Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain Rules Out Military Action on Iran
APee ^ | Sept. 28, 2005 | ED JOHNSON

Posted on 09/29/2005 9:25:53 AM PDT by prairiebreeze

Military action against Iran is inconceivable and diplomacy could still end the international standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country plays a key role in negotiations.

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for generating electricity, but the Bush administration believes Tehran intends to produce atomic weapons and has refused to rule out military strikes.

"All United States presidents always say all options are open. But it is not on the table, it is not on the agenda. I happen to think that it is inconceivable," Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday.

Britain, France and Germany are leading European Union diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment activities. Uranium enriched to low levels can be used as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but further enrichment makes it suitable for a nuclear bomb.

On Saturday, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution putting Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities.

The resolution ordered Iran to suspend all enrichment activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor and to grant access to certain military locations, individuals and documents.

Iran has rejected the resolution, protesting it was politically motivated and without legal foundation.

"The truth is, as (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice has made clear, military action in respect of the Iranian dossier is not on anybody's agenda. I believe it is inconceivable," Straw told the BBC.

Straw, who is in Brighton, southern England for the governing Labour Party's annual conference, said the IAEA resolution left the "door open for further diplomatic action with Iran" and urged the country to take that route.

He insisted the way the international community dealt with the nuclear standoff was of fundamental importance and could affect the "geopolitical landscape for years to come."

"There is no question of us going to war against Iran. Why? Because it's not going to resolve the issue. No one is talking about going to war against Iran," he later told Sky Television News. "This can only be resolved by diplomatic means and by diplomatic pressure."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: britain; faileddiplomacy; iran; jackstraw; nuclearthreat; rulesout; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Well, let's all look forward to a nuclear armed Iran then.
1 posted on 09/29/2005 9:26:07 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Military action against IranHitler is inconceivable and diplomacy could still end the international standoff , said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Neville Chamberlain.
2 posted on 09/29/2005 9:29:52 AM PDT by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Even if they had ruled it out internally, it is just idiotic to state it publicly.


3 posted on 09/29/2005 9:30:02 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Translation: We aren't really very serious about this so make all the nukes you want.


4 posted on 09/29/2005 9:31:25 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon

Was Chamberlain the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary?


5 posted on 09/29/2005 9:34:22 AM PDT by razoroccam (Then in the name of Allah, they will let loose the Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: razoroccam

The PM.


6 posted on 09/29/2005 9:34:54 AM PDT by RexBeach ("The rest of the world is three drinks behind." -Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Peach

Pretty danged stupid to say this publically. Can you say empowering the mullahs??


7 posted on 09/29/2005 9:38:33 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

I thought they were smarter than that on the other side of the pond. Dumb. Very, very dumb.


8 posted on 09/29/2005 9:41:31 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Oh I have no doubt if Iran attacks anyone .. the Brits will change their minds and join the US, the Aussie and others to kick Irans rear end


9 posted on 09/29/2005 9:42:02 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Mo1

head-fake?


10 posted on 09/29/2005 9:47:20 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

They are just trying to negotiate a deal .. like a good cop, bad cop

Trust me .. if there is an attack by Iran, especially a nuke attack .. all heck will come down on them


11 posted on 09/29/2005 9:50:25 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Well if Straw is the good cop, who's the bad cop? LOL

I thought the idea was to prevent a nuke attack. Or possession of nukes at all for that matter.


12 posted on 09/29/2005 9:51:44 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (Take the high road. You'll never have to meet a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Yes they want to prevent it

But in all honesty .. does anyone (except the French) trust Iran's Leaders???


13 posted on 09/29/2005 9:54:18 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Is dropping 1000 MOABs considered an "action" or an "incident"???


14 posted on 09/29/2005 9:54:56 AM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

I'd love to believe it's a head fake, but I'm not sure what is gained by it. It just seems to me it's better if Iran believes that the coalition is interested in taking out the mullahs.


15 posted on 09/29/2005 9:55:33 AM PDT by Peach (South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

At this point, we don't have the forces to strike Iran, except for aircraft. We certainly don't have sufficient ground forces for it. You can thank the cut backs of the 1990s for that.


16 posted on 09/29/2005 10:01:20 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (All democrats are ENEMIES of the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Time travel forward....

The year 2010, Iran launches preemptive nuclear strike at Isreal. US retaliates and destroys Iran's military capability. Millions dead. International community condemns the past administrations for not properly irradicating the threat earlier.

Time travel back.....

The year 1945, After pre-emptive strikes on US soil, and five years of destruction, the US destroys Japan's and Germany's military capability. WWII ends. Millions dead. International community condemns the past administrations for not properly erradicating the threat earlier.

'nough said


17 posted on 09/29/2005 10:04:01 AM PDT by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Oh I have no doubt if Iran attacks anyone .. the Brits will change their minds and join the US, the Aussie and others to kick Irans rear end

It'd be a bit late once the mullahs have usable nukes, wouldn't you say?

18 posted on 09/29/2005 10:06:44 AM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

"Trust me .. if there is an attack by Iran, especially a nuke attack .. all heck will come down on them"

They are emboldened by Russian and Chinese support, countries who are sucking us dry. Both countries want to be the last world superpower. Russia and China want to see Iran with the bomb and seeing one of cities vaporized. Then we can waste lots of our military on Iran while they seize more power. We need to especially tell Russia that if we are nuked from uranium or plutonium created in Iran, that we will vaporize four of their cities for their active involvement of giving madmen the bomb.


19 posted on 09/29/2005 10:07:08 AM PDT by quantfive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Air strikes work very nicely.


20 posted on 09/29/2005 10:07:37 AM PDT by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson