Thursday, October 11, 2007

Russia won't play ball after all

posted by Bill Arnett @ 10:58 AM Permalink

Not long back President Putin of Russia vowed that his country would not sit by and allow American imperial hegemony to intrude into neighboring countries that could then be used as staging bases for future attacks on other countries in the Mid East and farther westward toward Russia. In an obvious attempt to back up his words with actions, Putin has ordered the resumption of bomber missions flying ever closer to American air space.

Now the Russians are refusing to comply with the request of bush's new French poodle, President Sarkozy of France to cooperate with the West and vote for harsher sanctions against Iran:
Russian President Vladimir Putin refused Wednesday to bend to Western pressure over Iran, saying after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that he did not believe the Islamic republic was trying to build a nuclear bomb.

"We do not have information that Iran is trying to create a nuclear weapon. We operate on the principle that Iran does not have those plans," Putin told journalists after the end of the talks with Sarkozy who was in Moscow seeking to ease tensions.

He added that Russia shared the West's desire for Iran's nuclear programme, in which Russia is building the first civilian power station, to be "absolutely transparent."

The Kremlin leader's statement reaffirmed an East-West split over Iran.

Moscow supports Tehran in rejecting accusations by Washington and in EU capitals that the country is hiding a secret bomb making project
behind its Russian-backed civilian atomic programme.

Russia, which has veto power on the UN Security Council, has also been reluctant to back Western calls for tougher sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities.
Russian leaders view more attempts to increase the harshness of sanctions against Iran as a prelude to war by bush. Given that this was the path used to initiate the war in Iraq, and the fact that bush is becoming increasingly bellicose toward Iran, it does tend to indicate that Putin's refusal to vote for stiffer sanctions appears well grounded and, of course Russia, as cited above, has the power to veto any such attempts.

It is quite amazing that Russia now acts more like the old America [b.b. - before bush. Bill] and actually assumes Iran is innocent of the charges that bush claims absent proof otherwise, and it is America again making claims of evil intent on the part of Iran without a single shred of proof.

As noted, Russia is also a business partner with Iran for the purpose of building a nuclear power plant, one that would no doubt be on America's "target list" for destruction by air attack. Russian President Putin would, I think, look upon such an attack with great disfavor and probably aid Iran when the bombing starts.

Russia could easily supply Iran with very sophisticated weaponry, up to and including nuclear bombs or missiles. Or it could just as easily help Iran completely block the Straits of Hormuz and stop the shipping of oil through it. Russia has already, over U.S. objections, sold Iran anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles capable of bringing down American aircraft, as well as other sophisticated "defensive" weapons such as tanks and personnel carriers.

It is already clear that, while already losing two wars simultaneously, attacking Iran would only give bush and the neocons another foreign policy debacle that could degenerate into a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East with unimaginable consequences.

How much more misery will America inflict on the world before the international community seeks sanctions and/or regime change right here in America?

Labels: , , , , ,


At 2:39 PM, Blogger Michael said...

The EU could really bring Iran to the negotiating table, even without Russia, because of their economic influence in Iran. This would be a much better shot for a diplomatic resolution, and Sarkozy deserves credit for trying.

Unfortunately, Germany doesn't seem to want to go along with tougher sanctions if Iran won't disarm:

At 3:03 PM, Blogger Sabretache said...

Michael: "Unfortunately, Germany doesn't seem to want to go along with tougher sanctions if Iran won't disarm"

Why 'unfortunately'?

And why should Iran 'disarm'? - when having an effective military is one of its principle deterrents to American military attack.

And how exactly is Israeli, Pakistani, or Indian development and defacto possession of Nuclear weapons different from any alleged Iranian ambition?

The truth of course is that alleged Iranian nuclear ambitions have got nothing whatsoever to do with US threats - they are simply a convenient rationale for action deemed necessary to force 'regime change' on a state that has the temerity to refuse to see things the US way.

At 4:31 PM, Blogger The Vidiot said...

They should ALL disarm. Every. Single. One.

Yes, I have a very healthy fantasy life.


Post a Comment

<< Home