France says Prepare for War with Iran

[xrayzebra]

France says must prepare for possible war with Iran
Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:10pm BST

By Francois Murphy

PARIS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear programme, but he did not believe any such action was imminent.

Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting atom bombs, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.

"We must prepare for the worst," Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Asked about the preparations, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities.

"We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative (but) that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.

Tehran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology to produce electricity, but it has yet to comply with repeated U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could potentially be used in producing weapons.

Kouchner's comments follow a similarly hawkish statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said last month in his first major foreign policy speech since taking office that a diplomatic push by the world's powers was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".

Asked if France was involved in any planning towards war, he said: "The French army is not at the moment associated with anything at all, nor with any manoeuvre at all."

"PEACE IS IN YOUR INTEREST"

France has said repeatedly it wants the U.N. Security Council to pass tougher sanctions against Iran over its failure to dispel fears that it is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.

"We do not want to signal anything other than 'peace is in your interest, and in ours too,'" Kouchner said, adding that the door should be left open to negotiations with Tehran, but Paris has made a suspension of nuclear work a condition for talks.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have led a diplomatic drive to punish Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment programme. They succeeded in persuading reluctant Russia and China to back two U.N. sanctions resolutions.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran would not give up its nuclear programme.

"Of course we will not abandon our right to nuclear technology," he told state television. "They (the West) talks about imposing sanctions on Iran, but they can not do it."

Washington says the time has to expand the penalties and has called a September 21 meeting of the six powers to discuss a third sanctions resolution to submit to the U.N. Security Council.

Kouchner said France had asked its biggest companies, including oil giant Total and gas firm Gaz de France, not to bid for projects in Iran.

"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to tenders, and it is a way of signalling that we are serious," Kouchner said.

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies. But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

In addition, Paris and Berlin were preparing possible European Union economic sanctions against Tehran, Kouchner said.

"We have decided to ... prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it. We discussed it a few days ago," Kouchner said.


Click here for link (http://uk.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUKL1668048120070916?pageNumber=3)

[fyatuk]

The whole argument is stupid. Iran offered full compliance with IAEA inspectors before Ahmadinejad took over and the West refused to even allow the uranium enrichment guaranteed by the NPT. That's what resulted in Iran going more hardline and pulling out (or threatening to, I don't recall if they officially did) of the NPT.

Iran should have the right to enrich uranium to the NPT guaranteed levels (with observation since they are a terrorist sponsor state).

More sanctions are just stupid.

[smeagol]

Let's check out what the libs have to say about this.

[xrayzebra]

The whole argument is stupid. Iran offered full compliance with IAEA inspectors before Ahmadinejad took over and the West refused to even allow the uranium enrichment guaranteed by the NPT. That's what resulted in Iran going more hardline and pulling out (or threatening to, I don't recall if they officially did) of the NPT.

Iran should have the right to enrich uranium to the NPT guaranteed levels (with observation since they are a terrorist sponsor state).

More sanctions are just stupid.

Remember something. This is France, not the U.S.---
Bush----. People are worried about the ME. Especially
since Syria got some goodies from N. Korea. And
still no one is kicking up a fuss over the bombing.

[fyatuk]

Oh, I realize that. It's just bluster right now anyway. I wouldn't call it serious until state officials with the other EU big wigs start talking about it other than mentioning "We have to be prepared for the worst", etc.

[ChumpDumper]

We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to.Wow, they're really taking a hard line now aren't they?


The French army is not at the moment associated with anything at all, nor with any manoeuvre at all.These guys are serious. I mean, they're doing absolutely nothing.

That's something!

[DarkReign]

France...hmm, France.....where have I seen that name before.....Oh yeah, I remember.

Food for Oil Program. Two-faced liars.

[xrayzebra]

Wow, they're really taking a hard line now aren't they?

These guys are serious. I mean, they're doing absolutely nothing.

That's something!

Chump, what in the world are you posting? Who is
frog. Something you dreamed up.

Do you ever take anything really serious. Or are you
just a troll? I have never considered putting anyone on
ignore, but you sure make it an inviting thought.

[xrayzebra]

France...hmm, France.....where have I seen that name before.....Oh yeah, I remember.

Food for Oil Program. Two-faced liars.

Yeah, you know, the thing that you keep accusing us for
doing. You know going to war for oil.

[clambake]

"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to tenders, and it is a way of signalling that we are serious," Kouchner said.

thats hardcore. i'm putting the french on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, what in the world are you posting? Who is
frog. Something you dreamed up.:lol It's a derogatory term for the French.


Do you ever take anything really serious. Or are you
just a troll? I have never considered putting anyone on
ignore, but you sure make it an inviting thought.Am I supposed to be scared by that?

And it is impossible for me to take this French dude seriously. He threw out the dramatic "prepare for war" statement then completely backtracked, saying they weren't going to actually prevent French companies from dealing with Iran and that the French military wasn't doing a damn thing.

This guy said absolutely nothing. To put it in terms you may better understand, it was a troll interview.

[ChumpDumper]

i'm putting the french on ignore.:lmao

[xrayzebra]

:lol It's a derogatory term for the French.

Am I supposed to be scared by that?

And it is impossible for me to take this French dude seriously. He threw out the dramatic "prepare for war" statement then completely backtracked, saying they weren't going to actually prevent French companies from dealing with Iran and that the French military wasn't doing a damn thing.

This guy said absolutely nothing. To put it in terms you may better understand, it was a troll interview.

I don't know "are you supposed to be scared by that?"
I could care less. You make no sense. "frog" was shown
as a poster.

Read some damn current events.....

[DarkReign]

Yeah, you know, the thing that you keep accusing us for
doing. You know going to war for oil.

I have never accused the US of any such thing. Dont misassociate me with others on this board. If youre unable to dilineate people, then youre broad-brushing....which makes your opinions even less valid than they already were.

Why do I think the US went into Iraq?

Destabilization for destabilization's sake. Gives the American political scene an ever-present battlefield to point to and say "Look, we are at war! Sacrifices must be made!"

Maybe oil, too. But I think thats just a profitable byproduct of the true motives. A never-ending battlefield upon which Washington can trumpet the impending doom of the US, thereby paralyzing the ADD populace with fabricated fear.

[xrayzebra]

I have never accused the US of any such thing. Dont misassociate me with others on this board. If youre unable to dilineate people, then youre broad-brushing....which makes your opinions even less valid than they already were.

Why do I think the US went into Iraq?

Destabilization for destabilization's sake. Gives the American political scene an ever-present battlefield to point to and say "Look, we are at war! Sacrifices must be made!"

Maybe oil, too. But I think thats just a profitable byproduct of the true motives. A never-ending battlefield upon which Washington can trumpet the impending doom of the US, thereby paralyzing the ADD populace with fabricated fear.

I didn't accuse you of saying that.

[clambake]

goddamn greenspan

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know "are you supposed to be scared by that?"
I could care less. You make no sense. "frog" was shown
as a poster.I routinely put the source of a quote in the "posted by" brackets. Sorry if it confused you.


Read some damn current events.....This was a nonevent.

"French Official Equivocates, Iran Puts Him on Ignore"

[xrayzebra]

I routinely put the source of a quote in the "posted by" brackets. Sorry if it confused you.

This was a nonevent.

"French Official Equivocates, Iran Puts Him on Ignore"

"Iran Puts Him on Ignore" Really, read the following.


The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

600 Iranian missiles said to be pointed at targets in Israel
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 17, 2007

Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.

"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."

According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.

The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."

Kouchner emphasized, however, that negotiations should still be the preferred course of action.

Kouchner, quoted by French daily Le Figaro, added that "Iran does whatever it pleases in Iraq ... one cannot find in the entire world a crisis greater than this one."

