The Iran thread

[Barry Shnikov]

British Foreign Office threatens to publish proof that its military personnel were outside Iranian waters when seized by Iran last week.

This just in:

Public Announcement from National Security Ministry, Tehran.

“We regret that the British Government has seen fit to escalate matters in this underhand fashion. With the publication of this proof, Revolutionary Iran has no choice but to return the personnel forthwith to their ship and each of them will be paid £15,000 compensation for unlawful detention.

In the face of such undeniable proof, it would be superfluous for us to try to point out that such proof is, in any event, not proof but merely evidence; that the British Government has had nearly a week to manufacture plausible looking data, whether textual or audio-visual; that the Revolutionary Guards have already notified the Iranian people that the British personnel have already confessed that they were within Iranian territorial waters, nor will there be any point in us publishing the evidence we already have that they were not in international waters.

The perfidious tactic of the publication of these proofs by Britain has thoroughly cowed everyone in our government from top to bottom. The nation is anxiously awaiting the judgment of the international community, the goodwill of which is so important to Iran notwithstanding our utter refusal to pay any attention to it in the matter of our nuclear power programme. We fear being ostracised as the wild men of the middle east, a label which will severely inhibit our political ambitions in the region where – as is well known – the approval of the kindly and well meaning white nations at the top of the global economic league table is vital to the acceptance of the nation of Islam.”

End public announcement.

[stewart38]

British Foreign Office threatens to publish proof that its military personnel were outside Iranian waters when seized by Iran last week.

This just in:

Public Announcement from National Security Ministry, Tehran.

“We regret that the British Government has seen fit to escalate matters in this underhand fashion. With the publication of this proof, Revolutionary Iran has no choice but to return the personnel forthwith to their ship and each of them will be paid £15,000 compensation for unlawful detention.

In the face of such undeniable proof, it would be superfluous for us to try to point out that such proof is, in any event, not proof but merely evidence; that the British Government has had nearly a week to manufacture plausible looking data, whether textual or audio-visual; that the Revolutionary Guards have already notified the Iranian people that the British personnel have already confessed that they were within Iranian territorial waters, nor will there be any point in us publishing the evidence we already have that they were not in international waters.

The perfidious tactic of the publication of these proofs by Britain has thoroughly cowed everyone in our government from top to bottom. The nation is anxiously awaiting the judgment of the international community, the goodwill of which is so important to Iran notwithstanding our utter refusal to pay any attention to it in the matter of our nuclear power programme. We fear being ostracised as the wild men of the middle east, a label which will severely inhibit our political ambitions in the region where – as is well known – the approval of the kindly and well meaning white nations at the top of the global economic league table is vital to the acceptance of the nation of Islam.”

End public announcement.

thought this was serious for a while ?

Hope we can still have a week debate how we can deal with 'Iran'

[Barry Shnikov]

thought this was serious for a while ?

The bit about paying compensation came in the first paragraph; that should have tipped you off pretty sharpish!

[David Bailey]

Firstly, - a sensible thread title from Mr Shnikov!

British Foreign Office threatens to publish proof that its military personnel were outside Iranian waters when seized by Iran last week.

Well, yeah - if I were running a theocratic dictatorship, I'd certainly be scared by the threat to publish photos, that'd definitely cow me.

Did anyone else wonder why we're such wimps as to let our armed forces be captured by hostile powers in the first place? What sort of wussy Rules Of Engagement are we operating under when our servicemen can just be taken hostage at will?

In fact, I heard some speculation on the news that British service personnel might have been targetted, specifically because they wouldn't fight back - whereas US personnel would have reacted militarily, rather than, you know, threatening to pulish GPS readings.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Well, yeah - if I were running a theocratic dictatorship, I'd certainly be scared by the threat to publish photos, that'd definitely cow me.

Don't they revere cows ? or is that the buddhists ?

[stewart38]

The bit about paying compensation came in the first paragraph; that should have tipped you off pretty sharpish!

It would present Iran as ‘very reasonable’, if evidence showed they were in Iraq waters and did offer recompence

I think some of the top brass in the USA are itiching to get into Iran (a number USA river boat patrols I bet are popping into Iran waters today as we speak)

If USA did a full frontal attack (with the gloves off) probably on Iran and Syria it would be interesting

More debates on question time

Anyway what Iran have done is an act of war , Mr Blair will say its not nice

Publishers note
-------------

Ps I totally against any invasion of Iran im quoting what I think some of the top USA brass would like to happen, which again is without any merit or foundation
-----------------

[David Bailey]

Iran's actions are just worse and worse - they deliberately put a young woman on show, parading the hope of release before her and coercing her into making a statement, then they play games and say "Oh, we were about to let her go, but she can't be released now because of wrong actions by the British government, so sorry."

What a bunch of scumbags.

I'm beginning to think that, despite everything, some form of military action is needed against Iran - even North Korea are more trustworthy than this lot, and I can't think of any regime I'd trust less with the Bomb than them.

[StokeBloke]

Maybe we should just lump Iran and Iraq together on the map and rename the area Irate

Barry: The Iran thread
Barry: The I rant hre ad(least daily)

[StokeBloke]

Iran's actions are just worse and worse - they deliberately put a young woman on show, parading the hope of release before her and coercing her into making a statement, then they play games and say "Oh, we were about to let her go, but she can't be released now because of wrong actions by the British government, so sorry."

What a bunch of scumbags.

I'm beginning to think that, despite everything, some form of military action is needed against Iran - even North Korea are more trustworthy than this lot, and I can't think of any regime I'd trust less with the Bomb than them.

Perspective check!

So long as we are snuggled up in bed with the regime that is using Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre for 'enemy combatants', I find it hard to take the moral high ground with any other government who has shown that the citizens of our country they are holding are being clothed, fed, given smokes and on the face of it, being looked after. Whilst we silently sanction the use of extreme duress and torture. Call me old fashioned, but stones, glass houses and all that jazz!

I recall only too well our government's 'evidence' for going to war in the middle east, now we are expected to believe this 'evidence' without question because..... ummm we're told to.

We are given heart rending stories about this young mum being torn from her children - but wasn't she on a military tour of the middle east? They don't knock off at 5:30 and pop back to Portsmouth in time for Eastenders. She was going to be away from her family for weeks or months anyhow. Her choice. Try telling this sob story to any of the families who haven't seen or heard from their sons who are being held in by America for YEARS.

[David Bailey]

Perspective check!

So long as we are snuggled up in bed with the regime that is using Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre for 'enemy combatants', I find it hard to take the moral high ground with any other government who has shown that the citizens of our country they are holding are being clothed, fed, given smokes and on the face of it, being looked after.

I agree that Gunatanamo is a nasty blot on the face of the American Dream, and I agree that it's shameful that the UK Government has not protested more loudly about it. I feel it's both a moral disgrace, and a strategic blunder.

Having said that, the UK Government has explicitly stated that it should go, in public.

Also, equating America (a democratic country with the rule of law and a free press) with Iran (a theocratic country with corruption, demagogery and state-controlled media) seems a bit extreme, to put it mildly. Which country would you rather live in?

That "they're both the same" attitude reminds me of the old Left in the 1970s - 80s, who were keen on portraying America as being morally no better than the Commiunist Dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

I recall only too well our government's 'evidence' for going to war in the middle east, now we are expected to believe this 'evidence' without question because..... ummm we're told to.

I've said many times (see the Iraq thread) that I thought the Iraq war was both wrong and bungled. And Tony Blair, whatever he may say in public, knows that his legacy is now "Iraq", for most people.

But, Iran clearly is trying to develop nuclear capability - that's not just me saying so, that's what the UN says also. Their publically-admitted capabilities include both research reactors and a commercial reactor, a uranium mine, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant.

They're going for nukes - everyone knows it, it's obvious.

And the mob-frenzy populist actions they're doing (capturing service personnel, protesting against 300, etc.) are all designed to divert attention from this, long enough for them to build a bomb. Again, everyone knows this, it's obvious.

We are given heart rending stories about this young mum being torn from her children - but wasn't she on a military tour of the middle east? They don't knock off at 5:30 and pop back to Portsmouth in time for Eastenders. She was going to be away from her family for weeks or months anyhow. Her choice.

Well, it's nice that you support our service personnel, who volunteer to risk their lives to protect our way of life, so solidly. Yes, serving in the armed forces is hazardous, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders if they get in danger; I'd hope we'd care a bit more about them than that.

Try telling this sob story to any of the families who haven't seen or heard from their sons who are being held in by America for YEARS.

Again, that's trying to assert a moral equivalence, and I don't agree with that. Are you really saying that Iran is morally the same as the USA?

[andystyle]

I'm beginning to think that, despite everything, some form of military action is needed against Iran - even North Korea are more trustworthy than this lot, and I can't think of any regime I'd trust less with the Bomb than them.

How about the Americans? They're the only country in the world that have actually used nukes against someone - and not just once.

But, Iran clearly is trying to develop nuclear capability - that's not just me saying so, that's what the UN says also. Their publically-admitted capabilities include both research reactors and a commercial reactor, a uranium mine, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant.

They're going for nukes - everyone knows it, it's obvious.

