| |
|
Just to clarify, is that "some people of Iranian extraction", or "The State Of Iran"?
The article states, and probably quite faithfully, that Britain has accused the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (the elite arm of the Iranian Army) of supplying technology (a word used to mean broad range of military hardware extending beyond but not excluding firearms, munitions and ordinance).
Ergo, the claim is that the national army of Iran is fueling insurgency and politically this levels the accusation at the government because it automatically presumes a chain of command. However, this is not a set in stone accusation, because it provides Iran with at least two outs. One would be to provide demonstrable and irrefutable evidence that the "technology" did not come from an official source. The other would be to unearth corruption in the military and deal with it.
Neither are courses of action that Iran would want to take as both would be perceived as subjugatory to western authority and, despite overtures of peace and so on, the average Iranian in the streeet isn't that enamoured of us. Apparently something about us spending decades trying to shove them into a nice western shaped hole.
Naturally Iran has responded with a counter-claim, cleverly using its existing criticisms, in an attempt to create a form of impasse. After all, why should they answer to us if we won't answer theirs. The end result is a two claim, two refutation no score draw and the ref (UN) think he may have left his cards at home. Neato.
Just to keep the waters a bit interesting though, Iran caveats their position by declaring that they would like Iraq to be nice and stable right about now as it's in their best interests. They haven't said what kind of stable Iraq they would like and we're not so foolish as to get dragged in on this one. Politics getting a bit old school again. |
|
|
, so ICBMs capable of hitting Europe and America are a long way off).