Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran (Barf Alert)
Scotsman.com ^ | Sun 15 Jan 2006 | IAN MATHER

Posted on 01/14/2006 7:22:28 PM PST by indcons

WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power.

Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

"If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table".

But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; irannukes; middleeast; proliferation; surrender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: indcons

On cable TV the other night: The Heroes, an incredible, mindboggling account of three special ops officers, army and airmen, whose actions at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan made all the difference. Three men leading a handful of troops, and pin point accurate bombing from F-15's. Who says we haven't already 'painted' Iran's nuclear sites? We know special ops guys went into Iran long ago, and they haven't been sitting on their hands.


41 posted on 01/15/2006 7:00:35 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
The US is the only country that could take military action.

Apparantly, Israel doesn't rate.

But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq

(Quagmire)

and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

Yep, it's all one big Peter Pan adventure...

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq.

True, for Scotland...

It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

Not if they're all glowing in the dark...(another anonymous foreign office diplomat speaks out!)

42 posted on 01/15/2006 7:44:06 AM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Essentially, this article says that we can do nothing, so we must accept a Nuclear Iran. Somehow this is supposed to resolve itself into some sort of mini-cold war balance or equilibrium. But, that only works with sane leaders. All bets are off regarding this bunch. We will find out the hard way, that acquiescence to the Iranian hardline is not the avoidance of a nuclear crisis, it is the guarantee of it.
43 posted on 01/15/2006 10:31:01 AM PST by Richard Axtell (We are approaching the Abyss, let's not let them steer us over the edge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

"Apparantly, Israel doesn't rate."

nothing i have read indicated that the portion of the IAF that can reach Iran is adequate to hit all or most of the various 'identified' targets.


44 posted on 01/15/2006 12:43:53 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123
nothing i have read indicated that the portion of the IAF that can reach Iran is adequate to hit all or most of the various 'identified' targets.

Depends on what you read....and who you want to believe.

45 posted on 01/15/2006 12:47:53 PM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: indcons
I believe the author, Ian, has been corressponding with Andrea Greenspan... and possibly, Chris Matthews. Both these buffoons essentially alluded to the same thing Friday night.

Pure, 5th column disinformation... spewed to keep the sheeple fat & stupid... so that they panic when the balloon goes up.

46 posted on 01/15/2006 12:55:52 PM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson