Posted by: Tony Carson | 18 September, 2007

Finally, new checks on the Superpower

“We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. “That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reuters reports that Russia, China worried by Iran attack talk.  Where were these guys 5 years ago and will they have any influence today?

Lavrov, signaling its policy at a powers’ meeting scheduled for Friday to consider new steps, said Iran should be left to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency before the world considers further sanctions or military action.

“The United States and the European Union are taking tougher anti-Iranian sanctions … if we agree to work collectively… then what purpose is served by unilateral actions?”

China also condemned Kouchner’s weekend remarks.

“We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.

“We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs,” Jiang said.



  1. France is a super power now?!?!?

  2. LOL- you mean the Russia and China that have extensive economic interests with the Fundamentalist regime in Tehran?

    Iran wont be attacked because its just plain stupid- not because some authoritarian allies of Iran expressed concern. They did the same thing in 2003 remember, that didnt stop Bush and Co.

  3. I feel the need to point out now that my comment at 5:31 was TOTALLY tongue-in-cheek.

    It might not read that way now, with Philltaj2’s comment right beneath it! Although, I do agree that this whole thing has been WAY overblown. Start a war with Iran??? NOT going to happen.

  4. Kitch, I was going to take you on but backed off. My point was going to be neither Russia nor China is a superpower, only that they question the superpower; France seems onside with the US forcing a ministerial apology “not a war monger.”

    But are you and Philltaj2 being a tad naive? How many said the war in Iraq was ‘not going to happen?’ because it was ‘just plain stupid.’

    The Neocons want the war, the Israelis want it, corporate America probably wants it. It may not happen but I sure don’t have your confidence. In fact, I think it will, a series of ‘surgical’ strikes at the most likely targets, just like the Israelis did recently in Syria (which seemed to encoyrage nary a comment).

  5. Iraq didn’t look THAT stupid- everyone thought Saddam had WMD, and well, I’m just the kind of guy that doesn’t object to a brutal dictator being overthrown (as long as you do it right). Also, the neo cons are losing more and more of their influence, despite what the blogging world says. Bush is not stupid enough to launch another war right before presidential elections

    Iran is a completely different beast- much larger population, bigger and better military, united, etc.

    The American military is too overstretched to invade Iran- the most they will do is launch air strikes, which they better not, because any target of repute is buried under mountains.

    AND Iran has a democracy movement of much potential…I hope the Americans won’t fuck it up, because the students who are presently pissed at the mullahs will turn their anger towards the West.

    If there is going to be a war- it would be Israel taking matters into their hands, which I believe they have a right to do. Who are we to criticize them for hitting a country whose stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state in the Middle East?

  6. I have to agree that a war against Iran looks WAAAY more stupid than the war against Iraq. It even looks more stupid, to me, than the war against Iraq looks NOW, after the fact. Let alone compared to how the war against Iraq looked before the war against Iraq started.

    In Iraq, at least one knew that it wouldn’t be too hard to take out Hussein and overthrow his regime. THAT part was easy, and everyone knew it would be, even before the fact. It was everything AFTER the U.S. took out Saddam that went all wrong.

    In Iran, there’s little chance, I would argue, of taking out the regime at all (short of a MASSIVE war, with HUGE collateral civilian damage). So the rationale is MUCH weaker than the rationale for Iraq was.

    That, and unless the French are REALLY serious (and have a lot of E.U. troops in their back pocket) who’s supposed to fight this war? ‘Cause the U.S. isn’t drawing down in Iraq because it’s the right (and smart) thing to do (no matter what Bush says). They’re drawing down because they’re running out of people to send to Iraq. There aren’t enough soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to HYPOTHETICALLY take on Iran, let alone to actually do it.

    Now, bombing Iran is a more legitimate concern. However, it’s just as stupid, as we have no real idea of WHERE to bomb, and even if we did, the really juicy targets are all underground and fortified. You’d litterally need to nuke Iran (tactical nukes, but nukes nonetheless) to do what needs to be done from the air (IF we knew where to bomb, which we don’t). Frankly, no matter how suspicious I am of the neocons, I just can’t imagine them nuking Iran. If it was all up to Cheney alone, maybe. But it’s not.

  7. Hhaha, if it was up to Cheney..jesus, I don’t even want to think about it.

    Iran is a problem. The world has accepted the fact that these crazy bastards are going to get nukes. Not if, but when. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia is going to want them, as will Egypt. Its a fucking no win situation and thats why even the French and Germans are beginning to consider possible military action.

  8. I too think it’s the PROLIFERTION issue that’s the real problem with Iran, as Philltaj2 suggests, not the Iranian regime in particular (though it is a regime I’d much rather not have nukes!). If Iran gets nukes, it’s neighbours will want nukes. The problem isn’t JUST Iran getting nukes. It’s Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc… having nukes. It’s Egypt having nukes and Hosni Mubarak being assasinated. It’s Saudi Arabia having nukes and the royal familt being deposed. It’s Iran giving nukes to Hamas. It’s Afghanistan being surrounded on three sides by nuclear states… etc… etc…

  9. You’re talking around the real issue, Kitch: if Israel didn’t have nukes NONE of these others would need them. Israel illegally started this escalation (it still isn’t a member of the Non-proliferation treaty).

    And a red flag to you and Philltaj2: Iran isn’t the problem (hell, they can barely keep their country afloat), Bush is the problem which I tried to spell out with this recent post: Bush needs to strike Iran … for his legacy.

  10. Several months ago I posted a different look at the potential to this war, based on an article in Prospect Magazine. See Why the Middle East Doesn’t Matter. I still feel this is relevant, invading Iran probably wouldn’t be that hard, it might take a month, maybe two, to defeat the Iranian military. Then what?

    Quagmire, and we’ve seen it already. You can’t occupy like you used to. The heady combination of the AK-47, internet, and angry idle youth are too powerful and will not submit to anything less than complete hell. A hell that is a PR nightmare for the occupying force. It is the tension in that combination that has has been the undoing of Vietnam and Iraq, and the reason why Gulf War I was so short.

    The US has too much to lose by properly “winning” any invasion.

  11. Well, the US would never invade, of course, if for no other reason than the US doesn’t have the manpower. No, ‘surgical’ strikes at the 120 targets is more their (and Israel’s) style. You aren’t held to account at 10,000 feet.

  12. Well, on Israel “illegally” starting this you disprove that right in your own sentence by pointing out that the Israelis aren’t a party to the Non-proliferation Treaty. There was nothing illegal about Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons since they never signed on to the treaty which makes it illegal. You can’t illegally break a treaty you’re not a part of. The Israelis developed nuclear weapons SECRETLY, but there was nothing, technically, illegal about it. Israel was never part of the treaty, so they weren’t doing anything illegal by acquiring nuclear weapons. It’s exactly the same reason North Korea pulled out of the treaty (and there is a mechanism in the treaty for doing so) in April of 2003. So they could pursue their nuclear weapons program without breaking the law.

    I’m not thrilled about Israel having nukes either, but then again, they’re the ones who were invaded, twice, by a coalition of virtually ALL of their neighbours, intent on their total annihilation. If I’d had all of my neighbours collectively try to invade and destroy my country, twice, I’d develop nukes too!

  13. Incidentally, India and Pakistan are the only other non-signatories, making their acquisition of nuclear weapons perfectly legal too.

    Unless Iran pulls out of the treaty though (like North Korea did) they would be breaking international law by developing nuclear weapons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: