Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8153 posts, RR: 26 Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
Oh boy, they just can't resist playing the rhetoric game can they? If the situation weren't so serious, the statements regularly coming out of the Iranian Foreign Ministry would be fine fodder for situational comedy.
Iran regrets that Clinton is “seeking to divert public opinion in the region,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. “We see these methods as a new trick although its nature is clear to the people and authorities in the region and it will have no effect.”
Again, Tehran's leadership seems to be in some far-off fantasyland with regard to where they stand among their wealthy Sunni neighbors. Not only that, but Israel's Netanyahu had meetings on the same subject with Russia's Medvedev yesterday as well. No effect?:
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal last night said governments should act quickly to prevent Iran’s program from spurring a regional nuclear arms race
I'd like to know how this is any more a trick than the rhetoric the government is using against their own people:
Clinton, speaking yesterday in Doha, Qatar, said Iran’s supreme leader, government, president and parliament are “being supplanted” by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military unit that’s played a key role in suppressing anti-government protests. She said the Guards are in control of Iran’s nuclear program and should be the target of sanctions
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1205 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter): Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal last night said governments should act quickly to prevent Iran’s program from spurring a regional nuclear arms race
I'm intrigued by comments made by the Saudis; they say that something quicker than sanctions should be used. I interpreted that to mean military action? It does raise the question about rumours a few months back where the Saudis had allegedly green-lighted the Israelis to use their territory if they wanted to attack Iran; both sides denied this vociferously, of course, but it seems quite clear to me that the Saudis desperately want Iran to be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, almost as much as the Israelis.
The smaller Gulf states, particularly Bahrain (which has a Shia majority) must be feeling quite uncomfortable at the way things are happening now. If HC is correct (and she may well be, because Iran does seem to be becoming more radical), then who knows that action the IRGC could take? They're not above attacking vessels in the Gulf or launching raids into other countries; my guess is that they would probably attack a large oil vessel in the Straits of Hormuz, if particularly strong sanctions were imposed.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Yes, that is true, Iran has said many time they can close the Straits of Hormuz at any time. SA, Iraq, and Kuwait seem to be mostly in Iran's sites. Why? Because it is these countries that an Israeli attack could, most likely, overfly ( as well as air refueling orbits), and Israel will need approval from those three countries.