A

FTER A WEEK OF SILENCE following the Oct. 1 talks with Iran in Geneva, Russian officials issued a series of statements Tuesday. First, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Borodavkin told Itar-Tass directly that Russia intends to continue its military-technical cooperation with Iran, though within the strict framework of international laws on such matters. Borodavkin’s statement comes in response to U.S. and Israeli demands for Russia to stop supporting Iran. Later in the day, National Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev denied a report in Britain’s Sunday Times that stated Israel had confronted Moscow with evidence that Russian scientists were aiding Iran in the development of a nuclear weapons program.

Russia has been in a tense position since the Geneva talks. Though the P-5+1 and Tehran reached a tentative agreement to allow Iran’s nuclear facilities to be inspected, under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington and Tehran are still heading toward a crisis. At the heart of this crisis is Russia: It is Russia that is helping Iran with its civilian nuclear program, and Russia is the country that could undermine the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Moscow also occasionally raises the specter of more significant military assistance to Iran, in the form of modern strategic air defense systems like the S-300.

“If Russia was directly linked to the crisis, it would wreck Moscow’s ability to negotiate not only with the United States but with the West as a whole, including Europe.”

In the past week, a flurry of leaks has escalated tensions between the United States and Iran. There was a leak from the IAEA stating that Iran’s nuclear program is much more advanced than previously thought, as well as leaks from the United States that the government is re-examining its intelligence estimates on Iran’s program. But what was really interesting was the leak about Israel’s evidence that Russia is helping Iran with its nuclear weapons program (instead of nuclear energy for civilian purposes). This leak not only heightened the sense of an impending crisis between the United States and Iran, but also pointed a finger directly at Russia.

Yet Russia was silent for a week after the Geneva talks, and for three days after the Sunday Times reported the accusations against it. But the silence has now been broken.

The Russians took their time deciding how to respond on all fronts. As expected, Moscow denied that it was helping Iran develop a weapons program. For Russia to achieve its goal, it must be seen as supportive of Iran, but not as the cause of the turmoil between Washington and Tehran. If Russia was directly linked to the crisis, it would wreck Moscow’s ability to negotiate not only with the United States but with the West as a whole, including Europe.

While Russia distances itself from the leaked Israeli accusation, it is the statement from Borodavkin that is critical. Russia is reserving the right to continue its military relationship with Iran, despite the U.S. and Israeli demands to stop. Russia is pushing the United States into a dilemma.

Moscow sees three possible outcomes of the crisis.

First, the United States could try to cut a deal with the Russians: Washington would concede on issues in Moscow’s sphere of influence, in exchange for Russia backing away from Iran. But the United States would have to give up much more than missile defense in Europe. Russia wants control in the former Soviet sphere and in Europe.

The second possible outcome would be the United States backing down on the Iran issue, which Russia would see as a very public demonstration of Washington’s weakness.

The third possibility is that the United States would take military action against Iran and get involved in a third war in the Middle East. The Russians believe that as long as Washington is focused on Iran, it cannot also be focused on their actions.

Moscow is playing a complex and dangerous game with Iran and the United States. For the past several years, Russia has made it clear to the United States that it wanted Washington to quit meddling in its periphery and recognize Russia as the predominant Eurasian power. The United States, under the previous and current administrations, ignored Russia’s demands. Russia has proven recently — through the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, for example — that it cannot be ignored. As it seeks to push back against the United States, Moscow does not see a downside to the U.S.-Iranian crisis, except possibly one: A short, sharp air and naval campaign that hurls Iran back a generation, combined with a U.S. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan, would leave Russia without its Iran card, and looking at an angry United States that has a very free hand.

3,748 views 8 replies
Reply #1 Top

Nothing shockingly new here. Sure hope Obama can make some more concessions to Russia for all their "support". {/sarcasm}

Reply #2 Top

A short, sharp air and naval campaign that hurls Iran back a generation, combined with a U.S. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan, would leave Russia without its Iran card, and looking at an angry United States that has a very free hand

After Afghanistan and Iraq I really can't see the US managing a "short and sharp" war against Iran combined with pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan - if anything their hands would be further tied down.

Also given how little prominance this issue is getting I think any military action in the next few months is highly unlikely. The US would want much more of a build up to try and increase support for any such action.

Reply #3 Top

After Afghanistan and Iraq I really can't see the US managing a "short and sharp" war against Iran combined with pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan - if anything their hands would be further tied down.

I wouldn't doubt what our military is capable of, but that's just my opinion.

Also given how little prominance this issue is getting I think any military action in the next few months is highly unlikely. The US would want much more of a build up to try and increase support for any such action.

I can agre with that. It would not be smart for us to engage in another war. Not that I would expect Obama to do so. If anything I would expect Obama to challenge Russia and /or Iran at the Olympics. }:)

Reply #4 Top

If anything happens it will be from the air, no ground war... unless Iran escalates.

Reply #5 Top

After Afghanistan and Iraq I really can't see the US managing a "short and sharp" war against Iran combined with pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan - if anything their hands would be further tied down

As both Chuck and Nitro Cruiser mentionned, a military campaign of that sort against Iran wouldn't involve your land troops (except fighting defensively against relatiatory strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan). It would scramble your navy and your air force, which are both currently more powerful than they ever were.

The "Army" side of your military is weakened, but that's because of fighting insurgent warfare, which cannot be effectively fought off by what makes your military supreme in the world - naval and air power.

Nothing shockingly new here. Sure hope Obama can make some more concessions to Russia for all their "support". {/sarcasm}

And tell me what should be Obama's reaction? Barking left and right like Bush did?

Preventing reckless military showdown in M-E from Israel means both trying to solve this with diplomacy, and preparing for coordinated strikes. Both course of actions are currently  being prepared, and until a choice has to be made, then both options has to be on the table.

Diplomatic actions means also securing Russian's grudging cooperation. Russia outmanoeuvered you regarding Iran by putting you in an impossible situation diplomacy-wise.

If you want to avoid general resentment of neutral countries (or at least, effective support from your allies like France, U.K., Canada, etc...) you have to push the diplomatic game while at the same time shortening the time issue and turning puplic opinion in favor or anti-Iran interventionism. The leaks that were adressed in the previous blog adressed that issue, and is demonstrating initiative on the part of Obama's administration.

Off course, none of you would ever admit it.

Reply #6 Top

And tell me what should be Obama's reaction? Barking left and right like Bush did?

Obama's free to make up his own mind, I don't have to like it, but I'm not the president. The question should be how many lives can he save today in order to kill more tomorrow. That seems to be the path he's on, time will tell. Bush barking, that's funny. Seems you libs worldwide preferred Clinton's "cruise missile" diplomacy (failure) and Obama's lip service (we'll see if that keeps us safe) to Bush's action. Personally I prefer Europe crying then US citizens dying.

Reply #7 Top

Seems you libs worldwide preferred Clinton's "cruise missile" diplomacy (failure)

Please explain your meaning

The question should be how many lives can he save today in order to kill more tomorrow

Indeed. But question is more than merely make a choice, it's to estimate your numbers. You seem to know how many people would die now, and how many will die in the future. Please give me your figures, and we'll be able to judge what's the proper actions Obama should take, and criticism him if he doesn't take that logical course of action.

Reply #8 Top

Seems you libs worldwide preferred Clinton's "cruise missile" diplomacy (failure)

Please explain your meaning

What no Strafor for you to read in the 90's or were you just too young to care about politics then? Anyway here's your short history lesson. The Clinton administration would respond to things like the Nairobi embassy bombing and the USS Cole by firing cruise missiles at suspected terrorist targets, such as training camps. None of these actions have been shown to be successful in doing much more than killing civilians. In some case terrorists were suspected of being tipped off about the incoming missiles. There you have it. My advice (take it or leave it) is go back pre-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the present and research the start of this present day Islamic terrorism. That will allow you to post more concisely on the subject matter. Then you can add your left-leaning bias more effectively.