Iran says Russia may not let U.S. use Azeri radar

Iran says Russia may not let U.S. use Azeri radar

news.yahoo.com

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Russia has indicated it will not allow the United States to use a radar station in Azerbaijan for missile defense against Iran, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman was quoted by the IRNA news agency as saying on Sunday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in dispute with the United States over the location in eastern Europe of a planned American missile defense system, had offered instead to share a radar site in Azerbaijan.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Making the World a More Dangerous Place
Russia test-launches new missiles
Iran: US attack equals world war III

Interesting that Iran would seem to be retracting an offer made by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The controversial plan to place a strategic missile defence system in Europe by U.S.A. which seemed to anger the Russians enough that threats were made to "re-target Russian nuclear missiles at european cities", a plan the Bush administration insisted was to protect against potential attacks from nations "like Iran and North Korea"... Putin made the offer to use the Azeri radar as an apparent compromise.

Perhaps Iran and Russia are developing a common interest?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Since does Iran tell Russia anything about what it will or will not do??

I believe it was Putin who suggested it as a compromise to the sites the US had chosen.

Now what would be very interesting is if the US now accepts the offer made by putin.
This will clearly show the West who is in charge-Iran or Russia of this issue.

It would be a really great idea as it shows cooperation with Russia-that has to build some brownie points with them- and, as I see it, it torques off Iran and there is not really anything Iran could do about it.

Would Iran dare to threaten Russia like they do the west???
If they did, what would be the Russian reaction???


[edit on 6/17/2007 by mrmonsoon]

I think the more interesting possibility is the apparent common interest the Russians and Iranians seem to share, could this common interest be a common enemy to both?

Russia is certainly opposed to any European missile defense system, Iran is feeling the pressure of U.S. rumors of preemptive attacks on its nuclear facilities.

I do not think Russia feels threatened by Iran at all. In fact it seems of late the opposite is much more likely.

Iran probably wouldn't threaten Russia for 2 reasons.

First, its not in their interest, they need China's and Russia's support.

Second, Russia doesn't play around, war with Russia is suicide for anyone, that's why no one is at war with Russia right now. Russian military tactics are different then US's, and for the enemies, much worse.

Yea Russian Soldier I agree Russia is a lot different in military style and tactics then USA plus it appears they use mostly Russian made equipment so they would not want to bite the hand that feeds them Plus they would have to know what the Russians sell is a lot less effective then what they use themselves?

I really do think most countries would never want to start war with Russia and would rather fight the USA but in the long run I still think the USA is a better force because of the toys n training they have but the next 20 years might be different.

the point is that iran is a huge customer for Russian weaponry exports.

To outsiders, Russian soldier it does appear that Iran and Russia have formed a military bloc. Putin has threatened Europe with Russian retaliation for trying to form a missile defence against Iran. Azebijan is along the flight path of missiles from Iran to Europe.

Iran has threatened US allies with destruction. In the west this is seen as a justified defence system.

Moscow has it's own missile defence screen so we are wondering why Russia should object to Europe having a similar screen ?

I Just have a sneaking suspision that Russia and Iran and prolly china are secretly talking about these matters and could be alling,

Any have any info further about that? Meetings or anything like that with the 3? Just seems when you show the kinda ideas that the US has that others in the way would take measures to try and guarantee some sort of Co-op to safeguard them in a way.

If Russia restricts what the US wants to do the US will just place missile defense in Poland as was the original plan. I don't really take Iran's word with a grain of rice because all it does is BS.

RussiaSoldier: Nobody wants to get into a war with Russia because knowing Russia it would nuke a country whereas the US is too concerned with PR.

Iran has also said Russia was selling top of the line equipment to them...when it really has not.

Iran said this just for public face...though the Russians will either offer no response to this, or deface them.

Russians are already pissed as it is with US placing Missile Defense next door under "Iran Nuke Risk" excuse already, Iran mouthing off will not make them any happier, I expect Russians issueing a polite stfu to Iran soon enough, or no comments.

I think the important thing people keep missing repeatedly is the idea that the US NEED missile "defense" stations anywhere on the other side of the world..

Now, let's think about this logically. Bust out a map, even.

www.lib.utexas.edu...

There, a nice map of the world.

Now, we want to defend ourselves from Iran by putting a missile (defense )
system in Poland, right? That's the argument?

Explain to me, please, how putting a defense system in Poland, which, as it happens isn't even close to Iran, given that there's those slightly incidental countries known as Turkey, and the Ukraine, and the black sea in the way..

Logically, a defense system designed to shoot down or in some other way intercept a missile headed from Iran to the US should, I would think, be SOMEWHERE near to the route the missiles or bomb dropping planes would likely be going.. For a guess, that's not VIA poland.. that's more like northern africa, or southern italy..

Or, if we were going to launch an offensive attack against Iran, surely the best place to do it from would be that little known country, you know, the one where all our soldiers are and where we're building massive permanent military bases.. What was it called again? Oh yeah. Iraq. Right next door.

Simple analysis of strategy would lead you to assume that if you're putting something in Poland, that's because you want it to dominate and control an area somewhere close to poland.. Like, oh, I don't know.. say.. Russia?

Regardless of questioning what's going on with Russia and Iran, the important question, really, is what's going on with us?. The US..

Now, I forgot, this is also to protect us from North Korea..

Um, yeah.. Scroll over to the right a bit from Poland. Scroll a bit more.. See china? Apparently the people deciding where to put this missile system must have just MISSED it completely.. Not to mention the other countries in between...

Japan, Right next door to Korea, obviously wouldn't allow us to put any kind of military installation there.... Waiiiit.....


Obviously any station in Europe is a threat mostly to Europe.. and in eastern Europe, it's also a threat to Russia..

This is not defense. This is offense.

In true Orwellian fashion, we named the Department of Defense, for that which it patently is not, it's exact opposite in fact..

The US would have not, and will not, choose any other location other than Baltic (see former Soviet states) countries. The issue is just as much political as it is practical, the locations cannot and will not be changed or traded at the whim of Putin's temper tantrums. As such, this news is, fortunately for us, irrelevant.

Originally posted by Inannamute
Now, we want to defend ourselves from Iran by putting a missile (defense )
system in Poland, right? That's the argument?

No that is not the argument, nor do you fully know the facts, as it evident by your post. The argument is that the US needs a missile shield over Europe to protect our assets in that region and our allies. And as a plus benefit we also protect all of mainland Europe from an Iranian sponsored "nuclear hostage" situation.

Furthermore, the location of the proposed radar and missile sites is ideal, perhaps you should read more about these ABM systems before claiming it does not make sense.

PS. Iran has no missiles (of any kind) currently in service or in development capable of reaching the CONUS. The possibility of platform delivered missiles has to be kept open however. Oh and by the way the closest and most logical ballistic route to the US is via the pole.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

Ahh, so Europe cannot actually defend itself? Good to know. Thankfully the US is here to save the world...

Of Course Europe cannot defend itself. It has been virtually destroyed twice in the past century. They suck. They need the Us. We are their pimp daddy's. If it were not US, it would be Russia. I could care less either way. I would rather throw europe out of the equation, and form a mutual relationship with Africa, instead of today where US and Europe has co-domination of Africa through corporations and their paid dictators.

This missle defense shield is bogus anyways. You may be able to stop a few missles a few times, but you will never stop all of the missles all the time. If they fired 800 missles in all different targets across Europe, I gaurantee at least 500 would get through.

Originally posted by DYepes
Of Course Europe cannot defend itself. It has been virtually destroyed twice in the past century. They suck. They need the Us. We are their pimp daddy's.

Destroyed twice by infighting, not by a third party, Europe as a whole has no real enemies, so they don't really need the US.

If it were not US, it would be Russia. I could care less either way.

Russia has problems keeping their own influence zone...what makes you possibly think they can influence Europe?? O.o

This missle defense shield is bogus anyways. You may be able to stop a few missles a few times, but you will never stop all of the missles all the time. If they fired 800 missles in all different targets across Europe, I gaurantee at least 500 would get through.

Its not the effectiveness, its the threat to Russian nuclear power and the unbalance. Unbalance is dangerous, makes people more trigger happy. Russians putting missiles next to US had the same effect 40 years ago, than this missile defense system has on Russia now, defenses close to home, are a threat. Period. And considering the sheer number of platforms being used on a completely theoretical invasion to Europe from Russia (not going to happen soon, if it happens at all) 500 is a pretty optimistic number, I'd say more like 700+.

