World Affairs
Monday, February 12th, 2007 04:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanYou know, it’s interesting watching the news these days; interesting and not a little worrying.
I am not generally one to give a great deal of credence to conspiracy stories. I’ve worked as a civil servant long enough to know that most things happen by accident because some one left the filing in the wrong place or forgot to do something, setting off a falling domino sequence of cause and effect where the supposed conspirators end up reacting instead of controlling. It is chaos theory in action; there is no grand scheme behind it.
That said I do have the slowly emerging feeling that we are being softened up for some big announcement somewhere in the near future. When I say “we” I mean the western world, rather than the UK in particular.
It started last night when I was watching the ITV News at 11pm. There was a report about roadside bombs in Iraq and about how the finger of suspicion was being pointed ever more squarely at Iran. In many ways it was a news report no more out of the ordinary than any of the hundreds or similar reports that have come out of the country since the insurgency started following the fall of Saddam. What made my ears perk up was the use of language by the reporter. I do not remember the exact words, but three stick squarely in my memory. The reporter spoke about the mounting body of evidence that the insurgents were being supplied by Iran before observing that Iran was becoming an ”increasingly viable target”. I found this interesting and not a little chilling. Previous news reports had quoted at some length, denials that there are any plans to deal with Iran in some military manner, be it bombing, cruise missiles or all-out ground invasion.
Not now; now we’re talking about “increasingly viable” targets.
Certainly the war or words with Iran shows no sign of cooling off and we are being presented with “evidence” that the bombs are supplied by Iran.
The US is sending more troops to the area to deal with “security issues”, a move that is far from universally popular in the US itself. The UN Security Council resolution calling upon Iran to halt its programme of uranium enrichment expires on 21 February. They, of course, will continue to enrich uranium regardless and the Security Council led by the US will demand tighter sanctions and/or action.
The coalition had difficulty selling the idea of war with Iraq because distasteful as the regime was, people had no real stomach for interfering with what appeared to be the internal affairs of a sovereign state. (I hold my hands up and state right now that I wasn’t one of them – I thought then and still think now that Saddam had to be toppled, my problem with the entire affair was the complete and probably criminal naivety with which the coalition went in, expecting the country to bounce in jubilation immediately and move immediately to western democracy and peace, despite the place being a hotchpotch of tribal, ethnic and religious divisions that has had the peace maintained by terror and force for upwards of thirty years (Yugoslavia, anyone?).
If we can be sold the idea of an insane and oppressive regime interfering with a nascent democracy and fomenting the insurgency in Iraq, a country that has frequently called for Israel to be removed from the face of the map, has ideals diametrically opposed to supposed western ideals and which is developing nuclear capability (Note the use of the word ‘developing.’ People point to North Korea and ask why they aren’t getting similar treatment to Iran. Well, the belief is that North Korea already has the bomb. That demands respect in a way that a potential bomb does not), then there will be war.
The question is, who wants the war and what do they expect to get out of it? I do not believe that oil is the answer: that is too simple. It is and always will be cheaper just to buy the stuff than to send in troops and war machines costing billions. In any case, conflicting ideologies aside, the regimes in control of the oil generally want to sell it to finance themselves. Oil crises rarely last long, because in the end, it’s a game of chicken where both sides want pretty much the same thing. It’s only the dollar price that matters.
Sometime in the next nine to twelve months, I reckon we’ll know. Before the US elections and once the analysts have decided which candidate has the best chance of winning.
This is all fiction.
I am not generally one to give a great deal of credence to conspiracy stories. I’ve worked as a civil servant long enough to know that most things happen by accident because some one left the filing in the wrong place or forgot to do something, setting off a falling domino sequence of cause and effect where the supposed conspirators end up reacting instead of controlling. It is chaos theory in action; there is no grand scheme behind it.
That said I do have the slowly emerging feeling that we are being softened up for some big announcement somewhere in the near future. When I say “we” I mean the western world, rather than the UK in particular.
