Russia ignores West's Iran fears

[Gunny]

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC News website

The delivery by Russia of nuclear fuel to Iran probably says more about Russia's attitude towards Iran and the West than it does about Iran's nuclear intentions.


It appears that Russia is unconcerned about Western fears over Iran. The implication is that it will not easily agree to an increase in UN sanctions on Iran.

The fuel, enriched uranium, is to be used in the nuclear plant near Bushehr in southern Iran. This plant is quite separate from Iran's own uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. The Bushehr power station has been under construction for a long time and is under international inspection.


Russia itself has enriched the uranium for Bushehr. The argument about Iran is that Iran should not do the enrichment, in case it one day uses the technology to make a nuclear bomb.


Nevertheless, Western governments had hoped that Russia would delay delivery, in order to increase the pressure on Iran over its enrichment policy.

"It appears that Russia has decided that there is no longer a political reason to hold up the provision of fuel," said Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

"An important factor was probably the continuation of the International Atomic Energy Agency's work with Iran on questions about its past activities. The recent report from US intelligence in the National Intelligence Estimate [that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon] probably confirmed the Russian view. It asked the IAEA to inspect the sealing of the fuel containers at about the same time.

"Russia has probably concluded that Iran is not going to be dissuaded and that enrichment is a fait accompli. Others still believe Iran can be persuaded."

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147771.stm

Russian logic: someone's going to get the money and it might as well be us.

 

[Gurdari]

It is a funny thing, this criticism of Iran for not listening to the international community. I would be surprised by the leader (or public face) of a nation that did NOT want energy sovereignty these days. A deal whereby you get your power from another nation seems foolish when you can create your own power legally - even if the West's rhetoric gets annoying. The main problem for the West is that Iran has a solid right to create and use nuclear power. The other problem is the nobody has a right to say otherwise (with any sort of legal potency).

 

[Zoomie1980]

It is a funny thing, this criticism of Iran for not listening to the international community. I would be surprised by the leader (or public face) of a nation that did NOT want energy sovereignty these days. A deal whereby you get your power from another nation seems foolish when you can create your own power legally - even if the West's rhetoric gets annoying. The main problem for the West is that Iran has a solid right to create and use nuclear power. The other problem is the nobody has a right to say otherwise (with any sort of legal potency).

The problem with Iran is one of credibility. Besides being a terrorist state and dictatorship they are oil rich. They could much more easily invest in refinery technology to refine their own oil and become energy independent. So there is no need to develop nuclear power, especially when doing so is so much more difficult for a country with the extremely limited scientific capital a backwards, 10th century, islamofascist state typically has....

 

[Gunny]

It is a funny thing, this criticism of Iran for not listening to the international community. I would be surprised by the leader (or public face) of a nation that did NOT want energy sovereignty these days. A deal whereby you get your power from another nation seems foolish when you can create your own power legally - even if the West's rhetoric gets annoying. The main problem for the West is that Iran has a solid right to create and use nuclear power. The other problem is the nobody has a right to say otherwise (with any sort of legal potency).

You are mistaken. I do not criticise Iran for not listening to the international community. I criticise the international community for being a paper tiger.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot. Is there an international community or not? And if so, is not that international community responsible for protecting its members against irresponsible behavior? If it is not, or cannot, then we can just sit back and wait for you to eat your words when Iran starts making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword.

Not much consolation, that.

 

[Gurdari]

The problem with Iran is one of credibility. Besides being a terrorist state and dictatorship they are oil rich. They could much more easily invest in refinery technology to refine their own oil and become energy independent. So there is no need to develop nuclear power, especially when doing so is so much more difficult for a country with the extremely limited scientific capital a backwards, 10th century, islamofascist state typically has....

Well, the thing about that is saying they have 'no need' is irrelevant. It is up to them if they want to create nuclear power. One could argue many nations have no need to do things they do - but we have no right to stop them.

And there are few dictatorships being so targeted as iran - also, 'terrorist' state is a tough sell, when you consider they aren't invading or attacking anyone, and selling arms to other groups involved in armed struggle is common practice by Western standards...

 

[Gurdari]

You are mistaken. I do not criticise Iran for not listening to the international community. I criticise the international community for being a paper tiger.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot. Is there an international community or not? And if so, is not that international community responsible for protecting its members against irresponsible behavior? If it is not, or cannot, then we can just sit back and wait for you to eat your words when Iran starts making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword.

