Posted on 10/20/2005 2:00:42 AM PDT by mym
In pursuit of forming yet another "coalition of the willing," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unscheduled visit to Moscow to persuade Russia to put pressure on Iran for its nuclear infractions. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov politely but firmly demurred.
It should be abundantly clear that Moscow and Washington do not see eye-to-eye on the Iranian question. When Rice declared last Saturday that Iran had no need for even a civilian nuclear program, Lavrov countered that Iran had a full right to possess a nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, Igor Ivanov, the former foreign minister who now heads the Kremlin's Security Council, is preparing a proposal to take to Tehran for the construction of a joint Iranian-Russian uranium enrichment facility for the Bushehr reactor.
Russia sees no reason to bring the Iranian file before the UN Security Council to discuss sanctions, not to mention more punitive actions, and Lavrov made clear that Russia's abstention during the Sept. 24 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which opened the possibility of referring Iran to the UN Security Council, was meant as a diplomatic courtesy to the United States.
For too long, we have pretended that disagreements between Moscow and Washington over what to do about Iran were "misunderstandings," that over time there would be a convergence between the Russian and American positions. It is very true that neither Russia nor the United States wants Iran to possess nuclear warheads. But beyond that joint position, there is no basis for a common Russian-American approach to dealing with Iran, and, in a sense, Rice's most recent failure reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of Russia's position and the nature of Iranian-Russian relations.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, and despite a recent rapprochement with Israel, the Islamic Republic has been Russia's most important partner in the Middle East. Much of this is due to economic factors. Iran has emerged as a valuable market for its cash-starved defense industries. Although the nuclear cooperation between the two states has garnered the most headlines, Russia has also been willing to sell Iran a large quantity of conventional arms, including sophisticated aircraft and submarines. In addition, unlike the West, which buys mainly raw materials from Russia, Iran is willing to purchase a variety of industrial goods.
The creation of new north-south transport corridors have given Russia virtual access to Persian Gulf ports and opened the possibility of vastly expanded trading connections not only with Iran but with other lucrative markets such as India. In short, there are powerful economic lobbies that support the expansion of Russian-Iranian ties and have no desire to see the imposition of economic sanctions that could deprive them of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in income. Given that reality, the notion that Russia would assist in applying significant economic pressure on Iran for its nuclear infractions is far-fetched and fanciful.
But even assuming that the United States was willing and able to "buy out" Iranian contracts with Russia, there is a more fundamental divide.
Washington assumes that the rest of the world shares its assessment of Tehran as an irresponsible, dangerous regime, based on its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, its refusal to recognize Israel and its support for groups like Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Russia has a far different view. Iran kept a low profile in Central Asia after the breakup of the Soviet Union and worked with Russia to end Tajikistan's devastating civil war in 1997; and has Iran never sought to inflame the Muslim regions of Russia itself. As for Iran's transgressions, for some Russians, there is little difference between Iran and U.S. ally Pakistan, another power that had a clandestine nuclear program, that proliferated weapons technologies via the A.Q. Khan network in Pakistan (which benefited both the Iranian and North Korean programs) and that has, over the past decades, also been a state sponsor of terrorists and militants in other parts of South Asia.
Russia drew a major distinction between the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which it viewed as a dangerous cancer allowing al-Qaida to export death and mayhem all over the globe, and the Islamic Republic, which it views as a predictable, rational actor in global affairs. The mistake U.S. policymakers have made is assuming that cooperation with Russia over Afghanistan would translate into shared understandings of what to do, first in Iraq and now in Iran.
Rice's failure in Moscow ends the hope that Washington could rapidly forge a UN Security Council consensus on Iran. Unless the United States is prepared to make a major bid for Russian support -- such as conceding a Eurasian sphere of influence to Moscow -- or Iran decides to support the Chechens, the George W. Bush's administration will be left with two unpleasant alternatives: accepting a watered-down approach to Tehran that keeps the existing regime in place to acquire an advanced nuclear capability under uncertain international supervision, or preparing for costly action with only a partial coalition of major powers should Iran fail to cease and desist from its actions. In evaluating what to do next about Iran, the United States should have no illusions.
Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest. They contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
I still entertain the idea that Russia is deliberately sabotaging the Iranian nuke effort while collecting tons of money. I assume that there was agreement on what Russia would get if the USA 'unilaterally' deposed the hardline regime in Iran. Obviously, there would have to be an agreement with Russia on what Russia would get if we or Israel were to just deal with Iran on our own.
