"Destabilization of Iran can lead to completely unpredictable consequences"

According to Kommersant, the negotiations of Iran with six international mediators scheduled for April are the last chance to avoid war. Allegedly, the request to convey this idea came to the address of Sergey Lavrov from his American counterpart Hillary Clinton.

I hope that we are talking only about the propaganda campaign on the part of Washington.

I hope that this is only a propaganda campaign on the part of Washington in order to create tension in the Middle East. The problem is that no one, including the American establishment, has any idea what such actions may lead to. On the one hand, the Israelis are proposing a "point", "dagger" operation. But no one knows what the response from Iran will be and, accordingly, how it will affect the situation in the region, where, among other things, Syria and Iraq still have a lot of problems after 10 years of occupation, not to mention the fact that there is Afghanistan and Pakistan. In such a situation, the destabilization of Iran can lead to completely unpredictable consequences. So I am sure that the US authorities will not go to support Israeli actions of this kind.

The position of Russia on the Iranian issue is, frankly, poorly defined. But still, be that as it may, we both openly and through other channels oppose attempts to solve it by force, and this is an absolutely correct position. In general, our diplomacy conveys this vision quite professionally. The main question is the direction in which the global financial crisis is developing. The same attack on Iranian nuclear facilities under the pretext of suspending the nuclear program of this country is only one of the options for initiating such a big conflict as a way to extinguish with one fire another - financial and economic.

Humanitarian corridors are such a “royal path” for special operations.

In this regard, Russian foreign policy, unfortunately, is very independent, non-initiative and non-complex. It does not link the various geopolitical, economic and cultural moments among themselves. This is evident in the case of Syria, where, with the generally brilliant, strong-willed position of the Russian Federation, which, of course, should be welcomed in every possible way, manufacturability and creativity are not visible. This is our main problem. By and large, the United States did not intend to use military force in Syria, because all the generals, one might say, choir opposed the war with a well-trained Syrian army - with the support weapons from Russia. Even this was not a question.

Another thing is that the efforts of the special services to intensify the insurgency and intensify terrorist activities are only intensifying and growing. In this field Syria, Russia and China are losing to the West. The Americans are betting on the erosion of the regime through the organization of insurgent resistance, as well as through various mechanisms like “humanitarian corridors”, to which Russia actually agreed to open. As it has been said and proved many times, humanitarian corridors are such a “royal path” for conducting special operations, sending military consultants, weapons, etc. Thus, while Russia and China took an adequate position in the UN Security Council, its question is purely technological implementation is at an extremely low level.

Comments

[Igarr]

No matter how much you read Krupnov, it’s impossible to understand properly - for WHAT he ...
"manufacturability and creativity are not visible."
I hear - creativity ... right before my eyes, for some reason bucks pop up ..
Who is not creative? And he, Krupnov, what ... what does he earn for bread? Showing what our foreign ministry is non-creative?

Officials ...... state apparatus ..... some kind of rat, rat. Itself sits in the analytical center ... so prove - it will be better this way, but it will be so - bad.
No ... if only to crow - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not creative, lethargic and incapable.
Minus, minus Krupnov.

[Tersky]

This is precisely what outrages, criticism is above the head and there are no specific recommendations ...

[wall]

he wrote everything correctly. As long as our "elite" keeps money in Western banks, we will hand over one ally after another. And if not, then tell me why Russia never sold the S-300 to Iran?

[ATATA]

And why did you decide that what Russia sold the C300 to Iran, or did not sell, should be known to the general public?
Maybe this was a performance, so that later the field would not be blamed.

And according to the article, then yes, cheap advertising material, so that people like us would fly up and let's read everything on pop-up advertisements, how to blow up on mines. )
I put a minus article.

[Cripple cross]

"Destabilization of Iran can lead to completely unpredictable consequences"

Even to the third world.
And our position must be strengthened every day and more clearly. Once you have designated it, you need to tighten the bolts more and more.

[skullcap]

The whole point is precisely that the destabilization of Iran will definitely lead to absolutely predictable consequences in advance.
Any start of hostilities will trigger a retaliatory strike by Iran, and further development of the exchange of strikes will draw many countries of Bl. East.
Israel’s participation in this adventure will involve the entire region from Egypt to Iran in the conflict. Like in Libya, the masses of refugees will flee from the war. From Iran they will flee to Azerbaijan and Wed. Asia, carrying with it a simple solution of local problems through Islamization and the everyday use of firearms in solving everyday problems.
Fleeing such a life from these regions, the local masses of refugees will trample to Russia, primarily to the Caucasus and the Volga republics, where the process will continue, developing into a civil war.
Of course, something will go to China and India, and even Europe, so as not to bury.
However, the main burden of getting out of the situation will again fall on Russia.
Only states and their green plague will benefit, which again everyone will be forced to buy.
For Russia, this scenario is similar to death. Therefore, it is impossible to surrender either Syria or Iran.
And it is better to protect your family and homeland as a whole as far as possible from your borders.

[rinzhak]

“Iran’s destabilization can lead to absolutely unpredictable consequences "

why unpredictable?
Even Field Marshal Rommel proposed to attack Russia not head-on from the western direction, but through Iran with access to the republics of Central Asia and into the so-called. "soft underbelly" of Russia.
When the United States conquers Iran, they will receive the most advantageous bridgehead for the preparation of the second action. "Marlezon ballet"
Beware of China - the next after Iran you ...
The US is challenging Russia, and Russia is obliged to accept it. It will be again The Big Game two superpowers, it will be traditional again New world order

[Chicot 1]

China is unlikely, dear rinzhak... China is now ready for a protracted defensive war of attrition. Will the US have enough reserves for such a war? This is another question from the very tricky ...
So, the PRC certainly does not fit the role of a victim and a whipping boy ...

And the invasion of Iran can be expensive for any aggressor ... And in Iran, Americans are not very favored, and they will not be alarmed with them. The tragic ending of "Rice Pot" (Operation Delta to liberate the American Embassy in Tehran, 1980) showed this well ...

[old rocket man]

"Destabilization of Iran can lead to completely unpredictable consequences"
Unpredictability assumes a multivariate outcome destabilizationregime in Iran, namely destabilization, rather than conducting a military operation, which is one of the options for the development of the situation in the region. The reactions of Pakistan, China, Afghanistan and Turkey are multivariate and ambiguous. It is not possible to calculate the bouquet of emerging problems, this is what is meant. And one should not exaggerate the influence of expert opinion on foreign policy pursued by the Foreign Ministry

[Goga]

Here is a statement - "all the generals, one might say, spoke out in unison against the war" - they called Krupnov like this in unison and swore ... Maybe these same generals, by friendship, will tell Mr. Krupnov - are they for the war with Iran or not? And then everything will be at a loss, will not be?
But seriously - the article "on the tops" is not analytics but OBS ....

[Ascetic]

By and large, the United States did not intend to use military force in Syria, because all the generals, one might say, chorus opposed the war with a well-trained Syrian army - in conditions of arms support from Russia. Even this was not a question.

The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe. And if we replace Syria with Russia, we get a fairly common postulate that is constantly hammered into the heads of Russians by the "independent" media. Of course they are not going because they know what they will get on the "impudent red face" What kind of uncreativity we are talking about if, according to the latest news, the city of Deraa has been almost liberated, which was captured six months ago, and before that Homs with captured French mercenaries, and in Syria, support for Assad .. It's just that amers expect that in the long term the Sunni majority will put pressure on the Alawite ruling clan, well, for a too long time, apparently the Sunni opposition does not have a clear understanding of its goals and objectives, there is no unity and cohesion. And the contradictions with the government are not so strong that one can lay their heads on the altar of democracy according to the American recipe.

[old rocket man]

Ascetic,
Jes, it is. Not generals decide when to start and end wars, so this rhetoric is for the demented and gullible, the war has been going on for a long time and it has no end in sight

[sergo0000]

I also did not understand something that he wanted to convey to the reader! And when is Russia ...
Did you actually agree to the opening of the Humanitarian Corridors? I don’t remember something!

[Volkhov]

It’s just that people don’t talk about it, and the evacuation of foreigners is almost complete.
With the reduction of armaments in Europe, many NATO tanks were driven to the Turks - corridors will be built from them, otherwise the material disappears.

[Mihail1986]

about Iraq and Afghanistan, it was also about the unpredictable consequences of how to start bombing, so the language in .....

[755962]

The aim of the implementation of the geopolitical project "Greater Middle East", in which, unfortunately, many EU countries are also involved, is, first of all, to limit the potential of the geopolitical, geostrategic, geo-economic possibilities of the main global competitors of the United States, firstly, the Russian Federation and, secondly, oddly enough, the European Union. In case of destabilization of the situation in Iran, destabilization will follow in all the countries of the South Caucasus. There will be a sharp weakening of the influence of the Russian Federation in the entire Caucasian space. Meanwhile, Russia is the guarantor of security, including in the event of the Karabakh conflict, and Iran is one of the main allies of isolated Armenia, as well as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. If the Russian Federation does not effectively resist the implementation of the project, and if the main EU countries contribute to its implementation, the situation will develop in an undesirable way for the region, and in particular for Nagorno-Karabakh.

[atheist]

we must wait for the elections in America, then we will find out what’s what

[io_stalin]

Syria seems to be delayed
Now Iran

[controller]

I suspect that Israel will do all the "dirty work" with regard to Iran - after its own provocation, they will start shelling Iran.
The United States, as usual, will act on the sidelines as a "peacemaker" to ensure the maintenance of the interests of the American crap, according to the scenario worked out in Libya.
As can be seen from the history of the United States, masters of war on foreign territory and with the wrong hands, well, or from a safe distance.

[Odessa]

For me, the phrase of the author of the article turned out to be somewhat strange: "... all the generals (note-American), one might say, in unison opposed the war with the well-trained Syrian army - in the conditions of the support of weapons from Russia." I would like to ask then: why the "perfectly" prepared Syrian army (and in the assault, for example, Homs, the elite 20th Panzer Division under the command of Assad's brother Mahir took part) after massive art. and air attacks in tech. a month could not take the city? And, for example, the military operation in Iraq began on March 2003, 15, and on April XNUMX, American troops took Tikrit, ending the active phase of hostilities and thus controlled the third of the whole Iraq, and not one city ... Those. , then the American (they were the "main") army is generally super-duper fighters - they captured an entire country (not too big and small) in less than a month and in battles not with opposition fighters, as the media present Syrian opponents to the Assad regime, but by defeating the Iraqi regular troops.
In general, what I want to write, I in no way want to underestimate the capacity of the Syrian army (it is much better and stronger than the armies of a number of countries, including the Arab ones), but it seems to me that the reason for the delay strike on Syria (I would like it not to take place at all) is not in the strength of the Syrian army (although the Americans may be afraid of it - there is something for that, but they are not afraid at all), but in other reasons: strong opposition from a number of countries that are not in any way interested in strike on Syria (including Russia); political (including presidential elections in the United States); economic (little "give" in this regard for, for example, the revolt of the am. ek-ki), etc. there is a kind of "lulling" and, as it were, calming the community, but constant undercover butting with the same Iran and through the situation in Syria (weakening of one of Iran's most important allies).
Yes, and I don’t quite understand the author’s phrase about an article on the Russian Federation that supports Syria with weapons. Sold - yes. Sold - yes. But how much did Syria buy these weapons and can afford to buy them now? Unfortunately, the Syrian armed forces have a very limited number there are a few more modern systems of the armed forces. Of course, they are slightly larger than, for example, in Iraq in 2003 before the aggression of the alliance or in Libya of Muammar, but still not much. Some very limited support from the Russian Federation is obtained.

[Murai]

Turkish authorities announced on Friday, March 16, the need to create a "buffer zone" in the border areas of the Syrian province of Idleb. To do this, Turkish troops may invade Syria.

So in Syria, the war is still likely to begin.
The invasion of Turkey will mean the beginning of an open war against Syria. Because Turkey - a member of NATO, then after a fair retaliatory attack by the Syrian forces on Turkish troops, NATO with all its strength to fall on this country. I think at this time, and Israel will deal with Iran. Here it is, the beginning of the 3rd world, the long-promised 2012 year.