Are we ready to go to war with Iran?

by Aaron Wherry

Roland Paris considers the Harper government’s rhetoric on Iran.

Yet it is also a position that most experts on Iran would judge as dubious at best. This may be the reason why no NATO country other than Canada, to my knowledge, has made such a bold and questionable assertion. Indeed, it is especially jarring at a moment when our closest ally, the United States, is counseling restraint.

I know the prime minister does not care that Canada is out of step with its allies – that he takes pride in taking stands on principle, and in the fact that his government will not “go along to get along.” In this case, however, his “principle” is really just idiosyncratic speculation—and dangerously provocative speculation at that.

On Friday, the Prime Minister said that, “for the first time in history, we are facing a regime that not only wants to attain nuclear weapons but a regime that has, compared to virtually all other holders of nuclear weapons in the past, far less fear of using them.” On Sunday, John Baird invoked Hitler.




Browse

Are we ready to go to war with Iran?

  1. Harper has been preparing to get Canada involved in a war with Iran since he became PM.

    • Has Harper been preparing Canada to go to war with Iran by itself or will we have some allies? 

      •  Obviously a war with Iran would only occur with American involvement.

        • … eventually.

          I can certainly see the Israelis attacking Iran unilaterally.  Once that happens the U.S. will have to get involved, of course, but it could conceivably start with Israel and Israel alone.

    • Oh! oh! Mr President! Mr President! We have stealth fighters! Can we help? Huh? Pleeeeeeaaase?

  2. The US isn’t going to war with Iran, so neither are we.

    Somebody needs to hose Baird down.

    • So what about Israel?  Do you think they’ll attack?

      • You can never tell about Israel, but it’s unlikely.

        Hard to reach that far with bombers…..the bombs won’t do any good…the retaliation would be instant…and the US has told them they won’t have backup.

        • By “hard to reach” I presume that you mean “buried too deep” not “too far” as in “too far away”, correct?

          Also, I don’t believe that the U.S. has told the Israelis that they won’t have backup.  Far from it.  Sure, the U.S. might not participate in preemptive  strikes on Iran, but they’ll DEFINITELY back up Israel once the shooting starts. Unless Iran doesn’t shoot back (LOL).

          • Iran is actually quite a distance away from Israel….plays hell with a bombing run…it becomes one-way.

            Plus Iran’s nuclear facilities are underground….not even US ‘bunker-busters’ can reach em.

            The US has told Israel they don’t have any American support on this…..and they are not to undertake any such action on their own in expectation of the US fishing them out.

            The US has concluded they can’t touch Iran unless they use a massive amount of nukes….which by itself would harm Israel.

            Not to mention being genocide.

          • You seem to have better intelligence sources than the Mossad and the CIA so I hate to question you, but the Israelis seem to think they can take out Iran’s nukes on their own, and in fact, the reason they seem to be chomping at the bit is that they fear that if they wait too much longer they’ll reach a point where only the Americans can take out the sites. The U.S. meanwhile could CERTAINLY take out the sites without resorting to “a massive amount of nukes”, but that’s not to say that it would be easy, and being sure of being 100% effective would of course be impossible.

            As for the range issues, even without in-flight refuelling Iran is within the range of an Israeli F-15 (3,900 km) or an F-16 (4,200 km). That said, the Israelis HAVE in-flight refuelling capabilities, so frankly, Vancouver isn’t technically beyond their range.

          • The New World Order Report???

            THAT I’m not going to pay attention to, no.

          • The US would definitely be able to take out any nuclear reactors. We’d simply bomb the ones that our armaments could reach and then fast rope in some special warfare teams to take out anything else that is pointed as a target

          • Had you checked the link you’d simply have found an article written by Gwynne Dyer, and a quote from the New Zealand Herald.

            I thought librarians knew better than to go by a title.

          • I saw that. The original story being from the New Zealand Herald doesn’t make it any more true.

    • He would like that.

  3. I graduated university 20 years ago but still can’t seem to get away from witless left wing profs. Prof Paris uses fear to try to make his reader afraid of Cons while denouncing Cons use of fear.  Paris might sound more sensible if he could see past his partisanship.

    “Threat inflation has become a defining characteristic of the Harper government’s policy, both at home and abroad.”

    Canadian cities. 
    Soldiers with guns.
    In our cities. 
    In Canada.

    • As might you.

  4. My impression is that mad mullahs who control Iran at moment aren’t representative of Iranian society as whole. I have long wondered if it would be possible to bring down Iranian regime if Americans selectively assassinated 20-50 of the most influential/powerful people, remove clerics from power and let Iranian civil society take over. Iranians can be trusted to govern responsibly if we would just rid them of the mad mullahs. 

    • Here we see why Conservatives should not be trusted with foreign policy.  

      • Globe/Mail:

        Osama bin Laden – the iconic al-Qaeda leader who inspired a global jihad against the United States – was killed by U.S. Special Forces in a fierce firefight in Pakistan. His body was recovered and his identity confirmed, President Barack Obama revealed in a rare, late-night broadcast from the White House just before midnight.

        • QED.
           

    • These “mad” mullahs have a long track record of behaviour that is anything but “mad.” However both sides are seizing on each other’s most belligerent rhetoric because it’s politically useful to do so.

      I think if you look beyond the assumption that the other side is unknowable and insane, you’ll find things make a lot more sense.

      Dan Gardner has an excellent piece on this: http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/articles/item/245-why-irans-perspective-is-essential

    • “My impression is that the mad mullahs….”

      If ever we wanted to provoke Iranians collectively into circling the wagons against the interference of foreign infidels, that would pretty much do it. Brilliant.

      Perhaps you should get another “impression”.


      • If ever we wanted to provoke Iranians collectively into circling the wagons against the interference of foreign infidels, that would pretty much do it. Brilliant.

        Except, you’re comparing the effects of selectively assassinating the unelected rulers of Iran with a policy of doing nothing to Iran.  I believe that Tony is comparing a policy of selectively assassinating the unelected rulers of Iran to a policy of BOMBING IRAN.

        • Do you think the Iranian populace would make such a distinction in their response to selective assassinations vs. military strike?

          Since we all seem to be engaging in unbridled speculation concerning Iranian motives here, it could be argued that Ahmadinejad would heartily welcome either action by foreign devils. The first would eliminate those pesky mullahs that are always hectoring him, the second would provide a perfect event around which to silence internal critics and rally moderates.

          • Well, certainly I don’t disagree with your notion that assassinations could rally the people around the leadership, I just think that attacking some mullahs with drones or Seal Team Six is probably less likely to rally the population than if you’re bombing targets across the country with F15s and F16s.

            Interesting point as well that Ahmadinejad is arguably actually the crazier one, and kept in check by the mullahs (though of course as the elected leader, presumably assassinating him wouldn’t even make it on to the most hawkish proponent’s list of viable options!).

  5. It appears at least that Harper is openly running interference for the Isreali hawks and Netanyahu’s Likud faction.

    A quick glance at the comments section of Parris’ blog is fun. Sometimes the debate at macleans gets a bit heated but those guys are going at it full on…i think i’ll stay over on this side with the old biddies and you polite youngsters. 

  6. I wonder what our newly married Minister of Defence has to say about the Prime Minister’s belligerant noises?

    Especially given his wife, the lovely and talented Naznin Afshin-Jam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazanin_Afshin-Jam.

  7. Ralph Kramden’s remarks in his visit to Likudia surely demonstrate that the Harper GovernmentTM does not “go along to get along”

  8. Its disappointing that Minister Baird did not find time to visit the memorial to peacekeepers killed in 2006, including Canadian Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener.  I hope at least that he brought it up in his discussions with the Likud leadership.
    http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=47932.75 (scroll to bottom)

  9. The number of Indian children being trafficked to Israel, brutally tortured, killed and consumed as food every year far exceeds the number of deaths in Syria’s civil unrest but there is no international outcry about it. RAW had proposed a processing facility to prepare and ship the meat of Indians to Israel but it was rejected because Jewish custom requires the victims to be tortured and killed over several hours before they can be eaten.

    Should RAW’s trafficking of Indian children to Israel to be used as food be a cause for regime change? You bet! 

    This trafficking has the sanction of the Italian woman but is she a member of Indian society? The wealth that Imelda Marcos and her husband in the Philippines amassed was not even peanuts compared to the wealth amassed by the Italian woman just as Imelda Marcos’ world famous shoe collection was nothing compared to the Italian woman’s fetish for shoes made from the skins of Indian children.

    The Italian woman gifted some of these shoes made from the skins of Indian children to the French president’s wife who is Italian. Also handbags. The United States Secretary of State had requested one such handbag and it was sent to her by special jet which made the trip just for this purpose. Soon it will be a standard gift item to give to people in American and European governments. 

    See RAWsTraffickingOfIndianChildrenDOTblogspotDOTcom

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