- Reaction score
- 8,395
- Points
- 1,360
Mods - feel free to flip this to "Canadian Politics" if you think it's a better fit there....
Thought I'd throw this out there, from Senate debate 16 Jun 08 - .pdf version attached at the bottom of this message.
Some highlights from Senator Segal's speech:
(....)
"What general capacity do we have to engage in support of our allies in the region, allies who may well face particular risk generated by Iran? Of course, all Canadians would prefer diplomacy as long as it produces measurable progress, but if beyond the diplomacy rockets are being shipped, ordinance is being used against our allies and war is being planned, we must face that reality and engage accordingly. Are we doing enough to dialogue with Iran? Are we using the intelligence and other linkages available to us as constructively and intensely as we might or should?
At some point in the fall, perhaps the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or the National Defence Committee might see fit in their wisdom to take on a series of thoughtful hearings on this issue. There are many Canadians and other experts on Iran from around the world from which we might hear, and even from within Iran itself. There are perspectives from other Middle Eastern countries, Sunni and Shia, we might canvass, as well as the Jordanian, Egyptian, Gulf state and Israeli partners we have in the region."
(....)
"We owe Canada and Canadians a well-researched and constructive discussion of the issues, threats, options and choices we face in Iran. We must also get beyond the issue of the nuclear deadline and look at the balance in the region brought about by these difficulties.
The chain of command, should Iran decide to launch an attack, ends with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who controls the Islamic Guard Revolutionary Corps and whose air force controls the long range SSM missiles as part of their duties. President Ahmadinejad is not directly part of that chain of command, but the rhetoric the president has chosen is, in and of itself, a destabilizing force.
I do not contest, Canadians have never contested, Iran's right to the peaceful development of nuclear technology. I do not contest in any way Iran's right to sustain and embrace the Islamic Revolution. Iran does not have the right, however, as no government does, to oppress its own people, to arrest, murder and execute B'hai, Kurdish, Azari and Baluchi democratic and student dissidents with impunity.
We ignore reality at our own peril. According to Israeli assessments, Iran is one year away from nuclear weaponry; according to Germany, she is nine years away; and according to the United States, two or three years away. If we split the difference, we have precious little time to shape a new option.
We cannot do away with the risk of another 1939 — a nuclear 1939 — without addressing the issue in the most upfront and direct way.
I hope that the core questions that have been touched upon — namely, the internal dynamic in Iran; the likely state of their military preparations; and a balance between Shia and Sunni states in the region — can be addressed by one of our committees. We can, of course, divert our eyes; we can pretend the IAEA, the UN Security Council, the Vienna process and our own diplomats have nothing whatever to worry about."
(....)
"The geopolitics of Iran's positioning relative to the safe movement of vital shipping through the region are self-evident. The potential impact of Iranian efforts to radicalize Turkey, if allowed to be successful, could imperil vital pipelines moving gas and oil through the region in the future in ways that could be catastrophic.
I am sure there are colleagues here who may wonder why any of us might concern ourselves with what Mr. Chamberlain might have called a far-away land of which we know little. First of all, honourable senators, in today's world, no land is that far away. Second, rockets made in Iran are launched against civilian locales in Israel or Lebanon; in the former case, into communities well within the original pre-1947 borders established for Israel by the United Nations in a resolution supported by this country.
(....)
- edit to fix title -
Thought I'd throw this out there, from Senate debate 16 Jun 08 - .pdf version attached at the bottom of this message.
Some highlights from Senator Segal's speech:
(....)
"What general capacity do we have to engage in support of our allies in the region, allies who may well face particular risk generated by Iran? Of course, all Canadians would prefer diplomacy as long as it produces measurable progress, but if beyond the diplomacy rockets are being shipped, ordinance is being used against our allies and war is being planned, we must face that reality and engage accordingly. Are we doing enough to dialogue with Iran? Are we using the intelligence and other linkages available to us as constructively and intensely as we might or should?
At some point in the fall, perhaps the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee or the National Defence Committee might see fit in their wisdom to take on a series of thoughtful hearings on this issue. There are many Canadians and other experts on Iran from around the world from which we might hear, and even from within Iran itself. There are perspectives from other Middle Eastern countries, Sunni and Shia, we might canvass, as well as the Jordanian, Egyptian, Gulf state and Israeli partners we have in the region."
(....)
"We owe Canada and Canadians a well-researched and constructive discussion of the issues, threats, options and choices we face in Iran. We must also get beyond the issue of the nuclear deadline and look at the balance in the region brought about by these difficulties.
The chain of command, should Iran decide to launch an attack, ends with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who controls the Islamic Guard Revolutionary Corps and whose air force controls the long range SSM missiles as part of their duties. President Ahmadinejad is not directly part of that chain of command, but the rhetoric the president has chosen is, in and of itself, a destabilizing force.
I do not contest, Canadians have never contested, Iran's right to the peaceful development of nuclear technology. I do not contest in any way Iran's right to sustain and embrace the Islamic Revolution. Iran does not have the right, however, as no government does, to oppress its own people, to arrest, murder and execute B'hai, Kurdish, Azari and Baluchi democratic and student dissidents with impunity.
We ignore reality at our own peril. According to Israeli assessments, Iran is one year away from nuclear weaponry; according to Germany, she is nine years away; and according to the United States, two or three years away. If we split the difference, we have precious little time to shape a new option.
We cannot do away with the risk of another 1939 — a nuclear 1939 — without addressing the issue in the most upfront and direct way.
I hope that the core questions that have been touched upon — namely, the internal dynamic in Iran; the likely state of their military preparations; and a balance between Shia and Sunni states in the region — can be addressed by one of our committees. We can, of course, divert our eyes; we can pretend the IAEA, the UN Security Council, the Vienna process and our own diplomats have nothing whatever to worry about."
(....)
"The geopolitics of Iran's positioning relative to the safe movement of vital shipping through the region are self-evident. The potential impact of Iranian efforts to radicalize Turkey, if allowed to be successful, could imperil vital pipelines moving gas and oil through the region in the future in ways that could be catastrophic.
I am sure there are colleagues here who may wonder why any of us might concern ourselves with what Mr. Chamberlain might have called a far-away land of which we know little. First of all, honourable senators, in today's world, no land is that far away. Second, rockets made in Iran are launched against civilian locales in Israel or Lebanon; in the former case, into communities well within the original pre-1947 borders established for Israel by the United Nations in a resolution supported by this country.
(....)
- edit to fix title -
