Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Could it be a sign of coming Iran madness?

UPDATE:  In comments, C&G suggests that Blair's decision may be grounded in an expectation of some sort of imminent conflict between the U.S. and Iran. That, of course, is pure speculation, but it certainly is the case that even cross-border incidents between U.S. troops and Iran, let alone larger-scale military confrontations, would leave British troops in Southern Iraq most vulnerable both to retaliatory attacks and the risk of inadvertent involvement. It is reasonable to assume (though an assumption is all it is) that the increasingly likely prospect of escalation played at least some role in the deliberations leading up to the British withdrawal announcement.

Today the BBC reported that war plans for Iran were complete. But the BBC clearly buried the lede on this. It's not news that the US has completed its target set on Iran. William Arkin reported on Iran war-gaming and planning last year in his blog, Early Warning and in the Washington Post.

The disturbing news revealed in this article is the revelation of two supposed triggers that would lead to an American attack on Iran. The first, says the BBC, is "confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. . . ." Now, whether you think a nuclear Iran is a good or bad idea, this trigger has been made clear for quite some time. So, no surprise here.

But what of that second trigger? The "alternative [trigger is] a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq," writes the BBC.

This is entirely too vague a trigger, especially for this President, if you ask me. Bush is not to be trusted with vague 'triggers,' or any kind of triggers at all, really.

See also AlterNet for a BBC video directly.

by das monde on Wed Feb 21st, 2007 at 03:22:28 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series