Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


You would advocate a UN led massive military effort against Israel? I'm shocked.

not recent enough. I'd want there to be no doubt whatsoever that the attack was in response to acquisition of nuclear weapons not just some random invasion in spite of the weapons.

Bottom line, make it so that the nukes made the country less secure by having them.

[Geronimo]

Re: Pekka

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No strike they do with the exception of a significant nuclear strike (more than just a couple of warheads) will have enough of an effect against the Iranians to be called effectual. If anybody's going to hit Iran it needs to be US/NATO and it needs to be now.

I wonder if it would be possible to foment a revolution that would simply convert iran into an invalid basket case like iraq rather than an organized state capable of pursuing nuclear weapons?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Geronimo
not recent enough. I'd want there to be no doubt whatsoever that the attack was in response to acquisition of nuclear weapons not just some random invasion in spite of the weapons.

Bottom line, make it so that the nukes made the country less secure by having them.

I see. Pakistan? Or India?

[Spiffor]

Re: Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

Originally posted by Az
And if so, is it also true for the rest of the EU?

1. I don't think it's France's "real position" on Iran. It's probably Chirac's real position, but Chirac can't do diplomacy on a whim. There's the EU, and there's the whole diplomatic apparatus.

In the Iranian matter, the EU tries to act as a whole, to show the world that it can have a united policy. The French diplomacy tries to steer the EU position (just like the French diplomacy made no bones about wanting the EU to remove the Hezbollah from the list of terrorist organizations). But regardless whether the EU accepts France's wishes or not, France's official position is the European one. And that's what matter, when it comes about voting the sanctions at the UN, embargoing trade etc.

Besides, I don't think Chirac has much of a hold over the French diplomatic apparatus today. He's old, he's out in 3 monthes. I don't see any diplomat wanting to actually do something harmful to please someone who is so clearly a has-been. It was different back in 2003, but now, 3 monthes before his term's end, I really don't think he has the power to significantly steer the country's diplomacy.

2. I don't think it's the EU position either. France is typically a country where we believe in MAD (notably because we have our nuclear umbrella ourselves). But the same isn't necessarily true of other Euro countries. Besides, with Germany being so unpragmatically pro-Israel, I can't see the EU position becoming one of tolerance toward Iranian nukes. At least not as long as Israel sees Ahmadinejad as the devil incarnate.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I see. Pakistan? Or India?

probably Iran, north korea, pakistan, india, israel, china, france, UK, Russia, USA

In that order.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet so NK is really the most recent atm. skipping back prior to that renders the policy meaningless because skipping the more recent case of north korea would indicate that the punitive actions were unrelated to the willful acquisition of nukes in violation of existing treaties.


Is there some reason you think it best done Israel, then pakistan then india and saving north korea and Iran till later?

I might add that a special problem with India as a choice is that it is simply a *far* more difficult target than the others, such that it might well defeat any coalition attempt to deprice it of the nukes. The same likely holds for UK, France, Russia and the USA. That would leave as a practical matter only Israel, pakistan or north korea as viable options.

Furthermore, USA, Russia, UK, France and israel were not parties to any treaties limiting development of nuclear arms when they acquired their stockpiles.
It's also possible that countries obligated by treaties they had signed to not have nuclear weapons would get rid of them after the first country was made an example of so that it would not be necessary to proceed further down the list than north korea (or Iran if action is delayed until *it* becomes the most recent to acquire nukes in violation of treaties it signed)

[Last Conformist]

Re: Re: Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

Originally posted by Spiffor

In the Iranian matter, the EU tries to act as a whole, to show the world that it can have a united policy.

A united lack of policy, one is tempted to say.


Re: KH's comment, I'd bet fairly serious money there won't be a NATO strike against Iran this side of Iran firing the first shot. We'll learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

[Provost Harrison]

I don't know what the fuss is. It is true...and we should be celebrating a rare occasion where something truthful has managed to escape from Chirac's mouth...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I don't know what the fuss is. It is true...and we should be celebrating a rare occasion where something truthful has managed to escape from Chirac's mouth...

He called the journos back the next day to retract...

[Provost Harrison]

[Provost Harrison]

I have a feeling that Chirac telling the truth is one of the signs of the impending apocalypse. Another is Blair regaining popularity

[Ned]

I think Chirac merely expressed what seems to be common knowledge about French foreign policy. France is not threatened in the least by Iran. France is not going out on a limb in any way to help Israel. He assume that Israel, with American technical support, can take care of itself and that Israel really can shoot an Iranian missile out of the sky as soon as it launches.

BTW, this last point might be based on the new missle-killing laser weapon that was jointly developed by the US and Israel. It can shoot down missles up to 10 miles away and is deployable in planes.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, this last point might be based on the new missle-killing laser weapon that was jointly developed by the US and Israel. It can shoot down missles up to 10 miles away and is deployable in planes.

Link??

[GePap]

Re: Pekka

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No strike they do with the exception of a significant nuclear strike (more than just a couple of warheads) will have enough of an effect against the Iranians to be called effectual. If anybody's going to hit Iran it needs to be US/NATO and it needs to be now.

Hit how? Only a ground invasion and regime change would do anything, because Iran's nuclear policy (in terms of persuing nuclear power) is highly popular, and while it is certainly likely that the Iranians would want nuclear weapons given their regional power intentions and their neighborhood, there is no causus belli laying around currently.

So an unjustified (by international laws and norms) attack on Iran would simply slow the Iranian regime unless the clerical regime were toppled. And a secular Iranian regime will still seek nuclear power.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Link??

Saw this in the military channel last week.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Pekka

Originally posted by GePap


Hit how? Only a ground invasion and regime change would do anything, because Iran's nuclear policy (in terms of persuing nuclear power) is highly popular, and while it is certainly likely that the Iranians would want nuclear weapons given their regional power intentions and their neighborhood, there is no causus belli laying around currently.

So an unjustified (by international laws and norms) attack on Iran would simply slow the Iranian regime unless the clerical regime were toppled. And a secular Iranian regime will still seek nuclear power.

You must be kidding me.