Attack on Iran Invitable? British consider consequences of attack on Iran
Blair government, military will examine possible role, if any, in 'inevitable' US-led attack.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
British media are reporting that Tony Blair's government is meeting in secret Monday with military chiefs to discuss an attack against Iran. The Daily Telegraph reports that the meeting will examine the consequences of an American-led attack, which is "inevitable" if Iran does not comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment program.
A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [Chiefs of Defense Staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days."
The Telegraph quotes the source further:
"There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq. Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable nor imminent and then attacked."
But joining the US in a possible attack on Iran will not be easy for the British government, especially considering other news it received over the weekend about its involvement in Iraq.
The Observer reports that despite attempts to downplay the idea that its role in Iraq had made it a target for terrorists, initial drafts of the government's account of the July 7 bombings in London has come to the conclusion that "the bombers were inspired by UK foreign policy, principally the decision to invade Iraq."
Initial drafts of the government's account into the bombings, which have been revealed to The Observer, state that Iraq was a key 'contributory factor.' The references to Britain's involvement in Iraq are contained in a section examining what inspired the 'radicalization' of the four British suicide bombers, Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay.
The findings will prove highly embarrassing to Tony Blair, who has maintained that the decision to go to war against Iraq would make Britain safer. On the third anniversary of the conflict last month, the Prime Minister defended Britain's involvement in Iraq, arguing that only an interventionist stance could confront terrorism.
Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph reported Sunday that a new YouGov poll shows that "the British public no longer believes that our military presence in Iraq is serving any purpose." For the first time in the three years since Iraq was invaded, a majority of those polled want British troops to be withdrawn within 12 months, regardless of the situation in Iraq.
Fifty-seven per cent of respondents believe that George W Bush and Tony Blair were wrong to take military action. Only a third still believes they were right. That is a mirror image of April 2003, when support for the war was at its highest after the lightning campaign to capture Baghdad and the televised toppling of Saddam's statue. Then, 60 per cent of respondents said that military action was right and 35 per cent opposed it.
The Washington Post reported Sunday that US intelligence and terrorism experts believe that if the US did launch an attack on Iran, Iran would deploy "its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide."
Iran would mount attacks against US targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.
U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the US intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.
Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.
But terrorism experts considered Iranian-backed or controlled groups – namely the country's Ministry of Intelligence and Security operatives, its Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah – to be better organized, trained and equipped than the Al Qaeda network that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The BBC reported on Monday that Iran has announced it has developed " the world's fastest torpedo." National Iranian TV was interrupted to show a test of the torpedo destroying a derelict ship. The torpedo test came two days after Iran tested a convention missile that could be equipped with multiple warheads.
Iran's elite Republican Guard troops are carrying out a series of military exercises and tests in the Gulf and in the Arabian Sea. The new missile, called Hoot, or Whale, could be deployed on Iranian ships in the oil-rich area, which is home to the US 5th Fleet.
Finally, in a deal that may have some ramifications on the situation with Iran, the BBC reports that Australia and China have signed a nuclear deal that will allow Beijing to import Australian uranium for power stations. The deal was accomplished after China said it would never use the uranium for nuclear weapons program.
"These agreements establish strict safeguards, arrangements and conditions to ensure Australian uranium supplied to China, and any collaborative programmes in applications of nuclear technology, is used exclusively for peaceful purposes," [Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer] said.
Starting in 2010, Australia will begin exporting 20,000 metric tons of uranium to China each year. Critics of the deal said that the purchase of the uranium from Australia would allow China to use more of its own uranium (it is the third largest producer in the world) for its weapons program, but the Australia government said the sale "would not make the slightest difference." |
