Canada vs Iran

Glaucus

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Nope, this is not a joke.


Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats

Well, Harper is a joke but of the "I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad" variety. Obviously this has little to do with Iran and everything to do with Israel. Perhaps it was a campaign promise he needed to fulfill? I'm sure Fluffy will tell us it's another sign of the impending attack. Possibly, but Israel wouldn't let Canada spoil the surprise (and surprise would be extremely critical in such an attack). I'd be more likely to believe that it's designed more to unnerve Iran. I mean, what does it mean when Canada pulls an ambassador? I mean really? When the US pulls an ambassador you know an attack is coming. But Canada? It's a bit of a curve ball that will likely put Iran's defenses on full alert. This might allow the US and Israel to get a glimpse as to how Iran might react? Who knows. Interesting either way.
 
Glaucus said:
Obviously this has little to do with Iran and everything to do with Israel.
Click to expand...
Harper won't be acting alone - he will be taking instruction from someone and it's much more likely to be Bibi than Obama. The Neocons don't have quite the pull in this administration that they had in the last one. It could be that the pulling of the embassy is directed more at America than Iran. If Bibi can find a compliant government that also may have credibility with a US audience to make a gesture then they can chastise the US politicians for letting a little country like Canada "show them up" by "doing the right thing". That is, I think it is a stunt to try to get the US to diplomatically match the move and undercut Obama's position.
 
Yes, that's a real possibility as well. And Harper isn't all that keen of Obama anyway, so if Bibi did tell him to do it he's probably only kicking himself for not thinking of it on his own.
 
Israel is like that kid in the back of the class that is ALWAYS causing trouble and can't sit still

sheesh :rolleyes:
 
Strong words from Tony Burman over at "The Star".
Although his swearing-in at Rideau Hall must have happened in the dead of night, Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, with the Vatican getting increasingly upset about anti-Christian discrimination, Harper better watch out for whatever seats he has left in Roman Catholic Quebec.
 
And Bibi took a shot at Obama: U.S. has no right to block Israel on Iran: Netanyahu

The election is a bit of a wild card. Israel may choose to force the hand of the US by launching a surprise attack. And by surprise I mean a surprise for everyone, including the US.

However, if Israel feels that Romney has a good chance of winning, and believe that he'd be supportive of an Iranian attack, they might wait until after the elections. Clearly, going it alone without at least 4 US carrier groups in the area is very, VERY risky. However, during election time it's also a guarantee that the US will come to it's aid and quickly. But that would still leave Israel vulnerable for some time and there's also a good chance their attacks will fail. And since there's no going back you gotta get it right the first time. So it's a hard call, anything could happen.
 
Glaucus said:
However, if Israel feels that Romney has a good chance of winning, and believe that he'd be supportive of an Iranian attack, they might wait until after the elections.
Click to expand...

I think that would be their best bet - I have a feeling that Obama would let them get stuck first and beg for help. The US really needs to reassert the fact that Israel is America's pit bull, not the other way around. Romney would be more malleable but any way you slice it, it would take a while for the US to start a hot war as some generals would need to be changed first. Bibi may be in the same position with his generals. Winning a war at too high a cost is a lot like losing. Besides, there's a good chance you'd be fighting Russia and China as well.

The Bushehr reactor has been running since September of last year and that was once an attractive target for Israel to take out, but hitting a running reactor after Fukushima would make Israel in international pariah (by which I mean even in the sympathetic west). It was probably Russia that played a big role in keeping that project safe. With Putin in power I think there is a perception of a realistic threat that Russia would move forcefully to protect its interests. The CIA has its work cut out to dislodge him before they can act as freely as they wish.

However, continued destabilization efforts like what's going on in Syria will be a much safer bet. Funding jihadis looks slower than a massive military strike, what the US has proved over the past decade is that a massive military strike takes a decade or more to settle out anyway and throwing money at jihadis is both cheaper and easier to sell to the public. Actually, this isn't a new lesson - it's just something the Cheney administration forgot.

I think we'll go back to a long game and hot heads like Bibi will, for the good of their own countries, be gradually shunted aside - something which in the short term will make the hotheads more dangerous as they feel their time running out.

My strong feeling is that those in the drivers seat are willing to wait and play the Syria game out to the end first - even if Assad can regain territory we have tons of weapons and mercenaries we can keep sending. Even if it takes a few years we can reduce the Assad regime to a powerless ruler in his citadel and leave the country without any effective resistance to western control. That would be enough to allow the US to establish bases and move on to Iran. Of course, into such a vacuum Russia and China would pour their own arms and mercenaries to prevent sufficient security for pipeline building, most likely. I don't think the Middle East will be much of a safe place to live until at least the oil runs out.
 
I still don't see how Syria plays a role here. Syria doesn't border Iran, and they don't need Syria's backing for an air war. They can just as easily take out Syria's air defenses if they feel they need to fly over Syria.

Also, I don't think they want Iran to just change regime, they want those nuclear reactors taken apart or destroyed. Everyone knows that even the Iranian opposition groups that are currently being hunted down by the ruling Iranian regime want nuclear power and likely the weapons as well. Persians reliving former glories should not be disqualified, Persia wants to rise again and become an influential player in the region - and that style of thinking is not limited to just the current regime. What you see as Israel making the first attack in reality is Israel with the full backing of the entire Sunni population in the Middle East. Iran has many enemies and Israelis are just the vocal minority. Say what you like about the Israelis, at least they're honest - unlike the two-faced Arab leadership (on this issue at least).
 
Glaucus said:
I still don't see how Syria plays a role here. Syria doesn't border Iran, and they don't need Syria's backing for an air war. They can just as easily take out Syria's air defenses if they feel they need to fly over Syria.
Click to expand...
Syria or Jordan are the shortest flight paths. Then they have to go over Iraq. Technically they do need permission - of course they CAN violate airspace but it's not protocol. Once you get to Iraq it's unlikely that they would agree, Iran has increased its influence there, but you could just ignore Iraq and recognize the Kurds in the north. There's always a long route around through Turkish airspace - politically touchy, or Egyptian and then Saudi airspace - also touchy. But all of that is pretty academic - it's still a long flight and it'd be hard to move the volumes of ordinance in a short time that would be necessary for an effective get-in get-out attack. Even with a US friendly base in Syria it would look bad for Israel to do the attack stopping at US facilities.

The US, on the other hand, can launch directly from aircraft carriers in the Gulf and from bases in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. They can do the job much easier that Israel and with much less risk - their homeland is a considerable distance away.

Iran, I think, has only two effective counter threats they can offer in the face of US attack (since they don't have nukes). One is the closure of Hormuz and the other is friends like Hezbollah and the allegiance of a country like Syria which can funnels weapons to Hezbollah quickly while pretending not to know.

There are plenty of other reasons to bring down Syria like the fact that it sits on real estate that could shorten oil pipeline routes quite a lot (Assad was trying to work on a bunch of pipeline deals but who wants to pay Assad) and another reason is that, as a modern society they tend to use too much of whatever oil they have left. If the clock was rolled back on the country then the oil would have to be sold to the west - or even better, taken over by Western corporations because the locals wouldn't be able to finance the rebuilding of the oil facilities if they were damaged.

And lets not forget that it would deny Russia another little bit of their presence in the area and denying them their last sea port in the Mediterranean. As to the Arab leadership - many of them are only in power because of US support. That may or may not be changing. Egypt is showing signs of acting independently but its too soon to tell. Is the Muslim Brotherhood with the Americans, or against them, or just with themselves and playing all sides for what they can get?

It's a mess and things are in flux but we can certainly say that Syria is already in play. I think they'd like to get that mostly sorted before Iran but I also suspect that the US wants the "revolution" to spread, perhaps through the Kurds, and then into Iran. I think they'd prefer to do things that way even if it takes twenty years rather than do a full frontal assault and have it still take twenty years to settle out, but just cost way more money.
 
Another reason to go after Syria is Lebanon. In fact there are those in Israel who desire to extend Israel over all the lands over which King David is said to have had dominion and that means from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates - and that means the Syrian's are currently squatting on Israeli land. :)
 
Israel will fly over Jordan and Iraq. Jordan will provide full blessings and so will Iraq as it feels the American gun to it's head.

