Tehran's latest provocation
Peter Hoskin 2:05pm
The people of Egypt and Libya may have swung the spotlight onto their respective countries – but it is a spotlight that Iran is keen to exploit. Two of their warships have just passed through the Suez canal en route to Syria, the first to do so since 1979. They were given clearance by Egypt's new military stewards a few days ago.
On one level, Tehran's actions are unimpeachable: Egypt cannot forbid access to Suez unless it is at war with the country at sail. But they are also, of course, designed to provoke. Why choose to do this now, other than to suggest something about the new latticework of power, and of power relationships, in a turbulent Middle East? Israel, for its part, is less than impressed.
If nothing else, it is a reminder of Ahmadinejad's brand of tinderbox diplomacy. His government has already clamped down on protests at home – putting opposition leaders under house arrest, for instance – and it will now, surely, look to sidle in on events elsewhere. Little wonder why David Cameron called for a "unity of purpose and message" in dealing with "the threat coming from Iran," earlier.
Previous
VEBott
February 22nd, 2011 2:34pm Report this commentThis reminds me of the Corfu Channel case, when the Royal Navy provocatively but entirely legally chose to assert its right of innocent passage through waters close to the Albanian coast. Let's hope this incident doesn't end as tragically as that one did.
This kind of Iranian strutting is a good thing if it keeps the West aware that the growth of this rival power in the Middle East will eventually have to be addressed.
Frank P
February 22nd, 2011 3:12pm Report this comment"Egypt cannot forbid access to Suez unless it is at war with the country at sail. But they are also, of course, designed to provoke."
Is that so? Under what agreement? And if there is one, why didn't rat-face try it on when Mubarak was in the chair? Is it that he knows now that recent events have clearly indicated that America is weakened to the point of impotency and that Israel therefore has also lost the edge, as a result of it.
How far does this shit-bag have to push it before the West does what's necessary. Even that old wanker David Owen got out of bed last night to urge Nato to shoot down Gadaffi's bombers. Jesus H Christ! If even he get's it what is Cameron hesitating for? There is a window of opportunity here for Western allies to back Israel in doing the business on Armydinnerjacket's nukes and for us to sort Gadaffi once and for all. It's called preemptive defence.
What chance - with the Manchurian Candidate in the Shite House Offal Office?
David Lindsay
February 22nd, 2011 3:29pm Report this commentSo, the Israelis now get to decide who may or may not use the Suez Canal, do they? When did that happen? And how? Or didn't it? In which case, when is someone going to tell them where to get off?
Israel, founded within living memory on the bloody mass eviction of Christians and on the particularly vicious murders of British subjects (military and civilian, some of them Jewish), exists only on the back of the American taxpayer, presuming to use that money to maintain a mind-boggling spy network on American soil with almost complete impunity, and demonstrating complete indifference towards the sometimes lethal impact of this relationship on American.
As an exasperated Bill Clinton once exclaimed after a meeting with Netanyahu, "Who is the superpower here?"
davidk
February 22nd, 2011 3:30pm Report this commentThe Iranians are provoking a foreign affairs story to deflect from internal troubles.
How very dare they! Our governments would never dream of doing such an underhand thing.
Arf!
In2minds
February 22nd, 2011 3:34pm Report this comment@VEBott - February 22nd, 2011 2:34pm -
The Corfu Channel case - "Let's hope this incident doesn't end as tragically as that one did".
The original one (1946) involved the Royal Navy, well as we don't have a navy now it wont happen again.
Augustus
February 22nd, 2011 3:50pm Report this commentHokomat-e islami nemikhaym: Persian for 'We don't want an Islamic regime.' Because for
the Iranians, freedom has proven an unreachable goal. That's why the great mass
of Iranians now want a proper revolution and
do away with the mullahs. They want independence, freedom, and an Iranian Republic, not an Islamic Republic. And Mir Hossein Mousavi is the true leader of the Green Movement. He is the Michael Gorbachev
of Iran. Yes, they have a well-trained army
to do their bidding, plus plenty of secret service agents and a well-organized militia
with the Basij, but, at the end of the day,
a tsunami of beaten and wounded people becomes uncontrollable, even by its leaders.
And the hatred and violence that stems from that will destroy the regime. Their only option soon will be to negotiate with Mousavi for a peaceful transition.
Frank P
February 22nd, 2011 4:20pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay
"As an exasperated Bill Clinton once exclaimed after a meeting with Netanyahu, "Who is the superpower here?"
