New Iran thread

[Gollevainen]

Russia in a Hurry to Sell Weapons to Iran

MosNews


Russia is intensifying efforts to sell weapons to Iran while such sales remain legal amid mounting pressure on the Islamic state over its controversial nuclear program, the daily Kommersant said on Monday.

Moscow “has stepped up military-technological cooperation with Tehran,” the business daily said, citing an unidentified source.

It said top officials within Russia’s military-industrial complex decided to concentrate on arms sales to Tehran for two reasons.

“Firstly, as many weapons as possible must be sold to Iran before an international embargo against this country comes into force.”

Secondly, should the United States decide to go to war in Iran, Russia wants Iran to be well-armed to ensure that U.S. forces become at least as bogged down there as they already are in Iraq, the daily said.

“In either case, such a policy carries a high risk of creating a major international scandal, at the very least,” the newspaper commented.

The report came two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) formally found Iran in violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a decision the United States hailed as a “significant step forward” in its efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear plans, AFP added.

“The United States no longer even hides the fact that, in parallel with diplomacy at the IAEA, it is making preparations to resolve the conflict by force,” Kommersant said.

The U.S. ambassador to the ex-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, which borders Iran, told AFP in a recent interview that Washington is encouraging — and helping fund — a build-up in the capacities of naval forces for Azerbaijan and another former Soviet republic, Kazakhstan.

Both border the oil-rich Caspian Sea, as does Iran. In its assertion that Washington is already making preparations for military action in the region, Kommersant cited the U.S.-funded construction of two radar stations in Azerbaijan.

Now as some promised iran-discussions have gone to the toilett due the unrelated bulshit in few previous threads, lets open a new one....

As it sadly is evident, Iran is the next possiple target of the washington's hawks and possiple conflict is heading our way. Can it be so? Is that above article the dawn call fo the coming gloom? Im interested to know our members views on this hole matter, wheter it's likely that americans are attacking, does Iran have a change and so on...Now as this thread might flame strong emotions, lets still keep the discussion civilised and mature. Also if not wanting to take part of the possiple warspeculation, a discussion of Irans military in general is also allowed, indeed quite wanted. As the above article suggested possiple weopon aqustions from russia, i'm interested to see what excat systems it might mean? Perhaps some sort of "world armed force tour" type of thing might be aprophiate whit deeper insight to Russian and Irans previous armsdeals...

[IDonT]

This so called Iranian Russian alliance or the Iran-China alliance is just an alliance of convenience. Russia and China is using Iran as a tool to frustrate the west, while IRan is using both countries to supply it with weapons and thier veto weilding powers. As soon as Iran has out live its usefulness, China and Russia will abandon them. The same way as Russia abandoned its muslim "allies" in the 1980's.

If you look at it from an objective view, neither China or Russia has any cultural or historical basis for them to be allies with Iran. It is as strong as Sino-Pakistani relationship, a house built on sand.

[FreeAsia2000]

This so called Iranian Russian alliance or the Iran-China alliance is just an alliance of convenience. Russia and China is using Iran as a tool to frustrate the west, while IRan is using both countries to supply it with weapons and thier veto weilding powers. As soon as Iran has out live its usefulness, China and Russia will abandon them. The same way as Russia abandoned its muslim "allies" in the 1980's.

If you look at it from an objective view, neither China or Russia has any cultural or historical basis for them to be allies with Iran. It is as strong as Sino-Pakistani relationship, a house built on sand.

Russia and China see Iran as the lips protecting their teeth. So of course
they are interested in seeing Iran as secure from American invasion.

Actually it was America not Russia which abandoned it's Muslim allies.

*cough* *cough* objective point of view ?! so according to your
eurocentric point of view china and iran didn't have any diplomatic
relations or treaties before white men 'discovered' China and Iran. :)
Persia and China even BEFORE the time of the Khaleef Harun Ar Rashid
had diplomatic relations not to mention trade worth billions of dollars
in todays money

Iran has a fighting chance provided :-

1. It fights a war it can win.

2. It strengthens it's alliances and creates new alliances

3. It confounds it's enemies alliances.

If it wants to win it must start preparing for war now. Most especially
it needs to improve it's alliances with the majority sunni sect of Islam.

Most importantly it must ensure that the whole world notices this war
and is one side or the other.

In any case India is going to find China has improved it's chances of
oil concessions. It's difficult to understand India's reasoning.
There was no way America would have caused problems for India
if India had abstained. It needs India too much. The Pakistan card is
irrelevant because even if America armed Pakistan to the teeth Pakistan
is not in favour of a war especially on behalf of a faithless ally.

So why antagonise the Iranians ?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1501595,0008.htm
somebody in India took a bribe...

[IDonT]

Russia and China see Iran as the lips protecting their teeth. So of course
they are interested in seeing Iran as secure from American invasion.

Actually it was America not Russia which abandoned it's Muslim allies.

*cough* *cough* objective point of view ?! so according to your
eurocentric point of view china and iran didn't have any diplomatic
relations or treaties before white men 'discovered' China and Iran. :)
Persia and China even BEFORE the time of the Khaleef Harun Ar Rashid
had diplomatic relations not to mention trade worth billions of dollars
in todays money

Iran has a fighting chance provided :-

1. It fights a war it can win.

2. It strengthens it's alliances and creates new alliances

3. It confounds it's enemies alliances.

If it wants to win it must start preparing for war now. Most especially
it needs to improve it's alliances with the majority sunni sect of Islam.

Most importantly it must ensure that the whole world notices this war
and is one side or the other.

Persia was on the other end of the Silk road. Diplomatic relations yes, but not cultural.

China and Iran are very different. The lips and teeth analogy applies more towards North Korea, where it was CHina's vassal state, for most of its existance. China never had any such relationship with Iran.

The "alliance" is more of that of convenience. I could not see China sacrifice 1 million of its sons to protect Iran like it did with North Korea.

Egypt and Syria were abandoned after the Yum Kippor war when the Soviet's realized that they were not worth it anymore.

[drunkhomer]

anyways...china needs iran not only 2 fustrate the US but china needs OIL!!!!.....but i really dun see a armed conflict anytime soon....US forces are just tooo far stretched rite now at da moment....

[Gollevainen]

Egypt and Syria were abandoned after the Yum Kippor war when the Soviet's realized that they were not worth it anymore.

That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.

[IDonT]

That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.


As I said, Russia and Iranian alliance is of convenience.

[FreeAsia2000]

That and the statement that Russia would abannon it's allies is based in wrong assumptions and knowlidge. It was Egypt that abanned Soviets after Yon Kippur war and Syria was never left alone. Syria recived the latest soviet warsystems right before the collapse of soviet union. And whit Russia abbaning Iran after it's "no longer useful" is also quite queer tought. Why should Russia abannon ally and customer so big as Iran? And althoug Russia haves oil on its own, it's never bad to have Irans calibre oilproducer in your camp.

Gollevainen *agree* Egypt under Sadat turned away from the USSR

IDont i suggest you visit Iran or China or at least ASK an Iranian or
Chinese person about history before you bring your 'objective' viewpoint
to bear.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/soghdiana.php

[utelore]

Russian arms to Iran!.....sounds great. At least the U.S knows they dont work real well and can be defeated. I dont believe the weapons the russians are going to give to Iran will have little in the way of high threat value to stop a U.S PGM strike. BUT at least the russians are making money....we all know they need it....cheers ute.

[bd popeye]

As it sadly is evident, Iran is the next possiple target of the washington's hawks and possiple conflict is heading our way. Can it be so? Is that above article the dawn call fo the coming gloom?

Iran is a target? Not for an invasion. For an stragtic strike on it's nuke capablity? Yes. I do not think the US would invade Iran because the US Army is spread so thin and the growing unpopularity of th war in Iraq in the US..

There is a lot of retoric now about about Iran's nuke program comming from Europe. If there is an attack on Iran will the Europeans join in? Nope. They will let the US do it. I won't expound any futher.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/08/26/iranian_nuke_negotiator_to_meet_with_iaea?mode=PF

Iran said not worried about U.N. action
By George Jahn, Associated Press Writer | August 26, 2005

VIENNA, Austria --Iran hopes talks with Europe on easing tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions are not dead, but it does not fear U.N. Security Council action if it continues activities linked to uranium enrichment, the country's top negotiator said Friday.

Ali Larijani also said South Africa was one of "several" countries that has responded positively to his call to expand talks on Iran's nuclear program beyond the three European nations most recently negotiating with Tehran.

"With the power it enjoys in the region, there is no way that Iran can be worried about the threat of the Security Council," Larijani said of the possibility of referral at an upcoming board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The envoy, considered a hard-line backer of Iran's right to the full nuclear cycle, said he hoped his country would present new ideas within a month aimed at reducing suspicions about its nuclear agenda.

Larijani on Thursday urged other nations besides France, Germany and Britain to open talks with his country on its nuclear program, apparently hoping to bring in more sympathetic negotiators. He said he hoped the talks with the "European Three" would continue nonetheless.

"We never close the door on negotiations," he said Friday.

"I have not come to the conclusion that the European capacity ... has already been exhausted" in finding a solution that permits Iran to exercise its right to enrich uranium while dispelling suspicions about what it plans to do with the material produced, he added.

Tehran says its program is only aimed at producing electricity and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to build a uranium development program.

Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is then spun in centrifuges. Enriched to a low level, it can be used as fuel for a reactor; at a high level, it can be used for a bomb.

The talks suffered a blow earlier this month when Iran rejected the Europeans' central proposal -- an offer of economic incentives in return for permanently giving up uranium development. Tehran also resumed uranium conversion at its plant in the central city of Isfahan.

Bringing other nations into the negotiations would likely weaken what has been an unusually unified front by Europe and the United States, pressuring Iran to accept limits

Larijani spoke after meeting with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei for discussions focusing on his country's decision to resume uranium conversion despite international pressure not to do so.

Diplomats say a report being prepared by ElBaradei for the Sept. 19 meeting of the IAEA's board of governors, will disclose new details on Tehran's experiments with small amounts of plutonium, a key component of nuclear weapons.

Larijani acknowledged that "there are a number of areas where the agency (still) had questions" relating to its three-year investigation of Iran's nuclear program prompted by the discovery of nearly two decades of illicit activities -- including some with possible weapons applications.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons, dismissed Iran's suggestion for more countries to join the talks as a "typical tactic of the Iranian government designed to change the subject."

Europe also responded coolly to Larijani's call.

Britain's Foreign Office said there was "no basis for negotiation with Iran until they respond" to an IAEA resolution adopted earlier this month that calls on Iran to suspend reprocessing activities at the Isfahan plant. The EU countries called off a negotiating session scheduled for Aug. 31 because of the resumption of work there.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said France, Britain and Germany were not really alone in the talks with Tehran since they were acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union.

Iran's new ultraconservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said this week his government would draw up new proposals for negotiations. Iranian officials have made clear they expect the talks to focus on allowing Tehran to proceed with its program while setting up guarantees to ensure it is not developing weapons.

In Vienna, Larijani said he expected Ahmadinejad's initiative to be ready within a month

[Gollevainen]

Iran is a target? Not for an invasion. For an stragtic strike on it's nuke capablity? Yes. I do not think the US would invade Iran because the US Army is spread so thin and the growing unpopularity of th war in Iraq in the US..

I personally dont belive US is going to attack Iran...But as the article in the starting post, many believe that US is planning to conduct some sort of military strikes against Iran. But the one of this threads purpose was to find out what we think about this situation.

As i said i personally don't believe that US is going to conduct a full scale invasion like they did against Iraq. Why? Becouse USA as powerfull it may be cannot do it. Iran isen't in the situation as Iraq was before this siccond campaing, like beat-up dog tied on the ground...Iran have had enough time to compensate it's lost from the Iran-Iraq war so if US would try to attack they would be facing a real adversor. Althoug Iran is ruled by some sort of totalitarian regime, its sosiety is noway near the turmoil as Iraq was. And against foreing invators the little grunch in the domestic situation is easily forgotten and americans would have fight against quite motivated army.
To be able to invade some country, you basicly need real advantage in technology and quantity. Althoug US is far superior in the first front, in the seccond it isent. Back in when US bombed Serbia, landwarfare wasen't an option cos the allied leadership knew that they would never been able to win the VJ whitout heavy casualityes and years of bitter fighting.
Iran is bigger country than Serbia was so able to win, US would have to commited to campaing that could last decades and it would be able to do it by itself, almoust as big alliance would be required as in during the first gulf war. Thats just equation that doesent come thru. So therefor no Iran invasion in the pipeline...

Percision attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities? Perhaps? Tough thats certainly not what i would want...

[MIGleader]

precision strikes? those ficilities are miles undergroud.
i hope the u.s invades, gets its @$$ kiked, and goes bankrpt.
im surprisse issa hasn't posted in this thred yet...

[bd popeye]

precision strikes? those ficilities are miles undergroud.
i hope the u.s invades, gets its @$$ kiked, and goes bankrpt.
im surprisse issa hasn't posted in this thred yet...

Never will happen. I pray not.

MIGleader..You need to put more thought in your post.

