Putin warns US against military action in Iran
Vladimir Putin has come out on the side of Ahmadinejad in any future confrontation between the US and Iran and has warned the US that it "should not even think of making use of force in this region".
In a coup for Tehran's leadership, he invited the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Moscow for talks. Mr Putin called on the five countries - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia and Iran - not to allow an outside power to use their territories to launch an attack on another member of the group.Putin is carrying off a balancing act here, saying publicly that he thinks that Iran should be able to produce nuclear energy whilst withholding the nuclear fuel that Iran needs for it's sole reactor because of what he claims is a lack of payment from Iran, a claim that Iran has denied.
"We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Mr Putin said.
His comments - backed up by a post-summit communique - appeared to be aimed at Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic which has a partnership deal with Nato. It has been touted as a potential launching pad for US strikes against Iran after American military commanders inspected its airfields.Iran's government had billed in advance the Russian leader's visit as a coup in its efforts to ward off a third round of UN security council sanctions over its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, suspected by the US and its allies as designed to produce an atomic bomb. Russia's status as veto-wielding permanent member of the council means Iran needs its support to resist further punitive UN measures.
It would, at face value, appear that the US have been successful in convincing Putin that he should not aid Tehran with their nuclear programme, however, Putin has stated that he has seen no "objective evidence" to suggest that Iran was working on a nuclear bomb.
Mr Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Russia backs Iran's "legal right to alternative energy sources" and believes in a diplomatic route out of the standoff with Iran, which says that a religious fatwa bars it from developing weapons of mass destruction and insists that it wants nuclear power to generate electricity.So Putin sits right in the middle, refusing to give Iran the nuclear fuel that it needs to continue it's nuclear programme - whilst confronting the US's overblown claims of Iran's ultimate intentions.
Out of this balancing act come two signals, one overt and one subtle.
The first states that the Russians are firmly opposed to any future attack by the US on Iran over this issue, and the second states, subtly, that Putin appears to think that the UN have gone as far as they should on the issue of Iranian sanctions.
Ahmadinejad scored a victory of sorts here:
Mr Ahmadinejad praised the communique as "very strong" after it gave explicit backing to Iran's nuclear programme. It declared that all signatory nations to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - including Iran - can "carry out research and can use nuclear energy for peaceful means without discrimination". The wording supported Iran's claim that it is being singled out unfairly over its nuclear ambitions, which it insists are peaceful.Putin has balanced this with his insistence that Tehran must show more transparency in it's nuclear programme.
After watching Bush do his "bull in a china shop" routine for the past seven years, there's something to be admired when watching Putin spinning so many plates, keeping so many different people onside without ever really conceding too much ground.
It's called the art of diplomacy. Putin is managing to keep both sides happy whilst refusing to give either side what they really want. It's a skill that Bush has simply never possessed.
But the larger lesson for Bush is that, if push comes to shove, Russia are leaning towards the Iranian side of this particular dispute.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
4 comments:
Putin has stated that he has seen no "objective evidence" to suggest that Iran was working on a nuclear bomb.
Ignoring the fact that the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, AQ Khan, sold materials and information to North Korea, Libya, and Iran. North Korea has let it be know that they since had a nuclear weapons program, and Libya stated that they had begun a fledgling nuclear weapons program. Iran on the other hand had a uranium enrichment program they tried to hide, and would have us believe that unlike every other nation that dealt with AQ Khan, they in fact had no nuclear weapons program.
While there may or may not be any direct evidence in the hands of Western agencies as to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it certainly requires quite a large suspension of disbelief to believe that the Iranians took the information from AQ Khan for peaceful reasons and that they indeed don't have any kind of nuclear weapons program.
Of course, it's all so unjust. The only fair thing would be to let the Iranian's have their nuclear weapons, right?
Iran have a nuclear programme which is allowed under the NNPT. You obviously have no proof that they have a nuclear weapons programme.
We invaded Iraq on top of the kind of logic that you are currently displaying - "there is no direct proof but it requires a large suspension of disbelief" - and that turned out to be the worst foreign policy intervention since Vietnam. Are you seriously proposing more of the same?
People with your mindset are already responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 American soldiers, shame alone should make you shut up about future wars.
I mention facts, and you respond with irrelevant rhetoric. So then I'll just take it that you have nothing to say about AQ Khan's involvement with Iran.
And who here, other than you, has mentioned war?
I have nothing to say about AQ Khan's involvement with Iran as you are assuming that because X, Z and Y had contact with him and because X and Z did such and such, it stands to reason that Z must be doing the same. That's supposition. It is not based on fact.
If the US has proof that Iran are devloping a nuclear weapon then I am sure they would have presented that information to the UN by now. They have not, because they have none as Putin is making clear.
And who here, other than you, has mentioned war?
Open a paper, Jason. The whole world is talking of whether or not Bush is going to attack Iran. And, once again, with nothing that even resembles proof, it appears you will back him.
Post a Comment