IRAN / RUSSIA
- Thread starter SHAHED
- Start date
PERSIAN GOD KING
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,361
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope putin when he comes in power will increase our relation greatly.
he knows very well that the noise the west is making over Iranian nukes is BS.
he knows very well that the noise the west is making over Iranian nukes is BS.
PERSIAN GOD KING
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,361
- Reaction score
- 0
Darius hotel is so beautiful man.......I want it.
Russia warns of US attack on Iran
The chairman of the Russian Dumas International Affairs Committee Alexey Pushkov has warned that the deployment of the United States missile defence system in the Persian Gulf is a signal that a military strike on Iran could be in the making. Peshkov is an influential politician close to the Kremlin who would have access to Russian intelligence and, therefore, his statement merits attention.
Indeed, there have been previous such Russian statements at the level of the security and military establishment in Moscow. The chief of the Russian general staff Gen. Nikolay Makarov said recently that in his estimation, a US attack could take place as early as summer. Iran is a sore spot [for the US]. I think a decision will be made by the summer.
Pushkovs estimation is logical since the ABM system is intended to neutralize Irans capacity to retaliate. Pushkov also linked the decision by Germany to sell 6 Dolphin-class submarine to Israel as ominous, as it would boost Israels capability to stage an attack from the sea.
Indeed, something is cooking. Beijing also issued on Friday its strongest-ever warning against a military strike on Iran.
Clearly, the US rhetoric toward Iran has once again become threatening. During a visit to Riyadh on Saturday to wrap up the issue of ABM deployment as well as on the sidelines of the Friends of Syria meet in Istanbul on Sunday, secretary of state Hillary Clinton rachetted up the rhetoric still further.
After returning to Washington, she warned Tehran not to try the limits of the US patience. The US is again grandstanding, blaming Iran for its woes in Afghanistan something that strikes a chord in the US domestic opinion. And all this is happening in the last week alone.
The rhetoric has come out of the blue and it is out of tune with the political track leading to the P5+1′ talks which are slated for April 13. Clintons tome became incrementally menacing, which could only provoke Tehran.
Can it be that the US is launching a psywar intended to soften up Irans negotiating stance at the P5+1′ talks? Or, can it be that the Obama administration has concluded that nothing is going to come out of the talks? Again, can it be that Obama is backtracking, given the compulsions of the election year at home? Or, can it be that he cant afford to annoy Saudi Arabia which is already fuming that he is spineless and is waffling on Syria and Iran?
Or, can it be the mother of all considerations that Obama wants the saudis to keep pumping extra oil to keep the prices low so that the American consumer is kept happy in an election year and he, in turn, should do the Saudis a favor? Donald Trump, at least, thinks so and hes usually well-informed on money news.
There are no easy answers to these questions at the moment. Indeed, the peace track is risky for Obama, since in order for the talks to be successful, US needs to be flexible just as Iran is expected to compromise. Whereas, Obama has little wriggle-room. On the other hand, the politically safest thing for him today will be to be hawkish toward Iran.
The latest media leak about Obamas overture to Iran most probably intends to make out a case that he himself was prepared to go more than half the league in the negotiations with Iran but Tehrans obduracy has frustrated his search for peace. From that point, it isnt too difficult to stretch the argument and justify a military strike.
The US is obviously pinning hope on Iran taking the US-Israeli hit lying low. It is a big if. Without doubt, the US enjoys great military superiority over Iran. A display of shock and awe on the CNN will impress the American public that their commander-in-chief is a tough guy. It may also boost the morale of the sheikhs in the Gulf monarchies. But what happens thereafter? Irans assymetrical response will certainly include a pullout from the Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty. What options would Obama have after that? Keep on bombing Iran once every six months?
By M K Bhadrakumar April 7, 2012
The chairman of the Russian Dumas International Affairs Committee Alexey Pushkov has warned that the deployment of the United States missile defence system in the Persian Gulf is a signal that a military strike on Iran could be in the making. Peshkov is an influential politician close to the Kremlin who would have access to Russian intelligence and, therefore, his statement merits attention.
Indeed, there have been previous such Russian statements at the level of the security and military establishment in Moscow. The chief of the Russian general staff Gen. Nikolay Makarov said recently that in his estimation, a US attack could take place as early as summer. Iran is a sore spot [for the US]. I think a decision will be made by the summer.
Pushkovs estimation is logical since the ABM system is intended to neutralize Irans capacity to retaliate. Pushkov also linked the decision by Germany to sell 6 Dolphin-class submarine to Israel as ominous, as it would boost Israels capability to stage an attack from the sea.
Indeed, something is cooking. Beijing also issued on Friday its strongest-ever warning against a military strike on Iran.
Clearly, the US rhetoric toward Iran has once again become threatening. During a visit to Riyadh on Saturday to wrap up the issue of ABM deployment as well as on the sidelines of the Friends of Syria meet in Istanbul on Sunday, secretary of state Hillary Clinton rachetted up the rhetoric still further.
After returning to Washington, she warned Tehran not to try the limits of the US patience. The US is again grandstanding, blaming Iran for its woes in Afghanistan something that strikes a chord in the US domestic opinion. And all this is happening in the last week alone.
The rhetoric has come out of the blue and it is out of tune with the political track leading to the P5+1′ talks which are slated for April 13. Clintons tome became incrementally menacing, which could only provoke Tehran.
Can it be that the US is launching a psywar intended to soften up Irans negotiating stance at the P5+1′ talks? Or, can it be that the Obama administration has concluded that nothing is going to come out of the talks? Again, can it be that Obama is backtracking, given the compulsions of the election year at home? Or, can it be that he cant afford to annoy Saudi Arabia which is already fuming that he is spineless and is waffling on Syria and Iran?
Or, can it be the mother of all considerations that Obama wants the saudis to keep pumping extra oil to keep the prices low so that the American consumer is kept happy in an election year and he, in turn, should do the Saudis a favor? Donald Trump, at least, thinks so and hes usually well-informed on money news.
There are no easy answers to these questions at the moment. Indeed, the peace track is risky for Obama, since in order for the talks to be successful, US needs to be flexible just as Iran is expected to compromise. Whereas, Obama has little wriggle-room. On the other hand, the politically safest thing for him today will be to be hawkish toward Iran.
The latest media leak about Obamas overture to Iran most probably intends to make out a case that he himself was prepared to go more than half the league in the negotiations with Iran but Tehrans obduracy has frustrated his search for peace. From that point, it isnt too difficult to stretch the argument and justify a military strike.
The US is obviously pinning hope on Iran taking the US-Israeli hit lying low. It is a big if. Without doubt, the US enjoys great military superiority over Iran. A display of shock and awe on the CNN will impress the American public that their commander-in-chief is a tough guy. It may also boost the morale of the sheikhs in the Gulf monarchies. But what happens thereafter? Irans assymetrical response will certainly include a pullout from the Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty. What options would Obama have after that? Keep on bombing Iran once every six months?
By M K Bhadrakumar April 7, 2012
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
I think it is important for Iran to be dependent from no one, you have to become strong enough to control your own fate, not just to put your bet on someone else.
PERSIAN GOD KING
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,361
- Reaction score
- 0
we do not lol. but it is n both Iran-russia interest to have good relation.
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
The diplomacy is very important around the world, but i am still glad to see that Iran is strong and independent who is capable of taking care of itself.
Surenas
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 6,740
- Reaction score
- -6
Iran is not independent. Almost all of the weapons Iran buy's are Russian origin, Iran's nuclear program is almost entirely build by Russians and Iran's anti-aircraft weapons are all Russian. Without the Russians or Russian technology Iran would be a weak military country.
PERSIAN GOD KING
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 4,361
- Reaction score
- 0
WAS is the word you should be using more of.
we WAS buying weapons.
Iran military is now completely in dependant.
I said in another thread, yes russia did give us alot of militry things.
Surenas
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 6,740
- Reaction score
- -6
Well, let me put it this way:
Iran can't survive without Russian support, Russia can survive without Iran's support. We all know how Russia refused to deliver S-300's to Iran. They are unreliable.
Similar threads
