Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran

[ECH1969]

When Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of Nato’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an Awacs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at headquarters in Brussels.

It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about Nato’s possible involvement in any future military strike against Iran. “We would be the first to be called up if the Nato council decided we should be,” he said.

Nato would prefer the emphasis to remain on the “if”, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The news magazine Der Spiegel noted: “Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack.”

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=March2006&file=World_News2006030614924.xml

[daleo]

1. I can't see formal NATO involvement in an attack on Iran

Although I suppose there could be some behind the scenes involvment.

[DELUSIONAL]

2. This is horrible

So the elected Prez of Iran is a jerk (so is bushie -- the NON elected prez of the US).

BUT by all accounts Iran doesn't have the bomb -- by the way Israel does . . . . and ya da ya da blah blah.

So this will be the third country that the US will attack? Afghanistan didn't attack the US -- the claim is that Osama was in Afghanistan and being given protection by the Taliban. Next we know all about bushie cooking the intel books to boil up a pot of invasion directed at Iraq.

St. Patrick's Day isn't that far away -- and that could be when bushie gets to play war lord again -- heavens knows all the early stage symptoms of the mad hatter King George are apparent. PLUS he is tanking real fast in the polls.

Don't you all believe that an attack on Iran would be just plain stupid? The first two countries were mostly helpless -- but Iran with that nut president is not going to be an easy cake walk -- even if bushie uses the nuclear option now on board many US submarines.

My fear is that more innocent people are going to die -- it is the civilians who are bearing the brunt of the bushie wars.

[oblivious]

3. If it participates in an illegal preemptive war I predict the end of NATO.

[Blue_Forney05]

4. If this stupid, foolish rhetoric keeps up, we

all will think 3.00 a gallon gas is cheap. This is pathetic. I guarentee that if we did not invade Iraq, gas might be under 2.00 a gallon now. But noooooo, gotta make Exxon, Hallaburton money.

[farmbo]

12. $5.00/gal gas for the rest of our lives...the Mullahs will shut down

...the Straights of Hormuz. (And make no mistake...Bush's attack will STRENGTHEN THE MULLAHS...not weaken them) Oil shipping from the entire Gulf region will come to a halt.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml?s=lh

[gordianot]

13. Correct.

This has been a trap all along.

[David__77]

7. Let's hope so.

NATO needs to be dissolved. European imperialism is not one bit better than any other imperialism.

[Pachamama]

5. I guess the only thing that Europe learned from WW2 to do different

this time is not just to let a Dictator go in and take a country while they "stand by", but that they this time will actually help the Dictator....

[Pavulon]

6. The Europeans

do not like being under the red circle of the Iranian big dong ill missile..

[mogster]

8. The Europeans

are suffering a heavy bout of islamophobia.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. That's not the only thing...

...there is a great deal of "let's lay this at Israel's feet," going on too. So, not only do they have the 'perfect victim,' they have the 'perfect patsy.'

[Bridget Burke]

11. Yeah, the missile that might be built...

In ten years or so....

[leveymg]

9. Sticks and Stones Strategy. Tell the customer what he wants to hear.

The Euros want to sell their hardware. Mirroring the customer's insecurities is a cheap sales tool.