Iran allows protestors to storm UK Embassy

[TimothyC]

29 November 2011 Last updated at 09:50 ET
Iran protesters storm UK embassy in Tehran

Protesters in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have broken into the UK embassy compound during a demonstration against sanctions imposed by Britain.

Militant students are said to have removed the British flag, burnt it and replaced it with Iran's flag. State TV showed youths smashing embassy windows.

The move comes after Iran resolved to reduce ties following the UK's decision to impose further sanctions on it.

The UK's Foreign Office said it was "outraged" by the actions.

It urged Iran to honour international commitments to protect diplomatic missions and their staff.

The students clashed with riot police and chanted "the embassy of Britain should be taken over" and "death to England", AP reports.

Students were reported to be ransacking offices inside the building, and one protester was said to be waving a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth II.

Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency said embassy documents had been set alight. Embassy staff fled by the back door, the agency added.

Pictures showed a car inside the compound on fire while outside the embassy's walls, several hundred other demonstrators were gathered.

Live TV footage showed Iranian riot police gradually clearing the protesters away from outside the embassy.

"The rally is ended, leave," police called from loudspeakers.

An unconfirmed report from the official Irna news agency said a separate group of protesters had broken into another British embassy compound in the north of the city and seized "classified documents".

The UK Foreign Office condemned the attack. "We are outraged by this. It is utterly unacceptable," it said in a statement.

"The Iranian government have a clear duty to protect diplomats and embassies in their country and we expect them to act urgently to bring the situation under control and ensure the safety of our staff and security of our property".

It was not clear how many embassy staff were in the building at the time. A Foreign Office source said it was checking on the well-being of workers and diplomats, AP reported.

France condemned the attack "very strongly", French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said.

"France expresses its full solidarity with the UK," he said.

Last week the US, UK and Canada announced new measures targeting Iran over its controversial nuclear plans.

For its part, the UK Treasury imposed sanctions on Iranian banks, accusing them of facilitating the country's nuclear programme

That decision followed a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that suggested Iran was working towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.

It said Iran had carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear device".

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

On Sunday, Iran's parliament voted by a large majority to downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK in response to the British action.

Iranian radio reported that some MPs had chanted "Death to Britain" during the vote, which was approved by 87% of MPs.

Weeeeee! Shades of '79.

Maybe we'll see even harsher sanctions now. Let's hope that they get their gasoline imports shut down.

[evilsoup]

Oh for fuck's sake. Why would you hope for that? Iran's actually one of the better places to live in the region (well, I suppose I should say 'least-bad'), it has modern developed bureaucracy, and has the institutions of democracy (though of course it is not a democracy). Iran should be brought into the fold and be allowed to take its place as a legitimate regional power. But no, let's keep up with these idiotic sanctions to fuel anti-western feeling amongst the people of Iran.

That said, embassies should be sacrosanct. Shame on the Iranian government for letting this happen. Hell, there's a pretty good chance that they (or the Revolutionary Guard) orchestrated the whole thing.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well this is going to be a shitstorm.

What exactly does "downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK in response to the British action." mean?

[TimothyC]

Well this is going to be a shitstorm.

What exactly does "downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK in response to the British action." mean?

Kicking the ambassador out following a vote for more sanctions.

[evilsoup]

I don't know, but I'd guess reducing their embassy staff in London and expelling British diplomats from Tehran.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Which is going to really help Iran's international position. Great.

[Highlord Laan]

Iran should be brought into the fold and be allowed to take its place as a legitimate regional power. But no, let's keep up with these idiotic sanctions to fuel anti-western feeling amongst the people of Iran.

You realize that friendship isn't really magic, right?

[evilsoup]

Well the UK certainly isn't going to let up on the sanctions, even with ambassadors in Tehran; and if the Iranian government really needs to talk to the UK government they can get, say, the French to arrange a meeting. But yeah, this is just another step along the road to Iran's isolation, so not a good thing at all.

EDIT: Hey Laan, how about instead of putting up smarmy one-liner you give a reason why isolating Iran and putting pressure on it's people will be effective in bringing about a better government there. Or how doing so will make the region a safer place.

[Julhelm]

EDIT: Hey Laan, how about instead of putting up smarmy one-liner you give a reason why isolating Iran and putting pressure on it's people will be effective in bringing about a better government there. Or how doing so will make the region a safer place.

Because the alternative is bombing them.

[Bakustra]

EDIT: Hey Laan, how about instead of putting up smarmy one-liner you give a reason why isolating Iran and putting pressure on it's people will be effective in bringing about a better government there. Or how doing so will make the region a safer place.

Because the alternative is bombing them.

Justify this statement. I am unaware of anything which restricts diplomatic options with regards to Iran to two choices: embargo or bomb. At the very least, even if you're one of the psychos who rule out diplomatic intercourse altogether, there are at least two or three other violent options available off the top of my head.

[Stark]

The OP doesn't say anything about 'allowing'. Sme guys got in, everyone is upset that the Iranians aren't protecting diplomats enough.

The UK has been kicked out of Iran before. Who can blame the Iranians? Lol

[MarshalPurnell]

Any analysis of Iran's internal political dynamic will show that its government is not going to be responsive to outside stimuli. The conservative establishment has a strong incentive to remain confrontational and ratchet up tensions with the outside world to sustain their own hold on power. Iran has also sought to extend its influence and power throughout the region at the expense of Sunni Arab governments, practically since the 1979 Revolution began, has shown no sign of ending its expansive foreign policy. There was a brief period of lowered tension under President Mohammed Khatami, who was hobbled and eventually brought down by the clerical establishment and was replaced with Ahmadinejahd. Ever since Iran has come to resemble North Korea more and more, both in the sense that its economy is a basket case and only getting worse, propped up by crude oil sales that the clerical establishment has used to buy support from the less educated rural population and in the way that it has relentlessly pursued nuclear capability. However, unlike North Korea, whose strategic aims have rationally fallen from reuniting the peninsula to regime-survival, the Iranian regime has sought to turn Iraq into a puppet-state, seize control of the anti-Israel struggle by turning Syria and Hezbollah into proxies, to take control of several islands in the Straits of Hormuz from Arab governments, and to radicalize Shi'a populations throughout the Gulf. At the same time it has cracked down on its own internal dissident movement with considerable effectiveness, eliminating or marginalizing voices in the establishment who have called for a more moderate course.

We cannot "recognize Iran as a legitimate regional power" because its regional aims are completely opposed to vital Western interests. Iran wants to dominate the Straits of Hormuz as internal waters of the Republic; that much has been repeatedly expressed by the Iranian state and leadership, and would put the world economy at their mercy. Close off the straits, instant economic collapse. Their actions in Iraq and Syria have pointed to far greater regional ambitions, and the Arab oil monarchies are concerned that Iran intends to radicalize their Shi'a populations as a proxy force to overthrow them. The present Iranian leadership has shown no desire for cooperation or rapprochement with Western states, and has every domestic incentive to seek confrontation at every opportunity in order to solidify their rule. There is every reason to believe a nuclear armed Iran will use the bomb not to secure regime survival but as a tool to expand Iranian power, stepping up provocative actions and subversive efforts under the assumption that having nuclear weapons means they can act with impunity.

Sanctions can buy time, and attempting to contain the Iranian regime can strengthen other regional powers to better resist Iranian advances. Naively reaching out to them in the assumption that they must want to be on good terms with a world order they are determined to overthrow, on the other hand, would only lead to embarrassment and discomfort from regional allies who may rightly be concerned that their interests will be sacrificed. Until the internal political dynamics of Iran change there simply is no window of opportunity to try to settle issues with Iran so that they will behave like a responsible status-quo power, and we literally cannot afford to allow Iran to realize its present regional ambitions.

[Julhelm]

Justify this statement. I am unaware of anything which restricts diplomatic options with regards to Iran to two choices: embargo or bomb. At the very least, even if you're one of the psychos who rule out diplomatic intercourse altogether, there are at least two or three other violent options available off the top of my head.

Because they are brown people and when sanctions fail to make brown people obey us like they should we bomb some sense into them. Everybody seems to know this, except of course for you.

[Bakustra]

Justify this statement. I am unaware of anything which restricts diplomatic options with regards to Iran to two choices: embargo or bomb. At the very least, even if you're one of the psychos who rule out diplomatic intercourse altogether, there are at least two or three other violent options available off the top of my head.

Because they are brown people and when sanctions fail to make brown people obey us like they should we bomb some sense into them. Everybody seems to know this, except of course for you.

Try to be a little more obvious in the future. Look above you for a good reason why.

[Uraniun235]

EDIT: Hey Laan, how about instead of putting up smarmy one-liner you give a reason why isolating Iran and putting pressure on it's people will be effective in bringing about a better government there. Or how doing so will make the region a safer place.

Because the alternative is bombing them.

What would be the maximum level of force you would find acceptable to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal?

[Julhelm]

What would be the maximum level of force you would find acceptable to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal?

If push comes to shove that's what nuclear bunker busters are for.

[Alkaloid]

If push comes to shove that's what nuclear bunker busters are for.

So you think it's reasonable to start a nuclear war in order to stop Iran developing the capability to possibly start on at some point in the future?

[Julhelm]

If push comes to shove that's what nuclear bunker busters are for.

So you think it's reasonable to start a nuclear war in order to stop Iran developing the capability to possibly start on at some point in the future?

Anyone with a bit of common sense would prefer a nuke going off in some remote facility in Iran rather than over Tel Aviv.

[Stark]

I imagine that's similar to how the Iranians feel about America's massive threatening army.

[Alkaloid]

Anyone with a bit of common sense would prefer a nuke going off in some remote facility in Iran rather than over Tel Aviv.

And if the only objective of Iran was the complete destruction of Israel, then that might be a reasonable concern, but given that Iran has other objectives, namely the advancement of Iran and to increase its power, it is not going to take a course of action that can and will only result in Iran being turned into a plane of radioactive glass when the largest military superpower in the world with a military designed to fight the second largest military in the world crushes it like a bug.

Nuclear weapons are an effective offensive weapon in only one circumstance. When you are the only person with them. Any other time they are only a defensive option for anyone short of a suicide bomber because the instant you prove you are willing to use them, anyone and everyone has no choice but to bump you to the top of their list of 'really scary things that can cause massive damage to or destroy my country,' and they will throw everything they have at you the instant twitch funny if they don't just do it straight off the bat to avoid the risk.

[Julhelm]

Anyone with a bit of common sense would prefer a nuke going off in some remote facility in Iran rather than over Tel Aviv.

And if the only objective of Iran was the complete destruction of Israel, then that might be a reasonable concern, but given that Iran has other objectives, namely the advancement of Iran and to increase its power, it is not going to take a course of action that can and will only result in Iran being turned into a plane of radioactive glass when the largest military superpower in the world with a military designed to fight the second largest military in the world crushes it like a bug.

Nuclear weapons are an effective offensive weapon in only one circumstance. When you are the only person with them. Any other time they are only a defensive option for anyone short of a suicide bomber because the instant you prove you are willing to use them, anyone and everyone has no choice but to bump you to the top of their list of 'really scary things that can cause massive damage to or destroy my country,' and they will throw everything they have at you the instant twitch funny if they don't just do it straight off the bat to avoid the risk.

And America is the only one with the means to strike globally with nuclear weapons at will. Everybody else lacks either the delivery systems or the political will to retaliate in kind, especially over a belligerent nation like Iran, since doing so means having several US ICBMs wipe out your nation. America was, is, and always will be, untouchable.

[Alkaloid]

Yep, which is totally why its called Mutually Assured Destruction. Or the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly kicked of WWIII because Soviet missiles could hit the US. An no other nation has ballistic missile submarines that could ever penetrate the magical anti submarine net around the US. When it comes to nukes, there is pretty much no where that cant be hit by someone, and no one who can flat out say no one will target them. There are a bucketload of countries, some nuclear armed, that would love, love, for a lot of countries being somewhat leery about the US to the whole damn planet being fucking terrified of the madman with a shotgun who has just started blowing people away. If the US wants to assure the rise of China to global supremacy then they have to do one thing, and that is fire the opening salvo in a nuclear conflict against a third world nation, and as fucked as the US administration is right now they do realise that.

[K. A. Pital]

Iran wants to dominate the Straits of Hormuz as internal waters of the Republic; that much has been repeatedly expressed by the Iranian state and leadership, and would put the world economy at their mercy. Close off the straits, instant economic collapse.

Um... What a nice sight to behold, an economy of the world that would instantly collapse the very moment some straight in the Middle East gets closed.

we literally cannot afford to allow Iran to realize its present regional ambitions.

You're poor and Iran is rich! Uber-rich! It is not like Iran, a poor nation, might cause complications to nations with a GDP exceeding Iran's by a factor of what, a hundred - nop, it is more like UberPersianEmpire can collapse the entire World Economy which consists of poor underdog nations incapable of running without the Straits of Hormuz.

Bullshit. Unless, of course, by "instant collapse" you mean a painful readjustment crisis that would end oil dependency once and for all. Hey shit that sounds hot.

[LadyTevar]

I will repeat what Rachel Maddow pointed out on her Monday evening show: Had this been an Actual Protest by Real Students, there would have been NO COVERAGE by Iranian news media AT ALL.

In short: The Protesters were paid instigators.

[Julhelm]

Yep, which is totally why its called Mutually Assured Destruction. Or the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly kicked of WWIII because Soviet missiles could hit the US. An no other nation has ballistic missile submarines that could ever penetrate the magical anti submarine net around the US. When it comes to nukes, there is pretty much no where that cant be hit by someone, and no one who can flat out say no one will target them. There are a bucketload of countries, some nuclear armed, that would love, love, for a lot of countries being somewhat leery about the US to the whole damn planet being fucking terrified of the madman with a shotgun who has just started blowing people away. If the US wants to assure the rise of China to global supremacy then they have to do one thing, and that is fire the opening salvo in a nuclear conflict against a third world nation, and as fucked as the US administration is right now they do realise that.

So I guess you need to explain exactly why Russia, China and, well - there isn't really anybody else with the delivery systems to strike the US - would be willing to risk MAD over Iranian nuclear facilities being taken out by nuclear bunker busters. What do these nations stand to gain from going into all-out nuclear war with the US?

MAD was only ever a valid concept when the world was two superpowers in a standoff at the Fulda Gap. That era ended some 20 years ago.