Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[Slimprofits]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Lebanon next?

and pretty soon we're looking at a full-blown regional conflict

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

and pretty soon we're looking at a full-blown regional conflict

Pretty soon?

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Well this looks interesting...

Canada closes Iranian embassy and kicks out diplomats

7 September 2012Last updated at 14:54 GMT

Canada is closing its embassy in Iran and expelling the remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada, Foreign Minister John Baird has said in a statement.
The Canadian government cited Iran's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and failure to comply with UN inspectors as the reason for the move.
Mr Baird also said that Iran had engaged in "racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide".
Iranian diplomats have been given five days to leave Canada.
"Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," said Mr Baird's statement.
He also said that Iran had shown "blatant disregard" for the protection of diplomatic personnel.
"Under the circumstances, Canada can no longer maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran," he added.
Ottawa also designated Iran as a state-sponsor of terrorism and included it among a list of countries subject to travel warnings for Canadian citizens.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Well this looks interesting...

Canada closes Iranian embassy and kicks out diplomats

7 September 2012Last updated at 14:54 GMT

Canada is closing its embassy in Iran and expelling the remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada, Foreign Minister John Baird has said in a statement.
The Canadian government cited Iran's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and failure to comply with UN inspectors as the reason for the move.
Mr Baird also said that Iran had engaged in "racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide".
Iranian diplomats have been given five days to leave Canada.
"Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," said Mr Baird's statement.
He also said that Iran had shown "blatant disregard" for the protection of diplomatic personnel.
"Under the circumstances, Canada can no longer maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran," he added.
Ottawa also designated Iran as a state-sponsor of terrorism and included it among a list of countries subject to travel warnings for Canadian citizens.

think they want their guys out before bombs drop? or just ratcheting up the tension?

[BadJuju]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

think they want their guys out before bombs drop? or just ratcheting up the tension?

It is a good question. It serves a dual purpose. It sends a clear message to Iran that a very strong line is being drawn, which might cause Iran to duck out of this game of chicken. With Canada generally being a more politically neutral country known for using diplomacy first, the message is even more clear. At the same time, if things do go down, they accomplish the former.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

think they want their guys out before bombs drop? or just ratcheting up the tension?

Difficult to tell. The relationship between Iran and Canada has been strained for decades, dating back to what Canadians Ken Taylor and John Sheardown did during the US Embassy hostage situation, and compounded by the murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi after she was arrested by Iranian authorities in 2003.

It is very unusual for a small, non-threatening country like Canada to take such actions, and its international missions is one area that Canada has historically guarded against undue USA influence or pressure.

There seems more to this than what has been said officially. The language in the official release from the Minister's office is unusually harsh for the Canadian government. And closing an Embassy is quite a different matter from registering a protest by temporarily recalling an ambassador. I suspect it may not have anything much to do with what is happening in Iran, but instead the Iranians in Canada have been caught doing something quite odious (doesn't take much imagination to think what that might be) and the security of Canadian diplomatic staff in Tehran cannot be assured as the Canadians take action against the Iranians back in Ottawa...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It is a good question. It serves a dual purpose. It sends a clear message to Iran that a very strong line is being drawn, which might cause Iran to duck out of this game of chicken. With Canada generally being a more politically neutral country known for using diplomacy first, the message is even more clear. At the same time, if things do go down, they accomplish the former.

Canada's embassy/consulate/mission to Iran also played a considerable roll in the repatriation of a small number of US citizens working for the US embassy that went into hiding in 79 after the Embassy takeover.

Canada, it's goverment, and it's embassy staff REALLY went to extraordinary lengths to help those Americans exfiltrate Iran.....using Canadian passports......I think a special/secret session of the Canadian government/parliament was convened to make it happen.

You never know.....maybe the hardliners might go after Canada or Canadian interests as a proxy target to send a message to the US....much like the capture of Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf and parading them on TV before releasing them.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Canada's embassy/consulate/mission to Iran also played a considerable roll in the repatriation of a small number of US citizens working for the US embassy that went into hiding in 79 after the Embassy takeover.

Canada, it's goverment, and it's embassy staff REALLY went to extraordinary lengths to help those Americans exfiltrate Iran.....using Canadian passports......I think a special/secret session of the Canadian government/parliament was convened to make it happen.

You never know.....maybe the hardliners might go after Canada or Canadian interests as a proxy target to send a message to the US....much like the capture of Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf and parading them on TV before releasing them.

Whoops GRG beat me to it by a minute.

To add.....while I agree that Canada(and others) work to avoid undue influence from the US...I wonder why it's not Canada representing the US in Iran instead of Switzerland?

I wonder if it's because of the hostage exfiltration?

Anywho......I guess everyone will now be watching for diplomatic missions TO and FROM Iran closing up shop for further signals.

I like the idea of Canada preemptively shutting it's embassy in case it's security forces are involved in rolling up naughty folks in Canada.

[rogermexico]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

think they want their guys out before bombs drop? or just ratcheting up the tension?

I think the reason they are being recalled is simply to protect them from becoming hostages when bombs drop. Which suggests they have been warned. By the US or Israel. The stated reason of Iran behaving badly is nothing new, and only being used in lieu of saying " we are closing up shop to avoid a repeat of 1979".....

I think it takes a lot for a country like canada to do this without actually being at war with the country in question....

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I think the reason they are being recalled is simply to protect them from becoming hostages when bombs drop. Which suggests they have been warned. By the US or Israel. The stated reason of Iran behaving badly is nothing new, and only being used in lieu of saying " we are closing up shop to avoid a repeat of 1979".....

I think it takes a lot for a country like canada to do this without actually being at war with the country in question....

I have some doubts about this line of reasoning. If they have "been warned to get out" in advance of a bombing mission:

1. They are unlikely to have done so in such a public way (Canadian diplomatic personnel were already out of Iran before the announcement) because it just telegraphs the real intentions; and
2. What purpose is served by telling all Iranian diplomats in Canada to leave? One would think that if there is an active intent to bomb Iran, having senior Iranian officials in Ottawa would facilitate a re-engagement of dialogue in the aftermath of the message sent from the air.

Let's be brutally realistic. There is going to have to be a dialogue with the Iranians after any bombing mission. After all, that's the real purpose of any bombing, isn't it? And that is the real reason Israel cannot act alone. The powers planning any bombing mission are going to set the stage for that follow-up dialogue in detail before the cruise missiles leave the carriers. That includes the setting, the intermediaries that will maintain lines of communication, and so forth.

I wonder if the nuclear facility storyline is a smokescreen and the real strategy is regime change. If that be the case then an acceleration in the systematic isolation of Iran, which puts even more pressure on China and Russia against the most every other nation, may now be in motion. Perhaps any bombing mission is going to go after targets that hit the regime directly and not the nuclear facilities per se. There seem quite a few parallels with the "weapons of mass destruction" storyline that preceded the bombing of electrical stations, communications facilities, government ministry offices and Saddam's palaces in Iraq...none of which would seem to have been good candidates for WMD storehouses.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I have some doubts about this line of reasoning. If they have "been warned to get out" in advance of a bombing mission:

1. They are unlikely to have done so in such a public way (Canadian diplomatic personnel were already out of Iran before the announcement) because it just telegraphs the real intentions; and
2. What purpose is served by telling all Iranian diplomats in Canada to leave? One would think that if there is an active intent to bomb Iran, having senior Iranian officials in Ottawa would facilitate a re-engagement of dialogue in the aftermath of the message sent from the air.

Let's be brutally realistic. There is going to have to be a dialogue with the Iranians after any bombing mission. After all, that's the real purpose of any bombing, isn't it? And that is the real reason Israel cannot act alone. The powers planning any bombing mission are going to set the stage for that follow-up dialogue in detail before the cruise missiles leave the carriers. That includes the setting, the intermediaries that will maintain lines of communication, and so forth.

I wonder if the nuclear facility storyline is a smokescreen and the real strategy is regime change. If that be the case then an acceleration in the systematic isolation of Iran, which puts even more pressure on China and Russia against the most every other nation, may now be in motion. Perhaps any bombing mission is going to go after targets that hit the regime directly and not the nuclear facilities per se. There seem quite a few parallels with the "weapons of mass destruction" storyline that preceded the bombing of electrical stations, communications facilities, government ministry offices and Saddam's palaces in Iraq...none of which would seem to have been good candidates for WMD storehouses.

think obama is setting up an "october surprise"? or does canada have some "carriers" of which i am unaware?

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

think obama is setting up an "october surprise"? or does canada have some "carriers" of which i am unaware?

I don't think there's much chance of a bombing...but if it does happen it wouldn't be the first time a President in political trouble started a war to divert attention from the problems at home.

And I remain convinced that this latest escalation happened because the Iranians were caught doing something on this side of the Atlantic...

[BadJuju]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I don't think there's much chance of a bombing...but if it does happen it wouldn't be the first time a President in political trouble started a war to divert attention from the problems at home.

And I remain convinced that this latest escalation happened because the Iranians were caught doing something on this side of the Atlantic...

