Blair’s loyalty tested as Bush "menaces" Iran
The Sunday Times:
AFTER two years of unswerving solidarity over the war in Iraq, Tony Blair's relationship with President George W Bush is coming under strain from the newly revived threat of an American military attack on nuclear facilities in Iran. ...
European negotiators were recently described by David Kay, the former US weapons inspector, as impotently manipulable. A prominent Washington defence hawk warned: “At some point the Americans are going to turn to the Europeans and say, “The goal is disarmament but all we are getting is arms control. It's time for a bigger stick.” ... “I quite frankly am pessimistic, added Kay, ... “I think the regime is in fact hell-bent on this capability. ...Something no one is talking about is that while Britain may not favor a military attack on Iran, they would find it much more difficult to turn their back on a US effort to support the people of Iran in an internal regime change.
John Pike, a defence specialist who is convinced that Washington is waiting for an early diplomatic breakdown in order to launch an attack” ... “I think it's a question of months, not years. I think they are absolutely serious when they say that atomic ayatollahs are unacceptable. ...
“We just don’t know where all the stuff is,” said one British official. “We don't know how far they have dispersed or duplicated facilities and “we don't know how much of what we can see is dummy or decoy construction. In short, we can't be sure we’ve got all the targets to stop them from building a weapon. ...
Pike is among other specialists who believe that what you see is what you get in the Iranian nuclear programme. ... He argued that America should strike at night against buildings housing nuclear scientists and workers. “They need to maximise the number of casualties, he said. “You can rebuild a building in a couple of years, but it could retard the programme for decades if they have to replace all their people. ...
Behind the ayatollah’s posturing lies what British officials believe is a persuasive argument against a military attack: far from encouraging Iranian reformers to rise up against their theocratic government, any form of US intervention might unite the country behind Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader. more
<< Home