Posted on 04/16/2006 6:03:17 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.
But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."
Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.
The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.
"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."
While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.
The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.
"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."
However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.
In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."
Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.
"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.
Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.
Maybe Blair and the Iranians will meet in Munich.
Reasons, like starting World War III?
If Blair won't go, do it without him. I believe that's known as the "Bush doctrine".
Frankly, the nukes could hit Europe. Let them deal with it.
They are already far along dhimmi status anyway.
Israel is our only true friend when it comes to Iran. And a good enough friend for taking out their nuke facilities when the time comes.
And it's a good doctrine - exactly what Bush said when he spoke of coalitions changing according to the need. We're not going to get locked into static coalitions the enemy can run circles around.
While this would be somewhat "I told you so" satisfying, permitting nukes to land in Europe cedes the entire continent to the Islamofacists.
Bush doctrine, yeah right,
Invade Iraq then stand around with his finger up his butt while Mexico invades us.
so Israel and the UK are not on board?
Then the Islamofacists and world socialist politicians will join together in attacking the USA.
Happy Easter.
Britain is doing just fine in Iraq and Afghan. They just don't have the resources to go much farther. OTOH, we still have guys in Germany that are only hunting Bambi. And in a few other places. Australia has a crack military team. Russia is getting mad at Iran- they got slapped in the face. The OSI has been working with Spetnatz teams in a few 'stans for years. China doesn't like this scene in Iran either, they have their own unruly Muslims to deal with in their western provinces. If the US, Russia and China join and tell Iran there is no step further for them, war will be prevented.
I hear the ghost of Chamberlain stirring and the ghost of Churchill spinning in his grave.
Good enough. But we'll use B-2s this time instead of F-111s.
The 'cold feet' on Blair's part is obviously explained by battering he (like the President) has taken politically by the appeasement lobby in both countries on the Iraq issue. Blair's cold feet does NOT speak well for the world standing up to nut-case, militant Islamofacsism in the future! This does NOT bode well.
I can only ask you all for patience. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO PREPARE A WAR AGAINST IRAN YET!
This is STILL the time to negotiate, debate and prepare a mood of support for an armed conflict against Hitler´s grandson. I completely trust our leaders, namely Blair, Bush, Merkel and Chirac that they are not going to sell out our security. They will act when it´s necessary.
But first, let´s go out and tell our friends and neighbours, our parents and children, that Iran is led by a mad man who would do anything to wipe Israel from earth. A man, who would rather die and "end up in paradise with x virgins" than allow Christians or Jews their ways of life. Let´s prepare a feeling of readiness, so that our leaders will not be stopped by a public pacifist opinion when actions should be undertaken.
So please stop talking about a coming war now. Iran will be stopped, I´m sure. Just let´s go step by step!
I would appreciate a German contribution if it comes to an armed conflict NATO vs. Iran. I just hope that this time, NATO will act as one on Iran - unlike Iraq, the necessity of stopping Iran with all our might should not be put in doubts by the media and Left.
(Britain probably is, too... maybe 88%)
I don't. I can't, and neither can you. Nobody is perfect, and nobody can know exactly when is the "right time". (Just before Iran develops the ability to mass produce nukes? Just before Iran can sell secrets to al Qeada? Just before the missile hit Tel Aviv?) Let's just pray that the "when it's necessary" label doesn't cost another several thousand lives (if not millions).
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.