More Moscow Insanity
The Times Online: “Russia defies West and goes ahead with nuclear fuel sale to Iran“
RUSSIA is to begin supplying Iran with nuclear fuel early next year despite mounting concern in the West that this could accelerate Tehran’s plans to build a nuclear bomb.
Sergei Shmatko, head of Atomstroyexport, Russia’s state nuclear fuel exporter, has said preparations to send fuel to Iran would start next month and the first shipment was expected to reach the Islamic republic by March.
The announcement has caused anxiety among Western countries trying to convince the Kremlin to end its nuclear co-operation with Tehran.
The concerns were strengthened yesterday when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reported to have told a Kuwaiti envoy that Iran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to neighbouring countries.
The nuclear fuel is espected to be sent to Bushehr, Iran’s first nuclear power station, which has been built by Russia over the past decade as part of a $1.1 billion contract with Tehran.
Iran says the plant will be used to produce energy and that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.
Officially at least, Moscow accepts the claim.
The West fears that Tehran’s real aim is to build a nuclear weapon and is afraid that as a nuclear power Iran would threaten Israel and destabilise the entire region.
Just how contrary to our interests need a nation act before it’s no longer considered an ally?
That’s a question we will likely need to ask soon, if not now.
(Link via Pamela – emphasis TMV)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to “More Moscow Insanity”
Well, if the WEST don’t like it then the WEST should do something about it.
I’m sick of it always being the U.S.. If our national interests are not aligned close enough to the WEST then maybe we need to re-evaluate our national interests or alignment, rather than continue to “go it alone” and end up losing our country someday.
America stands up for what’s right, not what’s popular.
We’re not re-evaluating anything based on what Chirac, Annan, Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, or anyone thinks who doesn’t have American interests first. Would you change the ways you take care of your family if it wasn’t closely aligned with neighborhood policy?
Other nations have made it clear in recent years that they value self-interests over those of their American allies, and we should have no qualms about returning the favor.
All that not withstanding, I’m interested you were so quick to turn the discussion from anti-Iran and concerns about Russia to anti-American. Kudos.
As a nation, it’s better to survive alongside only a few loyal allies than fall with the world standing sheepishly behind us.
It’s another sign of the declining US influence in the world. Now, who’s responsible for this?
However, I don’t care much about teh crazy rants of nutcase Pamela.
The better question is not if Russia is our ally — let’s face it, they were only ever an ally of convience — but what we’re going to do about it. A better question is what we’re going to do about China since many geopolitical experts believe that the reemergence of Russia and Iran will help China become energy indepedent from the west. Right now all the posturing is militaristic…obviously this can’t continue.
Gosh, ever since Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and knew he had a good soul, I was certain that the Russians would always be on our side.
My understanding was that China is dependent on the middle east for its energy, just like the rest of the world. How are they dependent on the west?
Simple, we used to control the Middle East. The only countries that weren’t our direct allies didn’t produce much oil.
Also former “bit” players like Sudan, Venezula and Nigeria have now been heavily courted by China and they have direct sources there that we don’t have.
Well, I’d say plenty of that would lie on Clinton’s shoulders, what with ignoring the growing terrorist threat, trying to bribe red China with our ballistics technology to dissuade their exporting nuclear tech. to Pakistan and Iran, and the botching of the 1994 Framework Agreement where Bill ended up encouraging DPRK nuclear development.
Well, I guess that’d be irrelevant since I quoted a news source, not Pamela. But whatever you need to depart from my actual point. Again, way to avoid commenting against Russia and Iran, your allies against Bush while immediately jumping to criticizing your homeland.
I don’t much care about the crazy rants of nutcase Gray62.
TMV is claiming to be moderate yet links to Pamster and LGF are anything but moderate.
“I’d say plenty of that would lie on Clinton’s shoulders”
Yeah, sure, it’s all Clinton’s fault! And he ruined the US image in the world, too. That’s why people still cue up to throw rotten tomatoes at him when he shows up in any foreign country.
Really, Andrew, are you serious? This sounds as if the influence of right wing demagogues has seriously crippled your ability to independent thinking.
“TMV is claiming to be moderate yet links to Pamster and LGF are anything but moderate.”
Well, it’s only teenage ‘patriot’ Quinn who gies this far. compared with him, even MvdG looks like a moderate. I guess that’s the main reason why they let Andrew rant here.
Jesus, I thought the ‘its all Clinton’s fault’ nonsense was done by now.
Our influence in the world has declined because the current Bush administration has carried out a unilateral, dismissive foreign policy on every front from trade to energy to warfare. Even our closest allies, the Brits have been ignored by these guys. They declared that the rest of the world was irrelevant, that we’ve imposed a Pax Americana, that we’re the boss and we’ll break anyone who disagrees with us. Then when they fail spectacularly, they wonder why nobody wants to work with us, why others work behind the scenes to undermine us.
“Again, way to avoid commenting against Russia and Iran, your allies against Bush while immediately jumping to criticizing your homeland.”
Well, I don’t have nations as allies, I’m an individual. And this discussion isn’t about my fatherland (hint).
However, sure this deal between Russia and Iran is a concerning development, but I don’t really see what Bush can do against it, regarding his almost nonexistent influence on both nations.
Jesus, I thought the ‘it’s all Bush’s fault’ nonsense was done by now.
So you would argue that because our influence has declined, it’s not even worth thinking about or addressing the global problems of the day?
Certainly, our influence has decreased. The way to combat that isn’t to throw our hands up and watch insanity unfold because we’ve lost our influence – we must try to regain it while preserving American interests.
Gray I thought you weren’t American? Anyway Andrew you’re missing the boat. China and Russia aren’t going to reemerge because of military power — it’ll be decades or centuries before anyone can threaten us on that level again. But obviously the cat is out of the bag and our hemogeny will be challenged.
There are two things I want to point out. First, war hawk hyperbole notwithstanding, the challenges from nations have all been “soft power” chipping into our influence. We are losing power not because we can’t fight other countries, but because there is decreasing return for helping us. Secondly, this is a predicted consequence of free trade. That’s what’s so ridiculous, our policies are designed to encourage more parity and thus lessen our influence but we can’t handle it.
If we are going to continue to be in support of globalization, we have to recognize that economics takes a forefront to militaries. By the way, I should note that this is bin Laden’s stated goal. He never claimed that he could defeat the US in battle, just that he could engage us in a way we’re we’d bankrupt ourselves and be marginalized.
Everyone else has practice with giving and taking to try to maximize their nation’s success. Since the end of the Cold War we’ve assumed we can get 100% of what we want and only think about things from our point of view. I’d say that the growing anti-Americanism (either explicit or sometimes just meaning not in our interests) is a loud wakeup call.
Last I heard, he’s still president, he’s still the decider and he tells the rest of us that we just don’t have a say in what he happens in Iraq or anywhere else.
So yes, for the next couple of years – every thing he screws up is his fault.
Well, looks as if people in other countries trust Bill Clinton. Doesn’t look as if he ruined the US image in the world:
“Former South African President Nelson Mandela has topped a BBC poll to find the person most people would like to lead a fantasy world government.
More than 15,000 people worldwide took part in the interactive Power Play game, in which players were invited to choose a team of 11 to run the world from a list of around 100 of the most powerful leaders, thinkers and other high-profile people on the planet.
The second choice was former US President Bill Clinton.
…
US President George W Bush was placed 43, ranking below two of his fiercest adversaries on the world stage, Fidel Castro – 36th – and Hugo Chavez, 33rd.”
BBC News
Oh, for God’s sakes, I only provided a HAT TIP because unlike most of the mainstream media I don’t plagiarize. I found the link on her page, thus I provide credit. I didn’t say anything about agreeing with her views, now did I?
Sure, I’m immoderate. Call me whatever you want. The pro-gay marriage, pro-stem cell, atheist, pro-choice guy is a right wing-demagogue? In your eyes, I must be the next Rush Limbaugh because I agree with the Republicans on foreign policy. As a right-leaning centrist, I mix and match from all areas of the political spectrum – so yes, I agree with the Right on some issues. I also think they’re insane a lot.
But if it makes you happy, go ahead and declare me an extremist right-wing hack because I share SOME beliefs with the Republicans. YOU are the immoderate partisans. Not me.
“The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain. The U.S. image remains relatively poor in Muslim countries like Jordan and Pakistan, but has bounced back in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country which benefited from U.S. aid to tsunami victims, as well as in India and Russia.”
CNN
Facts, Andrew. Can you cope with them or do you prefer to retreat into your bubble?
Gray do you remember when Schröder was Chancellor all the American hemogenists were obsessed with the idea that Chirac and Schröder would unify the EU and minimize the UK? The headlines raged that they were going to turn all of Europe against us and we should start viewing them as enemies and press the UK to choose sides. For what was never clear.
“Oh, for God’s sakes, I only provided a HAT TIP because unlike most of the mainstream media I don’t plagiarize.”
OK, nothing wrong with that, the right thing to do. Sry for picking at this point. I always get an allergy when confronted with all things Pamela. :shrug:
“Gray I thought you weren’t American?”
Hmm, I thought so, too. I’m gonna check my passport for confirmation…
I’ll repeat it over again for readers who still don’t quite understand:
We link to many sites. We don’t always agree with them. Our blogroll is extensive. We don’t agree with every site on our blogroll. Reading another idea doesn’t give you cancer. We will continue to link to differing ideas.
We link to many sites. We don’t always agree with them. Our blogroll is extensive. We don’t agree with every site on our blogroll. Reading another idea doesn’t give you cancer. We will continue to link to differing ideas.
We link to many sites. We don’t always agree with them. Our blogroll is extensive. We don’t agree with every site on our blogroll. Reading another idea doesn’t give you cancer. We will continue to link to differing ideas.
Being MODERATE or INDEPENDENT means you’re willing to read a variety of things and you could either reject what they say when you read them or they could influence you.
I have NO rpt NO problem with Andrew’s hat tip on this. We link to sites on the left that aren’t moderate as well.
Also: comments about him being “teenage” don’t addres his ideas, they just basically take a swipe at him because he’s young — igoring the fact that the blogosphere has had teen bloggers on the right and left for a while (one who used to write for Kos was the subject of a newspaper story I read about a year ago). It doesn’t address one iota any idea he has raised or argument he has made.
And, finally, YES we do have people who write center, center left and center right, sometimes varying on the issue. The bottom line is that we make no bones about the fact that we don’t offer a site that gives people exactly what they may already believe since even the cobloggers have different takes on things. But somehow most people who have read posts they don’t agree with do go on to live long, productive lives. No complaints here about Andrew’s “hat tip” or his age (I’m at an age where if I put candles on my birthday cake the smoke alarm goes off)
“Secondly, this is a predicted consequence of free trade. That’s what’s so ridiculous, our policies are designed to encourage more parity and thus lessen our influence but we can’t handle it.”
An interesting point, Mikkel. Food for thought…
“Being MODERATE or INDEPENDENT means you’re willing to read a variety of things and you could either reject what they say when you read them or they could influence you.”
Exactly. And if some guy hasn’t a variety of links on his blogroll, but only right-of-center ones, imho he should be honest and not pretend to be a moderate voice. Just my personal opinion. And now back to our regular program.
About the blogroll – I am a moderate in terms of views but not in terms of links, because most of the liberal blogs (where I agree with some points) focus on anti-war and Bush-bashing these days.
In any case, I wish you’d look at my ideas – not to whom I give credit links or to whom I link – and decide based on that. Actually, why judge at all?
The site is The Moderate Voice, not How Moderate Do YOU Think We Are? On here and on your blog, you’ve accused both of the site’s right-leaning bloggers as immoderate. Maybe you should fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers and more on debating ideas and opinions.
YAWN. This is why some people like me skip comments. I’m off to LA. See ya. You’d think that if someone writes a post the focus would be on the issue they raise, rather than constantly going on the attack which is a device people intentionally and often even unintentionally use to discredit someone. The focus on this site is so much better when people discuss ideas rather than get into the tiresome subject of what is moderate, what is centrist, who is really a moderate, etc etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…I have to stop because I’m going to driv in traffic and just talking about this puts me to sleep. HONESTLY. The quality of discussion is so much better when we all talk about the news topics and ideas. Then there’s actually a chance someone may change their mind, the reader or the writer. There is none when it degnerates into “he’s not a moderate because he linked to that site on the right…or that site on the left…”
America stands up for what’s right, not what’s popular.
Bwaahahhaaha.
Bwaahahaahhaa.
Thank you, Unsyndicated (for good reason) for your informed, insightful, and intellectually advanced contribution to American discourse.
Seriously, man. Your extremely well-thought out comment is very much appreciated by all.
Andrew as a general rule if you just ignore people that aren’t trying to discuss things they’ll give up and go away. It’s one thing to be like Gray who’s actually trying to say something but unproductively (although to be fair it’s probably because he’s relatively new. I’ve noticed some other commenters start off in the same vein but eventually they stop and just argue the topics) and another to waste your energy responding to someone that doesn’t even say anything.
“Maybe you should fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers and more on debating ideas and opinions.”
I’m debating enough here, providing both honest, well considered opinions and facts, thank you. And “fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers”? Sounds like I ain’t do anything else except attacking bloggers. In fact, I criticised MvdG and you. Michael immediately took ‘the wind out of the sails’ of my main argument by using more left-wing sources in making his points. Smart tactics. Hmm, would be nice if you considered using a broader part of the spectrum, too.
However, I apologize for mentioning your age. Even though I think some of your position are a bit immature, there are a lot of other bloggers who spread the same opinions, so I really shouldn’t have picked on you. Sorry.
Hey if its not Clinton’s fault, can it be Jimmy Carter’s? There’s always a long line of politicians and pundits waiting for their turn to blame diminished American influence in the world on his four years in office. And he doesn’t have nearly the popularity that Bill Clinton still has—much easier target. Maybe we could unite traditional Conservatives, hawkish Democrats, Zionists and the neocons in the one thing they all agree on. The problems with American prestige all started with Jimmy and his boneheaded attempt to help the Shah when he was stricken with terminal cancer.
“The problems with American prestige all started with Jimmy and his boneheaded attempt to help the Shah when he was stricken with terminal cancer.”
Hehehe! Yeah, really, the problem in Iran was the Shah’s health…
Ok, to come back to topic:
Does anyone here have any reasonable idea what to do against the Iranian development of nuclear weapons? To me, it looks as though the west has no good options. Diplomacy hasn’t accomplished anything yet – will this change with the next US amabassador to the UN? Threatening and saber-rattling doesn’t seem to really impress Teheran. The Iranians know damn well that the US is tied in Iraq and weak Nato in Afghanistan and the Balcans. Europeans could try and talk Russia out of the deal, but who knows if Iran won’t get the needed material through inofficial channels?
It’s an urgent situation, sure, but what can be done?
The U.S. certainly hasn’t made any attempts at diplomacy for the last 6 years. Bush has openly stated he won’t speak to the Iranians or the Syrians because it would be seen as weakness. He put Iran into the Axis of Evil and has been openly supportive of “regime change” ever since. At the same time we’ve had major conservative leaders and media figures publicly discuss using tactical nuclear weapons on Iranian targets, allowing the Israeli air force to take out Iranian sites or funding Iranian violent opposition groups. They cannot help but consider this a real threat.
They’ve already seen how we deal with an enemy that has nukes, versus one that doesn’t. Our own position has made obtaining nuclear weapons appear to be an issue of national security and its no surprise that a polemicist like Ahmedinejad can appeal to both national pride and national security by pushing forward on this front while we’re bogged down in Iraq.
Diplomacy is about convincing your rivals that their better interests are the same as your own, regardless of their feelings for you personally. We’ve given Iran no good reasons to abandon nuclear development and plenty of good ones to pursue it.
Whats good for the US is not going to be in Iran’s or Syria’s best interests, but it can’t be in their best interest to have a base for al queda in Iraq, either. Why can’t we exploit that to our advantage using diplomacy? Even if we produce no tangible results, it adds to our image as a nation that consults regional powers, rather than our image as an imperialist occupier.
The trouble is that Putin wants Russia to be a “player� again on the world stage. He remembers the good old days when Russia was a force to be reckoned with and respected, not a bit player on the sidelines. Putin has a few things he can leverage for this. First Russia has the energy that China and Europe needs, obviously energy is the big issue for industrial nations. Secondly Russia produces military equipment that although no longer not top of the line is still serviceable and above all relatively cheap. Third they can capitalize on the uneasiness that nations like China have with US domination. China will eventually challenge the US position in the Pacific and they would want an ally in Russia if for no other reason than to keep the border peaceful. Fourth, they have the nuclear expertise, something they can use or not use depending on how Russia is treated, or what they can get from the West as far as concessions. I am not sure how to respond to this, Putin has his own agenda but we might be able to flatter him by including him in on more international issues, to see if we get anything in return with Iran. If that does work we can go back to confrontation, considering the past history of nations that border Russia we have many opportunities to make life uncomfortable for Russia. The bottom line is that this guy is dangerous, and not content with Russia remaining as a second rate power regardless of the economic reality.
Someone was quoted on TMV to the effect that nations don’t have friends, they have interests. The USA abandoned that kind of thinking under Bush.
At this point we have to assume that Iran isn’t interested in having its people incinerated in a nuclear war, and start from there.
The trouble is that Putin wants Russia to be a “player� again on the world stage.
“The world state” is another concept we’ve pretty much lost track of. But most of the world leaders are affected by ideas of themselves as well as their nations on the world stage.
American exceptionalists disdain “the world stage” and “national interests.” We have reaped a nasty harvest from six years of this disdain.
That’s not true. Both the US and Iran supported the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran nearly went to war with Afghanistan in 1998 after several of its diplomats were murdered. Likewise, they were openly hostile to Saddam Hussein after a vicious 8 year war and were undoubtedly happy to see him gone. Al Qaeda is run by Sunnis who think Shiites are heretics marking them as enemies of Iran as well as the United States. Most importantly, Iran and Syria certainly don’t want to see a civil war at their doorstep, particularly if the Kurdish region secedes, which would potentially inspire their own Kurds to rise up.
Our interests and Iran’s have a great deal of overlap, which is why the ISG wants the Bush administration to open a dialogue with them.
“Someone was quoted on TMV to the effect that nations don’t have friends, they have interests.”
I think this is a quote of Talleyrand, but I couldn’t confirm it.
Andrew Quinn
America acts in its own self interest or it dies. You must be some kind of John Wayne movie fool. Our enemies do not watch John Wayne movies. They don’t need to, get it?
Guys, let’s get serious. Clinton had sex with an intern, and destroyed our country’s morality. President Bush has had to fight the war on secular humanist blowjobbery and the war on terror at the same time. It’s not easy to do when the liberal media wants to destroy Western civilization.
In summary: it’s the Clenis’ fault; Bush is an angel of the Lord. Amen. QED.
Mikef- Well, what I meant was that they don’t want to see America succeed in Iraq, because that would threaten their regimes. Iran knows we have been interested in regime change since the “Axis of Evil” speech. They were helping us with the Taliban before thatm though. If you read the rest of my post, I do recommend talking with both of them, no matter what we think we can get out of it, if for no other reason, than to look like we want to be more cooperative with the other powers in the region. For some reason, there is a school of thought that likens negotiating to appeasement. That is what I was disagreeing with.
I don’t quite follow the logic here. We want Iran to purchase fuel for its nuclear reactors rather than enriching the fuel itself because the technology used to produce reactor fuel is similar to that used to produce radioactive material for use in nuclear weapons. If Russia, in response to Western pressure, refuses to sell nuclear reactor fuel to Iran, the message to Iran would be that Iran had better develop the capacity to produce its own reactor fuel if it wants a reliable source. How is that helpful to the United States?