Middle East Aid flotilla attacked by gunships-several dead.

The National Students Union of Israel is planning to launch a counter-flotilla to carry aid to oppressed minorities in Turkey in an bid to unmask the hypocrisy of the international community, and especially Ankara

I suppose if Turkish commandos repell from choppers onto the ships and kill a bunch of these students, then arbitrarily remove any "proscribed materials" they like, you could make an argument that they've "unmasked the hypocrisy."

Otherwise all it does is highlight how relatively murderous the Israelis are.

In other words, almost certainly a silly, own goal.
 
Glaucus said:
From my perspective, the best case scenario to all of this would be for Israel and Turkey to obliterate each other. The world would be a better place.

Not for the people who live in Israel and Turkey, most of whom have very little say in any of this.
 
What they need is 50 really fast boats to all go at once.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It seems that the Greeks are backing the Turkey/Brazil fuel swap deal with Iran.

This is clearly a slap against Israel. Sweden has also joined in.
But there may be a good reason why the US doesn't like this deal: Are Brazil and Turkey Delusional or Deceptive?
Back in October, Iran had only 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium; sending 1,200 kilograms to Russia would have meant unloading four-fifths of its stockpile. Over the next seven months, the centrifuges kept spinning to the point where, by the time of the Brazil-Turkey talks, Iran had 2,300 kilograms.

In other words, the U.S.-Russia deal would have allowed Iran to keep only one-fifth of its uranium stockpile; the Brazil-Turkey deal would let Iran keep nearly half. More troubling, the Brazil-Turkey deal would let Iran continue enriching the uranium it kept—and, over the previous seven months, it had already been enriching quite a bit of it.

As David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, put it in a report, the deal was "not as attractive" as it had been seven months earlier. Back in October, removing 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium would have put a lid on Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. By May, that would still leave them with enough uranium, some of it already highly enriched, to proceed toward nukes with no obstacles.
Why back a deal that would still allow Iran to build a bomb? Iran should have taken the offer the first time around.

And it seems that Russia is no longer interested in helping Iran: Russia now says Iran sanctions ban S-300 missiles
In Paris, a French presidential aide said that Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday, said that Russia had decided to "freeze the delivery of the S-300 missiles."

Putin also said supporting the Iran sanctions was a decision that "wasn't exactly easy," according to the presidential aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with Sarkozy's office policy.
 
Glaucus said:
But there may be a good reason why the US doesn't like this deal: Are Brazil and Turkey Delusional or Deceptive?
Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world. They are the ninth biggest economy. I don't think that they really want Israel (and the US) to control Middle Eastern oil. Helping Iran develop a weapon would reduce the likelihood of Iran getting Iraqed. However, I don't think that's what they are after. They, like everyone else, need oil. South America has some but it's good to have more. Making friends with countries that have undeveloped fields and disrupting the plans of "friends" who want to increase their control over the region and all done at low risk (reaching an agreement to enrich) seems like a good deal for Brazil.

Turkey also wouldn't mind seeing Israel taken down a few pegs,. It's always seen itself as the player in the neighbourhood and is the more logical oil route. Ship from Israel through the Med or pipe overland through Turkey? That's also better for Europe.

With the US holding Afghanistan the route to China is cut off. With the US exercising control over Pakistan the route to India is forced to be off shore. With US control over Georgia and the 'stans to the North there is no good route to Russia and with US control of Iraq there is no route through to the Mediterranean except through (US controlled) Egypt's Suez or through Turkey. Turkey is the only partner is you can't stomach the US and South America is asserting independence.

Plus Brazil still remembers it's financial crisis of the 80s and they are probably still mad at the bankers.

And it seems that Russia is no longer interested in helping Iran: Russia now says Iran sanctions ban S-300 missiles

Russia has been diddling Iran with that one for years now. Either the system doesn't work or Russia wants more from Iran or is getting something from the US.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Interesting. They're sending an aid flotilla that's not protected by the "guard" and are completely unarmed, but are prepared to be martyred. Here's my prediction: Israel will not board the ship but will find a way to disable the ship, most likely by taking out the propellers. Then they'll just tow it to where ever they like. Anything else would start a war.
 
Glaucus said:

It certainly is. I'm not sure exactly what the calculation is but I'm sure they wouldn't mind having some of their guys shot by Israel. It would put them on the sympathetic side and especially if they took their grievance to a world body instead of retaliating militarily (which they of course couldn't) then they can play the underdog and put pressure on Israel that way (and change the context of the the Iran/Israel relationship from nuclear boogie-man to humanitarian).

Disabling the ship will be about the best that Israel can do and they'll probably try to do it in a port where they can get divers or dolphins to take it out and embarrass a friendly port or they'll do what they did to the Rachel Corrie and mechanically sabotage the boat in port to delay it. Maybe they can spoof the radar or some other technology. The Iranian vessel will probably have better communications than the other flotilla - their communications seemed easily jammable and they were not able to transmit most of their footage. What we have is what was smuggled out in underwear and body cavities on memory chips.

Alternatively (and we shouldn't discount it) Israel may just resort to mad dog diplomacy again, take the merest excuse as casus belli and launch an immediate attack on Iran before the media can catch up - for which they will later apologize and regret the loss of life.
 
So how would Israel deal with the fact that an attack on Turkey could incur the wrath of NATO? Simple, get turkey thrown out of NATO: Welcome Washington to the Turkish Reality
The neocons, who criticize the choices of Erdogan and the AKP ruling party in connection with Hamas, but also in relation to the initiative taken jointly with Brazil for enriched uranium in Tehran, even seeking the expulsion of Turkey from NATO .
The Institute of Jewish Affairs Security JINSA, who maintained close relations with toukriko army was once the fierce supporters of Turkey, a report published this week, pointed to the contact that Turkey, a NATO member, has access to critical information on issues of Iran and the (Islamic) terrorism.

Not sure how accurate that article is, but it's not at all surprising. Fact is the only reason Turkey is in NATO is because of it's position on the Black Sea. I would personally welcome Turkey's expulsion, just not sure why they need to wait for Turkey to piss of Israel for them to consider it.
 
A slightly better article about the above: Turkey and the Neocons

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, June 15, 2010
It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what Happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks During World War I a "Genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however - fueled primarily by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians - the ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders of Israel began switching sides, too.
 
Back
Top