Africa | America | Asia | Australasia | Europe | India | Middle East | UK | US

Russia rejects link between missile defence and Iran - Update

Madrid/Washington - Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday showed willingness to discuss the US-planned missile defence system opposed by Moscow, but without  haggling  linking it to Iran. Medvedev was commenting during a visit to Spain on an a...
Posted : Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:48:02 GMT
By : DPA
Category : US (World)
News Alerts by Email ( click here )
US World News | Home
Madrid/Washington - Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday showed willingness to discuss the US-planned missile defence system opposed by Moscow, but without "haggling" linking it to Iran. Medvedev was commenting during a visit to Spain on an alleged offer by US President Barack Obama to halt the defence system if Iran could be convinced to give up nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

The New York Times earlier reported that Obama had sent a secret letter to Medvedev.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Madrid, Medvedev welcomed the "positive signals" coming from the Obama administration with which he hoped to reach "agreements."

"Haggling," however, was not "productive," Medvedev said.

If the Obama administration showed "common sense" in proposing a "common shield against all types of threats" and reconsidered its plans of a missile defence system which could target Russia, Moscow would be prepared to negotiate, Medvedev said.

The New York Times reported earlier on its website that Obama last month offered a halt to the US-planned missile defence system opposed by Moscow if Iran could be convinced to relinquish nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Citing US officials speaking on condition of anonymity, the Times reported that Obama sent a secret letter three weeks ago to Medvedev.

The offer was described as offering Russia an incentive to help the US and other Western powers achieve a halt to any Iranian programmes that could lead to military nuclear capabilities and long- range delivery systems for warheads.

If the Iranian threat were removed, the US could forego the missile defence system, the letter was described as saying.

The Times quoted a senior administration official as saying: "It's almost saying to them, put up or shut up. It's not that the Russians get to say, 'We'll try and therefore you have to suspend.' It says the threat has to go away."

Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is to meet Friday in Geneva with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, ahead of an Obama- Medvedev meeting on on April 2 in London.

Copyright DPA

Share/Save/Bookmark

Article : Russia rejects link between missile defence and Iran - Update
Print this article
Email this article

Stay Updated
News gadget on your Google homepage
Subscribe to a news feed in Google Reader


Related News



Have your Say
Name
Email
Subject
Your Comment

Enter Verification code
 
  


 
Your Comments

Just Common Sense for Any Commie
By: Erick , Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:04:07 GMT

Now why would Russians want to help the U.S. keep Iranians from getting nuclear weapons? That's just stupid to any Russian politician...they, along with Chinese help, aid Iranian terrorists every chance they get.

Ever wonder why the Russians use their United Nations veto power against the U.S. every chance they get? Hmmm...I don't think the Russians like Americans...

...me thinks that Russia wouldn't mind Iran nuking Isreal...or America for that matter. After all, the "President" of Iran himself said he wanted to "wipe Isreal off the face of the earth". Why not the U.S. as well? Let Iran do it and it's a 'win-win' situation for Russia.


Nuclear Weapons....
By: Steve , Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:13:06 GMT

"nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles" Iran has no nuclear weapons. The IAEA along with the U.N. has stated repeatedly that Iran is enriching material to around 5%, which is power plant grade. They would need to enrich material to 95% or more a weapon. Hasn't Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Hasn't the U.S. signed the same treaty? Why are we NOT helping Iran as we shoud according to the treaty?
How about doing a nice piece on Israel's power plant at Dimona? Have they signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Russia/Iran
By: robert , Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:03:35 GMT

What nuclear weapons? The IAEA says there aren't any..Israel has plenty. There's your threat to peace in the world. Duh


Obama
By: Bill Clinton , Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:38:27 GMT

Why "deal" at all with the US until Obama's court cases as to his actually being POTUS is complete?

He has not proved he's President


Showing his lack of spine
By: Tom , Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:14:19 GMT

I can't believe how naive our idiot of a president really is. Its amazing how, day after day, he proves just how inept he is at anything outside of a university or community organizing. You might as well send him the keys to the oval office Barack because your countless blunders and inability to do anything remotely similar to leading your country will soon see you as one of the worst failures in American history!


The know he's weak.
By: Ster , Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:02:21 GMT

Russia knows that Obama is weak and will not stand up to them like past presidents did. So, they're not going to 'give' on anything other than a symbolic gesture. They know Obama will back down, or just leave it alone.

If this happens and Obama does back down, every other leader and dictator out there will see that he's as weak as many of us thought and start to take advantage of every situation they can, at our expense.



More US (World) News click here
Follow The Earth Times
Subscribe to RSS Follow Earth Times on TwitterNews by email
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
 



 
Subscribe to free Earthtimes
News Alerts by Email Click here
For RSS Feeds Click here
or Create your own RSS

Add to Google Toolbar
Breaking News
Press Releases

 

 

The Earth Times
News Category

© 2010 www.earthtimes.org, The Earth Times, All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy
Earth Times accept no responsibility or liability either directly or indirectly for views or opinions expressed in articles or comments.