- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Hammond: 'Iran sanctions are working'
23 October 2012Economic sanctions against Iran over the country's fledgling nuclear programme are beginning to "fracture" the country's leadership, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said.
In late 2011, an International Atomic Energy Agency report suggested that elements of Iran's nuclear programme, which the country insists is for peaceful purposes, could only be useful in the development of nuclear weapons.
The report was followed by months of speculation that Israel, fearing an Iranian nuclear strike, might be prepared to strike Iran's nuclear facilities alone.
Despite not wanting to see a "deeply destabilising and debilitating" conflict over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UK currently has around 2,000 military personnel, mostly from the Royal Navy, in the Persian Gulf, Hammond told Parliament.
He added that the UK was working towards a "negotiated diplomatic solution" based on "pressure and engagement".
"There is very significant evidence, particularly the declining value of the Iranian currency, to suggest that sanctions are beginning to have an effect and to cause fracture within the Iranian leadership," he said.
"I have quizzed many of our allies in the Gulf who have an intimate knowledge of what is going on in Iran on the ground. We do not want those sanctions to unite the Iranian people with their oppressive regime; we want to wake the Iranian people up to the cost of this madcap dash for nuclear capability."
Iran has a "significant" conventional military capability, he said, adding that the UK would only take part in military action "as part of an international coalition." Despite not desiring military conflict, Hammond said that "all options remain on the table".
"We have also made it very clear to the Israelis and others that we do not believe that a pre-emptive military strike is the right way to proceed or the best way to resolve the situation," he said.
HAVE YOUR SAY
16 November 2012
No good. The idea there exists a rift between Islamist and "moderate" Iranians is something that the CIA have been trying to promote since the early 1980s, but there isn't any evidence for it. They talk about the need to avoid undermining the moderate Iranians, but that would be difficult when they're six feet undergound.
If the present Iranian regime were to disintegrate for some reason, the result would be a power struggle, in which Islamist extremist elements based around the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would almost inevitably come out on top. The only result would be the replacement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with someone even more psychotic, if that is possible.
J. Southworth - University of Hull
20 January 2013
As a general rule, military dictatorships and regimes tend to have powerful armed forces. Nazi Germany had powerful armed forces. that doesn't mean that instead of fighting World War Two, Britain and the US should have allowed the Nazis to overrun the rest of the world.
An Invasion of Iran might be a bloody business, with hundereds of thousands dead. But US air superiority, possession of advanced stealth and airborne radar technology, and ultimately, sheer firepower would ensure eventual victory.
Following the pattern of the 1991 Gulf War, the basic strategy would be to eliminate the air defence systems and communications nodes first and then systematically destroy the ground forces. This will be primarily a war of attrition- it is unlikey that an attempt will be made at a "blitzkrieg" style campaign because that would lead to the lines of supply becoming too vulnerable to insurgent attack, a problem that was apparent in the 2003 Iraq war.
If Philip Hammond is basing his thinking on the idea that there must always be a way of resolving international issues without bloodshed, then he isn't a good strategist, which is not to say that war should be the preferred option when there are alternatives. I wonder if he ever read Clausewitz, who specifically warns against this.
J. Southworth - University of Hull