"Attack Iran and you attack Russia" --Putin/Khamenei Meeting.... LINK

The Russian trump card is now played, and Bush NeoCons must now justify facing off against Russia if the US attacks Iran. This was not unexpected, but public release of the terms of this agreement indicates that a US attack on Iran would create not just a regional conflict in the Middle East, but rather a conflict with UN Security Council Member Russia --and China would almost surely oppose the US.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html

"Attack Iran and you attack Russia"

By Pepe Escobar

The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration's relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.

But then, as if this were not enough of a political bombshell, came the abrupt resignation of Ali Larijani as top Iranian nuclear negotiator. Early this week in Rome, Larijani told the IRNA news agency that "Iran's nuclear policies are stable and will not change with the replacement of the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council ." Larijani will keep attending SNSC meetings, now as a representative of the Supreme Leader. He even took time to remind the West that in the Islamic Republic all key decisions regarding the civilian nuclear program are made by the Supreme Leader. Larijani actually went to Rome to meet with the European Union's Javier Solana alongside Iran's new negotiator, Saeed Jalili, a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), just like President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

<snip>

Even worse: regarding the appalling record of the Ahmadinejad presidency when it comes to the economy, all-out criticism is now the norm. Another former nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, told the Etemad-e Melli newspaper, "The effects of the sanctions are visible. Our situation gets worse day by day." Ahmadinejad for the past two months has been placing his former IRGC brothers-in-arms in key posts, like the presidency of the central bank and the Oil, Industry and Interior ministries. Internal repression is rife. On Sunday, hundreds of students protested at the Amir-Kabir University in Tehran, calling for "Death to the dictator".

The wily, ultimate pragmatist Hashemi Rafsanjani, now leader of the Council of Experts and in practice a much more powerful figure than Ahmadinejad, took no time to publicly reflect that "we can't bend people's thoughts with dictatorial regimes".

MORE

seen and I likely have not seen them all that lead with this quote that can't be supported, even hardly as speculation in the actual Asia Times article. Too sensationalist a lead by far.

Moderators????

I guess some people would rather be uninformed about what is being published.

The fact you take issue with the Headline of the story is fine. The fact you want others not to know that the article has been published, is unacceptable.

I've always had an inclination to look for fire, and it would seem that in this case that would be very true. Do I think that the Bush Administration will start WW111? answer = Probably. Do I not what course it will take, ie: total devastation of our planet? answer = Have no clue about that.

"answer = Probably"

Adv. 1. probably - with considerable certainty; without much doubt

So what are you and your family doing to prepare for the end of the world?

I'm sure there are many people here that think it's probable Bush will start WWIII.

Cheers

That's the gist of it.

Such as, "An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia." That statement alone is sufficient.

Somehow I ruffled some feathers in questioning the title of these threads and finally asking the advice of a moderator(not the tombstone). Of course it is legitimate to pull something out of any article. After a few times however, it is not the article, which unfortunately not enough people read through carefully, but the repetition of a questionably attributed dramatic policy challenge that makes me wonder if this is fair. People immediately spring to taking this as words from Putin to Bush's ear piece.

I am not sure what the signals are that are being sent or sure that article is sure or the source absolutely revealing. The topic is well worth thinking about and discussing. If Putin has thrown down the gauntlet behind the scenes, to save the face of our resident cowards that would be speculative. The use of quotes makes it look like a public address to the the UN or something. That would be a news-breaking crisis.

I did not say the words were impossible either, only unlikely, and certainly that one should not read the Asia Times article which seems more thoughtful than our typically deaf US journals. i got the impression that Russia wants to enter more strongly anti-US but more as a broker in this standoff, different in its role with the intractable Hussein maybe in not expecting to gain any favor from DC in this particular move. And not secretly passing on information to Washington and thus playing both sides this time for sure. But going even so far as the Soviets did in limiting our war efforts in Vietnam? Not sure of that at all, but much less sure that Russia is making a war pact with Iran without getting some bending from Mr. A on some particular strategy. In any event they again seem not to have moved Mr. A who counter-constructively may be the source of the leak to make it look like he has Russian strength fully on his side- without giving into any Russian peace deal plan to undercut and deflate the Americans.

No it is not worth censorship. We have thousands of exciting posts that go forth like this. I think the clarity of the post quote merits a little challenging in context. And three uses of the sensationalist touch only are getting to be a few too many when the war issue and who can prevent it ARE very important to follow. As for world catastrophe, I do firmly believe the Bush/Cheney crew IS on that course one way or another and quite capable of its many forms and resistant to most of the remedies. Of the forces that SEEM arrayed to prevent it none are very clearly so, nor demonstrably effective so far though maybe it is all over except for bluster and saving face. it is not good when the Israelis and the American neocons are very clearly all for the war and marching us toward us and all the opposition is quiet, secret, ambivalent and perhaps non-existent. Even Mr. A seems to prefer America making a weak strike, as might the Russians, to permanently destroy us in the ME. Only the forces for war are clear and clearly ongoing.

Use of quotation marks to identify the title of the article to which it is linked is standard.

I guess I should count myself lucky that you(the interpreter of all things accurate and worthwhile) did not exercise your great power and have me tombstoned.

Oh great and all powerful conscientious filter for the rest of us, don't do us any favors.

as others have pointed out, this was not an official release from Moscow...it was a timed leak to push back against D.C.

That doesn't make it that much better than an official release from Moscow, but it is at least evidence that Putin does not yet want to go on the record officially.

Really makes you wonder what Khamanei has on the table doesn't it? Putin is playing the Great Game like its Chess. Bush is still playing Chutes and Ladders.

What's in it for Putin????

The US is invested in our oil friends, Saudi Arabia.

They can buy Iran's oil if they wanted it now. How does this "alliance" change anything with regard to oil?

It's a phony, IMO. Russia would never take on the U.S. for the sake of Iran.

very high oil prices. At reasonable oil prices, Russian oil becomes unprofitable again because their infrastructure necessarily makes oil extraction expensive, more so than with Iran or Saudi Arabia. For long-term stability, it would make sense to have a partner with cheap oil, not expensive oil.

If Bush-Cheney attacks Iran and Putin orders his subs to start attacking, for example, Diego Garcia, wouldn't that necessarily mean all NATO countries must respond to America's defense due to treaty obligations?

The Bushco Junta does not want us to control the dialogue on anything, especially their huge crimes in IRAQ.

It is all about IRAQ

IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ
IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