______________________________
On Wednesday, Russia warned that an attack on Iran would be a “catastrophe” for the region and said world powers should adopt a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East and North Africa. In an annual address, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov said, “It’s impossible to list all the consequences [of an attack], but I have no doubt that it’d pour oil on the still smouldering fire of the Sunni-Shia confrontation, which would lead to a chain reaction. As for how likely such a catastrophe is, you need to ask those who constantly mention this as an option”. He also said that Russia would “do everything” in its power to prevent an attack on Iran.
Although Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel was “very far off” from taking a decision to strike Iran, Washington and Tel Aviv refused to rule out military force against Tehran over suspicions that its nuclear programme’s aimed at the production of atomic weapons. Iran, which recently began enriching uranium at an underground bunker, denied it’s seeking nuclear arms and says that its programme focuses on peaceful uses and civilian energy.
Lavrov also said that the sanctions on Iranian oil exports discussed by the EU would “hurt” ordinary people and were more about stirring up unrest than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. He said, “This has nothing to do with a desire to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. It’s aimed at stifling the Iranian economy and the population in the apparent hope of provoking discontent”. Sanctions would also prove “an obstacle” to the revival of a dialogue between Iran and the six world powers involved in negotiations on its nuclear programme, Lavrov said.
Oil exports make up some 80 percent of Iran’s foreign revenues and Tehran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the export route for one-third of global seaborne traded oil, in response to sanctions. US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said such a move would provoke a response. However, some analysts doubt that Russia has the military and economic clout to play a decisive role in Iran
Analyst Sergei Demidenko of the Moscow-based Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis told RIA-Novosti, “Russia has practically no real influence left in the Middle East. It doesn’t play a decisive role and we have no way of returning to our Soviet-era influence. Iran can’t rely on Russia to defend it. The US and Israel are certainly not afraid of this. Russia will definitely not go to war over Iran”.
Another analyst suggested that Russia’s reluctance to antagonise Iran is partly due to fears that Tehran could finance and support the continuing Islamist insurgency in its volatile North Caucasus region. Yevgeni Satanovsky of the Institute of Middle Eastern studies told RIA-Novosti, “No one needs an Iranian nuclear bomb… but we don’t need Iran to attack Russia’s interests in the North Caucasus either. It’d be very easy for Iran to organise something like Hezbollah in south Lebanon on Russian territory, if Moscow supported an attack”.
Lavrov also said the landmark events that swept the Middle East and North Africa last year were far from at an end, but that world powers should refrain from interference… even if developments were not always to their liking. He told journalists, “The changes in the region are far from being concluded and we’re witness to what is merely the start of this transition. If we’re in favour of the people of these countries determining for themselves their own futures, then, we must accept their choices and not interfere in national dialogues or electoral campaigns”.
Islamist parties dominated Egypt’s first parliamentary elections since last February’s overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, securing almost two-thirds of the vote between them. Nevertheless, Lavrov said that the international community should seek to work with such “radical” movements and that the use of force as a means of influencing events in the region was unacceptable, saying, “It’s important to live by the principle that govern doctors, ‘do no harm’”.
18 July 2012
Marc Bennetts
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120118/170829813.html
Editor’s Note:
Just a small reminder… all those running about and screaming about how “weak” Russia is today are the very same people who ran about in the ‘80s caterwauling about how “strong” the USSR was, and if the USA didn’t toss gazillions at the latest defence boondoggle, why, they were going to take over the world. They were wrong then… they’re wrong now, too.
Remember Metternich’s dictum… “Russia’s never as strong as it appears; Russia’s never as weak as it appears”. Then again, none of the loudmouth neocons or Wilsonian Democrats has even heard of Metternich… that’s a part of dusty old European history, and that’s “bunk” according to most Americans. That is, it’s clear to all with brains that America reached its zenith in the late ‘90s… the Bushies weren’t a phenomenon arising out of strength, they were a sign of a weakening and fearful power, as one saw in their frenetic aggression and in their creation of such agencies as the TSA and the Department of Homeland (In)Security.
The clear “Stalingrad” of the American Interventionists was the South Ossetia War of 2008. America’s client lost, and the USA couldn’t aid them in any substantial way, even diplomatically. That is, America lost “face”, and it hasn’t regained it. THIS DEFEAT OCCURRED UNDER BUSH, NOT OBAMA. That’s to say, the present Republican Party’s ideology’s crank and has failed miserably, and in front of the whole world, at that. If Mitt Romney wins election, the USA would strike out at perceived and notional “foes” until American forces reach their limits… which would happen quickly (the American forces were war-weary by ’08… that’s why Bush couldn’t aid his rightwing pals in Georgia).
Remember this… the USA hasn’t faced a peer opponent since the Korean War, and the PLA and the VVS did very well indeed against American forces. Note well that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Mr Romney don’t tell you that… read your history… it’s QUITE interesting…
BMD
