Downing Street Says

Asked why did the Prime Minister never say "it would be nuts" to invade Iran, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was indicating was to focus on the substance, rather than the process. The substance was that it was Iran that was defying the will of the UN in terms of its nuclear activity, and the President of Iran had frequently threatened the very existence of Israel, and that was where the focus should be. Equally, what the Prime Minister wanted to keep the focus on was the unanimity of the international pressure on Iran to come into compliance. In doing so, what we should not do was switch the focus from the substance of the issue to the process of trying to get Iran to comply with its international obligations. Therefore, the focus should remain on Iran’s defiance of the UN and what was not just rhetoric on the part of the Iranian President.

Put that Iran was not Iraq, and nobody was talking about a military invasion, but rather it was about the possibility of bombs or missiles being fired long range, and was the Prime Minister denying something else, the PMOS said that the journalist had ignored the one part of what the Prime Minister had said which completely contradicted the journalist’s conspiracy theory. The Prime Minister had said that the focus was on diplomacy, and it was not only the Prime Minister who had said that, but also President Bush this week. Therefore, that was where the focus was, and people could either play the process game with conspiracy theories, or deal with the reality. That reality was that there was a flagrant breach of the UN’s will by Iran, and that had to be dealt with. There was also an explicit threat by the President of Iran to the very existence of Israel and its citizens. The PMOS said that those were the issues that we had to think about. The Prime Minister had clearly underlined today that the way to deal with that was by diplomacy, so the focus should be kept there, and not on a conspiracy game.

Asked what was a conspiracy game, the PMOS replied that it was to suggest that in some way, the Prime Minister had meant something else. In fact, what he meant was what he had said, and the focus was on diplomacy.

Put that President Bush had been asked yesterday, and the Prime Minister had been asked today if all options were on the table, and people could only go from there, the PMOS said that what the Prime Minister had said today was that what he did not, any more than he presumed President Bush wanted to do, was give a signal of weakness to the Iranian regime. What the Prime Minister did want to do was to keep the focus on the international demand for Iran to comply with its international obligations, i.e. to stop defying the UN by enriching uranium, which the UN said Iran should not do.

Put that it seemed that there was now potentially a more serious threat, as much of the same language had been used about Iraq, as people thought that they knew that Iran was enriching uranium, and therefore, people were naturally wondering why the Prime Minister did not say that under no circumstances would there be any military action taken against Iran, the PMOS said that firstly, it was not "that we thought that we knew that Iran had enriched uranium", as Iran had said that it had enriched uranium. This was not a story about us, but rather, it was about Iran and what it had done. Secondly, the Prime Minister had said explicitly, as had the White House, that Iran was not Iraq, and they were different cases. In terms of today, the Prime Minister had said explicitly that the route we were going down was diplomacy; there was an issue that we had to deal with.

Put that there was "not a cat in hell’s chance" that the Prime Minister would win support in this country or even Europe for anything other than diplomatic action against Iran, the PMOS replied that the reality was the Prime Minister had said today that diplomacy was what we were dealing with. Equally, there was a real issue which did have to be dealt with, which was: did we want a country whose President had frequently said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have nuclear weapons? The PMOS said people should focus on the substance of the issue, and not the process.

Put that realistically, it would be hard to imagine anyone in Whitehall or in the Labour Party thought that Iran was going to listen to the diplomatic pressure, the PMOS pointed out that the journalist’s comparison with Iraq fell down because France and Germany, along with ourselves as part of the E3, had been united in our position of saying that Iran had to comply. Also, Russia and China were in a different place, and we had had a Presidential statement from the UN. Therefore, the demand of the international community was clear, and the question was: would Iran comply or not? The Prime Minister was determined that the international community’s voice should be heard loud and clear, and that we should not divert into a processology game.

Asked if there were any plans to meet with members of the Iranian regime, the PMOS replied that the story about that at the weekend was wrong. We had normal diplomatic links with Iran.

Asked if there were any plans to publish a dossier on Iran, the PMOS said there were none that he was aware of.

2 Comments »

Why do Bush and Blair think that Iran is going to take a blind bit of notice?

Iran is a separate Nation and as such has as much right as anyone else to develop whatever nuclear fuels / weapons that it chooses.

Posturing around and pretending that they have some God given right to tell others what to do just re-enforces the image of a stupid president and his lap dog.

If the pair of them want to start a real and meaningful discussion then destroying the Israeli Reactors and nuclear weapons would be a good starting point. Then discussions can be conducted on a level, mid eastern, playing field.

Whilst Israel has ‘illegal’ [UN resolutions] nuclear capabilities Iran needs to continue its own developments towards a level playing field.

<a href="http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r121.htm">http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r121.htm</a>

Getting Israel to comply with any UN resolution would help

<a href="http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html">http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html</a>

Whatever happened to the American concept of negotiating for a "win, win" result?
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 20 Apr 2006 on 6:08 pm | Link
I’d like to see Bush and Blair take on all the various other countries who have, or are attempting to acquire or make nukes. There’s a fair chance that we’d be fighting on about a dozen different fronts then.

On the other hand, North Korea does not seem to export much oil does it? So perhaps this is all about securing energy supplies, eh?

Not that it’s a bad thing to want to do, but could we be a little more up front with our positions? Or is Al Quaida linked to Iran as well? Maybe the Iranians masterminded 9/11. How stupid does Blair and his acolytes think we all are?

This is deep and unremitting bullshit from Her Majesty’s Government.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 20 Apr 2006 on 8:55 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.

» Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Iran

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries