Thread: Russia says opposes use of force against Iran

Originally Posted by Leader

"Russians want US and Europeans efforts collapse and then join them and be a decisive power which will resolute the issue (and earned cash from the crisis)."

We should separate the US and European efforts. The Euros may well fail. The US effort will not because the US position is backed with force. In the end after all the niceties, Iran can give up isn’t nuclear program or else.

Originally Posted by Leader

We should separate the US and European efforts. The Euros may well fail. The US effort will not because the US position is backed with force. In the end after all the niceties, Iran can give up isn’t nuclear program or else.

that is why Russia will also supply some defensive weapons.... to make invasion option clearly costing many lifes and resources so that even guys like Rumsfeld and Bush lose seduction for a millitary venture with small force and in near future..... however the level of deliveries should be not too large so that Iran feels itself too safe... hard ballancing but possible.

You sell some SAMs.... lets say 5-10 brigades of S-300PMU and some 30-50 short range Patnsir C-1.... add there some anti-tank missiles Kontur.... 20-30 MLRS Smerch and 100 Grad MLRS.... few thousand of guided Krasnopol shells and mortar shells.... one-two satelites for monitoring.... 20-30 Ka-50/52, 20-30 Mi-17 and few Mi-26..... 30-50 Yahont missiles on shore version (Brahmos like).

This would make Iran not too easy prey and make a short-term and cost effecient invasion unlikelly..... however it will be still vulnerable and hence will not be able to sustain a longer term attacks....

Then it will be Russia to decide who will win. If Russia keeps on supporting Iran by transporting weapons through Caspian Sea it will be tough to knock it down just like it was in Vietnam..... on the other side once Russia stops supporting Iran it will not sustain long war. In first case it means cash, in second case it would mean important political concessions from US..... Moreover I am pretty sure that Iranians will find the way how to block oil tankers from its own and from Iraq.... price will go to the skies making Russian oil presious. Look a war of US with Iran makes only good then for Russians!

Now lets count what the war may cost to US..... the answer is assymetric. Iran problem can not be resolved without Russia just like North Korean problem couldn't have been resolved until China decided to resolve it. USA have absolutelly no leverage on Iran, and Iranians know that they fate is decided in Moscow..... and China

Originally Posted by Garry

This would make Iran not too easy prey and make a short-term and cost effecient invasion unlikelly..... however it will be still vulnerable and hence will not be able to sustain a longer term attacks....

The difficulties that would accompany occupying a much larger country than Iraq, with rougher terrain and 66 million people is an even better deterrent than Russian weapons. We could cut our way through the Iranian army without difficulty (during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi military had the edge in quality for much of the conflict, it was what kept them afloat when the Iranians mobilized), however it would be an endless war for us (at least given the size of our military right now). Unlike Saddam Hussain, the Mullahs could probably mobilize the country side against us, and then we would be fighting an entire nation.

Now lets count what the war may cost to US..... the answer is assymetric. Iran problem can not be resolved without Russia just like North Korean problem couldn't have been resolved until China decided to resolve it. USA have absolutelly no leverage on Iran, and Iranians know that they fate is decided in Moscow..... and China

That isn't entirely true. While an invasion is probably not an option, we could still blockade Iran (fairly effectively), and air and cruise missile strikes could easily take out a great deal of their industry. Low yield tactical nukes could also do the job, and if the Israelis feel threatened enough (and if we shield them from repurcussions), then you never know what might happen. A strike against the Iranians would be an even greater problem than the air strike on the Iraqi reactor, which is why I bring up the possibility of tactical nukes.

Originally Posted by Garry

that is why Russia will also supply some defensive weapons.... to make invasion option clearly costing many lifes and resources so that even guys like Rumsfeld and Bush lose seduction for a millitary venture with small force and in near future..... however the level of deliveries should be not too large so that Iran feels itself too safe... hard ballancing but possible.

You sell some SAMs.... lets say 5-10 brigades of S-300PMU and some 30-50 short range Patnsir C-1.... add there some anti-tank missiles Kontur.... 20-30 MLRS Smerch and 100 Grad MLRS.... few thousand of guided Krasnopol shells and mortar shells.... one-two satelites for monitoring.... 20-30 Ka-50/52, 20-30 Mi-17 and few Mi-26..... 30-50 Yahont missiles on shore version (Brahmos like).

