Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Blair Threatens UN Action On Iran  
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4602516.stm

Quote:
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says Iran's decision to resume its nuclear activities is likely to result in a referral to the UN Security Council..... etc

Blair goes on to state that many "western" countries are now alarmed at the possibility of Iran making a Nuke....

According to Iran, the west are just making a "fuss" over nothing.

Remember, Iran has openly called for the destruction of another country (Israel). So to even think about Iran having nuclear capability is crazy!

Only a few days ago, Jack Straw stated that the UK would not launch any military attack against Iran, and i doubt the US would go in alone. Too much of a risk?

What do you think about this situation??

[Edited 2006-01-11 19:41:02]


Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

Well, after the EU has taken the lead with Iran after critisizing the US and UK over Iraq, I would hope that Bush tells the EU that although the US will follow their lead, the US will hold the EU responsible if Iran succeeds in developing nukes.

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1):
Well, after the EU has taken the lead with Iran after critisizing the US and UK over Iraq, I would hope that Bush tells the EU that although the US will follow their lead, the US will hold the EU responsible if Iran succeeds in developing nukes.

Don't be absurd. Britain was one of the EU Three doing the negotiation with Iran. Or is the UK suddenly one of the bad guys now?  Yeah sure

The idea was to try to persuade Iran to abandon nuclear research. The US was sceptical about its success and said so. The EU Three said they might well be right but it's worth a try. And the problem with that is what exactly?

In terms of the question itself, taking Iran to the Security Council is pretty pointless unless anyone has some kind of policy in mind. Otherwise it'll be "Iran, you are a very naughty boy" and that's it.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

The international community is going to have to do something together to stop this. The US cannot act unilaterally anymore, and nor can the UK or anyone else. Fortunately, most people agree that Iran cannot be allowed to gain nuclear weapons, in light of past actions.

Russia and China may not be so keen, however, and thus I think it unlikely that the Security Council will be able to act. Thus, I see one of two things happening - either a coalition does the work (and it would be a much more comprehensive coalition than in Iraq), or Israel does.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1):
I would hope that Bush tells the EU that although the US will follow their lead, the US will hold the EU responsible if Iran succeeds in developing nukes.

Fine, then the EU can blame the U.S. and U.K. if Iraq falls into Civil War or into Islamic Fundamentalism.

Talk about passing the buck, Charles.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
taking Iran to the Security Council is pretty pointless

2nd!


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 2):
Don't be absurd. Britain was one of the EU Three doing the negotiation with Iran. Or is the UK suddenly one of the bad guys now?

Not at all. The US will always stand by the UK, and vice-versa. But the UK is not alone in this venture.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
Russia and China may not be so keen, however, and thus I think it unlikely that the Security Council will be able to act.

Bingo. Russia is actively helping Iran with its various weapons programs - they will certainly veto anything in the security council.

So what will it be? 3 Options IMHO:

1) UN stalled, and Iran tests nuclear weapon. Rest of the world breaths a collective "Oh, shit".

2) Non-UN coalition threatens military action if Iran continues. Iran backs down.

3) Israel acts alone.


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

The UN is useless, and in this case the Security Council will be nothing but an exercise in appearances. We just need to go through the motions solidifying the unity of Europe and the US in this case and providing ample opportuity for Iran to back down. But mark my words, military action is completely justified in this case and I hope the EU will see the futility of further talks. Let's just get in there, destroy every single nuclear-related installation and then get out. This is a very straightforward search and destroy mission on a massive scale. There's no need to do regime change or occupy civilian areas.

I wouldv'e even supported a go-alone approach on this one if the EU were to cave in but of course the jackasses in the White House already blew their wad on a useless $300B circle jerk in Iraq which makes EU participation in the Iran mission essential.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

OH NO NOT UN ACTION!

Please don't sick the UN bureaucrats on us. We'll do anything. We'll agree to a food for oil program. We'll open our doors to inspectors. Anything but UN action. The UN carries on big stick and its sanctions have been shown to have tremendous ability to cause immediate compliance.

Please don't send Kofi after us.

Signed by,

The Iranian Gov't


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Fine, then the EU can blame the U.S. and U.K. if Iraq falls into Civil War or into Islamic Fundamentalism.

Actually I would not disagree with that. However, I think it would have to be much worse than it is now to be worse than the pre-war situation.


User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

I find it hard to believe that the UN will be able to do much to persuade Iran to give up its ambitions. But what else can the world collectively do?

Should we threaten to use force? That probably wouldn't be too successful as it may provoke Iran to act first.

Sanctions? They won't have much of an effect on Iran.

Stern criticism? Now people are dreaming.

Military action? Possible if we know exactly where every nuke site is in Iran. They would probably retaliate, but the US, and Israel (and EU if they choose to be involved could easily win there) (i.e. not military occupation of Iran, just preventing the Iranian military from going over its borders).

I don't see an easy answer here.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3770 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
into Islamic Fundamentalism

Are you saying that today Iran is a secular paradise?

Anyhow, Iran will get the bomb if the UN/US/EU/Powers that be don't step in. As long as Israel has them, Iran will pursue it, and with the inoffical support of other Islamic nations, since they all see Israel as a "threat", and Iran having an a-bomb would be seen as a "deterrent". IMO, it will be the Cold War all over again, although I think that both Iran and Israel are slightly more hot on the button.

I believe that in the case of Iran a UN-sanctioned military action is not impossible, since nuclear weapons in that country pose a (real) clear and present danger to the whole region and beyond. Hopefully, the UN will get off it's ass, stop bickering and take a more leading role than in recent history.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Info On The Possible US Action On Iran posted Mon Jan 17 2005 18:19:44 by Yukimizake
Mexico Mulling UN Action Against U.S. Fence posted Tue Oct 10 2006 00:04:51 by AerospaceFan
Analyst: Massive Air Attack On Iran Likely posted Tue Aug 29 2006 15:56:42 by AerospaceFan
Nuke Attack On Iran? posted Sat Apr 8 2006 18:06:49 by TWISTEDWHISPER
Security Council Statement On Iran posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:21:00 by Aleksandar
Usaf F16 Wing Deployed For Possible Action In Iran posted Fri Jan 13 2006 17:38:30 by RJpieces
Where Is The Condemnation For Russia On Iran? posted Sat Feb 26 2005 05:09:05 by Falcon84
UN Report On Al-Qieda (frightening) posted Sat Nov 15 2003 20:46:33 by 727LOVER
Why The US Sanctions On Iran posted Tue Apr 1 2003 20:25:42 by Ammunition
Blair On Anti-American Feelings In EU Politics posted Thu Sep 14 2006 05:18:49 by 787