Swift Iran Sanctions A 'Serious Mistake': Russia

[Purveyor]

Source: AFP

(AFP) – 4 hours ago

MOSCOW — Imposing swift additional sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme would be a "serious mistake," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.

"Today there is a real chance to conclude talks whose results should be an agreement restoring trust in the purely peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme," Lavrov said in televised remarks.

"Disrupting this chance by demanding swift imposition of sanctions would be a serious mistake," he added.

Iran is due to hold talks with six world powers over its nuclear programme on October 1, the outcome of which could determine whether the United States and its allies seek additional sanctions.

Lavrov reiterated Russia's stance that the international community should continue negotiations with Iran and warned that using military action to prevent Tehran from acquiring an atomic bomb would be "catastrophic."

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ggeEgTrzj4My284dH9eR4qQmSshA

[Wizard777]

1. I agree whole heartedly. They will have little or no effect upon the regime.

But they will be crippling to the People of Iran. That doesn't serve the interests of any nation. In fact and light of the Green Revolution that would be entirely counter productive. Unless of course the object of negotiations is to effect a breach of the peace by any means.

[WCGreen]

2. I don't understand why Russia would want a virulent form of Islam

sitting a couple of hundred miles away from the homeland with nuclear weapons?

It makes no sense at all. Iran is never going to trust Russia or, for that matter, China.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. They have as big a MIC as we do...

...Iran sends them big money.

[WCGreen]

9. Excuse me for my ignorance, what does MIC stand for....

[bluesmail]

11. Military Industrial Complex~Eisenhower warned the country of them.

[WCGreen]

14. I never would have associate the Eisenhower's warning to an abreviation...

I thought MIC as used in your post refered to a particular weapon system...

[saigon68]

4. They hate the Christian Cross More

Not too many of those in china or russia

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. How prominent is the Orthodox Church in Russia?

:shrug:

[pampango]

6. A majority of Russians belong to the Orthodox Church.

"According to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Religion

That compares to 78% of Americans who consider themselves Christian.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. TY!

78%?

Who knew?

[WCGreen]

10. That was the first institution to revive after the fall of communism.

[Barack_America]

12. Cheap oil.

I would love to say that Russia understands that the people of Iran are not the same as their government, but I'm no fool.

Russia invited Ahmadi up right after he stole the election, after all.

It's the cheap oil.

[WCGreen]

15. Russia has a shit load of oil, probably more than Iran...

[Barack_America]

16. Iran sells oil at below market prices to China and India...

...jeopardizing Russian influence on those countries (part. China).

Or at least that's my basic understanding of the complicated mess over there.

[WCGreen]

17. I knew they didn't like Pakistan's version of Islam and so they

would naturally sell to India. China is also close enough to worry about so I would imagine they would want to have good relations with them.

[Barack_America]

18. I'm still a little confused about why Russia sticks up for Iran so much...

What they're getting out of this now is not entirely clear to me.

I know they have plans to operate some oil fields in Iran itself and there's this huge PARS project (?) thing in Iran for natural gas (I think) that Russia, China and India have heavily bought into.

But basically it seems to me that Iran may have promised Russia for protection from European and US interests, but it's unclear to me exactly what has been delivered. If that's the case, our leverage is much better. More frighteningly, I read something somewhere about the interconnectedness of their nuclear programs. If true, that's not good.

[Wizard777]

20. I'm not going to patronize the rampant Xenophobia in the Middle East in any way.

It's the root of the problems there and therefore no part of any solution. My religion, Mazdaeism, comes from Persia. The Muslims destroyed my religion in that country and drove us out. But I don't have a problem with Iran being a Muslim nation now. If I don't have a problem with it. Why should you? What's you're stake in Iran not being a Muslim nation?

[WCGreen]

21. The leadership now in Iran is melding religion with the state and that

tends to, historically at least least, end badly.

It's not the Shi'ite that I have a problem with it is how the leadership in Iran is using it as a tool to oppress people. In the 21st century, I have a problem with any state restricting freedom in any way.

Curious about your religion, Mazaesim. Is this keeping Zoroastrianism alive? I read a history of Persia and I was intrigued by Zoroastrianism. Interesting religion. They actually, from what I understand, beat the Jewish religion to a single god concept and can rightfully claim they were one of the first it not the first monotheistic religion.

Recently I read a book called the Evolution of God. Interesting history of how monotheism developed.

[Wizard777]

23. Iran is a theocracy. But the same could be said of England.

Queen Elizabeth still retains a vote in the House of lords making her the equivalent of a county. She is also the head of the church. In the days of her predecessors that had absolute power. That was a much bigger deal. Christianity was used by the government to oppress people. Of all the worlds religions. Only one has not been used as a means of controlling the people. That was Zoroastrianism. If anything it was used to control the crown. But not the people. Zoroastrianism is a hard religion to research. Most archaeologist place the religion at about 700 BC. Making it 2700 years old. It's at least 7,000 years old. The problem they have is that there are at least 7 Spitima Zarathrustra's (Zoroaster.) They usually associate Zoroaster as the spiritual adviser of Cyrus the Great. The original or real Zoroaster Served Kay (king) Vishtasp. In the days of Cyrus the Greats rule. The kingdom of Kay Vishtaps had occurred so long ago it had become a legendary Kingdom. Like Camelot. In fact that is just a retelling of the tale of the relationship between Kay Vishtasp (King Auther) and Zoroaster (Merlin.)

Mazdaeism is the religion Zoroaster practiced. Zoroastrianism is Zoroaster's understanding of that religion. Kinda like Christ being a Jew and Christianity being his understanding of that religion. Mazdaeism is the worship of Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord.) It not a new form. It's the ancient form. So no it's not really keeping it alive. Nothing can do that. That is part of the prophecy. Zoroastrianism like the earth shall pass away (die). Right now I am watching our prophecies come true. The world will soon be destroyed by a comet. Then Ahura Mazda will reorder the universe. 2012 marks the beginning of the end in 2036. This is the crazy part. I'm the Magus Amathion or Amathion Zartosht a title given to me by Ahura Mazda during a NDE. At the time I had no idea what any of that meant. As it turns out I'm the prophet that shall appear in the final days. I have already received the plans for the new temple from Ahura Mazda. I am also writing the new Zend from what He is teaching me. This is Zend English. The new Zend (commentary) Avesta (language it's written in.) So I'm not keeping it alive. I'm waiting for it to die so I can resurrect it in it's perfect form after Ahriman destroys the world and Ahura Mazda resurrects the world. Including the parts Spitama Zartosht omitted. See I told you it was crazy.

[Selatius]

7. Bombing Iran at this point might actually have the opposite impact of helping the dictatorship.

Then the dictatorship could claim to the Iranian people that they're now there to protect the people from foreign aggression, even though they rig election ballots.

[Barack_America]

13. Absolutely. The regime was seriously weakened by the election upheaval.

Our media isn't following it anymore, but the fallout is continuing and rifts in the govt. are deepening.

Attacking Iran or imposing dramatic sanctions would either heal those rifts or sanction them.

Delicate diplomacy is the smart way to go. It may not be "tough", but it has the best chance of working given the current political climate in Iran.

[Wizard777]

19. Absolutely It will force the people to cleave to the regime.

[rayofreason]

22. Russia defends Iran...

...because new sanctions will damage Russian commercial interests. Money, and the corruption it buys in Putin's Russia, trumps broader security self interest and international collaboration, despite recent hints to the contrary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6835632.ece