Posted on 04/16/2006 6:03:17 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.
But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."
Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.
The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.
"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."
While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.
The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.
"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."
However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.
In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."
Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.
"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.
Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.
I seem to remember that many, many Brits "TRUSTED" Neville Chamberlain too. I remember the crowds wildly cheering as Mr. Chamberlain waved that piece of white paper when he got back to Britain.
Well Blair gave us a decent ride ,now he is wooosing out..as most knew eurabia would..f em lets roll
This is not unexpected.
To be quite frank we dont need the RAF if we strike Iran's facilities. The USAF and USN pilots is all thats needed. Treating them like Libya is not a bad idea and I think we may do the diplomatic dance awhile longer,but we can not allow them to fire nuclear missiles at US forces in the region or Israel. Europe is scared they are in range NOW of a possible Iranian nuclear strike. Appeasment wont work with these suicidal jihadist. They want a fight and probably wont care if we nuke them because of this 12th mahdi islamic garbage the theorcracy in power believes. Israel is their goal at all costs. God help us all because I know the US unlike Europe will not let them annihilate Israel.
We don't need Blair's help. He should get down on his knees and thank God that the US will do what's necessary.
Iran would use any and all time remaining to negotiate in bad faith. That's been their pattern, and they've employed it with considerable success. Why change now? We can't afford to allow them to strike first. They're developing MIRV's with rockets capable of reaching the EU and US interests, carriers in the area, etc.. Even if they don't attack the EU next week or next month, they will blackmail the West into submission. All it takes is one example, one hapless country nuked out of existence, and Israel is handy. How fast do you think France, among others, will run up the white flag?
Russia and China do not care of there is war or not as long as the U.S. is the one doing the fighting.
Russia and China will sell Iran whatever Iran wants to buy, force the U.S. to deal with the messs and then laugh all the way to the bank.
Yes, they're right there hiding behind our coattails.
Well, Chamberlain didn´t know where the bottom line was. We do. And from the remarks the West made recently I think they know when they should act. I don´t believe that there´ll be an invasion. I tend to believe that bunker busters will be used, and we shouldn´t worry that these are nuclear weapons.
Don´t you see the picture? Military strikes aren´t urgent yet, or the remarks from Rice or Bush would be like that. It´s not that we must bomb Iran now or within the next six months. But when the time has come, it will and must be done. Nobody (!) wants Iran to go nuclear, it´s just that we need many more to convince them that the military will do the job - rather than diplomats.
France has been talking pretty tough about Iran (including Chirac's comment about using nukes). Goad France into joining us. The Brits won't be outdone by the French. That's why tourists can even get a "power-shower" here and there around London these days.
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.