UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension

Daily Mail [UK] ^ | 11/3/11 | Ian Drury

[Evil Slayer]

The UK and U.S. are drawing up plans to attack Iran amid growing tensions in the Middle East, it was claimed last night.

Barack Obama and David Cameron are preparing for war after reports that Iran now has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hardline regime in Tehran has been linked to three assassination plots on foreign soil, according to senior officials in Whitehall.

Iran has come sharply back into focus following the end of the Libya conflict. And the unrest has been inflamed by sabre-rattling from top politicians in Israel.

President Obama said Iran's nuclear programme continues to pose a threat and that he and French president Nicolas Sarkozy want the international community to maintain pressure on the country to admit its intentions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is preparing to reveal intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear arms experiments.

Iran has consistently denied that it is trying to build nuclear weapons and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes.

The U.S., Britain and France want the IAEA to share its intelligence, but Russia and China are pressing for the report to be delayed or scrapped entirely. Yesterday it was revealed that Tel Aviv had successfully test-fired a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead which could strike Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are reportedly agitating for a pre-emptive attack against the Islamic state. The UK would be likely to agree to any U.S. decision to invade, even though the Ministry of Defence are stretched to breaking point by swingeing budget cuts and wars in Afghanistan and Libya.

An MoD spokesman said: ‘The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid

[Wuli]

“We came close to war with the Soviets on numerous occasions, the most famous of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

Yes, “Close”; as I acknowledged, we had many such moments, yet we did not make a preemptive strike, not even on Cuba.

“OIL. Notice what flows out of the Persian Gulf. And see above.”

Middle East oil diminishes in importance to the U.S., as every year goes by. In not so many years we may not be in need of Middle East oil for U.S. use at all.

“And when an Al Qaeda like group takes over Saudi Arabia from the corrupt fundamentalists, using the same excuse that the Saudi clan did to overthrow the Hashemites? When instability allows a faction of a government to hand nukes over to one of 2 dozen terrorist groups, what then?”

When and if such what-ifs actually happen - all speculative, then we will, with confidence, have a different posture in terms of “Middle East security issues” than we do today. We cannot act today as if your speculations have already happened.

“I’m not talking technology.”

But it is with technology that we have matured at tracking proliferation of nuclear material and the proliferation of the technology to use it (and even know where it came from). The fact is that even as mature as we have become today (and we have interdicted “dirty bombs” already), and as much as we will continue to improve in this area, the scenario you portend does not need a nuclear-armed Iran to be a reality; it is in fact feasible today. Knowing that fact we may even be ready to interdict an “Iranian hand-off”. However, Iran or no Iran, we will never be perfect at it 100% of the time and some nut only has to be perfect in it once, to make a statement. But, making war against Iran on no more than our speculations of a lot of maybes can never be American policy.

For Israel, the case is different. The Iranian leaders have pledged to rid the map of Israel and Iran is already fighting Israel, by proxy via Hezbollah and Hamas. Should Israel see the Iranian nuke developments and your speculations as “proof” of an “immanent” crisis, SHE may feel obligated to act. If she does, I would support her and I would hope so to would our government. Meanwhile, my position is we should keep our powder dry.