Gordon’s War?

Martin Stabe points us to the latest New Yorker piece from Seymour Hersh, who reports that the White House is leaning towards using Iranian involvement in Iraq as a pretext for air strikes, rather than the Iranian nuclear programme:

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the
President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to
convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat
has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as
a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing
campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to
terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American
intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from
obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in
Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the
geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer,
the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he
was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the
British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of
the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell
Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution. (New Yorker)

The prospect of a war with Iran in 2008 would be a very strong incentive for Brown to call an early election. In that respect, it might be a very hopeful sign if he were to pass up the opportunity.






3 responses to “Gordon’s War?”

  1. DougtheDug avatar

    “The prospect of a war with Iran in 2008 would be a very strong incentive for Brown to call an early election. In that respect, it might be a very hopeful sign if he were to pass up the opportunity.”
    Brown’s not a natural risk taker and even if he knew an Iran war was coming his instinct would be to wait things out and to sit on his hands if he thought that Iran would not be a major electoral factor two to three years hence.
    So no election doesn’t really say much one way or the other on what’s going to happen in Iran.
    However an early election would say that Brown was looking at a two to three year premiership starting with an Iranian war in 2008 and ending in electoral meltdown in 2010, a scenario disastrous enough to force even Gordon’s unwilling hand into calling for an early election in the hope that five years down the line things would have improved.
    I posted on an Iain MacWhirter article on the Sunday Herald where I said,
    “If he goes for an election now it’s going to be an indicator that the economy, Iran and Afghanistan are going to get much worse and it’s his one and only shot at getting to be Prime Minister for more than two years.”
    So maybe you’re right in a way but Iran is going to happen no matter what. No election means Gordon thinks he can ride out the Iran conflict when it comes. An early election means things are probably going to get very bad if they’ve forced Gordon into taking the risk.

  2. Antipholus Papps avatar

    Do you people really think that there will be an election worthy of being called such come 2010?

  3. Tom Griffin avatar

    If Gordon Brown didn’t didn’t think he could lose an election in 2010, there would be no reason for him to call an election this year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *