» Monday, September 19, 2005

Iran

Asked in relation to the UN meeting about the Americans having ruled out military action against Iran over the weekend, the PMOS said that what the Americans had done was to say, as we had, that all their energy and effort must go into the diplomatic route. This was what we would continue to do. We would be putting our energy into the diplomatic route, working with our EU partners and the US. As you could imagine there was a continuing conversation with all sides about where we went. The Foreign Secretary had made it clear that he was disappointed in what the Iranian President had said. The Foreign Secretary had not said anything he had not said before and therefore to suggest otherwise was to misrepresent the case.

In response to the suggestion that it was not wrong to represent the difference between London and Washington where the Americans had said they ruled nothing out, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister himself had said at his press conference on 12 May following those comments that what President Bush was saying was perfectly sensible that you could not take options off the table and that nobody was talking about invasions of Iran or military action against Iran. It was clear therefore that the Prime Minister had already dealt with this issue and as such it came under the heading of an old story. There was a new development, which was the new Iranian Government and that was where we were focusing. That focus, both in Washington and here, was on the diplomatic route.

Briefing took place at 9:00 | Search for related news

15 Comments »

  1. Call me weird but I can’t see why a sovereign state should not have the right to nuclear energy – and for that matter weapons.

    What the countries who already have those capabilities need to do is make life so comfortable for other nations that they don’t want or need a nuclear capability.

    Saying "we have the capability and you can’t" is just plain silly and not very diplomatic. It has never worked in the entire history of the human race, so it is unlikely to work now.

    Invading a neighboring country is unlikely to convince a country like Iran that they absolutely don’t need a nuclear capability.

    I’m sure that government analysts told both Tony and George that invading Iraq would mean that Iran would need nuclear weapons – and as with other good advice they chose to ignore it.

    Would we, I wonder have invaded Iraq if Iran already had nuclear weapons?

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 19 Sep 2005 on 3:45 pm | Link
  2. Surely that is the whole point. The objective (of US admin and its lapdogs UK & Oz) is to PROVOKE a war with Iran in the hope of securing total global control over ALL oil resources.

    1. Saudi Arabia – US control through puppet gov
    2. Iran – provocation in progress
    3. Iraq – conquered
    4. Venezuella – provocation in progress

    Supply routes.
    1. Afghanistan – conquered
    2. Iraq/Kuwait – done!

    Comment by JK5 — 20 Sep 2005 on 3:58 am | Link
  3. "The Foreign Secretary had made it clear that he was disappointed in what the Iranian President had said."

    Yeah, it’s always a pisser when the other guy sticks to his guns…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 20 Sep 2005 on 5:10 pm | Link
  4. "The Foreign Secretary had not said anything he had not said before and therefore to suggest otherwise was to misrepresent the case."

    In which case, the Foreign Secretary is a persistent liar. The IEAE has already cleared Iran of attempting to build nuclear weapons, but we, the US & EU still insist they are – with no evidence that they are. So either he knows something the rest of us don’t, which is unlikely, given the limitations of our intelligence penetration of the Middle East – not my words, the words of Christ knows how many "enquiries" which "cleared" Bliar of wrongdoing and instead fingered the intelligence community. And if not that, then it only leaves the imagination.

    And IF the Foreign Secretary has been consistently lying about Iran’s nuclear aspirations, this begs the question WHY has he been consistently lying about Iran’s nuclear aspirations?!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 20 Sep 2005 on 5:15 pm | Link
  5. I wouldn’t want to disagree with much of the comment here. But it’s also interesting that the North Korean business seems to have largely ignored. And I guess the North Koreans are probably slightly more volatile than many of the Middle Eastern countries……..

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 20 Sep 2005 on 7:13 pm | Link
  6. Slightly unconnected in that my comment has nothing to do with Iran and nuclear things – although it is connected indirectly with Iran, but only on the say so of the mainstream media (namely the Murdoch Times).

    I see after the Basra jailbreak the other day that we are now trying to blame Iran:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788585,00.html

    Nothing to do with the SAS running round dressed up as Arabs planting explosives who knows where, I suppose. Even less to do with the Army then breaking down the walls of the jail they were held in and in the process letting escape Christ knows how many other inmate "criminals".

    What is staggering (apart from the whole sorry incident itself!) is the Defence Secretary John Reid insisting that the Army did nothing wrong. What is even more staggering is the corruptness of the Iraqi "government" who needed no prompting to "accept the blame" on behalf of the incompetent Iraqi police who have been "infiltrated" by "insurgents".

    So not only do we illegally invade a country and install a puppet government and pretend to train a local police force, we run around dressing as locals in order to further the perception that the "insurgency" is alive and kicking. When these criminals are then caught we brazenly knock the walls of the police station down to protect the secrets of the special forces personnel in question and try to pin the blame for the whole thing on another country who has nothing to do with it!

    You’ve gotta admit, when it comes to spin, distortion and OUTRIGHT FUCKING LIES, this country, this government and the MORONS who support them are in a league all of their own. Even the bloody Yanks will have to try extra hard to top blatant lies of this calibre – and they’ve still got 9/11 to pull out of the bag…

    And finally, with this stunt fully exposed in the glare of the spotlight, would anyone care to try to convince me that the government really DIDN’T arrange 7/7?!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 21 Sep 2005 on 3:56 pm | Link
  7. I don’t think military action against Iran is ever out of the question. Depends very much on what they propose to do with their fraudulent "energy programme".

    Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 25 Sep 2005 on 7:58 pm | Link
  8. Fraudulent, like our democracy program?!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Sep 2005 on 10:57 am | Link
  9. re: Iran
    Roger – I think the reason most in the west don’t want to see Iran with nukes is because Iran still takes the view that Israel has no right to exist. At rallies in Tehran it’s not uncommon to hear people chanting for the desruction of Israel.

    For example if you were living next to Kim Jung Il on a bad hair day, would you be re-assured by the thought of an arsenal of nukes pointing in your direction.

    I think the world community should decide if a country should have nukes or not based on their track record.

    I personally think that belligerent countries with an extremist outlook should not be prermitted to acquire nuclear weapons. If we don’t put these rules in place it could get pretty dodgy down the road.

    Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 28 Sep 2005 on 8:08 am | Link
  10. "belligerent countries with an extremist outlook "

    now who might that be?

    Comment by JK5 — 29 Sep 2005 on 9:13 am | Link
  11. Aidan; how many rallies have you been to in Tehran? Do you speak Iranian?

    If the answer to both of those is in the negative then that statement ("At rallies in Tehran it’s not uncommon to hear people chanting for the desruction of Israel") carries about as much weight as the EU and USA’s assertions that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. So what if you saw a couple of documentaries that said so; I can guarantee that I’ve seen at least an equal number that said otherwise.

    And even if Iran did hold that view then how is it worse than the view the nuclear-equipped Israel already holds Palestine in?

    What we are talking about here is international hypocricy on a grand scale. Jack Straw said just yesterday that there is no chance of military intervention in Iran – which pretty much means we’re actively thinking about military action in Iran. Remember how many times we heard exactly the same things from exactly the same people before Iraq? And remember how many of those exact same things from those exact same people were outright lies? Have we learned NOTHING?! Have we already forgotten Iraqs WMD which didn’t exist?! For crying out loud, how many times does the British (and American) public need to be beaten over the head with the truth that’s in front of their faces the whole time before they start to see what’s really going on?!

    This is NOT about nuclear weapons, in exactly the same way that the invasion of Iraq was NOT about Iraq’s WMD. This is purely and simply a pretext for a future grab of Iran’s oil. Iran doesn’t have any nuclear weapons, nor is it trying to build any. The IEAE has said so on repeated occasions recently. But we in the UK, the EU and the USA still insist on insisting that they are – contrary to any evidence.

    Haven’t you noticed how every country which we and the USA has had a beef with of late is either a Muslim country or is sitting atop a lake of oil? Hadn’t the startling coincidence struck you that, surprise surprise, all of our "foes" in the "war on tewwa" are, startlingly, already sworn enemies of our great "friend" Israel? Hasn’t the dual purpose of the "war on tewwa" hit home yet?

    And if you think that no government could be so self-serving and dishonest (slap me for using such strong words!) as to embark on a long-term war of agression against the enemies of Israel and, at the same time, make themselves a mint into the bargain from all the no-bid contracts awarded in the aftermath and, into the bargain, get to control the world’s supply of oil (remember that the USA effectively controls the oil from the 1st and 3rd largest deposits in Saudi and Iraq), then you need to start sniffing some serious coffee…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 29 Sep 2005 on 10:07 am | Link
  12. Aidan -

    I fully understand why Countries who have Nuclear weapons and ‘democracy’ don’t want others to have the same capabilities.

    Your argument implies that it is OK for the USA and UK to provide Israel with arms, money, political support and a Nuclear capability but it is wrong for Iran to develop a comparable capability.

    When Israel are killing Muslim Arabs every day it is an entirely rational response to abhor that killing and seek the means of change.

    I wonder how much you know about the ‘cold war’? – consider the eventual stability that was possible once both sides realised that there is no point in fighting a war that you can’t win.

    It can be argued that once Iran has a nuclear capability to match that of Israel and sufficient to worry the UK and USA we will be at the point where stability can be considered for the Middle East.

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 29 Sep 2005 on 11:48 am | Link
  13. So an \x91unnamed official\x92 has announced that the attacks on British troops in Basra are being supported by Iran. Blair is now repeating this as if it is the truth and the press are doing the same – despite denials from Iran and no evidence being produced to support the claims.

    I seem to remember similar things happening a few years ago when unsubstantiated claims were made about a middle-eastern country just before we invaded it. When we did invade it not only turned out that the claims were untrue but also it came to light that there was no evidence for making the false claims in the first place.

    To misquote George Bush\x92s famous misquote:

    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 6 Oct 2005 on 8:59 pm | Link
  14. Yup; the advance demonisation of Iran has already started – it’s Iraq and the infamous 45-minute claim all over again.

    The saddest thing of all is that I’m 100% certain that Bliar knows the thinking people of this country KNOW he’s full of shit. He just doesn’t care – because he knows there’s nothing they can do. Blair KNOWS there’s no evidence against Iran. Equally he KNOWS that a large chunk of this country’s minds will be irrevocably made up the instant they see the correct banner headlines – and it’s that segment of society he’s aiming at here. As long as he can get the unthinking herds of sheeple on board, the people who can actually see the truth become irrelevant through sheer weight of numbers – the very same numbers that are equally irrelevant when they are stacked against the government.

    Heads he wins, tails we lose…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 7 Oct 2005 on 3:51 pm | Link
  15. <a href="http://207.44.245.159/article7933.htm">http://207.44.245.159/article7933.htm</a&gt;
    <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm</a&gt;

    At the risk of sounding slightly out of step with the many anti-Blair/Bush, anti-war, anti-Israel etc, etc, sentiments expressed in many parts of this thread, I’d just like to draw people’s attention to the above links, which I found interesting. It seems that certain members of the intellectual left media in the US feel that war with Iran is not something about which there can be open debate, that their government is simply waiting for the right moment – and the right excuse, perhaps – to begin its campaign; that in reality, the coming war is a fait accomplis.

    I felt exactly the same way months before the Iraq war, and I recall discussing this with a friend of mine who, as I was, strongly opposed to what we regarded as a wholly unjustifiable – and most certainly unjustified – aggression against a sovereign state. The conversation’s themes were much the same as I suspect the ones during the cranking-up of the media machine (which seems already to have begun), prior to the conflict, will be: the pragmatic, ‘realpolitik’, geopolitical motivations for such an invasion, which has something to do with security and Islamic terrorism, but everything to do with our future energy supply, and who controls it, and also the maintenance of the standard of living to which we seem to have become accustomed. Maybe Bush, but most certainly Blair, are not as ideologically motivated as we are led to believe, particularly by an angry left press in the UK.

    Whether or not these ‘motivations’ can be regarded as ‘justifications’ for war perhaps is up to the individual conscience. I think they absolutely cannot, and I think that Blair/Straw/Bush etc. seem to agree with me, if their mendacious attitude to the subjects (Iraq – now Iran), clandestine maneuverings and posturing and inability to discern the difference between what is ‘desirable’ and what is ‘do-able’ (which smacks of the worst kind of Kissinger-esque foreign policy amorality) is anything to go by. An odd situation, then, when these people feel it is ‘desirable’ to act, and make the measure of such action its ‘do-ability’. This daren’t utter in public, though, since it represents the worst kind of expediency (material), and they know it, not to mention the whole question of legality. Their behaviour suggests, in short, that they know what they are doing (and have done) is (was) wrong, regardless of the reasons for it.

    So the only thing I can hope now is that President Bush’s time in office runs out before the new Iranian president, who is something of an ‘unknown quantity’, provides him with a casus belli he thinks he can sell to the people that, to him, count – and that, most likely, doesn’t include me. I think this is a faint hope. Besides, with the Democrat muddle over there, and no effective Opposition here, there is no guarantee that a new administration in the US wouldn’t chart exactly the same course, albeit at a less frenetic pace. Look out Saudi.

    Comment by Jon Lishman — 11 Oct 2005 on 10:30 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...

Search


September 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Aug   Oct »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Supported by

mySociety.org

Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings


Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries

Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh