So, this sounds like unsupported speculation to the effect of “US supports Israel, Israel bombs Iraq’s reactor project, bombing Iraq’s reactor project disadvantages Brazil, disadvantaging Brazil helps Argentina, therefore the US intends to help Argentina.”
Whatever OP is reading, it doesn’t sound like a good source.
I was reading the whole thing a bit simpler.
Basicallly by saying that the implication of US support for Israel’s action (bombing of the Osirak reactor intimated oblique support for Buenos Aires, he’s saying that the US response was effectively a slap on the wrist, and basically emboldened the Argentines to conduct unprovoked military action in the Falklands as well.
Sort of a “we didn’t do anything consequential about Osirak, which can be implied to mean that we won’t do anything consequential about the Falklands either.”
I’d just like to chip in that I find this passage a piece of really bad writing. It’s phrased in a complicated manner, presumably to make the author look learned, but the roundabout academic-sounding wording doesn’t add any value compared to the more straightforward alternatives. Perhaps Thornton wanted to say that American support for Israel’s action was interpreted as indirect support for Buenos Aires, and that emboldened Argentina to take a more assertive stance. If that’S what he wanted to say, he should simply have said so.
Maybe I’m cynical, but I find that abtruse roundabout phrasing is a way to avoid having to produce evidence to support a weak assetion. Say something plainly and people expect you to back it up.
Oblique does imply its hard to see… its not direct, its very nebulous…
Its really not true right ? USA UK and France set up Israel, UK and France invaded Suez canal area of Egypt to get their canal back and USA forced them to quit that effort. Its completely unclear…
Meanwhile Israel will come out saying that the Falklands belong to Argentina… because the residents don’t matter, the land was stolen in X (eg 150 years) ago, and today they should get it back.
But the western countries supportted Iraq at that time, and this attack of nuclear research in iraq was all a bit rogue… an attack between USA’s allies ? Its perhaps suggesting that the Argentina could get away with attacking the allies of its ally USA… ??
But the Ascension base was an arms warehouse run by USA and selling stuff to UK… and a vital stepping stone for all the UK forces on their way to the south. The USA could have blocked use of it, if the USA was going to be neutral… maybe argentina hoped the USA would insist on remaining neutral.
But its said the USA had to consider this as a NATO thing, a true ally things… ok their are allies, its just some allies are more important than others. Australia had their influeonce, saying that Australians would see USA support for UK as proof of the USA commitment to protect Australia, NZ, and how Australia was important to the USA in WW2, and is important to USA, so do the right thing for the Falklands.war.
Its completely puzzling why Argentina would see it as being allowed to break UN’s rules and threaten UK and USA and the anglo-world and the status of the western european powers (UK,France, USA have many such islands from colonial times or from WW2. .) as if its fair game… The sad thing is that the USA, France, Germany didnt simply join in the deployment… a major international orce bearing down on the Falklands would have got them to quit without a fight ???
Perhaps the missing part of the puzzle is the Argentinian view of Ascension Island…
They may have had it marked on their maps as “USA military base”…
And neglected that it was a shared military base, and that it was actually on UK territory, and the visitors/tennants would have to oblige the host/owners. And that the two were in NATO, and strong UN founders and members, and strong enough to exceed instructions from UN…
Calling Iraq an “ally” of the US is really off of the mark. In terms of arms suppliers, it got the vast majority of its weapons in rough from the most to the least from the USSR, China, France and the UK. The US wasn’t selling or giving arms to Saddam, and the only interest it saw in Iraq at the time was as a counterbalance to the fear of a spread of Islamic revolutionary fervor from Iran - but notably not enough of an interest to actually arm it. Iraq was historically a Soviet client state when it came to arms. Western nations selling weapons to Iraq were in it to make a buck, not to make an ally.
They’d have to have been extraordinarily stupid, as Ascension Island belongs to the UK, not the US. The Union Jack on the flag is kind of a dead giveaway, as is its anthem being “God Save the King.”
They would again have to have been extraordinarily stupid, as it is a British base that they share with the US, not the other way around. Again, there’s a dead giveaway in that the name of the airbase is RAF Ascension Island.
No, it wasn’t considered a NATO thing, the giveaway is in the name, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Falkland Islands are outside the area of operations of the NATO charter. If the Falkland Islands were located in the North Atlantic and thus inside the area of NATO operations, there wouldn’t have been any consideration needed, an attack on it would have immediately invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.