Straw Says U.K., U.S, Haven't Discussed Striking Iran

[shugah]

Straw Says U.K., U.S, Haven't Discussed Striking Iran

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. haven't discussed military action against Iran, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, after the Iranians resumed research into uranium enrichment.

``I've never had a single discussion with anyone in the U.S. administration about the possibility of military action,'' against Iran, Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. Military action wouldn't be conceivable or appropriate, he said.

The U.S. and its European Union allies said yesterday that the Iranians' Jan. 10 decision to resume research on the nuclear fuel cycle showed that talks to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program had failed. Germany, France and Britain, the so- called EU-3, urged the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to hold an emergency meeting to vote on referring Iran to the UN Security Council, where Iran could face censure or sanctions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a6E67jcuUVlI&refer=top_world_news

[IndianaGreen]

1. Jack Straw lied about Iraq

he will lie about Iran.

[thebigidea]

2. and when we say no discussions, there has been a certain amount.

as if they'd discuss a strike on Iran with this ass until two days before they do it. What possible use would Jack freakin' Straw be? They could care less what comes out of his mouth unless it serves their interests. They don't need his advice.

[BikeWriter]

3. We should believe him because?

[EuroObserver]

4. "Iran could face (UN) censure or sanctions"

Charter of the United Nations, CHAPTER VII

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

<snip>

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Iran can literaly say, "You and what army?"

:rofl:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Blair said on Wednesday "We obviously do not rule out any measures"

so you're wrong, Straw - your boss is already conceiving military action. And it's obvious to him.

[mbperrin]

7. "never had a single discussion"

So he's always had multiple discussions, right?

Truth's not in 'em!

[dasmarian]

8. I'm not convinced

I know a lot of people here are fairly convinced about a strike against Iran being imminent. But as Jack Straw said in his interview 'Iran is not Iraq.' And he's right . . . Iraq's oil output was fairly minimal due to sanctions sice the first Gulf War, but Iran on the other hand is a key oil producer. Iraq had limited or silent backers in the global arena, but Iran has the support via energy deals with Russia and China.

Attacking Iran has a lot more complications due to financial and political ramifications than attacks on Iraq. People who think we can't do it due to an increase in terrorism are missing the real reason why this isn't possible, which is that Iran would cease oil output to the west and make clients of only China, which is starved for oil, and Russia, already a key economic partner with Iran. This would send western economies into a tailspin and wreak total financial havoc in Europe and the US due to severe fuel shortages, both of which are struggling to recover economically. Add in the low general support against war in Iraq, the immense cost overrun of this 'war' that was supposed to cost next to nothing compared to what it has cost, and the idea of attacking Iran, while possible, is political and economic suicide for the country that executes it. This keeps the hands in the West tied and will continue to do so.

The only country that this type of action is concievable from is Israel, because Israel doesn't have much of a vested interest in Iran. Most of Israel's economic support is from the West, so the western supporters might mutedly applaud and indirectly support some sort of strike, but attacks directly from the west are unlikely. Israel has little to lose and quite a bit to gain, and Israel knows that if Iran retaliates in any significant way against a strike then it will force the West to become involved militarily, which is also a benefit to Israel.

So -- maybe I'm wrong, and I think everyone here offers little more than opinions, but attacks against Iran are economic and political suicide for any Western country that executes this type of action. Iran is quite aware of this, and this is why they can continue to do whatever they want with everyone else offering up little more than smoke. Iran is really the most powerful country in this situation because they hold the key resource that everyone else needs -- and they know it.

[progressive_realist]

9. The US does not buy oil from Iran.

Due to sanctions in place since the 1979 hostage crisis, the US has only minimal economic ties with Iran (food and medicine are the only allowed trade goods, I believe).

So the US also has "little to lose and quite a bit to gain."

[dasmarian]

11. I partially agree

You're right about the US embargo of Iran, but the truth of the matter is that this embargo is not in place in European countries. So this action, if it caused an interruption in oil to Europe, would strongly affect the US, and also make already strained US-European relations worse.

So maybe we can agree, if Bush doesn't care about this maybe he will be in for a strike (which I really doubt per my previous post) but I doubt the Europeans will have anything to do with it, and thus the UN is unlikely to authorize any use of force.

[Roland99]

10. He expects anyone to believe that horse hockey?

[DrZeeLit]

12. Come on... they run scenarios all the time... they don't discuss... they

PLAN... as in detailed, hypothetical PLANS.
Doesn't mean they do a good job (i.e., Iraq).
But come on... these guys are always throwing up "what if" situations w/each other.

The next thing you'll tell me is that every word * says isn't scripted.

[baby_mouse]

13. So that'll mean they have, then.

Thanks for the heads up, Jack. The BBC graphic design team will have the War on Iran News scheme up and running on schedule... phew...