Why Does Russia Support a Nuclear-Armed Iran?

[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"?

 

[mheslep]

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

From a non-state actor (terrorists) maybe, not from Iran. Iran's current leadership, per my read of the evidence, is after the real thing, a fission bomb.

 

[WhoWee]

From a non-state actor (terrorists) maybe, not from Iran. Iran's current leadership, per my read of the evidence, is after the real thing, a fission bomb.

An attack by any entry level "State Actor" could lead to total annihilation of said "State Actor".

I should have clarified, the threat of Iran using a fission bomb is much less likely than "a group" using a dirty bomb.

 

[seycyrus]

An attack by any entry level "State Actor" could lead to total annihilation of said "State Actor".

I should have clarified, the threat of Iran using a fission bomb is much less likely than "a group" using a dirty bomb.

The mere possession of a nuclear device will allow Iran the freedom to pursue its agenda.

 

[byronm]

The mere possession of a nuclear device will allow Iran the freedom to pursue its agenda.

What do you think that Agenda is and why?

Personally, i think Iran is a beautiful country with a great culture.. its too bad some of the rather extreme and draconian policies get in the way of that. Its also too bad most people don't realize those extreme and draconian laws were put in place because of the wests earlier actions.

For me, war isn't the answer. Support their democratic processes and bring them into the big tent..

 

[Count Iblis]

Why would Iran bother to produce a dirty bomb if they can already produce unlimited amounts of nerve gas?

 

[Count Iblis]

If Iran is not after a nuclear weapon, but instead wants to have the enrichment capability necessary to supply a few powerplants, then Iran would need a far larger enrichment capacity than they currrently have. What they currently have is perhaps barely sufficient to produce nuclear weapons.

 

[mheslep]

An attack by any entry level "State Actor" could lead to total annihilation of said "State Actor".

1. Not annihilation, just catostraphic damage which they might calculate they could withstand. 2. They might farm out fission weapons to guerilla groups thinking they could walk away from responsibility.

I should have clarified, the threat of Iran using a fission bomb is much less likely than "a group" using a dirty bomb.

I don't know that, and it's unclear how you could know that.

 

[WhoWee]

1. Not annihilation, just catostraphic damage which they might calculate they could withstand.

That would depend upon their selection of targets.

 

[mheslep]

That would depend upon their selection of targets.

So far, only targets in their region could only be directly attacked. Nobody in that region except Russia has the capability to annihilate a country the size of Iran.

 

[Count Iblis]

Israel has 200 thermonuclear devices, more than enough to wipe Iran off the map.

 

[WhoWee]

So far, only targets in their region could only be directly attacked. Nobody in that region except Russia has the capability to annihilate a country the size of Iran.

Are you forgetting the US, British, French, Pakistani, and Chinese presence - land or sea?

 

[mheslep]

Are you forgetting the US, British, French, Pakistani, and Chinese presence - land or sea?

You said that Iran might attack - "their selection of targets"

 

[mheslep]

Israel has 200 thermonuclear devices, more than enough to wipe Iran off the map.

You know this how? Even if they did, Israel would have to launch first and everything at once, as 5-10 would be the end of Israel, and only one required to cut it in half.

 

[WhoWee]

You said that Iran might attack - "their selection of targets"

How do we know their guidance systems work?

 

[Count Iblis]

You know this how? Even if they did, Israel would have to launch first and everything at once, as 5-10 would be the end of Israel, and only one required to cut it in half.

I've read that some time ago. Also, Israel has a good early warning system. Iran could attack first and Israel would still be able to launch an attack against Iran while the Iranian missiles are still in the air. Israel's anti-missile system would be able to take out most of the Iranian missiles.

If something were to go wrong and Israel were to be hit before it could attack Iran, then Israel still has a second strike option using its submarines.

 

[seycyrus]

What do you think that Agenda is and why?

I'm interested in getting into a big discussion about what I think their agenda is. Certainly not going to get into the "why".

You want to think that Iran is a peaceful community with leaders that possesses nothing, but goodwill for the rest of the world fine. I don't share that opinion. It certainly seems that the members of NATO don't share it either.

I know its a pretty place and I have known many peaceful Iranians.

As for "letting them into the tent", that's exactly what the UN is trying to do.

 

[Limachi]

I think Russia gives these weapons to Iran because it knows Iran would not be stupid enough to attack it. If Iran attacked Russia then Russia would retaliate and the U.S. would back Russia since the U.S. consideres Iran a terrorist country...

 

[mheslep]

Looks like Ahmadinehad has jewish ancestry. Maybe he'll immigrate now and a moderate will take over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html