Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Russia is not our friend: ver. 9.9
Posted by: mcq on Friday, April 21, 2006

Getting any cooperation from Russia (and thus the UN Security Council) concerning Iran doesn't seem very likely:
Russia on Thursday rejected a US call for Moscow to end its cooperation with Iran in constructing the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Foreign ministry spokes-man Mikhail Kamynin said that the plant had no relation to Iran's work in uranium enrichment.
While technically true, Russia's cooperation in the whole nuclear debate with Iran would be helpful, and as such, any leverage available through its participation in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant would be useful to that end.

But Russia adamently refuses, again proving, as it has any number of times in the past that despite Bush knowing Pooty Poot's heart, Russia is not our friend.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You’d think that a former head of the CIA would be able to tell President Bush to pull his head out of his fourth point of contact. Sheesh.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Do you think that Russia is our enemy, then? In my opinion, if a disagreement (or, more likely, a request for hard facts) on the Iran problem makes another country an enemy, then the US have no friends. Even Britain, our closest ally, disagrees to sending their troops to Iran in case of a military conflict.
 
Written By: Ace
URL: http://
In my opinion, if a disagreement (or, more likely, a request for hard facts) on the Iran problem makes another country an enemy, then the US have no friends.
Here I’m using the term "friend" for specific purpose.

As we’ve said many times, in reality nations don’t have "friends". At best they have allies. Those who are allies are usually allies because it is in their best interest to do so.

Obviously Russia has looked at this situation and decided its interests lay in Iran, not as an ally of the US (and Europe). Does it make them an enemy? Not in the traditional sense of the word. But they certainly aren’t an ally in this effort and thus not a "friend".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Maybe they know where the real threat to world security lies.

{reaches for a swig of ’freedom’ Vodka}
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Maybe they know where the real threat to world security lies.
Seems they’d be eager to make it all nice then, if that’s what they think (and yes, I understand to whom you’re referring).
{reaches for a swig of ’freedom’ Vodka}
LOL!

Good one.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
McQ,

"(and yes, I understand to whom you’re referring)"

I really don’t (unless it’s China). Please enlighten.

Thank you, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Downstream comments seems to follow a familiar path toward degradation, so I’ll focus on the original post. I thought the conflict in Iraq and the fact that it was launched without proper evidence of WMD existence has taught all of us a good lesson. The pattern with Iran is quite familiar, is it not? The U.N. has initiated trade restrictions on Iraq in early 90s, if I am not mistaken. Yet the embargo failed to prevent the conflict. So it’s naive to think that a similar approach will work against a much more self-sustained country, both militarily and economically? As long as the the drive for amateur militarism rules over the common sense do not expect herd behavior from Russia, and (I hope) from many other countries.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
I suppose the fact that Russia are actually assisting in the building a nuclear power plant is lost on the war-hawks. Not only is it legal and totally necessary for Iranian economic success, does it not indicate that they’re in the nuclear business for the long haul?

It could be a (very expensive) bluff of course, but if you’re intent on actually destroying, say Israel, with a bomb as we’re led to believe is their ultimate dangerous intention, then they must also be expecting to be destroyed themselves.

Why bother with the elaborate, expensive bluff in the first place.

- I’m sure I’m about to be told why.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Tom,

Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
I suppose the fact that Russia are actually assisting in the building a nuclear power plant is lost on the war-hawks. Not only is it legal and totally necessary for Iranian economic success, does it not indicate that they’re in the nuclear business for the long haul?
A country floating on oil does not need nuclear power for "economic success", so you can throw that strawman right out the window.

And the point here is the leverage to be gained by holding up their "peaceful" use would be invaluable toward ensuring the non-peacful use never comes to pass.

But it would take Russian cooperation in that endeavor, something they obviously seem unwilling to give. At some point, though, they’re going to need some international help ... and payback is hell. I’m sure that point is being made to them as we speak.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
McQ, you are so cruel, without strawmen, how is he able to make any argument at all?

And symptomless, I am sure Tom will tell you what melts in your moth also. One good turn ...
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The best contribution to the peaceful negotiations process Russia can make is to sell Iran a load of defensive mid-range G/A missiles.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
Its certainly not a strawman arguement. And wasn’t intended as one.

Why should any country limit its economic and energy needs to one source? When that country is currently swimming in expensive oil, why would it tie its energy needs to it when it can be sold for huge profits and energy generated by relatively cheap nuclear sources?

The oil won’t last forever either. If anything the use of nuclear energy makes the middle east more secure.




 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
If all Iran wants is power plants, then why the secret facilities that keep being uncovered after dissidents report them to the IAEA?