Most likely. And in a way, I think Iran has been very, very clever with it all. They kept very quiet, allowed the Coalition to remove it's major rival (sold to us on the pretext of WMD) when the real WMD threat was Iran in the first place. With Iraq being as unstable as it is, and Iran quite likely if not definitely supporting the insurgents, the US/UK is bogged down. Iran also learned the lesson from when Israel took out Iraq's potential nuclear capability and distributed it's facilities, both on and under the ground. It all adds up to a very scary picture.

Well, it's nice that you support our service personnel, who volunteer to risk their lives to protect our way of life, so solidly. Yes, serving in the armed forces is hazardous, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders if they get in danger; I'd hope we'd care a bit more about them than that.

I don't think that SB was implying this. There's a difference between not supporting the troops and being irritated at the way the media on both sides of the fence portray the situation when something happens.

[Barry Shnikov]

Perspective check!

So long as we are snuggled up in bed with the regime that is using Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre for 'enemy combatants', I find it hard to take the moral high ground with any other government who has shown that the citizens of our country they are holding are being clothed, fed, given smokes and on the face of it, being looked after. Whilst we silently sanction the use of extreme duress and torture. Call me old fashioned, but stones, glass houses and all that jazz!

Exactamundo!

I recall only too well our government's 'evidence' for going to war in the middle east, now we are expected to believe this 'evidence' without question because..... ummm we're told to.

Ooo! Please sir, he doesn't believe the government!

We are given heart rending stories about this young mum being torn from her children - but wasn't she on a military tour of the middle east? They don't knock off at 5:30 and pop back to Portsmouth in time for Eastenders. She was going to be away from her family for weeks or months anyhow. Her choice. Try telling this sob story to any of the families who haven't seen or heard from their sons who are being held in by America for YEARS.

The thing that makes me shake my head in bewilderment is that we actually allow mothers of young children to be on active service in this country's armed forces. What is that about?

[Barry Shnikov]

Having said that, the UK Government has explicitly stated that it should go, in public.

...a bit like whispering in your wife's ear that your boss is a two-faced bastard.

Also, equating America (a democratic country with the rule of law and a free press) with Iran (a theocratic country with corruption, demagogery and state-controlled media) seems a bit extreme, to put it mildly. Which country would you rather live in?
That "they're both the same" attitude reminds me of the old Left in the 1970s - 80s, who were keen on portraying America as being morally no better than the Commiunist Dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

He didn't 'equate' Iran with the US, he pointed out a parallel. Which country you would prefer to live in is an argument ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.
'The old left' stopped considering the Soviet Union as morally equivalent to the US decades before that. The far left - SWP - are a different matter. You would not have got Michael Foot making that mistake.

I've said many times (see the Iraq thread) that I thought the Iraq war was both wrong and bungled. And Tony Blair, whatever he may say in public, knows that his legacy is now "Iraq", for most people.

But, Iran clearly is trying to develop nuclear capability - that's not just me saying so, that's what the UN says also. Their publically-admitted capabilities include both research reactors and a commercial reactor, a uranium mine, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant.

They're going for nukes - everyone knows it, it's obvious.

And the mob-frenzy populist actions they're doing (capturing service personnel, protesting against 300, etc.) are all designed to divert attention from this, long enough for them to build a bomb. Again, everyone knows this, it's obvious.

Where to start?
Why is Israel entitled to a bomb (not to mention the UK, which has no enemies capable of attacking it with nuclear weapons) but Iran not? And it's no good appealing to how terrible the regime is, many people throughout the world are equally condemning of Israel.
Second, Iran is a lo-hong way from a bomb. It has the largest reserves of uranium in the middle east: why should it - merely because the US and the UK so demand it - be prevented from developing a nuclear power programme?
...etc.

Well, it's nice that you support our service personnel, who volunteer to risk their lives to protect our way of life, so solidly. Yes, serving in the armed forces is hazardous, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders if they get in danger; I'd hope we'd care a bit more about them than that.

Hey, if a dustman complains that he is smelly and dirty at the end of the day, I would tend to think 'hey! that's life'. Same same the armed forces. I didn't volunteer to fight, so I'm not in any danger. I would prefer it if they weren't subject to this type of unpleasant brinkmanship but why should anyone 'support' our service personnel just because they are service personnel?

Again, that's trying to assert a moral equivalence, and I don't agree with that. Are you really saying that Iran is morally the same as the USA?

No, that's wrong. Even if nothing else, Guantanamo is such an egregious breach of due process and the rule of law that it can counterbalance almost anything.

[David Bailey]

{ snip good points }
I don't think that SB was implying this. There's a difference between not supporting the troops and being irritated at the way the media on both sides of the fence portray the situation when something happens.

Yeah - OK, fair enough.

