Russia: Israeli threat of strikes on Iran 'a mistake'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News 7 November 2011 Last updated at 09:48 GMT

Military action against Iran would be a "very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences", Russia's foreign minister has warned.

Sergei Lavrov said diplomacy, not missile strikes, was the only way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15617657

[UndertheOcean]

1. And Letting it develop Nuclear Arms is not ?

Or is Russia protecting it's weapon sales contracts.

I see no problem with strikes that only affect Nuclear infrastructure , and not Civilians.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

2. I think it's safe to say that

Russia has a vested interest here.

[Celefin]

3. Uhm...

One might suspect that 'blowing up nuclear infrastructure' in a dry, dusty desert environment might be harmful to any civilians downwind, no?
But then, heavy metal poisoning and radiation exposure never harmed anyone.

Anyway, if you don't 'see any problems with strikes' in a sovereign country without a declaration of war, you probably don't see many problems at all, ever.
Nothing than can't be solved by a decent missile.

[Dutchmaster]

4. There is ZERO evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. ZERO.

Do you still believe Iraq had yellow cake uranium from Niger? Hmmm?

[Bosonic]

6. Well there is an IAEA report due tomorrow.

Which by all accounts has some strong circumstantial evidence (computer modeling etc), if not smoking gun caliber evidence.

Of course you may not think the IAEA/UN is credible, in which case you can extend your missive to 'zero credible evidence'.

[Tempest]

7. Circumstantial

Not concrete.

Nothing even close to real evidence will be presented according to initial reports.

[Bosonic]

8. Circumstantial, yes.

But not even close?

If it is extensive nuclear warhead modelling simulations (as reported), then unless Iran is moving into producing primo-quality war games the applications for this time consuming and expensive pursuit are fairly limited.

[yurbud]

9. Even with nukes, Iran would be no threat to us. We've got thousands. If they launched at us

or gave them to terrorists to hand-deliver, we could burn their country off the map and have enough nukes left over to do that to every other country in the world several times over.

Just because important people say things on the TV doesn't make it true. Think for yourself.

[Dutchmaster]

5. Iran is one of Russia's top trading partners.

And China gets a lot of their natural gas and oil from Iran. They use these things called trade contracts . . . bit I digress.

Attacking Russia and China's trading partner and source of natural fuels will likely not be taken sitting down. War with Russia and China anyone?

[Little Tich]

10. Much ado about nothing. The report is not released yet, and the talking heads are busy spinning.

I want to see that report, it will determine the foreign relations with Iran for a lot of countries. The Russian position is very clear, they will not allow an attack of any kind, and will work against one, even if it means propping up Iran. Many other countries are on the fence, most are for sanctions, but will not support military actions. Even the US has not directly called for military action, just threatening Iran with consequences. Israel can be unpredictable at times, but must know that the hydra they are warning everybody about is currently just a newt. I don't need a crystal ball to predict further sanctions.