As an exasperated Frank P once exclaimed, after seeing Obama elected to POTUS, " Well, that's the end of America as a superpower! Let's hope Israel manages to retain its balls until America grows another pair!"
Vulture
February 22nd, 2011 4:32pm Report this commentThis gives the lie to the nonsense posted elsewhere on this site that the unrest in the Middle east will produce democratic West-friendly regimes.
Iran is fishing in troubled waters and it is going to land some whoppers.
PS: David Lindsay is an apologist for the disgusting Iranian regime and should be ignored with contempt.
David Lindsay
February 22nd, 2011 4:36pm Report this commentFrank P, when did you ever have any? Look up the writings of the great Philip Giraldi (if we had Tory papers in Britain, then he would have a column on one of them), and Google "Jonathan Pollard" and "USS Liberty". Just for a start.
You are a vassal state, your citizens routinely but in sometimes lethal harm's way for the benefit of your utterly ungrateful, but total, dependent. At least when Imperial Britain and the Soviet Union, in their respective heydays, maintained extensive spy networks on your soil, then they were not states that existed entirely at your expense. Nor would either of them have expected to get away with opening fire, to considerable fatal effect, on one of your naval vessels in international waters. Again, just for a start.
toco
February 22nd, 2011 5:13pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay after your previous support for the evil Iranian regime I am truly sorry you failed to take my earlier advice and join your mates in Tehran.A warm welcome awaits you but the vast majority of decent Iranians will prevail and then you will be most unwelcome as you are in this country.
VEBott
February 22nd, 2011 5:17pm Report this comment@David Lindsay
Israel is exactly that, a vassal state. Vassals receive gifts of land and treasure from their overlord in exchange for military service. Israel effectively broke Arab nationalism, which would have spread from Egypt, across the Gulf and along the Mediterranean, had Nasser not been humiliated by the IDF. When called upon, Israeli forces will no doubt participate in resolving Iran's challenge to the international order.
Israel's ascendency in the Middle East is of course a constant affront to all right thinking Muslims. However, by breaking Arab nationalism's military power, Israel has prevented a key strategic resource falling into the hands of the enemy. Just like the CIA, it may at times have its own interpretation of what is necessary for the cause, especially when that cause equates to its own survival.
Ronald Storrs, the governor of Jerusalem and Judea under the mandate, was right. Just as the Plantation in Ireland helped keep the French out, so Israel has been “a little Jewish Ulster in the Middle East”
Verity
February 22nd, 2011 5:20pm Report this commentFrank P - The Offal Office! V good!
Perry
February 22nd, 2011 5:23pm Report this commentPerhaps we (lil ol' gb (in small inoffensive letters)) could station an aircraftless carrier at the entrance.
That should strike fear into any naughty tyrant's heart, - and give them something to think about.
Verity
February 22nd, 2011 5:25pm Report this commentVulture - Agreed. I said elsewhere that this doesn't presage democracy or an end to theocracy in the ME. People are over-valuing a few showy demonstrations.
The only country that may advance through this, is Iran, which has knew democracy, and which is also a far older civilisation, long predating mohammad, allah & co.
Libya,Bharain and Egypt will continue to be theocracies.
yank
February 22nd, 2011 6:22pm Report this commentWhat a bunch of mewing kittens you all are.
Mew. Mew. Mew.
Mew me a river.
Like it matters that Ahmadinnerjacket and the shivering mullahs send a couple rustbuckets through some canal somewhere. This is what you're mewing about? Please.
Ahmadinnerjacket and the mullahs better keep their satchels full of gold bullion handy. Their getaway date is coming closer, and outward bluster is always the surest sign of that. The next surest sign is that you're shooting your own citizens, yet they keep coming out.
Khadaffi's been running his mouth lately, and taken to shooting his own citizens, but I notice he's on the run now.
And the mullahs are already there, mouthing and shooting. And what are they gonna do... what do we risk here? That they'll turn into a theocratic bunch of kooks?
Let the evil plots and internal corrosives that even an idiot CIA and other helpful sorts are seeding. Just shut up and wait. It's like Ronaldus Maximus told us 3 decades ago: "Don't just do something... stand there."
And stop mewing for crisakes.
Occasional Ostrich
February 22nd, 2011 7:57pm Report this commentHi, Verity!
I guess, then, that you're not too struck by your favourite Prime Minister's speech in Kuwait today???
Kaveh
February 23rd, 2011 2:38am Report this commentWhat nonsense.
Iran planned this naval expedition months ago.
Back to top