Leif Roar
12th October 2005, 04:01 AM
This thread shares topic with a recent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4333246.stm) on BBC News, the gist of which is that UK defence sources claim insurgents are being trained in making bombs by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. There's also a recent statement from Tony Blair on this, where he says they "can't be sure of this," although that part doesn't seem to be said with much weight.
The only evidence of a link which has been put forth is a similarity between a new type of explosive devices used in Basra and devices used by the Revolutionary Guard; but the same similarity exists with devices used by the Hezbollah.
The UK government's position seem to be summed up with this paragraph from the article:
"A spokesman said the evidence pointed towards Iranian involvement, but it did not have decisive proof."
There's not much point in trying to assess the veracity of the claim. No evidence is presented in support of it, only the UK's government's suspicion and they themselves say they don't actually know. What I am curious about, however, is why the UK government would bring this up. Why even bother to make a public statement about this when they don't have any hard evidence to bring to the table?
I think we can dismiss the possibility of the UK government working towards demonising Iran in order to excuse a military incursion; I don't think neither the US nor the UK has the monetary, military or political (neither internal nor external) capital to initiate serious military actions against Iran. Something similar to the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor might perhaps be realistic, but I don't see that such demonising would be necessary to conduct that kind of operations.
It could, of course, be nothing more than what it seems: A public warning to Iran to stop supplying bomb-making assistance to Basra insurgents. However, the apperant dearth of evidence certainly takes the sting out of such a warning. Besides, it seems like massive overkill to make a direct statement on the issue by the prime minister when they don't have anything more than suspicions to go on.
Could it be a warning to Iran over some other issue? If so, what?
The only evidence of a link which has been put forth is a similarity between a new type of explosive devices used in Basra and devices used by the Revolutionary Guard; but the same similarity exists with devices used by the Hezbollah.
The UK government's position seem to be summed up with this paragraph from the article:
"A spokesman said the evidence pointed towards Iranian involvement, but it did not have decisive proof."
There's not much point in trying to assess the veracity of the claim. No evidence is presented in support of it, only the UK's government's suspicion and they themselves say they don't actually know. What I am curious about, however, is why the UK government would bring this up. Why even bother to make a public statement about this when they don't have any hard evidence to bring to the table?
I think we can dismiss the possibility of the UK government working towards demonising Iran in order to excuse a military incursion; I don't think neither the US nor the UK has the monetary, military or political (neither internal nor external) capital to initiate serious military actions against Iran. Something similar to the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor might perhaps be realistic, but I don't see that such demonising would be necessary to conduct that kind of operations.
It could, of course, be nothing more than what it seems: A public warning to Iran to stop supplying bomb-making assistance to Basra insurgents. However, the apperant dearth of evidence certainly takes the sting out of such a warning. Besides, it seems like massive overkill to make a direct statement on the issue by the prime minister when they don't have anything more than suspicions to go on.
Could it be a warning to Iran over some other issue? If so, what?