According to the treaty, they are fine to want nuclear power. But the facilities have to above the board and not to make weapons. So why would you have hidden facilities if they were for peaceful purposes?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Because you cannot built a war case on circumstantial evidence, and because you cannot trust converts who have betrayed their country. If they disagree with the Iranian regime, they should take on the arms and fight it face to face.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
The best contribution to the peaceful negotiations process Russia can make is to sell Iran a load of defensive mid-range G/A missiles.
As I recall, they’ve done that too.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Why should any country limit its economic and energy needs to one source?
That’s not at all what you said.

You said that nuclear power was ...
... totally necessary for Iranian economic success ...
The point I made is, it isn’t.

That’s why I called it a strawman.
When that country is currently swimming in expensive oil, ...
Expensive to whom?
Iran’s crude oil refining capacity has doubled to 1.6 mm bpd from 750,000 bpd in the 25 years since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Furthermore:
In 2000, Iran, which was the world’s fourth largest producer of crude oil, averaged about 3.72 million barrels per day (Mbbl/d). Average crude production had been 3.56 Mbbl/d in 1999 and 3.63 Mbbl/d in 1998. At the end of 2000, Iran had the second largest natural gas reserves (23 trillion cubic meters) and the fifth largest crude oil reserves [89.7 billion barrels (Gbbl)] in the world according to the Oil & Gas Journal (2000b). These figures apparently do not include 1999 or 2000 Iranian reserve additions. Petroleum continued to provide the bulk of Iran’s foreign exchange.
Iran is not an oil importer (and thus doesn’t have to buy oil on the international market). Thus Iran gets to decide what it keeps after pum
The oil won’t last forever either.
Nor will the mullocracy ... I say we wait until the latter is gone before we start worrying about whether their oil will be gone any time soon.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If they disagree with the Iranian regime, they should take on the arms and fight it face to face.
You mean like Chechnya?

But hey, in reality I agree ... and I think we should arm and train them (the Iranian dissidents that is).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
One lesson of the Iraqi war that is lost on no one but republicans is that the only way a country can guarantee its independence and protect itself from the finest Army that the world has ever seen is to possess nuclear weapons.

Iran is probably several years away. Fortunately for them they have proxies who can engage tie us down in Iraq until they have the bomb.

This leaves us with two choices, either nuke’em and see what that does to the price of oil, and the international jihad, or talk to them. I’m a liberal I’d like to see us try to talk to ’em first. We talked the Soviet Union to death saving millions of lives we can do it here too. Curtis Lemay, (the Dick Cheney of the 60s) wanted to nuke’em then. It would have been a mistake then and it’s a mistake now.

My suggestion: Bush flies to Iran. He guarantees that we will not try to change their regime if they open up their facilities to inspections. This would help the Iranian democracy movement and help stabilize a rapidly deteriorating situation.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
A country floating on oil does not need nuclear power for "economic success", so you can throw that strawman right out the window.
For the record, the economic rationale for employing nuclear rather than oil energy is precisely the same, whether Iran possesses oil or not. Their possession of oil makes not one whit of difference in that economic calculation.

To be clear: if it’s economically advantageous for a country with no oil to employ nuclear power, it’s economically advantageous for Iran to do so. They don’t "need" nuclear power for economic success any more than we do, but nuclear power is every bit as beneficial to Iran as it is to the US.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
They don’t "need" nuclear power for economic success any more than we do, but nuclear power is every bit as beneficial to Iran as it is to the US.
The statement made was that nuclear power for Iran was: "totally necessary for Iranian economic success".

It’s not. As you point out, it may be beneficial, it may be good, and they may want it ... but it is not "totally necessary for Iranian economic success".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I don’t think Iran is in the nuclear game to gain economic advantages. The reality is that a nuclear power plant represents a poison pill unlike any other tool at their disposal. A single large-scale plant will suffice to deter an offensive operation. Apparently, the Iranian government is willing to make a bet that the world will not take another Hiroshima.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
A single large-scale plant will suffice to deter an offensive operation.
Yes ... it gives their other pursuits cover. The veneer of legitimacy.

