Why Does Russia Support a Nuclear-Armed Iran?

[SW VandeCarr]

I'd like to hear comments/theories as to why Russia backs Iran so strongly, to the point of supplying Iran with nuclear technology. Russia gives every indication of being comfortable with an Iran armed with nuclear missiles despite the proximity of Iran to Russia. Parts of Russia (including Moscow) will likely be in range of Iranian missiles before western Europe or North America are. How can the Russians be so sure that the ruling clerics won't target them for their treatment of Muslim minorities such as in Chechnya, or for Russia's prior support of Serbia against Bosnian Muslims?

In any case, a nuclear exchange, involving a nuclear armed Israel, so close to Russia's borders can hardly be in Russia's interest. I know Putin's Russia still has much of a cold war mentality, but this seems somewhat like "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Why are we so worried about a nuclear Iran when they don't seem to be? What gives?

 

[WhoWee]

Proximity - the same reason they don't want us in Turkey.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Uzbek...rce=en-ha-na-us-sk-gm&utm_term=uzbekistan map

 

[Count Iblis]

Fact: There isn't a shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. What passes for "evidence" in the Western World are speculations of the same sort that led to everyone believing that Saddam had produced such huge stockpiles of WMD that it would only be a matter of time that some of that would be handed over to terrorists.

What would make Iran more of a threat is if we were to act even more on our paranoia and impose more sanctions or even start a war. Compare e.g. the situation after WWI when sanctions were imposed on Germany. We wanted to make sure that Germany would never bcome a military threat anymore. Where did that lead to? It fueled nationalism in Germany, hatred of foreign powers and in the end when Germany decided to violate the imposed sanctions regime, we were unable to act.

Similarly, the real Iranian threat is not the fata morgana we have about a nuclear Iran. Rather, it is the following. If we pursue our ridiculous idea that Iran, a sovereign coutry, cannot enrich its own uranium for use in its own nuclear powerplants (the whole process being monitored by IAEA inspectors), just because Iran could hypothetically leave the NPT, kick out the IAEA inspectors, make highly enriched uranium and then assemble a bomb then because there is no way that we can implement this without starting a war, we'll be dragged into a war.

Iran will never agree to stop their nuclear program just because the West and Israel don't like that. Especially the Israel factor in here makes this impossible. Iran sees Israel as an occupying power that imposes restrictions on the Palestinians in the West Bank for the security of its illegal settlements. That's bad enough, so there is no way Iran would agree to restrictions on its rights.

If we keep interpreting Iranian refusal to stop their enrichment program as evidence that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons, then sooner or later we or Israel will launch an attack and then Iran will, as promised, launch (conventional) missiles:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHu-qXce9oBU3TnywR1HYt5LiEZw

aimed at US army bases in Iraq and Kuwayt. Presumably the US will respond military but then you get a big war and the original issue (Iran's nuclear program) will be long forgotten. A bit similar to how the US found itself bogged down in Iraq after 2003 and WMD was the last thing on themind of the US military.

To see that the hypothetical Iranian nuclear weapons are really a fata morgana that we're seeing in the Iranian desert, consider for argument's sake that Iran would decide to produce nuclear weapons. Then they would have to make hightly enriched uranium then either the IAEA inspectors would see that happening, or Iran would have first kicked out the inspectors.

So, we would have plenty of warning before Iran decided to produce highly enriched uranium. Then the bomb that Iran would make, would not be a practical weapon at all. It would simply be device that can explode, like North Korea has. Iran would have to test if it really works. Before Iran could place it on a missile, Iran would have to miniaturize it and then test the new designs. This is something that North Korea hasn't yet been able to do so far.

Then the missiles have to be developed too. The bomb has to survive re-entry in the atmposhere. It has to explode at the right time. We have seen that North Korea hasn't got reliable enough missile technology. Iran's too is quite far removed from meeting the mininimal techical requirements to have an ICBM that can carry a nuke.

So, this whole fear of a nuclear armed Iran simply does not make any sense.

 

[mheslep]

Fact: There isn't a shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

This is blatant misinformation. Find another forum if you simply to want to pursue your personal agenda.

 

[Count Iblis]

This is blatant misinformation. Find another forum if you simply to want to pursue your personal agenda.

This is not misinformation at all. It is a fact that there isn't a shred of evience for the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. It is also a fact that the US, Israel and other Western powers have politicized intelligence and conduct foreign policy based on propaganda.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Proximity - the same reason they don't want us in Turkey.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Uzbek...rce=en-ha-na-us-sk-gm&utm_term=uzbekistan map

Proximity? Well, yes. Iran is very close to Russia in the Caspian region. That's just my point. Why would Russia want to provide a potential enemy with a technology that could lead to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Why take that chance? What do the Russians hope to gain? Diplomatically, it creates problems between Russia and the Arab states since there is no love lost between Shiite Iran and the mostly Sunni Arabs.

Re Turkey, the US removed its nukes from Turkey in 1962 as part of the agreement ending the Cuban missile crisis.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/annals.htm

 

[Astronuc]

Fact: There isn't a shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

And one has verified this how? It's a bit like making a claim about something in the unobservable universe. That is one's opinion.

Given that nuclear weapons programs are among the most secret activities of a nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and the evidence is very sensitive, those who know the evidence do not say.

Every government does the political posturing.

 

[Count Iblis]

And one has verified this how? It's a bit like making a claim about something in the unobservable universe. That is one's opinion.

Given that nuclear weapons programs are among the most secret activities of a nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and the evidence is very sensitive, those who know the evidence do not say.

Every government does the political posturing.

El Baradei has said so. What the US has achieved is getting Iran referred to the UNSC on the basis of vague suggestions that Iran may have a nuclear wepons program. But later, (in 2007, I think) the NIE admitted that according to all the intelligence the US has Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 (that's before Ahmadinejad even was in power, and of course the claim that "Iran stopped a program" at a date before which you had any intelligence is a very suspect claim if you don't have evidence that it exists at all ).

Now, had the US told this when Iran was discussed at the IAEA board of governors meeting in 2005 when Iran was referred, there would have no way that Iran would have been referred (note that the referral happened at a foreign ministers meeting, it was clearly a political decision).

The obvious strategic goal for the US was to simply get Iran referred to the UNSC, evidence or no evidence. Once the UNSC passes sanctions and demands that Iran suspend enriching uranium, the IAEA is obliged to check if Iran is complying with this demand.

THe fact that tensions exists between El Baradei and the West is obvious. When El Baradei suggested that Iran could be allowed to have a lmited enerichment capability, Dr. Rice told him to mind his own business (i.e. to check if Iran is complying with UNSC demands). Also recently, Israel and France have complained that the IAEA reoprt on Iran did not include what they call "evidence". El Baradei dismissed that:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2-mELlX8VzEQiKF0kU_2jbTmFwg

France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the IAEA should publish annexes of its report because these may provide elements that show if Tehran is building an atomic bomb.

"Why doesn't he provide us with the annexes of his report," Kouchner asked of IAEA head ElBaradei. "I am not exaggerating. It is clear on reading the IAEA documents that not a single question has been answered."

ElBaradei has called the threat from Iran "hyped," and said there is no evidence it will soon have nuclear weapons.

So, France is angry that evidence, that they already admit that is very vague, is not admitted. Then, given that they don't know for sure even at this stage, there is no basis for the demands they make that Iran suspend their enrichment program. El Baradei saying that the threat is "hyped", shows that the process is working the wrong way.

If the IAEA referrs a country to the UNSC, then it should be the IAEA that sees such a huge threat that it asks the UNSC to intervene. Clearly, what has happened in case of Iran is that the West has hijacked this process for referral and is doing things the IAEA does not agree with.

So, basically, the West and Israel believe in some conspiracy theory about Iran (like Iran wants to produce nukes to wipe Israel off the map). And then, they are unlikely to accept evidence if that evidence casts doubt on their theories.

Then that also answers the OP, because in case of indoctrination by some conspiracy theory, it is unlikely that the whole world will believe in that theory. Particularly not those countries that have closer relations with Iran, like Russia.

 

[Astronuc]

Count Iblis, I believe El Baradei is referring to enrichment of U-235 (to WG levels), which is one possible step in nuclear weapons program.

However, finding no evidence doesn't mean that a program does not exist.

Unless one is intimately familiar, which means one has to have access to some very restricted knowledge, one is not in a position to make a substantiated (valid) claim that one did. In other words, don't be making claims for which one cannot verify.


On the political side - 1) Iran has made threats against Israel, and has supported groups like Hizbollah and Hamas, which have attacked Israel, 2) Iran has expressed aspirations to have a nuclear program, and nuclear technology is dual use (energy or weapons), and 3) Iran has not been completely transparent. Therein lies the problem.

Meanwhile the US and Israel have restrained themselves, at least in the case of Iran.

Furthermore, since WWII, the US and other nuclear states have not used nuclear weapons against other nations, so there is a precedent for restraint in this regard.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd like to hear comments/theories as to why Russia backs Iran so strongly, to the point of supplying Iran with nuclear technology. Russia gives every indication of being comfortable with an Iran armed with nuclear missiles despite the proximity of Iran to Russia. Parts of Russia (including Moscow) will likely be in range of Iranian missiles before western Europe or North America are. How can the Russians be so sure that the ruling clerics won't target them for their treatment of Muslim minorities such as in Chechnya, or for Russia's prior support of Serbia against Bosnian Muslims?

In any case, a nuclear exchange, involving a nuclear armed Israel, so close to Russia's borders can hardly be in Russia's interest. I know Putin's Russia still has much of a cold war mentality, but this seems somewhat like "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Why are we so worried about a nuclear Iran when they don't seem to be? What gives?

It's complicated and very political.

Note the Shanghai Cooperation Organization!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an intergovernmental mutual-security organisation which was founded in 2001 by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organisation.

Iran is a neighbor of these states, and there is mutual interest in stability, which is sometimes in conflict with national interests of advantage and superiority. But then again, those interests may vary according to the personalities (leaders and their egos) involved.

The concern about Iran involves their adversarial relationship with Israel, as well as their influence/relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's all about personalities and geopolitics.

 

[Count Iblis]

On the political side - 1) Iran has made threats against Israel

Iran doesn't even recognize Israel. Statements like Israel being wiped off the map are usually taken out of this context and given a meaning that is not intended.

...and has supported groups like Hizbollah and Hamas, which have attacked Israel,

And Israel has attacked Lebanon in the early 1980s, so there is conflict going on. It is not like a peaceful Israel being a victim of one sided aggression supported by Iran.

Iran has expressed aspirations to have a nuclear program, and nuclear technology is dual use (energy or weapons), and 3) Iran has not been completely transparent. Therein lies the problem.

Iran, being a sovereign country has the right to even build nuclear weapons. Iran, however, has signed the NPT treaty, so it has voluntarily agreed not to do that. Under this treaty, they certainly have the right to pursue industrial scale enrichment activities while under IAEA monitoring.

The Western claim that Iran has somehow forfeited this right because of violations (which had to do with acquiring nuclear materials poutside of the NPT framework after unsuccessful attempts to legally acquire nhuclear technology as a result of US sanctions against companies that deal with Iran on nuclear matters), is nonsensical, because Iran could always (legally) leave the NPT.


The real problem is that after the end of the Cold War, the West has been in a very powerful position, effectively being the judge, jury, prosecutor, police, and party of the conflict that is policed, at the same time. Then, even with the best of intentions, this has to go wrong.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article18921.ece"

Mr. Putin drew an interesting parallel with India's nuclear programme. "What Iran is doing today is little different from what India did several years ago," he remarked to general laughter.

Russian charismatic Prime Minister added: "The Middle East is an explosive region. Iran has denied any ambition to weaponise its nuclear programme but it must clear international concerns about it."

 

[SW VandeCarr]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article18921.ece"

Putin's statements only highlight his apparent lack of concern about the proliferation of nuclear powers near Russia's borders. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan was not welcome in the West and clearly raised the stakes for the outbreak of nuclear war. Now Russia has five nuclear armed states near its southern borders in a region where the potential for war is probably higher then it was in Europe before 1989. (North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and Israel). Perhaps Putin thinks 'what's one more?' This is insanity. Does he think Russia can control the situation? Does he believe Russia will not be directly affected by the outbreak of war anywhere from the Korean peninsula to India/Pakistan to the Middle East?

 

[meopemuk]

Does he believe Russia will not be directly affected by the outbreak of war anywhere from the Korean peninsula to India/Pakistan to the Middle East?

There are already two major wars going on in this region. And they were started not by Iran, by the way.

 

[math_04]

How can the Russians be so sure that the ruling clerics won't target them for their treatment of Muslim minorities such as in Chechnya, or for Russia's prior support of Serbia against Bosnian Muslims?

It is a safe bet. Iran, despite its statements about Muslim brotherhood and leading the Muslim world against 'aggression by the West, puts its national aspirations first. It has precious few allies in the region, and as a military power and a nation with veto powers in the Security Council, Russia is the perfect companion.

Does he believe Russia will not be directly affected by the outbreak of war anywhere from the Korean peninsula to India/Pakistan to the Middle East?

No, Russia does not want war in its neighbourhood. What it does is offer a counterbalance to the West's aggressive posture in those regions. It hopes that by gently caressing those nations, it can neutralize their aggressive behaviour and gain a foothold in the region.

Iran, being a sovereign country has the right to even build nuclear weapons. Iran, however, has signed the NPT treaty, so it has voluntarily agreed not to do that. Under this treaty, they certainly have the right to pursue industrial scale enrichment activities while under IAEA monitoring.

It does, but Iran has a history of supporting terrorist activities and politically, is on shaky ground. There are people in Iran who are much more radical than Ayatollah Khamenei or Ahmadinejad and the fear is if they take control, they could hand a terrorist a nuclear weapon to use. The current ruling elite in Iran have shown themselves to be power hungry and racist murderers who have the blood of many Iranians as well as foreigners on their hands. They have a well documented history of supporting terrorist and insurgency operations aimed at destabilizing regimes in its neighbourhood. So forgive me if I mistrust them and their signing of the NPT. It could simply intensify its support of terrorism overseas once it acquires a nuclear weapon knowing fully well that no country would dream of attacking it.

 

[russ_watters]

El Baradei has said so.

Your claim and El Baradei's are not identical. You said:

There isn't a shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

El Baradei said:

...there was no concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program...

You used the word "shred" as an emphasizer, El Baradei used "concrete" as a qualifier. The difference is key: El Baradei is saying there is evidence of a nuclear weapons program, it just isn't good enough to be clear and incontrovertible. In other words, the evidence that exists is circumstantial.

In addition, the word "ongoing" is a curious one, don't you think? It is another hedge, meaning that he's not ruling out sporadic nuclear weapons research.

El Baradei chose his words very carefully - you made a much broader blanket statement and it isn't correct.

Rather, it is the following. If we pursue our ridiculous idea that Iran, a sovereign coutry, cannot enrich its own uranium for use in its own nuclear powerplants (the whole process being monitored by IAEA inspectors), just because Iran could hypothetically leave the NPT, kick out the IAEA inspectors, make highly enriched uranium and then assemble a bomb...

What you are describing isn't what has happened. The IAEA determined there were violations of the NPT. This is not a hypothetical - the IAEA and the west are responding to Iran's actual actions and statements.

The Western claim that Iran has somehow forfeited this right because of violations (which had to do with acquiring nuclear materials poutside of the NPT framework after unsuccessful attempts to legally acquire nhuclear technology as a result of US sanctions against companies that deal with Iran on nuclear matters), is nonsensical, because Iran could always (legally) leave the NPT.

No, that is nonsensical. The NPT requires documentation of compliance because of the dual use nature of the technology. If Iran were to leave the NPT, they'd face severe international condemnation and sanctions and the assumption that they were going to produce weapons. If all Iran really wants is to make nuclear power plants, they should follow the rules of the NPT and do it. It seems to me that if they are not trying to build nukes, then what they are doing is just counterproductive posturing.

It actually has a similarity to the Iraq thing, though not what you think: Saddam Hussein did have WMD at one time. That's obvious, since he used them. But he apparently got rid of them after the first Gulf war. But he wasn't happy with disarnmant, so he postured like he still had weapons. This is what Iran is doing. The threats and posturing from Iran can't be ignored. It may be nothing more than flexing their muscles against The Great Satan, we cannot afford the possibility that it is more than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Incidentally, El Baradei was not real impressed with Iran's latest "nuclear package":

The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Monday that Iran has reached a "stalemate" with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency over its disputed nuclear program.

Iran has "cooperated" with the International Atomic Energy Agency by improving its safeguard measures at its fuel-enrichment plant and allowing access to its still-unfinished research reactor in Arak, ElBaradei told the agency's 35-member Board of Governors.

"On all other issues, however, relevant toIran's nuclear program, there is a stalemate," ElBaradei added.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities or its work on heavy-water related projects as required by the (U.N.) Security Council," he said.

Iran has also not implemented additional protocols, which authorized IAEA to visit Iran's nuclear facilities whenever they wanted, ElBaradei said.

"Likewise, Iran has not cooperated with the agency in connection with the remaining issues detailed fully and completely in the agency's reports which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the IAEA chief said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/09/iran.nuclear.proposals/index.html

In addition:

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the BBC this week that Iran wants to "send a message" to its neighbors and the rest of the world: "Don't mess" with Iran and "we can have nuclear weapons if we want to."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/19/iran.nuclear.weapon/index.html#cnnSTCText

 

[Count Iblis]

It does, but Iran has a history of supporting terrorist activities and politically, is on shaky ground. There are people in Iran who are much more radical than Ayatollah Khamenei or Ahmadinejad and the fear is if they take control, they could hand a terrorist a nuclear weapon to use. The current ruling elite in Iran have shown themselves to be power hungry and racist murderers who have the blood of many Iranians as well as foreigners on their hands. They have a well documented history of supporting terrorist and insurgency operations aimed at destabilizing regimes in its neighbourhood. So forgive me if I mistrust them and their signing of the NPT. It could simply intensify its support of terrorism overseas once it acquires a nuclear weapon knowing fully well that no country would dream of attacking it.

Handing a nuke to a terrorists is not so simple. Even if that is done, How would Hamas or Hezbollah even deploy a nuke against Israel? They are not suicidal towards their own people, despite having used suicide bombers, they are not like Al Qa'ida. So, I think these sort of fears are very similar to Dr. Rice's "mushroom cloud over New York" rhetoric, the moment you analyze it rationaly, you see that the hypothetical situation is untanable. So, it is a Fata Morgana in the Iranian desert.

Another argument is that Iran can easily produce large amounts of chemical weapons which is easier to hand over to terrorists and to be used by them. But Hezbollah has no missiles with a chemical charge.


Then, one also has to look at Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas and the behavior of Iranian regime toward their own people in the proper context. From the Iranian perspective, Israel is an aggressive military power who illegally occupy lands that do not belong to them, while the West was guilty of genocide against the Iranian nation by supporting Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran. Iranian losses were of a similar scale as the losses the West suffered in WWII.

Then, when the West complains about Iran supporting Hezbollah making it a "rouge state", to Iran that complaint comes from a power that supported Saddam resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. So, this makes a similar expression to Iran as some speech by Hitler during WWII would have made in which he would have complained about the West killing innocent civilians in Germany.

Of course, all this doesn't excuse Iran from supporting terrorism and repressing its own people. But without the proper context, it is easy to see things that aren't there. Just like:

A country detains many members of an ethnic group. The US did this to ethnic Japanese during WWII. Leave out the WWII context in this sentence and all of a sudden the US looks like a racist country.


Similarly: The US used nuclear weapons against Japan. Of course, the US was fighting WWII, Leave out that last fact, and it again looks to be competely different.

More recent example: The US intervened in Latin American countries, sometimes with violence, during the Cold War. Leave out the context of the Cold War, and it again looks like the US is a country as the West perceives Iran to be.

And just like in case of Iran, giving these proper contexts does not necessary mean that all of these actions by the US were ok. All it means that the argument that given what the country in question did, we must be dealing with an inherently "evil country", does not follow.

 

[Count Iblis]

About the evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program, I think the IAEA wants to be in a position that they can be sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it doesn't exist. Currently, they are not in that position, because Iran does not cooporate 100%. This then does not mean that there is circumstantial evidence for a weapons program.

The (known) violations of the NPT by Iran dating from before 2003 have all been investigated later and it all has been explaoined. It had nothing to do with a weapons program. E.g. Iran wanted to legally acquire nuclear fuel using the usual procedures. Due to US pressure, Iran was unable to do so (the US imposes sanctions on companies that deal with Iran on nuclear matters, even if those dealings are within the proper IAEA rules).

What then happened was that Iran managed to acquire the fuel from a Chinese company and did not notify the IAEA (to prevent the US from findoing out). That's a violation of the NPT, however, later investigations have shown that this had nothing to do with any weapons program. Nevertheless this is the only substantial violation of the NPT by Iran.

Iran not notifying the IAEA about Natanz was not really a violation of the NPT because, according to the rules, you only need to notify the IAEA some months before te faclity is operational.

So, I would say that without the proper context, it is easy to interpret every incident as evidence for a weapons program. Also, the fact that Iran currently does not cooperate 100%. Why would they cooporate with the IAEA if the IAEA now must check if Iran has suspended their enrichment program as demanded by the UNSC and if the military option is still on the table?

 

[kyleb]

Your claim and El Baradei's are not identical. You said: El Baradei said: You used the word "shred" as an emphasizer, El Baradei used "concrete" as a qualifier. The difference is key: El Baradei is saying there is evidence of a nuclear weapons program, it just isn't good enough to be clear and incontrovertible. In other words, the evidence that exists is circumstantial.

It is "circumstantial", meaning the evidence isn't necessarily indicative of a nuclear weapons program, but rather that is only one possible explanation. So, El Baradei's comment acknowledges that there is at least some shred of evidence that Iran might have a nuclear weapons program. However, as for any shred of evidence that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, El Baradei's comment suggests nothing of the sort.

In addition, the word "ongoing" is a curious one, don't you think? It is another hedge, meaning that he's not ruling out sporadic nuclear weapons research.

Or rather he simply isn't denying the Iran's past nuclear weapons research, as the evidence of Iran's past nuclear weapons program is rather indisputable.

 

[mheslep]

Handing a nuke to a terrorists is not so simple. Even if that is done, How would Hamas or Hezbollah even deploy a nuke against Israel? They are not suicidal towards their own people, despite having used suicide bombers, they are not like Al Qa'ida. ...

Truck driven into downtown Tel Aviv? I don't know why they'd restrain themselves because of some native Arabs in Tel Aviv, they've not showed that restraint when targeting public places (buses, restaurants) that certainly contained both Arabs and Jews.

 

[mheslep]

Back to the topic: Russia's foreign minister Lavrov says no to more UN sanctions against Iran.

http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB125260385206300253-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB125260385206300253-lMyQjAxMDI5NTEyMjYxMDIzWj.html"

MOSCOW -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear Thursday that Moscow wouldn't back any new rounds of tough sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, and he dismissed a U.S. timetable for securing progress from Iran on ending its nuclear-fuel program.

and

...Mr. Lavrov appeared to dismiss U.S. and Israeli warnings of urgency. If Iran tried to enrich uranium to weapons grade, he said, it would have to reconfigure its cascades of centrifuges, a move that would immediately be picked up by cameras monitored by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. There would be time to respond, he said...

I didn't know that the IAEA still had cameras where it counts. Regardless, that's not the original point of the sanctions, which was a response to violations of the NPT. Russia's tossing the NPT out the window with this, or redefining it to mean 'do whatever you want up until the point where we think a weapon is imminent'

 

[mheslep]

This is all very 007. Two days ago Israel Prime Minister made a covert trip to Russia, apparently a plea to stop the Russians from selling Iran air defense missiles, something that would throw a major kink into any Israeli plans to attack nuclear sites in Iran.

The reported trip comes on the heels of reports of Russian arms deals to Syria and Iran, including the mysterious disappearance of a Russian freighter, the Arctic Sea, which a senior European Union official has said may have been carrying advanced air-defense missiles to Iran. Those missiles would make a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities more difficult, according to military analysts.

http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB125259466176399775-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB125259466176399775-lMyQjAxMDI5NTEyMjUxOTI0Wj.html

 

[Count Iblis]

I didn't know that the IAEA still had cameras where it counts. Regardless, that's not the original point of the sanctions, which was a response to violations of the NPT. Russia's tossing the NPT out the window with this, or redefining it to mean 'do whatever you want up until the point where we think a weapon is imminent'

No, Iran is under sanctions because of "fears" that it was producing nukes (more likely, the US knew that Iran was not producing nukes, but it could make the case that it did, thereby getting sanctions imposed on Iran and isolating Iran even more).

The violations of the NPT were not relevant, except that it was part of the US argument that Iran was headed toward producing nukes. But that argument has long since been debunked.


South Korea and Brazil were also in violation of the NPT on some points. South Korea had even produced highly enriched uranium and misled the IAEA about that.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think that Israel is afraid that Iran could sell the S-300 system to Hezbollah. If Iran were to deploy the S-300 in Iran itself, Israel could deal with that. It would complicate an attack, but a single S-300 system that itself is defended by a single shorter range SAM system cannot last a long time when it comes under sustained attack from an enemy that knows exactly how it is deployed.

Iran would be much better off giving Hezbollah the S-300 SAM system. Hezbollah would then be able to shoot down civilian aircraft deep inside Israel as a response to any Israeli aggression against Iran.

 

[mheslep]

No, Iran is under sanctions because of "fears" that it was producing nukes

UN Security Council Resolution 1737

Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II
of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes without discrimination,

Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of the IAEA Director
General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran’s nuclear
programme, reported to it by the IAEA Director General, including IAEA Board
resolution GOV/2006/14,

Reiterating its serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of
27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns
on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear
dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

Reiterating its serious concern over the IAEA Director General’s report of
28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three
years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and
that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about
the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,

Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General’s
reports of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38), 31 August 2006 (GOV/2006/53) and
14 November 2006 (GOV/2006/64), Iran has not established full and sustained
suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in
resolution 1696 (2006), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the
Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required of it by the IAEA Board of
Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution
1696 (2006) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s
refusal to take these steps, ...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/resolution1737.pdf

(more likely, the US knew that Iran was not producing nukes, but it could make the case that it did, thereby getting sanctions imposed on Iran and isolating Iran even more).

What's your source for this statement?

... except that it was part of the US argument that Iran was headed toward producing nukes. But that argument has long since been debunked.

Repeated assertion does not debunk anything. Did you read the posts above?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343359&postcount=7
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345057&postcount=16

 

[Count Iblis]

I gave sources to El Baradei's recent statement. So, we can say that the issue raised by the Western powers leading to that UN resolution has long since been cleared up. Yes, questions remain, but given what we know now, there would be no grounds for a Chapter 7 UNSC resolution against Iran mandating sanctions.

What's your source for this statement?

Sources do not prove much in a world were a lot of the Westen media behave like the Soviet journal Pravda.

Repeated assertion does not debunk anything. Did you read the posts above?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...59&postcount=7
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=16

Well, the whole process of referral to the UNSC and then the UNSC agreeing to impose samnctions involves evidence that is not kept secret.

If you have been following this issue, you would know about crucial meetings between Dr. Rice and Lavrov preceeding UN sanctions being imposed. I remember very well Lavrov saying at a joint press conference that: "Iran has the right to enrich uranium", while Dr. Rice said: "It is not about rights, rather whether Iran can be trusted with that right" (this is what remember having heard several years ago, so the exact words could be different)

So, it was never a clear cut case, it was always about the US not trusting Iran, or the US wanting to exploit the situation for its own strategic interests.

The US was dealing with Iran interfering in Iraq at the time, so there were plenty of reasons why the US would want to exaggerate the Iranian nuclear threat. It would lead to sanctions against Iran, it would allow the US to make Saudi Arabia and its other Arab allies who were very critical of the US invasion of Iraq to become afraid of Iran. That would make it easier for the US to get their cooperation on issues related to Iraq, Israel etc. etc.

Also, as you quoted from a source. Lavrov says that the situation is not urgent. Clearly then he doesn't take serious any theory that would suggest that Iran has a hidden nuclear program (or such a theory doesn't exist). But then that proves wrong the whole idea that the World powers know about secret intelligence about this issue (as suggested by Astronuc). At least the Russians do not know about that, but that means that they should never have voted for sanctions against Iran. Another possibility is that Dr. Rice did give Lavrov secret intelligence but it was later found out that it was wrong.


But whatever really is going on here, I don't think the idea that the US has/is policized intelligence and is perfectly willing to tell lies is a priori so unlikely that it would require a lot of evidence before it can be brought in as a valid argument. Because then we get into a situation where when things do not seem to add up, like the issue raised by the OP, it must always be some other power/country that is lying/deceiving the world (the Russians in this case, when they play down the Iranian threat).

There have been three recent issues in which the official US position has been very problematic:

1) US motivations for the Iraq war.

2) Guantanamo plus rendition of detainees, interrogation techiques used etc. etc.

3) US position in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.


In all these 3 cases many governments do not trust the official US position. In case of 2), the British governments in now investigating Mi5 and Mi6 for complicity in torture. Now, you can't be compicit in a crime if a crime didn't happen in the first place. But then, you have to ask why Britain cannot trust the US to tell exactly what happened, making this investigation unnecessary.

In case of 3), the EU started an investigation into the way the war started, they do not trust that the US account is correct.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

No, Russia does not want war in its neighbourhood. What it does is offer a counterbalance to the West's aggressive posture in those regions. It hopes that by gently caressing those nations, it can neutralize their aggressive behaviour and gain a foothold in the region.

The focus of my original post was Russia, not Iran. Most other posters seem fixated on Iran. The danger posed by Iran can be easily demonstrated by statements made by a leading cleric (considered a "moderate"" by the West.)

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

There was another fellow who wrote a book saying exactly what he would do if he had the power. He got the power. He was defended by Western apologists and others who ignored anything "immoderate" in his writing or speeches. I guess many of us we still haven't learned.

However, Russia's motives seem contradictory and confusing. How do you stabilize a region by effectively promoting nuclear proliferation and aiding a rogue state? Iran was once pro-West. Then there was a revolution which ushered in a theocracy with an extreme, even apocalyptic, anti-Western world view. Now Russia is the friend and enabler of this regime. The regime is not popular in Iran, especially among the youth. Does Russia want to continue supporting this increasingly unpopular regime? Iran is not stable. Today's friend could be tomorrow's enemy. Russia has made this miscalculation before.

 

[mheslep]

Sources do not prove much in a world were a lot of the Westen media behave like the Soviet journal Pravda...

Actually I would welcome any non-Western _news_ sources you may have in mind, even Iranian though don't expect an Iranian site to be taken as the last word. Aside from that, we do not have the option of simply ignoring https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=928732&postcount=1" .

2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible)...

And you frequently phrase your posts as factual, not opinion.

 

[Count Iblis]

However, Russia's motives seem contradictory and confusing. How do you stabilize a region by effectively promoting nuclear proliferation and aiding a rogue state?

The Russians do not share the Western alarmism about Iran's nuclear program. They agree that Iran has to be more transparant, but they don't see the immediate threat Israel and the US are seeing.

Iran was once pro-West. Then there was a revolution which ushered in a theocracy with an extreme, even apocalyptic, anti-Western world view. Now Russia is the friend and enabler of this regime. The regime is not popular in Iran, especially among the youth. Does Russia want to continue supporting this increasingly unpopular regime? Iran is not stable. Today's friend could be tomorrow's enemy. Russia has made this miscalculation before.

As far as the nuclear issue is concerned, there is almost unanimous support in Iran for it. The opposition had proposed a temporary freeze on enrichment, but even they insist that Iran should develop industrial scale enrichment so that they will be able to supply their future need for nuclear fuel and not be dependend on the West for nuclear fuel.

For Iranians this is about their sovereign rights, even if it happens to be Ahmadinejad that defends it. It is a bit like the fact that most left wing liberal Americans would still agree with the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military attacks, if the evidence for an imminent attack exists.

About miscalculations, the perspective from Russia would be that not they but the West has been wrong on almost all of the major international isues since the Korean War. The West was wrong about the threat posed by Communism in the cold war and (indirectly) supported death squads in El Salvador, overthrew democratically elected leaders like Allende, Ortega, supported people like Savimbi, Mobutu etc. in Africa.

The West supported Islamic extremists in Afghanistan who the Soviets were fighting. When Gorbachov offered to get out of Afghanistan while leaving behind a stable government in exchange for the US stopping to support the "freedom fighters", Richard Perle adviced Reagan not to agree to this. Gorbachov's fear that Afghanistan could become a failed state controlled by Islamic militia's that could be a threat to other countries were ignored. And we all know that the situation turned out to be worse than just that.

And then we had Iraq's WMD file. Russia and China were of the opinion that sanctions could be relaxed or lifted, but the US and Britain always insisted that they had intelligence that proved that Saddam was deceiving the inspectors, that there was missing anthrax that Saddam was hiding etc. etc. After the Iraq war, the West was again proven totally wrong.

E.g., the missing anthrax that Saddam was allegedly hiding wasn't there as Saddam had always claimed, nor where there any documents that the West suggested that Saddam should show that would prove that he had ordered it to be destroyed. There never had been any "missing anthrax" in the first place.

And then Georgia launches an attack against South Ossetia in which Russian peacekeepers and many civilians are killed. Russia reacts and then the West calls that "Russian aggression". Dr. Rice accuses Russia of wanting to implement regime change. From the Russian perspective that was a ridiculous and hypocritical attack.

Another issue: The War in Chechnya. The Russian perspective is that you have/had Islamic terrorists operating from there and the West simply did not see the threat posed by them. The West chose to criticize Russia. Now, they may understand criticism about too many civilian casualties, but in the West there was sentiment that Russia should have appeased the militants that they were fighting. And that attitude changed completely after 9/11.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually I would welcome any non-Western _news_ sources you may have in mind, even Iranian though don't expect an Iranian site to be taken as the last word. Aside from that, we do not have the option of simply ignoring https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=928732&postcount=1" .

And you frequently phrase your posts as factual, not opinion.

Well, I would trust Iranian sources even less. I would happen to agree with an Iranian source on the nuclear file, but not because of what they write about it.

If that means that I can't use the word "fact", then I will not use that word.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

About miscalculations, the perspective from Russia would be that not they but the West has been wrong on almost all of the major international issues since the Korean War.

When Russia miscalculates, it does so in grand style. The USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in August,1939 freeing Hitler to start WWII. The USSR delivered oil and other goods to the Third Reich right up to the morning of of June 22,1941 when Germany attacked.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Nazi%E2%80%93Soviet_economic_relations?t=12.

The USSR eventually won, but at great cost. I'm not sure what you mean by the Korean War. North Korea, backed by Stalin and China, failed to conquer South Korea in a costly war.

In October 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly started WWIII. In Dec,1979,the USSR invaded Afghanistan beginning a chain of events that eventually lead to the collapse of the USSR.

Most of your responses amount to deflection to subjects you'd rather talk about. My question was focused on what I consider to be bad Russian policy, likely to create problems for Russia as well as the rest of the world; bad policy by the US or other states not withstanding.

 

[Count Iblis]

Most of your responses amount to deflection to subjects you'd rather talk about.

No, these were simply examples that show that the West has been wrong on most international issues.

Of course, the Soviet Union has made any mistakes too, e.g. the examples you gave. And I meant since after the Korean War, basically after Stalin was gone.

The Cuban missile crisis was not merely a miscalculation by the Soviet Union. Sure, they did miscalculate about the way the US would react, but then part ofthe deal that resolved the crisis was that the US would remove its missiles from Turkey.


Then your analysis that Russian policy w.r.t. Iran would likely create problems is based on assumptions that I don't think are supported by facts. It assumes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program which I don't think the US believes is true at this moment.

I don't think the US would be patient and let Iran come with proposals to discuss its nuclear program to address Western concerns, if the US were concerned about the existence of an active nuclear program. The concerns have much more to do with the idea that Iran could, in the future, decide to leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons, if they develop the technology to enrich uranium on an industrial scale.

That fear is based on what we think the Iranian intentions are and we want Iran to come clean about what they've done in the past. But Iran is already under sanctions and they will not do anything more than sticking to the usual IAEA inspections. Extra inspections that the IAEA wants to carry out are not approved by Iran.

It seems to me that this whole standoff is caused by the US pressing for sanctions against Iran that were clearly premature. This issue was never going to be resolved in any other way than the World agreeing with Iran that Iran has the right to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, while Iran agrees that there are legitimate concerns stemming from their past behavior that Iran has to address, e.g. by allowing extra inspections.

I think if you go back a few years just before the UNSC voted for sanctions and read what Lavrov and Dr. Rice were saying, you see that Dr. Rice was the one who was wrong. Her proposals failed to deliver (Iran is still enriching uranium right now and it has not answered questions about its past program and it is not allowing the extra inspections the IAEA wants to carry out).

If Russia had acted on their objections and vetoed the UN resolution demanding Iran to stop enriching uranium, then it may well be the case that another UN resolution would have been passed in which Iran would have been required to cooporate with the extra IAEA inspections, extra monitoring of their enrichment ectivities, come clean on their past behaviour etc.

Then the issue would have been solved. The concession the West would have been made would be that they would have agreed to not close the doomsday loophole that Iran would decide to leave the NPT and use the enrichment technology they have developed to make a bomb. But as of now, we would be better off, as we would have far more monitoring of the Iranian nuclear program.

The sitiuation today is that while we have not agreed with Iran enriching uranium and have passed a UN resolution saying that Iran has to stop enriching uranium, Iran is still enriching uranium. So, by aiming for more, we have gained less. Less information on Iran's nuclear program and the feared (but unrealistic) doomsday scenario is still there.

 

[mheslep]

From the http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hXROT9qFqSx-wCTCQk3G6qvfAs_wD9AP714G0" :

"AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb"

VIENNA — Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

Seen by the AP, why not us? They publicize every other tidbit.

 

[WhoWee]

From the http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hXROT9qFqSx-wCTCQk3G6qvfAs_wD9AP714G0" :

"AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb"

Seen by the AP, why not us? They publicize every other tidbit.

Isn't the real threat (at this point) a "dirty bomb"?