German BND (their CIA) beating Iran WMD (nuke) war drums

[dusmcj]

Apparently the German Bundesnachrichtendienst, their foreign intelligence service, surprised a classified committee meeting by reporting not on the amusing scandal involving two BND agents who stayed behind in Baghdad during the US invasion to safeguard German property - and amused themselves by drinking the French embassy wine cellar dry and discharging weapons into armored limousines - but by delivering an alarming report on the notion that Iran might be only months away from having functioning nuclear weapons.

Well, now, we consider:
- Germany recently had a change of administration from the Social Democrats, who under Gerhard Schroeder kept Germany from any overt involvement in the invasion of Iraq, to the Christian Union, their version of the Republicans, who are not quite as offensive because they're more educated and culturally sophisticated, but contain among their number persons as unctuous as the worst cracker from the Greedy Old Pigs.

- the new German chancellor is Angela Merkel, who was the butt of hilarious jokes prior to the election about focusing on climbing as far up George Bush's ass as possible. At the height of the contretemps between Schroeder and Bush over Iraq, she made a trip to see "her friends" in Washington (this as German opposition leader, differences don't end at the water's edge for conservatives it seems).

- all signs are that the new government will make good on its promise to maintain a far different tone in German-American relations, and particularly one that is more acquiescent to American designs on the international stage.

- we therefore ask ourselves whether one of two alternatives are not in action here as basis for the BND's newfound religion of WMD fear:

1. this is a domestic move intended to justify to the German electorate any support that the Merkel administration may choose to give to Bush administration initiatives related to Iran or the rest of the Middle East, or to EU efforts at reigning in the Iranians, which the new administration will surely seek to influence in directions acceptable to the Americans. It enables her to swiftly dispose of (massive) domestic opposition to American activities with the claim "but our own intelligence services reached these conclusions independently, of course we will stand by the Americans".

2. (suggesting a deeper relationship between the new administration and the US) this is an ostensibly coincidental act by an organ of a foreign government which in fact is intended to set international tone clearing the path for military action against Iran - "they're all saying it, let's roll". If so it would be disturbing that the independence of the German security community can be bought and sold depending on what party is in power there.

[LiberalPartisan]

1. Where's the problem?

And by the way, Iran is the financial sponsor of Hezbollah. A state which funds a terrorist organization ought not to be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. It may not be feasible to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club but it is feasible to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. A few well placed cruise missles every few months would probably delay their program for years.

[Oversea Visitor]

4. No problems

World War 3 very good for everyone in this world
Very easy to acheive BOOM BOOM BOOM hey we there.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. C'mon now, get with the program -- this is WWIV.

[dusmcj]

6. problems with this for those who can't identify them

1. a German government which gives fawning obeisance to the US and US policies is a problem both for Germany internally, and for Europe given Germany's significance in it. During the campaign Ms. Merkel was characterized as a cow who had a certain bovine sweetness but not the necessary hard edge to lead one of the key European nations as an independent state within the European and world communities which would play a role appropriate to its tangible (i.e. economic and strategic) importance. She was also characterized as making a hobby of climbing up the asses of George Bush and the current crop of conservative incompetents in particular. Anyone who approaches that crowd of trash gatherers in a deferential mode immediately demonstrates their unsuitability for leadership. We'll see if she delivers on those promises, or surprises us. The reality of the world is that the US's superpower status is already over and a multipolar world with decidely equal parties is rapidly taking shape. Our domestic chest thumpers just haven't figured it out yet. We'll do better if we understand that and reposition ourselves appropriately - as collaborators, not rulers and exploiters. How we're currently coming across is as thoroughly amateurish wannabe power players. Condi Rice playing dress-up in a Bismarck costume that's too big for her, complete with hip boots and spike helmet pretty much captures it.

2. the de facto cabal of the intelligence communities of the world's nations do more harm than good a lot of the time, especially when they venture in their hamhanded way into attempts at social engineering. If this is an instance of the BND aping the neocons, or maybe those elements of the US intel community who swallowed the neocons' shit whole and said thank you, and striking the alarm every chance they get about enemy du jour, then 1. it raises the suspicion that the Merkel government is in league with the US neocons (who happen to also control and therefore are effectively equivalent to the US administration). This is unfortunate for the kinds of reasons listed in 1. above. Also, 2. in the general case, if it is a propaganda campaign as opposed to information legitimately acquired and analyzed, then as we saw in the case of Iraq, bullshit painted to look like information does more harm than good. If we haven't learned that policy can't drive truth, then we should really all just pack it in. Anyone proclaiming the naivete of this viewpoint, that "the pure play isn't enough", and that spheres of power run on bullshit, is right about the latter, but is part of the problem if they're suggesting that therefore we should accept this and play along.

3. Tactically, Iran is not a defective ex-colony weakened to the point of irrelevance by 10 years of sanctions. Iraq's revolutionary guards were ready to surrender, I doubt that Iran's are. The country is large, has a population over 50 million, and is capable tangibly of functioning as a regional power. They will not take military action lying down. So that our options will drive to invasion, since airstrikes will be met with terrorism from Israel to India. Are we sure we want to invade Iran ? I didn't think so.

