Russia will preserve its positions in Iran under any president

RIA Novosti - Russian News and Information Agency ^ | June 25, 2005 | Pyotr Goncharov

[familyop]

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov) - Russia will not lose no matter who wins the second round of the presidential election in Iran.

It has a fair chance of preserving its priority standing in Iran's foreign policy under any president - Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council, technocrat and pragmatist, or his rival, the ultraconservative Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, who produced a furore with his surprise success at the election. This is the unanimous opinion of most Russian experts.

Unlike Washington, which said the election in Iran was undemocratic and would not create a legitimate power, Moscow regards the election as a crucial event in the history of Iran and has pledged to respect the choice of millions of Iranians.

Radjab Safarov, director of the Center for Modern Iran Studies, thinks this is not simply a diplomatic gesture to Tehran. The election campaign, he said, "has turned into a national referendum where the people expressed their support for the country's political system." He said it was notable that none of the observers reported falsification of voting results.

In his opinion, radical changes in Iran's foreign policy with regard to Russia are improbable no matter who comes to power, the pragmatic reformer Rafsanjani or his opponent, the conservative radical Nejad.

The main reason is that under Iran's constitution the president is not the head of state and hence not the last instance in decision-making. The strategy of Iran's foreign policy is approved by the unelected spiritual leader and the actual head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Yet much will depend on the president, as Rafsanjani has proved once. During his previous presidency, Iran opted for liberal reforms and many Russians still remember that bilateral relations became lively and Russia got the contract for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Moscow should not be embarrassed by Rafsanjani's calls for normalizing relations with the U.S., as this would be a positive development for Moscow. The West will stop pressuring it to terminate nuclear cooperation with Iran. Described as a pragmatic politician, Rafsanjani will most probably welcome a broader Russian involvement in the Iranian projects.

Neither would Russia lose its standing in Iran if Nejad wins the election. Moreover, Safarov holds that Russia would get a carte blanche in oil, gas and, of course, nuclear projects. On the other hand, this may increase Western, including U.S., pressure on Russia.

But some Russian experts are dissatisfied with the current stage in Moscow-Tehran relations. Nina Mamedova, head of the Iranian sector at the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies, agrees that the victory of either candidate would not seriously influence bilateral relations. The trouble is not that Russia has serious rivals in Iran, she said, but that bilateral relations, contrary to numerous declarations, are far from impressive. Russia is not sufficiently active on the Iranian market. Tehran is waiting for a breakthrough in bilateral relations and links its hopes to the visit of President Putin.

Nuclear cooperation remains the priority sphere for Russia. The outcome of the presidential election will not affect the pace of the Iranian nuclear program. All political leaders of Iran support the plans of building a network of nuclear power stations. Tehran wants to develop nuclear power engineering so as to preserve its hydrocarbons reserves.

So far, Russia has no major rivals in this sphere, mostly thanks to the stand of the Tehran authorities. This stand with regard to Russia may change only for the better as a result of the election.

But is Russia, which has pledged to accept any winner, ready to advance its interests in Iran more energetically?

[familyop]

Fine. You carry on with describing yourself as an "expert" and saying that the Chechens put a 155 mm round in the Nord-Ost incident. BS.

If a 155 mm round was put there (instead of a 152 or other Soviet/post Soviet ordnance), it was put there by officials who had access to new stuff (or to transporting NATO stuff a long way).

[GarySpFc]

Firstly, I am/was a Special Forces demolitions expert, and I have presented more than sufficient evidence to constitute proof in my above post.

Secondly, I never presented myself as an artillery expert. The Russians, US, French and others produce 155mm rounds. The Russian round is limited fielding. They also produce and field a 152 mm, which is more widely available.

Finally, it was reported two 155 mm rounds were hung from the ceiling in the Nord-Ost Theatre. One of the two was above the balcony, and the second above the general sitting area. Both were set up with electronic detonators. I went with what was reported, and their detonation would have killed everyone in the theater. I went by the report given. Now, if the two rounds were 152 or 155 mm matters little, both would have had the same effect. Furthermore, I doubt if the military or police reporter was checking the rounds for the 3 mm difference.

[GarySpFc]

I should add that I would be considered an expert in unconventional warfare. Don't worry, I don't expect you to apologize...you're not man enough to do that.

[familyop]

I only see that training changed radically sometime during the '60s and again in the late 1980s. We were trained to avoid apologizing, to avoid acknowledging apologies and to avoid matters of self-pride (but only having pride in each completed task).

My brief experiment in answering flame bait here and there was only a demonstration for others. That's done.

We in the USA have a cultural problem that intensified in the '60s and needs to be fixed. Russia has a cultural problem from long before that needs to be fixed. I'll do what I can do for both until I stop breathing.

Civil affairs work needs funding as much as other tactical work needs it. Adequate funding only comes after the civilian populace sees enough truth. Cultural/political corrections only happen after informed feedback.

I'll disseminate information. Do what you want to do with it.

Russia probing whether Jewish law constitutes incitement ["first time since Stalin's regime"]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431367/posts

Russian Rabbi Investigated for Distributing Book of Jewish Law [Update, more info.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431369/posts

Russia calls for banning Judaism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431407/posts

Oriana Fallaci goes on trial for anti-Muslim book
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431832/posts

[GarySpFc]

You lied about and insulted me. Now you rationalize not apologizing, and it shows your true character.

[familyop]

You erroneously and emotionally called me a "liar" weeks ago. I didn't care and don't care. Vanity is to be avoided. I try to avoid lying. I lie less today than I did yesterday. My goal is ideal, and my accomplishment is improvement. That is what defeats indulgence in epistomological relativism. That's what sets some of us apart from the rest. That is also what made many in our Greatest Generation greater than those who came after (including myself). We were indoctrinated, and some of that through intentional foreign, tactical influence.

I remember the spoiled rotten fear and rationalizations in our neighborhoods during the Viet Nam years. We're not going back there.

...so much emotion, hyperbole and pride since then. We needed cultural changes, and we're getting those.

[GarySpFc]

You erroneously and emotionally called me a "liar" weeks ago.

I did call you a liar recently, but there was nothing erroneous or emotional about it.

BTW, you misspelled epistemological, but then that's only slightly larger than a 3 mm error.