Report on Iran strike 'nuts' (Straw)

[cal04]

British foreign secretary Jack Straw on Sunday dismissed claims that the United States was preparing for military action against Iran, including nuclear strikes on suspected atomic weapons facilities. He told BBC television that the international community was right to view the Islamic republic's nuclear programme with "high suspicion" but "there is no smoking gun, there is no 'casus belli' (justification for war)".

"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to go to military action," he said. Straw was speaking following reports from the United States that President George W Bush was studying options for military strikes, including possible targets.

The April 17 edition of the New Yorker said they included Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Straw dismissed the idea of nuclear strikes with bunker-busting bombs as "completely nuts" and questioned the reliability of the reports' source.

Instead, he said he believed Washington was still committed to using negotiation and diplomatic pressure to resolve the matter. "The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it," he said. Iran claims its nuclear programme is for domestic energy supply purposes only, but the West is convinced it is a front for developing nuclear weapons. A non-binding United Nations Security Council statement, passed on March 29, requires Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment-related activities by the end of April.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1913605,00.html

[HereSince1628]

1. Hey Jack! GET REAL! There was no justification for Iraq either.

What do they pay you to say such dumb shit?

[LynnTheDem]

26. Exactly; and Jack Straw himself warned the bLiar there was none for Iraq.

Poor Jack, guess he thinks the bushCabal have learned from their last 2 totally fucked up invasions. That's pretty stupid of ya, Jack.

[54anickel]

2. Good, I hope LOTS of world leaders come out with statements like

this because the idea (not Hersh's article) IS completely nuts.

I hope to see this remark by Straw repeated over and over again:

"The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it," he said.

[UpInArms]

3. lookie here! the NYTs is attempting to swiftboat Hersch

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

excerpt:

Mr. Hersh is a well-known journalist credited with uncovering major stories including the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1969 and details of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Some military and political officials have contested details of some of his articles, and some critics say he is too eager to report assertions critical of the government that are difficult to fully substantiate.

Somehow, I do believe Hersch more than this NYTs piece.

[saltpoint]

8. Hersh is so darn good at what he does that I can well imagine some

military people objecting to his articles and trying to discredit him.

But Hersh seems to have inside info and it tends to bear out time after time. Agree with you that he is entirely believable.

The TIMES seems to be pointing out the tension between a veteran investigative reporter and the military rather than a direct attack on Hersh. Not sure if I'm reading between the lines there?

Anyway I think I'll pick up a copy of THE NEW YORKER and see what Hersh has to say tomorrow.

[UpInArms]

9. here's a link for Hersch's article

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10



The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

...more...

I printed it out and read it in its entirety. Though having the original NewYorker would be nice :)

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, UpInArms. Thank you for the link. Much appreciated.

[Wise Doubter]

27. Well, there you have it ...

Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”



All he cares about is his legacy ?

Giddy yup cowboy

TOTAL self absorption !

[IndianaGreen]

30. What do you expect from a publisher that loved Judith Miller?

The NY Times has been a cheerleader for the war in Iraq from the gitgo!

[Just Me]

32. You know what, when this is "over", NYT will be DEAD!!!! Dusted!!!

The NYT has chosen the wrong path. And IT STILL chooses the path of profitable sales of "delusion".
When reality hits, they won't survive because they didn't have the fucking GUTS to be a reporting agency, reporting on reality, bringing truth to humanity.

And,...it's a damn shame :cry: because,...they "MEANT" something, once, during struggles towards T-R-U-T-H.

NYT allowed itself to be bought to sell out America.

I'll read about their extinction,...and remember how it happened.

[saltpoint]

4. If Straw is right then it would mean that Dubya is on his own re Iran.

It may be that no one in Great Britain right now is interested in another extremely ill-conceived and publicly unpopular conflict. I wonder if this is the UK's way of indicating to Bush that they are not on board for this next little episode.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Straw can't look inside Bush's head, and that's where the trouble begins.

Bush is a nutcase, plain and simple.

[William Seger]

21. Nothing to see inside Bush's head

It's Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the PNAC neocons.

[Eurobabe]

31. ahh you mean the little Cheney in Bush's head

[BiggJawn]

6. Like Il Douche had any justification to invade Iraq?

"Fool me once.....Shame on....You.....Fool me-Can't get fooled agin!"

Did Condi clue you in on what to say while you two were joining the "Mile-High Club" with her strap-on?

[laststeamtrain]

7. Note to Jack: it's not the report that's nuts...

it's the subject of the report that's nuts.

[bullimiami]

10. youre a proven liar, jack. so shut up.

same bullshit, different country.

[truth2power]

12. "....Bush was studying...."

Bwahahahahaha.. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[54anickel]

13. A week ago Straw said military action was "inconceivable". Maybe in

his mind it is, but why all the contingency planning behind the scenes?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/April/theworld_April59.xml§ion=theworld&col=

snip>

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who met with Rice in England before traveling with her to Baghdad, has said it is inconceivable that military action would be taken against Iran.

However, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that Britain’s government and military chiefs plan to hold secret talks on Monday to discuss contingency plans about possible military strikes against Iran.

In addition to officials from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s offices, the meeting will involve Gen. Michael Walker, the chief of the defense staff; Lt. Gen. Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defense and intelligence; and Maj. Gen. Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, the paper said in a front-page story.

Asked about the Sunday Telegraph report, Britain’s Defense Ministry said in a statement: “There is no such meeting between defense, the Foreign Office and other officials taking place. There will be no briefing of the prime minister or the Cabinet in this regard.”



Who to believe?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/dl0902.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixnewstop.html

Last Sunday, we revealed that several of Britain's defence chiefs were going to meet to discuss the effects on British interests of a military strike on Iran by the United States to destroy that county's capacity to build a nuclear bomb. Our story was categorically denied by Ministry of Defence officials, who told Sean Rayment, our Defence Correspondent, that there was "no truth in it whatsoever".

Yet those officials also told Rayment that by writing the story, he "had come very close to damaging national security". Asked how any story that was apparently false could possibly damage national security, the MoD officials changed tack: they admitted the story was correct in maintaining that there had been a meeting of defence chiefs - but, they insisted, an American strike on Iran had not been on the agenda.

It is, of course, no secret that the Bush administration has drawn up plans for a strike on Iran. As Seymour Hersh reports in The New Yorker tomorrow, many of the US officials opposed to a strike believe that its most immediate effect will be to generate an armed insurrection among the Shias in southern Iraq - precisely the region where British soldiers are concentrated. British soldiers are the most visible and easily accessible symbols of the American-led occupation in southern Iraq. They would be at very serious risk. Iran has also threatened to shut down its oil exports in the event of a strike, which could have a devastating effect on the world's economies.

But if you believe the MoD's press office, British defence chiefs are not talking about any of these things. They have no anxieties about what might happen to British soldiers in Iraq, and are certainly not meeting to discuss what to do in the event that the US drops "bunker-buster" bombs tipped with nuclear warheads on Iran's nuclear facilities.


:shrug: Not sure about the Telegraph story, but I do trust Hersh and his sources. While Hersh might be being used to get this info out as part of the saber rattling, I have no doubt that in Bushco's mind, this is not an idle threat. Since he's crowned himself king and done away with any oversight, he'll damn well do as he pleases.

[fedsron2us]

25. Has the UK's military elite given Blair's government a reality check ?

The Daily Telegraph is a traditional conservative newspaper but is not part of the Murdoch press and can not be relied on by the Blair government to be 'on message' about the military intervention in Iraq or any planned aggression against Iran. It has strong links to the armed forces who often use it to air 'doubts' about official government policy. The military commanders know that the British forces in Iraq would be simply be overwhelmed by any Shia backlash resulting from an attack on Iran. In particular the UK's miltary manpower is so overstretched that they could not cope with another conflict. The generals may have told Blair that if war with Iran breaks out Britain soon may not have much of an army left. It will be interesting to see whether the 'Dear Leader' takes the hint. I suspect that his inflated ego will mean that he can not bear the prospect of not being part of any conflict no matter how disastrous the consequences. Whether the rest of his now fatally divided Labour government want to go along for the suicidal kamikaze dive into the annals of infamy remains to be seen.

[Roland99]

14. No 'casus belli'...well...that's what pre-emptive is all about, Jack.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Jack Straw's Diary, published today

1 I meet a lot of people in my role as Foreign Secretary and quite a lot of them are from around the world. The one thing they all ask me is: 'What's Condoleezza Rice like?' I've got to say, she's charming, witty and intelligent. She's also black, which I think is fabulous. For all these reasons, I'm certain America will not go to war with Iran, nor would we join them in any planned air strike if they did, which they're not going to do, as I said.

