http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 426601.ece -
HomeNEWS WorldMiddle East My ProfileOffersSitemapFrom The TimesFebruary 23, 2007
Fears grow over Iran
Tom Baldwin in Washington and Philip Webster, Political Editor
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production”. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.
But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Expert View
For all the talk about a US military strike on Iran, it seems highly unlikely that they would contemplate this
Bronwen Maddox
More
Post a comment
Background
The Dossier Dodge meets the Clock Illusion
A giant and scary leap
Iran despises weakness
Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”
The diplomatic options will be on the table on Monday when representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany meet in London to begin drafting a new resolution.
It was notable that Mr Blair’s remarks yesterday closely resembled those of Jack Straw last year, who said that an attack on Iran was “inconceivable”, angering Washington and perhaps contributing to his removal as Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister’s comments reflect what British officials have been saying privately for some time, but also show a growing streak of independence from Mr Bush. The White House was unhappy with the timing of Mr Blair’s announcement this week on withdrawing 1,600 British troops, concerned that it undercut Mr Bush’s efforts to shore up support for his troop surge on Capitol Hill while sending out “mixed messages” to the Iranians.
Britain has also privately expressed concern over the handling of the US military briefing last week which alleged that the “highest levels” of the Iranian Government were behind the supply of weapons to Iraqi militias.
- Mr Straw, the Leader of the Commons, did break ranks yesterday by declaring that the Government was committed to a full inquiry into mistakes made in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
He said that he was ready “in due course” for a wider inquiry than those held to date. However a Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that there would come a time to “look at these issues”.
Have your say
The United States should spend it's dollars on shoring up it's DEFENSIVE strength instead of attacking countries perceived to be a threat. So we got rid of Saddam and his henchmen. Big deal....was it worth the cost? Hell no.
John Bailey, Nashville, Tennessee
Killing more, is definitely not the answer.
The worn out pattern of "war on terror" with this double standards in the nuclear field, will create misery, unnecessary suffering and eventually more violence.
Had the West been more ethical, it would have certainly wined the mind of people.
Homa E, Tehran, Iran
Why does everyone seem to think Mr. Blair has followed Mr. Bush blindly? Read his writings and speeches before Mr. Bush was elected and you'll find that Tony Blair advocated removing Saddam even before Bush.
This characterization Tony Blair as a Bush follower is as ridiculous as characterizing Margaret Thatcher as a Ronald Reagan lapdog. Mr. Blair has always rightfully followed his own conscience on foreign policy matters. Just because two leaders agree on certain issues does not mean one leader is subservient to the other.
It’s a disservice to both Britain and Tony Blair to imply that George Bush dictates British foreign policy.
Phillip , St. Louis, MO, USA
I'm sorry as I do agree that 9/11 was a very sad day....we as a people can not continue to use that as a staple to continue to attack countries.... though I do believe continuing to monitor Iran's progress is necessary, attack right now is not
Lane, Pensacola,
Its a shame that so many Americans believe it is a problem for America, and not something that should be solved with the international community. That mindset and influence is what takes away the ability of the international community to accomplish peace. If America would give its full diplomatic and military support to the United Nations, then the UN would have the strength to do something about it, and we wouldn't be seen as the tyrants of the world, but rather as a major contributor to the global family. But that's not going to happen as long as we have our own Hitler in power.
Ashamed American, Seattle, 'merica
Trusting in the reasonsed restraint of a nation such as Iran when it comes to nuclear technology is not a logical process. I would be completely refreshed to have politicians stand up admit, 'we are going to take the path of least resistance because that path will insure our continued reelection up till the point that a nuclear attack is traced back to a country like Iran, but then again, I won't want to be in politics when all that is left to do is clean up the mess of our failed policies and inaction.'
Appeasement has never worked in world politics. "Political, diplomatic channels and talks' are simply code for out right blackmail by the offending nations to extort money...and then in the end, they will still go right ahead and do what they agreed not to do.
It is ironic that it is the British that are making the motions to appease the Iranians and relying on the "good intentions" about doing what they say they will do. I guess the 1930's have been too long to remember.
Keith, Central Texas, USA
I feel that war options are unthinkable..Imagine a situation where in US succeds in suppressing the interests of Iran but with a new Iran with Terror groups and millions of innocent lives lost..just like in Iraq.This is a tricky situation the global leaders have to get through with some solution.
R.B, Southampton, UK
If the United States, Israel, or any other state launches a nuclear attack against Iran on a first-strike basis, then I would say that a state of war would exist between the aggressor state and all humanity.
Any response at all against such a first-strike nuclear attack would be justified. There would be no possibility of considering a response "terror," regardless of the form it takes.
A preemptive nuclear attack would be unprecedented, even for the U.S., which attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to conclude a huge Pacific war started by the Japanese.
The response to such aggression should at least include extreme economic measures, such as breaking the dollar (easy enough for China and a few other countries to do).
Such aggression would verify the Bush Administrations quest for world domination, and I would think states and other groups would respond as if in mortal danger.
Clayton Hallmark, Twinsburg, Ohio, USA
Why isn't this "article" in the opinion section? Tom Baldwin and Philip Webster, you make it sound like President Bush and Vice President Cheney are at war with Robert Gates, Condoleeza Rice, Steve Hadley, and Prime Minister Tony Blair! Give me a break. Leave your connotative rhetoric at home for your next fiction book. Instead of looking to divide everyone against each other why not unite on the fact that none of us want countries obliterating each other with nuclear weapons? It's that simple.
Keith, Spokane, WA
I guess a majority of people in England forget what we Americans did for them in WW II . If it was not for our bigotted, bullying gov't everybody in England & the rest of Europe for that matter would STILL be speaking German.
What did we do to deserve 9/11/2001.. Support Israel???
what a crime!!!
Scott, Atlanta, GA, USA, Georgia
Read all 10 comments
Have your say
