And so on, and so forth. If there is any lesson to learn at all here, it may be that mixing two distinct populations and letting nationalism run riot is very likely to lead to trouble. As for the Old Man and the University short story, until 1945, there was a German university in Prague if he ever wanted to. Likewise, I presume your neighbour is from Czechoslovakia, not Boehmen, really. She may also remember the Czechs who were sent packing by the Wehrmacht in 1938. Just ask her.
“but the Czech treated them very badly.”
You are ignorant about the real history there. The Czechoslovak minority policy was probably the best in contemporary Europe, and speakers of German in Czechoslovakia were definitely treated better – and entitled to more language rights – than, for example, speakers of Welsh in the UK or speakers of Catalonian in Spain. To give just two examples of minorities that stayed put and did not initiate war of secession against their respective country majorities.
The 1920s were therefore a period of quite stable and reasonable relations between Czechs and Sudeten Germans.
The real killer was the Great Crisis, whose impact on the Sudetenland was extremely hard. The textile factories, which traditionally supplied most jobs in that region, were already damaged by the post-WWI economic breakup of a previously big unified market into several customs zones (for example, a lot of their traditional customers were located in Hungary and Romania). The same was true for coal-mining regions arould Falknov.
Nazi propagandists spinned the Crisis into a sinister Czech plan to damage the Herrenvolk, and disgruntled unemployed turned to Nazism – which was actually easier for them, as they were mostly uninformed about the stark reality of political oppression in the Reich, and only saw the full employment of their fellow Germans (mostly achieved by fast rearming of Germany…). So they sold their souls to the idea of themselves being the superior race (well, this concept is seductive for human beings – isn’t it?), and the rest is already a well-known history.
Dr.Ledeen: Let us reasonably informed men and women put the simple historical fact of France and it’s armed forces circa 1933 on the “table”, shall we?! Peering across the Rhine & along the Ruhr @ the belching smokestacks of the Krupp stahlfabriken, they KNEW what was afoot…trouble is, Obama is addressing his fantasies to an ahistoric tranch of the American population who think that celebrity kulture is the “way to process” fact. Your g-d damn right we ( Bush) should have smacked these two-bit Persian thugs right in the face, back in 2002- after tearing down that absurd Stalinist statue of Hussein in Baghdad…in fact, Reagan failed too, after the Beriut barracks were blown up and we lost close to 250 Leathernecks, who were sleeping!Faster? fie man! I say: wake-up Lady Liberty!!Stop this prevarication now, before the blood price really escalates.
circa 1933 Hitler was a wannabe that just won the Bundestag elections.
France had no purpose to invade Germany, besides, if she had, and anytime, would have been considered as a aggression by the rightful popole of your country and of UK.
Madame Marie, remember by that time Kristallnacht took place, as well as Anschluss, and the occupation of the Ruhr.
France was abused by those who swore to come to their aid.
It really makes me wonder what would have happened if Foch
had been listened to, instead of how things went after the
Germans surrendered on November 11, 1918.
right, we might have become the richest european country then
though the Brits didn’t see favorably this option, and preferred to help Germany to recover her prosperity
“Le soir même de l’armistice, Winston Churchill dînait avec son premier ministre. La conversation roula uniquement sur la meilleure manière de venir en aide à l’Allemagne. Plus tard, ayant quitté le pouvoir, Clemenceau revit Lloyd George à la Chambre des communes. « J’ai à vous dire, lui lança-t-il, que dès le lendemain de l’armistice, je vous ai trouvé l’ennemi de la France. » Réponse de Lloyd George : « Eh bien, n’est-ce pas notre politique traditionnelle ? ”
http://www.valeursactuelles.com/histoire/actualit%C3%A9s/versailles-trait%C3%A9-de-discorde.html
Marie Claude
You should keep in mind the century old “English equation”.
1) In order to survive you prevent the other guys of building a Navy who can challenge yours
2) Forcing enemies to keep a strong Army so they can’t build a Navy without bankrupting themselves (Louis XVI tried to have both).
3) That means ensuring the dominant power in Europe has enough enemies at its borders it can’t afford to weaken its army. That means ever opposing it and fund alliances against it. This has been a Pavlovian reflex for British politicians.
That was sound policy in times of Louis XIV when France had five times the population and economic power (ie could have funded five times more ships) than England. It was simply idiotic in 1918 when France had two thirds the population and less than half UK’s GNP. In the meantime while Germany had been left with only a 100,000 men Army the fact is that its population and GNP thus its “latent might” far surpassed France’s or even UK’s so it was far more dangerous than France.
And Germany marched into the Rhineland, right on France’s border, a region which had been demilitarized under Versailles *precisely* to remove the cisriparian threat to France- and France did nothing, even though in 1936 she could have swatted the infant Wehrmacht like a bug.
Fast forward to 1938: France and Britain had given the Czechs security guarantees; but even though Hitler had still not closed the military gap with Britain and France, his “Panzers” nothing but tracked armored cars, his Luftwaffe with only an handful of Messerschmidts- the Allied Powers cravenly sold the Czechs down the river. With the added tragedy, we now know, that if Hitler had ordered war in Bohemia the Army High Command would have overthrown him.
Move forward another year: Hitler invades Poland, the Allies actually declare war this time- and do nothing. Never mind that the entire armed strength of Germany had been committed to the east, the western border guarded by no more than a corporal’s guard- the Allies still sat passively for another nine months, until Hitler was ready to attack you on his terms.
“and France did nothing, even though in 1936 she could have swatted the infant Wehrmacht like a bug”
BS, we couldn’t react alone, there was this famous “machin” the “League of Nations”, patronized by the US and the Brits.
See what the Brits preferred: discuss with Hitler.
The Secretary of State for Foregin Affairs’ suggestion
What he would ask Hitler to say would be that, having stated that he wanted to negotiate a series of new pacts as a basis for peace in Europe, he would, as proof of his intentions, withdraw all his forces from the Rhineland over and above the troops necessary for a symbolic occupation. In addition that, pending the conclusion of the new pacts, for the regularisation of the situation, he should not reinforce the “symbolic” troops, nor build fortifications in the demilitarised zone. He proposed to fortify this request by reminding the German Ambassador that in his first communication he had stated that the number of troops would be small and limited to a symbolic occupation.
or some sanctions, but
The objection to this course was that the United States of America and perhaps other nations, might refuse co-operation, and economic pressure could not then be supported without blockade which would be very difficult.
though these nice Alliees thought:
In addition, public opinion was strongly opposed to any military action against the Germans in the demilitarised zone. In particular, the ex-Service men were very anti-French. Moreover, many people, perhaps most people were saying openly that they did not see why the Germans should not re-occupy the Rhineland. In these circumstances, it was generally accepted that it was worth taking almost any risk in order to escape from that situation.
and
The Prime Minister thought at some stage it would be necessary to point our to the French that the action they proposed would not result only in letting loose another great war in Europe. They might succeed in crushing Germany with the aid of Russia, but it would probably only result in Germany going Bolshevik [Communist].
yeah, of course !!!
but:
Following the discussions described in the documents, the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, did indeed meet the German ambassador and make his proposals. Hitler refused to withdraw his troops, and put pressure on the League of Nations to act. France was on the verge of a general election and would not act without Britains support. However the British people felt that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany and was over-restrictive, and so partly because of this, the British government decided to do nothing. Hitler moved on from the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, to the annexation of Austria and the seizure of the Sudetenland in 1938, to the take-over of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and then Poland in September 1939.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/lesson30.htm
educate yourself
MC…I have to agree with what you say, but at the same time also agree that France could have acted.
The people of the USA had no stomach for confronting Hitler. Indeed, I doubt half the country was aware of what was going on.
The Treaty of Versailles was unjust. America knew it.
Britain knew it.
The loss of life in WW1 was such that another war like that was not possible. Europe hurt so bad from the first war, that another was out of the question.
Unfortunately, the leaders of the day had two misconceptions. The first and primary, is Adolph Hitler.
The evil that lurked within the man and his cohorts was unrecognized. ( Excluding Churchill )
The second was the ease that they could have prevented his rise to power.
THAT is the corollary to today. We have evil lose and the longer we wait to address it, the more difficult the task. Like then, the world deceives itself into doing nothing.
America knew the Versailles Treaty was unjust? Wilson? I don’t think so.