2 If America did go to war with Iran, which they won't, but let's just say for the sake of pointless argument they did, then would Britain go to war with Iran with them? Let me make it absolutely clear that Tony Blair has made it absolutely clear that this is on balance pretty unlikely.

I mentioned this to Condoleezza and she said: 'How unlikely?' and I said: 'Pretty', then, realising what I'd just said, blushed, and she said: '"Pretty" is good enough for me' and walked back into her room, which just demonstrates the laser-like commitment to detail this marvellous politician exudes at all times. As Condoleezza left, the faint scent of peach blossom lingered in the air, a too-quickly dispersing waft of fragrance hanging like a cloud of hope in the night-time hotel corridor of wartorn central Baghdad. I took to my own bed thoroughly satisfied. With her answer.

3 There is as yet no reason to go to war with Iran because they have not provided us with one. And even if they did, would we spot it? You see, they're so devious, this Iranian regime, that they would be perfectly capable of hiding the very reasons we should go to war with them. So devious, in fact, that this is exactly why a lot of people are suggesting we go to war with them. Which is why I think we should counter their bluff by not falling for it. It's an argument I'm more than happy to put to the Americans or something approximating to it, anyway. I've already mentioned it to Condoleezza Rice and she's said it's certainly an interesting point of view, so I think I'm making some headway there.
...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,1749963,00.html

:-)

[allemand]

16. by Armando Iannucci...

;)

[54anickel]

18. What the hell is that? Sorry for the ignorance, but is that for real

are those Straw's words or Armando Iannucci's? Is this some Onion-like section of the Observer?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Yes, Iannucci is a satirist

who writes a column for the Observer. But he's got the tone of Straw down very well. For all his protestations of 'nuts' and 'inconceivable', his boss Blair always says "nothing is ruled out" with Iran. And we do suspect him of being a bit dazzled by Condi (just as Blair is dazzled by Bush and his power).

[54anickel]

23. Thanks. Figured as much after a second read. n/t

[Kailassa]

19. Not knowing any thing about Jack Straw,

I was considering suggesting that he's said there would be no invasion of Iran in order to make the Bitsh look really bad if he did invade. But from reading his diary, no, the man is just an ass.

His reasoning here is that America won't go to war with America because Condi is charming, witty, intelligent and black. Talk about a fool who's brain stops functioning when he gets a hard-on.

And he thinks it's fabulous that Condi is black? I find that statement really off. Whether she's white, black, green or purple is not relevant to the fact that she is the Bitsh's selfish little ass-wipe. I'm sure most blacks are no more proud to have Condi in office than I'm proud to have the Bitsh there.

[Kailassa]

20. Pththth ... you had me fooled there. ;-)

But then, I'd believe anything about a politician these days ... almost .

[Panda1]

17. He's lying

Why is Bolton pounding the war drums?
Why are Rumsfeld and Pace saying weapons from Iran are being found in Iraq?
Why are Rice and Cheney saying our most dangerous enemy on the planet is Iran?

Straw: he believed Washington was still committed to using negotiation and diplomatic pressure to resolve the matter.
Based on what? Past performance with Afghanistan and Iraq?

"Believe" and "if you will" are two of Cheney's favorite terms too...as he tells blatant lies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/from/RS.1/
U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran
White House mulls military solutions for nuclear standoff, sources say
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post
Updated: 10:32 p.m. ET April 8, 2006
...

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10911
Israel, U.S. deploy nuclear arms in submarines
3/12/2006 11:00:00 PM GMT
Israel is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads

Israeli and American officials admitted deploying U.S.-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, which provides the Jewish State with ultimate ability to strike any targets it wishes in any of its Arab neighbours, according to UK’s The Guardian.
...

[Tempest]

24. He questions the reliability of the sources?

Herst's record for uncovering secrets is impeccable as well as his sources over the years.

As far as I'm concerned, the sources are accurate.

[xchrom]

28. since britain and the u.s. lied about wmds. -- then

with what cridibility does straw tell anybody that this admin -- and britain have found no causus belli?

who's going to believe him -- and why would they?

[pinniped]

29. Did this assclown open his piehole before or after the....

unmanned drone was allegedly shot down by Iran?