Quake3World

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Sanctions are not the best way to resolve international concerns over Iran's resumption of its nuclear program, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday.

"Sanctions are not the best or the only way to solve international problems," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow.

"The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse," news agencies quoted Lavrov as saying.

Lavrov said years of international sanctions against Iraq had failed to change the behavior of ousted leader Saddam Hussein, Reuters reported.

"Our common goal is to ensure the inviolability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime," The Associated Press quoted him as saying.

"If we all strive for this main goal, we will be able to find a collective approach to solving this issue."

Beijing on Tuesday also indicated it preferred diplomacy over sanctions to resolve the situation.

"We think the most urgent thing for all the parties now is still to keep patient and make utmost efforts to resume the negotiations between the EU3 and Iran," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan, according to Reuters.

"We hope the Iranian side can cooperate with the efforts by the international community to restart the diplomatic negotiations and resolve the nuclear issue properly," Kong said.

Beijing said last week that referring Iran to the Security Council might "complicate the issue."

China gets 12 percent of its oil imports from Iran, while Russia has a $1 billion stake in building Iran's first atomic reactor.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said Tuesday the UK remains open to a negotiated solution that would avoid referring Iran to the Security Council.

"Our ideal outcome is a diplomatic solution," AP quoted the spokesman as saying on condition of anonymity.

"A diplomatic solution has to mean that Iran abides by its international obligations. That is the test. If someone, if Iran, wants to come up with a solution that meets that test, fine. It does have to meet that test."

The latest comments come a day after Britain, France, Germany said they would call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Iran on February 2-3.

Diplomats from the so-called EU3 met with their Chinese, Russian and U.S. counterparts on Monday in London to discuss the issue.

The EU3 said last week they wanted the IAEA to take up the issue. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

IAEA spokeswoman Tracy Brown said any country or countries could call for a meeting of the agency's board of governors, but that did not guarantee a meeting.

The board will make a decision on whether to hold the meeting, she said, adding that such decisions depend on various criteria, including the subject and "the urgency."

The United States and the EU3 had sought to persuade Russia and China to agree to a referral on Monday, CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley said.

Gernot Erler, Germany's deputy foreign minister, described the talks as "difficult."

"We said we will keep talking about what should be decided there and what the role of the United Nations should be," AP quoted Erler as telling German television.

"That is an indication that we were unable to fully agree what the actual aim of an IAEA resolution is, but that we need more time."

British officials would not confirm that the process of drafting a resolution for the IAEA meeting had begun.

They said more discussions with all 35 board members would continue right up to the IAEA meeting in Vienna and that there was a "huge amount of talk" to come.

The U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent members of the Security Council and have the power to veto council resolutions.

Tehran has threatened to force world oil prices higher if the Security Council imposes sanctions against it.

"Any possible sanctions on Iran from the West could possibly, by disturbing Iran's political and economic situation, raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects," local news reports and wire services quoted Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari as telling state-run radio.

Iran is the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Russia proposal

Iran resumed operations at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant last week and insists its activities are only aimed at research for a civil nuclear energy program.

But the United States and much of Europe are concerned that the activities are a guise for building a nuclear weapon. Negotiations between Tehran and the EU3 on the subject broke down late last year.

Iran's nuclear program was also addressed in talks Monday between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Putin said Iran had not excluded the possibility of conducting its uranium enrichment in Russia, a proposal that could provide a way out of the escalating international tensions.

The Russia leader also advised treating Iran with caution. "In the Iranian nuclear issue, we need to work very carefully and without taking any abrupt, erroneous steps," Putin said. (Full story)

The Russian proposal, backed by the Europeans and the United States, is aimed at getting Iran to move uranium enrichment completely out of its territory to ensure that its nuclear program cannot produce weapons.

tnf wrote:No offense to jester!, but his position is pretty naive. This won't be a "Team America" war - if there was a war. I'm betting there won't be (in the traditional sense.) the logistics of an Iran war are even worse than Iraq turned out to be.

Ryoki wrote:

tnf wrote:No offense to jester!, but his position is pretty naive. This won't be a "Team America" war - if there was a war. I'm betting there won't be (in the traditional sense.) the logistics of an Iran war are even worse than Iraq turned out to be.

An Iraq style war with Iran would be breathtakingly irrisponsible, complete madness and utterly self destructive. Which is exactly why i wouldn't put it past the neocon cabal that runs the US.

Canis wrote:Although I cannot predict the future, this trend mentioned revolves around dictatorial regimes as opposed to a cyclical government that will change policy after a few years. Those regimes were empowered from the top down, meaning the guys with the guns had the power. The US's form of government is different (despite the metaphorical claim of an "American Empire").

Still, I agree with the premise of his argument, and believe an attack on Iran will be much harder to both justify as well as uphold, than Iraq.

Canis wrote:It will start out covert, with a few strikes here and there, and if things escalate it will turn into an invasion.

In that article quoted by Julios, they say this:

Napoleon was unstoppable before he invaded Russia. So was Hitler. Now France and Germany are "Old Europe."

Invading the wrong country can age you faster than driving a Long Beach bus on the night shift. Invading Iran helped end the win-streak of the best, biggest Empire of all, the Romans. It was in 260 AD, when emperor Valerius headed east to deal with the Persians who were kickin' up a fuss on the eastern border of the Empire. This Valerian would've risen high in Dubya's administration, because he was a real hard charger, a go-getter...and dumb as a half brick. He charged right into Iraq -- they called it Mesopotamia back then -- even though his troops were dying of plague all around him. The Persians sat back, watched Roman troops keeling over, and had a good laugh, eating pistachios in the shade while Valerian tried to figure out what to do.

Although I cannot predict the future, this trend mentioned revolves around dictatorial regimes as opposed to a cyclical government that will change policy after a few years. Those regimes were empowered from the top down, meaning the guys with the guns had the power. The US's form of government is different (despite the metaphorical claim of an "American Empire").

Still, I agree with the premise of his argument, and believe an attack on Iran will be much harder to both justify as well as uphold, than Iraq.

MKJ wrote: ( a large chunk of russia is european )

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:It will start out covert, with a few strikes here and there, and if things escalate it will turn into an invasion.

In that article quoted by Julios, they say this:

Napoleon was unstoppable before he invaded Russia. So was Hitler. Now France and Germany are "Old Europe."

Invading the wrong country can age you faster than driving a Long Beach bus on the night shift. Invading Iran helped end the win-streak of the best, biggest Empire of all, the Romans. It was in 260 AD, when emperor Valerius headed east to deal with the Persians who were kickin' up a fuss on the eastern border of the Empire. This Valerian would've risen high in Dubya's administration, because he was a real hard charger, a go-getter...and dumb as a half brick. He charged right into Iraq -- they called it Mesopotamia back then -- even though his troops were dying of plague all around him. The Persians sat back, watched Roman troops keeling over, and had a good laugh, eating pistachios in the shade while Valerian tried to figure out what to do.

Although I cannot predict the future, this trend mentioned revolves around dictatorial regimes as opposed to a cyclical government that will change policy after a few years. Those regimes were empowered from the top down, meaning the guys with the guns had the power. The US's form of government is different (despite the metaphorical claim of an "American Empire").

Still, I agree with the premise of his argument, and believe an attack on Iran will be much harder to both justify as well as uphold, than Iraq.

I think your point about cyclical government is irrelevant in this situation. For starters, policy shifts (and let's face it, when was the last time there was a real shift in foreign policy until Shrub took office?) are completely useless after you have already squandered your military, economy and reputation.

In other words, how would a cyclical government prevent Bush from starting the war, if he were to decide on that course of action? And once a war with Iran was started, nothing about a cyclical government would lessen its impact on our country.

Unless you are talking about the complete and permanent demise of the United States as a nation and body forever. Which I assume you probably aren't, since that won't happen.

Canis wrote:Its only a matter of time before Bush wakes up and realizes, "Hey! Iran is right next door to Iraq!!!" and starts windmilling in that direction.

Hannibal wrote:

MKJ wrote: ( a large chunk of russia is european )

I know this....I was highlighting the fact that Russia is militarily distinct from NATO.

tnf wrote:No offense to jester!, but his position is pretty naive. This won't be a "Team America" war - if there was a war. I'm betting there won't be (in the traditional sense.) the logistics of an Iran war are even worse than Iraq turned out to be.


It's not going to be Iraq part 2.
And jester! - we aren't looking for proof of a nuclear weapon.

• Many more Americans now realize Iraqi War was a mistake and government was misleading; Bush admits mistakes were made
• Success in Iraq is nowhere in sight; Iraq was claimed to be a short war; it was not; more Americans weary because of this
• Army does not have nearly enough troops to engage another war; draft would be needed
• Iraq was already weakened by a decade of sanctions to begin with; American only would fight countries where victory over small, sanctioned countries is assured.
• The WMD card will not work again
• America more isolated from International community than before Iraq War; UN resolution harder to pass
• Democrats more weary of Bush Administration's decisions; much more likely to question and deny a 'Let's Fuck Up Iran Resolution'
• Republicans weary of greater loss of public approval; less likely to readily pass a 'Let's Fuck Up Iran Resolution'
• 9/11 as the psychological backdrop is much weaker than before; Bush Administration cannot ride on a wave of fear as much as before

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:Its only a matter of time before Bush wakes up and realizes, "Hey! Iran is right next door to Iraq!!!" and starts windmilling in that direction.

What do you mean? He's already doing that.

mjrpes wrote:There's just a couple of reasons I can think that an Iranian war would never happen

• Many more Americans now realize Iraqi War was a mistake and government was misleading; Bush admits mistakes were made
• Success in Iraq is nowhere in sight; Iraq was claimed to be a short war; it was not; more Americans weary because of this
• Army does not have nearly enough troops to engage another war; draft would be needed
• Iraq was already weakened by a decade of sanctions to begin with; American only would fight countries where victory over small, sanctioned countries is assured.
• The WMD card will not work again
• America more isolated from International community than before Iraq War; UN resolution harder to pass
• Democrats more weary of Bush Administration's decisions; much more likely to question and deny a 'Let's Fuck Up Iran Resolution'
• Republicans weary of greater loss of public approval; less likely to readily pass a 'Let's Fuck Up Iran Resolution'
• 9/11 as the psychological backdrop is much weaker than before; Bush Administration cannot ride on a wave of fear as much as before

Like Dave said, any war against Iran would probably be one of those Radio Free Iran types of shit

Canis wrote:

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:Its only a matter of time before Bush wakes up and realizes, "Hey! Iran is right next door to Iraq!!!" and starts windmilling in that direction.

What do you mean? He's already doing that.

I mean the bombs start falling. I'm just joking that someday he'll say "Hey! I CAN attack"....whatever.