Growing Conflicts With Iran

[Syntax]

For those of you who have been keeping up with world news and various related articles you may want to take a look at this.

French Foreign Minister Warns Country Of A Possibility Of Going To War With Iran​

The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said yesterday his country had to prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear programme, but added that he did not believe any such action was imminent.

Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Mr Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's main powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting nuclear weapons, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.

"We must prepare for the worst," Mr Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Asked about the warning, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities. "We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative [but] that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.

Tehran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology to produce electricity, but it has yet to comply with UN demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could potentially be used in producing weapons.

Mr Kouchner's comments follow a statement by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who said last month that a diplomatic push by the world's powers was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".

Mr Kouchner said France had asked its biggest companies, including the oil giant Total and the gas firm Gaz de France, not to bid for projects in Iran. "It is a way of signalling that we are serious," he said. In addition, Paris and Berlin were preparing possible EU economic sanctions against Tehran, he said.

I'll try and find more articles on this if possible.

 

[Sovieto]

so in conclusion invade all of the middle east and GG world problems?

 

[Syntax]

Pretty much. Hopefully this conflict can be dealt with without the use of military force.

"I do not know what World War Three will be fought with but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones"

- Einstein

 

[blueovalboy7]

Great, more problems with the Middle East, at least it isn't the U.S. this time, but most likely we'll get into it if there is military action against Iran. Though I can't exactly say I want Iran with nukes at their disposal.

 

[laderer5]

Give each world power 1 nuclear bomb..
If they attempt to Nuke you just Nuke them back.

End of Story.

 

[blueovalboy7]

Right...

 

[Syntax]

Give each world power 1 nuclear bomb..
If they attempt to Nuke you just Nuke them back.

End of Story.

That will just create more problems in the world which to be honest we don't need right now. Also the targets of these attacks would most likely be based on attacking the capital of a country so many innocent civilians would lose their lives if that was to happen.

Back on topic..

Russia has asked that the U.S doesn't step in and use military force. Right now I believe both Russia and France are trying to deal with the situation more calmly instead of going in and using military force.

 

[blueovalboy7]

Back on topic..

Russia has asked that the U.S doesn't step in and use military force. Right now I believe both Russia and France are trying to deal with the situation more calmly instead of going in and using military force.

That would be a good thing, less money spent on foreign affairs would most definitely be beneficial for the U.S. and finding a peaceful resolution is never a bad thing either.

 

[Syntax]

Never said it was a bad thing.

Here's the other article..

MOSCOW, Sept 18--Russian deputy foreign minister Alexander Losyukov has warned that any US military intervention in Iran would be a "political error" that would have "catastrophic" consequences.

Losyukov's comments in an interview published Tuesday came after French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the world should prepare for a possible conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

"Generally speaking, bombings of Iran would be a bad move that would end with catastrophic consequences," Losyukov told the daily Vremya Novosti.

Losyukov said Moscow remains "convinced that there is no military solution to the Iranian problem", calling a military solution as "impossible".

"Besides, it is quite clear that there is no military solution to the Iraq problem either. But in the case of Iran everything could be even more complicated," he said.

The deputy minister said the use of force would only "worsen the situation in the Middle East" and "bring a very negative reaction from the Muslim world".

"Of course I cannot know what is being thought in the United States," Losyukov said, but their military intervention in Iran "would be a big diplomatic and political error".

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Monday tensions with Iran were now "extreme", heightening a diplomatic storm caused by Kouchner's war warning on Sunday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief UN nuclear inspector, condemned France's stance and urged Iran's harshest critics to learn the lessons of Iraq and not attack Tehran.

He said on Monday that such options should only be considered as a last resort and if authorized by the UN Security Council.

ElBaradei also called on nations critical of his nuclear deal with Tehran to "hold their horses'' until the end of the year.

ElBaradei, speaking Monday outside a 144-nation meeting of his International Atomic Energy Agency, invoked the example of Iraq in urging an end to the threats of force against Iran.

Meanwhile, Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik condemned the comments of her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner.

"My colleague Kouchner is the only one who can tell you what he meant. (But) I can't comprehend why he is resorting to such martial rhetoric at this time," Plassnik said on the sidelines of an IAEA meeting in Vienna.

"I am for continued work towards a negotiated solution. I'm convinced that a negotiated solution can be reached," she said.

On Monday, US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the US remained "determined to use diplomacy" to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff.

"We have said all along the United States government position has been that we are determined to use diplomacy to resolve this matter," Bodman told reporters at a meeting in Vienna of the IAEA.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said Sunday that the US would stick to diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to halt its nuclear drive, but "all options are on the table".

 

[blueovalboy7]

Hmm, well at least the US rep said they are "determined to use diplomacy to resolve this matter" there is hope, for our politicians

 

[Byuakuya]

Pretty much. Hopefully this conflict can be dealt with without the use of military force.

"I do not know what World War Three will be fought with but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones"

- Einstein

I agree completely. If we continue to use weapons for every little problem, then the future of the human race will progress once again into the past, as stated by Einstein.

 

[Warrior]

Hmm, well at least the US rep said they are "determined to use diplomacy to resolve this matter" there is hope, for our politicians

They said a similar thing about Iraw my friend, i still cant belive some people even trust the US government anymore.

With Bush in charge of America, no body is safe. WW3 is inevitable, and its going to come sooner than we all think.

 

[Foxy]

They said a similar thing about Iraw my friend, i still cant belive some people even trust the US government anymore.

With Bush in charge of America, no body is safe. WW3 is inevitable, and its going to come sooner than we all think.

Now you need to understand that world war 3 will not be as soon as we think, the middle east hasnt exactly rised a power house of a military force.

If there was to be a world 3 three I am sure countries like russia, china, UA and england will be the main one's involved.

WWI and II were effectively battles between England and Germany, it kind of annoys me when the Americans hitch on and call it their war, use you offered support but only meak, and when Japan started attacking you, thats when you got fully involved.

Yes I am greatful that our nations joined forces and took down the Nazi government in WWII but it was mainly England and Germany.

 

[Barnzy02]

All this, along with a supposed video that will be released by al-qaeda with Bin Laden saying that he is ready to go to war against pakistan.

This world is such a wonderful place to be in, at this point there has been too much history and people are too ignorant to settle differences in a reasonable manner. People are inherently violent, and we are going to end up killing ourselves off. Enjoy!

 

[Syntax]

So true..

I'm going to start collecting sticks and stones..

Bush setting America up for war with Iran ​

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush
Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
advertisement

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."

Possible flash points: Click to enlarge

Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.

A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.



"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."

The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".

Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."