It started last night when I was watching the ITV News at 11pm. There was a report about roadside bombs in Iraq and about how the finger of suspicion was being pointed ever more squarely at Iran. In many ways it was a news report no more out of the ordinary than any of the hundreds or similar reports that have come out of the country since the insurgency started following the fall of Saddam. What made my ears perk up was the use of language by the reporter. I do not remember the exact words, but three stick squarely in my memory. The reporter spoke about the mounting body of evidence that the insurgents were being supplied by Iran before observing that Iran was becoming an ”increasingly viable target”. I found this interesting and not a little chilling. Previous news reports had quoted at some length, denials that there are any plans to deal with Iran in some military manner, be it bombing, cruise missiles or all-out ground invasion.
Not now; now we’re talking about “increasingly viable” targets.
Certainly the war or words with Iran shows no sign of cooling off and we are being presented with “evidence” that the bombs are supplied by Iran.
The US is sending more troops to the area to deal with “security issues”, a move that is far from universally popular in the US itself. The UN Security Council resolution calling upon Iran to halt its programme of uranium enrichment expires on 21 February. They, of course, will continue to enrich uranium regardless and the Security Council led by the US will demand tighter sanctions and/or action.
The coalition had difficulty selling the idea of war with Iraq because distasteful as the regime was, people had no real stomach for interfering with what appeared to be the internal affairs of a sovereign state. (I hold my hands up and state right now that I wasn’t one of them – I thought then and still think now that Saddam had to be toppled, my problem with the entire affair was the complete and probably criminal naivety with which the coalition went in, expecting the country to bounce in jubilation immediately and move immediately to western democracy and peace, despite the place being a hotchpotch of tribal, ethnic and religious divisions that has had the peace maintained by terror and force for upwards of thirty years (Yugoslavia, anyone?).
If we can be sold the idea of an insane and oppressive regime interfering with a nascent democracy and fomenting the insurgency in Iraq, a country that has frequently called for Israel to be removed from the face of the map, has ideals diametrically opposed to supposed western ideals and which is developing nuclear capability (Note the use of the word ‘developing.’ People point to North Korea and ask why they aren’t getting similar treatment to Iran. Well, the belief is that North Korea already has the bomb. That demands respect in a way that a potential bomb does not), then there will be war.
The question is, who wants the war and what do they expect to get out of it? I do not believe that oil is the answer: that is too simple. It is and always will be cheaper just to buy the stuff than to send in troops and war machines costing billions. In any case, conflicting ideologies aside, the regimes in control of the oil generally want to sell it to finance themselves. Oil crises rarely last long, because in the end, it’s a game of chicken where both sides want pretty much the same thing. It’s only the dollar price that matters.
Sometime in the next nine to twelve months, I reckon we’ll know. Before the US elections and once the analysts have decided which candidate has the best chance of winning.
This is all fiction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 04:45 pm (UTC)Maybe nations want to be at war because war divides people- and half the voters definitely on your side is better than most of them not really caring.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:20 pm (UTC)Also, we share the same opinion of the Iraqi war ... and there was me thinking I was the only one.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 08:57 pm (UTC)Why, even this afternoon, the White House reportedly issued a statement: "The US is not preparing for war with Iran" (It does worry me a little that they take great pains to keep saying this!).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 11:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 02:18 pm (UTC)R M Nixon: "I am not a crook."
W Clinton: "I did not have sex with that girl."
However, Winston Churchill was not fibbing when he said, "The first casualty of war is the truth."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 10:25 pm (UTC)I just wonder when they will realise that just because they think it's their ball that they can tell us how to play the game. I think I'll go and live in my cousin's shed on top of his hill and be a hermit
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 12:02 am (UTC)I take the point on the misquotation/translation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but it only enhances my point that they only need to sell us the idea of an insane regime.
hmm...
Date: 2007-02-13 01:49 am (UTC)...
Date: 2007-02-13 01:57 am (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2007-02-13 02:00 am (UTC)It may have been and probably was accidental or coincidental, but it was noticeable and made me think.
...
Date: 2007-02-13 02:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-25 07:01 pm (UTC)1. the second paragraph this plot synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies
2.this whole situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6493391.stm
...and I can't help thinking you might well be right. I mean, neither Bush nor Blair have long left to acheive their objectives, and since people are accusing Blair of being Bush's lapdog it'd look great if the USA steamed in to help Merry Olde England, wouldn't it?