After years of stalemate, negotiations over Iran's controversial nuclear development program seemed to progress last week when an Iranian delegation in Vienna agreed to the export and modification of its low-enriched uranium. The resulting optimism did not last. Officials in Tehran demurred, insisting that they needed more time to study the proposal and could not meet Friday's deadline to ratify the agreement. While Iran's stonewalling came as a disappointment to the United States, it did not come as a surprise. Over the past month, the White House has signaled that it is preparing a new, more severe round of sanctions in case current negotiations fail.
The United States has reached out to many countries for help in implementing its strategy, but none more so than Russia, which has come to play an increasingly central role in the battle over the Iranian nuclear program. In September, President Dmitri Medvedev stirred hopes after he emerged from a meeting with President Barack Obama and hinted that the Kremlin might be open to the idea of new sanctions on Iran. Together with China, Russia has long been considered Tehran's patron at the UN, and many U.S. analysts believe that sincere Russian cooperation may prove to be the key component in bringing the program in line with international strictures.
Yet recent events suggest that U.S. confidence in Russia's willingness to wield both carrot and stick may have been misplaced. After a visit from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that "threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the present situation are counter-productive." Ensuring the point was lost on no one, Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister and erstwhile president, said that talk of sanctions was "premature."
Russia's evasiveness is sure to frustrate the Obama administration, which will need Moscow's support if it seeks effective sanctions against Tehran. But any attempt to gain such cooperation must take into account Russia's history with and interests in the Iranian nuclear project. A U.S. plan that underestimates the deep and extensive ties that bind the two countries will leave the United States bereft of Russian support at the negotiating table.
In January 1995, Viktor Mikhailov, the Russian minister of atomic energy, and Reza Amrollahi, the chair of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, negotiated an $800 million contract to complete a reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr, which a German firm had abandoned after the 1979 revolution. Construction at the original Bushehr plant had marked Iran's foray into the development of nuclear power. (Previous reactors, supplied primarily by the United States, were dedicated to research.) Russia's decision to revive the reactor infuriated U.S. officials and hindered efforts to thaw relations between the two countries.
Cooperation between Russia and Iran continued relatively smoothly over the following years, and leaders from both sides were quick to redress any emerging problems. When work on Bushehr fell behind schedule in 1998, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov visited Iran and pledged greater involvement of Russian technicians in the project.
COMMENTS (6)
As with China, the U.S. policy toward Russia revolves around the following realpolitik trade off: Do what you wish in cracking down on any and all folks who aggitate for democracy in your country. All we require of you is your help in cracking down on those repressive regimes we don't like.
Is this the right or the wrong way for us to approach foreign policy?
It is neither. It is simply how the world functions. The difference being of course that some folks in here pretend it isn't. They embrace America as a beacon of freedom around the globe when in reality it acts in the same expedient "power politics" manner in which all the other nations do.
We are just more hypocritical about it, in othe ... view full comment
As with China, the U.S. policy toward Russia revolves around the following realpolitik trade off: Do what you wish in cracking down on any and all folks who aggitate for democracy in your country. All we require of you is your help in cracking down on those repressive regimes we don't like.
Is this the right or the wrong way for us to approach foreign policy?
It is neither. It is simply how the world functions. The difference being of course that some folks in here pretend it isn't. They embrace America as a beacon of freedom around the globe when in reality it acts in the same expedient "power politics" manner in which all the other nations do.
We are just more hypocritical about it, in other words.
george
Excellent essay. We apparently need such reminders from time to time of Bismarck's truism: "Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but permanent interests."
Excellent essay. We apparently need such reminders from time to time of Bismarck's truism: "Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but permanent interests."
"Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but permanent interests."
gw:
Indeed. Powell, however, does not delve into how those interests are defined and who does the defining.
Or, maybe, in the end we should just let God sort it all out?
george
"Nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but permanent interests."
gw:
Indeed. Powell, however, does not delve into how those interests are defined and who does the defining.
Or, maybe, in the end we should just let God sort it all out?
george
Typical, if there is only one post, it will be by that cretin George Walton, Mr. Unambiguous dumb ass.
The guy isn't a poster, he is a stalker.
Typical, if there is only one post, it will be by that cretin George Walton, Mr. Unambiguous dumb ass.
The guy isn't a poster, he is a stalker.
Lord Palmerston in a speech to the House of Commons, 1848: "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Lord Palmerston in a speech to the House of Commons, 1848: "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Great minds run in similar tracks Icarus, uh, I mean Xenophon...
The principal duty of leadership is to decide first what constitutes vital interests, and then how best to pursue them. I think most everyone should be able to agree that it's in our interests to bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to successful conclusions. This doesn't have to mean making them into shining cities on a hill, but it certainly doesn't mean having the former still in the iron grip of an aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism and the other ruled as neo-Khmer Rouge Absurdistan heading back to the 8th Century, either.
Great minds run in similar tracks Icarus, uh, I mean Xenophon...
The principal duty of leadership is to decide first what constitutes vital interests, and then how best to pursue them. I think most everyone should be able to agree that it's in our interests to bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to successful conclusions. This doesn't have to mean making them into shining cities on a hill, but it certainly doesn't mean having the former still in the iron grip of an aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism and the other ruled as neo-Khmer Rouge Absurdistan heading back to the 8th Century, either.