Not much consolation, that.

I wasn't referring to you (or anyone in particular) about criticizing - but as for the international community, the UN needs to be democratic if it is to be relevant, having 5 nations with all the power is ridiculous. As for making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword, Iran would be one of quite a few nations with nukes who act aggressively - and would also be by far the weakest in terms of nuclear capability and technology (IMHO).

Really though, if your nation was constantly threatened by other nuclear armed nations - you'd be a fool not to try and level the playing field.

 

[Gunny]

I wasn't referring to you (or anyone in particular) about criticizing - but as for the international community, the UN needs to be democratic if it is to be relevant, having 5 nations with all the power is ridiculous. As for making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword, Iran would be one of quite a few nations with nukes who act aggressively - and would also be by far the weakest in terms of nuclear capability and technology (IMHO).

Really though, if your nation was constantly threatened by other nuclear armed nations - you'd be a fool not to try and level the playing field.

I don't question Iran's motives. They're patently obvious.

I question the motives of those who put blinders on and purposefully refuse to accept that the obvious -- Iran's motives -- exist simply to toss more partisan rhetoric and/or accusations around.

I question an intenational community that has no common goal, and cannot accomplish even the most simple of tasks for the bureaucracy. They won't be finished debating in the US until they're interrupted and forced to look up the TV where President Alphabet or Kohmeini will be announcing they have nuclear armed ICBMs.

The fact that "others" posess nukes, IMO is irrelevant. An Islamic regime that supports Islamic terrorist organizations that are willing to use suicide as a means to bend an enemy to its will is the FAR more dangerous regime to posess them.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I wasn't referring to you (or anyone in particular) about criticizing - but as for the international community, the UN needs to be democratic if it is to be relevant, having 5 nations with all the power is ridiculous. As for making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword, Iran would be one of quite a few nations with nukes who act aggressively - and would also be by far the weakest in terms of nuclear capability and technology (IMHO).

Really though, if your nation was constantly threatened by other nuclear armed nations - you'd be a fool not to try and level the playing field.

Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nuclear weapons as they are a proven international sponsorship of global terrorism and are an irresponsible state (calling for the wanton destruction of another state is only one example). Just like Syria last year, Iraq back in 1981, North Korea, if we or any other reputable intelligence agency has verifiable evidence of a nuclear weapon production site, it WILL be taken out, period.

And yes, the international community has every right to tell a non-compliant state how to behave and impose sanctions if it doesn't, or, in the extreme, take military action to remove the leadership.

 

[onedomino]

Just like Syria last year, Iraq back in 1981, North Korea, if we or any other reputable intelligence agency has verifiable evidence of a nuclear weapon production site, it WILL be taken out, period.

One sees this all the time. Point to the verifiable evidence that the US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea had nuclear weapons production sites before they actually exploded test devices. Of course there was no verifiable evidence. And unless the Iranians are complete idiots, which they are not, there will be no verifiable evidence from them either. If Iran is to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, their facilities will have to be taken out on the probability that they are nuclear weapons production sites. Big difference from "verifiable evidence."

 

[Zoomie1980]

One sees this all the time. Point to the verifiable evidence that the US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea had nuclear weapons production sites before they actually exploded test devices. Of course there was no verifiable evidence. And unless the Iranians are complete idiots, which they are not, there will be no verifiable evidence from them either. If Iran is to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, their facilities will have to be taken out on the probability that they are nuclear weapons production sites. Big difference from "verifiable evidence."

Russia, China, France and the UK are irrelevant. They all obtained nuclear weapons long before there was technological means to detect or verify anything. All we had back then was HUMINT. In the case of the UK and France, we gave it to them to counter the Russians. Now in the case of India and Pakistan, the problem there was we never really suspected they were even trying very hard so we weren't even looking.

However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work. We will be able to tell if Iran is getting too close for comfort and at that time we will use the military option if we have to. So far in N Korea, we've been able to thwart them by simply cutting them off of basic food aid and other necessities over the years.

 

[onedomino]

Russia, China, France and the UK are irrelevant. They all obtained nuclear weapons long before there was technological means to detect or verify anything. All we had back then was HUMINT. In the case of the UK and France, we gave it to them to counter the Russians. Now in the case of India and Pakistan, the problem there was we never really suspected they were even trying very hard so we weren't even looking.

