SPEAKING
FREELY Much ado about Russia-Iran ties
By Andrei P Tsygankov
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Why has the United
States been failing to persuade Russia to take a
tough line on Iran's nuclear program?
As
the administration of President George W Bush
insists on taking the issue to the United Nations
Security Council should Tehran fail to resume
negotiations on limiting its nuclear ability,
Russia continues to engage openly with Iran. Both
US Secretary
of
State Condoleezza Rice and the acting assistant
secretary of state for arms control, Stephen
Rademaker, have been rebuffed by Moscow.
Even the call by Iranian President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
does not seem to have made Russia move closer to
the US position. In the interest of greater
realism about US-Russia relations, it is important
to clarify Moscow's views of its stake in the
issue.
Russia considers cooperation with
Iran, as well as Syria and some other "dangerous
regimes", in its national interests. Although
Western pressures are felt by Russia, especially
as it strives to gain greater recognition from the
West, the suggestion that the Kremlin could
withdraw its support of the Iranian regime because
of Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli statement is
premature.
Russia's financial gains from
cooperation with both Iran and Syria stand to be
very considerable, and this may be just a
beginning of future cooperation. Politically,
Russia's position of working through the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)and
developing an international mechanism for
verifying Iran's nuclear program remains credible,
particularly if the alternative is to take the
matter to the UN and then to rely on the use of
force out of dissatisfaction with the IAEA's
decision. The memories of the Iraq issue continue
to be fresh across the world.
In addition,
there is an important angle of economic
competition over Iranian resources and access to
Iranian markets. Russia continues to believe that
Western concerns about nuclear proliferation
merely reflect commercial interests to drive
Russia out of competitive markets. In September
2003, for instance, in his interview with Western
journalists, Russian President Vladimir Putin
stated: "According to our information, many
Western European and American companies cooperate
with Iran either directly or through intermediary
organizations in the nuclear sphere."
To
substantiate the Kremlin's claims about the
commercial nature of Washington's pressures, some
Russian analysts argued that, even in the absence
of official contracts, US-Iranian trade turnover
was about US$1 billion, which was higher than that
of Russia, despite the Russia-Iran strategic
partnership agreement. The analysts also pointed
out that immediately before the Islamic revolution
in Iran, Washington and Tehran had signed a
contract worth $24 billion, which provided for US
assistance in constructing eight nuclear power
plants in Iran within 10 years.
For
Russia, it is a balancing act between gaining
recognition by the West and developing commercial
ties with regimes that Western nations consider
"dangerous". At this point, it does not seem that
Moscow has exhausted its political resources and
is ready to surrender to Western demands. As long
as Russian-Western cooperation in a number of
other important issues of non-proliferation, as
well as intelligence sharing and energy supplies,
continues to progress, the balance may still be
preserved.
Statements about "wiping out"
Israel are, of course, entirely unacceptable,
whatever Ahmadinejad's hardline politics in Iran,
Iraq or the wider Middle East may be. Nor is it
acceptable that Syria does not comply in the
inquiry into the assassination of former Lebanese
prime minister Rafik Hariri. However, one can well
imagine that Russia's new stance will be to
condemn such politics while continuing to develop
economic ties.
Focusing on Russia as a key
obstacle to strengthening the non-proliferation
regime, as some Western observers and politicians
tend to do, is misleading. A more promising way to
address the problem of proliferation is to look
closely at all the leading nuclear powers and
their credibility in the world.
It is
quite clear that an important reason so many
"dangerous" regimes feel compelled to develop
their own nuclear programs has to do with the
absence of adequate security assurances,
particularly from the US.
One can hardly
speak of such assurances when the US Defense
Department implies that the United States can use
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
Recently more than 470 physicists, including seven
Nobel laureates, signed a petition to contest the
proposal. Developing a comprehensive plan, which
would include steps in the direction of
disarmament by all involved parties, is a far more
productive and responsible way to address the
problem than merely to put Russia, Iran or North
Korea on the spot.
Andrei P
Tsygankov teaches at San Francisco State
University and is author of Russia's Foreign
Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity
(Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming) and
Whose World Order? Russia's Perception of American
Ideas after the Cold War (University of Notre
Dame Press, 2004), among others.
(Copyright 2006 Andrei P Tsygankov.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