Finally...Iran nuke hostage situation? Iran has not the numbers to threaten Europe, only country that feels "threatened" is the US. Which is pretty curious...considering Iran can't actually hit Mainland US, and the US can turn Iran into glass with the press of a button...peace

Explain to me, please, how putting a defense system in Poland, which, as it happens isn't even close to Iran, given that there's those slightly incidental countries known as Turkey, and the Ukraine, and the black sea in the way..

Logically, a defense system designed to shoot down or in some other way intercept a missile headed from Iran to the US should, I would think, be SOMEWHERE near to the route the missiles or bomb dropping planes would likely be going.. For a guess, that's not VIA poland.. that's more like northern africa, or southern italy..

Innannamute, since you asked for an explanation, ballistic missiles are more easily intercepted on ascent that upon descent. For that reason Turkey is not an "incidental" country, but an important place to base interceptor missiles.

Radar can better plot the interception by being off to one side of the missile's track. There... It's quite simple.

Intercepting a missile at or near the target location is far more difficult and less likely to succeed. This was learned when Iraq fired Scud missiles at Ryadh in 1991. Patriot missiles intercepted them alright but the warheads still impacted.

..and in eastern Europe, it's also a threat to Russia..

This is not defense. This is offense.

In reality it is Eastern Europe which has a history of invasion from russia. Remember Hungary and Czechoslovakia ?

Tranceopticalinclined, whatever your suspicions, there is no three way alliance between Russia, Iran and China. China is quite irritated by Russia's support for North Korea's and Myanmar's nuclear programs. Yes Russia sells arms to China, but it also sells weapons to India. That of itself does not make a connection for conspiracy.

Ioseb_Jugashvili, Iran threatens world oil supplies through the straits of Hormuz and has recently threatened destruction of USA's key allies.

Iran has also said Russia was selling top of the line equipment to them...when it really has not.

Iran is purchasing weapons through proxy deals with Syria and Byelorussia. Iran has also acquired weaponry through licensed manufacture of Russian systems which iran falsely claims is via reverse engineering.

The Shafageh fighter is in reality the Mig AT developed under license in Iran.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Ioseb_Jugashvili, Iran threatens world oil supplies through the straits of Hormuz and has recently threatened destruction of USA's key allies.

Iran's threat to Hormuz is not realistic, considering the sheer number of US Assets in the very inmediate region (Iraq). Iran has no chance whatsoever to hold the channel without US satellites picking up such actions with good timing and US responding accordingly.

Considering Europe is not considered a "US ally" per se, and more so, Europe has the means to retaliate on Iran easily, though not quicker than the US (all what the US needs to do is hop the border, and Iran knows this) Iran would hit US assets mostly, if not only. Other only place that would be hit, Israel, who wil have the THEL working by the time Iran has a nuke (No proof as of now of Iran having an active nuke).

Iran is purchasing weapons through proxy deals with Syria and Byelorussia. Iran has also acquired weaponry through licensed manufacture of Russian systems which iran falsely claims is via reverse engineering.

Not top of the line, no T-90s, or SU-35, S-400, etc. Some modern systems, yes.
Enough to face local US assets, No.

The Shafageh fighter is in reality the Mig AT developed under license in Iran.

A source for this would be appreciated

Hey Ioseb_Jugashvili, I am really flattered that you made me a respected foe. Better than being ignored I suppose... Cheers

Iran's threat to Hormuz is not realistic, considering the sheer number of US Assets in the very inmediate region (Iraq). Iran has no chance whatsoever to hold the channel

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Ioseb_Jugashvili, Iran threatens world oil supplies through the straits of Hormuz and has recently threatened destruction of USA's key allies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Considering Europe is not considered a "US ally" per se

Hmm I suppose NATO doesn't count ?

en.wikipedia.org...

Shafegh was a joint production with Russia of the MIG AT:

A source for this would be appreciated

sure.... The Iranians themselves are the best source:

www.irandefence.net...




[edit on 18-6-2007 by sy.gunson]

good for russia standing up and denying, could you imagine the US allowing russia to build a missile defence on Cuba?

It wouldnt lead to war either, we'd never go that far, russia might be happy sacrificing billions of lives over something as trivial as that.... but... fortunately... the leader of the west.. mr bush... is a spinless, traitor to civilisaed man.... we're to occupied murdering for profit to even comprehend the possibility of resisting and defending against a major russian offensive.