4. I would tread lightly with assertions that some nations should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Neither should we. Neither should Israel. Yet both would argue that it is in their geostrategic interest not to relinquish them. Iran is blatantly playing in the Third World nukuler dicksize club to some extent, just like India and Pakistan ("vee have nooklier veapons, it is good to feel strong, not like ven you are veek. Now vee are soopairpowurs too" as the Indian PM put it.) And yet, the argument that some nations shouldn't be allowed to have nukes plays right into that, in fact the 3W dicksize club is an answer to that argument (of the form "fuck you"). We need to find another basis on which to claim that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. After getting past the obligatory denials that they only want nuclear power.

5. The general notion that lobbing cruise missiles is a cheap way to solve problems was proven failed by Madeleine Albright's attempt to apply it to Osama in 1998. The douchebags in this administration by contrast shouldn't be let near a plastic bow and arrow set, so encouraging them to "take out" yet another handy threat will only lead to another "mission unaccomplished" with our little Prince prancing in some piece of military drag. This country has still not come to terms with the question that 9/11 not just begs, but screams, namely, how does the US need to realign itself within the community of nations so that people are not outraged by economic exploitation, crass waste of resources, and junior varsity imperialism. Until we do, we have no business playing Irish cop on the world's streetcorner.

[bloom]

7. You mean since Bolton and Kristol are for it - it must be a good idea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=187091&mesg_id=187091

[Hardrada]

2. Bushco is used to dealing under the table with Deutschland

and perfected the art in the Nazi time. Nothing new here. Move along.

[peacetalksforall]

3. So now its Israel, U.S., U.K., and Germany against Iran. Months? Why

can't we get that settled. A National Sercurity Council report last summer said 10 years. Others say it would be 12 years if Dick hadn't sold nuclear secrets or parts to Iran.

Is China going to stop this?

Is this going to be nuclear arsenal and intelligence from Israel, soldiers and aircraft from the U.S., and money and cover from the U.K. and Germany?

The U.S. is broke unless Republicans are going to take it from their sub-government slush fund of stolen and laundered monies?

[bloom]

8. And then when you have France making threats...

"France broadens its nuclear doctrine"

"...But this was the first time that a French president has publicly spelled out the possibility of nuclear retaliation for state-backed terrorism. In the past, France has said that nuclear weapons could be used if its "vital interests" were at risk, while deliberately refraining from identifying those interests."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/20/news/france.php



What does that add to the Iran/nuclear debate? Chirac was talking about "states" that are doing terroristic strikes - not like it's some rogue group that might be using them.

It seems like it would go without saying that if a "state" nuked someone - they should expect to be nuked in return. It seems like it is the "non-state" terrorists who don't have a fixed target that would be more of a worry. And anyway - why is Chirac making the threat now?


But anyway - it does seem odd that Germany, France, etc. are getting on board with sanctions and the whole escalation thing. What is up with that?

[dusmcj]

9. all this activity because Iran's response will be state-driven terrorism ?

As a Frenchman posting on Usenet once put it in response to a US chest-thumper, "je pise sur ton President attarde' et ton pays de merde". Not responsible for grammar.

Is this the European approach to the possibility of Iranian rambunctiousness, which has traditionally manifested itself outside Iran in attempts at infiltrating terror teams into Western countries (e.g. the London embassy takeover) and in support for the usual lexicon of usual suspects (e.g. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad) closer to home. So that we have the scenario of a more or less standard nation state with international recognition, defined and controlled borders and a central government which has nonzero control over the country's territory, which will reach to irregular warfare as a way of furthering its self-interest in conflict with other nation states. And that the Europeans are communicating more or less directly "you fuck with us (the way you have in the past, via terror attacks on our soil) and we will pave you".

This seems a quite reasonable response when confronted with the notion that we would have a new case with Iran: not a set of non-nation-state actors, and not a nation state which would respond via national action (i.e. overt military action directed at foreign soil (although they might do that regionally)). Instead a nation state which is presumably bound by the conventions of nation-state behavior, i.e. negotiate with other nation states, do not initiate conflict on a national level, etc. but which has historically been willing to ignore them when pressed and go to irregular means of conflict.

The French seem comparatively straightforward compared to the Germans; hopefully all of this is sign of a relatively unified European response to Iranian intransigence, rather than an indication at least by the Germans and maybe also the French that they're signing on as enablers to another neocon/Likudnik misadventure.

(disclaim: by the way, I do this as a hobby, probably just like a lot of other people here, not by training or trade. So I'm talking out of my ass to about the same extent as probably just like a lot of other people here. Not that I would want to create a different impression.)

[dusmcj]

10. Forgot: Israelis are beating the same drum

claiming that Iranians may have nukes ready to go in short order.

At the point where Israeli public pronouncements on intelligence coincide with those from western Europe, two likely possibilities seem to emerge: either there really is a problem, or the Europeans are ostensibly latching onto the neocon gravy train, either because they've become genuinely stupid, or because they're appearing to do it and in fact serving other ends.