Straw (UK) clarifies position re: Syria, Iran

I think this just emphasises the extent to whcih Britain has joined in this because Blair believes that Iraq presents a clear danger to the west.

The UK government has managed to forge quite good relationships with Iran recently so therefore is unlikely to consider it a danger as well.

The UK government wants this war to have been an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances, not a new set of conquests.

 

if bush goes in to iran or syria...

you are going to see a lot more protests in the united states as well; these two countries, although 'sponsors' of terrorism do not pose the kind of threat that iraq does...i honestly believe that iran will become one of the more forward thinking middle east countries in years to come, the young people of that country have a much different <and more positive> view of the future than the elders. syria, well that is another story but i cannot see bush heading that direction...who knows.

 

I think this is right.

I also think that this will be, at bottom, the US position.

The occupation of Iraq will be used to put enormous diplomatic pressure on Syria -- and Iran -- in particular. I think we fear Iran the most because it is developing nuclear weapons. Watch us do, almost immediately after Iraq is occupied, some serious sabre rattling against Iran. We will turn up the heat.

I think military action will not occur against Syria. However, do not be surprised if the USA, using Special Forces and air power from Iraqi soil, takes selective action against Iranian nuclear activities.

 

Pretty soon, we'll almost surround Iran from all sides.

 

Of course. It's the only tool in Bush's International Diplomacy Toolbox.

 

Think about it though... what is stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons?? And let's not be naive...they ARE developing them, and will have a workable weapon soon.

Is ANY international pressure being put on Iran NOW to stop developing weapons??

Meanwhile, what "tools" should we use?? Get a UN Security Council resolution?? Re-hire Hans Blix??

Sanctions?? Boy, those are a REALLY bad idea. Their economy is already in the toilet and, besides, there's a huge liberal/democratic strain in the youth in that country.

And is there any doubt that Iran has given succor to terrorist type organizations?? The Ansar El Salam guys, the few who have survived after having been pounded by our air force, have fled into Iran. You think the Mullah's secret police are gleefully pursuing them in the mountains?? Then I have a bridge to sell you.

I think it is quite unlikely we will mount some full scale invasion of Iran. But watch us REALLY turn up the heat. Would YOU doubt our WILL to use the military power we have now?? You would do so at your peril.

 

We may turn up the heat a little on Iran and Syria but we're going to have our hands full with Iraq and N. Korea so I think there's very little chance of us getting involved in another military conflict in the Mid East.

Unless of course, we get attacked.

 

This would make the world a whole lot safer than getting rid of Saddam. The idea that Iraq is more dangerous than a nuclear armed Iran is so laughable, yet we hear it over and over.

 

agreed. i like this jack straw fella...