White House frustrated with Brown over Iran

White House frustrated with Brown over Iran

www.telegraph.co.uk

The Bush administration is losing patience with Gordon Brown over Iran, with senior American diplomats frustrated by his reluctance to declare bluntly that the Islamic state must never be allowed nuclear weapons.

The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It seems that Brown cannot make any decisions (if you are a UK member, you know what I am talking about).

Sadly, we lack a strong Prime Minister or a leader who is willing to tell us where he stands. This isn't just about Iran, I can think of other areas where he is not taking a strong approach (party funding is an example).

Atleast under Blair, Britain could punch above her weight on the international stage, and have an active part, I cannot see that under Brown.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by infinite


Maybe he's still adjusting. For example, the current premier of Malaysia is also looked upon by a lot of people in the country as being weak and indecisive. It's only lately that he's started to assert his dominance. Tempus omnia revelat.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Maybe he's still adjusting. For example, the current premier of Malaysia is also looked upon by a lot of people in the country as being weak and indecisive. It's only lately that he's started to assert his dominance. Tempus omnia revelat.

I don't think so,

He did mess up the whole "election that never was". But seriously, Brown is getting weaker by the weeks. This isn't going to be good news that the Americans are even getting frustrated with him now.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by infinite]

Brown knows the power base is shifting and the Bush kooks are going to fry...so it's time to stall for time and not argue with the nutbags.

This guy is inept and unelected...and I don't think he has the guts to match his responsabilty...

Then again I have very little time for politicians...There was a time when people went into government to make a difference..right or wrong .Now its a career move and the ultimate goal is to line their own pockets!

I agree entirely.
Brown appears undecisive and seems to have no "vision" or direction.
I suspect this may be because he just wishes to pursue policies that will ensure his re-election.

At least Blair was unafraid to impose his opinions and appeared to have cohesive and consistent policies.

As the op states, this allowed Britain in recent years to command a position on the world stage greater than it perhaps should have done.

The only other time this may have been true in recent years was during the Thatcher years.
As much as I despised her domestic policies, her clear and strong policies ensured a pre-eminent place for the UK in world politics.

I suspect that with politicians like Brown and Cameron leading their respective parties Britain is again about to lose more influence.

Brown needs to get elected sometime soon.

Suporting Bush on another la la land folly of a crusade into Iran isn't going to get him elected. Plain and simple.

I would, therefore, suggest that he's not dithering. I would say hes being a politician. If he goes along with Bush in the same manner as Blair did the Labour Party may well be out in the cold for a long, long time.

At the end of the day he hasn't the guts to get our blokes out of Iraq..
Now things are spiraling out of control in the uk ...personally I don't think any of them have a grasp of reality!

Originally posted by neformore

I would, therefore, suggest that he's not dithering. I would say hes being a politician. If he goes along with Bush in the same manner as Blair did the Labour Party may well be out in the cold for a long, long time.

And therein lies the predicament he finds himself in; support Bush and his apparent drive towards military confrontation with Iran, something that the vast majority of Brits appear to be against. He then fails to be re-elected.
Or appeasement towards Iran and possible future non-involvement in world politics as Brown and his government would be frozen out by the US.

As Brown considers his options he is perceived to be weak and indecisive.
Not a pretty position to be in.

Whilst I have no particular fondness for Brown, I can sympathise for him and though it pains me to say, he is infinitaly better than the alternative; the prospect of this countries interests being looked after by David Cameron fills me with absolute horror.
The fact that there is no viable opposition leader to Brown is a poor reflection of the state of British politics.

reply to post by neformore


I agree.

He's seen what happened to Blair when he got close to Bush (or, at least, the public perceived him to be very close - that's what matters in politics) and he knows that, politically at least, the Bush Administration isn't a good group of people to get too close to.

Besides, drifting away from the US a little seems popular with the electorate... what do you expect an elected politician (of any party) to do? After Iraq, Labour is in a difficult position and has to bend with the electorate more than usual to stand a fair chance at the next election.