[size=18]MoD denies Iran military meeting[/size]Reports that military officers will meet government officials on Monday to discuss possible military action against Iran have been denied.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said there was no truth whatsoever in the claims, made in the Sunday Telegraph.
He said: "No such meeting between defence, foreign office and other officials is taking place."
But BBC Defence Correspondent Paul Wood said US plans for a possible strike are thought to be at an advanced stage.
He pointed out that many defence analysts expected that British military officials would have a wide range of contingency plans available including one for a possible US air strike on Iran.
"There is no sense that such a strike is imminent however there is well sourced and persistent speculation that American covert activities aimed at Iran are already underway," he said.
The Sunday Telegraph said: "A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran."
It stated that senior military officials would attend the meeting, along with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.
But, in addition to denying that there would be any such meeting, the MoD said: "There will be no briefing of the prime minister and the Cabinet office in this regard, nor are there any plans for such a briefing."
[b]'Strong signal'[/b]
Last week the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment or face isolation.
According to the newspaper report, "an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is 'inevitable' if Tehran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands".
Tehran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful and has rejected the council's demand.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the meeting in Berlin sent "a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united".
And UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the council might pass a legally-binding resolution if Iran did not comply, leaving a possibility of sanctions.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4869094.stm]BBC News[/url]
War on Iran?
Published by You on 2 April, 2006 - 02:13
I still don't think there will be a formal war with Iran.
Although the general political stability (if you can call it that) of the middle east is rapidly coming to a close. With Hamas and Iran's antics I seriously doubt terrorism will go by the way-side, peace with Israel is no longer a possibility and a breakdown in order looks iminent.
yup. general chaos and anarchy seems to be the order of the day.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
With the US army so overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently unable to subdue the resistance, it makes it virtually impossible for them to attack Iran with any chance of success.
Emboldened by this, Iran is unlikely to bow to US and Israeli threats. Bush and his sinister minions seem to have run out of options when confronting the Persians.
or... maybe Bush will decide to leave Iraq.... and position his troops across the border in Iran?
It does sound unlikely though
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
That's what he was warned about when he went into Iraq. It's possible to still fight a limited war, bombings and the like. However they would either invade Iraq or send suicide bombers en masse to destablize the situation.
I suspect if we want a war, we'll have to go the coalition route with Europe.
So all Iran must do is give a couple of high value long term oil contracts to european countries?
there is light at the end of the tunnel then!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I find that very doubtful. Especially right now when we're trying to "Iraqify" the war.
Actually it seems that there are very strong signals that infact there are plans to invade Iran as well. The war in iraq is still not formal either, its just been going on for about five years now. The president had planned to invade Iraq two years before 9/11 occur, for political gains. Here's a little bit of an article about Bush's thinking on war:
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”
Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.”
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
Source: 9 Jan. 2005 .
Its like all Bush needs is an excuse, we he finds that excuse to go into Iran , he'll use it as justification for his actions.
[b]No more pussyfooting around Iran[/b]
Telegraph - 2 April 2006
Three years on, we are still unable to look at foreign policy except through the lens of the Iraq war. This is especially true when it comes to Iran, whose alphabetical and geographical proximity to Iraq makes for facile comparisons.
In particular, it is argued that deploying force against Teheran would bring about the same unhappy consequences as the toppling of Saddam: it would lead to more instability; it would inflame Muslim opinion throughout the world, including in Western cities; it would violate international law; and it would worsen the lives of ordinary Iranians.
Once again, the motives of those calling for direct action are called into question. Just as we were forever being told that the West had sold weapons to Ba'athist Iraq, so we are now being reminded that it was British and American agents who overthrew Iranian democracy in the first place, back in 1953. This last argument is very silly: the fact that we made mistakes in the past is not a reason to make more mistakes in the future. But the other objections are serious ones, and deserve to be considered separately.
Take, first, the argument that a military strike would destabilise the country. This is true: the mullahs are currently very stable indeed, having concocted a system that prevents Iranians from voting for anyone who dislikes them.
But this domestic stability is bought with international aggression. Not only is Iran arming paramilitary groups in neighbouring states, it has been implicated in terrorist actions as far afield as London and Buenos Aires. To borrow a metaphor from Lenin, Iran is exporting its internal contradictions.
As for Iran becoming a cause célèbre for Muslims in other countries, this is based on a misunderstanding. Iraq was a largely Arab country and, as such, part of a community that stretched as far as Morocco and was united not only by historical and linguistic ties but by a nexus of shared news media.
The Persians, by contrast, have been periodically at war with their Arab neighbours since the time of the Great Kings. More importantly, Iranians are Shia, which sets them apart from the orthodox Sunni teachings that attract some 90 per cent of the world's Muslims. To this day, the million-odd Sunnis who live in Teheran are not allowed their own mosque - unlike their co-religionists in, say, London or Washington.
Nor are Sunnis the only minority with a grievance. The ayatollahs have engaged in human rights violations every bit as gruesome as Saddam's, including the show-trials of Jews and, in one recent case, the execution of a teenage girl on adultery charges.
But what, you might ask, has any of this to do with us? The answer is that Iran's nuclear ambitions go well beyond the regional. Two years ago, the mullahs deployed Shahhab-3 ballistic missiles, with a range of 800 miles. Last October, this newspaper revealed that Teheran was receiving clandestine shipments of missile technology from North Korea. The best estimate is that Iran will have the bomb by 2008.
This is not some symbolic goal: the ayatollahs are building nuclear weapons because they want to use them. President Ahmadinejad has called for the annihilation of Israel. His adviser, Mohammad Ali Ramin, wants to export military technology to the 150 countries that he believes would back Iran against the West. Another adviser, Hassan Abbasi, has - in addition to calling Britain the "mother of all evil" - observed that, once George Bush leaves office, the West will return to its traditional quiescence.
He is probably right: for the past decade, the EU has pursued a policy of "constructive engagement" with Iran. In what must stand as his single greatest failure, Jack Straw has repeatedly visited -Teheran, hoping naively to coax the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions.
As for the charge that it's all about oil, let us not be shy of saying that it is in no one's interests for a large chunk of the world's oil supplies to be in the hands of hostile fanatics.
What, then, should we do? There is, after all, a danger that military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities might boost support for Ahmadinejad - indeed, some Iranian dissidents believe that his wild rhetoric is designed to provoke precisely such an attack. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear programme was wiped out with a single raid in 1981, Iran is attempting the more complex procedure of centrifuge separation of uranium hexafluoride gas in installations spread throughout the country.
A direct strike might be a necessary last resort. But our earlier objective should be to support the opposition groups. The enemies of the ayatollahs are divided: some are monarchists, some communists, some representatives of Iran's national minorities. Some are in exile, some in Iranian campuses. Around 40,000 are trained soldiers based in Iraq, where they have been disarmed by the Americans. But, together, these groups speak for perhaps 85 per cent of the population. They hold the key to replacing this wicked regime.
[b]The experts' analysis[/b]
Prof Paul Rogers, the author of the Oxford Research Group's report on Iran:
"There is a real probability of military conflict. The immediate consequence could do serious damage to Iran's nuclear programme, but that would be deceptive. The Americans do not have the troops for a regime change and an attack would strengthen the Iranian regime, spark another oil crisis and could encourage the Iranians to go hell for leather for nuclear weapons."
Dr Rosemary Hollis, the research director at the Chatham House think-tank:
"There is so much opposition that I don't see an attack as imminent."
Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board from 2001 to 2003:
"Whether Iran's nuclear weapons programme ends with a whimper or a bang is up to the Iranians. If the UN does its job, by blocking Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, it may be possible to avoid a more kinetic solution."
Dr Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector in Iraq:
"The rhetoric is disproportionate to the capability that Iran has."
Alex Vatanka, the US security editor for Jane's Information Group:
"The situation is not urgent."
Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran:
"I do not agree with foreign military intervention. However, if the international community and the Security Council hesitate in adopting a firm policy on Iran, the regime would obtain the only thing it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, namely time. Then we would be facing an Islamic fundamentalist regime, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, armed with nuclear weapons. This would make war inevitable."
[b]Government in secret talks about strike against Iran[/b]
The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.
A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.
Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.
The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.
The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.
But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options - including the use of force - remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.
Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran's air defence systems at the nuclear installations.
That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.
It is understood that any direct British involvement in an attack would be limited but may extend to the use of the RAF's highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.
At the centre of the crisis is Washington's fear that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region, such as the American air base at Incirlik in Turkey.
The UN also believes that the production of a bomb could also lead to further destabilisation in the Middle East, which would result in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia all developing nuclear weapons programmes.
A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.
"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.
There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.
"Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked."
The source said that the Israeli attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 proved that a limited operation was the best military option.
The Israeli air force launched raids against the plant, which intelligence suggested was being used to develop a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.
Military chiefs also plan tomorrow to discuss fears that an attack within Iran will "unhinge" southern Iraq - where British troops are based - an area mainly populated by Shia Muslims who have strong political and religious links to Iran.
They are concerned that this could delay any withdrawal of troops this year or next. There could also be consequences for British and US troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.
The MoD meeting will address the economic issues that could arise if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president - who became the subject of international condemnation last year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - cuts off oil supplies to the West in reprisal.
There are thought to be at least eight known sites within Iran involved in the production of nuclear materials, although it is generally accepted that there are many more secret installations.
Iran has successfully tested a Fajr-3 missile that can reach Israel, avoiding radar and hitting several targets using multiple warheads, its military has confirmed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/02/dl...
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4869094.stm]BBC: Iran War[/url]
-
Just after Condy's visit to good blighty, The uk Defence secretary wants the geneva convention to be redrawn to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions and [b]make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.[/b]
All I can see in this is a view to make war easier to justify. If the defence chief starts sabre-rattling, I am of the opinion that conflict may be likely. Especially since the euro countries do not hold as much of anti-war stance on this issue as in the case of Iraq, making a coalition possible.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
From another topic, that I deleted as it was setup on exactly the same topic:
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Diplomatic solution USA is offering : Ahmednajad must step down, then hand himself over to the US government, to be tried in a US court for Holocaust Denial (although its prolly not a law in US, but for this case they'll pass a law). And then, a puppet must take control over Iran
The Booky's are taking in bets, higest odds on war to begin before end of May. Bush's people say, they wanna start war during the world cup, so people can watch the news updates during the Half time breaks. (I should be a PR)
On a more Serious note, when does Bush's term in office end?
_____________- -SupeRazor- -_______________
Some ppl make their goals the stars.
They may live n die n never reach the stars,
but in the darkness of the night, those stars will guide them to their destination.
Becuz they made them in their eyesight
i think about 2 years more
and then he cant run again thank god
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
I say xmas blockbuster. Its be massive, and explode onto the scene...
..afterall you don't wanna burn up in the tank in the summer heat...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
So that's a non-denial denial?
no-basis does not mean there will eb no attack. Especially if we look at past precedence. There was no basis to attack Iraq. Apart from the fabricated one. and 9 months before Bliar himself distanced himself from a possible war...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Bush is backing off from war with Iran.
He was pelted by his own people; and also, the Iranians
told him to stop playing mind tricks. Mullahs are not scared. [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran]AP[/url]
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060409/ts_alt_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_06...
[color=blue][b]Iran Hits Milestone in Nuclear Technology [/b][/color]
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday. He insisted, however, that his country does not aim to develop nuclear weapons.
In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.
"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.
"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected the demand, saying it has a right to develop the process. The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is due in Iran this week for talks to try to resolve the standoff.
The White House denounced the latest comments from Iranian officials, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction."
Ahmadinejad said Iran "relies on the sublime beliefs that lie within the Iranian and Islamic culture. Our nation does not get its strength from nuclear arsenals."
He said Iran wanted to operate its nuclear program under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency and within its rights and regulations under the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Sources: [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_13;_ylt=... !News![/url]
You can't escape from DEATH. So be prepared
We are now in the final sprint.
The reace is on.
The only way to stop war IMO is if Iran succeeds indeveloping nukes before it is attacked.
Otherwise there will either be a 'popular coup' that is not supported by the people, or some sort of strike with possible escalation into full scale war.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
ahmedinejad is a nutcase.
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I do not think any Iranian leader would have done diferently here...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
Bush gave Iran 30 days to stop enriching uranium.
Within 15 days Iran slapped Bush across the face.
Thats how it looks on the streets.
Omrow
I was kind of suspicious when Iran was testing those missiles about few weeks ago. I had a feeling that they already had uranium. When asked to halt their program within 30 Iran cleverly intived itself to the club. Now the question is who has the power in the Middle East? Isreal or Iran. It was obivious that Iraq was threat to Isreal and was taken of the map now let us see what they going to do to Iran. Like the McDonalds commercial "I'M LOVING IT" Let us see if there is going to be another regime change.
You can't escape from DEATH. So be prepared
they have managed to get 3% enriched uranium.
weapons grade is 80%. the cirrent 'enriched uranium can only be used for peaceful purposes.
Then the waste from a powerplant would be much closer to the grade needed for weapons.
So we are still far far off.
and Israel is probably way more powerful. But it should not be 'the' concern for making enriched uranium, or even weapons grade uranium/plutonium.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
He's President Bush. Irresponsible, self-righteous and idealistic. And there is a price for all this, Bush weakened international constraints on offensive war, Ahmedinejad weakened international constraints on nuclear weapons. The international stability that was purchased through cold war institutions is being sacrificed with every move unchecked populists like these make.
Salam
Only way this can be successfully and peacefully
resolved is when all four parties, US, Iran,
UK, and Israel decide to sit down together to
have a Kosher Pepsi and shake hands.
Yes. it is that simple.
And its not too difficult to arrange.
It only takes phone call from Tel Aviv or London.
I think someone will have the courage, eventually.
Until that happens, there will always be WAR.
Omrow
It's not that far that Iran will develop nucleur weapons so do you guys think that they might sell their techonolgy to other countries like Syria, Libya, Venezuela
You can't escape from DEATH. So be prepared
Thanks to Pakistan it really doesn't matter if Iran is selling nuclear weapons technology to other [i]states[/i]. What concerns the Pentagon is Iran selling finished or near finished nuclear weapons to terrorists. There is where Iran's impact is really going to be shown. Either a nuclear weapon or (more likely) a dirty bomb.
Then there is the unsettling relationship between Iran and Israel... soon both will be nuclear powers and both will have demonstrated they don't particularly care about weapons regulation.
well... we live in intersting times.
I bet in the past it's been very similar, but because of a lack of news it has been ignored by the armchair critics.
but now there are nukes, which are far more deadly than past man-made weapons...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Ewen MacAskill says that in dealing with Iran, the United States does not have a plan B:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1754377,00.html
Iran President says: Soon Israel will be decapitate, and aggressors will be amputated.
He is getting graphic.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.president.ap/index.html
Pages