"...If Tehran and Washington even partially normalize relations, the economic and political fallout for Moscow would be enormous.."

The MT calls for US strikes .... In the Moscow Times, here

"... Tehran's desire to establish its status as a regional power will surely clash with Washington's desire to solidify its own global leadership role. And Russia, which has one foot in both camps, will find itself in an increasingly difficult position....Tehran was the only party to come out an unequivocal winner following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. After Iran's chief nemesis, President Saddam Hussein, was executed, Tehran began to spread its influence throughout a large part of Iraq. If the U.S. forces really do withdraw from Iraq, Iran will play a central role in how events develop further there.
Tehran is an enemy of al-Qaida, and with regard to Pakistan -- a key player in the Afghanistan conflict -- it is envious of its membership in the nuclear club. Iran has no interest in seeing the Taliban victorious in Afghanistan either, and it considers the Taliban -- Sunni radicals who have ties to Saudi Arabia -- to be its main rival in the Islamic world.
What's more, by improving relations with Iran, the United States can achieve its goal of diversifying energy supplies to Europe, which means reducing European dependence on Russian gas and oil. And only Iranian natural gas supplies can make the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline project viable.

The economic and political fallout for Moscow would be enormous if Tehran and Washington even partially normalize relations. Improved relations between the two would give Europe access to Iranian natural gas, meaning that Russia would have to battle with a new, powerful competitor to maintain its share of the European energy market. Furthermore, normal U.S.-Iranian relations would open Iran's domestic market to Western technologies, including in the civilian nuclear power sector, thereby potentially leaving Russia on the sidelines in these lucrative markets.
From a rational point of view, it would be to Washington's advantage to improve relations with Iran the way former U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did with China in the 1970s. If Washington can get past its deep aversion to Tehran's theocratic and anti-Semitic regime, we will witness a revolution in global geopolitics. ....
In any case, there is little chance that the United States will be able to establish a positive dialogue with Iran. Tehran believes that its right to develop a nuclear program is not negotiable, and Washington remains inflexibly opposed to it. .... Past experience shows that sanctions are ineffective in such situations.
What would happen next? Would the world have to come to terms with a nuclear-armed Tehran? Washington previously closed a blind eye to India and Pakistan when they "illegally" developed nuclear weapons, and the United States might be able to tolerate one more addition to the nuclear club, in theory, if the country were moderate. But there is a clear difference between letting New Delhi or Islamabad join the club and giving membership rights to the militant anti-U.S. regime in Tehran. .... a serious political defeat for Washington...... it would have a domino effect, leading other Middle Eastern states to obtain nuclear arms, thereby destroying any attempt to enforce nuclear nonproliferation.
Another option for Obama is to use force to resolve the Iranian question. If the U.S. military is successful in forcing a regime change in Tehran, it will solidify the global status of the United States as the only state capable of resolving the world's problems..."