However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work. We will be able to tell if Iran is getting too close for comfort and at that time we will use the military option if we have to. So far in N Korea, we've been able to thwart them by simply cutting them off of basic food aid and other necessities over the years.

I have seen suppositions in the press that Syrian installations were nuclear in nature. But I have never seen proof that they were nuclear weapons facilities. Do you have a link to that? Even if it was just an educated guess that the Syrian installations were nuclear weapons facilities, I support their elimination. But none of what you have said negates the point that there never has been, or will there ever will be, verifiable evidence (and by this word I mean proof) of nuclear weapons production facilities unless the those involved are colossal idiots. When the orders are given to take out Iran's nuclear weapons production facilities it will be based on probability and not proof. To refer to verifiable evidence, i.e., proof, being necessary only plays into the hands of those who do not want to take out such facilities under any circumstances; especially those who would like to delay action until Iranian nuclear weapons are fait accompli.

 

[akiboy]

Well looks like the Kremlin is playing the Cold War card here. Moscow is clearly upbeat about building Iran's nuclear power plants. Russia is no longer a diminishing military power(Was it ever?). The Russian defence budget is becoming 'fatter'.New generation of warheads , new SLBM's , subs etc.
Looks like Russia is trying to bring Iran into its sphere of influence. Russia superbly pulled of a diplomatic coup by offering Iran uranium supplies and civilian nuclear technology(God knows what this 'civilian' techonology will become under the Mullahs!)

In short the Russian Bear is indirectly threatening Washington. If you guys are in Iraq we are in Iran.Status quo.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I have seen suppositions in the press that Syrian installations were nuclear in nature. But I have never seen proof that they were nuclear weapons facilities. Do you have a link to that? Even if it was just an educated guess that the Syrian installations were nuclear weapons facilities, I support their elimination. But none of what you have said negates the point that there never has been, or will there ever will be, verifiable evidence (and by this word I mean proof) of nuclear weapons production facilities unless the those involved are colossal idiots. When the orders are given to take out Iran's nuclear weapons production facilities it will be based on probability and not proof. To refer to verifiable evidence, i.e., proof, being necessary only plays into the hands of those who do not want to take out such facilities under any circumstances; especially those who would like to delay action until Iranian nuclear weapons are fait accompli.

We have all the means necessarily to determine the purpose of most facilities and no, we DO NOT allow those means into the media as they would compromise techniques and capabilities. Bottom line, if we say so, that's all the proof anyone on the planet needs.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Well looks like the Kremlin is playing the Cold War card here. Moscow is clearly upbeat about building Iran's nuclear power plants. Russia is no longer a diminishing military power(Was it ever?). The Russian defence budget is becoming 'fatter'.New generation of warheads , new SLBM's , subs etc.
Looks like Russia is trying to bring Iran into its sphere of influence. Russia superbly pulled of a diplomatic coup by offering Iran uranium supplies and civilian nuclear technology(God knows what this 'civilian' techonology will become under the Mullahs!)

In short the Russian Bear is indirectly threatening Washington. If you guys are in Iraq we are in Iran.Status quo.

That's utter nonsense. The Russian military is a basket-case. It's equipment is dilapidated, it's troops are very poorly trained, their living facilities are deplorable by western standards. Quite frankly, the Russians were never anywhere nearly as capable, even in the height of the Cold War, as the public was lead to believe. Their only valid card is they still have a sizable number of functioning nukes.

 

[onedomino]

We have all the means necessarily to determine the purpose of most facilities and no, we DO NOT allow those means into the media as they would compromise techniques and capabilities. Bottom line, if we say so, that's all the proof anyone on the planet needs.

Wait a minute. You said this: "However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work." But you have never seen such evidence. So how do you know it was proof, that it was verifiable? This is an important point whether you want to admit it or not. If we are going to get other nations to act against Iran with us, in the face of what is sure to be opposition from the Russians and Chinese, then we are going to have to be prepared to act on probability, not proof. Above, you blithely dismissed my examples of nuclear weapons programs that were never proven until test devices were exploded. But that is precisely the point. Do you not get that? There has never been, nor will there ever be, definitive proof of nuke weapons programs until devices explode. So stop talking about verifiable evidence (proof) as though it actually exists. And start addressing reality. We will be forced to make a case based on the probability "X" that such a program exists. And based on that approach we will get next to zero in terms of cooperation from the UNSC if we request sanction for an attack. If Iran's nuke facilities are taken out, it will be with yet another coalition of the willing and with no help from the UN, where countries will hide behind the fact that there is no proof, as though there ever could be.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Wait a minute. You said this: "However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work." But you have never seen such evidence. So how do you know it was proof, that it was verifiable? This is an important point whether you want to admit it or not. If we are going to get other nations to act against Iran with us, in the face of what is sure to be opposition from the Russians and Chinese, then we are going to have to be prepared to act on probability, not proof. Above, you blithely dismissed my examples of nuclear weapons programs that were never proven until test devices were exploded. But that is precisely the point. Do you not get that? There has never been, nor will there ever be, definitive proof of nuke weapons programs until devices explode. So stop talking about verifiable evidence (proof) as though it actually exists. And start addressing reality. We will be forced to make a case based on the probability "X" that such a program exists. And based on that approach we will get next to zero in terms of cooperation from the UNSC if we request sanction for an attack. If Iran's nuke facilities are taken out, it will be with yet another coalition of the willing and with no help from the UN, where countries will hide behind the fact that there is no proof, as though there ever could be.

Actually I have seen the evidence. I was an Intelligence officer in the US Air Force from 1980-1986. I did not see the Syrian intel, but I can assure you from how these things work, we collaborated with the Israelis and would not have urged them to strike, and they would not have, unless we were both absolutely sure what the target was. Verifiable evidence does exist. It is how develop target lists of facilities all over the world. We don't need the UN to approve anything, as you saw with Syria....

 

[onedomino]

Actually I have seen the evidence. I was an Intelligence officer in the US Air Force from 1980-1986. I did not see the Syrian intel, but I can assure you from how these things work, we collaborated with the Israelis and would not have urged them to strike, and they would not have, unless we were both absolutely sure what the target was. Verifiable evidence does exist. It is how develop target lists of facilities all over the world. We don't need the UN to approve anything, as you saw with Syria....

Obviously we do not need the UN's approval. But if we do not get it, then there will be yet another anti American sh*tstorm all over the world. And I do not recall reading anywhere that the US urged the Israelis to attack Syria. I do not know that such did not happen, but I am unaware of it in the general media. Which, I think, underlines the severe PR problem that we have with anti US media. We did not want a connection to the Syria attack. So when we come to the need to take out Iranian nuke facilities we will be in the same crummy situation. If definitive proof exists of nuke weapons development programs, where's the Russian media release on the Israeli program? Where was the US media release on the NK program? We saw Powell making a media release about Iraq at the UN and that "verifiable" information was later discounted by Powell himself. You say such information does exist, well they should damn well release it. And please do not, for example, defend non release of definitive proof of the NK program by saying we need to protect intelligence assets. What were we saving such assets for? Verification of the explosion? Assets like that, at that point, if they existed, should have been removed from danger, and then the information made public, so we would not have to take a massive PR hit if we took out the nuke facilities.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Obviously we do not need the UN's approval. But if we do not get it, then there will be yet another anti American sh*tstorm all over the world. And I do not recall reading anywhere that the US urged the Israelis to attack Syria. I do not know that such did not happen, but I am unaware of it in the general media. Which, I think, underlines the severe PR problem that we have with anti US media. We did not want a connection to the Syria attack. So when we come to the need to take out Iranian nuke facilities we will be in the same crummy situation. If definitive proof exists of nuke weapons development programs, where's the Russian media release on the Israeli program? Where was the US media release on the NK program? We saw Powell making a media release about Iraq at the UN and that "verifiable" information was later discounted by Powell himself. You say such information does exist, well they should damn well release it. And please do not, for example, defend non release of definitive proof of the NK program by saying we need to protect intelligence assets. What were we saving such assets for? Verification of the explosion? Assets like that, at that point, if they existed, should have been removed from danger, and then the information made public, so we would not have to take a massive PR hit if we took out the nuke facilities.

You will NEVER "read" anything that has to do with the details of how we share intelligence, share in the decisions of who does what where and how. That is was what security clearances are for and why we keep secrets. The media really knows so little about what is really going on and how the decision making process inside the military and between governments really works. We do not divulge 90% of the info we gather or the proofs we use to determine our actions. Information classified as SECRET is held under wraps for 20 years. Basic Top Secret is 30 years and compartmentalized information can be held essentially FOREVER. And no, the public as NO RIGHT to know....not when divulging such information destroys the means by which information is gathered on our enemy's. For instance, you have NO NEED, nor does the the public have any NEED to know where our ballistic missles are currently targeted. And you will NEVER know.