DVG93
Knowing what we know today, we should not listen to anyone when it goes on our surety, and we should have acted like Israel do for her surviving, make Preemptive operations, and or war.
But the people of the era were still impressed by the big human catastrophe of WW1, also their hands weren’t free, tied to the new international rules with the “League of Nations”.
And the Versailles treaty was Wilson’s ingeeniery (helped with UK’s advisers)
so successful that Foch said “we are going to have war in 20 years again”
In 1936 France didn’t need British approval. It could handle the matter alone. In fact it didn’t need a mobilization: the German troops had orders to withdraw and Hitler is supposed to have told in private he would resign if the French had reacted. Unfortunately they didn’t. Unfortunately that abomination called the “Third Republic” ensured a nearly uninterrupted string of mediocrities would be Prime Ministers.
In 1933, there was no Bundestag but only a Reichstag. During the Weimarer Republik, Germany had 20 Reichkanzler, the first was Friedrich Ebert, SPD, who ruled 94 days, the last was Kurt von Schleicher, who was in no party and ruled 55 days. Hitler was appointed Reichskanzer in January 30, 1933 by Hindenburg, , after an intrigue, in which Franz von Papen and Hindenburg’s son Oskar played a very infamous role. In the last half-free votes in march 5, 1933, Hitler got 43,9% of all votes or 288 mandates out of 647. Then the Länder have been ruled out, books burned and the drama started.
Thanks for the precision
Not quite correct. Hitler marched a few troops into the Rhineland. This region was declared neutral territory after WWI. By doing so, Hitler took a big gamble. He hoped France would not retaliate, which was France’s right under the Treaty of Versailles. Instead the French government lodged a complaint with the League of Nations. From then on it was all down hill for the rest of Europe.
“He hoped France would not retaliate, which was France’s right under the Treaty of Versailles. Instead the French government lodged a complaint with the League of Nations. From then on it was all down hill for the rest of Europe”
“The League of Nations was an international organization created after the First World War. The Covenant establishing the League was part of the Treaty of Versailles. The aims of the League were to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security. The League of Nations was an association of states which had pledged themselves, through signing the Covenant not to go to war before submitting their disputes with each other, or states not members of the League, to arbitration or enquiry.“
http://www.indiana.edu/~league/intro.htm
so, you’d like that we had made it like Bush in 2003, overpassing the UN decisions, but a conflict with Germany couldn’t be decided as a light decision, we weren’t in the state of being such a powerful nation like you are, and since the Brits had no intention to let us go…
“The Rhineland will become a demilitarized zone administered by Great Britain and France jointly.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
“The Locarno Treaties, signed in 1925 by Germany, France, Italy and Britain, stated that the Rhineland should continue its demilitarized status permanently. Locarno was regarded as important as it was a voluntary German acceptance of the Rhineland’s demilitarized status as opposed to the ‘diktat’ (dictate) of Versailles. Since the 1920s were a time of economic boom, the Germans and the French shared a certain cautious peace and thus the friendly situations would allow for the treaty Locarno to be accepted, however the treaty failed to list any reparations to be made for transgressions against its clauses.
The Versailles Treaty also stipulated that the Allied military forces would withdraw from the Rhineland in 1935, although they actually withdrew in 1930. The British delegation at the Hague Conference on German reparations in 1929 (headed by Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and including Arthur Henderson, Foreign Secretary) proposed that the reparations paid by Germany should be reduced and that the British and French forces should evacuate the Rhineland. Henderson persuaded the skeptical French Premier, Aristide Briand, to accept that all Allied occupation forces would evacuate the Rhineland by June 1930. The last British soldiers left in late 1929 and the last French soldiers left in June 1930.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland
“In 1935 the Treaty had been successfully defied by the German announcement of rearmament and the introduction of a military draft: the Treaty’s guarantors–Britain and France–merely condemned the unilateral German actions. Worse still, Britain separately concluded a naval pact with Hitler that same year allowing Germany to build a battle-fleet that included submarines–a British validation of Treaty violations!”
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob89.html
yeah, trust a Brit when our security is concerned
Perhaps those nonexistent Israeli nuclear subs patrolling the strait of Hormuz gave them the heebie jeebies.
The Israelis allow themselves to take all sorts of abuse in the name of wanting to be liked and accepted, even if they have no hope of ever being loved, but they have their limits. Under Bush, America showed that it had limits as well, and that’s the real reason he was so hated by all the “smart people”.
Israel has been rightfully accused of having bad PR. Now that’s an understatement. When the whole world hates you, you don’t sit there trying to figure out how to make them like you. You figure out how to make them fear you, so that they’ll respect you.
Israel needs to confront the Muslim belief that not one inch of Arab land can belong to infidels. They need to bring it up to the whole world and put it out in the open. They need to say that they have always been willing to accept a Palestinian state. But if the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world believe that not one inch of Palestine can belong to the Jews, then they’ll have no choice but to take it all and keep it forever. And if the Europeans and everyone else wants to criticize Israel, then Israel should invite them to trade places with them and see what they would do if they were told that not one inch of their country is allowed to belong to their people.
They need to call out Mubarek and King Abdullah and say “thank you for making peace with us, but are you willing to say that you recognize Israel’s right to exist as a homeland of the Jewish people”. They need to quit with all the niceties, even if it means risking American support. What good is American support if it’s only going to serve to tie their hands?
I’m underemployed right now. I have a military, business, computer and banking background, along with a liberal arts degree. Put me in charge of taking out Iran’s mullahs and rebuilding the country. I’ll get this DONE and DONE RIGHT!
Persians, not Arabs.
No, I don’t think there was a typo there. I think Dr. Ledeen specifically means Arabs– i.e., all of the Arab terrorists that Iran is funding and directing all over the Middle East warzone to inflict casualties on the U.S. and Israel.
yes indeed. when was the last time you heard of an iranian suicide terrorist in this war? not. the regime despises the arabs, and loves to see them blow themselves up.
Excuse me – we know Persians are not dim enough to sacrifice themselves for false rewards – the article was talking about the standard Arab cannon fodder the Mullahs of Iran are sending as proxies against Israel. Those poor folks are not educated sufficiently or sophisticated enough to know when they are being brutally and callously used… as it has been for over 60 years by almost every Caliph-wanna-be in the ME. They never learn.
Persians fighting Israel to the last Arab? True enough.
“Persians are not dim enough to sacrifice themselves for false rewards” sadly, not true. During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980′s, a standard Iranian tactic was the human wave attack. For example, sending young men, and children, (mostly Persians, I presume) to clear a path through a minefield in order to preserve the Iranian armor. Those who survived, and their offspring, are the still called Basij. They are now the paramilitary units that (so far) have brutally defeated Iran’s Green Revolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij#Origins
So, its complicated, like all things in the ME.
yea palis for the last 40 years. you go islam!
Oderint dum metuant.
And in the case of the Israelis, unlike the current US regime, the Iranians know that they MEAN it. They have the capacity to inflict serious pain and the will to use it.
Classic: They decided not to give Israel and excuse to beat them up!
This is the most encouraging news I’ve had all year. Apparently the Iranian president is not suicidally stupid.
Perhaps there won’t be mushroom clouds in the mideast before christmas.
One cannot compare Iranian vessels in the Mediterranean and those closer to their Iranian bases. With no logistical support or real bases from which to operate, Iranian vessels would be isolated and easily gobbled up by Israel. I took Israel’s message to mean a state where rules of engagement would apply and not an open declaration of war on Iran itself. Even if it did mean an open declaration of war by Israel on Iran, there is no way for the two to wage a war on each other other than the Arabian Sea because of the presence of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Iran backed down because they cannot and probably would not have been allowed to operate in the entrance to the Med. It simply would have been an embarrassment to them all around.
One also wonders if Egypt told the mullahs, quietly, that no Iranian ship would be permitted to transit Suez.
Mubarak’s no prize, but he knows damn well that Hamas is an arm of his biggest domestic enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood.
That still leaves the Turks who threatened the same thing. Are they still willing to send an armed flotilla?
Very good little piece but–Bushitlercheney???
I also find that offensive and a horribly incorrect characterization. GW and friends may not have been the best president and staff ever, just the best available by a wide margin. He would still be an improvement over the bunch we have now by a huge margin. As to jimmy carter he should be known as the father of terrorism and islamic extremism because with out his bumbling and incompetence the earlier attacks would not have been so successful and an inspiration for follow on attacks. Alas the legacy of fritz and gritz.
Appease them Obowme has been exposed to the entire world as a buffoon twice within 24 hours. First he was shown to be a blithering fool & an economic idiot by Angela Merkel and proven by Israeli muscle flexing aimed at Iran & Amadinnerjacket to tuck tail revealing The Won as a Petain clone surrender monkey.
If Mc Connell & the Repubicans would show a little courage and some intestinal fortitiude by filibustering every damned one of the democorrupt’s legislative proposals and appointments followed by Arizonians forming a militia to retake the southern part of their state from the Mexican criminals Obowme and his Marie Antoinette would run for the pols’ DC fallout shelter to never be seen again until he was granted safe passage and a Imelda Marcos loot loaded jet to fly to Venezuela & join his coke addicted marxist mentor.
“As I told you a while back, they’re not going to take on Israel by sending ships…”
That’s a shame.
I was looking forward to watching the IDF sink the Iranian navy.
So standing up to tyrants scares them? My goodness me! Whoda thunk?
Iran officially declared war on the United States back in the days of the great Jimmy Carter. As far as I know, they have never rescinded that declaration. They have attacked our civillian oil tankers, bombed our embassies, and killed our troops in Iraq. America would be totally justified in completely destroying that country without any further warning.
some minor correction. searching google or reading real fact not the fabricated facts helps a lot.
1- The hostage taking became a political tool about 10 days later after the incident and lasted 444 days when
Raygun got elected. I wonder how much the mullahs got paid for that! Yahh Jimmy really blew it.
2- On the civilian Oil tanker’s it was our body our pal Saddam who attacked the tankers plus the warship that
killed bunch of sleeping soldiers.
3- The killing of American’s in Iraq was also done with Sunni insurgents fully supported by Saudi’s money and
until today there has been no evidence, except some article’s from Jerusalem post.
Where IS Jimmah? We have heard nothing from him lately. I wondered when his family would corral him and save him from himself.
FTA: “how would the regime react if the tough guy in the White House said, “If we find any evidence of Iranian support for the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, we’ll consider it an act of war and will react accordingly”?
There isn’t a sack with the balls in it in D.C. for this kind of statement. This nations politicians wear panties and pantyhose.
I read on the Drudge report the other day that 11 American warships, including the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, went through the Suez Canal the other day in case there was a confrontation with the Iranians:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138164
To quote our “fearless” leader, “Let me be clear,” nothing, absolutely nothing, clarifies your world view of things as a US carrier battle group coming your way. The sheer size and power of those ships are sometimes (note, I said “sometimes”) enough to intimidate even the most devoted Islamic terrorist.
Which leads me to believe that, when it comes to either the Palestinians or Lebanon, Iran is willing to fight to the last dead Arab. Sure, they may make a lot of noise about getting involved in a war against Israel, but something tells me that they are more concerned with events in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that actually border Iran, than what is happening to the Arabs in what they call Palestine. Remember, the Iranians are Persians and the Palestinians are arabs, and although they both may have a common enemy in Israel and the United States, they still hate each other and are probably not willing to actually die for each other.
Also, the Iranians are Shia Muslims, so they are probably more interested in actually fighting for other Shia Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ever notice that you only find actual Iranians fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, but you never seem to see them in Lebanon or Gaza? Trust me, when the chips are down, the Iranians may supply the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah with equipment and weapons, but they will not give them any Iranian troops. In their part of the world, an arab is still and arab, and you don’t wipe away hundreds of years of hatred because of the Jews. If Iranian hatred of the Jews was really that fanatical, they would have openly attacked Israel long ago.
Which brings me back to that American carrier battle group. Yes, brute force still does intimidate the Islamic thugs in that part of the world and this is a clear example of that. If we could finally leave that stupid war in Afghanistan, which has no hope of “victory,” and maintain a strong set of bases in Iraq plus a two or three carrier battle groups off the coast of Iran, I’m sure the Iranians would start seeking “better relations” with the Great Satan (i.e., us) and start minding their own business in the region. But this only works if the Iranians believe, really believe, that you will use this force. With Obama, they see a man who is all show and very little substance.
Exit question: Who convinced Obama to send those ships through the Suez Canal and what convinced him to do it? It certainly was NOT Obama’s idea, given the way he has acted in the past.
Good post, Liberty, but I would point out that there were dozens or hundreds of Persian speaking combatants in S Lebanon in 2006, many of them commanding the Lebanese Shiites. Their Persian chatter on radios was heard clearly by Israeli troops. So they have their limits, for sure, but they do dabble.
The USS Truman carrier group left homeport Norfolk, VA on May 21 to relieve the USS Eisenhower group in the Persian Gulf. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/defense_france_carrier_truman_060810/ reported on interoperability excercises June 4 with France’s DeGaulle in Marseilles, followed by some shore leave in Marseilles. FT reported Truman near Sicily June 15. German anti-missile frigate Hessen joined the group. One report of five days of joint fighter jet ops training with Israel in the Negev.
One report of an Israeli corvette joing the Truman group through the Suez on June 18. (one can assume the DeGaulle is minding the Med, despite JE Dyer’s informed opinion at http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/23/smackdown-at-sea/
The bigger threatto Israel is a flotilla swarm out of Lebanon, and PM Hariri took Israel’s note to the UN very seriously. BTW, Hezbollah is Shi’ite, and so are a lot of Lebanese people, possibly a majority although no census since 1932.
As to Turkey? In an amazing coincidence, the PKK went hot with their attacks on the Turkish military about the time of the Marmara. Turkey is no longer talking about Hamas, but about their own war against their own Kurds (which gets Turkey zero sympathy from the left, or anyone else, except Iran and Syria), and they are attacking Iraqi Kurdistan, as is Iran. Hezbollah’s Nasrallah just cancelled his trip to Turkey. Turkish charities are now focussed on relief for the Uzbeks of Kyrgyzstan (both Turkic peoples).
Whether the USS Eisenhower leaves the Persian Gulf on schedule is unknown, but it is assumed the Hessen and Israeli corvette are still with the Truman. My favorite was one report that three of Truman’s destroyers would ‘peel off’ to deal with piracy off Somalia, and I believe that may have happened as there was a US rescue of some Yemeni fishermen after the Suez transit. LibertyShip46 knows that is overkill. Iran HAS been sponsoring a Shi’a insurgency on Yemen’s border with Saudi Arabia.
Does anyone think the US and NATO are going to let Hamas (or Iran or Turkey) threaten the Suez Canal?
Lets see now, who was it that said “peace through strength”.
Right then, right now.
America the weak, Governed by idiots (Progressives)!
You’d almost think Lenin was a Muslim, wouldn’t you?
After all the bluster faded, Iran had to confront an unpleasant truth: Neither it, nor any other Muslim nation of the Middle East, can meet Israel in open combat without being fatally embarrassed. Even in combination, the Muslim nations surrounding Israel would have a hard time defeating the Jewish state. Then there’s that pesky American carrier battle group permanently on station in the eastern Mediterranean. What to do, what to do…
The Muslim nations know this, which is why they’ve preferred propaganda and “asymmetric warfare” since their last, humiliating defeat in the Yom Kippur War. Up to now, only Iran has thought to “probe with the bayonet” openly and without dissimulation.
There was no open American response to Iran’s announcement that it would send warships with the next aid flotilla, only the Israeli declaration that it would be considered an act of war. Will there be another probe because of America’s silence? And which nation will be next to try it?
Faster, please, indeed!
While I normally agree with Michael Ledeen, this time, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense, even with Mr. Ledeen to interpret. Sanctions against Iran for their hidden nuclear enrichment program are continuously under discussion in the UN. They need to be viewed as aggressive, and not to be upset. And on the other hand, US warships were sent in to contain the situation, as well, by a president who all but kneeled to Ahmadinejad.
There is far more going on here than simply failing a gonad check. This comes across as more of a case of seeing if Israel or the US would cave in, and switching to Plan B when they did not. Even Iranian lives are of no importance to the ayatollahs. Certainly Palestinians are of no concern. So, why didn’t they just attempt to run the blockade, and call it their OWN declaration of war, indeed the beginning of the decisive Islamic war on Israel?
