RUSSIA IN FACE-OFF OVER IRAN

When Russian president, Vladimir Putin, visits Teheran for the first time on October 16 it will not only be a snub to George Bush and Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, but a sign that Russia does not approve of threats of unilateral military action against Iran.
Putin’s visit is timed to coincide with a summit of Caspian states that include Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, all of them rich in oil and natural gas. Two of them, Iran and Russia, favor setting up a gas cartel like OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that controls the flow and price of oil globally.
Russia’s relationship with Iran is multi-faceted. Russia not only exports weapons, missiles and nuclear energy materials to Iran but it is a partner with Iran in trying to forge closer links with Turkmenistan to prevent the US or Britain acquiring rights to that country’s natural resources.
The Russian nexus of Iran and the other Caspian states is important to the Kremlin’s sense of the significance of its profile in the Caucusus and Central Asia. And, when it comes to the issue of threatened military action against Iran, Russian leaders become very concerned. For some time now, they have felt that the US policy of regime change in Iran is dangerous and laced with US-Israeli self interest. They further see the policy as an attempt to fulfill a neocon agenda of Middle East domination that would suit neocons in Washington and Tel Aviv. It has not gone unnoticed in Moscow that Israel has been constantly revving up of tensions with Iran and has been making efforts to condition the American public that the only way to deal with Iran is through military strikes. Russia has also been no doubt alarmed by reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney had considered encouraging Israel to strike at Iran so that when Iran retaliated the US would have justification for launching massive strikes against Iran’s military, its nuclear industry and its infrastructure.
White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino recently accused Iran of provocation after it said it would retaliate if there was an Israeli strike. Perino’s comments highlighted the absurdity of the pro-Israel position at the White House. Ms. Perino was obviously unaware that it was not Iran that had threatened to attack Israel but the other way round. This year alone, senior Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and several generals, have publicly declared they would not rule out a military strike against Iran. In April this year Olmert mused that it might take 10 days and 1,000 Tomahawk Cruise missiles to deal with Iran.
All of this has greatly concerned Russia and China and the Kremlin in particular has resisted attempts by the Bush Administration to buy its support for a tougher line against Iran. Informed sources have claimed that the Bush White House tried the “carrot” approach by offering to scale back its planned missile defense shield in Europe, and to back down from supporting independence for Kosovo. There was also a suggestion that Washington said it would ease off in its support for Baltic states like the pro-US Georgia that were proving a political headache on Russia’s boundaries. According to reports emanating from the Kremlin, Putin was not prepared to be “bribed,” proving how much importance he placed on Russia’s relationship with Iran. In order that Russia’s Iran policy was not misunderstood by the international community, especially by the US and Israel, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov lectured the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner. He told him that, while Russia would not approve a nuclear Iran, it would certainly not permit unilateral action against Iran by the US or any of its allies. Lavrov reminded his French counterpart that Washington agreed in 2006 with other members of the Security Council that the “sole objective” of the Council, and of Germany, which had been brought onboard to deal with the Iran issue, was to back the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to make Iran complaint with IAEA rules.
In a deliberate thrust at the Bush Administration’s rush to war in Iraq in 2003, Lavrov added that everyone should remember that the Iraq war began after the AEIA warned the Bush Administration that Iraq had neither chemical nor nuclear weapons. His comment was a clear dig at the US, which have been arguing that Iran is not only close to having nuclear weapons it would target at the US and Israel, but it also has stockpiles of chemical weapons. Those claims echo bogus statements made by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice in the run up to the 2004 invasion of Iraq.
Lavrov’s advice to the French came after tough statements from France’s new president, Nicholas Sarkozy, supporting George Bush’s hard-line position on Iran. In the background, Russia knew French support for tougher sanctions against Iran had been bought with a promise by the US allow the French oil giant, Total, a share in Iraq’s oil. Total signed a deal last year with the American oil giant, Chevron, to seek rights to develop the Majnoon oil field in southern Iraq near the border with Iran. It is one of the largest oil fields in the country and though the Iraqi Oil Ministry recently declared it would treat the US-French tender like any other, it is unlikely the Chevron-Total tender would not be the winner. After all, the US calls the shots in relation to almost everything in Iraq. As of August 2006, plans for development of the Majnoon field were in the hands of the Iraqi Oil Minister.
Iraq and its oil have been very much at the heart of Russia's determination to make its position clear that the US and Israel have no international approval or UN sanction to attack Iran. Ever since the US occupation of Iraq Russia has been smarting at the fact that its oil companies have been denied access to Iraq’s oil reserves even though they had major exploration agreements with the late Saddam Hussein. The Kremlin, much like the ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, believes the war in Iraq was about oil. But the Kremlin is willing to go further by alleging that the Bush policy of regime change in Iran is aimed at expanding US control of oil and gas in the region, especially by gaining control of Iran’s huge oil and gas reserves.
In the months ahead, it is likely a cold war will develop between Russia and the US over Iran. Russia may find that it has a supporter in Turkey, which has resisted pressure from the US to stop buying gas from Iran for its own use and for export to other countries. India, a largely Muslim country that is considering forging an alliance with the US may back Russia because it buys much needed oil and gas supplies from Iran. And of course there is China which opposes any military action against Iran. Then there is Europe, which as a whole prefers not to tow the Washington line on Iran. For example, Germany has not followed the French policy of calling for tougher sanctions against Teheran.
If the reports are correct that Dick Cheney considered encouraging Israel to launch preemptive strikes against Iran in order to force Iran to retaliate, thereby providing a pretext for a major US attack on Iran’s military and infrastructure, the next year could prove to be a trying time for people who prefer diplomacy.