To be able to invade some country, you basicly need real advantage in technology and quantity. Althoug US is far superior in the first front, in the seccond it isent. Back in when US bombed Serbia, landwarfare wasen't an option cos the allied leadership knew that they would never been able to win the VJ whitout heavy casualityes and years of bitter fighting

You are essenstially correct. Pres Clinton did not want to see the 'body bags" with dead US servicemen on Tv. That is the main reason the air strike tactic was used.

Pres Clinton did not want to see a similar situation the US Faced in Somilia.

[crazyinsane105]

Iran does have a number of S-300 batteries. Even though they can't defeat an American air strike, many American planes would be shot down (the S-300 is pretty nasty because it can't be targeted by conventional HARM missiles).

[MIGleader]

welcome to the world of pres bush...hiding anything important.
well, lets say i hope the bush admin invades iran, losses $, losses troops, and losses friends. when i say america normally, i mean the bush admin. america as a country is good. bush is not.

unfortunately, since the bush admin "rules" america, i cant tracsh them withoout trashing the country. i hope iran will become the next iraq for the admin. they will surely be voted out of power.

invade iran...do you know how much gas will jump? 10$ a gallon!
an invasion will teach the bushies once and for all they are not the kings of the world and cant toy with other countries at will.

[FreeAsia2000]

Iran does have a number of S-300 batteries. Even though they can't defeat an American air strike, many American planes would be shot down (the S-300 is pretty nasty because it can't be targeted by conventional HARM missiles).

disagree with Gollevainen and agree with crazyinsane.

If America attacks Iran via airstrikes the Iranians will respond by
attacking America's interests worldwide. Remember american
hostages in Lebanon ?

What do you think american public opinion will say if the iranians
broadcast american hostages in abu ghreib mode? they will want
an invasion of iran. Result Bush will be forced to invade Iran

The iranians will not wait for america to starve them with sanctions
and airstrikes they will want the invasion NOW.

Regarding India's decision to bow to American pressure

http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/27/stories/2005092703011000.htm

[bd popeye]

unfortunately, since the bush admin "rules" america, i cant tracsh them withoout trashing the country. i hope iran will become the next iraq for the admin. they will surely be voted out of power.

Pres Bush is not allowed to be re-elected. By US law a person can only be elected Pres of the US for two consecutive terms.

Iran does have a number of S-300 batteries. Even though they can't defeat an American air strike, many American planes would be shot down (the S-300 is pretty nasty because it can't be targeted by conventional HARM missiles).

Really!?..Actually US ECM would shut down most missile batteries and target aquisition systems.

[utelore]

The very idea of Iran having the ability to inflict losses on U.S warplanes is not rational. The U.S would hit Iran with B-2 and longrange cruise missiles. As it stands now Iran does not use its radars out of fear of the u.s pre-ploting Air defense nodes. This has advantages and a HUGE disadvantage. Iran has a very poor Air defense network and a even poorer airforce. A couple none-intergrated S-300 is not going to help out at all. As it stands now Global hawks fly over Iran with not much problem. The Iranians cant or dont know when the drones are flying overhead.....too funny

[bd popeye]

The very idea of Iran having the ability to inflict losses on U.S warplanes is not rational. The U.S would hit Iran with B-2 and longrange cruise missiles. As it stands now Iran does not use its radars out of fear of the u.s pre-ploting Air defense nodes. This has advantages and a HUGE disadvantage. Iran has a very poor Air defense network and a even poorer airforce. A couple none-intergrated S-300 is not going to help out at all. As it stands now Global hawks fly over Iran with not much problem. The Iranians cant or dont know when the drones are flying overhead.....too funny

Interesting, I'm sure if any such attack did occur the US would attack in such a way tp limit US losses. I knew the Iranian AF was in poor shape but did not know about their air defenses. Any links for information on this?

Iran does not turn on it's air defense? Gee what a schock!! :eek: That's the old Iraqi tactic. If they did turn them on during an attack the US could gain the codes immediatley and shut them down in short order. This unless of course the US already has the codes.

Isn't there a member named Issa from Iran? I wish he would post some first hand information about Iranian air defenses. How about it Isaa?

[Gollevainen]

Whit only airforce, even USA cannot win the war. Tough it depends its goals, If it is the overthrown the current Irans regime, then USA cannot execute that whit only attacking from air. If we once again compare this to the Kosovo crises, in there the US led alliance was unable to couse any significant damage to Yugoslavian land forces. Yugoslavia had airforces in quite similar phase as Iran does so it wasen't able to intercept the allied attackplanes, only few downed aircrafts whit the good ol' KUB SAM...but whit extremely simple discuising messures the whole VJ was left whit only few tanks destroyed. Iran is far bigger country in al means and Iranian army doesen't have no proplems to hide it's primary forces spreaded all over the mountainous landscape. As in Yugoslavia, US is forced to destroy only civilian infastructure wich opposite it's meaning cannot overthrown Irans political leadership. Not in Iran's case. In Yugoslavia, the hated president Milohcevic was put out of power only afterwards the bombings where stopped.

