Donate to my Legal Action vs Oliver Kamm

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

How Putin can stop an attack on Iran

President Putin today warned the US not to use force against Iran.
Any military intervention in the Caspian Sea area would be unacceptable, Putin declared as he attended a five-country regional summit in Tehran.
"We should not even think of making use of force in this region," Putin told his fellow leaders.
A summit declaration from the five, which include Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan beside Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan, subsequently stressed that "under no circumstances will they allow (the use of their) territories by third countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the member states".

Today's developments are all very welcome. But more is still needed to deter an illegal U.S. attack on Iran. The formation of a mutual defence pact between Russia, Iran, Syria, Venuezuela and any other countries threatened by neocon aggression is urgently required.
The pact would stipulate that an attack on any of the states would be considered an attack on them all: and would be met with immediate military retalitation, as well as economic measures, such as the disruption of oil supplies.

There's little doubt that had Britain, France, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia signed such a mutual defence pact in the 1930s, Hitler's military aggression would have been halted. And during the Cold War, the self-defence alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact prevented war between the US and the Soviet Union.

The lessons of history are clear: to deter aggression, countries with a common foe need to stick together and guarantee to come to each other's defence if attacked.

A US attack on Iran would be a catastrophe. To avoid it, we need more than just words from President Putin, but action to form a new defensive military alliance, to deter the neocon bully boys from dragging us into yet another war.

UPDATE: It seems a loony warmongering website from the outer reaches of Planet Neocon called 'Little Green Footballs', has interpreted a call for a defence pact to prevent war, as a call for an offensive military alliance to attack the USA! Only on Planet Neocon......


Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

Knowing what we know now, it seems that an attack coming from Israel, or American warships may be imminent. Not only have plans from the pentagon been leaked to the press, but we have Bush, Cheney and other neo-cons openly threatening that they will attack Iran if they do not dismantle their nuclear program.

Considering that Iran has remained adamant about preserving its right to pursue nuclear energy, and Russia has supported them on this, do you think that it might be pertinent for the alliance to pre-emptively strike American Warships or Israeli missle launchers?

Yashmak said...

A writer with even a smidgen of historical knowledge would realize that such treaties were in place. Both the Brits and the USA had such a treaty with Poland. A treaty existed with Czechoslovakia. A mutual non-aggression treaty was signed between Germany and Russia.

None of this stopped Hitler. The pact between the US/Britain and Poland was ignored as the German tanks roared across their country. Czechoslovakia was also thrown under the bus by her allies. Germany ignored the non-aggression pact with Russia, and invaded. Records have revealed that Russia too had plans to violate the non-aggression pact, but Germany beat them to it. All this history shows us one thing clearly: Pacts and treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on if A) the signatory countries are incapable of fulfilling their obligations, or B) the signatory countries have no intention of fulfilling their obligations. This is why a strong military is a necessity for a free nation. Many on the left ignore these lessons from history, even though they are repeated time and time again.

Anonymous said...

you sir are a fool. Take a look around you. What do you see happening to your beloved England? It will soon be Britanistan if people like you continue to hide behind those rose colored glasses. The U.S. has been a staunch ally of Britain for many many years and to have fools like yourself spout your illogical and foolish deadly opinions is pure evil. Please get your head out of the sand.

Anonymous said...

Mutual defense pacts? Hey! World War I all over again, but this time with nukes! Cool!

"Over there, over there...."

Hmf. Apparently it's not just the US Democrats that are asleep at the wheel.

Mad Insomniac

Anonymous said...

Funny, you don't seem to be at all concerned with detering an illegal annhialation of Israel.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the honesty of your anti-Americanism. One must ask you, who else he would you have guarantee freedom of the seas and skies. China? Iran? Czechoslovakia? If not America who?

My rejoinder to you and others who disapprove of American hegemony is to point out that Clinton was elected for a second term, a mere 11 years ago, and his wife stands a decent chance of winning in '08. The point being that the American representative democracy can and does change his policies and leaders; whatever our flaws and faults, one cannot say that about anyone who might fill the vacuum in the event of American neo-isolationism. Fortunately, no one has the physical ability to do so either.

I strenuously disagree with your assertion about deterring Hitler. Leaving aside the fact that Hitler was hell-bent on war and the impossibility of Stalin ever joining such an effort, Europe of the late 30s was willfully blind to the danger and so militantly afraid of war that they were completely unprepared when war finally came. The socialists of the 30s were certain of Hitler's benign nature and did everything they could to ensure it is much military weakness as possible.

And speaking of being blind to danger, the more you know about the clerical regime of Iran, the more you never want to be within missile range of the insane fanatics who run that country. The current president of the country is the gold standard for out of touch dangerous totalitarians.

The one great hope for averting war with Iran used or astronomic inflation and unemployment rates that may yet see revolution.

Anonymous said...

You stupid moron. When the isalmo-fascists finally get their way, they'll see to it that you're one of the first to go. And you're too dumb to realize that fact!

Yashmak said...

A correction for my original comment. The US was not involved in the UK and French treaty with the Poles, although it did recognize the Polish government in exile. The point that this UK/French treaty with the Poles did not serve to restrain Hitler remains valid.

Russian and German non aggression pacts with Poland in existence at the time were both broken, further illustrating the inability of treaties alone to prevent war.

Anonymous said...

How well did the numerous pre-WW1 networks of mutual defense treaties between European nations work at preventing war? Did they not in fact cause the war to spread with extreme rapidity?

What became of the 1939 non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?

Did the military alliance between France and Czechoslavakia prevent the 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany?

Would you characterize NATO as a mutual defense agreement?

shawn said...

There's little doubt that had Britain, France, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia signed such a mutual defence pact in the 1930s, Hitler's military aggression would have been halted.

The only one of those states that had any ability to counter the Nazi armed forces was the Soviet Union, and without the pact that led to Poland's annexation by both sides, they never would've had their forces in any kind of defensive position.

A discussion that's all for naught, anyhow. Bush won't be attacking Iran (his misadventure in Iraq has seen to that), and any rational observer of geopolitics realizes this.

Russia, Iran, Syria, Venuezuela...Belarus

Where are your posts denouncing those undemocratic regimes (I know said posts don't exist, you are, after all, the person who described al-Qaeda's Iraq franchise as "heroes")? At least the neocon "bully boys" run democratic nations. I guess you've missed Putin's and Chavez's power grabs (which put Bush's to shame) as well.

Seems more and more people fall into the false dilemma in terms of their political allies - the belief that they must join anyone who is against their enemy. Unlike you, I find jihadists abhorrent, but that doesn't mean I become a Bushite because he's battling them. Nor, as a classical liberal, do I agree with the neocon agenda - but again, I don't join the dictators-to-be Chavez and Putin to oppose them.

Anonymous said...

I think that Ahmadinejad needs nukes.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you, but the fascist moron, Charles Johnson at has said that you want those countires to declare war on the US. That is so typical of his bomabastic, ignorant neocon excuse for a brain.

Neil Clark said...

thanks for the comments:

jimmy: in a word: no. I do not support 'pre-emptive' strikes in priniciple, regardless of who might be doing the pre-emptive striking.
charles from texas: in what way is the issue of whether or not to attack Iran tied up with Muslim immigration to Britain? The Britanistan debate is an entirely different one.

billy: yes, I am concerned about preventing the nuclear annihilation of Israel, as I am concerned about preventing the nuclear annihilation of any state. But the fact is that there is no evidence whatsover that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. And, even if Iran did, then Iran would be deterred from firing them at Israel because of Israel's nuclear capability. The lesson of the Cold war is that deterrence works. Are you now telling me it doesn't?

anonymous (1) I am not anti-American. I am merely opposed to the current aggressive foreign policy of the US. I like America and Americans enormously.

anonymous (2) I have no truck whatsoever with Islamofascism, which is why I consistently attacked the Islamofascist separatist Bosnia leader Alija Izetbegovic, the darling of the neocons. No one has done more to boost the islamofascist cause than the neocons- in Afghanistan, in the Middle east and in the Balkans. It's a myth that the neocons are again islamofascists, they ally with them when it suits their interests.

anonymous (3) and shawn: that's why I expressly mentioned a 'france/britain/czechoslovakia/soviet union mutual defence pact.
czechoslovakia needed to be guaranteed by france, britain and the soviet union, and of course that guarantee needed to be backed up with the willingness to come to each other's defence.

shawn: I have criticised the current leadeship of both Russia and Iran. Syria is not a democracy, but to describe the other countries you mention as dictatorships is just absurd.
I do not regard al qaida operatives in Iraq as heroes-
please point out where I said that-and I can assure you I do find jihadists- and indeed any group that calls for violent solutions to political problems-abhorrent.
The sort of democracy the neocons favour, as I've said many times before- is 'Henry Ford demcoracy', a restrictive form in which people can vote in any colour government they like- so long as its neoliberal and follows a pro-US foreign policy.

final anonymous: agreed- only an inhabitant of the outer reaches of planet neocon could twist an article calling for the formation of a defence pact, in order to prevent a war, into one calling for an aggressive war to be launched.

Neil Clark said...

yashmak- apologies for not repyling to you, I've just seen your comments.
I deliberately didn't use the example of Poland, because by that time Hitler did not believe that Britain and France would ever do anything. But had a mutual defence pact been signed between Britain/France/Soviet Union and Cz. then things could have been different, so long, of course had Hitler been convinced that the countries really were going to go to each other's aid if they were attacked.
I agree with your points (a) and (b) about such pacts in your first post.

Anonymous said...

Why on earth would Russia want to side with Iran against the USA?

It would be in complete disregard to their interests, given that conventional Russian military power is now almost twenty years out of date while lacking a real global reach.

How could Russia or Iran aid Venezuela against a US invasion?

If anything Russia would want to see an attack on Iran, as the resulting spike in oil prices would simply give Putin more money to play with whilst linking some rather nasty regimes together.


Anonymous said...

Islamofascists - and their ass kissing Limy sycophants - unite! You have nothing to lose but your Burqas!

Anonymous said...

Neil is absolutely right to say that everything possible should be done to prevent an American attack on Iran. Do I take it that most of his critics here actually support nuking Tehran?

Henrik R Clausen said...

"It seems a loony warmongering website from the outer reaches of Planet Neocon called 'Little Green Footballs'"

After LGF started to attack the Belgian party Vlaams Belang, Brussels Journal and other friendly, conservative European blogs, I agree with the above description.

Charles is seduced by his own popularity and uses semi-fascist methods to maintain it.

I also sent him info about the Ustasha rock tour. You think he bothered to post it to raise some opposition against the tour? Not even a reply did I get on the problem...

Charles has kicked the elite of commentators from his blog, most everyone who was able to mount dissent from his party line. It used to be a usable, though bigoet place, but can't be taken seriously any longer.