0
   

Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran

 
 
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 03:07 pm
Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 4 minutes ago

Russia's top military chief on Thursday warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

With tension mounting over Iran's nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.

"A military scenario can't be ruled out," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

He said that while Iran's military potential cannot compare to the United States', "it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond to the use of force against Iran."

"This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying.

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev, meanwhile, said that cooperation with China could help push Iran toward accepting Moscow's offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program.

The Russian proposal has become a centerpiece of international efforts to defuse tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"We are counting on the continuation of close contacts with our Chinese colleagues and other interested countries," Alekseyev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. He added, however, that the Iranian nuclear issue recently had become "sharper," and "it is too early to assess the effectiveness of our joint steps to resolve it."

Iran's ambassador to Moscow said Thursday that Tehran hoped Russia would be able to help resolve the international crisis surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.

"Taking into account the good relations between Russia and Iran, I hope that together we can overcome this crisis which has arisen recently," Gholamreza Ansari said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers.

Ansari confirmed that a delegation is expected to travel to Moscow on Monday to discuss the proposal. He would not say who will lead it, but the Interfax news agency quoted Vyacheslav Moshkalo, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Tehran, as saying that the team will be headed by Javad Vaeidi, Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, said after his discussions with the ambassador that he was satisfied that the Iranians would be coming in good faith.

"Iran understands the seriousness of the situation and is ready to continue discussions between experts to reach a compromise on the Russian proposal," he said. He said he had received assurances that "the delegation is getting ready for talks and will have all the necessary authority for conducting negotiations."

Kosachev also sharply criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks in which he called for Israel's destruction and questioned whether the Holocaust occurred.

"Such statements don't help strengthen Iran's international prestige," he said with Ansari standing at his side.

A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the strong international consensus developed so far, including Russia, "is probably the strongest instrument we have going right now in trying to influence Iranian behavior."

Moscow is deeply concerned about the current Iranian regime's prospects for acquiring nuclear weapons, not only because Russia is geographically located close to Iran, but also because of the impact that could have on other Middle East players' nuclear aspirations, including Saudi Arabia's, the diplomat said.

The diplomat also noted that by aspiring to a central role in resolving the Iran crisis, Russia wanted to show that it could use the contacts it has built up over the years ?- including direct communications with the Iranians ?- to advance the concerns of the international community.

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://nogw.com/warforisrael.html

htto://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 931 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
KiwiChic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 03:20 pm
what bemuses me is who would America attack Iran with???
With most of their soldiers in Iraq, what are they going to do-take a couple of months break from Iraq to pop over and invade Iran?...and who would ally with America?..not many if any I would guess.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 04:13 pm
KiwiChic wrote:
what bemuses me is who would America attack Iran with???
With most of their soldiers in Iraq, what are they going to do-take a couple of months break from Iraq to pop over and invade Iran?...and who would ally with America?..not many if any I would guess.


We wouldn't invade with ground troops Kiwi, we would invade their airspace with our planes and knock flat every building that could have a use in making such weapons... we'd then hit em again... and for good measure, we'd bounce the rubble.

The one thing we have plenty of is airpower.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 06:22 pm
And in response, Iran wouldn't dare invade Iraq with ground forces.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Feb, 2006 07:53 pm
Fedral wrote:
KiwiChic wrote:
what bemuses me is who would America attack Iran with???
With most of their soldiers in Iraq, what are they going to do-take a couple of months break from Iraq to pop over and invade Iran?...and who would ally with America?..not many if any I would guess.


We wouldn't invade with ground troops Kiwi, we would invade their airspace with our planes and knock flat every building that could have a use in making such weapons... we'd then hit em again... and for good measure, we'd bounce the rubble.

The one thing we have plenty of is airpower.


Invade seems to be the operative word here.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 12:02 am
Quote:
The one thing we have plenty of is airpower.


But Iran has her oil.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 01:54 am
A. "most" of our soldiers aren't in Iraq.
B. Fedral is correct about our Air Superiority and the likelihood of that being the tactic used.
C. Most of the civilized world does appear to be on the same page in being prepared to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (no one wants the Supreme Leader to become Dear Leader).
D. Freeduck, Iranian Ground forces could slip into Iraq in guerilla groups (like many already have) to some effect, but that's it. If they mounted any conventional type of ground war-fare; we'd mow them down like grass. Their median age is still FUBAR from trying to take on Iraq that way. No way they'd be dumb enough to try that against our forces.
E. There's still plenty of hope that the Russian's (who would never ally themselves with Iran in a war against the U.S. directly) will still be able to talk to some stone-cold reality into their heads. This isn't a fight they can win.

If they truly only desire Civilian Power, there is no reason whatsoever to resist the Russian plan.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 05:20 am
That's what Bush thought about Iraq. Have a little "shock and awe" and everyone will give up.

Iran will stop the flow of its oil. Russia and China won't be happy about that.

The Iranian nuclear sites have Russian/Chinese advisors and technicians working there. To attack Iran would also mean to declare war on Russia/China.

Quote:
The fact that the plant is being built under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards has not eased concerns in the West. About 3,000 Russian personnel are already working at the Bushehr plant, and the large movement of equipment and technicians between Russia and Iran is the perfect cover for covert weapons-related assistance or smuggling, say international non-proliferation agencies.
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/82002/section4p1.html





Quote:
Iran's unconventional weapons and tactics -- rather than its conventional military -- that would pose the greatest threat, according to the intelligence officials.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/02/12/iran_is_prepared_to_retaliate_experts_warn/

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Reuters_Photo/2006/02/13/1139829359_9517.jpg

OCCOM BILL, your idea about "Ok Iran you sit back and we'll bomb you"
wont work.

