by Pyotr Iskenderov for the Strategic Culture Foundation
The recent UN Security Council resolution slapping new sanctions on Iran is likely to become the worst defeat suffered by the Russian diplomacy over the past years. Its negative impact may be persistent and more serious than that of the proclamation of Kosovo’s independence to which Russia continues objecting. What we are witnessing seems to be an unexpected recurrence of the syndrome of unilateral concessions to the West which eroded Russia’s international politics, especially its Balkan part, in the 1990ies. Following the Western lead in dealing with Iran, Russia is risking to lose both its positions in a region much more extensive than the Balkans and its hard-earned key role in the raising multipolar world.
Commenting on the vote in the UN Security Council (where Russia’s BRIC peer Brazil and NATO member Turkey voted against the sanctions), the influential Tehran Times wrote: “The fact that Turkey and Brazil, two U.S. allies, voted against the resolution provides further proof that the actions against Iran and the latest decision of the Security Council are based on secret deals struck by the major powers. Thus, those who say the U.S. abandoned its Eastern European missile shield plan in order to win the support of Russia were probably correct”.
In 2009, the Russian foreign ministry was on a number of occasions forced to deny that — as Western media kept suggesting — there existed a «missile defense for Iran» swap deal. Indeed, it probably did not exist as a formalized agreement, but the truth is that at a certain moment Russia adopted a much tougher stance on Iran and froze its arms transactions with the country (suspending the supply of the S-300 air defense systems), as well as that currently Moscow risks loosing its strategic partner in the Middle East without any visible reasons for such sacrifice. Can the invisible reason be an obscure deal with US President B. Obama?
Recent developments signal a complicated array of shifts in the region and outside of it. The mediation successfully undertaken by Turkey and Brazil in the talks over the enrichment of Iran’s uranium stockpile outside of the country, the escalation in the Middle East, the tensions between Turkey and Israel, new geopolitical maneuvers around the Karabakh settlement and related energy projects (in which Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan, the country with a special position, are to play the key roles) altogether confront the US with the threat of isolation and loss of leadership. As for Iran, it is no secret that the three rounds of sanctions imposed on the country in 2006-2008 failed to undermine its capability to implement a nuclear program, which has become an element of the Iranian national identity. There are no indications that the situation is going to change from Iran’s perspective this time.
The situation is going to change from Russia’s perspective, though, and certainly for the worse. Loosing Iran, demonstratively distancing itself from the Turkish-Brazilian mediation (for which President Medvedev expressed support previously), and siding with the US Moscow put in jeopardy the political gains of the recent years such as independence and assertiveness in international politics and the clarity of geopolitical priorities. Voting for new sanctions and constructing the nuclear power plant in Bushehr at the same time is an example of the very double standards that Moscow justly rebelled against whenever it encountered them in Western policies.
Russia evidently tried to recoup some of its geopolitical losses immediately after the vote in the UN Security Council. Russia’s foreign ministry promptly posted an extensive comment saying: “However, we can’t ignore the signals indicating that some partners intend, almost immediately after the decision in New York, to move to considering additional sanctions against Iran, more stringent than those provided by the UNSC resolution. We regard this as the manifestation of a policy that runs counter to the principles of joint work within the Six and the UNSC format. Unacceptable to us are attempts in such a way to place oneself “above” the Security Council. We also categorically reject any national decisions on the imposition of “extraterritorial sanctions,” i.e., restrictive measures under one’s own legislation with regard to individuals and legal entities in third countries. Such decisions, should they affect Russian legal entities or individuals, would entail retaliatory response by us.
The new resolution leaves extensive room for further cooperation with Iran in the trade and economic field and on energy, transport and peaceful space exploration. As applied to Russian-Iranian bilateral ties, all of these areas have significant potential and growth opportunities. Of fundamental importance for us is the further development of cooperation with Iran in the construction of light water reactors”.
The arguments seem OK but still reek of an attempt to save face. It is unlikely that the US and the EU, overwhelmed with gratitude to Russia, will in the future show greater respect for its interests or adapt to the Russian foreign ministry’s position on Iran. The Russian diplomacy’s pledges to go on cooperating with Iran would have been more credible if Russia at least abstained during the UN Security Council vote, as, for example, did Lebanon.
Washington pursued its own interests without exceptions throughout the Russian-US debates over Iran. Obama’s decision against deploying missile defense infrastructures in Poland and the Czech Republic was predictable due to purely economic regards and did not take Russia’s consent to sanctions against Iran. In fact, the missile defense program is still on but will employ more advanced technologies ensuring radar surveillance over a greater area. In the foreseeable future Russia will be confronted with an evasive network of mobile systems instead of two undisguised stationary installations. The Persian Gulf zone and the Black Sea region will be given key roles in the framework of the initiative. It did not go unnoticed that the US Administration carefully avoided linking any of the provisions of the New Start treaty with the state of the US missile defense program.
The most alarming aspect of the current situation is the analogy it invokes with the 1990-ies — early 2000i-es Balkan developments. In that epoch Russia also demanded on the formal level that all sides in the Balkan conflicts equally abide by the international law, called for compromises, and voted for sanctions in the UN Security Council, holding that this was the only way to stop escalations. The overall result was progressing imbalance in the Balkan and broader European security architecture. The norms declared were supposed to be mandatory for all nations, but the Serbs invariably ended up disadvantaged. The format of the international contact group which handled Balkan crises is frighteningly similar to that currently employed in dealing with Iran (the six-party talks). Russia was defeated in the five-party talks on Kosovo when it consented to the so-called three principles, one of them being that the situation should not revert to the 1999 condition. The provision was eventually used by the proponents of Kosovo independence to justify its unilateral declaration.
Now Russian envoys quite reasonably blame the UN and its Secretary General for being either reluctant or unable to address the Kosovo problem and charge the EU and the US with bias and unilateralism. But isn’t the West demonstrating bias and acting unilaterally when it consents to the nuclear statuses of India and Pakistan, shields Israel from criticism over its nuclear program, but keeps pushing for ever tighter sanctions to be imposed on Iran?
The Balkan settlement has shown the inadequacy of international negotiating formats like five-party or six-party talks and the pointless character of UN discussions. In practice, the West relies entirely on its own mechanisms to promote its own geopolitical interests. Russia chose to be on the side of the US and the EU instead of strengthening its commercial ties with Iran (including the Caspian Sea delimitation and the energy projects), involving countries with unbiased positions in the talks over the Iranian nuclear dossier, and supporting the independent and successful mediation contributed by Turkey and Brazil. Will the US and the EU return the favor — for example, in the form of concessions in Kosovo, Caucasus, or energy politics? Based on the Balkan experience, it is clear that they will not.
Petr Iskenderov is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Science and an international commentator at Vremya Novstey and the Voice of Russia
Excellent article, and it shows that there are people in Russia who learned the lessons from the late 80’s and 90’s, when Russia did everything to have good relations with the West, and gained absolutely nothing.
By abandoning Iran and supporting the US-Israel, Russia suffers a huge damage to its international image, and will lose many friends far away from the Middle East: the reason why Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia are coming closer to Moscow (the first two even recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is because Russia had shown an independent foreign policy and support countries which oppose the only empire in the world. I am worried for the reaction of these Latin American countries, as they will fear that, if the US pushes for an embargo against them also, Russia will adhere to it.
But we can see there is an internal fight inside the Russian government, as in the last days appeared many different articles in RIA Novosti, some claiming that the S-300 deal is not forbidden with the new sanctions, and others that it is. So it seems there are high-ranking officials who want to continue cooperating with Iran and seek to honor the S-300 deal signed 3 years ago.
Carlo,
While there may be internal dissent, it seems that Putin has come down with those opposed to the sale. Which I guess settles the matter.
On the plus side, Russia really will not tolerate real sanctions on Iran. I don’t think the US can bribe or bully them into it, either. The Russians know perfectly well what will happen to them should the Empire ever gain control of Iran.
Also, I’m not sure the analogy with the 90’s is entirely valid. Russia *did* get concessions from the west (no missile shield, acceptance of the end of the ‘orange’ and ‘tulip’ revolutions, NATO expansion a dead letter) and in exchange, Russia really allowed trivial sanctions and scrapping the S300 sale. Russia is simply too strong today to be treated as it was 15 years ago. Overall, I think this is far from catastrophic for Iran.
Furthermore, the fact that Putin and Ahmadinejad met in Istanbul a few days ago signals to me that relations between the two aren’t that bad. Putin could have easily dodged the meeting if he wanted to, and would have if it were merely going to be a ‘bitch session.’
Also, my guess is the Russians don’t believe either the US or Israel are going to attack Iran anytime soon, so the missile sale isn’t critical.
On a separate note, is anyone aware if China produces any decent air-defense system and would they be willing to sell it to Iran? It doesn’t need to be “as good as” the S300. Just better than nothing.
Thanks and a great weekend to all.
@Lysander
Iran is in the process of designing a S-300 equivalent system, I think this home grown systems will be much powerful then anything the Chinese can offer. Iran for the last 8 years has been preparing for asymmetrical warfare and during the last military parade showed a “prototype” which can bee seen here
http://uskowioniran.blogspot.com/2010/04/iran-s-300-type-launcher-and-radar.html
Hi Saker
What’s your take in this? Are you nearer to Lysander’s position; Which is akin to the take of thet expressed by Eric Wlaberg, albeit before the sale scrapping, or Iskanderov’s article? (nevertheless, is evident that you didn’t posted the item for no reason)
Do you agree with Lysander in Russian’s conscience of the risks involved in allow a hostile takeover of Iran?
Finally, one wonders what reason in Earth can hve Russians and Chinese for go along with the Empire. as a matter of fact, the empire’s word worth less than used toilet paper. I don’t say this ideologically motivated, but based in a cursory balance of recent and not-so-recent history. Just think in 2008’s war and the recent gun sales to Taiwan. What are the RuChies thinking? are they afraid, or just deluded in thinking that the Empire will accept them as equals? (Never gonna happen, by the way)
@anonymous2: my analysis is very close to the one of Iskenderov. Remember what happened in Yugoslavia and Iraq. Each time we had a gradual increase in sanctions followed by a military agression. The Russians seems to act as if they believed that if they agree to sactions, this will push back the risks of a US agression. The opposite is true, of course. It is rather hypocritical to go along with the US sanctions each and every time and then to complain when the USA takes the last step and attacks. Again, this is exactly what happened with Yugoslavia and it was fundamentally misguided policy.
About the S-300. No country in the world, no Iran, not China and not the USA, has anything comparible to this system. Not even close (sorry anonymous1). So the sale of these to Iran would be a big deal, but I don’t think that this is going to happen. Russia’s position on Iran has been “consistently inconsistent”: each zig is always followed by a zak. The same can be said about Russia’s position on Palestine. It saddens me to admit this, but Russia cannot be trusted and it is not a reliable ally. Alas, the same applies to China too. That Russia and China voted for a resolution which Turkey and Brazil opposed is really discouraging. I hope that at least one good thing comes out of it: a realization by all that neither Russia nor China can be trusted to hold a principaled position on any issue.
I hate disagreeing with the Saker, especially since he is particularly knowledgeable about Russia, but… here goes…
Russia went along with Yugoslavia’s destruction and the Kosovo war because there was nothing they could have done about it. Oil was 10 dollars a barrel, Russia was broke, Yeltsin’s cat’s paws were still in control of of the country. Even then, while Russia’s response was weak, it hardly went along happily.
Today is a different matter. Of course I agree that Russia can NEVER be trusted. But Russia can ALWAYS be trusted to be Russia. What do I mean? Yes, Russia will trade away Iran in exchange for something of vital interest to them. But the west can never give Russia anything more valuable than having Iran on her side.
Let’s face it. Russia could easily support horribly restrictive sanctions on Iran. It could support sanctions of the sort placed upon Iraq. Restricting Iran’s oil and gas industries would only raise the price of those commodities that Russia sells. For gas, it would eliminate a potential competitor for the European market.
And yet, Russia never does this. And it never will. Neither, for that matter, will China. In fact, they made especially sure that the UNSC resolutions cannot be used as a legal basis for war.
The empire has made Iran its single most important issue. Russia and China have decided to play along, pretending to agree while in fact never letting the empire have what it wants. They have spent the last 6 months forcing the US to exert enormous diplomatic resources and make serious concessions to them (missile shield, China’s currency policies). And in the end, all they have to show for it is a very weak, watered down resolution with all the sting of a mosquito bite.
Of course, I would love to see Russia do more. It would be great if they made their entire arsenal available for purchase to Iran. It would be great if they made clear to the US that Iran is well within its NPT rights and it’s best the US move on to a new hobby. But what they are doing is much much better than nothing.
Thanks for reading.
@Lysander: first, all your points are very logical and you might well be right. Please do never worry about disagreeing with me, I am no Pope, I am not infalliable, and if at 46 my little ego would get offeded each time somebody disagreed with me, that would make me one world class jerk, would it not?
No, really, I WANT this blog to be about discussion and frank disagreement. Look at Carlo, for example. He and I had a different take on Iran, yet we most definitely are friends (as much as Internet contacts allow), and we mostly agree on many other topics. And you know, I have been so often wrong in the past, that I don’t have the slightest doubt there are plenty of issues on which I am wrong today. Lastly, Lysander, I have learned to feel a great deal of respect for your sharp intelligence and excellent analytical skills. I can tell you that there are plenty of senior analysts or PhDs out there to whom you could lecture about how to think about these topics. So I ASK you to openly challenge anything you disagree with, even more so if it comes from me. Okay?!
Now, on substance:
The fact that during the NATO war on Yugoslavia Russia was ruled by Eltsin is, of course, something dramatically different from what we see today. You are absolutely correct.
Eltin was the White House’s prostitute, a drunken, morally corrupt and intellectually mediocre moron who would have sold the Kremlin and his mother if he had been asked to. That is not at all the case of Putin and Medvedev. If you are interested in my take on Putin and Medvedev, please check out these two articles in which, I think, I express some very real admiration for what they have achieved:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/11/putins-legacy-and-new-russia.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/real-meaning-of-south-ossetian-war.html
And yet, I think that being not openly standing by Iran Russia is committing a strategic blunder for two reasons
a) Russian officials always stress the importance of the rule of law in international relations. In this case, Iran is in FULL compliance with the NTP and ALL its other obligations. In fact, its the UN sactions which are illegal.
b) Russia and China are both providing a cover, albeit a superficial one, for the upcoming US-Israeli attack on Iran. All Uncle Shmuel needs to say now is “Iran is in violation of 4 UNSC resolutions” and, voila, the corporate media will say that the war is legal (even if so far not a single UNSC resolution has been passed under Chapter 7, at least as far as I know).
c) Iran is a candidate to the SCO. Russia and China should stand by this important partner by speeding up Iran’s entry and by defending it at the UNSC.
There is much more at stake here than some weapons sales, and the Russians and Chinese are acting like they are basically unaware of that. All that Russia and China should have done is to declare “Iran is fully in compliance with its NTP and IAEA obligations and there is therefore no reason for any sanctions at all”.
Can you think of a good reason why they did not do that?
Thanks!
Lysander, I hope you are right, but for now I tend to agree more with the Saker. You said “Of course I agree that Russia can NEVER be trusted.” Well, the problem is that Russia may lose important allies because of this. Venezuela and Nicaragua made a huge contribution to Russia by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and they surely expect something for this: not only loans to buy weapons (as Venezuela got), but also support if the US moves to sanction or attack these countries. The precedent Russia is giving now is very bad for Chavez and Ortega, and perhaps they will rethink their relation with Russia, which may lose important allies.
On the other hand, you say that Russia and China won’t allow an attack against Iran. Well, but if the US and Israel attack, what will they do? Declare war against the US, send troops to support Iran? Of course not, all they will do is denounce the US and Israel in the Security Council, as they did in the Iraq invasion in 2003. If China and Russia want to prevent an attack against Iran, they have to act now and they have to supply defensive weapons, mostly anti aircraft systems. Russia doesn’t have to sell the lastest S-400, upgraded versions of the S-300 will be more than enough to scare the US.
Thaks for the kind words, Saker! And thanks for the counter argument. And thanks, Carlo for bringing up the South American angle.
I do think that a Russian/Chinese statement saying Iran is in the right and ending all prospect of cooperation with the empire would release a degree of hostility they would not like to deal with at this moment. Turkey and Brazil took a principled stand and I admire them for it. But because their ‘no’ votes are not decisive, the US response will be limited.
Still I will give this matter a lot more thought. There is much that I have not considered.
Saker: Any clues about the motive? That’s the real mistery.
Some tempting offer? I can be wrong, but I think that besides the weapons that won’t sell, the Empire now only produces useless CDO squared.
Fear that the Empire will resort inmediately to nuclear MADness?
Ilusions of “acceptance” in the VIP Club? That last will by pretty disappointing, avobe all because it signals a wide, wide dellusion. I said it before. This will never gonna happen. Noriega, s. Hussein and scores of others were proud wannabes at some moment.
Saker, one last question. The xionist media gloated many times that they had cracked the S 300 and that was the reason of the Russianas dragging their feet. Do you think that posiible?
Regards
Whether or not the recent UN resolution is truly a defeat for Russia (or China for that matter) depends on Russia’s (and/or China’s) realpolitik objectives. In my own view, Iran is merely a pawn in the current game Russia is playing with the West. There is not one breath of an anti-imperialist sentiment in Russia’s current political-economic makeup, as led and defined by Putin and his team. It remains in competition with with the stronger capitalist powers in the EU and North America, but at the end of the day Russia sees itself as a great _Western_ power in tandem with the EU and NA. In the local or short-term analysis Putin may play footsy with the vanguard of the Non-Aligned movement — Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia for example — but the global or long term ambitions of Russia are the same it has ever been, whether under the czars, communism, or the current unprincipled God-less lot. It is a mistake to consider Russia (or China for that matter) as in any way anti-imperialist or in any way long-term allies of global anti-imperialism. Russia in particular is just as — if not more — anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic movements of liberation as is the rest of the West. It’s short-term interests of undercutting the EU-NA axis for the purpose of ultimately becoming a full partner in that axis obscures this point.
The current batch of sanctions against Iran are nearly universally recognized as stupid, and whatever short-term impact this has on Iran’s (or others’) view of Russia, in the long run they diplomatically weaken the US and EU much more than they hurt Russia. At the same time, Iran does not have a lot of allies at this point — it remains to be seen if Brazil and Turkey will make the transition to a comprehensive anti-imperialist foreign policy. As upset as Iran may be at this point, it simply has little leverage with which to influence Russia (or China). So Russia and China will continue to use Iran as a pawn in their own game for strategic dominance with the other “Great” powers of the EU and NA.
OTOH: An implicit gamble Russia is making is that Iran will never reach a stage where it can truly challenge the great powers, including Russia. This is a dangerous gamble. While Russia plays games, Iran continues its technological advancement. Every attempt to deny Iran technology has always resulted in an increase in Iranian self-sufficiency. Further, with Hezbollah in effective control of Lebanon — abstention-as-opposed-to-no at the UNSC notwithstanding — there is the very real possibility of an Iranian-led axis extending from Iran to the Mediterranean sea — even Tajikistan may take part.
Could it be that Russia (-China) is just as fearful of a growing Iran axis as the West? I think so. Medvedev seemed just as annoyed at the Tehran Declaration as Obama. At the end of the day, Russia sees Iran as a short-term pawn and a long-term threat to its strategic imperialist interests. Iran knows this very well. So don’t hold your breath for any transfer of defensive weapons to Iran. Iran has already exhaled I’m sure.
Postscript: The other wild card is Turkey, which sees the gradual development of the Iran front along its entire eastern and southern borders. Do Turkey’s recent moves represent a genuine shift towards friendship with this front? or are they, at least in part, a cynical attempt to preempt Iran’s growing influence? Have the wings of the fascist Turkish military been truly clipped so that there will be no CIA-engineered coup? Has Turkey really made the transition from Fascism to Liberation, as Bolivia and Venezuela? Turkey (and Brazil) have a ways to go and the outcome is far from settled.
Saker: It is rather hypocritical to go along with the US sanctions each and every time and then to complain when the USA takes the last step and attacks
What if that’s exactly what the Russians want – the US attack on Iran. It just would be the last stone that is needed to bring the empire down. It could be a chance to lure the US in a hole the Russians don’t want to miss. Thus the S300 still stay on hold to make the strike look more attractive.
anonymouse: The xionist media gloated many times that they had cracked the S 300 and that was the reason of the Russianas dragging their feet. Do you think that posiible?
It’s not the cracking of a system that is a problem. All the locking on target systems work on the same physical laws. S300 has quite a number of the locking on target radars of different varieties. The problem for the opponent would be firstly – ID of the threats, secondly – creation of a defensive system for the aircraft and the cruise missiles including both active and passive defence which will take a lot of money and time. And thirdly building and installation of the defence on all the aircraft and missiles which is expensive, takes time but most of all – needs to be checked in a real combat situation – than fixed, improved and checked and checked again – than – get fixed, again and again before it would be ready for a real combat and after all this it may take just an adjustment of S300 locking on target radar and it will make a hole in the defence. S300 is not invincible but it can cause a lot of casualties in case of a strike.