There’s something going on in Tehran that will not be determined even by Mr. Ledeen’s excellent reasoning. Perhaps UN concessions are being hammered out. Perhaps the Obama administration has a nasty surprise waiting for Israel, and the attempt by Iran to illegally violate the blockade would have ruined it. We’ll see, maybe.
Iran is controlled by a bunch of PUSSIES. They show power only when they’re beating the hell out of those who can’t defend themselves. If we had a real president, we should really be putting a whoopin’ on them right now. God help Israel do this in the very near future.
PUSSIES.
Putting a whooping on Iran? And just how are we going to do that, considering we are currently bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq; and have assets assigned on and around the Korean peninsula? The US military is not without its limits and there still is a $1 trillion + federal deficit which ought to discourage more adventurism.
Less then 10% of combined armed forces are in Iraq and AFPAC. They are “bogged down” because of politics.
good point but dont forget that iran is smack between iraq and afghanistan. usa is already surrounding them.
you need to say:
faster AND harder, please.
Ringer! Like a bully, all mouth and no pop. Aledgemegod comes off as violently evil (and he is), but when it comes to actual performance; like a groundhog he scamppers back to the bunker hole. Too bad our Commander-in-Chief can’t access the weakness and act accordingly. Birds of a feather.
I’d say cancelling the ship is itself a PR blow for the Iranians. If only there were followup from Washington.
“The trouble with American leaders is that they want to be loved,”
Sadly, they not only want to be loved, but they think that will carry weight with terrorists.
The Israelis prove once again that diplomacy is not simply acquiescing to the other guy’s wishes. Sometimes it is a forceful “stop it” with a gesture to symbolize “or else” (such as the time honoured finger dragged across the throat with an accompanying ‘slit’ sound effect)
Michael, perhaps we can hope that someone is talking tough in private. I’m fine with it not being on the front page of the paper. What are the chances of that?
It’s disgusting. Despite possessing a military that could wipe Iran from the map in a matter of days, our leaders — including that alleged warmongering unilateralist shoot-first-ask-questions-later cowboy Bush — cower and appease a gang of murderously savage 6th century religious barbarians openly calling for our mass death and seeking the weaponry to accomplish it — and for what? World opinion? Global approval?
There is one basic reason we won’t defend ourselves against Iran: we don’t believe we have the moral right to fight a war purely for self-defense.
According to the dominant morality of our time — which is altruism — fighting a war purely in self-defense is “selfish” and therefore automatically evil.
That’s the notion that none of our leaders, left or right, dares to challenge.
Look at recent history.
Even in the aftermath of 9/11, when the American people overwhelmingly wanted military action to destroy our enemies, that alleged “cowboy” George W. Bush was very hesitant to act. And we didn’t act until we had a semi-respectable ally we could appear to be helping: the Northern Alliance. Remember those guys?
So it was only AFTER Bush found someone other than America that would benefit from our military action did he dare to take such action.
And even then, even as we were dropping bombs trying to aid the Northern Alliance, we also had to drop food and medicine to the “civilians” of Afghanistan. Tons of such supplies were dropped, even though much of it undoubtedly fell into enemy hands.
The bloody hand of altruism — the need to make sure we are not acting solely for our own benefit — is also why we didn’t dare to simply destroy the Hussein regime in Iraq.
Instead, we had to fight a JAG-policed, civilian-friendly war under disastrous rules of engagement — and then stick around afterward for “nation building”. It’s why we spent billions and billions building schools and hospitals and sewage systems and repairing electrical grids — it’s why we permitted thousands of our soldiers to be murdered while acting as a domestic police force for Iraq.
It’s why the whole operation was called, “Operation: Iraqi Freedom” — in order to make it clear that we are fighting for the benefit of others, not just for our own.
The messes in both Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the morality of altruism makes winning a war and permanently vanquishing our enemies impossible.
Americans need to reject the demands of altruism and proudly assert our right to our own self-defense. We have every right to act unilaterally and alone and preemptively. We have every right to use overwhelming military force to destroy a threatening regime. And when we do — since it is the threatening regime that makes our self-defense attack necessary — the regime, not us, bears moral responsibility for all civilian deaths and property destruction that occurs.
Reject altruism, assert our right to self-defense and attack Iran now — or face an insane, nuclear-armed Islam. That’s our choice.
The messes in both Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the morality of altruism makes winning a war and permanently vanquishing our enemies impossible.
Americans need to reject the demands of altruism and proudly assert our right to our own self-defense. We have every right to act unilaterally and alone and preemptively. We have every right to use overwhelming military force to destroy a threatening regime. And when we do — since it is the threatening regime that makes our self-defense attack necessary — the regime, not us, bears moral responsibility for all civilian deaths and property destruction that occurs.
Reject altruism, assert our right to self-defense and attack Iran now — or face an insane, nuclear-armed Islam. That’s our choice.
The above statement is absolutely correct and if it wasn’t for the liberal statist American hating press who pushes the idea of no war at any price Bush wouldn’t have had to try to convince people he wasn’t acting unilaterally. We need to rid ourselves of these lying bastards that lost us Vietnam and tried to lose Iraq along with the pantywaist Democrats. They would rather have seen America lose the war just to tarnish Bush, than stand up for America. They are traitors every one. I don’t just want to see every Democrat voted out of office I want to see some perp walks down the steps of the capital for their incessant lying and doing everything they can to destroy this country.
I agree with your observations, except with the one about the Northern Alliance. That was only a text-book move you do everytime you go on war in foerigner lands. It’s not that the enemy of your enemy is friend, no, it’s the enemy of your enemy is just another strategic asset to be used. If USA goes to war on Iranian lands, should be to destroy all its government, during the process all the opposition groups inside Iran would jump in the same wagon thus helping the Amercan cause. Similar things have been done many times in the history including the American war against the pirats in Algers, Tunis and Tripoli. Just an asset, not that the Northern Alliance was morally equivalent to America and thus deserving our help.
I have wondered since the first IED in Iraq that was attributed to Iran why we did not confront them directly. You don[‘[t let bullies intimidate or harm your people, ever.
Thanks for your take on it, but I think, at minimum, you made mistakes of ommission.
“Which Bushitlercheney should have done years ago”; should have read: “CarterRaygunBushCliton,B…Obuma”
Forget Carter – that limp-wrist is the one that put all of us in this position to begin with. Go learn that history, please.
The Iranian Mullahs and their craven minions are only brave enough to confront unarmed election protesters with guns and tear gas and to beat up women who either blog or don’t meet their misogynist dress code…
Hmmmmmmm….kind of like SEIUr’s, black panthers and Acornr’s?
Heh, good on Israel!!
Israeli media should broadcast over and over again to the Arabs (Hamas and Hizbollah) sitting in Iran-bought bunkers in Gaza and Lebanon that their Iranian financiers have wimped out. If the Iranians don’t have the b***s to confront Israel why should Arab surrogates volunteer to take the bullets? Persians are paying for Arabs to die, these poor sap soldiers should be reminded frequently.
I always thought that the Persians would fight to the Last Arab. Silly me.
Such basic truths here, Dr. Ledeen. It’s amazing that so many of our “leaders” fail to recognize them. Most of us learned the same principles back in elementary school when we kicked the bullies in the shins (or higher) and they never bothered us again.
This is very good news and has made this summer a bit cooler and I’m very thankful for that.
Great news and music to my ears! The leadership in Israel needs to wake up and realize that they are gonna be subjected to ridicule no matter what they do so they may as well put up a fight and stand up to these terrorist regimes that attempt to discredit and destroy the great nation of Israel. America stands with Israel no matter what our so called commander-in-chief may say or do to the contrary.
When will we learn that these petty dictators are cowards, just like bullies on the playground. They fold up like card tables when confronted. Iran and North Koreas will fold if we press them. Dialog is a waste of time and effort. They only respond to power. We have the power but are too PC to use it.
For all the bluster and bravado of the these Iranian Islamists, they know full well continued tweaking of the tigers tail can result in catostrophic events. Gathering humanitarian goods……….we saw those in Gaza reject the delivery of the humanitarian goods from the floatilla once it had been cleared by the Israeli defence forces. Israel is not the paper tiger our country is becoming once again. We had ditched the title once Carter was humilitated by this same bunch of radicals, resulting in his defeat by Ronald Reagan. Reagan emmidiatley put Iran and the world their was a new sheriff in town, he carried the “big iron” on his hip and he would use it. Now we have Carter-redux, and again we have been relegated to paper tiger status by the Iranians, N.Koreans, Venuzuala and any other regime who is feeling its oats.
Dreamer!
But good dreams nonetheless, Michael.
Right on the money. Obama’s big problem–our big problem–is that he needs to be loved. He’s made the world a much more dangerous place.
Dear Dr. Ledeen,
I have no doubt that as relates to foreign affairs a bull in the China shop policy will work at irregular intervals as well as just about anything else. That said, it seems to me we, meaning the US, Israel and 90% + of the international community have a much larger problem with Iran and its leadership. I don’t believe sanctions will do much more than buy Iran the time it needs to produce the nuclear weapon it desires. I don’t believe that no matter who or how hard the US military kicks butt, lets say quietly in northern Pakistan, that it’s going to impress the Russians or Chinese very much. You are an expert on Iran. What happen’s the next day if an overtaxed US military basically watches as Israel tries to take out the Iranian nuclear reactors with only moderate success? I don’t like the prospect and frankly it worries me by a factor of at least 10 in relation to some petty boat ride they decide not to take in the Mediterranean.
larry snider: worries me too, which is why i keep calling for support to the Iranian opposition.
I see no real evidence that Bush provided genuine support to the Iranian opposition. I think that the existence of the MeK provided a kind of excuse or rationale for not doing so. Still, where is/was the support of moderate elements within Iran – or is it the case that the moderate voices simply have no voice because they are not prepared to face down the Basij (sp?) and similar elements?
The argument has been put forward by others that the regime has the lower middle classes in its pocket, and is relatively stable. Now they have crushed, violently, physical and vocal opposition and intimidated potential opponents.
I see no outcome other than regime removal in the aftermath of a strike against their WMD manufacturing and production. I also see no guarantee that, even if such a strike is successful, that the regime would necessarily collapse.
there are lots of strikes going on in iran. all over the place.
Agreed. Just a question of whether the folks doing it can rule the country one day. We’ll see.
Yes they are cowards..but hate filled fanatical cowards. The combination
isnt less dangerous its far more dangerous. They wont confront Israel
directly but they will never cease dreaming of its destruction. All this plays into the
scenario of Iran passing nuclear weapons to third parties to do the
dirty work and concocting infinitely subtle disquises to hide behind. Islam
love this layering of deceit, anything is fair when dealing with infidels. The one consolation of losers is always hatred..it avoids them ever having to look into the mirror. They will bring
nuclear war and nuclear suicide down on themselves while blaming Israel..long
before they ever look in the mirror.
Michael, do you mean to say that, after all, Mahmoud is not a shaheed or faithful Muslim prepared to sacrifice himself to bring on the end of days and the Mahdi’s return?
Could this be considered – by his own rules for Muslims and for the IRG – a failure of faith?
Israel, the only nation on earth with balls.
This only highlights the disgrace of American policy and the utter obscenity we have in the White House. Since when do those who use force not understand force and it’s threat to them?
It obviously doesn’t bother Hussien Obama a bit that Iran is killing Americans. However, Israel is a thorn in his side. You can still know a man by both his friends and his enemies, the sides he takes.
Mr. Ledeen ,you seem to be a one trick pony. Life and events do go on outside the Iran and Israel question.Mr. Obama is on a path to castrate this nation,and if he is sucessful,Israel,Europe and much of the formerly civilized world will be headed for the abyss.
I feel it is about time Israel was heard.
Love that Zionist regime!
I think you are right that the Iranian regime is afraid, but when you say faster please, do you expect the Obama administration to get tough and stand with the opposition? Did Obama join Israel in confronting the Iranians by moving the USS Harry Truman through the Suez Canal?
Sturney: no i don’t expect Obama to stand with the opposition, but i hope to be proven wrong. and yes, whatever our intentions, the iranians may well believe that the USS Harry Truman is coming their way…probably seymour hersh is writing it at this very moment.
You ask me, the U.S. is about 30 years late calling some “Grand” Ayatollah’s bluff. And I think Mahmoud’s grace period for keeping American hostages 444 days is about up too.
If we had any brains or real leadership in positions of U.S. political authority anymore, instead of criticizing Israel and placating her enemies, or giving some mealy-mouthed Palestinian state speech, we might ask Israel to give some spineless U.S. political hacks some lessons about what backbone looks like.
Arabs and Persians alike do not want direct war. They prefer to send emotionally disturbed or socially ostracized youths to blow themselves up. Or they fire rockets from homes, mosques,or Red Crescent ambulances. During wars they provoked with Israel(a tiny speck in Arabia), foot sodiers left their sandals in the sand-they were running away so quickly. However, they would have no trouble sending a nuclear weapon, no matter how many of their “brothers” were killed in the process. We should be very afraid-cowardly religious fanatics are the most dangerous of all.
Yes–the disease of the political class is that they are more concerned with meeting the approval of the international elites than they are of representing the interests of the American people. We need to quit pretending that we don’t know who our enemies are.
so the usa sending 11 warships through the suez canal had nothing to do with irans change of heart?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138164
“Egypt allowed at least one Israeli and 11 American warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian flotilla approaches Gaza. Egypt closed the canal to protect the ships with thousands of soldiers, according to the British-based Arabic language newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi.”
Thanks for pointing it out, Mr. Ledeen.
It is an advantage that Israel has — potential adversaries know they will be greased, without hesitation, just like your fictitious Revolutionary Guard generals cried.
Israels offensive is working. Confusing media accounts the past few weeks over the Iranian and Lebanese ships indicate that there is heavy turmoil and a great deal going on behind the scenes.
- Accounts from Lebanon indicate that the Lebanese government knows full well that it cannot allow ships to sail from its ports to Gaza. Lebanon is technically still at war with Israel.
- Attempts to get the Lebanese ships to sail from Cyprus seem blocked. Cyprus has no desire for confrontation with Israel.
- Turkey has been rebuked by the US for this and other actions and warned that allowing the ships to sail from the portion of Cyprus under Turkish occupation would be unacceptable. I do not think Turkey will try any more nonsense for a while.
- Iranians were probably also intimidated by the huge US fleet which just passed though Suez and steaming right up their backyard. The fleet was accompanied by an Israeli warship which is likely in a position to block anything Iran can send.
- Egypt is not cooperating with Iran and would likely tie up any Iranian ship trying to pass through Suez with endless delays and inspections anyway.
- Israel has covered its bases by sending the UN a letter explicity declaring that any ships from Lebanon or Iran attempting to break the blockade would be an act of war. No ambiguity about that. The Lebanese certainly know what the Israelis can do and do not want to be pounded again for a Hizbolla publicity stunt.
- We dont know what has been said under the table but somehow Israels enemies are running like frightened rabbits.
Sigh, if only our own leadership would…oh never mind.
Spin
‘Now ask yourself this question: how would the regime react if the tough guy in the White House said, “If we find any evidence of Iranian support for the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, we’ll consider it an act of war and will react accordingly”?’
Now ask yourself this question: What could possibly go wrong?
Israel said that if any Iranian ship tries to enter Israeli waters, it will be treated as an act of war. So the Iranians bagged it.
Far more effective Israeli strategy than any continued bending over and spreading ‘em for the so called “international community”.
Israel would love a valid excuse to eliminate Iran nuke plants. And with all pieces lined up for imminent action, it’d be suicide to give them one.
Mullah’s blinked but they are not afraid of the US or the west. They are more afraid of the real Iranians.
What US should be afraid of is, if they (US) fall for another Israeli trap, and do attack Iran, they will have to fight 70million Persians. The Persian pride has precedence over anything.
I know as one of the US generals, who just got promoted to run Afghanistan once said, we can crush them like ants. but he forgot that no one can ever crush all ants.
conrad, you’re stereotyping the iranians wrongly and i think unfairly. you’re saying that they would defend their hated oppressors against anyone who tried to destroy the regime and liberate the people. i don’t believe that.
I am not. I know them very well. If Iranians have to chose between the hated Mullah or be save by the West, they will chose to defend IRAN. Iranian people have never forgotten what happened in 1953 and 79. They saw what happened in Iraq and they are seeing how the west is accusing them of making nukes without any real proof.
