BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY HAMMOND: UK, IRAN, RUSSIA MUST WORK TOGETHER ...

I've been speculating a great deal lately on the very strange messages being sent by the United Kingdom to the USA, and that Britain is in a unique position to reassert a much more influential role within the western alliance system. Chiefly, and briefly put, my reasons for thinking that Britain may be contemplating a sweeping paradigm shift in its whole cultural and geopolitical strategy over the next few decades, a shift away from its "special relationship" with the USA, and equally, a shift away from its involvement with the European Union.

Specifically, the reasons that one might entertain such a direction for British policy are coming from strange places within British circles of power and their media organs themselves. For example, the Economist recently ran an op-ed piece about the calcification of the American oligarchy, and the fact that the power "elite" of America seems to be locked into boxes of foreign and domestic policy in which no change to the status quo can be contemplated: want more socialism? Vote Bernie Sanders. Want more corporate socialism? vote for any Republithug. Is it really necessary to run yet another tired and dimwitted member of the Bush family against equally tired Hillary? And so on and so on.

Then there was the BBC's Worricker Trilogy about MI-5  analyst Johnny Warricker, who comes into possession of a file indicating that a British prime minister with the initials of A.B. had knowledge of a secret global gulag of American torture camps. During the first episode of the trilogy, Page Eight, the script has MI5 analysts questioning the value of the "special relationship" with America, particularly as the UK shares more intelligence than it gets in return.

Well, in that vein, consider this article from RT, shared by many regular readers here:

‘UK must work with Iran & Russia to end Syrian war’ – Foreign Secretary Hammond

I noticed in particular these comments:

After meeting with President Rouhani on Monday, Hammond said “a new phase” has been entered in the search for an end to the Syrian conflict which will include “the two most important and influential players in Syria – Iran and Russia.”

Hammond acknowledged there were fundamental differences in policy over whether Syrian president Bashar al-Assad should remain – with the UK seeing no future for Assad as leader – but added that “if you don’t talk you can’t make progress, and we are now talking.”

As the article notes, the U.K. and Iran have a recent history of deep mutual distrust, so an embassy reopening is hardly signifiant, nor a signal, of any deep paradigm change.

What is peculiar is that the RT article contains no mention at all of the USA in the constellation of the three nations Secretary Hammond thinks should be involved in resolving the Syrian issue. Naturally enough, Hammond echoes the Washington lline that Assad has got to go; but Washington's presence here is only implicit, not explicit. Put this together with the U.K.'s quick response to join China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, its quiet messages via the Economist and Worricker on the BBC, and the message is that London is not too happy with Washington. If that reading be true, then its a geopolitical and cultural earthquake, and a measure of just how insane and out of control Washington's "policy" has become.

Time will tell, of course, if the United Kingdom is indeed embarking on a more Washington-independent foreign policy, but for the moment, London is issuing som typically subtle British signals.

See you on the flip side...

26 thoughts on “ BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY HAMMOND: UK, IRAN, RUSSIA MUST WORK TOGETHER ...”

  1. If Nato stops buying ISIS oil and refuses to resupply ISIS through Turkey the conflict in Syria will end within two months. It will end in one month if Israel also will stop buying Oil from ISIS and stop resupplying them through Lebanon.

  2. John B wells has just interviewed author Geoffrey Gilson ” Maggie’s Hammer “. Episode 360.

    Regards a UK intelligence team close to Margaret Thatcher arranging murders and illegal arms deals in Iraq with Mark Thatcher and Robert Maxwell etc.
    Sounds like a real life Worricker trilogy. Good background to workings of the USA and UK special relationship. Black budgets and politician kickbacks.
    UK and USA operations in Afghanistan and Iran Contra affair etc.
    Gives a taste of the mindset.

    http://caravantomidnight.com/product/episode-360-bill-ayers-and-geoffrey-gilson/

  3. And the UK re opens its Embassy in Iran ! Geo political re-alignment more than just talk, even despite the continued Iranian the US defiant rhetoric ! Also that curious remark by Kerry that the Iran deal has to be passed or the dollar as Reserve currency will threaten, by who ?
    I do wonder what has changed. Could it be her majesty is no longer amused ? She certainly upset the economists at the London School of Economics when she asked why no one saw the credit crunch coming in 2008.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/british-embassy-iran-tehran-reopens

