Our newspapers today are dominated by reports and comment on two official reports released yesterday concerning the London suicide-bombings of last July.
On the strength of these reports, some British newspapers are seeking to impugn the savvy of the British Security services for not having made better use of the intelligence that they apparently had at their disposal at the time that could conceivably have led to their preventing the attacks had better use been made of it.
Others impugn the reports themselves as being a white-wash because they fail to hold anyone to account for the failure of the security services to nip the plot in the bud, given what they apparently had on some of the bombers.
As we all know, the vision of hind-sight is 20-20.
Equally, however, it remains true that the security services could undoubtedly have been more effective had they had at their disposal at the time more resources. They should have had. Their failure to have been supplied with them is a massive indictment of the present government.
Instead of focussing on its prime duty of defending the realm and its inhabitants from aggression, the government has preferred to squander precious tax revenues on all manner of other politically correct frivolities.
As to the two reports themselves, their problem is that so much concerning the bombings is currently sub judice due to up-coming trials as to render them near useless as a sources of full and authoritative information about the bombings.
By way of illustration, the reports claim the four bombers acted alone. Yet, because of up-coming trials, neither says a word in comment about the significance and implications of the fact the bombings occurred on the day Abu Hamza had been due to stand trial at the Old Bailey on terror charges. Nor about the video the gang’s leader, Mohammed Sidique Khan, made shortly before to which was added a message from Al Qaeda’s second-in- command, Ayman al Zawahiri, before being released on al-Jazeera. Nor about the will he made that had apparently been modelled on one left by a British born-born al-Qaeda guerrilla killed in Tora Bora.
No, let us for the time being draw a veil over this appalling tragedy and the very limited information about who was behind it or might be to blame for not having done more to prevent it.
Instead, let us focus on another recent news item that should really be receiving far more attention from politicians and the mainstream media than it has but which appears to have passed them by without having elicited from them so much as a stifled yawn.
Last Monday, President Mahmood Ahmadinejad of Iran sent President George Bush a conciliatory little missive. Basically, in accordance with what passes as best practice according to the version of the religion to which the Iranian President adheres, it offers President Bush the Hobson’s choice of the following alternatives: his money, his life or to join the Iranian President’s gang by converting to Islam. It ends wth a closing salutation in Arabic the English translation of which runs: 'Peace only unto those who follow the true path.' (Hat-tip to lgf and through them to Robert Spencer for pointing this out and the Islamic theology behind the letter.)
This is an offer President Bush has no choice but to refuse.
Since it is one Muslims of the Ahmadinejadian variety have traditionally regarded themselves as enjoined by their religion to make before being licensed by it to engage in warfare against some infidel people, in effect President Ahmadinejad’s letter amounts to a declaration of war against the American people.
That it was has arguably been confirmed by a subsequent comment the Iranian President made in clarification of the letter yesterday in Jakarta where he is currently on a visit. (hat-tip: Jihad Watch) There he said of his letter to Bush:
'The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded [to] positively, there will be no more problems to be solved'. He added ominously that Bush's response to his letter will determine the future.
Is it all bluster on Ahmadinejad's part, just his playing to the gallery of Muslim world-opinion as he struts around the global stage, or does it represent a genuine threat that should be taken very seriously?
Well, as they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Mine is to take the letter very seriously as a declaration of war.
Radical Islamists such as he are nothing if not reliably devout when it comes to their religion as they understand it.
As has been pointed out in connection with the letter, Osama bin Laden made a similar formal declaration of war against the US in 1998 three years before September 11th, and subsequently made a similar offer to the American people in an open letter he wrote them in November 2002.
The only silver lining in this ominously gathering (Mushroom?) cloud is the knowledge that Ahmadinejad’s increasing stridency is apparently directly proportionate to the ever-increasing domestic unpopularity of his regime.
I seem to recall that the post-September 11th overthrow of the Taliban regime was greatly facilitated by the active participation of a home-grown opposition movement, albeit one that had been carefully nurtured by the US. There are signs of something similar beginning to happen in Iran.
One reason it has proved so hard for the US and its allies to win the peace in Iraq has been that no alternative government there lay ready to hand after the overthrow of Saddam and has his regime, as was available in the case of Afghanistan and would be in the case of Iran.
Last week, it was reported by the US conservative weekly, Human Events, that Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the late Shah of Iran, told its reporters in an excusive interview 'that in the next two to three months he hopes to finalise the organisation of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it wth a democratic government'.
Lest you wonder how a supposedly democratically elected regime, such as the present Iranian one purports to be, could be replaced by another truly democratic one, it is worth bearing in mind the words recently attributed to another recent Iranian exile, Amir Abbas Fakhraver. According to a report in Wednesday's Daily Telegraph, the Amir told its reporter Simon Scott Plummer that:
'referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council had been a cause of street celebrations in the [Iranian] capital and other major cities. And the riot police had not dared intervene. Such was the hatred of the regime... that people were prepared to put up with economic sanctions, including an oil embargo, and even military strikes, if they led to its overthrow.'
I am hoping, therefore, that President Ahmadinjejad makes good his threat to show up at the World Cup in Germany. His arrest there, which would be more than justified under international law on a variety of different counts, would certainly make the much needed regime change in Iran all the more easy.
Such regime change there would almost certainly significantly reduce, if not altogether bring to an end, the current insurgency in neighbouring Iraq, as well as the current turmoil in other Middle Eastern trouble-spots, most notably Gaza and the West Bank. It would also hopefully curb the associated turbulence back home in Britain where a second university lecturers’ union, NATFHE, is on the war-path again against Israel by calling for a boycott of its universities on behalf of Britain's intelligentsia, if not, mercifully, British intelligence. The latter have much better ways of using their time than have the British academics, as today's reports about the London bombings make all too painfully clear.
Comments (2)
"Get Russia and China to change their tune"
Gosh, I wonder why nobody else has thought of that?
While it is certainly true that without permanent security council backers Iran and indeed Iraq, Sudan, etc, etc, would be/ have been, much easier to deal with. It's a bit glib to throw this out as something that is simple, or even achievable. As we continue to see France, Russia and China seem wedded to prevarication, anti-americanism and acting in national interest, irrespective of the potential cost to human life in other nations. Whether this is right or wrong, a reflection of other nations behaviour or not, is irrelevant. In terms of what you are suggesting there is no fundamental way, not argument, nor coercion, nor bribary, for the US, UK or anyone one else to 'make' them change their behaviour. This means that the UN is a non-starter for any significant statements/ actions with regard to Iran, Sudan, etc. It seems sensible therefore to look for other routes to achieve our aims.
Posted by JayN | May 17, 2006 11:00 AM
Posted on May 17, 2006 11:00
Iran's stance towards the west should not come as a surprise, nor should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush be anything of a revelation to those who have followed proceedings in the Middle East.
Iran has continually called the bluff of anti-proliferation states, and continues to do so. The hawkish approach of the head of state is merely a continuation of this attitude and his self-belief in his right to be able to do so without sanction.
If we are to ascribe to the view that it is unacceptable for Iran to enrich Uranium (whether or not for the purposes of developing weaponry), then those that ultimately need persuading of the threat are those in the UN Security Council (China and Russia) who are currently blocking moves by the UN to attempt to enforce sanctions.
Only if pressure is brought to bear by those countries currently upholding Iran's right to defy the IAEA and to remain in breach on the non-proliferation treaty to change Iran's stance will Ahmadinejad feel as though his policy is unsustainable. With backing from Russia and China (even implicitly), Iran's leadership will feel justified in maintaining their atomic ambitions, and there will be little in the way of repercussions, simply because the Security Council will not be in a position to intervene.
That is the threat to "the west". Provokation by Iran might well lead the US and their allies into further military action independently of the UN, which would be both rash and unjustifiable given the UN's lack of action, as it was in Iraq. Get Russia and China to change their tune, and we will find that Iran has to back off too, lacking the support for their deliberate defiance of international protocol.
Posted by Dave Harris | May 12, 2006 3:58 PM
Posted on May 12, 2006 15:58