Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Talk of war

That was a truly depressing newscast. I have just walked out of the studio after anchoring the 00.30 am. main news, and after so much talk of war the cheerful banter with my co-anchor had become rather more somber. There was a lot of shaking of heads and questions of "when will it all end?" or "when will people come to their senses?"

Here we have the French Prime Minister Francois Fillon saying everything should be done to avoid war with Iran – but he agreed with his hawkish Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who said the world should prepare for the prospect of war with Iran over its nuclear program.

All this talk of war comes despite the fact that the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad ElBaradei has repeatedly insisted that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to the international community.

ElBaradei urged the world to remember what happened in Iraq before considering similar actions against Iran.

He was of course referring to the fact that agency inspectors were not given enough time to complete their work in Iraq. They were insisting that to the best of their knowledge no weapons of mass destruction existed in the country, and they just needed a little more time to verify that fact.

They were not given the opportunity – and the resulting war to rid Iraq of its phantom WMDs has cost many hundreds of thousands of lives.

But despite this, the talk now is of war with Iran to prevent the country developing its own nuclear weapons – weapons that Tehran insists it is not developing; a weapons program ElBaradei says of which he and his inspectors have found not a shred of evidence.

We really do have to ask "what is the purpose of the IAEA?"

If all that wasn't depressing enough, we had a report from one of our correspondents warning us of yet another catastrophe in the offing.

The U.S. is now putting pressure on the British government to move troops - recently relieved of their duty in Basra – closer to the Iranian border. The purpose is to prevent the flow of alleged Iranian weapons into Iraq. Many independent agencies have effectively debunked so-called evidence of Iranian weapons flowing into Iraq and Afghanistan, but that seems to carry no weight in Washington. There are concerns that stationing British troops too close to the Iranian border could be considered an unacceptable provocation – which it is so obviously designed to be.

Because of the hopeless mess in Iraq, some analysts believe Washington and London are simply looking for scapegoats – and Iran is a convenient target.

Newsreel footage of demonstrations in London with protesters carrying banners with the message "No War With Iran" really illustrates how far this has gone and how concerned the British public are that their government may once again be led into some insane action, with no justifiable purpose, and no exit strategy.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

Lillian said...

Let’s pray there will be no wars any more. Since everyone knows it was a mistake to launch the war in Iraq. Why repeat the mistake? I think the answer is the same as what Mr. Greenspan has pointed out…