Russia Rules Out New Iran Sanctions Over Nuclear Report

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


It almost looks like the situation is being manipulated in an effort to justify an attack on Iran, and honestly it looks like its coming from Russia.

If they arent going to support sanctions, whih also means they wont support any military action in the UN, then it forces countries to take action outside of the UN.

Russia has been assisting IRan for like the last 20 years with development of nuclear power plants for electrical generation. Throughout the years it was setback for design flaws / errors / collpase of the Soveit Union etc etc etc.

China was dead set against the report as well, however I suspect its because it calls China out for violating the UN resolution on weapons sales. Could Russia be concerned about the same thing? In their case though maybe they were assisting IRan with a nuke weapons program. Its not secret that Russian scientists were essentially bought by other countries at the collapse of the soviet union and afterwards.

With the refusal to support any type of sanctions, it forces Israel into the position of attacking the Iranian nuke sites.

A convienent way to force the west to look like the agressor, which allows Russia and China to play the good guys" by coing to IRans defense.

A pretty good propoganda campaign if they can pull it off.

reply to post by majestic3


Iran did not fight in the 6 day war.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

It almost looks like the situation is being manipulated in an effort to justify an attack on Iran, and honestly it looks like its coming from Russia.

If they arent going to support sanctions, whih also means they wont support any military action in the UN, then it forces countries to take action outside of the UN.

Russia has been assisting IRan for like the last 20 years with development of nuclear power plants for electrical generation. Throughout the years it was setback for design flaws / errors / collpase of the Soveit Union etc etc etc.

China was dead set against the report as well, however I suspect its because it calls China out for violating the UN resolution on weapons sales. Could Russia be concerned about the same thing? In their case though maybe they were assisting IRan with a nuke weapons program. Its not secret that Russian scientists were essentially bought by other countries at the collapse of the soviet union and afterwards.

With the refusal to support any type of sanctions, it forces Israel into the position of attacking the Iranian nuke sites.

A convienent way to force the west to look like the agressor, which allows Russia and China to play the good guys" by coing to IRans defense.

A pretty good propoganda campaign if they can pull it off.

Very interesting and valid perspective

It does seem as if Russia are playing a disguised hand here and leaves Israel with essentially, a 'now or never' scenario.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if a few of those American anti-missile bases in locations such as Poland were the first offensive on Russias behalf. Infact, that would HAVE to be their first move as logic would dictate but then, what are the ramifications?

Would it be considered an attack on America or the host nation?

The whole thing is like digging a hole in the garden; the more we dig, the messier it gets.

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
Very interesting and valid perspective

Just because we are on friendlier terms than the cold war doesnt mean the mindset has completely changed. With the advent of 24/7/365 news cycles, non main stream news, satelittes, wikiealsk / anonymous etc, its close to impossible to pull any type of sneak attack, as well as making it close to impossible to stage a false falg.

The only options left are the eiether work with the international community, where in this case doing that would not be beneficial to russian intrests because of the amount of trade across lll sectors between the Russian / Iranian (and now Chinese) economies.

Or manipulate a situation where it forces a country to act in such a manner that it triggers a war, and do so in such a way that all the sources I listed above could be fooled into blaming the west. We have seen time and again where the question on pre-emptive strikes have come up, with most people having the mindset that a country must be physcially attacked first in order to justify a response. In this case, Israel would pull a preemptive strike, which would be played in the media and by Russia / China etc as an unwarranted unprovoked attack.

Mix comments with media, stir and then pour on the world population and by the time people see the manipulation, its to late to stop the party.

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
It does seem as if Russia are playing a disguised hand here and leaves Israel with essentially, a 'now or never' scenario.

Refusal to support / accept the IAEA report, refusal to support more sanctions, refusal to support military action.
Whats left?

Russia has all the time in the world, and to an extent so does IRan. The ball is in Israels court, and any move she makes is going to be perceived as the agressor and not the victim. Russian interest in Iran are economic, so again they have all the time in the world. The longer it goes, the closer Iran gets to their goal.

A good strategy if I ever saw one.

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a few of those American anti-missile bases in locations such as Poland were the first offensive on Russias behalf. Infact, that would HAVE to be their first move as logic would dictate but then, what are the ramifications?

Any attack on a military instalation where Americans are specifically targeted would result in a war. In addition to the United States jumping in, any attack on those facilities would also be an attack on the host countries. Poland had their fair share of Soviet domination. I think Russia would be severely underestimating the Poles if they think OPoland would not respond. In addition to having some top of the line Russian military hardware, they aslo have top of the line European and American, and have trained in the US and UK.

It wont be like WWII or the cold war.

Also, Poland is a NATO member, so an attack on Poland / US is an attack on the entire alliance. Russia has military representation with NATO to avoid assumptions by both sides, and they also get access to partial sattelite feeds for certain areas near their borders. If Russian officers are removed from NATO / recalled back to Russia, I would see that as a first move before any action. It would be done extremely close to a kick off point since a recall is going to raise eyebrows and cause people to ask questions.

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
Would it be considered an attack on America or the host nation?

Both, an attack on the US and the host nation, as well as NATO.

Originally posted by Pirateofpsychonautics
The whole thing is like digging a hole in the garden; the more we dig, the messier it gets.

edit on 9/11/11 by Pirateofpsychonautics because: (no reason given)

The digging the hole part scares me to death. When we dig holes, especailly in this area, its pretty easy to forget to pay attention, only to find yourself in such a deep hole there is no way out of it.

One of the other areas I see manipulation is in the western fiscal crisis (europe and the us). Manipulate that, as China is doing, and it makes it difficult for those countries to engage in warfare since the possibility of doing so could bring down those governments by the people who would rather fix thigns at home than go down the road of WWIII.

China and Russia are playing a game of chess with the rest of the world, and I see a check coming down the pipeline. The question is can we defend and prevent the king from being brought down?

Funny enough, the game of Chess actually origionated in Persia, not India.

The term Shah Mat was given to us by Persia as well - It means "The King is Dead". We use the word in its english form, Checkmate.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

"You should know that no enemy of the Iranian people has ever tasted victory."

Oh really? Ever heard of the Greeks? And Sparta? And Athens?

The Mongols also kicked your butt. Twice.

Also lost territory to Russia in the 19th century... etc...

Sorry Ahmadinejad, wrong again.

I'm pretty sure that Ahmadinejad said "Iranian people", not "Persian people"

xcath-
It almost looks like the situation is being manipulated in an effort to justify an attack on Iran, and honestly it looks like its coming from Russia.

If they arent going to support sanctions, whih also means they wont support any military action in the UN, then it forces countries to take action outside of the UN.

Actually, if nations followed international law the way it was intended then this scenerio would not be true whatsoever. The fact is that the US and Israel is gunning to do it no matter what and they were trying to get UN approval for legitimacy. US did the same thing in 2003; UN did not authorize military intervention in Iraq yet the "coalition of the willing" went in anyway in a blatant war of aggression.

To say that Russia is provoking this war by not backing sanctions in absurd. Perhaps they're attempting to ensure international justice by carrying out international agreements and discussion based on international standards? Frankly they would be provoking the war by backing sanctions. The whole point of imposing sanctions now has become a device to suppress populations of an unpopular country into dire situations that require assistance (either economic from neo-liberal globalist institutions or militaristic colonialization).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Well, i'm sure, officially speaking, peaceful resolutions are supposed to be exhausted before military measures are taken.

But, it really does seem like Russia is forcing Israel's hand. By opposing sanctions, they leave Israel no other option then a military strike, if they want to get things done within their apparently strict timetable.

It reminds me a lot of the Suez Crisis, in '56. Essentially, Russia veto'd UN sanctions when Nasser seized the Suez Canal. So, britain, France, and Israel, for the sake of all nations involved, and with limited opportunity, were forced to take military action.

Of course, we know how that went...

edit:

To say that Russia is provoking this war by not backing sanctions in absurd.

Its definitely less then absurd. Russia isn't exactly pro-Western, and has a long history of trying to increase its sphere of influence in the Middle East, at the expense of the West.

The Arabs and Israeli's have never gotten along. Russia has power to gain by playing the two off against each other.

Not to mention the Oil.

The UN security council is a sand trap. Once you approach them with a problem, you can never escape bureaucratic nonsensical delays and inaction. In extreme situations, I can understand why it makes sense to sidestep the international authority.

Of course, I guess that opens up the slippery slope debate.

reply to post by ClydeFrog42


Russia has the moral imperative ever since>>>> wait.... here......
---------------
Its commie amerika which is hell bent on creating wars and destroying harmony everywhere,not capitalist russia..Its commie amerika that has 40% income tax not Russia(only flat tax 13%)...Its commie Amerika that wants to steal oil from other countries not capitalist Russia.....Its commie Amerika where the TSA KGB porno scan eye and monitor your calls and label you terrorist if you are against them....its commie Amerika which has massive income tax inequality not capitalist Russia...its commie amerika that spends massive amounts of real GDP on aggression and weapons not capitalist Russia....its commie amerika where regulations are insane that small businesses fail,but in capitalist Russia businesses flourish and its more reason that Texas should secede from this communist nightmare.
------

Ever since Russia started on the path of libertarianism,austrian economics and democracy and USA on the path of fascism and communism

reply to post by Xcathdra

Refusal to support / accept the IAEA report, refusal to support more sanctions, refusal to support military action.
Whats left?

You have a very one sided view of Russia's stance..

Did you ever consider that Russia, having been involved with Iran's nuclear program for years, might know that Iran is NOT working on nuclear weapons and that the IAEA report is mere fabrication??

It's a scenario that IMO is worth consideration as well as your stance.

Originally posted by ClydeFrog42
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Well, i'm sure, officially speaking, peaceful resolutions are supposed to be exhausted before military measures are taken.

But, it really does seem like Russia is forcing Israel's hand. By opposing sanctions, they leave Israel no other option then a military strike, if they want to get things done within their apparently strict timetable.

So you're saying that international law revolves around Israel's will and by not supporting sanctions, Russia is forcing Israel to attack? I just can't seem to get the logic. It implies that Israel has some inherent right to attack Iran, both through UN diplomatic tactics and military force.

I mean, in my mind, not supporting sanctions means less suppression on the Iranian people, because that's who is really effected by UN sanctions. The whole point of such heavy sanctions is to create national situations so dire that their people seek reform from within, which usually ends up being back with military intervention from the very countries who dropped sanctions on them.

To me, it seems like Russia is not supporting this tactic. To say that it's forcing Israel to attack is rediculous unless it is assumed by all that Israel is a psychotic nation willing to subvert international law in order to attack other countries. It should be Israel receiving sanctions and reforms if this is the case.

Russia rules out new Iran sanctions over nuclear report? And so they bloody well should. The report that the IAEA recently released does not , in any way , prove that Iran are involved in the process of building a nuclear device.
The report is a spin heavy rehash of some old information, with some satellite photographs (which prove nothing and are about as much use from an intelligence perspective as a kick in the nutsack) of buildings and machinery that could be ANYTHING. The only parts of that report that contain any words that promote the idea of sanctions, are those parts of the report that are speculative, as usual.

Until they get an agent inside a facility that is accused of building nuclear weapons, and uncover irrefutable physical, photographic, and paper trail proof of wrong doing, there will be no justification for action. They have NOT provided anything of the sort.

What the IAEA have managed to do on this occasion, is allow political spin, and the desire of western interests to control Iran, to colour thier research. This is utterly inappropriate behaviour on thier part, and is shameful. I would hope that the people in control of that organisation would be impartial, but apparantly I am holding to a false hope in that respect.

The reports every claim is shrouded in strange language. The phrase used by most of the talking heads on the BBC news last night was that the report suggests that Iran has performed tests which COULD lead to the creation of a nuclear weapon. However, if the threat was in any way genuine, then the IAEA report would have been far less obsfucatory in its language, and probably read something like this:


#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
Iran is currently involved in the creation of nuclear weapons. As shown in this photograph, you can clearly see several persons around this whiteboard within the nuclear reseach facility in Tehran(or where ever) and the equation on the whiteboard, which is the formula for a thermonuclear detonation. Attatched to the whiteboard are some projected casualty lists, possible windage for a variety of locations including Brussels, Washington DC, Israel in general, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and a time table of works...

These next photographs show the facility where the launch vehicle is being constructed, and you can clearly see our agent has gotten very close to the missile here, because you can see where the warhead would fit, and here is the detonator. They only use detonators like this in nuclear weapons, so the deals a sealed right here. They are definitely looking to microwave someone.

And finally , these last photographs were taken in the sandy wastes of the deserted parts of Iran, where a nuclear test is being performed. Our agents were lucky enough to be able to capture this video and send it to us the moment they had done shooting it. You can clearly hear and see the explosion here, as it wipes out the mock towns and buildings surrounding the initial blast.

In addition to this damning photo and video evidence, our agents have collected paperwork detailing the engineering timetable, the aquisition of nuclear material, the creation of weapons grade material for use in the bomb, and its predicted launch date, location, and potential targets. Furthermore, samples were taken by our agents and confirmed to contain weapons grade nuclear material that could ONLY be used in a thermonuclear, military device.

Thus concludes this report

#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#

Instead we have a report that roundly FAILS to add any new information, fails to prove anything other than "Iran has radioactive material and scientists are testing on it" , and only serves to anger the Iranians, which has the predictable effect of making the nations leader vocal on the subject.

Russia is damned right to be using some caution here. This smacks of the same treachery that got the west into Iraq if you ask me.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

"You should know that no enemy of the Iranian people has ever tasted victory."

Oh really? Ever heard of the Greeks? And Sparta? And Athens?

The Mongols also kicked your butt. Twice.

Also lost territory to Russia in the 19th century... etc...

Sorry Ahmadinejad, wrong again.


As for Russia objecting new sanctions against Iran... for Israel and the west, no new sanctions = strike unavailable... and it'll be done OUTSIDE of the UN since Russia and China will block it for sure.

edit on 9-11-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Good point but if he's emphasising the post Arab-invasion's Persia (after 700 AD) then he's actually right.

Iran (formerly called Persia) is a Perso-Arab state.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003



Just because America is "bad" (not necessarily true), doesn't make Russia "good".

Russia has a tendency to assassinate its politicians and reporters of the opposition.

You have the world confused as some sort of ying/yang, good/vs evil, cut/dry, black/white sort of thing... which it is not. World politics are much more complex then that, and are deeply routed in history.

So, feel free to throw your lot in with Russia, but i cant see how anyone could do that unless out of ignorance.

Again, ill ask, since when does russia have the moral imperative....?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I never said Russia is forcing Israel to attack. I also never said that international law is at the whim of Israel.

But, Sanctions are the PRIMARY mode of deterence by diplomatic means. If russia continues to back Iran financially, then all other diplomatic options are essentially off the table.

Im sure the UN has a list of other options, but i know for a FACT that Israel believes themselves to be working on a strict time table, and for an officially speaking "good cause".

Again, i will point to Suez. Just because international laws are in place, dopes not mean they are never sidestepped or broken. In fact, they are broken regularly. the UN security council is nothing more then an institution of last resort for the states involved, who have failed diplomacy by other means. and they are by no means the only way of getting things done on this planet.

If you look at the world as strictly abiding by international law, then yes, you are right. But, Russia is the last one to abide by these laws, and is only using the UN security council to take as many pot-shots as it can behind diplomatic cover.

And, of course, as always, the left leaning media will support this inaction whole-heartedly, as will leftist congressional leaders, making the US's job much harder then israel's. Not to mention the coming election. Its all about PR and public opinion on this side of the pond.

The logic of the situation is as i have stated. It is exactly analogous to Suez. Without Russia's support, the UN is a useless institution. So, saying that Israel/USA cant attack without the UN's support is basically saying they cannot attack at all.

Which we all think makes perfect sense. But from the western point of view, we have a problem on our hands, and Russia will obviously not budge on the subject of sanctions. They have ground to gain in this conflict.

Its a very complex situation, and in all likelihood both sides are full of crap. But, this is the world we live in. Everything isnt as neat and orderly as it appears.

Please, dont shove words down my throat...

reply to post by Xcathdra


The problem is, the UN was created to handle issues like these. If Russia or China veto sanctions against Iran than the powers that are involved should go back to the proverbial drawing board and attempt to mediate a situation more agreeable to everyone involved. There is no point to an organization such as the UN if the member countries do not abide by it's decisions. This is why the League of Nations failed.

The west will be no better than the fascist/imperial powers of the 1930's if they ignore the decisions of the UN and attack Iran. We all know what that led to.

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Refusal to support / accept the IAEA report, refusal to support more sanctions, refusal to support military action.
Whats left?

You have a very one sided view of Russia's stance..

Did you ever consider that Russia, having been involved with Iran's nuclear program for years, might know that Iran is NOT working on nuclear weapons and that the IAEA report is mere fabrication??

It's a scenario that IMO is worth consideration as well as your stance.

edit on 10-11-2011 by ipleadthe5th because: (no reason given)

I dont agree with the one sided view of Russia Stance comment. I look at all sides and all issues. hence the reason I pointed out Russias invovlement with the nuclear program in Iran as well as who trades with Iran. Its important because those issues affect a countries stance towards the issue itself.

Is the IAEA report a fabrication? If so based on what? Could it be possible Russia helped on more than just the nuke program?

All politics are local.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Is the IAEA report a fabrication? If so based on what? Could it be possible Russia helped on more than just the nuke program?

The IAEA report is heavy on assumptions and opinions and light on in facts and evidence..
It really says nothing we haven't been hearing for years.

an attack is looking likely the facts do not matter, they want to attack so they will, regardless of the facts.

if you live in the u.k./europe it might be worth getting back up plans to keep warm during winter if you rely soley on gas. i remember russia turning of their gas pipes due to unpaid bills years back, and it caused some problems for countries in europe.

i am not sure if these countries still rely on russian gas but if Iran is attacked and countries do rely on this gas, russia could see it as a good reason to cut off supplies so that those doing the attacking do not recieve their resources.

reply to post by ClydeFrog42


and USA doesn't assassinate its politicans and reporters?
Whats the proof that Russia has the tendency? Please don't give me corporate media sources....


Secondly,USA is a combination of communism and fascism with some differences,and Russia walked away from this in 1991.Any nation that is more capitalist and greater free market than USA has moral imperative...

And I see you are a communist sympathizer

I wonder just what the , 'Said to have Failed'., Russian space craft is really carrying ????? After all it is now in orbit, is it no?

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by ClydeFrog42

 

and USA doesn't assassinate its politicans and reporters?
Whats the proof that Russia has the tendency? Please don't give me corporate media sources....


Secondly,USA is a combination of communism and fascism with some differences,and Russia walked away from this in 1991.Any nation that is more capitalist and greater free market than USA has moral imperative...

And I see you are a communist sympathizer

edit on 10-11-2011 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)

Here:

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/house-passes-smiths-resolution-calling-on-russia-to-accept-outside-aid-to-investigate-murders-of-journalists-58150312


journalists-in-russia.org...

www.worldpoliticsreview.com...

Enough "evidence"



Im not even defending the US... and how can i be disagreeing with Russia and a communist sympathizer. Unless your referring to my display picture, and then your really stretching...

Just trying to add a little perspective, seeing as how people aren't even thinking before throwing in there lot with a country that in neither "better" nor "worse" the the US.

They are two sides of the same coin, and right now i dont think you or I are in any position to assume we know whose lying, or how this will all turn out. Unless there is some extraordinary evidence that im just not seeing...

If you disagree with anything i have to say in particular, Im happy to hear it. But, I really don't understand what your getting at...