Downing Street Says

Put to the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) that the Prime Minister had said that he would be consulting allies regarding Iran, and was there anything further to be added, the PMOS said that first of all, we regarded Kofi Annan’s statement as very useful in this regard. The PMOS said it was a mistake to see this as the UK versus Iran; it was simply not like that. The EU statement yesterday was completely unanimous and it was a very strong statement from the EU. That was backed up by comments from President Chirac, amongst others, at Hampton Court, and we then had the Kofi Annan statement. There were ongoing discussions at the UN about what the next step should be, so what was important was that we allowed those discussions to take place, before taking a lead from there. The PMOS said that the world community had said that the comments were unacceptable.

Asked if we were looking for Iran to be expelled from the UN, the PMOS replied that it was important for the UN to collectively state its view as to what should happen next. Kofi Annan had said that he was going to Iran in the next few weeks, but as Kofi Annan said yesterday, it was incompatible for a member of the UN under the UN Charter to call for another country who was a member of the UN to be wiped out.

Asked if there would be scope for this to be brought up at the Security Council, the PMOS said it depended on what the collective view was at the UN. The PMOS said it might be discussed at some point at the Security Council, but it was really a matter for the UN.

Asked if there was any scope for the UK and their allies to consider any action against Iran, the PMOS said he thought the journalist was trying to take him down a hypothetical route, but he was not going to go there! What the Prime Minister had said yesterday was the danger that Iran thought that the rest of the world was diverted in some way to what it was doing, and therefore would make the wrong decisions, based on that view. As the Prime Minister said last night, the rest of the world was not diverted, and the response of other world leaders and the UN had underlined that point. The discussions that had taken place at the UN illustrated that point very well. The PMOS said we were already in discussions with partners about Iran’s nuclear obligations, and there was already a process underway which would continue. These latest comments would be discussed.

Asked if this had been discussed with Washington over the past twenty four hours, the PMOS stressed that this should not be seen as simply a matter of the UK or the UK and US versus Iran, and it was wrong to characterise it as such. The PMOS said, however, that we had been in active touch with all our allies at the UN, and certainly, we had had no experience of people not being focused on this issue.

Asked if the Prime Minister was likely to discuss this matter over the weekend with President Bush, the PMOS replied that as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, he had been focused on the problems surrounding Iran, not just in terms of the recent comments, but overall for some time. The issue had been one part of continuing conversations with the US for some time, but also with others as well. The PMOS reminded people that the E3 was active as well, so this had been a matter of continued conversation with a range of allies for a while, and that continued to be the case. The PMOS said he was not aware of any plans for a specific conversation with the President over the weekend, but people knew where everyone was on the issue.

Asked again if the Prime Minister was going to be in touch with the allied countries over the next few days, the PMOS replied that last night, there had already active discussions at the UN about this issue, and those discussions would continue today. The PMOS reminded people again that Kofi Annan had said that he would visit Iran in the next few weeks. This was not an issue that would come to a head in a day or so; rather it was something that would take time and patience. What Iran should not have any doubt about, however, was the issue would be addressed because people were very concerned.

Asked if we thought it was a concession too far to say that the use of force was "inconceivable", the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had said last night, the question that people used to be asking whether we were going to jump to an immediate response. The question now was, are we going to do something about it, and the answer was: yes. The UN was in place to address that today, and that was what we were going to do.

Asked if military action did ever happen, would it be through the UN, or would it be a unilateral decision, the PMOS said it was better to concentrate on today and the coming weeks. That needed diplomacy. Kofi Annan had said he was going to Iran, and that was very important. Therefore, what we should do was let that process unwind, and wait and see what came out of the UN later today.

13 Comments »

Given what the Iranians have said about Israel it is difficult to see how the Israelis could not see a first strike as being their only option if the Ayatollahs go atomic. Given this logic, the Iranians might well want to try and strike first.

Oh dear.

No worry though, Blair and his psy-ops have been talking up a war for months (Shaped charges against our boys being just the latest turn of the screw)and may yet drive the Iranians to attack the Brits directly in Basra to give him the excuse to start it first.

It is very hard to see the strategic value of nukes to Iran. If a terorist nuke goes off anywhere in the USA in the future the Yanks will surely retaliate against Iran and possibly North Korea. A handful of nukes in Iran can never provide a MAD deterrent against the USA.

One way or another, given the uncertainties, the Iranians – Insanians – seem to be moving towards a policy of Self Assued Destruction – SAD.

Blair would do well to keep our noses out of it.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 28 Oct 2005 on 2:33 pm | Link
Given what the Iranians have said about Israel it is difficult to see how the Israelis could not see a first strike as being their only option if the Ayatollahs go atomic. Given this logic, the Iranians might well want to try and strike first.

Oh dear.

No worry though, Blair and his psy-ops have been talking up a war for months (Shaped charges against our boys being just the latest turn of the screw)and may yet drive the Iranians to attack the Brits directly in Basra to give him the excuse to start it first.

It is very hard to see the strategic value of nukes to Iran. If a terorrist nuke goes off anywhere in the USA in the future the Yanks will surely retaliate against Iran and possibly North Korea. A handful of nukes in Iran can never provide a MAD deterrent against the USA.

One way or another, given the uncertainties, the Iranians – Insanians – seem to be moving towards a policy of Self Assued Destruction – SAD.

Blair would do well to keep our noses out of it.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 28 Oct 2005 on 2:43 pm | Link
I can’t see why people are so ‘shocked’ by the Iranian views. There’s nothing new here. It’s always been the position, admittedly not always so bluntly and publicly stated. Nobody in their right minds would pay the slightest attention to anything that Chirac utters. He’s a complete charlatan.

Much as he might wish, Blair cannot commit to an invasion of Iran as we simply do not have the manpower. The option of a first nuclear strike by the USA is not available either. Otherwise they’re going to have to roast the North Koreans at the same time. That may or may not bring the Chinese in, depending on the prevailing wind direction at the time. Sanctions are not going to be effective, given the global reliance on Iranian resources and general EU duplicity. So this is just a diversionary diplomatic stand off, the usual smoke and mirrors.

Why do these people think that their dearly held ‘beliefs’ are shared by others? The imposition of ‘democracy’ in Iraq is at best superficial, and there’s no reason to think that the Iranians are any different. As but one local instance, democracy has all but failed in Northern Ireland.

If Blair is genuinely trying to make global changes he’d be advised to get away from the toadies and general freeloaders within his sycophantic entourage and talk to the average geezer in Tehran High Street. Then he might just possibly understand some of the causes of the huge resentment toward the West in general and the USA and UK in particular.

And we’re all safer as a result of the Iraq adventure?
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 28 Oct 2005 on 3:28 pm | Link
All I have to say is…

http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm

:o>
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 28 Oct 2005 on 8:16 pm | Link
apologies for spellings!
Comment by Mr Pooter — 28 Oct 2005 on 9:30 pm | Link
Papa – Indeed, the world is short of many things but is not intolerance.

I was making 2 points: that Blair seems hell bent on getting the Yanks into a confrontation – remember Serbia and the way he leaned on Cliton? – and secondly, that the nuclear balance of disaster – MAD – and the generally understood strategies which flow from nuclear weapons, do not apply in the Insanian case. This latter point being the more interesting to me. A while back it was, for instance, reported that the Yanks had supplied the Israelis with 500 bunker buster bombs… It seems that Bush, Blair and Sharon would each like to do the busines (mass killing of non-believer, believers to end the medievalist theocracy) but each one wants to goad the other into starting it.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 29 Oct 2005 on 1:43 pm | Link
WHOOPS – Papa – Indeed, the world is short of many things but (delete:is) not intolerance.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 29 Oct 2005 on 1:45 pm | Link
Surely American posturing prior to the Iranian Presidential election delivered the presidency to Mr Ahmadinejad, therefore the Americans, as usual, have only themselves to blame for the current situation.
Comment by Colonel Mad — 30 Oct 2005 on 12:42 am | Link
Indeed; consider also that the historical enmity between Russia and China has been put to one side for the moment, again because of the actions of the USA in Central Asia. If sucessful at nothing else, Dubya has been a revelation at getting historical enemies to gang up against him! While the alliance between Russia and China is unlikely to be a long-lasting one, their combined muscle should be more than enough to deter any kind of land offensive against Iran by the USA; I say "should" because I’d put nothing past the Smirking Chimp, including starting a war he can’t finish (or has no intention of finishing).

Couldn’t you just SMELL the glee in the air though when Mr. Ahmadinejad opened his mouth?!

"YES!!! The perfect excuse!!! We could almost drop the lies about their nuclear plans…"

Tony got so excited he had to change his pants, the poor love…

Something else to consider though. Whilst we know this insanity will continue as long as we have a (frankly laughable) "War President" incumbent in the White House, I think we tend to overlook the fact that the Russians are consummate geopolitical operators too. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks were deliberate; calculated to gauge response, perhaps, now that International eyes are concentrating a little more closely on Syria.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 Oct 2005 on 8:49 am | Link
Blair see’s himself, along with Bush as a modern day missionary. Although this time it’s not just Christianity they are preaching about but their own form of Democracy. They need to shut up and live with the fact that we’re not all the same. When people want change they’ll change – in their own time!
Comment by Mr B — 30 Oct 2005 on 10:23 am | Link
When the nukes go off you need to be a long way from China.

I suspect that the 5:1 rule still applies – that is, for every 1 nuke that we target at our enemy we send 5 to China. This is because the analysts worked out early in the Cold War that the only winner in a nuclear conflict is China – their huge population would have many more survivors than the main protagonists.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 31 Oct 2005 on 6:45 pm | Link
That’s assuming there’d be ANY survivors…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 31 Oct 2005 on 7:05 pm | Link
We all tend to assume that a nuclear war would engulf the whole planet. Almost certainly at the height of the Cold War this would have been true, but I wonder if things may have changed over the last decade.

The proliferation of the technology and actual availability of completed systems has led to several smaller states (Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and now Iran etc etc) having such weaponry.

The question therefore is: Do these states view usage of such lethality in the same way as the original ‘big powers’? If we assume that is unlikely, then the probability of ‘limited’ nuclear war increases.

Further, my guess is that Mutually Assured Destruction is less of a consideration for those who aspire to ‘martyrdom’, than it might be for those in the West. It’s also less likely that the major powers would step into a ‘local’ nuclear war – recognising the potential for further escalation.

On that basis, if (for example) the Israelis decided to nuke Tehran or Baghdad there would be widespread condemnation but little escalation. And the world would have had a graphic demonstration of a) what such a bomb does and b) how utterly impotent the UN actually is.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 1 Nov 2005 on 12:49 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(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.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Friday, October 28, 2005

Iran

13 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries