Who do you believe will most influence Tony Blair's decision on Iran?

[blm]

At one point I would have said Bill Clinton and felt encouraged the two of them would do what is best for the world, but now I am not so sure as both have been staunch defenders of Bush's military decisions the last 7 years.

So, will it be Bush? Clinton? Britain's military leaders? The British citizens?

[CJCRANE]

1. God n/t

[whistle]

2. Tony Blair has been influenced already by the neoconservatives of his country

...so it is not about whether they will act against Iran, but rather when and how.

[ananda]

3. agree.. neocon..

.. crazies.

[blm]

4. England has its own Bebe's Boys like we do or are they the same voices who convinced

GOP and Dem lawmakers here?

[whistle]

12. Yes they are there using the Henry Scoop Jackson Society as their

...front group. The neocons spread like locust wherever their fascist views can take hold they spread their manure.

<snip>
Henry Jackson Society
From SourceWatch

The Henry Jackson Society was founded in Cambridge, England, on March 11, 2005, and was launched in the Houses of Parliament, on November 22, 2005, by Dr. Brendan Simms of Cambridge University in honor of the late Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, "long-time Democratic Senator from Washington state, renowned for championing human rights - most famously the right of emigration from the USSR." <1><2>

The Society, a think tank and political action committee, is based at the University of Cambridge and aims to promote 'democratic geopolitics'. Many of its supporters are among the most powerful people in Britain and the United States, including the former directors of the MI6 and CIA, the former President of Lithuania, a reem of British MPs, and a number of editorial staff from various newspapers. The secretive nature of the society is perhaps evidence of its considerable poltical inlfuence.

International Patrons
Bruce P. Jackson, President, The Project on Transitional Democracies
Robert Kagan, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard
Vytautas Landsbergis, Former President of Lithuania
Clifford D. May, President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Michael McFaul, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Senior Advisor, National Democratic Institute
Joshua Muravchik, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Richard N. Perle, Former American Assistant Secretary of Defense
General Jack Sheehan, Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic
R. James Woolsey, Jr., Former Director of the CIA

<MORE>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Henry_Jackson_Society


<also see>
The Henry Who Society?
Luke McCallin | October 18, 2006


IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org


Two groups in Britain urge foreign policies that reflect key aspects of the American neoconservative agenda. One group has even adopted the name of one of the neocon godfathers, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The question is, why?

Apart from those who follow this sort of thing, the founding of two British-based groups devoted to advocating increased internationalism and a British form of liberal intervention likely went unobserved by most. The fact that the two groups have slightly unusual names does not help. There is the Euston Manifesto, an online organizing initiative made up of apparently disaffected European liberals who aim to reach out beyond “the socialist Left” and “toward egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment,” and the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), which is named after Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a former U.S. Democratic senator who, before his death in 1983, helped foster the neoconservative ascendance in Washington, DC.

Apart from his nickname, Jackson is best known for his willingness in the wake of the Vietnam War to buck the party line and declare his opposition to détente with the Soviet Union, believing that democratic governments should consider the internal character of foreign states when dealing with them. He is also known for giving many of today's recognized U.S. neoconservatives their first chance in politics; hence, the recognition of his legacy in the group's name. It remains strange, however, as pointed out by Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times, why a society with grandiose ideas about British foreign policy and an avowed intent to influence it, should name itself for a relatively obscure—at least in Europe—American politician. “Why,” wrote Brittan, “take the name of a U.S. senator with a very mixed bag of views? Better to have called it the Palmerston Society after the 19th-century British prime minister who selectively favored ‘small nations struggling to be free,' often with the aid of British gunboats.”

As it is largely understood in Europe, neoconservatism is an American political philosophy that can be defined as a belief that the best way to attain national security is by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid, and in certain cases unilateral military intervention. This departs from traditional conservative tendencies of supporting friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Europeans also interpret neoconservatism to hold the security of Israel as a main tenet.
<MORE>

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3620

[blm]

13. Thankyou - I never heard of this.

Your answer really adds to the perspective of my original question.

And what DU is all about - thanks for the added info.

[cali]

5. i highly doubt that the brits will take military action

over this. I suspect that the last thing Blair wants is a military confrontation with Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Neoconservatives of our country?

We've got plenty of right-wingers here; but very few 'neo-conservatives' in the American sense. After all, neo-conservativism is basically about empire-building and we gave up ours 60 years ago. Tony himself is an old-fashioned imperialist born 100 years too late, and has bought into the American neo-conservative myth; but there's no big neo-con movement here.

[Kelly Rupert]

6. Probably Labour.

I highly doubt Mr. Blair will do anything to Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I think a combination of British military and British voters and British Labour MPs

And all are going to be against another unwinnable war.

I am 99% certain that Tony is just saying the sorts of things that a PM normally would say in this sort of situation (no PM would or should say, "Yes, it's absolutely fine to keep my troops as prisoners") and has no war plans - war would NOT benefit Britain after all. The 1% uncertaintly is in part due to remembering that we're now having the much-publicized 25th anniversary of Maggie's Little War in the Falklands, which certainly boosted her popularity; and in part due to the fact that Tony is a nutcase. But he's also a lame duck, and I don't think the party as a whole want yet more war.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. I'm sure if he started to talk serious,

Gordon Brown would tie him to his chair and gag him.

[WinkyDink]

8. Cheney.

[Solly Mack]

11. The job waiting for him once he quits

:)

My way of saying that some (many) people in politics often use the power of their office to cultivate contacts for future $$$$ and job options once out of office, and will often direct favorable policy toward such companies (defense, energy,insurance etc)

Also, there is this

6 months ago Blair claimed he would quit within the year

and said this:

"I will do that at a future date and I'll do it in the interests of the country and depending on the circumstances of the time," he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/britain.blair/index.html