US-Iran rapprochement?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Taz_786, Jul 17, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Well well well!

    After much rattling of sabres, Bush blinks first.

    An outbreak of common sense or just an attempt not to look like a complete cnut after leaving office?

    The cynic in me thinks it's also a bit handy in undercutting one of the central themes of Barack Obama's foreign policy and giving McCain a boost.

    Welcome news all the same. Definitely no conflict on the cards now and Little Satan is understandably feeling a bit jilted, aah diddums!
  2. We should send out the el porko bint who was imprisoned last year along with the navy contingent. She could sit on his face.
  3. Would be interesting to know the REAL reason behind Bush's change of heart...
  4. The agreement with Czech republic about the Radar has been signed. So called Iranian 'threat' has been used to reach the objective.

    Suppose that pro-Western government emerges in Iran. Would the Radar be dismantled? No, of course.

    As for the anti-missiles then maybe they would not be ever installed in Poland or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Strategically they are not so important.
  5. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Let's face it - Iran is one of THE most westernised cultures in the ME, with more freedoms for its people than most other places - in the ME.

    They haven't started a war or 'destabalised' anywhere for a very long time, they are certainly no threat to their neighbours or the West, and if they have a pop at Israel, they'll get wiped from the map.

    What's the point in carrying on this septic charade? It's outdated, outmoded, pointless, and truth be known, it's not going to wash with Western electorates if the US wants to start another war. They blew their ace when they got caught lying about WMD's and the threat that Saddam posed. They can't exactly use the same lies to start with Iran now can they?

    Might as well just get on, make the right noises, let bygones be bygones (US Embassy et al).
  6. This is a positive development that should give more opportunity to lead to agreement and co-existence then no diplomatic link whatsoever.
  7. Definately a step in the right direction, hopefully it will all come good as I reckon we have enough commitment for now and don't need to add another hot, sandy shitehole to the deployment list.

    I think we should invade Hawaii, could at least get some decent diving in at weekends then! :D
  8. Possibly not as it seems!
    The Iranian population, despite the leadership - demographically - v young and pro-US in culture, clothes, music etc.
    If you're under 25 live in Tehran or the big cities, you probably aspire to at least visit or better still live in the US. If there is a US interests section in the Swiss embassy they'll be queuing round the block and beyond to get visas - they won't necassarily be issued, armd dinnerjacket wouldn't want the associated bad publicity and almost certainly doesn't want an interests section in his capital.
    It's just a bit of a pissing competition!
  9. Reasons abound.

    From recent interview with IAEA Director General - Mohamed ElBaradei: Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008

    Mohamed ElBaradei: "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has..."

    Interviewer: "How much time would it need?"

    ElBaradei: "It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon."

    Interviewer: "Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months..."

    ElBaradei: "Or one year, at least..."

    Interviewer:"... to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

    ElBaradei: "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon." [...]

    "A Military Strike [Against Iran] Would Be the Worst Thing Possible"

    "In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire."

    Interviewer: "It would be worse than sanctions?"

    ElBaradei: "Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called 'crash course,' or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians - even the Iranians living in the West."


    Interviewer: "Dr. ElBaradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?"

    ElBaradei: "They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I'd rather wait to see this transparency.


    "I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike."

    Interviewer: "You will resign in the event that..."

    ElBaradei: "If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend."

    Interviewer: "This is a threat directed at the Americans - if you strike, I will resign."

    ElBaradei: "I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would... I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values..."

    Interviewer: "So there is no justification for an attack..."

    "There Will Be No Point in My Continuing My Work If Military Force Is Used"

    ElBaradei: "The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign."


    Interviewer: "If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?"

    ElBaradei: "I don't think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger."

    Interviewer: "But in a year or two, it could become..."

    ElBaradei: "If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to..."

    Interviewer: "So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today."

    ElBaradei: "None whatsoever. There will be no point in my continuing my work if military force is used at present."
  10. 8O :?

    So, no one told the US administration about this?! Again?!

    Does it mean that proposed "Shield" in Europe was not meant against Iran? What a shock!
  11. What's the point in carrying on this septic charade? It's outdated, outmoded, pointless, and truth be known, it's not going to wash with Western electorates if the US wants to start another war. They blew their ace when they got caught lying about WMD's and the threat that Saddam posed. They can't exactly use the same lies to start with Iran now can they?
    A Huge Stockpile Of Natural Uranium Arrives In Canada After Secret U.S. Operation (AP) The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions. What is now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12... [read full story]
    Is this report a crock of shoite, or do the MSN not like to admit that Bush was right
  12. This was more true five years ago; since then I've detected a distinct swing Eastward and even EUwards amongst the Iranian jeunesse dorée. Largely caused by the unfortunate spectacle we've made of Uncle Sam's power. Waiving the 5th fleet at Qom no longer impresses. It just expands and mobilizes their Twelver nutter demographic.

    Still the old scoundrel retains a wrinkled glamor that given a little diplomatic mood lighting can charm many. This all amounts to a strong argument for an aggressive US engagement in Tehran with what is a very sophisticated population.

    There are other compelling reasons of course but pissing contests are often what diplomacy is all about. I'm surprised this dozy administration appears finally raised itself from the day bed to attempt some state craft.
  13. OK, El Baradei knows all about nuke shite, but since when has he been any more competent than any other bloke in a pub when it comes to the achieving foreign policy objectives? It's like the BBC putting playwrights on discussion panels discussing Iraq. Let's see how seriously they take some squaddies' views of poetry:

    Paxo "So what do you think of Dennis Potter's new work"
    Sq "It's shite"
    Paxo "Why exactly is that?"
    Sq "Cos it's fcuking craap"

    So why do we accept it the other way round? Baradei, you may be the world's foremost expert on Uranium physics and proliferation, but just how exactly does that give you the edge on political morality and the practical impact of military operations? Fine, resign if you feel morally uncomfortable in your role, but why is that of any consequence to any of us? You've won a Nobel Peace Prize for achieving precisely what? NOTHING. Yet you didn't bother pointing that out, Mr Double Standard Ethics, did you?

    It may be that what he argues is quite correct, but it galls me that he should assume this great air of moral and political authority - exactly like that Blix twaat did - and think he can step into the policy arena. Chain of command - UN Sec Gen should put him in his box or replace him. Sec Gen should do the political speaking.

    Sorry, I needed to get that little rant out of my system. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
  14. :D
    I like that... Only I think Dennis Potter was a playwright, not a poet. Am I wrong?
  15. The Septics have given the Iranians 2 weeks to respond to the latest offer; suspend the nuclear program or face sanctions.

    Far too early to tell if peace has broken out...

    Oh, and am I the only one who thought it was a great idea to have the diplomatic mission led by MR BURNS?! 8O :lol:

    Excellent! :twisted: