| |
Why
Moscow won't back down
By Hooman Peimani
Unlike what many American reports based on unidentified sources suggest, Russia
does not seem to be bowing to American pressure to stop its non-military
nuclear cooperation with Iran. On the contrary, Russian authorities have
repeatedly stated their intention to continue such peaceful cooperation, as
they did on May 27 when an Iranian Nuclear Energy Ministry delegation visited
Moscow. Although Moscow's firm stance on this issue is not new, the timing of
the recent Russian statements made them distinct from all previous ones as the
American government has heated up its campaign against Iran's nuclear program.
Hence, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russian Atomic Energy Minister, commented on his
country's construction of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power reactor during his talks
with the Iranian delegation. In a clear show of "defiance" to the United
States, he stated: "We will continue to fulfill our obligations despite the
fact that our positions on this issue differ from those of [the] officials in
Washington." Disregarding repeated American requests, including one made in
May, to stop the Bushehr project, he stressed his ministry's determination to
complete the reactor project. "The Russian side does not see grounds to revise
its obligations with regard to the construction of the first power unit at the
nuclear power plant in Bushehr."
During their talks with the Iranian delegation, Rumyantsev and his ministry
made it clear that worsening American-Iranian relations would not affect
"Russia's cooperation with Iran with respect to the completion of the nuclear
power plant in Bushehr", as Itar-Tass reported. For example, an unspecified
ministry spokesperson stated: "There are no reasons [for Russia] to halt [the]
construction of the first phase of the Bushehr Nuclear plant or cease future
cooperation between Iran and Russia in nuclear energy." Not only that, but,
according to IRNA, the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry repeated its readiness to
cooperate with Iran on building five more nuclear power plants, an offer made
initially in 2002 when the Russian government released its plans for future
economic relations with Iran.
Russian-Iranian nuclear ties have received the approval of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a Vienna-based agency in charge of the
verification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Consequently,
Russia's commitment to continue and to expand its ties should not be
controversial under normal circumstances. However, the international
environment since last year has been anything but normal. The American and
British governments justified their war against Iraq and its subsequent
occupation under the pretext of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). They justified their actions, although they had no proof to
substantiate their claim of Iraq being in material breach of its obligation
under the United Nations resolution on its WMD.
Having Iraq under occupation, the American government is shifting its attention
to Iran with the same objective in mind, ie, bringing the country into its
sphere of influence through a regime change. Of course, there are fundamental
differences between Iran and Iraq with regard to their internal situation and
external ties and significance, which raise great doubts about the feasibility
of such plan. Nonetheless, Washington seems to be preparing grounds to achieve
the mentioned objective, probably through different means, but with resorting
to the same type of allegations as it did prior to its war with Iraq. Such
allegations are mainly the country's ties with al-Qaeda and its pursuit of WMD.
The American government drew on Iraq's well-known WMD program in the 1980s to
justify its unsubstantiated claims regarding that country in 2003. However, its
allegation on Iran having an active nuclear weapon program is based on pure
speculations and lacks any credibility, as, unlike the case of Iraq, there is
not even a historical precedence to make such allegation. Moreover, Iran's
nuclear program has received IAEA approval, clear proof of its non-military
nature.
Nevertheless, Washington has pressured the IAEA to declare Iran in material
breach of its nuclear obligations in the upcoming IAEA meeting in June,
although the February visit of the IAEA head and his inspector teams to Iran
did not prove any wrongdoing by the Iranians. In particular, Washington has
tried to portray Iran's declared plan to establish facilities to have a
complete nuclear fuel cycle as a clear violation of its IAEA obligations and a
proof for its pursuing a nuclear weapons program. This is notwithstanding the
fact that having such objective and its required facilities to enable the
Iranians to exploit their own uranium mines and to enrich uranium are well
within Iran's rights under IAEA rules and regulations.
Thus, Iran's two declared and under-construction uranium enrichment facilities
in Natanz and heavy water production facility in Arak are not proof of its
wrongdoings; the former inspected by the IAEA team in February. This is
especially so as IAEA regulations require the declaration of nuclear facilities
when they contain nuclear material, which is not even the case for the two
under-construction facilities.
In light of these realities, Russia's clear determination to continue its
nuclear relations with Iran reflects not only its attempt to preserve its
economic interests in Iran, but its growing concern about America's aggressive
foreign policy. Undoubtedly, such policy has major security implications for
Moscow. In particular, the Russians are concerned about the possibility of
Iran's domination by the US, in one form or another, which could also lead to a
long-term American military presence in that country.
Moscow's loss of its Iranian strategic ally, if it happened, would seriously
endanger its security at a time that it requires a long period of peace and
security to revitalize its devastated economy. Such loss will complete its
encirclement by hostile or potentially hostile pro-American states hosting the
American military. The American government's behavior since late 2001 has
indicated its pursuit of a plan to ensure its uninterrupted access to energy
resources and strategically important regions, such as the Persian Gulf, its
unchallenged power and its leadership of a unipolar international system. That
requires eliminating the potential "troublemakers", the current and future
"rogue" states.
Given this reality, Russia should have every reason to believe it to be one of
the next states, if not the next one, on the American list of targets if
Washington restores its influence in neighboring Iran. Fear of such a scenario
seems to be a major reason for the Russians to continue their multi-dimensional
ties with Iran, including in the nuclear realm, to prevent its weakness and
isolation, two tempting prerequisites for any future American designs on Iran.
Dr Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international
organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