In response to Kouchner's comments, Iran's state-owned news agency accused France of pandering to the interests of the United States.

"The new occupants of the Elysee (Presidential palace) want to copy the White House," the IRNA news agency said in an editorial. The editorial added that French President Nicolas Sarkozy was taking on "an American skin."

Kouchner's statements came just hours after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the Bush administration's commitment, at least for the time being, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

=================================

Things are getting very serious in the ME and it is
not Bush doing the "pushing" other countries are
getting worried. People keep brushing off the Syrian
incident, the bombing.

[ChumpDumper]

"Iran Puts Him on Ignore" Really, read the following.I didn't read anything about Iran dismantling their nuclear program -- so yes, the Frenchman has been ignored in that respect.


Things are getting very serious in the ME and it is
not Bush doing the "pushing" other countries are
getting worried. People keep brushing off the Syrian
incident, the bombing.If I knew what that was about, I would have an opinion. No one is talking about it, so why should I jump to any conclusions?

And Bush has already done all the pushing he can without actually bombing the place.

[DarkReign]

I didn't accuse you of saying that.


Yeah, you know, the thing that you keep accusing us for
doing. You know going to war for oil.

[boutons_]

"a hard line"

After dubya declared Iran in the axis of evil, US companies, eg Halliburton, continued to do business with Iran.

The objective of all dubya's bullshit in the M/E is to increase revenues for US corps, NOT US security.

[clambake]

the fact that any country aims missles is an outrage.

i've got mine on random.

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, what in the world are you posting? Who is
frog. Something you dreamed up.

Do you ever take anything really serious. Or are you
just a troll? I have never considered putting anyone on
ignore, but you sure make it an inviting thought.
Exactly why he is on my IGNORE list. Just flames, no relavant information.

[clambake]

Should we put him on ignore?


We should have a forum with just you and I. We both end our name with "bra".

how cute is this!!

[ChumpDumper]

My latest "attack."

Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran

By ROBERT BURNS – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran....

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb1Wd-LnIH2JUQubKYKyj1HxPoJw

[Wild Cobra]

how cute is this!!
Wow... I'm impressed. With that word play, you must have advanced to the second grade!

What a loser, having to misquote people intentionally.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, your implication was clear -- you implied those soldiers who died got what they deserved because they raised serious questions about the war in the NY Times.

For someone who claims to be former military, you're a piece of shit and you deserve every personal attack you get for the rest of your miserable life.

[boutons_]

Bush Setting America Up for War With Iran

By Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman
The Telegraph UK


http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/3.091807J1.JPG

Tuesday 17 September 2007

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same."

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."

Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.

A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.

"Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with."

The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the "open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war".

Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."

============

And of course , dickhead and dubya and their accomplices will walk away from the entire mess into wealthy, extravagant retirement and $100K speech-making.

[gtownspur]

bearded clambake.

[xrayzebra]

Small article this morning, buried back on page whatever, about
2 column inches. He changed his mind. It is time for talking
not fighting.

The Canadian Press

* Iran's nuclear ambitions; Out of Iraq
International Herald Tribune - 30 minutes ago
* Def Min: France not working on military plans against Iran
International Herald Tribune - 3 hours ago
* French defence minister says no military plan against Iran
AFP - 3 hours ago

Full coverage »
French foreign minister softens tone on war with Iran over nuclear program

22 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — France's foreign minister appeared Tuesday to soften his weekend warning of war with Iran if it develops nuclear weapons, emphasizing instead the need to "negotiate, negotiate, negotiate without respite."

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also had said that European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium in its nuclear program.

Kouchner, who is on his first trip to Moscow as France's top diplomat, Sunday said "we must prepare ourselves for the worst" if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, and he specified that could mean a war.

He told the French newspaper Le Monde that his comments were aimed at "drawing attention to the gravity of the crisis." On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon sought to play down Kouchner's comments, saying "France's role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday shrugged off Kouchner's warning of war, saying: "We do not take these threats seriously."

After meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kouchner said he meant to say that war would be "the worst thing to happen."

"Everything must be done to avoid war. It's necessary to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate without respite," he said.

Speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio after the talks with Lavrov, Kouchner said he never called for a war against Iran and was misinterpreted by media.

"We have to talk to Iranians. ... I can see that it's the best way," he said through a Russian interpreter. "It's not true that I desire war in Iran."

Lavrov warned against the use of force in Iran.

"We are seriously concerned about increasingly frequent reports that military action against Iran is being seriously considered," Lavrov said. "The result of it for the region already facing grave problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere is beyond conjecture."

"We are convinced that no modern problem has a military solution, and that applies to the Iranian nuclear program as well," he added said.

Kouchner said it was necessary "to work on precise sanctions that would show our seriousness and interest that we attach to a peaceful solution of this problem in line with the international norms."

Lavrov criticized the idea of unilateral sanctions by the European Union or the United States.

"If we agreed to work collectively, and that is represented in collective decisions made by the UN Security Council, then what purpose would unilateral sanctions have?" he said.

Lavrov's statement reflected a rift between Russia and the United States and other western countries that have pushed for tougher sanctions to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment effort. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that all options including military strikes are on the table, but put the emphasis on diplomacy and economic levers.

He signalled Moscow's opposition to a third round of UN sanctions, praising an agreement the International Atomic Energy Agency reached with Iran aimed at resolving outstanding issues.

"We believe that the Security Council should not be pressured to step outside the framework of support for the IAEA," Lavrov said.

The United States, its European allies and other world powers suspect Iranian authorities of seeking nuclear weapons, although Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy.

Negotiations and two sets of Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop its program for uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear power plants as well as material used in atomic weapons.

French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani, asked about the prospects for agreement on a third resolution, said, "Next week in New York there will be discussions to try to have a resolution. If in the framework of the UN things are not sufficient, we will act in the European framework."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is seen as taking a somewhat tougher line on Iran than his predecessor Jacques Chirac, and he is also seen as more friendly to the United States.

Russia, which has close ties to Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant, has repeatedly warned that overly harsh punishment for Iran could be counterproductive. Along with China, it has forced the U.S. and other Security Council members to water down sanctions.

Lavrov said that international negotiators should offer Iran some incentives in economic and other areas to help achieve progress in nuclear talks, adding that a settlement of the North Korean nuclear problem could serve as a model.
Hosted by Google

[clambake]

can someone tell me what that says?

I have the french on ignore.

[xrayzebra]

Remember something. This is France, not the U.S.---
Bush----. People are worried about the ME. Especially
since Syria got some goodies from N. Korea. And
still no one is kicking up a fuss over the bombing.

Another tie in......just peaceful nations trying to get along,
and wanting sources of energy.......


Israel's daily newsmagazine


Jane's: Dozens of Iranians and Syrians died from poison gas missile blast
By Israel Insider staff September 18, 2007


Additional proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction was revealed Monday in a Jane's Magazine report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas and VX gas.

The factory was created for the purpose of adapting ballistic missiles to carry chemical payloads, Jane's claimed.

Although reports of the accident were circulated at the time, no details were released by the Syrian government, nor was the Iranian connection revealed.

SANA - Syrian news agency -- at the time cited an official information source which stated that "an explosion ripped through an explosives depot in Aleppo, northern Syria, due to the high temperature that ... set off the high explosives materials. 15 soldiers were martyred and 50 were wounded. Most of the wounded were treated from their minor wounds caused by the shattered glass and left the hospital." The source The source added that " the explosion was not the result of sabotage."

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had only praise Monday for Syrian President Bashar Assad Monday. "I have a lot of respect for the Syrian leader and for Syrian policy. They have internal problems, but we have no reason to rule out dialogue with Syria."

Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons, or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kippur War. Global Security.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.




© 2001-2004 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved.