New Iran thread

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Russia in a Hurry to Sell Weapons to Iran

MosNews



Russia is intensifying efforts to sell weapons to Iran while such sales remain legal amid mounting pressure on the Islamic state over its controversial nuclear program, the daily Kommersant said on Monday.

Moscow “has stepped up military-technological cooperation with Tehran,†the business daily said, citing an unidentified source.

It said top officials within Russia’s military-industrial complex decided to concentrate on arms sales to Tehran for two reasons.

“Firstly, as many weapons as possible must be sold to Iran before an international embargo against this country comes into force.â€

Secondly, should the United States decide to go to war in Iran, Russia wants Iran to be well-armed to ensure that U.S. forces become at least as bogged down there as they already are in Iraq, the daily said.

“In either case, such a policy carries a high risk of creating a major international scandal, at the very least,†the newspaper commented.

The report came two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) formally found Iran in violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a decision the United States hailed as a “significant step forward†in its efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear plans, AFP added.

“The United States no longer even hides the fact that, in parallel with diplomacy at the IAEA, it is making preparations to resolve the conflict by force,†Kommersant said.

The U.S. ambassador to the ex-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, which borders Iran, told AFP in a recent interview that Washington is encouraging — and helping fund — a build-up in the capacities of naval forces for Azerbaijan and another former Soviet republic, Kazakhstan.

Both border the oil-rich Caspian Sea, as does Iran. In its assertion that Washington is already making preparations for military action in the region, Kommersant cited the U.S.-funded construction of two radar stations in Azerbaijan.


Now as some promised iran-discussions have gone to the toilett due the unrelated bulshit in few previous threads, lets open a new one....

As it sadly is evident, Iran is the next possiple target of the washington's hawks and possiple conflict is heading our way. Can it be so? Is that above article the dawn call fo the coming gloom? Im interested to know our members views on this hole matter, wheter it's likely that americans are attacking, does Iran have a change and so on...Now as this thread might flame strong emotions, lets still keep the discussion civilised and mature. Also if not wanting to take part of the possiple warspeculation, a discussion of Irans military in general is also allowed, indeed quite wanted. As the above article suggested possiple weopon aqustions from russia, i'm interested to see what excat systems it might mean? Perhaps some sort of "world armed force tour" type of thing might be aprophiate whit deeper insight to Russian and Irans previous armsdeals...
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
This so called Iranian Russian alliance or the Iran-China alliance is just an alliance of convenience. Russia and China is using Iran as a tool to frustrate the west, while IRan is using both countries to supply it with weapons and thier veto weilding powers. As soon as Iran has out live its usefulness, China and Russia will abandon them. The same way as Russia abandoned its muslim "allies" in the 1980's.

If you look at it from an objective view, neither China or Russia has any cultural or historical basis for them to be allies with Iran. It is as strong as Sino-Pakistani relationship, a house built on sand.
 

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
IDonT said:
This so called Iranian Russian alliance or the Iran-China alliance is just an alliance of convenience. Russia and China is using Iran as a tool to frustrate the west, while IRan is using both countries to supply it with weapons and thier veto weilding powers. As soon as Iran has out live its usefulness, China and Russia will abandon them. The same way as Russia abandoned its muslim "allies" in the 1980's.

If you look at it from an objective view, neither China or Russia has any cultural or historical basis for them to be allies with Iran. It is as strong as Sino-Pakistani relationship, a house built on sand.

Russia and China see Iran as the lips protecting their teeth. So of course
they are interested in seeing Iran as secure from American invasion.

Actually it was America not Russia which abandoned it's Muslim allies.

*cough* *cough* objective point of view ?! so according to your
eurocentric point of view china and iran didn't have any diplomatic
relations or treaties before white men 'discovered' China and Iran. :)
Persia and China even BEFORE the time of the Khaleef Harun Ar Rashid
had diplomatic relations not to mention trade worth billions of dollars
in todays money

Iran has a fighting chance provided :-

1. It fights a war it can win.

2. It strengthens it's alliances and creates new alliances

3. It confounds it's enemies alliances.

If it wants to win it must start preparing for war now. Most especially
it needs to improve it's alliances with the majority sunni sect of Islam.

Most importantly it must ensure that the whole world notices this war
and is one side or the other.

In any case India is going to find China has improved it's chances of
oil concessions. It's difficult to understand India's reasoning.
There was no way America would have caused problems for India
if India had abstained. It needs India too much. The Pakistan card is
irrelevant because even if America armed Pakistan to the teeth Pakistan
is not in favour of a war especially on behalf of a faithless ally.

So why antagonise the Iranians ?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

somebody in India took a bribe...
 
Last edited:

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
FreeAsia2000 said:
Russia and China see Iran as the lips protecting their teeth. So of course
they are interested in seeing Iran as secure from American invasion.

Actually it was America not Russia which abandoned it's Muslim allies.

*cough* *cough* objective point of view ?! so according to your
eurocentric point of view china and iran didn't have any diplomatic
relations or treaties before white men 'discovered' China and Iran. :)
Persia and China even BEFORE the time of the Khaleef Harun Ar Rashid
had diplomatic relations not to mention trade worth billions of dollars
in todays money

Iran has a fighting chance provided :-

1. It fights a war it can win.

2. It strengthens it's alliances and creates new alliances

3. It confounds it's enemies alliances.

If it wants to win it must start preparing for war now. Most especially
it needs to improve it's alliances with the majority sunni sect of Islam.

Most importantly it must ensure that the whole world notices this war
and is one side or the other.

Persia was on the other end of the Silk road. Diplomatic relations yes, but not cultural.

China and Iran are very different. The lips and teeth analogy applies more towards North Korea, where it was CHina's vassal state, for most of its existance. China never had any such relationship with Iran.

The "alliance" is more of that of convenience. I could not see China sacrifice 1 million of its sons to protect Iran like it did with North Korea.

Egypt and Syria were abandoned after the Yum Kippor war when the Soviet's realized that they were not worth it anymore.
 

drunkhomer

Junior Member
anyways...china needs iran not only 2 fustrate the US but china needs OIL!!!!.....but i really dun see a armed conflict anytime soon....US forces are just tooo far stretched rite now at da moment....
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Egypt and Syria were abandoned after the Yum Kippor war when the Soviet's realized that they were not worth it anymore.

That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.
 

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Gollevainen said:
That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.


As I said, Russia and Iranian alliance is of convenience.
 

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
Gollevainen said:
That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.

Gollevainen *agree* Egypt under Sadat turned away from the USSR

IDont i suggest you visit Iran or China or at least ASK an Iranian or
Chinese person about history before you bring your 'objective' viewpoint
to bear.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Russian arms to Iran!.....sounds great. At least the U.S knows they dont work real well and can be defeated. I dont believe the weapons the russians are going to give to Iran will have little in the way of high threat value to stop a U.S PGM strike. BUT at least the russians are making money....we all know they need it....cheers ute.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
As it sadly is evident, Iran is the next possiple target of the washington's hawks and possiple conflict is heading our way. Can it be so? Is that above article the dawn call fo the coming gloom?

Iran is a target? Not for an invasion. For an stragtic strike on it's nuke capablity? Yes. I do not think the US would invade Iran because the US Army is spread so thin and the growing unpopularity of th war in Iraq in the US..

There is a lot of retoric now about about Iran's nuke program comming from Europe. If there is an attack on Iran will the Europeans join in? Nope. They will let the US do it. I won't expound any futher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Iran said not worried about U.N. action
By George Jahn, Associated Press Writer | August 26, 2005

VIENNA, Austria --Iran hopes talks with Europe on easing tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions are not dead, but it does not fear U.N. Security Council action if it continues activities linked to uranium enrichment, the country's top negotiator said Friday.

Ali Larijani also said South Africa was one of "several" countries that has responded positively to his call to expand talks on Iran's nuclear program beyond the three European nations most recently negotiating with Tehran.

"With the power it enjoys in the region, there is no way that Iran can be worried about the threat of the Security Council," Larijani said of the possibility of referral at an upcoming board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The envoy, considered a hard-line backer of Iran's right to the full nuclear cycle, said he hoped his country would present new ideas within a month aimed at reducing suspicions about its nuclear agenda.

Larijani on Thursday urged other nations besides France, Germany and Britain to open talks with his country on its nuclear program, apparently hoping to bring in more sympathetic negotiators. He said he hoped the talks with the "European Three" would continue nonetheless.

"We never close the door on negotiations," he said Friday.

"I have not come to the conclusion that the European capacity ... has already been exhausted" in finding a solution that permits Iran to exercise its right to enrich uranium while dispelling suspicions about what it plans to do with the material produced, he added.

Tehran says its program is only aimed at producing electricity and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to build a uranium development program.

Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is then spun in centrifuges. Enriched to a low level, it can be used as fuel for a reactor; at a high level, it can be used for a bomb.

The talks suffered a blow earlier this month when Iran rejected the Europeans' central proposal -- an offer of economic incentives in return for permanently giving up uranium development. Tehran also resumed uranium conversion at its plant in the central city of Isfahan.

Bringing other nations into the negotiations would likely weaken what has been an unusually unified front by Europe and the United States, pressuring Iran to accept limits

Larijani spoke after meeting with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei for discussions focusing on his country's decision to resume uranium conversion despite international pressure not to do so.

Diplomats say a report being prepared by ElBaradei for the Sept. 19 meeting of the IAEA's board of governors, will disclose new details on Tehran's experiments with small amounts of plutonium, a key component of nuclear weapons.

Larijani acknowledged that "there are a number of areas where the agency (still) had questions" relating to its three-year investigation of Iran's nuclear program prompted by the discovery of nearly two decades of illicit activities -- including some with possible weapons applications.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons, dismissed Iran's suggestion for more countries to join the talks as a "typical tactic of the Iranian government designed to change the subject."

Europe also responded coolly to Larijani's call.

Britain's Foreign Office said there was "no basis for negotiation with Iran until they respond" to an IAEA resolution adopted earlier this month that calls on Iran to suspend reprocessing activities at the Isfahan plant. The EU countries called off a negotiating session scheduled for Aug. 31 because of the resumption of work there.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France, Britain and Germany were not really alone in the talks with Tehran since they were acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union.

Iran's new ultraconservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said this week his government would draw up new proposals for negotiations. Iranian officials have made clear they expect the talks to focus on allowing Tehran to proceed with its program while setting up guarantees to ensure it is not developing weapons.

In Vienna, Larijani said he expected Ahmadinejad's initiative to be ready within a month
 
Top