» Friday, January 13, 2006Iran
Asked what sort of measures against Iran Britain would be pushing for at the UN Security Council, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that first and foremost we should reflect on what had actually taken place. We had been arguing for a referral to the UN for some time now. It was significant that others were joining us now in supporting that. However at this stage he did not think it was right to jump the fences to early and say what the outcome of a referral should be, before we actually we actually got that referral. As he had said yesterday, the important thing at this stage was that the voice of the international community should be loud and clear. The good news out of Berlin yesterday was that that voice had been loud and clear and the message to Iran was simple. The message was that what it was doing was not acceptable and would not be accepted. That was where we were and we should not get ahead of that. Put to him that Iran had said that they would cease to allow snap UN inspections if there was a referral to the security council, the PMOS said that we should be in no doubt that Iran was not obeying its obligations. Iran may be defiant about that but that was the reality. What we had to face and what the Prime Minister had been saying, to go back no further than the Hampton Court press conference, was that we had to face the reality of that defiance. For their part Iran would have to face the reality of censure by the international community. Of course no one expected Iran to change its mind overnight, but Iran would have to face the reality that international community not only took a dim view, but was prepared to act on what Iran was doing. That was the process we were engaged in. Briefing took place at 15:00 | Search for related news 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. |
The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...
Search
Supported byRecent Briefings
Archives
LinksSyndicate (RSS/XML)CreditsEnquiriesContact Sam Smith. |
If iran was seriously peaceful, would they be participating in this brinksmanship? Or are they building up to a trade off I can’t foresee?
Comment by Jim Taylor — 14 Jan 2006 on 4:44 am | LinkWell put it this way; after the Iraq shambles do you really think we still have the moral authority to tell Iran anything? Of course we don’t. Couple that with the fact that the IAEA (the UN’s own watchdog) found nothing wrong in Iran. Ask yourself this, if you have the guts to question your own memory; don’t you remember seeing the same game unfold before Iraq?
The only really "significant thing" here is the outright and blatant lies being told once again on a grand scale by the same people who brought us "Iraq’s WMDs". And any of you ignoramuses among the British electorate who think that giving Iran a black eye would be a good idea need to seriously educate yourselves about what is really going on in the world, because otherwise your ignorance this time around will ensure we don’t have a fucking world.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 14 Jan 2006 on 4:27 pm | LinkWhat about all the other countries who may be building nuclear weapons? What has the PMOS got to say about them?
The IAEA reported that it had not found WMDs in Iraq prior to the present ‘adventure’ by the Bush/Blair combo, that did not stop them from launching into a catastrophic shambles of an invasion.
They won’t invade Iran now or for the forseable future as it’s not in their political interests. But if Haliburton or the Carlyle Group think it’s a good wheeze they’ll be dusting down the campaign plans and street maps for Tehran right away. Meanwhile the ‘intelligence’ services will be told to urgently find a reasonable excuse for all out war. After all, this is about oil – much more important than all that old moody about ‘democracy’ and ‘regional stability’.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 14 Jan 2006 on 9:09 pm | Link