These people are not scared of death, as we have seen in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 06:42 am
Russia, China Prepare
For Joint War Games
MosNews.com
8-2-5 ****Article from 2002, War games already passed -Amigo**

Nearly 10,000 troops from Russia and China will participate in the first joint military exercises between the two countries scheduled for August 18-25, the Xinhua news agency reported on Tuesday.

The exercises, dubbed "Peace Mission 2005" and involving army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units, will be held in Vladivostok in Russia's Far East, and in the coastal Chinese province of Shandong and nearby waters, it said.

"The exercises are not aimed at a third party or concerned with the interests of any third country," the Chinese defense ministry said in a statement.

Relations between China and Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, were strained by decades of mistrust during the Cold War, but the two nuclear powers have found much common ground in recent years and the military relationship has been blossoming, Reuters points out.

Both are leading members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which in July called for U.S.-led troops to fix a date to pull out of bases in Central Asia. Russia is also a major supplier of weapons to China.

China and Russia have invited the defense ministers from other members of the organization and observer states to watch the joint exercises.

The point of the drills was "to deepen Sino-Russian mutual trust, promote mutual friendship and enhance the cooperation and coordination of the two armed forces".

They will also "help strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking at international terrorism, extremism and separatism", the statement reads.

(These war games came and went and they went well.They didn't get much Media attention but I'm sure they did from the Petagon and they did from me. Gee what happened to all our allies? -Amigo)
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 09:42 am
"OCCOM BILL, your idea about "Ok Iran you sit back and we'll bomb you"
wont work.

These people are not scared of death, as we have seen in Iraq."


I guess we had better give up then.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 10:28 am
Quote:
I guess we had better give up then.


No, by all means bomb them to death! Laughing

But dont come crying, if someone lets of a suitecase nuke in your town.

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/book.jpg
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 10:33 am
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
I guess we had better give up then.


No, by all means bomb them to death! Laughing

But dont come crying, if someone lets of a suitecase nuke in your town.


The invasion would be to try to stop them from building nukes, genius.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 10:34 am
But the threat of invasion might be precisely why they are attempting to.
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 10:34 am
An Israeli air strike will be what takes out the nuclear facilities...............................?
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 10:41 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
I guess we had better give up then.


No, by all means bomb them to death! Laughing

But dont come crying, if someone lets of a suitecase nuke in your town.


The invasion would be to try to stop them from building nukes, genius.


Oh yeah thats right, Osama Bin Laden is Iranian...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2006 02:29 pm
Zippo wrote:
That's what Bush thought about Iraq. Have a little "shock and awe" and everyone will give up.
Your penchant for exaggeration will likely leave me ignoring your posts if you continue in that line. That being said; "shock and awe" was largely successful in terms of "everyone will give up" in so far as WMD threats were concerned. Guerilla fighters, whether you call them terrorists or freedom fighters neither protected Saddam, nor any building of significance.

Saddam, and any potential he may or may not have had to threaten the world with WMD was soundly defeated before Bush gave his "mission accomplished" speech. Winning the peace, is obviously still problematic but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam and his delusions of grandeur are gone for good. To the extent Iraq was ever a threat in the realm of WMD, the mission was accomplished a long time ago. Until you make the distinction between defeating the enemy and winning the peace, you'll continue to make faulty conclusions regarding the effectiveness of our assault.

Zippo wrote:
Iran will stop the flow of its oil. Russia and China won't be happy about that.

The Iranian nuclear sites have Russian/Chinese advisors and technicians working there. To attack Iran would also mean to declare war on Russia/China.
If you really believe something this naive, I'm wasting my time responding. In the event the sh!t hits the fan; let there be no doubt the Russians and Chinese will be long gone before the campaign begins. While the Russians may continue to put thorns in our side in terms of technology sales to Iran, they will neither consider an attack on Iran an act of war against them, nor will they be suiting up for war on their behalf. That proposition is naive to the point of foolishness.

Zippo wrote:
Quote:
The fact that the plant is being built under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards has not eased concerns in the West. About 3,000 Russian personnel are already working at the Bushehr plant, and the large movement of equipment and technicians between Russia and Iran is the perfect cover for covert weapons-related assistance or smuggling, say international non-proliferation agencies.
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/82002/section4p1.html
Yes, it would be the perfect cover if Putin & Co. were deranged lunatics seeking WWIII. There is virtually no reason to believe in such a paranoid delusion. Putin has been near the top of the Military food chain for most of his adult life; and Moscow has never played as fast and loose with their enormous arsenal as the U.S. Not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviets still may have thought they had a shot. If you really belive there will be a military alliance formed there against us, I can't help you.

Zippo wrote:
OCCOM BILL, your idea about "Ok Iran you sit back and we'll bomb you"
wont work.

These people are not scared of death, as we have seen in Iraq.
Frankly, Iran will have little choice or defense should we choose to bomb them, and it matters not at all if they are afraid. Scratch that last part: If they have the good sense to be afraid; they'll likely avoid the situation in the first place. Idea

Again, winning the peace is not necessary to eliminate the WMD threat. Separate the two in your mind, and you'll realize how feeble their chances of winning really are. Frankly, they are Zero. The saber-rattling you hear now is likely all about positioning. I cannot believe they are truly crazy enough to enter a war that only leads to their destruction.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 08:40:31