Russia warns against attacking Iran over nuclear fears

MOSCOW Thu Sep 6, 2012 5:20am EDT

Related Topics

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has starkly warned Israel and the United States against attacking Iran, saying Moscow sees no evidence that Tehran's nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons, the Interfax news agency reported on Thursday.

"We warn those who are no strangers to military solutions ... that this would be harmful, literally disastrous for regional stability," Interfax quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying.

An attack on Iran "would set off deep shocks in the security and economic spheres that would reverberate far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East region," Ryabkov was quoted as saying.

Russian officials have issued similar warnings in the past, but Ryabkov's remarks appeared to underscore Moscow's concern about the possibility that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Heightened Israeli rhetoric about the facilities, which Western powers believe are part of a program to develop a nuclear weapons capability, has stoked speculation that Israel may attack Iran before the U.S. presidential election in November.

Ryabkov said there were no indications of a military nuclear program and suggested monitoring by the U.N. nuclear agency was a strong guarantee.

"We, as before, see no signs that there is a military dimension to Iran's nuclear program. No signs," Interfax quoted Ryabkov - Russia's point man for diplomacy on Iran's nuclear program - as saying.

"We see something different - that there is nuclear material ... in Iran that is under the control of inspectors, specialists of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"This nuclear material is not being shifted to military needs, this is officially confirmed by the (IAEA)."

His remarks appeared to be at odds with mounting concern voiced by the U.N. atomic watchdog about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program.

The IAEA said last week that Iran had doubled the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges in an underground bunker in a few months, showing it continued to expand its nuclear program despite sanctions and the threat of an Israeli attack. The new machines are not yet operating, it added.

It also said that in the last decade, it had become "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military related organizations".

Nuclear proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies think-tank and a former senior U.S. state department official, said that on one level Ryabkov's remarks were in line with Western views.

"If ... he means (Russia sees) no evidence that Iran is aiming to cross the threshold from capability to weapons production, then Ryabkov's statement is the same as the collective view of the United States and its European allies.

"But Ryabkov goes too far in giving Iran the benefit of the doubt when he says Russia sees no signs of a military dimension ... Maybe he means that the evidence is not yet confirmed. But there are certainly ample 'signs'," he said.

"Surely Russian intelligence is not so blind."

While Russia is a partner of the United States and four other powers in diplomatic efforts to ensure Tehran does not acquire nuclear weapons, it says the West is undermining those efforts with sanctions and the threat of attack.

"In recent times the tendency to use sanctions to achieve aims that are beyond reach in principle by means of pressure has become a passion that ... politicians on both sides of the Atlantic cannot overcome," Interfax quoted Ryabkov as saying.

A permanent U.N. Security Council member with veto power, Russia says it opposes further sanctions beyond the measures approved in four Security Council resolutions, the most recent in 2010.

(Additional reporting by Fredrik Dahl in Vienna; Editing by Tim Pearce)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (7)
Abulafiah wrote:
Was there ever any signs – as distinct from empty rhetoric – that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Sep 06, 2012 2:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
shayneedward wrote:
The steps they are taking to enrich their uranium (ie adding more and more centrifuges) makes them dangerously close to being able to produce weapons grade. They have stockpiled enough low enriched uranium at this point to make several bombs worth of weapons grade, if they were to take the next step of using their centrifuges to enrich it further. Even though they have converted half of their 20% enriched for use in a medical reactor, they had doubled their stored supply of it between Feb and now, so they still have a lot on hand. Add that up with them having doubled their number of centrifuges in a hardened underground facility since May, and there is cause for concern. They have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel should be eradicated. If your neighbor says he’s going to buy a gun and kill you, and then you see him in the gun store, you might get concerned.

Sep 06, 2012 3:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:
Weapons grade Uranium is absolute minimum 85%, typically 93% or more, so no – they are not ‘dangerously close’to weapons grade. They are not even 25% of the way there.

Having a) no explosive and b) nothing to but it in if they had, means they have no nuclear arms programme. It is just silly right-wing scaremongering that says they have.

You could try obtaining facts, instead of choosing to reinforce your prejudices by reading propaganda put out WPNAC. This is the same guy (Gary Milhollin) that gave us, using the same style of pseudo-science to claim Iraq had both chemical weapons and nukes. As we all know, they had nothing and your favourite source was tracking nothing but figments of the imagination, and was 100% wrong.

What makes you think they are suddenly credible now?

Sep 06, 2012 4:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.