Moscow is implicitly threatened if it were to go along with regime change openly. The Russians could not afford to lose Moscow to a nuke the way the Americans could lose Washington DC. The former is filled with the richest and brightest flower of Russian society many of the best of whom live downtown. The latter is mostly poor people living downtown with the exception of Georgetown. The same is true with France. Russia and France (demographic-geographic wise) are not built to withstand a single nuke attack. The USA and Germany are brilliantly structured to withstand at least a single or limited nuke attack.
Also: if Russia were to openly side with the USA and rest of the world...the Iranian hardliners might actually give in as a way of surviving. Do we want that? Do we want them to cooperate or die fighting us?
Think about it: if the Iranian regime fights and Syria helps...there will be about 200,000 more dead young Hizbollah and other terrorist males in a very short time. These useless and dangerous young men will survive if deals are made. Do we want that? Can the Middle East prosper under free market capitalism with these jokers as a super mafia presence...demanding "protection money" from every new business and making the women and visiting American businessmen uncomfortable. It may be better that the most dangerous young men already perished in a war fighting their "enemy" if to Hell was really where their hearts were headed anyway.
So, on the surface, I would expect Russia to give the Iranian regime the will and hope to go down fighting, which is what the Flypaper Strategy is all about.
"They said we needed to attract the attention of Saddam Hussein, a fast-rising star in the government, and that we could do so only by adopting a strategic objective--that is, we should propose a bomb program based on first acquiring a civil fuel cycle followed by a full-blown program to build nuclear weapons. "
"As it turned out, few of Iraq's suppliers--or the IAEA itself--ever bothered to ask a simple question: Why would Iraq Iran, with the second third largest oil reserves in the world, want to generate electricity by burning uranium? For its part, Iraq was careful to avoid raising IAEA suspicions; an elaborate strategy was gradually developed to deceive and manipulate the agency.'
Interesting analysis. It certainly doesn't make sense that Russia, already threatened by Moslem jihadists, would want to see neighboring Iran with nuclear arms.
Maybe they have Leftists undermining their government too. Or maybe they are just stupid and can't see past taunting the US for short-term advantage. Who knows?
Time to make a call to Israel...AGAIN!
Bingo. Therein lies the heart of the middle east conundrum.
The Russians are our enemies. When will people wake up to reality?
[Economic reasons aside, Russia continues to insist that Iran has the right to develop its own nuclear power and the U.S. doesn't have the right to tell Iran not to.
What a concept.]
Correct. It makes so little sense that I'm sure there is something else going on here. Either way, the Kremlin will have had to be making the calculation that Israel and the USA will take action. So it would be crazy for anyone in the Kremlin to assume that their position won't be taken away from them no matter what their position is.
Lavrov has to know that his opinion and his wishes are worth very little if he doesn't negotiate with the USA. That is why I have to assume that Russia has already made a deal with Rice but Russia's role in the coming war will be one of those who say "don't do it".
And to the person who said "with your analyzing skills, it is no wonder German business is in the pits"...where did I go so wrong in positing a theory? Also, I am American. I sell to German business, which will be doing better now that Merkel is Kanzlerin.
And to the person who said "with your analyzing skills, it is no wonder German business is in the pits"...where did I go so wrong in positing a theory? Also, I am American. I sell to German business, which will be doing better now that Merkel is Kanzlerin.
There has been an anti-German attitude here in this country since WWII, especially here on the FR.
The heinous 13-years of German history is all that counts, not their 2500-year history before, now or in their future. They are the evil ones past/present/future.
Japan invaded China in the early 1930's, starting war on their own several years (six) before Hitler marched into Poland (September 1, 1939). The Japanese occupation killed (according to the Chinese) 34 million Chinese. They had the death camps, experiments, tortures, rapes, "pleasure women," the whole nine yards, before the Nazis did, but in China. They had a six-year jump, so to speak, on the Nazis with THEIR heinous history.
But, today, Japan isn't excoriated past, present and future, like the Germans.
The USSR was in WWII for two long years of the war before changing sides. They bought into the entire Third Reich, Imperial Japan, Italian Fascism, lock, stock and barrel. What Stalin did to HIS OWN PEOPLE matched what all other despots did to their enemies. I don't think history will find a WORSE despot that Josef Stalin. Maybe I'm wrong.
