Attack Iran and you attack Russia

[Michael Tee]

The European concern was more with the abstract goal of "non-proliferation" in mind.  The U.S. approaches the negotiations with the specific goal of ensuring that it or its ally Israel does not have to face a nuclear-armed Iran as they go about their nefarious projects in the region.  So it's more personal with the US than it is with the Europeans.

Russia has obvious economic interests, as you pointed out.  They also have legitimate strategic interests to protect.  Russia, or more accurately, the U.S.S.R.,  used to directly border on Iran and even now are separated from it by a thin belt of former Soviet Republics of no real significance.  Iran is naturally the power centre of that area and Russia does not want to see U.S. influence re-established there, so close to home.

[BT]

Mikey,

How can you type the above with a straight face. Europe does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons period. They are within range and they have their own problems with radical islamists.

Iran has not been under the sphere of US influence since the Shah. So again all Russia is doing is adopting Iran as a client state.

[Cynthia]

"Iran is naturally the power centre of that area and Russia does not want to see U.S. influence re-established there, so close to home."


Are you sure of that? My brother in law works for the US gov. He has traveled to Russia now for several years, in part to help secure their nuclear sites. Point?
The Russians NEED the Americans. Not that America is going to take up tent in Iran anytime soon. Nations must have the responsibility to assist in situations that make the globe "work". Simple, yes, but true. If we play a game with nations who want none of that, and only want to rule the roost, then we lose all sense of who we are as a people. The people of the unified earth. I have yet to hear that my brother in law has traveled to Iran to help secure anything! He has traveled to Indonesia, Egypt, and the near east for the government. I do not know precisely what he does there, but I know that there are support systems in place for countries to work together on a certain level. I doubt if Iran would ever agree to such a connection of the minds if it was the "world power". Someone has to be on top. I just pray that the Iran does not hold that place on the hill any time soon.

[Plane]

When they surround Russia with bases, they make it militarily vulnerable and more likely to do what the US tells it to do.  If they can aim missiles at Russia but Russia can't aim missiles at them, it's like being surrounded.  They're vulnerable.  A powerful America is the world's bully - - it exercises its will by force of arms, and by force of arms takes what it needs from the weak.  Russia has a lot of resourced the US would like to have, or at least to have access to on preferential terms, much as England accessed the natural wealth of the British Empire.

We have had that in spades for two decades now , and mostly what we have done with it is reduce the size of our Military.

Covering Poland end to end with defenses would only help prevent a Russian attack a little bit , but a few anti missle defenses in Poland might make a missle attack on Europe from Iran unsure of success.

Canada has resorces like Russias , Accuse The US of going to the other side of the world to steal what we presently buy from the north side of the same contenant? Why do you do that?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, why do you think that the US IS THE "BULLY"?
Would you really like to see Iran as the "Bully"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there is some faulty reasoning.

Iran has not started a war since before the Ottoman Empire. The US has invaded whole bunches of places.

Why do you think it is necessary for anyone to be a bully?

Iran has US troops on two of its four borders.

Iranians have invirted the US for a dialog on several occasions, and Juniorbush has snubbed them, and continues to talk about mushroom clouds and WWIII.

Why should it NOT feel threatened?

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey,

<<How can you type the above with a straight face. Europe does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons period. They are within range and they have their own problems with radical islamists.>>

I don't think the problems between "radical islamists" and European governments are of a geopolitical nature.  They're primarily domestic issues of civil rights, tolerance of "diversity," etc.  and they can only work out between the state and its citizens.  Wars including nuclear wars are fought over geopolitical ends, such as - - control of the oil reserves.

In the Middle East, the only "Western" powers which traditionally attempted to wrest control of the oil wells were the British and the Americans.  To a lesser degree, the Italians and French, but as colonialists their days are done.  The Americans have two geopolitical or geostrategic goals in the Middle East - - control of the oilfields and protection of Israeli interests.  The British share with them only the former goal.  Not only CAN war break out between the Anglo-Americans over oil, it already has.  Between the Continental Europeans, whose oil and gas supplies are mainly Russian and North Sea, there is virtually no likelihood of oil war breaking out and  none of war for the civil rights of Muslims in France or Germany. 

<<Iran has not been under the sphere of US influence since the Shah. So again all Russia is doing is adopting Iran as a client state.>>

Probably on the theory that if they don't, the Americans and/or the British will.  The fact that this has already happened in the past gives added urgency to the Russians that it not be allowed to happen again.

[BT]

Between the Continental Europeans, whose oil and gas supplies are mainly Russian and North Sea, there is virtually no likelihood of oil war breaking out and  none of war for the civil rights of Muslims in France or Germany.

France imports from the Saudi's as well as most of the other OPEC states. They are reducing dependence on Russian imports after Russia interfered with Ukrannian internal affairs by turning off the spigot. BTW France imports close to 90% of its oil needs.

[Michael Tee]

<<France imports from the Saudi's as well as most of the other OPEC states. They are reducing dependence on Russian imports after Russia interfered with Ukrannian internal affairs by turning off the spigot. BTW France imports close to 90% of its oil needs.>>

If you had some numbers to indicate the relative volume of Saudi versus Russian oil imports into France, you might or might not have a point, but to the extent that any meaningful detail is lacking from your post, it basically proves nothing.  You are also neglecting "spheres of influence" or "fields of influence."  Traditionally the Great Powers respect one another's recognized fields of influence.  France has traditionally recognized that the Middle East (except for Syria and Lebanon) lay within a British, and later American sphere of influence.  North Africa lay within a French sphere of influence.  France would basically abstain from trying to dominate or influence the Middle East (Syria and Lebanon excepted) and the British and Americans would see to it that France enjoyed a stable flow of oil from the region.  There's  no real evidence even today that France wants to play a stronger hand in the region and none that she wants to fuck with Iran directly.  Which is not to say that France under Sarkozy may not be more sympathetic to American attempts to dominate the region than, say, Mitterand or more recent French governments.

[Stray Pooch]

Personally, I don't think there's anything the US can offer Russia at this point to make it sacrifice an important potential client like Iran.  Iran has more potential for Russia than anything the US can offer it.  American power encircles Russia, weakens it.  Therefore anything that weakens America is good for Russia.  Iran is definitely weakening America.  Why would Russia want to undermine Iran or even encourage it to accommodate America?

Actually, I think you are correct in your conclusion but you have the analysis a little turned around.  I think it is not that Russia views Iran as weakening the US (except maybe in a diplomatic way, but the US has done that all by itself).  I think rather that Russia wants to get back in the superpower game.  Iraq was once a Soviet client and Iran was a major US ally.  I'm pretty sure trading Iraq for Iran would be viewed as a trade up by Putin.  Gaining influence with Iran both strengthens the Russians geopolitically (a huge issue for Putin) and creates a power shift in the middle east.  That kind of thing could get a whole bunch of Arab nations all nostalgic for the cold war and the play of superpoer against superpower that gave THEM a bargaining chip bigger than oil alone.  The problem with the whole equation is that the variables count on the motives of each of the powers involved (super or otherwise) and the ability to predict the responses of the rest of them.  That's too wild card for me.

[Plane]

Global warming is going to improve Russias condition.

When the Siberian Tundra is wall to wall with wheat and the centeral states of the US are dessicated the power shift will occur naturally .

[Michael Tee]

<<I think rather that Russia wants to get back in the superpower game.  Iraq was once a Soviet client and Iran was a major US ally.  I'm pretty sure trading Iraq for Iran would be viewed as a trade up by Putin.  Gaining influence with Iran both strengthens the Russians geopolitically (a huge issue for Putin) and creates a power shift in the middle east.>>

You make a good point, which is that prestige in and of itself is a legitimate goal for any outward-looking nation, Iran and Russia included.  I have been ignoring prestige as a factor in all of these calculations, and of course that's just foolish.

[BT]

France would basically abstain from trying to dominate or influence the Middle East (Syria and Lebanon excepted) and the British and Americans would see to it that France enjoyed a stable flow of oil from the region.  There's  no real evidence even today that France wants to play a stronger hand in the region and none that she wants to fuck with Iran directly.  Which is not to say that France under Sarkozy may not be more sympathetic to American attempts to dominate the region than, say, Mitterand or more recent French governments.

I never said France wants to fuck with Iran. They were part of the trio of European countries urging the Iranians to stop development of nuclear weaponry. Apparently Russia is not eager for them to join the club either. They have enough problems with radicals  in Chechnya and they really don't need a nuclear armed group on their souther border. So they offer to protect them in exchange for not joining the club.

Consider it an expansion of the Warsaw Pact .

BTW France's largest sources of imported oil comes from Norway, Saudi Arabia, the UK and Russia. There is a new pipeline coming  in from Turkey delivering from the 'stans that will allow France to reduce imports from Russia by 25%. Google it.

[Cynthia]

"Iran has not started a war since before the Ottoman Empire. "


There's always a "second time".


If Iran had any chance to take on "the role of being a Bully", which is something that streams in their blood down deep, the Persian would not hold back, XO.

Terror is a tactic. War is the aftermath. Iran has a huge hate campaign.

 If we hold hate in our little wee hearts for one minute, we are tazed when we're down. Can't compare one orange bully to one pomegranate bully.

Fanatic + hate +the will to kill =a war in the making. Iran has those ingredients, XO. Tne Thousand Fold.

That is a Bully. The new war doesn't have to be like the old war. Look at terrorism. It's the new gang warfare. Not the old guerilla war far. Not your typical war anymore.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<They have enough problems with radicals  in Chechnya and they really don't need a nuclear armed group on their souther border.>>

I admit that is a factor I didn't consider.  It's true, this gives Russia a valid reason not to want a nuclear Iran.  Worse yet, Chechnya is an albatross around Russia's neck if it is seeking better relations with Iran.  They've committed terrible atrocities in Chechnya, but ideally they should let Chechnya go, maybe with guarantees that the Chechen government would prevent all revenge attacks on Russia.  This would clear the way for rapprochement with Iran.