Russia Still Opposed to Sanctions on Iran

[Christ's Free Servant]

Russia Still Opposed to Sanctions on Iran

Apr 18, 7:46 AM (ET)

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia said it remains opposed to sanctions against Iran, and China expressed hope for a negotiated solution as senior diplomats from six countries converged in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss the next step toward solving the Iranian nuclear standoff.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060418/D8H2D39O8.html

[Christ's Free Servant]

Yesterday, in our local newspaper, on our opinion page there was a political cartoon. In the first frame was a picture of a dog house with the words "UN Nuclear Watchdog" on the outside of the house. The caption read "GGRROWWLL!" Then, the second frame pictured a little French Poodle outside the dog house. The caption read "Did I scare Iran?" I think that says it all.

Iran is not going to take all these warnings from the UN seriously if everyone is afraid to do anything. The US wants to do something, but the UN seems to be tying their hands. If we act independently, then what? Will Iran get allies to come and attack us? Is oil the big issue here? Why is everyone so hesitant to really do anything to Iran?

[Old Timer]

Certainily Oil is a big issue. Probably that is the biggest issue for the entire world except for Israel and the United States. Israel cannot allow Iran to develop WMD and delievery systems. They will have to take action. The U.S. is in bind here especially with our involvment in Iraq. We are between a rock and a hard place. Eventiually, I hope and trust we will support Israel but with elections coming we will put it off as long as possible.

[Christ's Free Servant]

Certainily Oil is a big issue. Probably that is the biggest issue for the entire world except for Israel and the United States. Israel cannot allow Iran to develop WMD and delievery systems. They will have to take action. The U.S. is in bind here especially with our involvment in Iraq. We are between a rock and a hard place. Eventiually, I hope and trust we will support Israel but with elections coming we will put it off as long as possible.

Politics! Don't you hate politics?

I don't think it is just about supporting Israel. Iran wants the USA, too! I think we sometimes forget that. We need to be watching out for us, too. Israel is not the only country they are threatening. I remember that big hour glass with the USA at the bottom smashed in pieces and then comes Israel. That is Iran's plan to get us out of commission first before they take on Israel.

[Old Timer]

Here are some of the preliminary questions:

Will the UN impose any sanctions on Iran?

Will this stop Iran in its development of WMD and nuclear capabilities?

(If sanctions are employed I think the answer to this is No)

Is Russia helping Iran with its nuclear development?

(I think the answer to this is Yes)

If Iran continues nuclear development will the UN take any military action?

(I think the answer to this is No)

Will Iran impose its own sanctions, (using oil) against country that employs sanctions against it?

Will Iran block or interfere with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz?

Is this leading to a major military conflict?

Then

Edited April 18, 2006 by Old Timer

[ted]

In the realm of the war on terror, Iran has always been the ultimate goal.

Check the map out tonight and look at which two countries we have invaded since 2001. Notice which one is between them.......?

The invasion of Iran has been on the front burner for many years now. Lately, we now almost have a legitimate reason. Or, what would pass for legitimacy in the eyes of the world, anyway.

If you read close, we have hoped that the Iranian administration that preceeded the current one would be the vehicle of change within that nation, but they failed. What we have in place there now is a hard line government that will not back down.

So, we must now deal with them.

The issues are almost identical to the ones we faced in Iraq. We have a nation which we feel is close to producing terrible weapons of mass destruction. They have a maniacal leader which will not back down in the hopes that other islamic nations join their cause. They are a nation which supports, both directly and indirectly, terrorism against Israel, and threaten the well being of the US.

Both nations have sent troops into other nations in an attempt to influence, if not totally take over, the smaller countries around them at some point within the past 20 years.

Both Iran and Iraq have so much in common in the sense that they are direct threats to the world and the nations which they are in close proximity with.

It's almost the same thing right down the line.

So, my question is this:

Why would someone support action against Iran, but not Iraq?

It's almost the same exact scenario leading up to an invasion of Iran that it was for Iraq. Why is Iran different?

I hope everyone remembers their stance on the war in Iraq, because we are getting ready to do the exact same thing in Iran for the exact same reasons.

The smallest details may look a bit different, but overall, it's going to be the same exact thing.

The only reason why we haven't already done the same with Syria is beacuse we have gained some ground with them with their pull-out in Lebanon. Other wise, we'd be there by now.

The same sort of concessions have been gained from Libya, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Yemen, Pakistan, and a few others. To some extent, each one of these nations have been toned down or have conceded to a set of goals that we have established. In return, they get some cool contracts, and are able to remain in peace with us.

Iran, in contrast, will suffer the same fate as Iraq. They have had their warning, but spit it back in our faces.

Fine. Now we take out the towel and start to wipe our faces clean.

We will, of course, go through the same motions as we did with Iraq. Hopefully, Iran will see the need to step down and come to it's senses. I pray that they will come to the table and talk, and all of this will be avoided. Oh, how I pray for this, for many reasons.

But, I think they will fail to come to grips with the reality of the situation. They will buck, and we will have to buck back while the world sits back and claims they never really meant for things to get so far.

They are cowards of the worst sort; always wanting the best of every situation, but never willing to risk breaking a fingernail in the process. So, we'll do the dirty work once again for them, while they sit back and wonder why talk has ceased to produce results. The world still does not understand the enemy. Talk will not work, because the enemy does not value talk, it values action. They laugh at all of our talk and see it as weakness, all the while preparing for their own actions against us. They know we will waste time talking, and plan accordingly.

So, as usual in today's world, we will waste precious time talking and give them enough time to build their defenses, and then go in anyway.

Remember, the goal is victory against nations that support terrorism. Iran is just another brick in the wall which needs to be torn down, or at least painted a new color.

It's always been a war on terror- not some war for oil or to make rich people richer.

One day, it will be clear.

t.

PS- Don't forget about N. Korea, either.....

[Christ's Free Servant]

Old Timer & Ted,

Thank you both for your comments. They were educational and informative. I never thought about Iran being situated between Iraq and Afghanistan and the implications there. And, Old Timer, you raised some interesting questions. I read them to my husband and he answered them and then we had a discussion about what both of you said. This is an interesting situation we are in. But, God is in control of the outcome. He will determine how it all ends. I'm thankful for that!

[Old Timer]

Ted, good obersvations.

Three more questions:

Will U.S. use nuclear weaposns agaist Iran?

Will Israel use the same?

What will be the consequences of this with repect to both oil supplies and the actions of other nations?

[Old Timer]

West, Russia seek to paper over cracks as Iran crisis deepens.

MOSCOW (AFP) - The West and Russia has sought to present a united front over how to deal with

Iran despite signs of division over how toughly to act in forcing Tehran to halt its nuclear activity.

The crisis overshadowed talks between officials from the powerful Group of Eight (G8) -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States -- meeting in Moscow to discuss a summit planned this July.

Amid signs of an East-West split, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy warned Wednesday that the only way to pressure Iran was if China and Russia stand with the West.

"If the international community is not united it makes it easy for the Iranians to continue" to defy international demands, he told French radio.

Western powers accuse Iran of trying to build an atomic bomb under cover of a civilian nuclear power programme.

Washington says that UN sanctions and even a military assault cannot be ruled out to force Tehran to halt uranium enrichment -- activity that Tehran says is aimed only at the civilian sector.

However, Russia is Iran's main partner in the civilian nuclear sphere and has always favoured a negotiated settlement under which the Islamic republic could retain a civilian capacity. China, another important economic player in Iran, also favours a softer approach.

The row and Iran's defiant stand have helped drive oil prices to all-time highs and gold values to within sight of a 25-year high.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed that talks Tuesday between the permanent five members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany had not made any ground.

"There was no decision and no concluding document, but we were not aiming for that," Lavrov told journalists, stressing there was agreement on the need for Iran to stop enriching uranium.

Lavrov said no immediate decisions were possible because the head of the

International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, will not present a key report on Iran to the UN Security Council until the end of April.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also sought to paper over diplomatic cracks, saying there was "an international community more united in its concern to ensure full compliance by the Iranians."

However, Washington appears to be pushing more aggressively for an end game to the Iranian nuclear crisis, with

President George W. Bush reviving the spectre of war Tuesday. "All options are on the table," he said..

This week Bush meets with Chinese leader

Hu Jintao in Washington. He will also meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, prompting speculation on discussions over the potential use of Azeri territory for US military operations against neighbouring Iran.

Straw played down the possibility of a US military operation, explaining on BBC radio that Bush's stand merely reflected a "difference of use of words."

But Alexei Malashenko, an analyst at the Moscow Carnegie think tank, said that Russia and China would eventually be dragged into supporting the more hawkish US position.

"I don't think there's a real division, just that Moscow wants to play the mediator and will keep on playing. Only, Iran won't give them what they want," he told AFP. "If there is no choice," Russia will back the United States, he said. "It will be very painful and Russia utterly opposes this, but they will support this -- even sanctions."

The influential Moscow newspaper Kommersant backed up this view, saying that the talks held in Moscow were "like a consultation with a doctor who knows the patient is going to die sooner or later."

"The United States is simply obliged to finish the business it has begun -- the reconstruction of the larger Middle East."

[Guest Sul]

Hmmm Well I think there was a post awhile back that I read that Israel itself could not strike at Iran personaly becuase they would have to fly through to many un Allied countrys airspace to complete there Mission. In the Article the U.S. with its aircraft carriers and bases situated around the world with mid air refueling would be the only country able to enact such a plan.

If the stopping of deliverance of Oil to Russia and China are what are stopping them from coming to the Tables to deal with Iran then the there is a Number of countrys that could go in a Disrupt that supply quite easily and take that card off the table real quick making them to have to deal with other Countrys for Oil and Deal with the Iran problem. If a country all of a sudden cant supply you with what you want, there seems to be no reason to protect them from International law after that.

But a bigger Situation I would be worried about here is that everyone is talking about Negotiation and Compromises which right now is all that can really be looked at. Becuas if I remember Correctly Iran and Iraq have been to war a few times and now isnt the time to be talking bombing or Invasion becuase I could see Iran having no problem launching Bio chemical weapons or other weapons of Mass Destruction at the U.S forces in Iraq becasue they would be getting 2 Birds with one stone a preemtive strike on the Infidels becasue of there talk of invading us and getting back at the Iraq's that are letting the U.S run there country.