Blair refuses to back Iran strike -- Foreign Office:Strike on Iran Illegal

[Douglas Carpenter]

link: http://www.sundayherald.com/55316

"Foreign Office lawyers warn: Support for Bush military action would be illegal.
Army warns: we're too stretched to cope with any more military action

By Westminster Editor James Cusick and Neil Mackay

Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.

The advice given to the Foreign Secretary in the last few weeks is thought to have prompted his open criticism last week of Tony Blair’s backing for President George Bush, who has refused to rule out military action against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

snip:"Straw said it would be “inconceivable” that Britain would support a military strike against Tehran.

The Foreign Office’s lawyers have gone further than merely advising on the legality of military assistance. It is thought their advice stretched to the use of British military advisers, UK airspace and even the dangers of Tony Blair expressing support which could be taken as legitimising a US-led attack without the express authority of the United Nations."

read full article - link: http://www.sundayherald.com/55316
______________________________

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms



http://www.dontattackiran.org
____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

[Live_Liberty]

1. Regime Change again! LOL

Just what to do about all these democratically elected foriegn leaders who just happen to disagree with us. Remarkable how some nations have the moral justification for maintaining huge arsenals of wholesale war crime devices and delivery systems, no matter how madly infatuated they are with their own notions of right, while others apparently do not.

Great Britain and America once got away with installing a tyrant in Teheran, that was where this whole mess with the democratic Islamic world was first instigated for the likes of British Pretoleum by our good CIA and it's MI6 masters. Mossadegh and Shwarzkopf come to mind...

[Amonester]

2. Were they the same lawyers who said invading Iraq for regime...

change was illegal too? (Re: Downing Street Memo)

Of course, "Regime change" is illegal. (Re: International Law)

BLiar & Bu$h to The Hague.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. indeed the very same ones"

link:

http://www.sundayherald.com/55316

snip:"In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, Straw received similar private advice from senior Foreign Office lawyers who had also advised the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, on the illegality of an invasion without the express authority of the United Nations Security Council.

The Foreign Office’s deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, later resigned when the attorney general reversed his initial view on the war’s legality.

Sources within the Foreign Office say there is an express desire that this time their legal advice is heard and acted upon.

A source close to Straw told the Sunday Herald: “There is now a clear paper trail of legal advice.”

read full article - link:
http://www.sundayherald.com/55316
_________________________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[caledesi]

4. I think I have seen "this part part of the show" before. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. I hope people can figure out the plot this time...

http://www.dontattackiran.org

[saltpoint]

6. This is an announcement the UK folks have made more than once now

over a period of a week, and it's starting to sound as if Dubya's all alone on his bomb-Iran scenario.

Bush needs to be reeled in on this one, and at least the word from the UK is sane and cool-browed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. i'm sure if Mr. Blair even supported such an attack - he would not be

Prime Minister anymore.
_______________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[saltpoint]

8. I have a feeling you are exactly right.