You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
U.S. may have to go it alone in Iran (without UK)
2006-02-06
What would we do without experts?
Policy experts warn that the United States may not be able to rely on perennial ally the United Kingdom for support over Iran's nuclear program. "We can't look to Britain for (help) on Iran because they've paid the price on Iraq," said Jeffrey McCausland, director of leadership in conflict initiative at Dickinson College. "In Iraq, the coalition of the willing has become the Brits and the Yanks. How Iraq turns out will have a dramatic effect on the relationship (between the United States and the United Kingdom)," he said.
Gee, ya think?
The European Union should shoulder more global leadership responsibility, said Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University, England, and former European Commissioner for External Relations. "That's what Europe should be seeking to do with the United States ... seeking to be a partner in economic, political, and security terms."

Instead, the EU is a "dead end," said John Hulsman, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, DC-based think tank. "The United States and the United Kingdom are the only two that can do things around the world," he said. "The United Kingdom is the default (ally) in a crisis. On Sept. 11, nobody said, 'get Brussels on the phone,'" he said. If U.S.-U.K. relations worsen, the United Kingdom might not rush to the head of the line to back U.S. action. The United Kingdom could become "not the first of three allies but the third of three," to support U.S. objectives, he said.

"The [U.S.-U.K.] 'special relationship' is in trouble," said Andrew Apostolou, assistant director of programs at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, DC-based think tank. Michael Calingaert, executive vice president of Brookings' Council for United States and Italy, agreed. "U.S. policy and attitudes have damaged our relationship with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world."
No agenda here, just pure objective scholarly commentary
IIRC, Bush offered Tony Blair a pass on Iraq, but Tony opted not to take it because (going into Iraq) was the 'right thing to do.'
In a 2005 Pew poll, only 55 percent of Britons had a favorable opinion of the United States, down from 75 percent in 2002, pre-Iraq. Patten said there has always been a "seam of anti-Americanism in European attitudes." The relationship between the United States and Europe is so important to both sides, he said, he doesn't believe that recent trends indicate a major shift. "Over the years there were rows about Vietnam, Central America ... but overall (U.S.-Europe relations have been) a huge success," he said. "I hope we may find some way in which we can work together on the real threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power."
Yeah, it would be nice.
Posted by:lotp

#16  Yeah. What 'moose said!
Posted by: BigEd   2006-02-06 16:33  

#15  The European Union should shoulder more global leadership responsibility ...

They have, they just happen to be working for the other side. Europe's ability to countenance Ahmadinejad's genocidal proclamations is ample proof that anti-Semitism is not at all dead.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-06 12:35  

#14  That's a lot different from an article V commitment, expecially given how the Turkish electorate is becoming more fundamentalist all the time. Agreed there have been state to state contacts in the past, but this would be different.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-06 12:31  

#13  Turkey and Israel have joint military maneuvers and agreements IIRC
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-06 12:19  

#12  The WSJ editorial page is today calling for NATO membership for Israel. Wonder what they'd think of that in Istanbul.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-06 11:17  

#11  What Ed said.
Posted by: Perfessor   2006-02-06 11:08  

#10  Hmmm, maybe here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban
Posted by: Crack Glique9927   2006-02-06 10:03  

#9  The Israeli's don't have the capability and don't need the attacks from all sides that will follow any strike. They will hunker down and build up their warheads and delivery systems. The Sampson option it will be. In addition, the Iranian nuclear capability will trigger a Middle East, followed by a worldwide nuclear breakout.

Also note where the Saban Center for Middle East Policy gets it's funding
From the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers?
Posted by: ed   2006-02-06 10:03  

#8  Also note where the Saban Center for Middle East Policy gets it's funding
Posted by: Glinenter Whavitch9002   2006-02-06 09:55  

#7  May not happen. And it's not exactly fair to expect that tiny country to "do the job for us all" and suffer the consequences alone.
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-06 09:54  

#6  You'll have a Tory gummint by then, so no problem. I still expect Israel to do the job for all of us, mind.
Posted by: Howard UK   2006-02-06 09:52  

#5  Worry not UK. The US won't go it alone or with the UK into Iran. The Iranians have had 15 years to build and hide enrichment facilities under the cities, deserts and mountains. No government is willing to go in and tear up the country in hopes of finding destroying the nuclear and missile facilities. So Europe (including the UK) better get used to the idea of living under islamic nukes.
Posted by: ed   2006-02-06 09:52  

#4  ..but would be met with slashing social programs.

Not likely to happen.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2006-02-06 09:49  

#3  
Replace UK with Democrats and it still reads fine.
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2006-02-06 09:39  

#2  what attitude UK takes toward specific US actions in Iran will depend on the nature of those action, the Iranian actions that precede them, and the degree to which the US is serious about multilateral diplomacy. These last two so far are going well as far as keeping the west united on this issue.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-06 09:35  

#1  Socialism has exhausted Europe, and only a drastic shift to the right will result in Europe regaining the cajones it needs for the future.

It is a two-pronged approach: drastically slash taxes, social programs and government controls; then massively re-create large and effective militaries.

Slashing taxes would initially plunge them into deep deficits, but would be met with slashing social programs. By eliminating much government control over business, entrepreneurs could soon revitalize their economies--based on a production boom in support of the military build-up.

The contrast would be so great that socialism would be utterly destroyed for at least 30 years. 30 very critical years.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-02-06 09:29  

00:00