Iranian *had* contained the mullah at Qom or in their mosques for centuries. In 1979 revolution they were contained until Saddam invaded Iran with US support and the genie was let out of the bottle. The mullahs, while Iranians were defending their country, slaughtered 100s of 1000s Iranians Intellectuals. They wiped every person that could have had a leadership quality in them. We saw the result last year when people rose up, there was no leadership.
well you may be right, but i don’t agree with a word of that, Conrad, except that the mullahs killed a lot of Iranians. the notion that the United States supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran is fantasy.
but the notion that the US supported Iraq – also by providing satellite imagery of Iranian positions – is very much true. without the US, Iraq could have lost the war.
Maybe it is just wishfull thinking on my part, but my sense is that a large majority of the 70 million will welcome any attempt to rid the country of fanaticism and will not regard any aggressive action against the inquisition as an attack on Iranian sovereignty. I hope I am being reasonable in my statement and not allowing my hatred of these thugs to rationalize my logic. The containment of the Mullahs in Qom by the Pahlavis, although true, was clearly not effective. A child will actually understand the pain of touching a hot stove by experience not by a parent telling him not to touch a hot stove. For that, we have the Mullahs to thank. They succeeded where the Pahlavis failed; to distance the population from religion in general and fanaticism in particular.
And what was the first Israeli trap, please?
Very simple, a ship sent to aid and military vessels on the opposite depart to confront aiding ships. One country subjects to certify a war against another country that has admittedly its purpose is to aid. Clearly one must recognize who is hard up for a war.
Dang, I am a clairvoyant! I knew this would happen. Iran is great at sabre-rattling but not so great at follow-through. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re dangerous; they are indeed.
The added US ships in the area, Israel’s subs, and the Saudis having given Israel the green light to fly bombs over it and into Iran–at least Imadinnerjacket can read the writing on the wall.
Plus, it shows that the Iranians really don’t give a damn about the “other Semites”–the Palestinians, pawns of the Muslim world.
from carter to bongo we have faced a hostile iran that has declared war on us yet we can not get the congressional democrats to act.these national socialist democrats like red nancy,reed,bongo and turban durban have prevented us from squashing iran.we need to elect people who have our safety first and political bull shit last.we need to destroy iran now not after they set off an atomic bomb in ny.
Either purposefully or through ignorance, US policy is blithely unaware of the cultural requirements of the ME. Every wanna-be-Caliph stands like a king-of-the-Hill bully and will kick dirt in your eye until you tell them eye-to-eye the consequences of that action. They may be bullies, but they are not fools. If the consequences are excess to what they can stand or accept, they will find a way around the impasse and let you go your way, occasionally apologising for misunderstanding depending on how brutal the consequences would have been.
Understanding, “nice” diplomacy and such are what they use when trying to create red-herrings around which they are already planning and executing strategies to entrap you. That is how nicey-nicey diplomacy is seen. It is always a ruse. And if you have nothing going on to make that ruse a strategic initiative, they conclude that you are merely a weak-willed paper tiger; as they have concluded regarding the current US regime.
Note that nothing the US administration did pulled Iran back – it was merely the statement of the consequences by Israel.
The US administration is so far out of its league trying to do anything in the ME, that they are a joke – to them and to us.
1921,under British influence, Shah Reza Pahlavi was inaugurated in Iran, because the Brits were very interested in the mineral wealth of Iran and they needed a willing head of the state who was prepared to support them. 1951, the government of Mohammed Mossadghs decided to expropriate the British BP or at least to ask BP to share the profit of the oil business with the people of Iran. The Brits did not agree , Mossadghs had to go and was replaced by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the son of the first Shah – and this time the oil was given to the US. The regime of the Shah was based on terror in Iran but the so-called West(in this case W. Germany included) respected him and the fate of his ex-wife and wife was in every magazine – at least in Europe. In 1979, the fundamental religious leader Chomeini returned from Paris to Iran and the evil story started. In those days I worked in a company that had good connections with Iran and when Banisadr became President, our team was relieved: Some of our team knew Banisadr. However, in 1981 Banisadr fled (to Paris as far as I remember). Trading became very difficult and the US had no chance, because the new leader disliked, or better hated, the US. The US had to look for another partner in the Middle East and the new darling of the US was a man called Saddam – ever heard of him? What I want to say: Somehow the US creates the monsters it fights afterwards. Or ever heard of the brave Mudjahedin, who fought against the Russians and who have been supported by the US. Now they are called Taliban. In short: In hard times, in times of revolution and violence, the winner is the demagogue. And the US should not try to act worse than those demagogues. That why I think Obama is right with his politics.
tks for the thumbnail history maas-saulgau, but i don’t see how that makes obama “right” in refusing to support the iranian people against a regime that is killing americans–and germans–whenever possible.
Thumbnail histories are so much more impressive when they’re accurate…which that one wasn’t.
The United States didn’t create a “monster ” in Iran or Iraq. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was put into power by the British in 1941, and the United States had absolutely nothing to do with the Baathists taking control of Iraq.
When the Baathists took control of Iraq we had no diplomatic relations and a virtual total embargo against Iraq. After the Baathists took control of Iraq we had no diplomatic relations, and a virtual total embargo against Iraq.
Yes, I got some details wrong. sorry. I have my information from a Iranian student who lives in Germany. Well, I checked the details again: Reza Shah Pahlavi(1878- 1944)reigned till 1941 in Persia and then declared his son to be his successor. In August 1941, British and Soviet troops had invaded neutral Persia and Reza had to go, because he was considered to be friendly to Germans. His son declared war on Germany in 1943. In February 1949, an attempted assassination of the Shah failed and Mohammad Mossadegh(1881-1967), adversary of the Shah, was appointed Minister president. He stepped back in 1952 but the Shah had to instaall him again because people protested. In August 1953,the Shah fled abroad. Three days later Mossadegh was crashed down with help of the Iranian Armee and the Cia(Operation Ajax). On October 1954, a new treaty with the Angl-Iranian -Oil-Co. was made. The 17 Oil companies accepted that Ira took half of the profit. However, the Shah modernized the country with help of the US and with brutality. 1964, the religious leader Chomeini had to go to Turkey in exile. In 1967, the Shah visited Germany. There have been large protest actions and Benno Ohnesorg, a student was killed. That was the start of the “1968er”(Cohn-Bendit), Joschka Fischer and Fritz Teufel are the most prominent of the 1968er.
There’s a reason why when the allies pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, Iraq was equiped with Russian and French military equipment.
Why do you know my e-mail address? Anyway, it does not matter, because we moved from that place long ago. Too small, even for me.
A bit irritated because you know my e-mail address. Did I make something wrong? Anyway,I never lived there(but I was born in the region)and my husband`s name(and mine too) is quite different. I noticed when I submit my comment that my comment does not disappear. However, when I remove it, my comment goes all together(even when I submitted it). What do I make wrong here? I am a bit concerned, because there are some people who lived in that place and carried identical names as I used here. Personally, our family moved to the Bodensee, a nice place in Germany with far more choices in jobs and everything and very beautiful – when the sun shines.
Now to Obama. For me he is just another American president who focuses on the well-being of America. Yes!! That is the job of American presidents. However, Americans are never aware, or do not care about it, that every decision they make has an effect and mostly a very negative one, because they generally know nothing about the conflicts and therefore rely on the arguments of their dearest friends (Brits, Poles, Czechs etc.) and tend to forget that truth is not black or white. The childlike morality (good/bad) of Americans in general makes us (and here I can speak for many Germans and even Europeans) simply perplex. Take the war in Iraq: Bush and Co. argued that one has only to remove the dictator and the world would be a better place. Oh yes, and a few bombs might help too: After all, it did work very well with the Germans. Bombing a country back into the stone age had the effect that a problematic country suddenly worked. This view is wrong. For example, one of the conditions for peace after World War I was the removal of the Kaiser(and all kings within Germany as a result). These people might have played stabilizing roles after the war (even if it might have been only representing roles, but who remembers the positive role the Spanish King played after Franco?). Furthermore, losing relatives in a war(private persons) does not make a person better but stirs hate, nothing else. Obama seems ( or seemed) to be aware of this, perhaps he remembers the fate of his grandfather?. Obama, the hope for the world is changing somehow. And not for the better. Why this is so, I do not know.
Yes, Maas-Salgau, it’s always America’s fault. What a pity such stupid people do so well and have so much power. We should have brought the Kaiser here and made him, well, Kaiser…
We here in the South never loved the Kaiser(I spoke only about the stabilising effect. Sorry, the Prussians deeply disliked catholics and I am a Catholic(though not a very religious one). And even if I would not be a Catholic, I would not support hate against any religious group. And I even do not hate Americans( half of the family of my husband lives in Canada and Australia, only a few live in Germany and dozens of cousins and two nephews live in the US.I was quite often in the US(Texas(El Paso), Arizona, Florida,Montana and New York). Most impressed I was from the nature there. Back to Germany: In autumn, very often American soldiers have been here and very often they stranded in our front garden. My family(my mother and father) used to call them in and give them coffee and a meal and so did many other families. One autumn, I was at home and though I am very afraid of uniforms(I do not know why but perhaps I should ask Freud), I even spook with them. They ask me if we would host them because they would be Americans. No, I answered, in spite of (though this might have been very wrong grammatically). Like it or not, power does not impress me. Most Germans would prefer to live in a large Switzerland. No, I am not at all indifferent to the fate of the Iranian people. I support the ” Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte” in Frankfurt, who strongly focuses on Islam terror and the fate of Christians in Pakistan, for example. But I strongly oppose the American way to save the world. Or do you think: Bomb them, crash them and kill them is a method that brings success? And as I mentioned before, do you really think that Iranians would be happy when Americans liberated their country the way it happened in Iraq. Yes, I supported the war in Afghanistan because I saw the situation of the women there and that had to be altered. But are the women from Afghanistan better off now. You might charge it yourself. Power is only one means and not the best one. Oh, I forgot. I had the opportunity to live in New York. Even our business partners in Kew Gardens (somewhere in New York) wanted me to come to the US. But when I was there, I was not impressed at all. Sorry, Americans are how they are but do I have to admire them or do I?
Brow-beating a woman on the basis of ethnic chauvinism, Mr Ledeen. How tawdry of you.
just defending my country against (false) nasty stereotypes, mr watson. sorry if it upsets you.
“Sorry, Americans are how they are but do I have to admire them…?”
No.
We make no such demands on Germans or Germany. You can feel any way you please about us, as long as you don’t conquer other nations or carry out mass pogroms killing millions of people.
That we will NOT allow you to do, as long as we maintain a presence in Europe. Other than that, you can pretty much do as you please; which, I might add, is a lot better deal than people have gotten in the past in places where the Germans maintained a presence.
“But I strongly oppose the American way to save the world.”
Well, we’re not trying to save the world. We have a dispute with Iran because they attacked an American embassy in 1979 and kidnapped a bunch of Americans. In addition the Iranians back terror groups in the middle east that have murdered hundreds of American citizens. This has nothing to do with saving the world. It’s strictly an us against them thing.
We weren’t trying to save the world in the 1940s when we were bombing Germany into ruins either. You declared war on us…so, we fought you. End of story.
Save the world?
Spare me.
Not our job, man.
Here’s how the game’s played: You declare war on us, you murder our citizens, or you invade some country we don’t want you to invade (like Kuwait, for example) then there’s an excellent chance we’re going to open up a can of Yankee whupass on you. Admirable? Maybe not. But that’s the game, and anybody who don’t like it, don’t have to play.
P.S. You’re doing a good job of presenting your points, especially since it’s obvious that English isn’t your first language, but you really to need to learn more about the history of Iran, Iraq, and the international relations in that part of the world. Like most Europeans, you have an overly provincial education and outlook. This is why you make claims like “the new darling of the US was a man called Saddam” which are patently absurd.
No offense.
Personally, I see the Israeli reaction to Iran’s threat to run the blockade, as a real act of diplomacy. Lets face it, the Iranian leader has been shooting off his mouth for a few years now. So, why did he stop now? The answer I see is, his speeches have been on a podium at home with his armed guards protecting him as he spoke. Once he realized his ‘ship’ would be at sea with no guards to shoot at anyone who protested his (their) actions, he realized someone was going to have to put up or shut up. He obviously opted for the latter!
Way to go Israel!
The current savage regime in Iran is the direct result of actions by such actors as Jimmy Carter and Valerie Giscard d’Estaing and many others who pulled the rug from under the Shah in such a utopian vision that a man of the cloth, or the turban in this case, will correct the so called tyrannies of the Pahlavis. Let us remember that the so called Pahlavi tyrants had these animals imprisoned in Evin, arguably where they all should be know. This utopian and idealistic mindset has been espoused by many a think tanks, such as the CFR and others, in which the Carters, the Zakarias and and and have been trained. It is their belief that under an elitist system of philosopher gods the masses will act rationally and understand what is good for them by fiat from the ruling elite. These systems have failed over and over again throughout history and will fail again. But one tenet of history is that we will never learn from history and history will repeat itself. This reminds me of Nicholas Berdiaeff’s epigraph for Huxley’s Brave New World:
“Les utopies apparaissent bien plus réalisables qu’on ne le croyait autrefois. Et nous nous trouvons actuellement devant une question bien autrement angoissante : comment éviter leur réalisation définitive ?… Les utopies sont réalisables. La vie marche vers les utopies. Et peut-être un siècle nouveau commence-t-il, un siècle où les intellectuels et la classe cultivée rêveront aux moyens d’éviter les utopies et de retourner à une société non utopique moins parfaite et plus libre.”
On the other side you have think tanks, such as Ledeen’s AEI, who understand the imperfection of mankind and believe that liberty, as chaotic as it may be, is the natural entropy for the state of man. Most of these men and women arrived at this thought via experimentation with the ideological left leading to an epiphany that elitism really doesn’t work. And make no mistake; the left is not a populist movement. Do you see any populism from the current US administration with their daily dictats?
History will repeat itself and the Islamic Republic experiment will, undoubtedly, fail as did the Bolshevik experiment. When it does, the following will have to be sacrosanct in the new Iran:
1) Universal and true suffrage.
2) Equality of the sexes.
3) Complete understanding that Israel is the natural and organic ally of Iran in the region. The Shah, to his credit, understood this and established close, albeit sub rosa, relations with Israel (the embassy in Tel Aviv was called Bern 2).
4) Complete and unequivocal separation of religion from the machinery of the state.
5) Eventual education of the masses to open their eyes to the historical fact that Islam is a forced religion on Iranians and an accident of history originating in Al-Qadesieh which, hopefully, will be reversed.
Hoping that the day will come when a flotilla of Iranians will sail to Israel as friends to pay their respects in Yad Vashem, where many a potential Einsteins, Mahlers, Kafkas and and and are remembered.
Yet another opportunity is being squandered by the weekend windbag sessions taking place in Ontario.
They could announce legislation has been signed by all of them which would outlaw the existence of Iran forever (I’m sure you remember a similar quip by the Gipper in a delightful way to use humour).
None of the windbags there would recognize timeless principle even when it would smack them in the face like a huge role of salami.
So, as an alternative, why not have a trusteeship that FDR had in mind for Vietnam (as communicated by Chester L. Cooper in “The Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam) but this time for those lands bordered by the Mediterranean
Sea, India, the Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea. Jerusalem would co-ordinate with Delhi, Moscow, and Athens. Plus Armenia would play a role, for frankly it
brings underutilized attributes, because it is undersized compared to when it was at its most influential.
Admittedly this is different, but you are familiar with
what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again.
Israel, stay strong!! G-d helps those who help themselves….
Am Yisroel Chai! … Le-olam Va-ed !
hello. this world of idiocy would all be changed with a more modern interpretation of the word “infidel”, as they are so progressively doing with our Constitution.
The disruption of oil supply is the reason everyone is afraid of confronting Iran. They are capable of setting fire to their own oil fields and sabotaging oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Iranians retain oil tankers filled either with distillate or raw oil in the Persian Gulf and have in the past threatened to scuttle them and set their contents on fire. The pollution and the loss of oil to the market will cause an acute crisis that no one will be able to deal with.
In short, if Iran is attacked by air, they will still retain their strength on the ground and will induce havoc on the Middle East oil market. The form of attack necessary to halt that sort of end-game scenario would have to be devastating, needing to be completed in the first five minutes of the conflict.
“Admittedly this is different, but you are familiar with
what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again.”
Not really.
Let me guess…sure, it’s messy and sticky, but it feels good, and if we don’t do it over and over again, then the human race will die out in a generation?
I am reminded of an old political cartoon from the 1940s – possibly by Herblock – showing a geezer sitting before two register books, one labeled “Little Nations with Big Courage” – I think he had just written “Finland” there – and the other labeled “Big Nations with Little Courage” which was blank then, as I recall it.
Sure,sure, the Israeli and American goons want war: “krieg, krieg, krieg!” the mobs yell. What’s new… Everything is a reason for war for you guys.
Iran, despite being an oppressive regime to their own people, haven’t done anything unreasonable in international affairs – except in the minds of the ‘Greater Israel’ lobby who want to see all Arab states rendered defenceless and the Israelis given the green light to kill and destroy unhindered.
Once again, those who oppose Israel have shown themselves to be the reasonable parties; and yet this is given as a reason to make war on them!? ‘Bombed if you do, bombed if you don’t', huh…
Thank goodness for a president who recognises Israel is not an American ally. Hope he gets a second term…
Right you are Chris W, those saintly Iranians have certainly not deployed a proxy army around the world, nor invaded Iraqi Kurdistan…
Hezbollah are not a proxy force. For all their obvious flaws, they are a legitimate resistance group who exist because of the outrageous actions of Israel in Lebanon during the occupation.
Israel treated the Lebanese monstrously, particularly during the occupation (but also in the recent failed invasion and bombing campaign). No democracy has behaved so badly in living memory. They did to the Lebanese worse than the Iranians do to their own people, particularly because their brutality was so indiscriminate.
In international affairs it’s perfectly acceptable to provide a group of people a deterrent against that sort of aggression, which is what Iran have provided Hezbollah.
It’s not an act of war against Israel, any more than the West supporting their allies is an act of war against any hostile neighbours those countries might have. Self-defence is a human right.
so israel was occupying lebanon in 1983? so why did Hezbollah attack French and American military and diplomatic targets? Hezbollah was created by Iran, mr watson, and is run by iran today, as it always has been.
“so israel was occupying lebanon in 1983?”
Yup. The Israelis invaded Lebanon in June 1982 to fight the PLO.
Everybody and their kid brother was occupying Lebanon in 1983. Us, the French, the Israelis, the Syrians. Heck, there were even some Lebanese there (divided up into about sixty zillion factions).
The only guys who weren’t there, were the PLO. They bugged out in the fall of 82. As a matter of fact, we (stupidly) evacuated them, instead of letting (helping) the Israelis destroy them.
“Sure,sure, the Israeli and American goons want war: “krieg, krieg, krieg!” the mobs yell.”
No, no, no. That would be Germany.
If that happened in America we’d yell “Remember Tehran!”, “Remember Beirut!”…then hopefully we’d blow the Mad Mullahs straight to hell, where they belong.
Ditto for their Hezbollah proxies.
“Once again, those who oppose Israel have shown themselves to be the reasonable parties…”
Yeah, seeing an American task force moving to intercept any Iranian flotilla, and also knowing that one Israeli can beat the living snot out of ten Muslims, the Iranians correctly reasoned that discretion is the better part of valor.
Very reasonable of them. Cowardly, but reasonable.
Perhaps tangential, perhaps not…
Does anyone know the current status of Gen. McChrystal? Is it possible that via an all too willing Rolling Stone he will now be reporting for duty more in keeping with his true talents while allowing Petraeus to do the same? It makes sense if the carrier groups in the middle east portend a special ops component wrt Iran. Not entirely analogous to Patton’s status before Normandy, but nonetheless a nice piece of misdirection along the same lines.
Also, I’ll be not at all surprised to see Egypt and SA cooperating with Israel against Iran. I’ve been predicting such for quite some time.
Gen McC will be a private citizen in 2 months. stinks.
“Thank goodness for a president who recognises Israel is not an American ally. Hope he gets a second term…”
Chris W
“”That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy,” he added. “That will always be my starting point.”
Barak Obama 2/2007
There is lots to criticise Obama about concerning Israel, and most of the rest of his foreign policy but you are mistaken if you think the US government, including the POTUS does not consider Israel an ally.
Intersting that just this year the US decided to stockpile $800m of military gear and ordinance in our non-ally Israel which the Israelis will be allowed to use in case of war.
Hey, lets give all that stuff to the Revolutionary Guard and they will be our buddies too, right? I mean we can trust them because they are ‘reasonable’.
Heh. Gotta go. There is a meeting of the Greater Israel Lobby tonight and if I am late I wont hear about the latest plot to take over Sweden using our extensive control of the worlds banks and media.
The biggest howler yet of the flotilla movement came from a press conference gicen by senor Hamas official Mahmoud A-Zahar promising at least eight more ships coming, but not until “After the World Cup” games are over.
I guess even a ‘humanitarian crisis’ and needed medical supplies to save starving children needs its priorities.
Meanwhile some of those poor starving children are in for a hot summer because their UN sponsored summer camp was attacked by Hamasnicks who burned and slashed their toys and plastic swimming pool over the weekend. This is the second camp attacked. Hamas operates its own Islamist militant camps for children and hates the UN camps.
It was a hot weekend anyway in Gaza because the electricity went out. Plenty of fuel, but Hamas apparently didnt pay its bill to the Palestinian Authority so Fatah shut the power down at the Gaza plant. Could have been worse but the other 75% of electricity which comes directly from Israel kept most things going while the Palestinians worked out their feud.
To Dave Surls: Your comment, June 22, 11.01 pm
“You can feel anyway you please about us, as long as you don’t conquer other nations or carry out mass pogroms killing millions of people. That we will not allow you to do”.
Life is never simple, particularly for Germans.
Dear Dave, my sense of self is fortunately rather independent and as far as I know my fellow citizens, they simply do not care how Americans categorize us and the role they place us into. Otherwise the situation would be rather hopeless. As I mentioned before, every individual is born into a particular cultural and perhaps even historical context and therefore I do not blame you that you view me and my fellow citizens as Hitler’s grand-children. I understand that the culture you are in does not allow you to face reality and therefore you always will be a prisoner of the past.However, perhaps I should indicate that all this anti-German talk here brings German withdrawal from Afghanistan a bit closer. The question arises why are we in Afghanistan? The people of Afghanistan have been our friends, because we built schools for them and provided them with everything they needed. It was simply friendship. We never invaded them, though you might not like the idea.
Last but not least: I agree with you, my English is very poor at present(it was not always like that). Reason No. 1: I did not use it for some years. And privately, we fancy to cross South America from North to South. Spanish is more useful for me at present. Reason No. 2: You are not the only one who writes nasty things about Germans and Germany. Negative emotions are toxic for my brain and I tend to forget my English all together. And yesterday, there was the football play England against Germany. Some stress for me. For the English, those plays always represent some kind of war and that is why they will never win. Poor English. My education is provincial? Perhaps. I studied in Paris, London and Glasgow and in Germany. But somehow, whether Paris, London or Konstanz, the world is very provincial, indeed.
“Negative emotions are toxic for my brain and I tend to forget my English all together.”
You’re just getting a little flustered because YOU don’t want to deal with the reality of Germany’s past.
Anyway, have a wonderful trip to South America. Avoid toxic emotions…and be sure to bring some warm clothes. It can get a little chilly in Tierra Del Fuego.
Actually, Mr Ledeen, Iran’s decision to “bag” the whole Gaza aid idea, to a great number of Iranian political observers is interpreted as a sign that the governement is at the very least “pragmatic” in its foreign relations approach.
The goverment would never want to put it self in a clearly offside position as they say in soccer lingo.
Amongst international and non-Iranian political observors and maybe even high in the Defence and State Dept and CIA, they might interpret this as a clear sign that if Iran were to ever obtain a nuclear weapon, it might not use it.
I think Mr Ledeen, with all due respect, many many people underestimate how politically smart this governemnt is.
Obviously, they knew that anouncing the Gaza aid ship would bring an Israeli response. They also knew that backing away from it would cost them some Arab supporters. But they deciphered that while many Western countries and Mr Obama were fixated on what happens next, they tried to demonstrate that they are a pragmatic government.
The essence of their leadership is bullshit – you call their bluff. They would buckle and crumble under any attack, and look like fools – so hurry. Likely is they then lose credibility. They wont get any madder..