Here is one interesting thing:

"While an official said the timing of the decision was the result of a culmination of Iranian abuses, Ottawa was also facing a legislative deadline next week. In March, the federal government passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which allows terror victims to sue state sponsors of terrorist groups.
As part of the law, the Cabinet has six months to compile a list of states that are designated as sponsors of terrorism. Those on the list lose their immunity, allowing terror victims to go after them for damages. The deadline for compiling the list was next week."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09...ats-in-canada/

[astonas]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I have some doubts about this line of reasoning. If they have "been warned to get out" in advance of a bombing mission:

1. They are unlikely to have done so in such a public way (Canadian diplomatic personnel were already out of Iran before the announcement) because it just telegraphs the real intentions; and
2. What purpose is served by telling all Iranian diplomats in Canada to leave? One would think that if there is an active intent to bomb Iran, having senior Iranian officials in Ottawa would facilitate a re-engagement of dialogue in the aftermath of the message sent from the air.

Let's be brutally realistic. There is going to have to be a dialogue with the Iranians after any bombing mission. After all, that's the real purpose of any bombing, isn't it? And that is the real reason Israel cannot act alone. The powers planning any bombing mission are going to set the stage for that follow-up dialogue in detail before the cruise missiles leave the carriers. That includes the setting, the intermediaries that will maintain lines of communication, and so forth.

I wonder if the nuclear facility storyline is a smokescreen and the real strategy is regime change. If that be the case then an acceleration in the systematic isolation of Iran, which puts even more pressure on China and Russia against the most every other nation, may now be in motion. Perhaps any bombing mission is going to go after targets that hit the regime directly and not the nuclear facilities per se. There seem quite a few parallels with the "weapons of mass destruction" storyline that preceded the bombing of electrical stations, communications facilities, government ministry offices and Saddam's palaces in Iraq...none of which would seem to have been good candidates for WMD storehouses.

I'm inclined to be open to this line of thinking. The Arab spring, whether it was supported from early on by U.S. covert missions or not, would certainly encourage any U.S. administration to wonder if the cascade of regime changes might be pushed to include a few more problematic leaders. Indeed, there are those who argue that Bush was thinking along the lines of this when the war in Iraq was sold to the world. Personally, I think this gives Bush too much credit, but it is possible that such plans could have been in the works between the State and Defense departments for a long time, with planning beginning as early as the first Gulf War.

[rogermexico]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I have some doubts about this line of reasoning. If they have "been warned to get out" in advance of a bombing mission:

1. They are unlikely to have done so in such a public way (Canadian diplomatic personnel were already out of Iran before the announcement) because it just telegraphs the real intentions; and

I have some doubts too, as I am not after all a professional geopolitical analyst : ) But seriously, the "telegraphing" is done by the withdrawal itself, and if this is done for any reason at all, it has to be explained away to prevent the rumor superceding the "fact". It has to be spun somehow, and "Iran has been a very bad boy" is as good as any spin...

1. What purpose is served by telling all Iranian diplomats in Canada to leave? One would think that if there is an active intent to bomb Iran, having senior Iranian officials in Ottawa would facilitate a re-engagement of dialogue in the aftermath of the message sent from the air.

How plausible is it to pull your own diplomats from a country based on their incorrigible behavior while allowing a whole cadre of theirs to hang around yours with diplomatic immunity? If Canada had not ejected the Iranians in parallel at least I would have been scratching my head.... And I can't see establishing communications after the slaughter superseding the immediate goal of protecting your staff.

Let's be brutally realistic. There is going to have to be a dialogue with the Iranians after any bombing mission. After all, that's the real purpose of any bombing, isn't it? And that is the real reason Israel cannot act alone. The powers planning any bombing mission are going to set the stage for that follow-up dialogue in detail before the cruise missiles leave the carriers. That includes the setting, the intermediaries that will maintain lines of communication, and so forth.

I wonder if the nuclear facility storyline is a smokescreen and the real strategy is regime change. If that be the case then an acceleration in the systematic isolation of Iran, which puts even more pressure on China and Russia against the most every other nation, may now be in motion. Perhaps any bombing mission is going to go after targets that hit the regime directly and not the nuclear facilities per se. There seem quite a few parallels with the "weapons of mass destruction" storyline that preceded the bombing of electrical stations, communications facilities, government ministry offices and Saddam's palaces in Iraq...none of which would seem to have been good candidates for WMD storehouses.

I personally can't see bombing and civilian casualties encouraging "the people to rise up" precisely because that tactic has not worked very well in the recent past, but it's an interesting scenario you posit. Governments are slow learners, after all....