USA and UK at odds over Iran ?

[lozina]

AFTER two years of unswerving solidarity over the war in Iraq, Tony Blair?s relationship with President George W Bush is coming under strain from the newly revived threat of an American military attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.

British officials are increasingly concerned that months of patient European-led diplomacy aimed at curbing the ayatollahs? nuclear ambitions may suddenly explode in a torrent of bunker-busting bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers.

link

more flaky 'evidence' ?

There is also concern in London that the Pentagon may be ordered to act on the basis of flawed intelligence. Despite the debacle over Iraq?s supposed weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon appears to be relying heavily on satellite photographs of Iranian installations that British sources describe as alarmingly inconclusive.

?They tell us, ?Look, bulldozers have been down this road three times. Something?s going on?,? said one well informed source. ?They are very dismissive when European humint (human intelligence) suggests something different.?

One well known US weapons specialist last week described the Iranian nuclear issue as ?the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion?. But whereas President John F Kennedy successsfully forced Moscow to withdraw its missiles from Cuba in 1962, much of Washington already appears convinced that the ayatollahs will not back down.

Umm, but missiles in Cuba could've reach us... I don't see the parallel

 

[kage69]

That's because you're not looking at it with the idealogical rose-lenses currently en vogue with the "conservative" majority - Iranian abilities to hit Israel qualify as a threat on the US.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: kage69
That's because you're not looking at it with the idealogical rose-lenses currently en vogue with the "conservative" majority - Iranian abilities to hit Israel qualify as a threat on the US.

Ok, but then that is not the Cuban missile crisis. Russia had Israel in it's range before and during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[kage69]

..but we didn't have near as much religious right-wing influence in Kennedy's admin as we currently do in Cheney's.

 

[jpeyton]

Haha, I DARE the US Govt. to make the mistake of getting Iran involved in a conflict in the Middle East. That will be the blunder remembered for decades to come.

 

[kage69]

Haha, I DARE the US Govt. to make the mistake of getting Iran involved in a conflict in the Middle East. That will be the blunder remembered for decades to come.

It seems the US Govt. has already taken that dare, sorry, you'll have to make a new one.

 

[KidViciou$]

oh boy, here we go again

what do you think bush's history channel specials will be like? hopefully he'll get cool music like nixon's

 

[rickn]

atleast we will know when they are ready to attack Iran -- the green zone will be deserted

personally, I don't think if we attack that we will hit everything, therefore it will be an attack for nothing, and will spark a major international crisis.

 

[alchemize]

Much like the Cuban missle crisis, a naval blockade would work wonderfully. Even better, since they are (relative to the USSR) powerless against one.

 

[SuperTool]

This will be like MacArthur going into China. Iran can cause trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
This will be like MacArthur going into China. Iran can cause trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It already is causing trouble in Iraq. Afghanistan too, but to a lesser extent.

 

[Aimster]

Britain 'argues against Iran attack'

From correspondents in London

January 23, 2005

FOREIGN Secretary Jack Straw has reportedly drawn up Britain's case against a military strike on Iran amid fears US President George W. Bush may seek support for a new conflict.

Mr Straw had produced a 200-page dossier that ruled out military action and made the case for a "negotiated solution" to thwart Iran's suspected ambition to produce nuclear weapons, The Sunday Times said.

It said a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany was "in the best interests of Iran and the international community", while referring to "safeguarding Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology".

The dossier, entitled Iran's Nuclear Program, was quietly issued in the House of Commons on the eve of Mr Bush's inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington, the newspaper said.

However, it added that privately tensions were running high between the two nations.

The approach contrasts with the British government's two Iraq dossiers, which were trumpeted to make the case for joining the US-led invasion on March 2003.

The Sunday Times said the message that the British Government wanted no part in another war in the Middle East would be reinforced by Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is to meet Mr Bush in Brussels next month.

The paper said Mr Straw would also make the case when he met US secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice, a Bush confidante, in London next month.

The perception that the United States is embarking on a course of confrontation with Iran has grown since The New Yorker magazine reported this week that US commandos had been operating inside Iran since mid-2004, secretly scouting targets for possible air strikes.

The Pentagon attacked the story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as "riddled with errors of fundamental fact", but did not expressly deny conducting covert reconnaissance missions.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, declaring on a radio talk show this week that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global problems, warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own to shut down Iran's nuclear program.

But Cheney played down the likelihood of US military action.

AFP