Leaders up the rhetoric...

Dave!

Hey folks,

just wanted to get some thoughts on the recent rhetoric that's been shooting about...

George Bush mentioned yesterday that if people 'want to avoid World War III', they should prevent Iran developing nuclear technology.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1732974320071017?pageNumber=2

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Today, after a visit to Iran, Vladimir Putin has said in an interview,

"Thank God Russia is not Iraq," Putin told a questioner who asked about supposed U.S. intentions to gain control of Siberia's vast natural resources. "It is strong enough to protect its interests within the national territory and, by the way, in other regions of the world."

He also mentioned how they are developing new nuclear weapons and increasing Russia's military capabilities.

Putin is up for election soon, so obviously this kind of talk will help him, but is there a danger that things could get alot more hostile?

Alot of people think it's a certainty that the USA or Israel will attack Iran, but if that did happen, Russia would probably come to Iran's aid, so it's unlikely that the US would risk that.

What are the most likely 'teams' in this event? Would Britain side with the US or stay out of it? Gordon Brown doesn't seem as eager as Tony Blair to maintain the 'special relationship' with the US. China is also quite hostile to the US -- how are relations between China and Iran/Russia? Any chance that they'd get involved? I suspect not... that's a whole other potential conflict, lol.

sovtek

I'm not sure Russia would start outright military confrontation with the US over Iran...but it could hurt the US in other ways possibly. If China gets pissed off enough all it has to do is dump the dollar and the US economy is toast. We could not afford a cheese grater. It's a big question if an attack on Iran would be that catalyst and wether or not the Bush regime is as moronic, incompetant and arrogant to risk that.

Edit: Sorry I forgot to add blood thirsty to that list

Akrasia

DaveMcG wrote: »

Alot of people think it's a certainty that the USA or Israel will attack Iran,

I wouldn't say an attack is a certainty. There are a lot of things that could prevent it. I would say it is certain that Bush and his cronys are trying to figure out a way to have one. The question is whether or not they will be allowed (by china russia, or the internal politics of the U.S.)

djpbarry

I would say that a US attack on Iran is far from a certainty. I think the US public have had their fill of conflict for now. An Israeli attack on Iran is likely to polarise the entire Middle East against them, so they would need a damn good reason to proceed with this course of action. There's a big difference between attacking Iran and weapons testing in Lebanon.

Besides, what gives the US the right to deny anyone "knowledge"?