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-11/john-kerry-warns-american-dollar-will-cease-be-reserve-currency-world-if-iran-deal-r

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3386353/The-Queen-asks-why-no-one-saw-the-credit-crunch-coming.html

  4. Still on Syria, the alleged destruction of an ancient temple by the usual culprits. This satellite photo effectively shows that the building is “missing”; but maybe it was actually taken away in pieces to be rebuilt on the estate of some billionaire for whatever purposes. Iraq 2.0. As Joseph has said so many times, the police (and others) won’t be looking for what has supposedly been destroyed. Until reliable on-the-ground witnesses have actually verified the presence of rubble, I am opting for this. But even if it actually has been destroyed and not sold off, it was a great “psyop”. http://www.corriere.it/foto-gallery/esteri/15_settembre_01/palmira-distrutto-tempio-bel-2e21d302-5076-11e5-ad2e-795b691a3a45.shtml?cmpid=SF020103COR

    1. I was just looking at those photos on the BBC and thinking, photoshop.

      I have used photoshop nearly every day for a decade and to my eyes that is the same photo, tweaked. The shadows cast are exactly the same in both, except that the “after” photo has been blurred and compressed vertically a bit to make it appear different.

      And where is the rubble? The emplacement is swept bare. Dis ISIS put it in a warehouse or is it now on Ebay?

      1. This photo circulated by all the major media does look doctored. To give the impression of “complete destruction”? While “surgical removal” operations were or are still underway? Of course the more time goes by, the more time they have to “doctor” the site as well.

        1. Actually, I think the answer is much more simple than that. It literally takes all of five minutes to create the “after” photo from the original. But it would take a few hours of tedious detail work to create a convincing debris field of strewn-about stone blocks with proper shadows and realistic-looking evidence of explosions. It is a heck of a lot easier simply to use the clone tool to wipe the site bare, as was done.

  5. The British brought us the false info on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we believed them over germany as to the validity of the intel. Now they begin to act independent of everyone sending olive branches to former foes. Isn’t this just a move to bring America around to their way of thinking. America doesn’t want boots on the ground anymore,using only airpower to exert influence on conflicted area’s. This change in American policy is a problem for Britten as now they’ll have to fight their own battles This calls for a shift in British foreign policy as the big stick is now the English military and not their American pit bull. When its English lives that are to be wasted then diplomacy becomes the game of the day. Surprise , surprise , surprise

  6. Britain made a mistake 100 years ago when they threw Russia under the bus and went in with the Federal Reserve Bank. If they had rather aligned themselves with Russia, there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution, no Hitler and no WW2. And the world would not be in the mess it is in today and we would have much better literature to read. Take a look at the December front page of the Economist. Britain has been moving east for some time now and historically they have old ties going back centuries,both good and bad with India, Hong Kong and China. A century later and they will be throwing the US under the bus. And I can’t say I blame them.

  7. In my humble opinion, TPTB in England (in the City of London) are beginning to get scared of the implications of Republithug supremacy:

    The real President-pickers have decided that the repetition Rep -> Dem -> Rep -> Dem defuses population hostility and has certain ‘operational advantages’. So, they have instituted this ‘cycle’. By this cycle, our next President will be a Republithug. (By Diebold* voting machines, if necessary…)

    Now, where this gets scary is with the domination of the House and Senate by the Republithugs. Throw in a Republithug President, and we are off to the races. No vetos on anything. Add-in that there is a document that Republithug congressmen are being ‘forced’ to sign, and which directs their behavior down certain paths. Now, you are getting into dangerous territory.

    I believe that TPTB in England are realizing that they are in danger of becoming near-irrelevant, if the entire US political structure (including The Supreme Court; already locked-in) is going to march to neocon bugles. (Probably zionist neocon bugles.) As they look into post-2016, they must be freaking out. The situation could spiral out of their influence…

    *Diebold Election Systems, Inc. -> Premier Election Solutions -> Election Systems & Software -> Dominion Voting Systems. (Anyone else notice a certain irony in the last naming?)

  8. So the British foreign minister wants Russia to help fight ISIS, then there is ‘definately’ messages being sent to “guess who”. Whoever ISIS really is doesn’t really matter, they are just another bad guy, but getting help from Iran and Russia IS strange indeed.
    The fact remains that ISIS could be crushed in days if somebody wanted to, but oh no, it’s going to take a long time to do it.
    Cant wait till my copy of the Worricker trilogy arrives.!!!!

  9. Obama has repeatedly told the European states they need to step up and take more responsibility, so I don’t think he would think of this as a “message” from the UK to the US, unless its a message of we get it. However, other factions at play in the US may take this as a message against their activities.
    What sort of surprised me was that Germany was not mentioned at all as being involved in this process, and that is one state that seems to want to be the EU leader, but is left out of the discussion. Maybe there’s a message to Germany here.

  10. Frankie,

    If you think that I’m saying Iran backs ISIS, you really need to reconsider things. But I guess I can see how you’d want to misconstrue the point.

    Just so you understand: ISIS is predominately Sunni extremists, and Iran is mostly Shiite. So no Iran would NOT be backing ISIS.

    As for Israel trying to overthrow the Assad government, Israel may wish that end result, but Israel is letting other parties do the fighting and backing of most of the “rebels”.

  11. Except the parasite is imploding now. No viable leaders on the horizon just your usual wannabe jerks Britain is no fool they’re already planning to jump ship and leave the big fools to sink in the big muddy.

  12. No doubt the stovepipe issue speaks to the secrecy paranoia; the separation walls of information that run throughout systems within the empire. An empire that speaks of efficient but is steeped knee deep in monopolies & oligopolies; that are anything but efficient with the exception of extraction. A parasitic system that is eating its own. Best to distance yourself; unless you want the life sucked out of your systems.
    The parasite needs new hosts.
    Any volunteers?

  13. “What is peculiar is that the RT article contains no mention at all of the USA in the constellation of the three nations Secretary Hammond thinks should be involved in resolving the Syrian issue.”

    Well, assuming the UK actually means what it says and wants to resolve the Syria/ISIS fiasco, why on earth would they invite the chief instigator to participate? It’d be like inviting an alcoholic to a wine tasting.

  14. The Economist is a simple minded pro corporatist magazine that never does much thinking. Neither Clinton nor Bush will likely get nominated.

    It’s been obvious that Iran has to be engaged to stop ISIS. But that at the same time the Turks, US, and Saudis can’t be trying to overthrow the Syrian government. And that seems to be the sticking point in the UK’s thinking being reported here. The UK can’t let go of this US+Turkish ideal. So much for independent thinking.

    1. you are noticeably omitting Israel in your list of nations attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.

      Are you also suggesting that Iran is fostering ISIS?

    2. 2Frankie,

      If you think that I’m saying Iran backs ISIS, you really need to reconsider things. But I guess I can see how you’d want to misconstrue the point.

      Just so you understand: ISIS is predominately Sunni extremists, and Iran is mostly Shiite. So no Iran would NOT be backing ISIS.

      As for Israel trying to overthrow the Assad government, Israel may wish that end result, but Israel is letting other parties do the fighting and backing of most of the “rebels”.

      1. Lost,

        It is very common for zionists to make ridiculous claims to support their geopolitical agenda. I know you are pretty busy in several internet discussion forums simultaneously so I thought maybe you had confused the Giza comment section for a Fox news chat room and were attempting to spew some zionist claptrap on those uninformed boneheads.

        “As for Israel trying to overthrow the Assad government, Israel may wish that end result, but Israel is letting other parties do the fighting and backing of most of the “rebels”.

        So you are stating that Israel somehow is able to get other countries to do their bidding? That is a very frank admission coming from you. I appreciate your candor. Don’t let that one slip out in the Fox chat room.

        1. Frankie:

          It’s no great secret that Israel wanted the US to invade Iraq, but there were also those in the US who had those dreams–didn’t work out well for either of those parties.

          You seem a bit confused, Israel does NOT want ISIS to take over Syria and the north half of Iraq, that would be a Sunni Caliphate backed by remnants of Saddam Hussein’s army now with captured US weapons.

          Israel does want a weakened Syria to the north, not a secret.

  15. CAF seems to be of the opinion that the US would be able to still ‘put them over a barrel’ if need be – do you feel this stance is still part of the mix, does the US have some sort of ‘ace in the hole’, as mentioned in your last conversation together? You seemed to treat this with agreement, though I got the feeling you weren’t full-in on it. I wonder what this ‘over the barrel mechanism’ might be.

Comments are closed.