Blair refuses to back Iran strike

i have told this before and again, if US does an air strike against Iran than it will be left on its own and it will basiclly be crippled in the middle east while we get the upper hand, thats why bush knows what will happen if he does such an move and iran will get what it wants, the whole world is telling bush to back off from an military strike against iran because the consequences will be brutal and it could lead to a pull out from Iraq and Afghanistan.

TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.

Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.

But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."

Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.


news.scotsman.com...

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Mehran]

From what I read hes not "refusing to back a strike on Iran" by the US , I could honestly never see Bliar sorry Blair speaking out against whatever the US wants to do , he is merely saying that Britain would not commit its own forces.

Originally posted by buckaroo
From what I read hes not "refusing to back a strike on Iran" by the US , I could honestly never see Bliar sorry Blair speaking out against whatever the US wants to do , he is merely saying that Britain would not commit its own forces.

unless your having reading problems than you should consider getting glasses because he is refusing to back a strike against iran, read the whole thing again buddy, unlike Bush hes not stupid and doesnt threaten other countries with nuclear bombs.

Good. I was against the war in Iraq and against the likely attacks on Iran.

The majority of Britain didn't want to go to War but Tony Blair didn't listen. I'm glad our main body of forces will not be going to Iran...

...But you can bet your boots the British special forces will be involved.

Mehran, backaroo is right.

Blair isn't saying he wont back it politically. He only said he wouldn't commit the British forces.

That's an entirely different thing. Plus as I stated above, I'm pretty sure the British special forces will be involved.

Thanx for the post. T'll weight that information appropriately, accordingly and wait for reality to catch up.

Originally posted by Mehran

unless your having reading problems than you should consider getting glasses because he is refusing to back a strike against iran, read the whole thing again buddy, unlike Bush hes not stupid and doesnt threaten other countries with nuclear bombs.

No he is refusing to commit Britains overstretched military at this time to an assult on Iran, show me , unless YOUR having reading problems where in this article it says that Blair would not support U.S military action on Iran , apart from a misleading headine.

You are seeing what you want to see in this article , and anyway whos to say that the position offered in this piece will be relevant when and if an assult takes place, and is contingent on the type of military option that the U.S takes in the first instance .

I also agree with Snoopdopey I could honestly not see America going it completely alone , that is to say some British military involvement whether it be Special forces or cruise missiles from the SSNs ,or even taking more responsibility for Parts of Iraq or Afghanistan (which in the case of the later is already happening) to free up U.S forces , Not to mention Intelligance operations .

And anyhow with or with out Britain the U.S can do what it pleases , whether people think this is a good thing or not , they don't need us , but would feel better im sure to have us along for the ride.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by buckaroo]

Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Scottsman.com

It would appear the article is an Editorial not a news article. Therefore it is nothing more then ones personal opinion. Direct to file 13 for this as far as I am concerned.





[edit on 4/16/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by Mehran
unless your having reading problems than you should consider getting glasses because he is refusing to back a strike against iran, read the whole thing again buddy, unlike Bush hes not stupid and doesnt threaten other countries with nuclear bombs.

This may be of interest to you, Mehran?
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
U.S. and Britain Rehearse Occupation of Iran as Named 'Korona'

Personally, I would love to see Blair and the UK government just come out and say that they would accept and have no problems with Iran having nukes. That would work for me, cause till they do, Blair saying such is merely a political move, one that allows him to survive a bit longer. Seemingly, this would place him in a "rock and a hard place."

But then again, being this is an editorial piece....(thanks shots).





seekerof

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seekerof]