[utelore]

negitive....1.the u.s operational mission objectives are far different than those of the kosovo conflict. 2. the serb AD was far better than those of iran as far a training , spare parts and system redundency. 3. U.S not going to go after individual tanks..that goes back to mission objectives................................when this happens all it is going to be is one BIG punch to the noise to tell iran "here is what the stone age could look like".....cheers ute.

[bd popeye]

Whit only airforce, even USA cannot win the war. Tough it depends its goals, If it is the overthrown the current Irans regime, then USA cannot execute that whit only attacking from air. If we once again compare this to the Kosovo crises, in there the US led alliance was unable to couse any significant damage to Yugoslavian land forces. Yugoslavia had airforces in quite similar phase as Iran does so it wasen't able to intercept the allied attackplanes, only few downed aircrafts whit the good ol' KUB SAM...but whit extremely simple discuising messures the whole VJ was left whit only few tanks destroyed. Iran is far bigger country in al means and Iranian army doesen't have no proplems to hide it's primary forces spreaded all over the mountainous landscape. As in Yugoslavia, US is forced to destroy only civilian infastructure wich opposite it's meaning cannot overthrown Irans political leadership. Not in Iran's case. In Yugoslavia, the hated president Milohcevic was put out of power only afterwards the bombings where stopped.

Interesting ;) I was unaware that all that bombing did so little damage. And by your account It was an unsucessful campaign by the USAF and USN . Oh well. I guess you saw something different than I. ""Actually Milosevich finally came to his senses and saw that his country was no match for NATO and gave in to all demands"". Here's a link about the Kosovo War.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/kosovo.htm

I do not think the US would intend to overthrow the government of Iran. Just cripple it's nuclear program. Presently any attack on Iran by the US would be foolish. Iran, one of the foster of terroist, would export even more terroist's to Iraq and worldwide to attack US forces and intrest. In addition I think any missile attack would set off some sort of Iranian missile attack on Israel. Then, all hell would break loose. It would be a sad day as the middle east may be plundged into the darkness of the abess of total war.

[Gollevainen]

Interesting I was unaware that all that bombing did so little damage. And by your account It was an unsucessful campaign by the USAF and USN . Oh well. I guess you saw something different than I. ""Actually Milosevich finally came to his senses and saw that his country was no match for NATO and gave in to all demands"". Here's a link about the Kosovo War.

I didn't say that Serbia won, it was forced to pull out from Kosovo, but was that the sole goal of US and EU? I don't have the link right now, but before the bombings Serbia was offered a "peacetreaty" whic basicly would have ment invasion of Yugoslavia. The whole treatyproposal was made so that no independent nation would ever agreed whit it. It makes me wonder was peacfull solution ever an option for US? I strongly belive that overthrown of Milochevic was as import to to US as the Kosovo liberation...But thats all for serbia we should concerate more to Iran...

when this happens all it is going to be is one BIG punch to the noise to tell iran "here is what the stone age could look like".....cheers ute.

But there we come to the big question? If we assume that US is going to attack, what would be it's goals. If the sole goal is to wipe out Iran's accused nuclear weapon faciliates, then as popeye said percision airstrikes would do. But if that is the sole goal, then why not do as whit the DPRK and wait for peacfull solution? Now this may sound bit harsh but is it becouse Iran got oil and DPRK doesen't? Is that the reason why we hear theserumours of possiple invasion to Iran but not to DPRK?

[utelore]

No, Iran is ran by a bunch of islamic homocide bombers. NK is ran by one nut with some fairly level headed guys that would kill him if he did somthing to cause their destruction.

[utelore]

Ok, let me explain. Iran is much more of a explosive unpredictable threat than NK. the NK seems unpredictable at time but in that very perception is in fact they can be predicted. I think in the long run little Kim isnt going to risk his opium, american movies, and porn habit. While on the other hand I think the Islamic mullas would given the chance export a nuke to a terroist org......and yea they got oil.

[MIGleader]

most people are under the impression iran is evil. it is not. children can go to school, and most adults have jobs. the government is not opressive either. its like china, making money from oil the help the country.

well, the u.s doesn't feel like doing another korea. the chinese will help the koreans because they will see this as a u.s post next to their bordres.