China & Russia Are Draining Iran's Resources

[digi-democracy]

And are not fully behind them when most needed. And to say the USA is in the area to pluder? These two countries are doing that very thing, ecomincally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tehran, Oct 13, IRNA
Iran-Press-Editorial

An English-language daily on Thursday focused on China-Iran relations and asked the sobering question of whether Tehran's longstanding "East-leaning" policy was holding out.

It also brought up the subject in light of Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's current visit to the Chinese capital.

Undoubtedly, China is the fastest growing economy in the world.

Ever since former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's historic visit in 1970, "China as a nation with a billion plus population is a reality that cannot be ignored," said `Iran News' in its editorial on Thursday quoting the noted political strategist.

"For Iran, China has been important ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Relations between the two states have been far more advanced than just trade and economics," the daily said.

Iran looks to China, a permanent member and with the power of veto in the UN Security Council, as a faithful ally in its nuclear problem.

"On Iran's nuclear dispute, Beijing has verbally lent its support to Tehran and opposed Security Council referral and economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic," reminded the editorial.

"But, in reality, in the latest resolution passed on Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors -- which according to observers was the harshest up to now -- China's vote was a disappointment for the Islamic Republic," it said.

Indeed it was, for "Tehran was hoping and half-counting on China and Russia to vote against the EU-proposed resolution" that declared Iran short of fulfilling its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

China and Russia abstained in the IAEA voting on the Iran nuclear issue.

"Despite the disenchantment, the Islamic Republic is still hoping that if and when Tehran's nuclear dossier is reported to the UN, Beijing and/or China would come to Iran's rescue," continued the editorial.

Although a vote of abstention does not mean outward rejection, the time for soul-searching has come, it hinted.

"Has the Islamic Republic's `East-Leaning Strategy' taken into account that a number of states in the so-called East are longtime staunch U.S. allies such as Japan and South Korea? Has Tehran learned not to overplay its hand and not rely too much on other nations? Do the officials in charge realize there is no country they an unfailingly depend on?"
The obvious and resounding answer is NO!
Iran News suggests those who made the mistake not only take an effective pain reliever but also reassess their decisions.

"Iranian statesmen should relentlessly and untiringly pursue the nation's best interests wherever they may lie and not just based on geography," it advised.

And, "if seeking the country's strategic national interests takes us to the doorsteps of the United States, so be it," it concluded.

[admin]

China is a nation who only cared about themselves and noone else. But saying that they do benefit iran as well, after all they are a big buyer of iranian oil and gas. Japan is probably the biggest buyer though.

As for Russia, they are a unreliable ally to have, but again, they benefit iran via military and science means. Iran has an arms embargo from usa and europe, the only arms it can buy which are half working is from Russia.

And, "if seeking the country's strategic national interests takes us to the doorsteps of the United States, so be it," it concluded.

are you sure this is from IRNA? because irna is a iranian news agency i doubt they would say that EVEN if it were to be true for political reasones!

[digi-democracy]

are you sure this is from IRNA? because irna is a iranian news agency i doubt they would say that EVEN if it were to be true for political reasones!


Pretty darn. Here is the link...

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0510139866133819.htm

[Demoman]

Iran could be of a mind to change it's policy toward the U.S.? We both could only benifit from it !

[hurdy]

Iran could be of a mind to change it's policy toward the U.S.? We both could only benifit from it !


Erm, I think its the US who should be changing its policy regarding Iran, Operation Ajax anyone?

[Demoman]

Oh that's right, it's always only our fault. I keep forgetting that one. You all's been fighting and everything since the dawn of time and we've only been a country for a little over 200 years, but etc. etc.

[hurdy]

Oh that's right, it's always only our fault. I keep forgetting that one. You all's been fighting and everything since the dawn of time and we've only been a country for a little over 200 years, but etc. etc.

Errr... USA approached Iran first by installing a dictator, Iran was one of the many countries in the middle of the Cold War between the Soviets and Americans.

Iran hasnt invaded a country since 1736.

[Demoman]

So what would be your solution?

[user0000]

The United States must recognize our rights as a sovereign nation regardless of the fact that the fascist puppet 'Shah' is gone. Of course, an alliance is beyond reason, but we could normalize relations (much like the U.S. and China did in the 1970s). At the time, the Chinese Revolution was a few decades old, just as the Iranian Revolution is today. However, China's economy was bankrupt (even worse than it had been under Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists). It was at this time that China realized that socialism was a flawed economic system. It was then that the switch to capitalism was made, and the age of rapid development began. The Iranian Revolution, even in its infant state, has already led to many great achievements (compare Iran's present economy to that of China in the '70s). The U.S., albeit gradually, is beginning to come to the realization that the Islamic Republic is here to stay. Normalization is imminent.

[Azad Kashmiri UK]

The United States must recognize our rights as a sovereign nation regardless of the fact that the fascist puppet 'Shah' is gone. Of course, an alliance is beyond reason, but we could normalize relations (much like the U.S. and China did in the 1970s). At the time, the Chinese Revolution was a few decades old, just as the Iranian Revolution is today. However, China's economy was bankrupt (even worse than it had been under Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists). It was at this time that China realized that socialism was a flawed economic system. It was then that the switch to capitalism was made, and the age of rapid development began. The Iranian Revolution, even in its infant state, has already led to many great achievements (compare Iran's present economy to that of China in the '70s). The U.S., albeit gradually, is beginning to come to the realization that the Islamic Republic is here to stay. Normalization is imminent.

Your comments are all good where Iran and the US are "ok" with each other rather than breathing down each others necks. But, When Irans president is talking of wiping Israel off the map...they are asking for the U.S to come and bomb them. Imagine if Iran got hold of Nukes? They'd send them to Israel and Israel would send them back. Therefore, Israel is doing what any country would do...

I know the president was referring to the zionists, but they aren't going to take it that way and will just make a big fuss for more reason to bomb.

Imagine if there was a country saying to Iran "i'll wipe you off the map" and they were trying to obtain nukes....it would be in Irans best interest to stop them from doing so right?

If Iran chilled with the threats and started talks with the EU and stops giving the US and Israel excuses to bomb it then that would be great for Iran.

[hurdy]

Your comments are all good where Iran and the US are "ok" with each other rather than breathing down each others necks. But, When Irans president is talking of wiping Israel off the map...they are asking for the U.S to come and bomb them. Imagine if Iran got hold of Nukes? They'd send them to Israel and Israel would send them back. Therefore, Israel is doing what any country would do...

I know the president was referring to the zionists, but they aren't going to take it that way and will just make a big fuss for more reason to bomb.

Imagine if there was a country saying to Iran "i'll wipe you off the map" and they were trying to obtain nukes....it would be in Irans best interest to stop them from doing so right?

If Iran chilled with the threats and started talks with the EU and stops giving the US and Israel excuses to bomb it then that would be great for Iran.


Yeah but the President of Iran is in no way allowed to start a war, only the Supreme Leader is and they already condemned the comments of the President.

And the US labeling Iran as "Axis of Evil" isnt really that appriopiate either, what do you do with Evil? You eliminate it.

[Azad Kashmiri UK]

Yeh, I know that. But the thing is...With comments like that, the US and Israelis aren't going to take any notice of what the supreme leader said. Thats why by saying this kind of stuff, it gives the US excuses to attack, this is exactly what its looking for. I think Iran has called for renewed talks with Europe over its nuclear issue, I read it a few days ago somewhere i think...lets hope they get somewhere.

[user0000]

Your comments are all good where Iran and the US are "ok" with each other rather than breathing down each others necks. But, When Irans president is talking of wiping Israel off the map...they are asking for the U.S to come and bomb them. Imagine if Iran got hold of Nukes? They'd send them to Israel and Israel would send them back. Therefore, Israel is doing what any country would do...

You see, the president did not state "We should wipe Israel off the map." He stated "We should erase Israel from our daily lives." He never suggested that Iran must commit genocide against Jews or even Israelis (if one were to read what was stated in Farsi news sources, one would know this). He merely stated that Israel, as a state, should cease to exist. This is nothing new. This has been the Islamic's Republic's stance toward Zionism since the revolution.

I know the president was referring to the zionists, but they aren't going to take it that way and will just make a big fuss for more reason to bomb.

As Khomeini used to say, "America can't do a damn thing."

If Iran chilled with the threats and started talks with the EU and stops giving the US and Israel excuses to bomb it then that would be great for Iran.

If the United States would cease to make empty threats against Iran, perhaps we wouldn't need a nuclear deterrent.

[admin]

I think America CAN do something, they just can't justify it! Iran is playing it's cards too confidently, which is good in a sense, we don't want to fall in a trap like Syria who played sloppy and is now on the firing line. Like in chess aggression is the best form of defence.

[user0000]

Indeed. An invasion of Iran is out of the question. It would be suicide for the Yanks.

[Azad Kashmiri UK]

This is the thing, the yanks might want to get Iran before it develops the bomb, I mean a nuclear Iran would be a lot harder to deal with than a non nuclear Iran right?

Also, I'm not sure whether the yanks would want to invade or just do air strikes to set Irans nuclear programme back a few years, if they do try this...I personally don't think they would get all the facilities because their intelligence sucks to a certain point. Well i suppose the spy satelites are better than their actual agents.

In terms of it being suicide for the US to attack Iran. Well, Iran is definatly not Afghanistan or Iraq. And i know Iran would be able to inflict alot more damage than them to but i don't think it would be able to sustain a war. Not to sound too pessimistic but I'd say it would just be a matter of time if a war broke out. I personally don't want to see another cock up like the US did with Iraq, they killed too many people and screwed everything up not forgetting all this insurgent ****.

[Jordan]

U.S. is not going to do anything. Bush doesn't even really have the support or confidence of the U.S. public in Iraq anymore. Politically and militarily impossible imo.

[user0000]

Also, I'm not sure whether the yanks would want to invade or just do air strikes to set Irans nuclear programme back a few years, if they do try this...I personally don't think they would get all the facilities because their intelligence sucks to a certain point. Well i suppose the spy satelites are better than their actual agents.

An air strike wouldn't work because it would allow Iran to pull out of NPT. Also, we could raze Tel Aviv to the ground with our Shahabs.

i don't think it would be able to sustain a war.

2,800,000 Arteshis, Sepahis, and Basijis disagree with you.

[Azad Kashmiri UK]

I know all them people would disagree, I know how much faith they have. If US was to invade...it would be a proper occupying force and i have no doubts that there would be gorilla fighting and what not but in the end, they would take over.

Also, I know Israel would get screwed (their anti missile defence systems are bogus). It would be interesting to see if Iran could take out a carrier with a few of them Sunburn's...that'd be a kick in the nuts which the US needs. But i think they'd be kept well away.

[user0000]

20,000 AK-toting insurgents in Iraq have kept the U.S. from securing a key road connecting Baghdad and the Baghdad airport. It would take a million lives for the U.S. to take Tehran, and they simply are not willing to sacrifice that much. If conquering Iran were that easy, the Yanks would have struck by now.

[Azad Kashmiri UK]

I understand what your saying, but we both know when it comes to the US and war. They'll blow the hell out of whatever is against them in air raids and will only come on foot once there are "pockets of resistance" as they call them. Now what i'm worried about is that, they don't care what and who and how they bomb, meaning they would carelessly take out civilians...it doesn't affect them.

Look at the civilian death toll in Iraq. It's not their land and they are not their people and they have plenty of bombs to throw and they couldn't care less who they kill. They just start crying when ONE of theirs gets killed.

In terms of the insurgents in Iraq, its clear that the US has lost more soldiers after the initial main war. But one thing that ticks me off about these dumb insurgents is when they kill innocents. Like once, there were US soldiers handing out sweets to Iraqi kids and an "insurgent" or coward blew himself up and ended up killing dosons of kids. The Iraqis are sik and tired of these insurgents because they are the ones who mostly get caught up in their mess. If they're to do something atleast thin and do it right.