British Groups Say Not to Attack Iran

The report [link] from a coalition of think tanks, unions and aid groups is the latest of several high-profile appeals to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, arguing that military action could be highly dangerous and counterproductive.

``There are circumstances in which military action might have to be taken, but they are more circumscribed than simply saying we have a hunch that this country has got a nuclear program, therefore let's zap it just in case,'' Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Iran in 2002-06, said at a news conference for the document's release.

President Bush and other Western leaders have said there are no plans to attack Iran, but Washington also warns that military action remains an option as the U.N. Security Council presses Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and allay suspicions it is developing atomic bombs.

Bush recently raised the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region. He also has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq plotting attacks on American forces.

Iran denies it is trying to develop atomic weapons in violation of treaty promises, saying it is working on uranium enrichment only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

Enrichment, however, can also produce material for atomic bombs. Last week, a think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Iran could be two to three years from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, although other experts have estimated longer time frames.

Dalton and Alex Bigham, Iran analyst at the left-leaning think tank Foreign Policy Center, said the nuclear weapons programs of India, Pakistan and North Korea show diplomacy is not guaranteed to keep Iran from obtaining atomic arms. But they also said Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction shows diplomacy should always be tried.

Monday's paper, ``Time to Talk,'' said a military strike on Iran could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and strengthen hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.

An attack on oil-rich Iran also could drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world, it said.

``The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted,'' the report said. ``At present, this is not the case.''

Blair's government should ``seek direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S.'' and press for a compromise on the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks, said the paper compiled by 17 groups, including the Amicus and GMB trade unions, Oxfam aid group, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Foreign Policy Center.

The report did not reach a conclusion on whether Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, but acknowledged that ``many members of the international community are deeply concerned'' about Tehran's intentions.

Its release came a day after a letter was published in the Sunday Times newspaper from three former high-ranking U.S. military officers who urged Washington to open talks ``without preconditions'' with the Iranian government.

The letter warned that an attack in Iran ``would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions.''

It was signed by retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington; and retired Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - 3

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.

read more

Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival

​Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.

read more