This would make Iran not too easy prey and make a short-term and cost effecient invasion unlikelly..... however it will be still vulnerable and hence will not be able to sustain a longer term attacks....

Then it will be Russia to decide who will win. If Russia keeps on supporting Iran by transporting weapons through Caspian Sea it will be tough to knock it down just like it was in Vietnam..... on the other side once Russia stops supporting Iran it will not sustain long war. In first case it means cash, in second case it would mean important political concessions from US..... Moreover I am pretty sure that Iranians will find the way how to block oil tankers from its own and from Iraq.... price will go to the skies making Russian oil presious. Look a war of US with Iran makes only good then for Russians!

Now lets count what the war may cost to US..... the answer is assymetric. Iran problem can not be resolved without Russia just like North Korean problem couldn't have been resolved until China decided to resolve it. USA have absolutelly no leverage on Iran, and Iranians know that they fate is decided in Moscow..... and China

But there's not going to be an "invasion." We can stop their program cold with minimum loss. If they then choose to aggressively retaliate in Iraq or with terrorism it will create the political will in the US to give the Mullah's a devastating reply at a time of our choosing.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

The difficulties that would accompany occupying a much larger country than Iraq, with rougher terrain and 66 million people is an even better deterrent than Russian weapons. We could cut our way through the Iranian army without difficulty (during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi military had the edge in quality for much of the conflict, it was what kept them afloat when the Iranians mobilized), however it would be an endless war for us (at least given the size of our military right now). Unlike Saddam Hussain, the Mullahs could probably mobilize the country side against us, and then we would be fighting an entire nation.



That isn't entirely true. While an invasion is probably not an option, we could still blockade Iran (fairly effectively), and air and cruise missile strikes could easily take out a great deal of their industry. Low yield tactical nukes could also do the job, and if the Israelis feel threatened enough (and if we shield them from repurcussions), then you never know what might happen. A strike against the Iranians would be an even greater problem than the air strike on the Iraqi reactor, which is why I bring up the possibility of tactical nukes.

Hi lwarmonger, you are right that even without supply of weapons is it quite tough to invade them. I would say very costly - many lifes many resources would need to be paid.

However you can not solve issue from air. In other thread I posted why air stricke does not resolve the issue.

I think that blocade is also quite hard option and simply too costly ...... 1) Iran accouns for large part of current production 2) unlike Iraq, Iran has many chances to discrupt oil supply in the Gulf..... look at their map..... good chances are in straits of Homuz.... good chances are from sudden air strike...... land based antiship missiles..... trucked MLRS systems. Many cities on the shore from which they might be shooting....

In addition to that you can not blockade them from gulf only. Until they have cash in their banks they can buy everything and go supplies from Caspian sea, and from land. Hence efficient blockade is possible only if Russia, Turkmensitan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Afghanistan agree to block them.... does it sound realistic?

I don't even site a problem to US trooks in Southern Iraq.... much of Iraqi forces would be hidenly supporting Iranians.
_______________

And finally in my discussion with Officer of Engineers I gave my view why it is not possible to stop uranium enrichment in Iran from air:
- Iran has uranium mines - supply of ore is domestic
- Iran has centrifuges already and their production
- Iran may split one large enrichment site to few smaller, which are harder to find and identify
- You have to bomb them on a regular basis.... or else all program is not stopped. But then if you bomb constantly but not invade you let your enemy strike you anytime anywhere from their land..... and their actions would be justified as a reply to your actions.
_______________

Use of tackticle nukes against Iran will ruin all arguments against Iran having its own bomb........ not stating that it will really enrage Russia and China. I guess you don't understand what a political consequences might a use of tackticle nukes have...... many people in the world would just hate you in addition to Arabs and Iranians! ..... once nukes are used you justify and advocate nukes against yourselves and in smaller wars between smaller nations like India vs Pakistan! I personally would add my voice to those demanding a international trial against US officials who ordered use of nukes in non-nuclear war.....