The USSR was given a pass on the blame as well. FDR considered Josef Stalin his "friend."
Mussolini and his Fascists were also given a pass on blame and aren't villified like the Germans were/are/will ALWAYS be. The Italians are LOVED. They bought into the Third Reich, Imperial Japan, USSR communism and their own HEINOUS fascism, lock, stock and barrel.
Their ineptness shouldn't excuse them one iota.
They were FOUR countries, Germany, JAPAN, USSR and ITALY all in it together, with Japan starting the war with their invasion and occupation of China. Germany is the only villain left standing. They are the bad guys for all time. That is what you see here (and in much of America) regarding Germany. They can't win because they are hated for what happened two generations ago and the hate extends BEFORE Hitler and to the future.
There are sill Nazi hunters, even though those Nazis would have been young teenagers and children during those infamous days of the Third Reich. Schwarzenegger had to get a Rabbi's blessing, assuring America that he wasn't a current Nazi. That doesn't happen with any other group of people in the world.....just Germans. Arnie is an Austrian. But, that's still not good enough.
Sleazywood's Hogan's Heroes mocked, ridiculed and otherwise demeaned everything German for years. Sleazywood made Americans LAUGH at everything German -- an outstanding way to demean a culture and group of people.
Every American male (well, almost) can do a "Sergeant Schultz,"--"I know nutting; i zee nutting." Imagine the OUTRAGE and screams of RACISM! if there had been a Hirohito's Heroes and the Japanese were mocked, ridiculed and otherwise demeaned like the Germans were.
That's the deal. People won't admit it though. Talk about bias.
I wouldn't be surprised if I get flack from even writing what I just wrote. That's how deep the prejudice is against the Germans.
The irony is that 60 million Americans can claim German ancestry (40 million for Irish) and this country almost had German as its official language. English is a dialect of German. If you go to Germany you think that they look like Americans. Das stimt! Lol.
Well put.
Starfish: Thanx for the excellent essay on anti-germanism.
One has to take it as a compliment sometimes when your culture is singled out for rough treatment ala "Hogan's Heroes" against the Germans and the similar late-night jokes against America that you see on German late night television. The Germans and Americans are both extremely thick skinned and confident cultures. Even the Russians and Poles are thick skinned and stand up to a lot of cultural jabs (Polish jokes, depiction of Russia as a mafia state).
German late-night tv jokes are not that offensive. Example from last week: two very rich German women pretending to care about Tsunami victims as a theme for their benefit gala ball. Then they have a waiter executed for dropping a wine glass. Then they say that the guest of honor is Georgie Pordgy, their buddy in the White House. The audience guffaws. They are doing the same disservice to Angela Merkel the new conservative leader of Germany. But the TV is not yet referring to her as "Ferkel = piglet" the way the leftist students are starting to do.
One has to take it as a compliment sometimes when your culture is singled out for rough treatment ala "Hogan's Heroes" against the Germans and the similar late-night jokes against America that you see on German late night television. The Germans and Americans are both extremely thick skinned and confident cultures. Even the Russians and Poles are thick skinned and stand up to a lot of cultural jabs (Polish jokes, depiction of Russia as a mafia state).
Very true. Thick skins indicate self-assurance, self-confidence and self-pride. Same goes for so many of the European countries...Italian jokes, Scandinavian, Portuguese. We have cultures to be proud of.
The jokes about our own selves are funny too.
German late-night tv jokes are not that offensive. Example from last week: two very rich German women pretending to care about Tsunami victims as a theme for their benefit gala ball. Then they have a waiter executed for dropping a wine glass. Then they say that the guest of honor is Georgie Pordgy, their buddy in the White House. The audience guffaws. They are doing the same disservice to Angela Merkel the new conservative leader of Germany. But the TV is not yet referring to her as "Ferkel = piglet" the way the leftist students are starting to do.
Lol. The rich of any country are always wonderful fodder for jokes. The "haves" versus the "have-nots."
It gets old when there is no balance, like any kind of humor.
I always enjoyed Woody Allen and Mel Brooks because they made fun of everyone. No group, religion or culture was sacred.
Other Sleazywooders usually choose a very narrow, selective group of people to ridicule. Not so Allen and Brooks. Harhar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.