Iran has accused Britain of involvement in the bombing in the Iranian city of Avhaz, which killed nine.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said British soldiers equipped and directed the perpetrators of the two bombings, according to a report by the IRNA news agency. He said British forces had provided “safe haven’” and “practical and extensive facilities” for the attacks.
Tony says no!
“The Iranian government’s suggestion that we somehow had a hand in yesterday’s bomb explosions in southern Iran is obviously ludicrous and deserves to be treated with scorn by the international community,” Blair’s office said today in a statement read over the telephone.
What’s interesting is why the Iranians would want to up the ante with the British in this way. The mullahs seem to be pushing, pushing, pushing for some reason.
I read that the region where the bombs are exploding is occupied by *Sunni* arabs. They might be running this on their own — they have cause — but any number of other nations or movements could be lending support. I don’t expect any of the arab states in the region are happy with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, for instance. ISTR that the Iranian program was one of the chief explanations for why Saddam felt it necessary to keep pursuing the bomb. So, there are many possibilities, and this might be one of those the enemy of my enemy thingees where I won’t feel all that happy with whomever is running the thing.
Roger this is not the first time that Iran has tried to blame Britain for a bomb attack. They made the same claims in a mid-October bombing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4347216.stm
The mullahs seem to be pushing, pushing, pushing for some reason–Roger
And why should they not? How can anything they do really harm them ? Now if they were opposed by States exactly like themselves, but armed with all the bells and whistles of a ‘modern’ technological enterprise, they would be as quiet as churchmice.
72 virgins is all well and good but you at the least want to have the chance of getting in a few shots on the way out.
As it stands they are faced with enemies of astounding power but all the will and fortitude of Casper Milquetoast.
Iran will do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants.
Period.
As for the bombings, I would bet on Sunni separatists with or without some logistical help from the Al-Queda types, and/or one or another of the ‘Gulf’ States. The only thing the Sunni fanatics and the Shia fanatics agree on is fanaticism (ie tactics).
How about the Magic Kingdom?
Roger
They push because they can. dougf has it right. They know that the West will huff and puff and then bend over. The mullah bomb is coming. Get ready. It is going to get ugly.
Anyone but me remember the words of the great British philosopher: ‘Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?’
This could be an interesting read:
http://laotze.blogspot.com/2006/01/mad-mahdi-of-fire-versus-paper-tigers.html
“The Mad Mahdi of Fire” versus “The Paper Tigers”
SNIP
…Iranians genuinely feel that they are entitled to nuclear weapons and are quite confident that what they see as an arrogant condescending tone from the West will change once they become a nuclear superpower. Two Iranian officials remind me over a late supper one night that Israel has had nuclear weapons for sometime now and continues to refuse to disarm attempting to hint that this might be the only possible thing that could have Iran reconsider. They then say it does not matter anyway because by June Israel will either have the option to disarm and move or perish. The choice will be theirs.
Our sources tell us that if all proceeds according to schedule, by this June, Iran will have assembled five nuclear warheads at five separate locations along with their delivery systems and that a nuclear test will then be conducted shortly thereafter this to demonstrate Iran’s achievment.
The Iranian government believes that any possible military strike against them will come prior to 30 April 2006 before the weather starts to change in May. The Iranians are prepared though and are confident that any military strike against them will fail with it’s objectives….
Why are the Mullahs pushing?
I believe that we in the West are making the same failure of attribution in regard to Iran that France and Britain made in regard to Hitler prior to the Munich Conference. We are attributing very clear and aggressive behaviors and statements to a complicated ploy intended to bully and bluff a way toward a settlement of some sort. The Iranians are no more inclined toward diplomatic settlements vis-‡-vis the state of Israel, than Hitler was the state of Czechoslovakia. Hitler called Czechoslovakia a ìrump state that does not deserve to existî, not substantially different from Amadinejadís recent comments toward Israel.
What then, was Hitlerís purpose in bullying and pushing at Munich? According to Robert Payne in his The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, ìChamberlain seemed to be completely unaware that Hitler rejoiced in terror and was not in the least interested in creating a peaceful atmosphere.î Also, ìÖit was never enough for Hitler to win a battle: the enemy must be humbled and reduced to quivering impotence.î These are well known facets of Hitlerís angry character, but I submit that the Islamofacists in Iran share the same sense of victimization, injured pride, and hyperbolic self-aggrandizement as their German prototypes.
The Mullahs are pushing, because they enjoy watching us back down. Even though Hitler already knew that the British and the French were ready and willing to sell out the Czechs, he continued to rant and push and bully them. The Iranians perceive that we, for once, are the impotent party, and they relish the position. Their accusations of interference in their domestic affairs, of bombings and spying, are simply the usual propaganda employed by warring states, particularly aggressor states. In my humble estimation, they are making a case for war in much the same ways that Hitler made the case against Czechoslovakia and later Poland. Indeed, it might even be in their interest to have Israel attack them. This is particularly the case if they already possess some retaliatory means at their disposal.
Both Syria and Iran have been conducting operations and supporting terrorists and otherwise destabilizing Iraq. Why haven’t we openly attacked them? Why didn’t we attack the recent terrorist summit in Syria? Imad Mugnyieh, who murdered 241 Marines in Beirut in just one operation of hundreds, was seen there. Why not attack the next meeting of the Supreme Guardians in Iran and de-capitate the Mullah regime? Why not do something?
Thanks, GeorgeIII, I was contemplating how to say what you said so well (I would not have done it nearly as well).
Hitler pushed and bullied because he believed (rightly until far too late) that those he was pushing and bullying were too decadent, impotent, and cowardly to stop him from getting what he wanted.
His position was “You may give me what I want or I will take what I want. I’ll leave the choice to you.” Once he had demonstrated the accuracy of his position he simply dispensed with the delay and annoyance of forcing his opponents to give him what he wanted and went directly to taking it.
The Mad Mahdi of Fire has now convinced himself of the accuracy of his Hitlerian position. Next step is an open demonstration. The Iranian people, regardless of to what degree they agree or disagree, approve or disapprove, understand or remain ignorant, are along for the ride. There is no evidence they can stop the Mad Mahdi’s Race to Ruin whether even if they wanted to.
The “West” can chose to stop them now or be forced to stop them later. The choice, quite possibly, matters little to the Iranian people – their fate and doom is already sealed. The choice only matters to us in the amount of pain we will suffer – some now or much later.
ìWhat then, was Hitlerís purpose in bullying and pushing at Munich? According to Robert Payne in his The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, ìChamberlain seemed to be completely unaware that Hitler rejoiced in terror and was not in the least interested in creating a peaceful atmosphere.î
What more needs to be said? Liberals often fail to understand that not every person is interested in reaching a win-win solution. Indeed, some people greatly enjoy murder and mayhem.
Disturbing indeed is this entire scenario.
Beginning with 9/11, one could make the argument that everything has gone just the way Iran would have wanted.
1. Help plan and coordinate an attack on the US. Get props from all the crazy fundamentalist Muslims.
2. Watch the US take out the semi-organized political system in Afganistan, help some of the US targets get out of Afganistan, and leave Afganistan as a chaotic mess, which the US has to expend troops to clean up.
3. Watch the US take out their enemy to the East. Help jihadists cause more problems in the nation, causing the US to expend more troops and look foolish. See a anti-Iran government that was concerend about a potential Nuclear powered Iran, get replaced with a Shi’ite government, likely much less hostile to Iran, perhaps even helpful.
4. See the PLO fall into the hands of more crazy bastards,who happen to share their mad ideology.
5. Watch Ariel Sharon take a apparently permanent dive.
I wonder if any of this was planned, or if all of it was just the roll of the dice? Was Iran merely watching as this unfolded? I can’t imagine a better scenario for their attempt at Nukes. I don’t think the US has the political capital to mount an invasion, not with Iraq and Afganistan sill, well, unsettled. Probably not with many of the citizens of the US disenchanted with the administration, the Congress and politicans in general. The best we could reasonably manage, would probably be some tactical strikes.
However, our invasion of Iraq displayed how difficult useful information on a despotic regieme is to get. We may have information about 5 or 20 sites. Unfortunately, we may have bad information. It seems reasonable to think that Iran would seed the countryside with ‘locations of intrest’, which were nothing more than empty buildings.
All in all, I think that we may have to consider the fact that a Nuclear armed Iran may be unavoidable. If that happens, I think someone needs to start planning WCS for Jersulaem.
I’m not looking forward to the rest of this year….
dclyew,
Geeze, never thought of it that way. It was all clever Iranian planning to manage to get American forces on their eastern border, western border, directly across the gulf… They’re clever those Iranians.
“You guys keep this up you’re gonna be surrounded!”
“We’re Iranians. We’re supposed to be surrounded.”
“Beginning with 9/11, one could make the argument that everything has gone just the way Iran would have wanted.”
One could do that, I guess.
Remind me again how the mullahs plan included having a actual democracy next door of 25 million people who would be justifiably angry at Iran’s constant attempts to destabilize their country?
Might this not be an exercise in preventive “tu coque” in the case the Brits discover that the London tube bombers had support/contacts from/with Irans wholly owned subsidiary Hizbolla?