You simply do not have the NEED to know and you so will NOT know. And something you will NEVER know. And when it comes down to it. We really don't care that much about the PR aspect of anything. We are the world's ONLY super power and as such, we can really do pretty much whatever we want to, whenever we want to. And if this latest economic "crisis" drives anything home to you, the world ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVICABLY DEPENDS on the United States of America for almost EVERYTHING military and economic.

 

[onedomino]

You will NEVER "read" anything that has to do with the details of how we share intelligence, share in the decisions of who does what where and how. That is was what security clearances are for and why we keep secrets. The media really knows so little about what is really going on and how the decision making process inside the military and between governments really works. We do not divulge 90% of the info we gather or the proofs we use to determine our actions. Information classified as SECRET is held under wraps for 20 years. Basic Top Secret is 30 years and compartmentalized information can be held essentially FOREVER. And no, the public as NO RIGHT to know....not when divulging such information destroys the means by which information is gathered on our enemy's. For instance, you have NO NEED, nor does the the public have any NEED to know where our ballistic missles are currently targeted. And you will NEVER know.

You simply do not have the NEED to know and you so will NOT know. And something you will NEVER know. And when it comes down to it. We really don't care that much about the PR aspect of anything. We are the world's ONLY super power and as such, we can really do pretty much whatever we want to, whenever we want to. And if this latest economic "crisis" drives anything home to you, the world ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVICABLY DEPENDS on the United States of America for almost EVERYTHING military and economic.

What are you talking about? We are not discussing the targeting of missiles. Except for your opinion that the public does not need to know, you have ignored the point that I have made repeatedly in this exchange regarding probability and proof concerning nuclear weapons development. Your remarks about the international community, ninety-five percent of the planet's population, display a level of arrogance that is maladaptive to say the least. I am a conservative that in general supports the military and foreign policy of the US, but I recognize the attitude that you pronounce as one reason why so many people hate us throughout the world. Perhaps you do not care, but those of us living in the world of consequences do not have that luxury. It is obvious that we can do almost anything we want, when we want, and that the world "depends on the US." But that is precisely why we should explain our behavior. If at the command of elected political leaders our tax dollars are going to be used to blow away installations in Iran it better damn well be justified, and we are morally obligated to make the case crystal clear in the the US and before world opinion. I have lived in Asia and Europe and I know first hand that even those who despise us look to America for leadership. The conversations are all about us. But leadership is not just doing something because you can. It is showing the best direction based on explanation and persuasion. If we are convinced we are right, then there should be no reason why we would fail to explain in detail and provide all the evidence we possess. In a huge matter like attacking another country, it is not good enough to say we think we should because we have unshared and secret evidence. If intelligence assets are at risk in such a situation, then remove them from danger, and have new assets ready to take their place. In a matter like proving nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities in Iran, protecting an intelligence asset that we refuse to move from danger is a flat-out stupid reason to get creamed in world opinion and have to go it alone. Get the asset to safety and replace, or is being effective and efficient too much to ask? Leadership does not come from arrogance or happen at the point of a military or economic gun; it happens in the world of ideas. Something we used to be good at.

 

[Gurdari]

I don't question Iran's motives. They're patently obvious.

I question the motives of those who put blinders on and purposefully refuse to accept that the obvious -- Iran's motives -- exist simply to toss more partisan rhetoric and/or accusations around.

I question an intenational community that has no common goal, and cannot accomplish even the most simple of tasks for the bureaucracy. They won't be finished debating in the US until they're interrupted and forced to look up the TV where President Alphabet or Kohmeini will be announcing they have nuclear armed ICBMs.

The fact that "others" posess nukes, IMO is irrelevant. An Islamic regime that supports Islamic terrorist organizations that are willing to use suicide as a means to bend an enemy to its will is the FAR more dangerous regime to posess them.

Well it seems to come down to your personal feeling about what Iran would do if they had nukes, though you do seem very sure. The fact that others possess nukes is relevant if one wants any sort of moral authority or to take a non-hypocritical stance. If it boils down to 'we're strong enough to kill you - do what we say' then that itself sends a message to Iran: GET NUKES FAST.