Iran's Nukes: Russia's Key

SenaxFlatulus · #1 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

IRAN'S NUKES: RUSSIA'S KEYby Amir Taheri
New York Post

April 13, 2006 -- AS the diplomatic maneuvers to pressure Iran to rein in its nuclear ambitions continue, the message one hears in policy circles in most capitals is simple: The key is in Moscow.

Of all the powers involved in this showdown with the Islamic Republic, only Russia is in a position to tip the balance between a peaceful resolution or war.

Russia is building Iran's first and, so far, only nuclear power plant near Bushehr. It could slow or suspend the project pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. Such a move could strengthen the hands of those within the Tehran establishment that want a moratorium on uranium processing to prevent tension from further escalating.

And Russia has another card to play: It has proposed to set up a special-uranium enrichment project for Iran to cover the needs of the Bushehr plant for its full 37-year lifespan. (An agreement now in place has Russia providing the plant's fuel for its first 10 years.) To sweeten it for the Tehran leadership, the Russian proposal could be modified to have part of the enrichment process done in Iranian facilities and with the participation of Iranian scientists and technicians.

All that, however, may lead nowhere. Some analysts suspect that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may actually want a military conflict with the United States as the opening shot in his promised "Clash of Civilizations." He seems convinced that America, plagued by bitter internal dissension, lacks the stomach for a serious fight with the Islamic Republic and its radical allies throughout the Middle East. Thus he may want a clash over the nuclear issue, which many Iranians (thanks to the regime's Goebbelsian presentation) see as a matter of national pride.

But even then Russia could either prevent a clash or hasten it by vetoing or voting for a strong resolution in the U.N. Security Council. The Russian position there is crucial because China, which also has a veto, would not be prepared to isolate itself by siding with Iran if Russia sides with the United States. If Russia vetoes, so will China. If Russia doesn't veto, the most that China might do to please Iran is to abstain.

The Bush administration knows all this. That's why it's starting to build pressure on Russia ahead of this July's G-8 summit, which Russian President Vladimir Putin is to host. The American calculation is that Putin, having won the presidency of the G-8 for Russia for the first time, is unlikely to start his tenure by splitting the group to please the Iranian mullahs.

Yet Putin won't want to make an unambiguous choice between Tehran and Washington. Russia needs the Islamic Republic for a number of reasons - including as part of Moscow's strategy to counter U.S. influence in Central Asia, the Caspian basin and the Middle East.(Tehran and Moscow have been working closely in Afghanistan for more than a decade; they're now developing a joint strategy in anticipation of U.S. withdrawal once President Bush leaves office.)

Moscow also needs Tehran to prevent the United States from imposing its proposed model for the exploitation of the Caspian Sea's immense oil and gas resources.And, having lost all of its Soviet-era Arab friends and clients, Moscow also needs Tehran as a bridgehead to the Middle East, the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

The current analysis in Moscow is that, once Bush is gone, Iran will emerge as the dominant power in Iraq and would need Russia as a strategic partner in developing such major oilfields as Majnun which sit astride the Irano-Iraqi frontier.

The United States is not the only strategic rival that Russia has identified. Also looming large on the horizon is China which, Putin's recent visit to Beijing notwithstanding, many Moscow analysts see as a potential threat to Russian interests in Asia and the Middle East. A Sino-Iranian axis could isolate Russia in Western Asia and the Middle East and even shut it out of chunks of Central Asia.

Add to all that Russia's immense economic interest in the Islamic Republic. Iran is now the biggest market for Russian arms, including aircraft and submarines. The loss of the Iranian orders might force entire lines of Russian weapons industries to close down.

The two neighbors have also signed trade contracts worth $80 billion over the next decade. And Russia hopes to build most of the seven nuclear power plants that the Islamic Republic wants to set up in the next 10 years. More than 30,000 Russian technicians, both military and civilian, now work in Iran.

There is one more, and (according to Russian analysts) perhaps more important, factor: Putin can never be sure that, come the crunch, Washington will not strike a deal with Tehran, leaving Moscow in the lurch.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19438

I know of at least one user here who doesn't trust Russia for squat. That being said, do you trust them? It seems as though maybe they are the only way out of this corner we're in with Iran since they won't stop developing nukes and aren't responding to diplomatic overtures.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the left almost fear President Bush using nukes more than Iran using them. I think that's what Iran is betting on.

ForceoftheTruth · #2 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 04:48 PM

You seem to be an expert on military arms, Senax. I have determined, after careful thought, that we have to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. I want to know whether or not the use of nuclear weapons is the only means of doing so. If it is, I support it, but I have to understand this point clearly.

apotropoxy · #3 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

You seem to be an expert on military arms, Senax. I have determined, after careful thought, that we have to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. I want to know whether or not the use of nuclear weapons is the only means of doing so. If it is, I support it, but I have to understand this point clearly.

Have you read the Hersh article, Force?

In part...

Quote:

(...)
Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:
I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact

SporkLord · #4 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 08:36 PM

Russia is solely interested in Russia. It is a dire mistake to presume that Russia will care, or try to act, in support of Western Democratic ideals. The only way Russia would support US/EU efforts to prevent Iran would be if Russia gets something in return.
Russia can strike a deal between peace or war, but it has little interest in doing so. Putin still operates with a Imperial Russian/Soviet mindframe. (The two which largely overlap) It is about time people in the West realize it, and give up naive hopes of Russian democracy.

sputterman · #5 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

Quote:

IRAN'S NUKES: RUSSIA'S KEYby Amir Taheri
New York Post

April 13, 2006 -- AS the diplomatic maneuvers to pressure Iran to rein in its nuclear ambitions continue, the message one hears in policy circles in most capitals is simple: The key is in Moscow.

Of all the powers involved in this showdown with the Islamic Republic, only Russia is in a position to tip the balance between a peaceful resolution or war.

Russia is building Iran's first and, so far, only nuclear power plant near Bushehr. It could slow or suspend the project pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. Such a move could strengthen the hands of those within the Tehran establishment that want a moratorium on uranium processing to prevent tension from further escalating.

And Russia has another card to play: It has proposed to set up a special-uranium enrichment project for Iran to cover the needs of the Bushehr plant for its full 37-year lifespan. (An agreement now in place has Russia providing the plant's fuel for its first 10 years.) To sweeten it for the Tehran leadership, the Russian proposal could be modified to have part of the enrichment process done in Iranian facilities and with the participation of Iranian scientists and technicians.

All that, however, may lead nowhere. Some analysts suspect that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may actually want a military conflict with the United States as the opening shot in his promised "Clash of Civilizations." He seems convinced that America, plagued by bitter internal dissension, lacks the stomach for a serious fight with the Islamic Republic and its radical allies throughout the Middle East. Thus he may want a clash over the nuclear issue, which many Iranians (thanks to the regime's Goebbelsian presentation) see as a matter of national pride.

But even then Russia could either prevent a clash or hasten it by vetoing or voting for a strong resolution in the U.N. Security Council. The Russian position there is crucial because China, which also has a veto, would not be prepared to isolate itself by siding with Iran if Russia sides with the United States. If Russia vetoes, so will China. If Russia doesn't veto, the most that China might do to please Iran is to abstain.

The Bush administration knows all this. That's why it's starting to build pressure on Russia ahead of this July's G-8 summit, which Russian President Vladimir Putin is to host. The American calculation is that Putin, having won the presidency of the G-8 for Russia for the first time, is unlikely to start his tenure by splitting the group to please the Iranian mullahs.

Yet Putin won't want to make an unambiguous choice between Tehran and Washington. Russia needs the Islamic Republic for a number of reasons - including as part of Moscow's strategy to counter U.S. influence in Central Asia, the Caspian basin and the Middle East.(Tehran and Moscow have been working closely in Afghanistan for more than a decade; they're now developing a joint strategy in anticipation of U.S. withdrawal once President Bush leaves office.)

Moscow also needs Tehran to prevent the United States from imposing its proposed model for the exploitation of the Caspian Sea's immense oil and gas resources.And, having lost all of its Soviet-era Arab friends and clients, Moscow also needs Tehran as a bridgehead to the Middle East, the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

The current analysis in Moscow is that, once Bush is gone, Iran will emerge as the dominant power in Iraq and would need Russia as a strategic partner in developing such major oilfields as Majnun which sit astride the Irano-Iraqi frontier.

The United States is not the only strategic rival that Russia has identified. Also looming large on the horizon is China which, Putin's recent visit to Beijing notwithstanding, many Moscow analysts see as a potential threat to Russian interests in Asia and the Middle East. A Sino-Iranian axis could isolate Russia in Western Asia and the Middle East and even shut it out of chunks of Central Asia.

Add to all that Russia's immense economic interest in the Islamic Republic. Iran is now the biggest market for Russian arms, including aircraft and submarines. The loss of the Iranian orders might force entire lines of Russian weapons industries to close down.

The two neighbors have also signed trade contracts worth $80 billion over the next decade. And Russia hopes to build most of the seven nuclear power plants that the Islamic Republic wants to set up in the next 10 years. More than 30,000 Russian technicians, both military and civilian, now work in Iran.

There is one more, and (according to Russian analysts) perhaps more important, factor: Putin can never be sure that, come the crunch, Washington will not strike a deal with Tehran, leaving Moscow in the lurch.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19438

I know of at least one user here who doesn't trust Russia for squat. That being said, do you trust them? It seems as though maybe they are the only way out of this corner we're in with Iran since they won't stop developing nukes and aren't responding to diplomatic overtures.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the left almost fear President Bush using nukes more than Iran using them. I think that's what Iran is betting on.

The rest of the world doesn't want anybody to use nukes regardless of who they are. The US is the only nation talking up the use of nukes.

SenaxFlatulus · #6 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sputter

The rest of the world doesn't want anybody to use nukes regardless of who they are. The US is the only nation talking up the use of nukes.

So if the U.S. is the only nation "talking up" the use of nukes, you're saying you believe Iran has only peaceful intentions?

Could you provide a link showing the U.S. government actually talking about our use of nukes on Iran?

apotropoxy · #7 (**permalink**) 04-14-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Could you provide a link showing the U.S. government actually talking about our use of nukes on Iran?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact

SenaxFlatulus · #8 (**permalink**) 04-14-2006, 08:44 PM

I asked:
Could you provide a link showing the U.S. government actually talking about our use of nukes on Iran?

You provide a link to a Seymore Hersh article. Yes, he is a Pulitzer Prize winner. He's a very good writer, and I do respect his work. However, this article reads like a gossip column. There are no named U.S. Government officials or agencies that answer my question. As good as Hersh is, I don't think he's a member of the U.S. Government.

There are instances where the person or organization is named and a definitive statement is given. It's very convincing too. I believe those instances because they're so clear.

But then, the article is rife with references to shadowy sources who remain nameless. There are constant mentionings of things such as: "blah blah told me blah blah blah" There is no named source stating what I'm asking for. There is only anonymous supposition.

Look at all the references in the article he uses that tiptoe around actually naming someone or some organization:
*Current and former American military and intelligence officials
*The officials
*members of the United States military
*A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon
*One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration
*One military planner
*one high-ranking diplomat
*A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues
*some American intelligence analysts
*A former high-level Defense Department official
*the former senior intelligence official
*The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*The Pentagon adviser
*the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon
*the former senior intelligence official
*The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*the former intelligence official

I'm not trying to say he's lying. However, in not showing who he's alluding to... it could be someone very credible, or someone with a political axe to grind.

Hersh is just speculating. He's very good at it, but he's still just speculating.

Thanks for trying though.

apotropoxy · #9 (**permalink**) 04-15-2006, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

I asked:
Could you provide a link showing the U.S. government actually talking about our use of nukes on Iran?

You provide a link to a Seymore Hersh article. Yes, he is a Pulitzer Prize winner. He's a very good writer, and I do respect his work. However, this article reads like a gossip column. There are no named U.S. Government officials or agencies that answer my question. As good as Hersh is, I don't think he's a member of the U.S. Government.

There are instances where the person or organization is named and a definitive statement is given. It's very convincing too. I believe those instances because they're so clear.

But then, the article is rife with references to shadowy sources who remain nameless. There are constant mentionings of things such as: "blah blah told me blah blah blah" There is no named source stating what I'm asking for. There is only anonymous supposition.

Look at all the references in the article he uses that tiptoe around actually naming someone or some organization:
*Current and former American military and intelligence officials
*The officials
*members of the United States military
*A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon
*One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration
*One military planner
*one high-ranking diplomat
*A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues
*some American intelligence analysts
*A former high-level Defense Department official
*the former senior intelligence official
*The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*The Pentagon adviser
*the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon
*the former senior intelligence official
*The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror
*the former intelligence official

I'm not trying to say he's lying. However, in not showing who he's alluding to... it could be someone very credible, or someone with a political axe to grind.

Hersh is just speculating. He's very good at it, but he's still just speculating.

Thanks for trying though.

Quote:

I asked:
Could you provide a link showing the U.S. government actually talking about our use of nukes on Iran?

I have no government source nor do I claim it. What I have is an article written by a man who has numerous deep connections with the Pentagon. As you may know, Hersh has been developing them throughout his long career.

You are free dismiss his article due to a paucity of source attribution. I would suggest, however, that you allow for the possibility that Hersh's info is accurate. Here's why:
1. A long history of accurate reportage in this field.
2. The Washington Post articles which report the same thing independent of the Hersh work.
3. Iran identified as an "Axis of Evil" nation.
4. Bush's commitment to the "War on Terror"
5. Bush and Co. pronouncements that Iran will not be permitted to develop atomic weapons.
6. Bush's doctrine of launching preventative wars.

Further...
It is unreasonable to expect a government source to come out and announce that attacks are being planned against another country. Such a statement would give the victim-country preparation time.
It is also unreasonable to expect highly placed career military officers to instantly terminate their careers by allowing their names to be associated with leaks of such staggering significance. They now face the possibility of prison. I have little doubt that internal investigations are underway to root out these gentlemen.

It is reasonable, however, for the potential attacker to deflect such questions while not ruling out the possibility of such an attack. We've been doing just that.

I am not certain that the USA will attack Iran. But after reading the New Yorker piece, I think there exists a real possibility; not just some vague existential plan gathering dust in a lieutenant colonel's bottom drawer.

Do you support a preemptive war against Iran?

SenaxFlatulus · #10 (**permalink**) 04-15-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotty

I have no government source nor do I claim it.

That was my question though. Specifically, I would like to see a definitive answer instead of all this hubub over speculation. The reason why I asked that is to make the point that there is no official nod for a move to war as Hersh is trying to make.

The official line is to use diplomatic channels. That's exactly what is being done. Just like when the U.S. exhausted all 13 years of diplomatic channels before the "rush" to war with Iraq. Understand my reason for the question now?

In answer to your question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotty

Do you support a preemptive war against Iran?

Yes, but only after we've tried other actions first. There's a long list of options before we get to that point. It may escalate rather quickly, but we still need to make them. In my opinion, there are other countries with more at stake than the U.S. who may step to the forefront. Israel is one. Most of the European democracies also have more at stake here since Iran is developing missile systems too that can deliver their nuke to most countries in Europe. I think this is the deciding factor in getting the rest of the world involved this time.

The only country that has the power to influence Iran in a big way is Russia. They have much at stake like the other Europeans, and they're already on open diplomatic terms with Iran using any type of bargaining power. That's the theme of this thread isn't it?

Yes, I support a pre-emptive war with Iran in lieu of the one option that is unacceptable. That option is Iran getting nuclear weapons. If it boils down to the two, I choose pre-emptive war because if they get nukes, there will be war anyway. They'll use it on someone anyway... Israel, Europe, us... someone.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode