PDA

View Full Version : Medvedev: "your assessments have been more right than ours"



Winger
04-09-2009, 05:07 PM
By James Rosen

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev admitted to President Obama during their summit meeting last week that American intelligence estimates about the pace of Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons capability have been more accurate than Russia's, a senior U.S. official told FOX News.
As a result, Moscow is now said to be open to "much more severe" punishment for Tehran if the regime there persists in enriching uranium into 2010.
The disclosures came as part of a wide-ranging discussion about the Obama administration's now-completed policy review on Iran, which has already led to several high-profile overtures to Tehran by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These gestures have included Obama's videotaped greeting marking the Iranian new year holiday of Nowruz, and Clinton's invitation for Iran to attend an international conference on Afghanistan that was held in The Hague on March 31.
The official, who plays a key role in the administration's Iran policy, requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
During their closed-door meetings at London's Winfield House on April 1, Medvedev told Obama, according to the source, that "your assessments have been more right than ours" about how quickly Iran's nuclear program has progressed. Such an admission by the Russian president startled those present, and is significant.
It shows that Moscow shares the sense of alarm about Iran's nuclear program exhibited by American and Israeli leaders; and it reflects renewed confidence abroad in American intelligence data, which many countries derided in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In the brief joint appearance before reporters that followed their private meetings, neither Medvedev nor Obama explicitly mentioned Iran. However a senior Obama aide who attended the presidents' private session and who was sent to brief the press about it that same day told reporters, without elaborating, that he was "struck by the agreement about threats from countries like ... Iran." That official added: "(The Russians have) always said Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon -- 'We have no evidence of that, show me that this is there.' And this (meeting between the two presidents) was a different tone than that."
The Obama administration will not unveil its new, integrated Iran policy with a flashy "roll-out" like the one that accompanied the president's major speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead, senior officials in the National Security Council and State Department are quietly coordinating their intertwined activities, which include remaining alert to opportunities for further engagement with Iran; reassuring Arab states in the Persian Gulf, nervous about Iran's growing clout in the region, that engagement will not come at their expense; and persuading Russia and China that tougher sanctions against Iran will be needed if Tehran continues to reject international demands for a halt to its enrichment of uranium.
"The idea is to affect the landscape that (the Iranians) are looking at," said the source who detailed the new policy to FOX News. "If they look around and see that the Russians won't be their insurance policy any longer, and they know the Gulf states are not going to accommodate them, and some of the Europeans are no longer going to be softer than some others, we might be able to change (the Iranians') calculus. ....We are shoring up the collective response, so that others can be in a position to say to Iran, 'Hey, you have an opportunity here -- don't miss it.'"
In the event Iran does press forward with enrichment, the Obama administration believes the Russians will, within the next year or so, sign on to tougher sanctions. "We have laid the basis for much more severe consequences," the source said.
The source, who has long experience at the highest levels of Washington's foreign policy and national security apparatus, emphatically rejected claims by some former Bush administration officials who allege that the Obama administration has essentially reconciled itself to a nuclear Iran, and is now readying a "Japan option" for the Islamic republic. Under such a scenario -- so named because of its similarity to Japan's nuclear program -- Iran would be permitted to retain an indigenous enrichment capability, with international monitoring put in place to ensure that Iran's operations do not move from their current, low enrichment of uranium, which is usable in a civilian energy program, to high enrichment, which is suitable for the production of nuclear weapons.
"No way is Japan a model," said the source. "Whoever told you this has absolutely no idea of our approach. ... The outcome (of engagement with Iran) should strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We can't have one more exception to the non-proliferation regime," the source said, in an apparent reference to the Bush administration's decision to recognize India as a member of the nuclear club, despite New Delhi's longstanding refusal to sign the NPT accord. "The Arabs will all want exactly the same thing."
The source spoke on the same day that Under Secretary of State William Burns met in London with other members of the "P5 + 1," a working group on Iranian nuclear diplomacy that includes representatives from the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. The meeting ended with a new agreement by Burns to attend the group's direct contacts with Iranian officials, a form of engagement the Bush administration had largely eschewed. The source told FOX News the next readily visible signal of American willingness to engage Iran will be when Burns and his fellow P5 + 1 diplomats sit down with an Iranian delegation, likely to occur before Iran holds its nationwide elections in June.
By then, three years will have passed since the P5 + 1 first offered Iran a package of incentives and "disincentives" to halt enrichment, which Iran has steadily refused to consider. Asked about reports that the new round of diplomacy will simply sharpen the elements in the 2006 package, the source agreed the old offer will be "refined," with the major powers watching carefully to see Iran adopts what the source called "a rope-a-dope strategy."
"This can't be open-ended," the source explained, because Iran, if left unchecked, will likely reach a nuclear weapons capability within the next two years. "We don't come with an arbitrary timetable, but at the same time this can't go on forever."
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he welcomed the American offer to attend the P5 + 1 sessions. However, on the same day, the Iranian government announced it was filing espionage charges against Roxana Saberi, a U.S.-born freelance journalist with Iranian citizenship who was detained inside the country in January. Clinton said she was "deeply concerned" by Saberi's jailing, adding "we wish for her speedy release and return to her family."
The U.S. official involved in Iran policy told FOX News the "mixed messages" conveyed by Ahmadinejad's conciliatory statement and the filing of charges in the Saberi case reflected internal disagreements within the Iranian regime over how to respond to Obama's new tactic of engagement.
"It was easier for them when they could portray Bush as (hostile)," the source said. "They are grappling right now. ...They've never before felt on the spot to make choices. And they're already uncomfortable."

sepheronx
04-09-2009, 06:21 PM
I doubt that Russia did not know about the capabilities of Iran and the nuclear powerplant. I mean, they DID designed majority of the system, so why would they not know?

Winger
04-09-2009, 09:19 PM
I doubt that Russia did not know about the capabilities of Iran and the nuclear powerplant. I mean, they DID designed majority of the system, so why would they not know?

Not only help design but build as well. It was a Russian state owned company if I'm not mistaken.

Jiggy
04-09-2009, 10:12 PM
turning russia and iran against each other ?

sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe i'm jumping to conclusions here.

[ KOOSHAB ]
04-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Do you have any other sources by any chance?
I feel a bit uneasy when it comes to FOX and foreign policy.

void
04-10-2009, 01:46 AM
For those saying that Russia helped build/design the "systems", you could not be further from the truth. The Bushehr nuclear reactor is totally irrelevant for a nuclear weapons program, that type of reactor is totally incapable of producing weapons grade uranium/plutonium. The Bushehr plant is a VVER-1000 type, using uranium enriched to only 4%, weapons need 90+% enrichment.

What Iran HAS been doing (and been criticised for) is building cascade centrifuges, devoid of any Russian help, in order to enrich uranium. The west has as far as I know never criticised Russia for helping Iran with Bushehr, but rather criticised them for inaction in terms of UN sanctions.

MaverickCowboy
04-10-2009, 02:51 AM
THIS? after they said they were not a threat?

void
04-10-2009, 03:04 AM
Altering one's own opinion of a situation based on new evidence and intelligence rather than sticking to a misguided course is considered to be a "good thing". Would you prefer Russia continue to "stay the course" on Iran and defend them?

AlexMartin2
04-10-2009, 03:15 AM
Altering one's own opinion of a situation based on new evidence and intelligence rather than sticking to a misguided course is considered to be a "good thing". Would you prefer Russia continue to "stay the course" on Iran and defend them?

IMHO these two statements are not contradicting:
1) Iran wants nuclear weapons.
2) Iran is not a threat to USA.

For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons already, is Pakistan is a threat to America?

void
04-10-2009, 03:25 AM
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be a bad thing, it could start a chain reaction in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia would follow most likely). The world does not need more nuclear states. Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power, and nuclear enrichment, as allowed by the NNPT, but NOT nuclear weapons. If they do get them, Israel will attack pre-emptively, and there goes the neighbourhood.

Pakistan having nuclear weapons is also a bad thing, but that cannot be helped currently (although maybe in the future it can be coaxed to disarm, we can dream eh?).

Snoshi
04-10-2009, 04:20 AM
For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons already, is Pakistan is a threat to America?