Now, as for Lebanon and Hezbollah, sure, Syria is a great enabler, but Iran is the great enabler of Syria. Syria isn't gonna do much once Iran is in no position to assist it. And since it seems that any attack on Iran is likely to result in escalation and that escalation strongly favors Israel, Iran is likely to take a serious pounding once the US carriers get into position. Yes, the initial attack will likely be focused on Iran's nuclear facilities, but once Iran retaliates it'll likely feel the effects of "shock and awe" first hand. And if Hezbollah makes a move it too will be attacked which will also favor Israel's larger strategic objectives. So no need to do much about Syria, they are and always have been the middle man. The guys who call the shots (Iran) and those who do the dirty work (Hezbollah) will be the ones taken out. In that case the middle man is kinda useless and not worth worrying about.

And I doubt Russia will directly involve itself. If it does, it'll likely be humiliated even more. Not only that, Russian involvement will guarantee full NATO involvement. Putin is no dummy.
 
Glaucus said:
Israel will fly over Jordan and Iraq. Jordan will provide full blessings and so will Iraq as it feels the American gun to it's head.

Now, as for Lebanon and Hezbollah, sure, Syria is a great enabler, but Iran is the great enabler of Syria. Syria isn't gonna do much once Iran is in no position to assist it. And since it seems that any attack on Iran is likely to result in escalation and that escalation strongly favors Israel, Iran is likely to take a serious pounding once the US carriers get into position. Yes, the initial attack will likely be focused on Iran's nuclear facilities, but once Iran retaliates it'll likely feel the effects of "shock and awe" first hand. And if Hezbollah makes a move it too will be attacked which will also favor Israel's larger strategic objectives. So no need to do much about Syria, they are and always have been the middle man. The guys who call the shots (Iran) and those who do the dirty work (Hezbollah) will be the ones taken out. In that case the middle man is kinda useless and not worth worrying about.

And I doubt Russia will directly involve itself. If it does, it'll likely be humiliated even more. Not only that, Russian involvement will guarantee full NATO involvement. Putin is no dummy.
Click to expand...

the only problem i see with that line of thinking is that iraq is currently help iran now too... i think, that what we're really about to see is almost all of them band together in spite of their deep rooted difference to get us the F outta their business... i can assure you, if the shoe were on the other foot americans would not have been so patient with a "liberation" thats lasted almost two decades now. black market arms traffic is through the roof... from the middle east to mexico we've been killing others in the name of this blathering awful cause or another, and rightfully so, people are just sick of it. americans are sick of it. id buy a gi a plane ticket home my damn self and encourage everyone else to do it if thats what would get it done quicker. we need to heal. we need to quit powertripping around the world and go back to the america people hoped we were when they first saw lady liberty in the harbor, lighting the way and promising hope. hope, justice, values, innovation, fairness... those used to be the chief exports of america. we lay all of that at the feet of an evil god in a moment of righteous indignation on 9/11 in exchange for the power of vengeance. not even for the noble reason of revenge, which is more specific and directed towards the actors of your affliction. no instead our leaders wanted the broad sword of vengeance. to assail and conquer all that ever had, do, or may cause us concern later. and that leaves few nations outside their swinging swords, and no humans off list of possibility...
 
Glaucus said:
So no need to do much about Syria, ...
Click to expand...
But if that is the case, then why are we bothering to send weapons and fighters and "advisers" to Syria? Mere opportunism? I think rather it's preparatory.

And I doubt Russia will directly involve itself. If it does, it'll likely be humiliated even more. Not only that, Russian involvement will guarantee full NATO involvement. Putin is no dummy.
Click to expand...

I don't think they will be directly involved. I think they will more likely send money and confiscated Chechen weapons just to keep things going and make a UN (meaning US/UK) takeover very costly - at which time he can come in and pick up a few contracts as usual and in general just be in better financial shape than the US offering a preferable form of diplomacy. Putin is probably best served following up with what Osama started play rope a dope with the US until it completely collapses. I think he would find that outcome particularly gratifying after what happened to his country.

They might also seek cause to squeeze the Afghan supply routes. Perhaps if some nominally Russian asset got hit, maybe Putin would have no choice but to increase the transit charges for supplying US troops in the North. If Russia put up its prices you know Pakistan would too.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
But if that is the case, then why are we bothering to send weapons and fighters and "advisers" to Syria? Mere opportunism? I think rather it's preparatory.
Click to expand...
I think we're seeing a shake up in the Middle East. One that may not have been planned but certainly encouraged.The thing is the stalemate that we've had there for decades wasn't really helping anyone. Not only that, the US is probably tired of supporting these thug regimes while getting little in return (in fact I'd argue that the US has had a net loss over the years as their support has done little more than generate a lot of hate). Perhaps Russia still gets viable return but I'm not sure what that is. Putin is a relic of the cold war and it shows - the US is far ahead of the game here. I think the US is moving beyond that. It should be quite clear to anyone that the Islamic movement is not loyal to any foreign power including Russia.

Perhaps Romney would revert back, but under Obama it certainly seems as though the US is wanting to distance itself from Middle East politics in general. Relations with Turkey and Israel are at an all time low, and the hard liners that it once supported are now either gone or going. The fact that similar change might happen in former Soviet backed nations really shouldn't be a surprise. My only concern is that Russia seems intent on prolonging the inevitable. Assad will fall, and he should, and if the Russians want to support him I personally believe the US should support the rebels. However, I don't see that support extending to active participation - providing weapons and advisors is all they need. Syrians need to win their own freedom just like Americans won their freedom from the British with the help of the French. And Putin can go screw himself.

My hope is that as the old time power structures in the Middle East collapse we'll see that Israel will in fact have fewer enemies and the hardliners in Israel will also fade away. Certainly, with a lesser threat Israel will have less need for strong military support and even be more open to meaningful negotiations. I really don't see an end to the Middle East problems so long as these out dated power structures are in place. I do believe that throwing it all up in the air and dealing with them however they land is preferred to what we have today. This won't solve all our problems, Saudi Arabia will be mostly unaffected, but it's a good start.
 
Glaucus said:
Putin is a relic of the cold war and it shows - the US is far ahead of the game here. I think the US is moving beyond that.
Click to expand...
They are trying to move beyond that - to a mono-polar world where the US no rivals capable of challenging it - the New American Century play-book exactly.

Assad will fall, and he should,
Click to expand...
Assad will die in a few decades anyway. So would Ghadaffi have and so would Saddam.And the regimes would have changed anyway. Our Kings lost power in the face of education, reading and affluence and we replaced them - and it didn't happen all at once. There were people working for peaceful change - but that is too slow for some because profits have to be realized while you are alive in business. We are there for our own interests, not the Syrian people's interests. It's the Syrian people that have to die for us though.

and if the Russians want to support him I personally believe the US should support the rebels.
Click to expand...
Here is where I most fundamentally disagree. Most of the people in Syria just want a quiet life - like everywhere else. Arming and encouraging the rebels does two great harms to the people of Syria. First, it is directly killing Syrians. Many Syrians are not against Assad, many others don't like Assad but are not against the civilian security structure, availability of legal procedures and all of the infrastructure that supports a relatively comfortable life. Giving weapons to the rebels means that people who support Assad are being executed, people who don't want their towns overrun by armed thugs are being executed, civilians are being massacred by the "rebels". Imagine if China started feeding massive amounts of arms to the Hells Angels and told them they would recognized them as the government of an independent Quebec. That's pretty much the way it's done. Find ruthless ambitious people and tell them the turf is theirs to run for you if they can take it.

The second thing it does is legitimize the counter attacks by troops. In the US, if Occupy came out with guns at some demo and took out a few cops - how long before the gloves come off?

If the rebels had no weapons then the army's actions would have no legitimacy. As it is, people in areas unfriendly to the rebels really are being protected by the army. Bottom line, we are responsible for the killing of Syrian civilians when we fund terrorists (that's the actual definition of terrorist rather than the newspeak definition of people who disagree with the US government and are impolite enough to say it out loud.

You can't arm any insurgent group in a country and say you are doing it for humanitarian reasons or that you are doing it for the "people". There is no difference between bombing them into freedom yourself or hiring a proxy army to do it. None.
 
When the US fought for it's independence against the British, there were plenty of loyalists which sided with Britain, and many of them paid a high price for it. But so what? Death is a great way to get rid of political opponents. You can't kill an idea but you CAN kill it's supporters. Personally I believe that bloodshed is necessary in some cases. I completely reject the idea that Syrians would be better off as they have been under the Assad family even though some Syrians would obviously prefer Assad.

Ultimately it's up to the Syrians and I do believe that it's their choice. No I don't believe that foreign powers convinced them they should rise up against Assad, I believe they came to that conclusion on their own. You see many of these dictators like to build up their power by providing privilege to a small minority while at the same time taking it away from the vast majority. My Jordan friend, who happens to be part of King Abdullah's clan, tells me that if she's ever pulled over for a speeding ticket or whatever, the police let her go once they realize what her last name is. This does give the sense that those with privilege have real power, but at the same time it undermines the foundation of the society as a whole. In places like Syria you have large chunks of the population, mostly 16-30 something males, with a considerably bleak outlook. Unemployed and with nothing to lose, risking death isn't so bad if the flip side of the gamble is to be a respected rebel fighter. It is this very environment that I argued would fuel the Iraqi insurgency when the US invaded, and it is also the same environment that has lead to the "Arab Spring". The US or any other foreign power didn't need to arm or encourage any kind of revolt (just as the Iraqi insurgency didn't need any foreign support), it was going to happen just as it has happened in Syria in the past. Much of the current Syrian opposition is former Syrian military who were thoughtful enough to take their military issue weapons with them.
 
Glaucus said:
When the US fought for it's independence against the British, there were plenty of loyalists which sided with Britain, and many of them paid a high price for it. But so what?
Click to expand...
We killed a million Iraqis, but so what. We killed millions of Indians, but so what. We killed millions of Africans, but so what. Sometimes you just have to liberate people from their rulers.

The US or any other foreign power didn't need to arm or encourage any kind of revolt (just as the Iraqi insurgency didn't need any foreign support), it was going to happen just as it has happened in Syria in the past. Much of the current Syrian opposition is former Syrian military who were thoughtful enough to take their military issue weapons with them.
Click to expand...

There would be no FSA without outside support. Factional defection would have been suicidal without assurances of material, intelligence, and PR assistance. This is nothing like the American War of Independence where a critical mass of the local populace were able to band together to throw off a ruling power that was thirteen days by ship from receiving news of what was going on and up to 80 days by sail to get soldiers across the Atlantic and into the field.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
We killed a million Iraqis, but so what. We killed millions of Indians, but so what. We killed millions of Africans, but so what. Sometimes you just have to liberate people from their rulers.



There would be no FSA without outside support. Factional defection would have been suicidal without assurances of material, intelligence, and PR assistance. This is nothing like the American War of Independence where a critical mass of the local populace were able to band together to throw off a ruling power that was thirteen days by ship from receiving news of what was going on and up to 80 days by sail to get soldiers across the Atlantic and into the field.
Click to expand...

what do u mean by we?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
We killed a million Iraqis, but so what. We killed millions of Indians, but so what. We killed millions of Africans, but so what. Sometimes you just have to liberate people from their rulers.
Click to expand...
The problem with murder is that it is effective. The British killed every single native Tasmanian they could get their hands on and to this day they've had absolutely no issues with Tasmanian natives. This isn't something I'm advocating, but it's an observable fact. Sure it would be nice if we lived in a truly civilized world where we could resolve issues simply by discussing things, but that's not the world we live in or ever will live in. We invented democracy to do away with the bloodshed that is typically associated with the change of a regime (yes, it has more to do with limiting the blood loss of the ruling class then of empowering the common man), but who knows how long that'll last. The natural order of things seems to involve a certain level of violence. And since Assad, like Saddam, lived by the use of unrestricted violence it should be of no surprise that it will be unrestricted violence that will do him in. At the end of the day those who defeat him will be the heroes and pass on their genes to the next generation and the losers will be dead and forgotten. If they're smart they'll act to preserve themselves and bring in some form of democratic system. If not, they too will likely share the same fate as Assad. It's the way of the dictator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top