That’s essentially what Saddam was up to with his dual-purpose equipment in Iraq.
Apparently, the Iranian government is willing to make a bet that the world will not take another Hiroshima.
Unfortunately I think you’re right (and they’re right).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It’s not. As you point out, it may be beneficial, it may be good, and they may want it ... but it is not "totally necessary for Iranian economic success".
Ok, that’s true. I guess I’m just really sensitive to the economics argument, because I’ve gone round the bend on it a few times. Sortof a "hey, I know the answer to this one, so I’m gonna see the question everywhere!"
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Dropping an N-bomb onto Middle East can start an inferno which human kind have not seen and Hollywood cannot possibly replicate with all of its special effects. So the options are limited, and going back to the subject of the blog, it doesn’t seem that U.S. can count on Russia’s cooperation in this endeavour.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
Dropping an N-bomb onto Middle East can start an inferno which human kind have not seen and Hollywood cannot possibly replicate with all of its special effects. So the options are limited, and going back to the subject of the blog, it doesn’t seem that U.S. can count on Russia’s cooperation in this endeavour.
Why do you think that’s so, Sergei?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Logistics. Unlike Japan which, as an island, could be easily approached from high altitute in 1945, the military today cannot provide 6 nines (99.9999) guarantee of a safe and undetectable delivery of N-Bomb close to Iranian borders. At the same time, it would not be possible to launch it from the Persian Gulf as the launch can be intercepted with conventional air defence systems. The possibility of the taking down the nuke at some point during its flight over neighboring ME nations is too much of a risk.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
Actually, I am more interested in why you think Russia won’t cooperate in the Iranian endeavor?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Russia has a large Muslim population. Kremlin is aware that any decision to screw Iran will inevitably boomerang big way into intenal descend. Iran is very close geographically to Russia. I guess it’s natural that the country doesn’t want to have a nuclear dump at its southern borders. Some media outlets spin the fact that Russia has business at stake in Iran like a $1 bln Bushehr contract. On the scale of Russian economy, this is peanuts compared to what the oil lobby will be able to make at $300/barrel.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
So you’re saying that it may cause problems internally with its muslim population.

That’s at least plausible.
Some media outlets spin the fact that Russia has business at stake in Iran like a $1 bln Bushehr contract. On the scale of Russian economy, this is peanuts compared to what the oil lobby will be able to make at $300/barrel.
Yeah, I don’t buy the "economic" angle either.

But not doing something that may cause problems with it’s muslim population and aiding and abetting Iran are two different things. Like selling the TOR M1 missiles.

What’s that all about?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
My take is that Russia will deliver TOR to Iran because it excludes the possibility of nuclear bombing in the Middle East. Check out the map, Iran is 150 miles from Russia. I personally don’t want to see a nuclear dump at our southern borders. Good enough reason to me.

The upside of TOR is that it will give a fresh start to real negotiations, both within the U.N. and bilateral. Right now, the U.N. is largely sidelined as everyone comes in with a single purpose of "convincing" the others to change their course.
 
Written By: Sergei (Russia)
URL: http://
WHY SHOULD RUSSIA BE A FRIEND OF THE US???

... for encircling Russia with US bases and promoting anti-Russian regimes called democracies?

For having advised Russia on the way to market economy that put a 100+ million country into the poor house?

For prophesying the "preventive war" doctrine?

For prophesying US right to attack any country that potentially can be come a challenger to US militarily?

Ahhh, I forgot - Russia should be eternally thankful for McDonalds, AIDS, child pornography, jeans, Russian kids killed in US families after adoption..

Challenge me...

pacificway@yahoo.com
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://
Check out the map, Iran is 150 miles from Russia. I personally don’t want to see a nuclear dump at our southern borders.
But you woundn’t fear nuclear weapons in the hand’s of the barbaric, corrupt, and deluded regime that controls Iran? And if they fall into the hands of Chechnyan jihadists down the road ...
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
But not doing something that may cause problems with it’s muslim population and aiding and abetting Iran are two different things. Like selling the TOR M1 missiles.

What’s that all about?
Same reason USA sells weapons to Saudi Arabia - to make money.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
’barbaric, corrupt, and deluded regime’

Really? Then why not to wait while it collapses?
Iran is the only big country in the region which has no A-Bomb. Acquiring it (in one or another way) it would just even off balance of power leaving no room for American interventions. The last in my view is the most probabal cause of current hurly-burly.
 
Written By: Mazur
URL: http://
Or to put it another way, Mazur, with a nuclear bomb Iran could gain the power to dominate the region (which you obviously think is a plus.) Let’s remember that it was the nuclear power of the communist bloc that prompted the policy of fighting limited wars. Thus, with nukes, the ability to respond to Islamic sponsorship of covert attacks against our troops in Iraq and terrorist attacks through out the region increases the cost and casualties inherent in limited wars as well as prolong the conflicts to politically unbearable lengths.

Our inability to secure other nations against Iran’s threats will lead to a change in sponsorship as many tiny gulf nations, completely dependent on foreign protection, will come under Iranian hegemony. And this assumes they don’t use the bomb but merely possess one. The Millennial fantasies of a suicidal fanatic suggest that hoping they merely threatened the use of nuclear weapons is a fools bet.

 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Iran was working on its bomb long before Bush was elected, so I doubt fear of regime change is why it wants one.

In fact, Iran should be thanking the USA for removing the one serious rationale for Iran having a WMD program: Saddam Hussein.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider