HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

InBrief Archives

Russia Opposes Consequences for Iran

As the IAEA made it official and formally referred Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council, Russia restated its opposition to any consequences for Iran in its deceptive and defiant nuclear sprint.

First, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed that Russia opposed any form of sanctions against Iran, saying, “I don’t think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a goal in the recent history, so … we must rely on the professional advice of the IAEA, the watchdog of the nonproliferation regime.”

Second, FM Lavrov reminded all that Russia also opposes any military solution to the Iranian crisis by adding that Russia was “convinced that there is no military solution to this crisis.” Lavrov made both points after emerging from a closed-door session with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who shares those views and publicly rebuked Vice President Dick Cheney for warning Iran that “meaningful consequences” will result if their current nuclear pursuit is continued.

Between Kofi Annan and veto-wielding Russia, it is apparent that any such “meaningful consequences” will not come at the hand of the United Nations Security Council. Add the IAEA’s own perpetually hesitant director, Mohamed ElBaredei, and the combined parts net a finished product of inaction.

Aside from sanctions or military force, what is left as consequence, be it from the Security Council or any other source, including the new developing ‘Coalition of the Willing II’ being grafted by Washington for just that purpose. The answer is simple. There are no consequences left.

Russia, Annan and ElBaredei each prefer to allow the IAEA process - a negotiation charade of factual and operational hide & seek - to continue, seemingly in perpetuity.

But the IAEA lacks the teeth of enforcement. The Iranians, as well as all other parties, know this. This is precisely the role of the UN Security Council. Yet, in reality even the Security Council itself lacks teeth beyond rhetorical agreement (or disagreement) among the individual members. It is the individual members who each represent a single tooth through individually instituted policies and militaries. And if the Security Council lacks agreement among the individual members, as it clearly does, it achieves nothing and leaves an issue divided.

There is much room for debate as to the direction and actions to be taken regarding Iran’s belligerence on the nuclear issue. There is much room for criticism on the West’s actions in response. But there is no room for debate that the destined path of the United Nations — through its subsets of the IAEA and the Security Council — is once again a path of indecision, inaction and ineffectiveness.

Feedback

I can only conclude the UN is quite useless in large degree and is only acting as an inhibitor to eventual freedom of the oppressed. Instead of a functional facilitator of progress, it keeps in place stagnant and dangerous regimes.

I'm not advocating we overthrow every single dictator, despot and King. But this is all a farce, a very expensive theatre of the absurd.

I for one hope for CWIII. That the USA pull all our funding from the UN and form a new body for the coalition of like minded free societies.

We can still negotiate with other world bodies and nations. But no longer should we fund corrupt world bodies and thus nations thru such organizations. It neither buys us advantages or secures our way of life.

Instead of UN names on services and products that the USA pays for I'd much rather the American label be put on such services far and wide. Otherwise, our generosity gets overlooked and the UN gets all the credit.

I am frankly tired of it.

The issue here is not whether the UN is or is not an effective organization to advance US interests. It is not. We already know this. The real issue is that Iran appears to have outmaneuvered the West once again in such a way that it is now justified in stepping up nucleur research toward weaponry to defiantly counter any "beligerence" on the part of power hungry Western imperialists - as they see it. They are threatened by us. If I were them I would feel threatened as well. Here we are on both sides of their "theocratic" nation. I am currently on the Western side in Iraq. The real issue - which must be answered - is how much of a threat Iran genuinely represents and exactly what sort of threat this is? No self delusions can be tolerated as we answer these questions. If minimal, this should have been taken into account as this scenario unfolded and racheted up. I trust it has been. If they are a real maximul threat, then I am afraid we will once again find ourselves in more severe confrontation with them, likely military in nature. There seems little else to prevent a nuclear Iran. They have already achieved a sort of detante. Sanctions will not prevent a nuclear Iran but will only further embitter and embolden them. Military conflict could mean a very long next 10 years or so. The Iranians knew that the American public would have little taste for yet more warfare in this region of the world. And global opposition to such would be severe. We already see signs of this. They are opportunists. So then, what will the world look like with a nuclear Iran? In my view this is not our fault. The West could have done very little to prevent this, simply because Iran was intent on this goal from the very beginning. They were only waiting to choose their time. They chose their time for action very well. Perhaps we pushed them but they were intent on this from the very beginning. A nuclear option means they are protected from US military intervention in their country. This is at least one thing that they want. Immunity from the reach of the rest of the world to do as they please in this part of the world. The Russians obviously do not believe they are any sort of threat to regional stability. If they did they would not be acting as they are. Both the Russians and the Chinese would like to counterbalance American military "hegenomy" in the region and Iran appears to be their lackey for accomplishing this. This may come back to bite them in the long run. All three would like to see US military hegemony counterbalanced. We must be careful here for other such opportunists. We cannot take on the entire world ourselves. We should ask the question - exactly what do the Iranians want? First, theocracy - Iranian style. Second, an irrational vengence that humiliates the US and the West - carrying forward the crusade of the 1970's. Third, immunity from our military intervention so as to impose our will upon them. In their eyes WE ARE the West - the corruptors of the world. Again, the real question is how much of a genuine threat Iran represents and what sort of a threat this really is? Is their nuclear ambition a defensive move or an advancing move? I am not completely certain how to answer these questions in the longer term. But I do know this - If we answer that military conflict is necessary then you and I must be ready to pay the price, to kill and to die, to watch our sons and daughters kill and die for this cause. This cannot simply be "somebody elses war" fought from a distance and known only through news headlines and political debate. This must cause us to pause. Nor can it be about pride. Pride is a stupid thing to kill and die for. It must be about necessity, about right and good, about freedom, about a cost in suffering outweighed by a future with hope and prosperity. These are the only things in this world worth killing and dying for. Our blood - and those of our sons and daughters - shall not be wasted. We are worth more than that. Such waste is dishonoring. Is preventing a nuclear Iran worth that cost? I am not certain how to answer that question at the present time. But it is a question we must answer and however we answer it it will have real world consequenses for all of us.

Yeshooroon

I agree the UN is a worthless organization and we should end funding and form a Alliance of like minded Democracies or such that will have common goals and to get in you must first meet these goals and agree to protect and support such. Standards are good and strengthen common goals. The benefits from such could be many free trade, economic aid, guaranteed protection, ect.. if we cut these same off to non-members they would be massive incentives.

However in this case I doubt anyone really thinks the UN is either going to solve or even come up with real consequences for Iran. By the same I think what we are looking for is simply a UN declaration of non-compliance and “unspecified consequences” resolution. That will give US the International Law cover if it comes down to war.

Dale Kratt

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Before we answer that we should think of these questions:

How many Iran terrorist supported attacks will Israel accept before the nuclear threat becomes irrelevant? Then after Israel snaps and millions of Muslims disappear in a matter of a day what then? Who is going to go into the Mad Max badlands China, Russia, US, Europe, the oil will still be there for the taking?

What will we do if Iran decides to do what they have tried to get going multiple times already and declares the US must be punished, all fellow Muslims must charge the Infidels $500 a barrel tomorrow or face Allah’s wrath aka Iran’s nukes?

Will any nation around Iran allow US to use them as a base of operations with Nukes pointed at their capitol?

Will any US president have the guts to order an invasion fleet to move within 200miles of Iran?

Will any US president have the guts to make first strike nuclear attack on Iran to stop or side step any of the above?

Now back to your original question can we live with a nuclear Iran?

All scenarios I see possible involve war with Iran its just a matter of who is forced to jump first Iran/Israel/US. By that I would rather fight a war now when we can crush Iran without either making a first strike nuclear attack killing millions of Muslims or accepting hundreds of thousands of dead in a sea/land invasion into Iran in the face of tens-hundreds of nuke silkworm’s & Shab’s.

The only real question that matters is will War today with a weak Iran be less costly than War tomorrow with a nuclear armed Iran?

It amazes me how history repeats itself and today we find ourselves in the same situation as France/Britain against Hitler’s Germany when he re-militarized the Rhineland. That moment the West chose safety and ease today and got hell and slaughter tomorrow. What will we choose will decide will we fight this war or my son?

And I also absolutely agree that when and if we chose war, realization that it is WAR must be made. Rallying the population accepting the fact that it will be ugly, there will be mistakes, there will be sacrifice, and above all else WAR is not politics or time for media fairness. WW2 is how you fight war you do what must be done you win then when its all over debate if X was the best way to win and if X was really necessary but you win first.

The idea that we can fight a war with a near Seditionist media, politicians who find it more important to score political points than see their nation win a WAR, and leadership that has the right idea but is incapable of checking the previous or even explaining WAR to the people.

I'd like to know what someone from Iran, who does not believe in "wiping Israel" off the map, would like to see happen.

Is Hamidreza still commenting here? Can any Iranian offer a suggestion?

Russia seems to have ruled out sanctions and military action. What DO they suggest? A crash program building bomb shelters?