Saturday, June 30, 2007

Russia aides Iran in Quest for Nuke's

The day after I posted my blog on Iran, a news story broke out of Iran that fit in directly with my post. Iran has instituted a fuel rationing system in expectation of sanctions being placed against it for its nuclear program. There have been riots in the street with buildings and gas pumps being burned. FOX News reported that many Iranians believe they are entitled to cheap gas because of the oil reserves found in Iran. Ahmadinejad is being heavily criticized for both the rationing and the way it was broken to the public.


This morning, another news story appeared that I believe is important. I have argued against the effectiveness of the United Nations. In my post from Tuesday, I commended Peter Schweizer for his article recommending action against Iran. I commended him because he never calls for the United Nations to assist in the economic warfare he lays out against Iran. The riots over gas rationing show that Iran would be hurt if we prevented it from importing gasoline, a news story from this morning shows why we shouldn’t involve the United Nations.


FOX News is reporting that Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman is attempting to invest heavily in the Iranian market. His company, Alfa Group, is trying to buy a controlling share in an Iranian mobile phone company. Why is this important? Because in doing so, Alfa Group is making financial deals with Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat has been providing funding to Hezbollah. There is evidence that the deal by Alfa group would dilute the control of a political rival of Ahmadinejad’s thereby helping him to consolidate power.


Russia has had a history of both supplying Iran with conventional weapons, and blocking any sanctions against Iran. Russia has also sold Iran a $1 billion nuclear reactor which is currently under construction. Russia has shown it has a vested interest in helping the Iranian government. With Russia working actively against sanctions on Iran, can the United Nations impose any sanction that might actually work to bring Iran back from its nuclear course?


As I said on Tuesday, Iran can not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Some have offered that we should avoid military action until Iran gets to the testing stage of a nuclear weapon. I counter that by then it would be too late. Ahmadinejad and the mullah’s of Iran believe there is a religious component to their quest for nuclear power. They believe they are preordained to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. They also believe the best way to do that is to begin a war with Israel. With nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad could make his desire to destroy Israel a reality. Because of that, there is no reason to believe Ahmadinejad won’t consider “testing” his nuke’s in Israel. Russia could also give him cover by allowing a test in Russia, and thereby hide the fact he is even testing weapons.


If we continue to wait to act in Iran, Ahmadinejad will get nuclear weapons. Once he gets nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before he uses them.

10 comments:

familyman said...

You know, religion is the root of so much evil in this world. It's really sad.

Andy D said...

Should I take that to mean you don't believe in any religion?

Brandon said...

Andy, I guess I'm just not seeing the connection between a Russian billionaire buying an Iranian company & the entire country of Russia helping Iran. Although Putin has cracked down on personal freedoms, a billionaire can still spend his money as he sees fit.

Andy D said...

Good question Brandon. The reason it is important is because the more business investments in Iran, the less likely Russia will be willing to agree to sanctions against Iran. Economic sanctions will hurt business within Iran, and if there is a large amount of Russia business investment, then Russian businesses will be hurt. In this specific case, we are talking a very, very large investment.

familyman said...

"Should I take that to mean you don't believe in any religion?"

What I believe is beside the point here.

As you yourself have said Ahmadinejad, ”has also said that he believes the way to hasten the arrival of the Islamic messiah is to unleash an apocalyptic holy war against Christians and Jews."

Add that to sectarian violence in Iraq. Violence and hate on the border of Israel and Palestine. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands following guys like Falwell preaching intolerance. And on and on. Hate hate hate.

I'm not saying that if we had no religion there'd be no violence. But religion sure seems to be a good excuse for hating your neighbor.

Saint said...

Religion is and always will be a hot topic in the world. Too many times man has twisted a religion to "allow" whatever violence suits his purposes. It is truly sad that mankind does use that excuse for so much violence.

I would be careful with the "intolerance" label though.

Andy D said...

I agree with Saint. Men will always look for a reason to commit violence. Overall, I think religion has been a force for good in the world. However, I have said on this site many times that I don’t think Islam is compatible with the West. I do believe Muslims have gone further with violence in the name of religion than any other. I will agree that every religion has seen is dark hour. Has Islam ever not been in a violent time?

familyman said...

To Saint -

Falwell said, "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

I feel pretty safe characterizing that as "preaching intolerance."

To Andy -

Sorry for taking this thread way off topic.

Andy D said...

Don’t apologize family, many of my post go off topic, and it is usually a fun ride.

Saint said...

Familyman - I don't want you to misunderstand my comments, I was not defending Falwell or anyone else. I don't know that much about Falwell. I believe the intolerant label gets used way too much these days. If a Christian speaks out against something, they are attacked for being intolerant. This doesn't appear to happen to any other religion.

I personally disagree with the statement you have quoted. I belive homosexuallity is wrong. I believe homosexuals need to be in church, just like the rest of us sinners. I do not believe homosexuals are worse than I am, nor do I believe they are better. Sin is sin.

However, to say aids is God's punishment is wrong. To say anything is God's punishment is wrong, and negates the sacrafice that Christ paid on the cross for us. With his death, he paid the price for ALL sin, not just certain sins. If he has paid that price, then God would not be sending down punishment for it.