Sorry, StokeBloke, I didn't mean to get all Rambo on you

It's just that the pictures and video, plus the brinkmanship, is intensely aggravating - it's a hostage situation, and they're always nasty.

Note: must drink coffee before posting...

[Stuart M]

They're going for nukes - everyone knows it, it's obvious.

And why not? Looked at from their perspective, it would be a deriliction of duty not to try to acquire nuclear weapons.

Consider:

1. They directly border 2 nuclear states (one of them very unstable)
2. A third nuclear power, who is openly very hostile, is only a short distance further away
3. Two more nuclear powers have invaded the country next door under a false pretext, and one of them is openly hostile.
4. One of those two nuclear powers recently showed it has no intention of disarming, so the international non-proliferation treaty is a worthless piece of paper.
5. Recently another country threatened by one of the nuclear states demonstrated its own nuclear capability, and the military threat to it has essentially vanished.
6. The two who invaded next door have a long history of interfering in my country, for instance installing a vicious dictator in the 1950's.
7. Oh, and within my borders there are large reserves of oil, which everyone wants.

If I were the Iranian government, I would be going hell-for-leather to acquire the weapons technology, frankly.

[Dreadful Scathe]

{snip clever summary}

[David Bailey]

{ snip good points }

You should be in the diplomatic corps...

However:

• Iran is not a stable or moderate country - especially now, and especially with the sort of things they've said about their neighbours. There's no guarantee that they wouldn't use nukes in a war, in a first-strike, just to win it - whereas Israel (probably) wouldn't.
• Neighbouring Sunni regimes - for example, in Egypt, or in Saudi Arabia - will then feel pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons programmes, starting a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions on the planet.

[LMC]

Iran is not a stable or moderate country - especially now, and especially with the sort of things they've said about their neighbours. There's no guarantee that they wouldn't use nukes in a war, in a first-strike, just to win it - whereas Israel (probably) wouldn't.

- they'd see it as jihad, guaranteeing them a place in heaven.

Of course, wading in worked *so* well with Iraq - but at least Iraq is not a threat to the rest of the world because they're wading in anarchy. Perhaps they weren't a threat before: but given recent developments in Iran, they would certainly have become one if the regime hadn't been toppled - an Iran/Iraq race for nukes doesn't bear thinking about.

I can't say that I think force is a good solution for Iran (or in any circumstances), but sadly think that it might be the only one. Sanctions will only make the regular guy on the street suffer as there is sufficient oil wealth for the powers-that-be to bypass sanctions by tempting the unscrupulous and greedy.

It makes me very sad to think that billions will likely go up in smoke and be used for killing people rather than for something positive like improving the contributing countries' own services combined with greater contribution to international development.

[Stuart M]

Iran is not a stable or moderate country - especially now, and especially with the sort of things they've said about their neighbours. There's no guarantee that they wouldn't use nukes in a war, in a first-strike, just to win it - whereas Israel (probably) wouldn't.

I never said it was stable or moderate - I was just calling the situation as it stands on the global playground. Logic since that infamous "axis of evil" speech has been: "if you don't get a BIG gun, the bullies'll git ya".

And I must say, I'm not sure of your analysis of Israel - they have a history in pre-emptive strikes (Osirak, 1981). Of course, a pre-emptive nuclear strike is not the same thing, but I could see circumstances where Israel would engage in such a first-strike. Indeed, Russia, India, and China are the only current nuclear powers with a publicly-declared "no first-strike" stance. Though such a statement from Israel couldn't be made officially anyway, since it refuses to confirm or deny officially that it has nuclear weapons (though a recent gaffe by Ehud Olmert in an interview confirmed what we all knew anyway). It's one of those "do you still beat your wife?" things, I guess.

Neighbouring Sunni regimes - for example, in Egypt, or in Saudi Arabia - will then feel pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons programmes, starting a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions on the planet.

Wouldn't like to point out the obvious, but since three countries with a military presence in the ME have a nuclear capability, hasn't this race been running for quite a long time already?

Anyway, surely this is perfectly logical in terms of MAD. By the logic of MAD, since the 1950s it's been clear that if 2 countries possess sufficient nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, they don't have wars with each other. Again, I'm not saying this from the point of view of agreeing with MAD, or supporting Iran (or SA or Egypt in your example). Just pointing out that Iran is merely following the example set for them by the US, UK, USSR/Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, etc. Until these countries demonstrate that there can be another way to feel secure, the likes of Iran will press on.

Maybe the example of Ukraine giving up its WMD following the USSR breakup is another instructive example, from the Iranian POV. Would Russia have played such a bullyboy over gas prices last year, if it was facing a load of old dodgy Soviet-era ICBMs?