Hell Yeah... Meybe not at the moment since it has a "pro-US" leader.. But as soon as he gets beheaded, can you imagine a nuclear armed Pakistan led by a Taliban style government?

MaverickCowboy
04-10-2009, 04:36 AM
For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons already, is Pakistan is a threat to America?

Yes.......

GazB
04-10-2009, 04:47 AM
I doubt that Russia did not know about the capabilities of Iran and the nuclear powerplant. I mean, they DID designed majority of the system, so why would they not know?The Iranian nuclear power program started decades ago and it was West Germany that was building the reactor then. Should the Russians know all about that too?

The reactor the Russians are building in Iran is of no use in creating a weapon. Much the same as sending ammonium nitrate to a country for fertiliser makes you guilty of helping that country make explosive devices.

Would also like to see the source of this information... if this guy is a reporter for Fox News then I would like to see a better source before I believe it. Russia Today is considered by many here as being a mouth piece for the Russian Government. Assuming that is true then this can be considered the Russian governments view of Iran:

http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-02-17/For_Russia__Iran_is_a_friendly_state.html

Switek
04-10-2009, 04:55 AM
IMHO these two statements are not contradicting:
1) Iran wants nuclear weapons.
2) Iran is not a threat to USA.

For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons already, is Pakistan is a threat to America?


If you knew realities of Middle East much more you'd know that USA is just messenger of other ME countries which perfectly knows that Nukes in Iranian hands are mainly threat for ME balance of powers. There's gonna be another arms race. This time in Middle East. A powder barrel with some guys who are playing with open fire.

Do you really believe hat Israel is main target of Iranians? I rather assume that it's a Persian inferiority complex an their hate toward Sunni Arabs and, what's the most important toward Saudis.

Too late for sorrows. The whole worlds shroud thanks Russia for their double standards an lies.

Dark-Angel25
04-10-2009, 04:58 AM
ICBM is not a weapon,it's a complex which requires industry to sustain it in combat readiness. Especially this is the case with liquid fuel ICBM which Iran would have to start with.Also the Bushehr nuclear reactor is not capable of producing weapons grade uranium/plutonium.To assume that Russia is protecting Iran is naive. Russia wants to preserve its influence in the region, as Iran is the only major Caspian sea power beside Russia.

Empulse
04-10-2009, 05:24 AM
I really wonder what the motive is for this sudden switch. I am sure it's more than a wrong assessment.

1curious
04-10-2009, 05:53 AM
Another thread about Iran’s nukes and more stunning ignorance despite the dozens of available excellent sources and analysis.

Iran’s nukes ARE a huge concern but, please, Switek, do some home work, will you…A.Q. Khan and China were the main sources of proliferation in Iran’s case. Busher Nuclear power plant has zero significance in the proliferation. Only incompetent and politically driven are still confusing these things.

There is really no switch in Russian policy towards Iran - yet - these are just Medvedev's gestures, pleasant and meaningless public rhetoric in return for Obama's "new approach" to Russia...which no one in Moscow has seen yet.

American leverage on Russia wrt everything Iran will ALWAYS remain limited.

Russian concerns in Iran are too deep -- common border/neighbors, Russian Muslims, Caucasus, Caspian gas and oil....and much more.

Winger
04-10-2009, 08:32 AM
For those saying that Russia helped build/design the "systems", you could not be further from the truth. The Bushehr nuclear reactor is totally irrelevant for a nuclear weapons program, that type of reactor is totally incapable of producing weapons grade uranium/plutonium. The Bushehr plant is a VVER-1000 type, using uranium enriched to only 4%, weapons need 90+% enrichment.

What Iran HAS been doing (and been criticised for) is building cascade centrifuges, devoid of any Russian help, in order to enrich uranium. The west has as far as I know never criticised Russia for helping Iran with Bushehr, but rather criticised them for inaction in terms of UN sanctions.

It could very well be that the reactor project has nothing to do with the enrichment project. But, surely materials other than uranium can be crossed over to assist in the enrichment. Maybe that's what the Russians were not aware of.

void
04-10-2009, 08:44 AM
Russia would never help Iran with a nuclear weapon, we arent stupid. Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic regime, and we have had some "issues" with such people lately in Chechnya and the Caucasus.

But Russia did not believe Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and is why it opposed stricter sanctions. The two are not mutually exclusive. But if Russia received genuine intelligence pointing towards a nuclear program in Iran, they will I think cooperate to put a stop to it.

Xaito
04-10-2009, 09:00 AM
I really wonder what the motive is for this sudden switch. I am sure it's more than a wrong assessment.

I think it's a reaction or invitation to a new US foreign policy that isn't directed against Russia.
There must have been some talks between Russia and the US and some kind of agreements since there have been several of those "hey, Russia might be not as bad as we thought" news in recent time...

1curious
04-10-2009, 10:22 AM
It could very well be that the reactor project has nothing to do with the enrichment project. But, surely materials other than uranium can be crossed over to assist in the enrichment. Maybe that's what the Russians were not aware of.
As I said just a post above, the ignorance is staggering! Click google, review this forum, ask a question - there are so many ways to gain this modest knowledge: Russia will be taking the spent fuel from Busher back to Russia for reprocessing, every oz, under the supervision of the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. This was a hard condition the Russians insisted on and the Iranians had to agree to before the work proceeded. Also, this type of reactor CAN NOT BE USED AS A BREEDER REACTOR!

Zalmoxes
04-10-2009, 10:24 AM
;4048686']Do you have any other sources by any chance?
I feel a bit uneasy when it comes to FOX and foreign policy.
But CNN and MSNBC are news stations worth watching for their unbiased news? Even Fox News which is conservative still has to put out on a daily basis news that they get off the wires like every other news organization. I'd be more careful whit their political shows, like Hannity and O'reilly.

Flamming_Python
04-10-2009, 10:45 AM
Too late for sorrows. The whole worlds shroud thanks Russia for their double standards an lies.

The whole world should thank Russia for sticking up for countries in the Middle East against which only slander, threats and sanctions are directed. If it wasn't for Russia and China, America and its European allies (former colonial regimes which are distrusted by most of the 3rd world) would be able to tell the whole world what to do and how to run their own countries. Frankly, with all of the mess in the Middle East, if I was Iranian I would be screaming for Nuclear Weapons too. But of course, all things considered, from the threat of Israeli intervention to a new arms race; it is much more preferable that the Iranians DON'T acquire nukes.

The government of Poland on the other hand, shouldn't be thanked for a damn thing. All your leadership does is follow the lead of the US like a dog on a leash. Well Done.

Russia also didn't help Iran with its nuclear weapons program. As someone already pointed out, Russia blocked the UN sanctions along with China. And there are many indicators that it has turned out to be exactly the right policy; it has prevented the Iranian leadership from becoming isolated from the rest of the world and backed into a corner from which they might assume a desperate position. Instead Iran is somewhat confident now and feels it has support; and while that means that its interests will have to respected, at the same time it means that it can be negotiated with and that it doesn't feel that nuclear weapons are an absolute necessity for its security if there are powerful countries like Russia and China backing it.

KilRemgor
04-10-2009, 11:12 AM
Overall, the attempts to 'suffocate', 'isolate' and 'punish' Iran seem wrong. And it's not just an assesment, it's actually from historic experience:
- Iraq was isolated, suffocated etc. from 1991 to 2003. Has it helped Iraq 'become democratic', 'remove oppression', etc.? Aside from preventing it from restoring somewhat credible military threat that it had in 1991, it hasn't damaged saddam's regime or agenda and a war was necessary to change it.
- North Korea. Isolated and embargoed state that got nukes and now tests ballistic missiles, and threatens other states with war. Yay for isolation.

If Iran is further isolated and alienated, it will become alike those two above, but having oil and domestic R&D/military industry (which Iraq largely lacked), and having not experienced military damage/defeat like Gulf War was for Iraq. With that, it has all the chances of becoming an extremely aggressive and also quite powerful state (significantly more military capable than Iraq in 1991, even given current tech advances), possibly having nukes, and then the problem becomes really bad.

It's kinda wrong to treat some countries (or their leadership) like sh*t and the expect them to be grateful and follow 'good path'. If diplomatic solution is seriously expected, one should clearly and fairly provide significant rewards and opportunities for choosing the 'right path', not just stick with punishments for 'wrong path'.

Johnny_H02
04-10-2009, 11:18 AM
lol fox news...
Until its reported by a few others I will call BS.

Indiana Jones
04-10-2009, 11:30 AM
The whole world should thank Russia for sticking up for countries in the Middle East against which only slander, threats and sanctions are directed. If it wasn't for Russia and China, America and its European allies (former colonial regimes which are distrusted by most of the 3rd world) would be able to tell the whole world what to do and how to run their own countries. Frankly, with all of the mess in the Middle East, if I was Iranian I would be screaming for Nuclear Weapons too. But of course, all things considered, from the threat of Israeli intervention to a new arms race; it is much more preferable that the Iranians DON'T acquire nukes.

The government of Poland on the other hand, shouldn't be thanked for a damn thing. All your leadership does is follow the lead of the US like a dog on a leash. Well Done.

Russia also didn't help Iran with its nuclear weapons program. As someone already pointed out, Russia blocked the UN sanctions along with China. And there are many indicators that it has turned out to be exactly the right policy; it has prevented the Iranian leadership from becoming isolated from the rest of the world and backed into a corner from which they might assume a desperate position. Instead Iran is somewhat confident now and feels it has support; and while that means that its interests will have to respected, at the same time it means that it can be negotiated with and that it doesn't feel that nuclear weapons are an absolute necessity for its security if there are powerful countries like Russia and China backing it.
Are you intoxicated ?
You are making a fool out of yourself.

AlexMartin2
04-10-2009, 11:33 AM
If you knew realities of Middle East much more you'd know that USA is just messenger of other ME countries which perfectly knows that Nukes in Iranian hands are mainly threat for ME balance of powers. There's gonna be another arms race. This time in Middle East.

Just a messenger? Are you kidding? :)
And what exactly "ME balance of powers" is? I dont know is there any "balance". IMO, most of Arab countries are constantly playing against each other and all have own interests. The only exception is their "feelings" towards Israel. Iran has nothing to do with that.



A powder barrel with some guys who are playing with open fire.

And some guys must be Americans, yes? :)
Or you forgot about Iraq war, Astan war, constant threats to strike Iran?



Do you really believe hat Israel is main target of Iranians? I rather assume that it's a Persian inferiority complex an their hate toward Sunni Arabs and, what's the most important toward Saudis.

Is it relevant?



Too late for sorrows. The whole worlds shroud thanks Russia for their double standards an lies.

I don't believe Russia is really care what world (and especially Poland) thinks about it after 080808.

Flamming_Python
04-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Are you intoxicated ?
You are making a fool out of yourself.

Why? Because I don't agree with the peer consensus?
I'm not arguing, sometimes I write BS, but I think I'm quite right in pointing out that Russia and China provide an important second pole which helps prevent desperation and extremism from taking hold among countries that are no friends of the West.

[ KOOSHAB ]
04-10-2009, 01:18 PM
But CNN and MSNBC are news stations worth watching for their unbiased news? Even Fox News which is conservative still has to put out on a daily basis news that they get off the wires like every other news organization. I'd be more careful whit their political shows, like Hannity and O'reilly.

Where did I say I wanted CNN or MSNBC?
I just want clarification whether or not this is reasonably legitimate
or a factually incorrect claim made by FOX.

- They've done it before.

HellToupee
04-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Can you really blame them wanting nukes when a superpower invades next door and pretty much hints many times that they are next.

If you want them to stop perusing nukes you need them to feel secure, isolating them would only accelerate their efforts for nukes.

GazB
04-10-2009, 09:42 PM
It's kinda wrong to treat some countries (or their leadership) like sh*t and the expect them to be grateful and follow 'good path'. If diplomatic solution is seriously expected, one should clearly and fairly provide significant rewards and opportunities for choosing the 'right path', not just stick with punishments for 'wrong path'.

And it is not the Iranian government that suffers when the US punnishes Iran. The Iranian government greatly benefits from it. It helps the hardliners when the US talks about the evil empire and compares Iran with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.