Iranian problem: pros and cons for Moscow

By VK

Talks between Iran and the six international mediators (the members of the ‘5+1 group’ created for mediating the Iranian nuclear program problem) are due to take place in Istanbul on April, 13. Turkish side announced its readiness to host the meeting during Erdogan’s visit to Tehran in March, but the final decision was taken only yesterday. On the eve of this event, Russian experts discussed possible vectors of Russian policy regarding the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the State Duma committee for foreign affairs

If the situation with Iran develops according to the worst-case scenario – and there are certain preconditions for that – than the State Duma will issue a stamen on the topic, which is very important for us. For now there’s a number of possible scenarios, and one of them is a military one, and judging from certain states’ official statements, it becomes more probable by day – and that is matter of great concern for us. A lot depends on the talks that are due to take place on April, 13-14. First of all, the very dynamics of the Iranian nuclear program issue development is quite intriguing: will it turn the 2012 into the year of a new war? To tell you the truth, the world is pretty tired of wars. All recent wars were initiated by one center of power and they have been happening on quite a regular basis. We can’t exclude that if Russia with the support of China wouldn’t have used its UN veto right twice, we would be observing a foreign intervention into Syria by now. Some states think that they should intervene in a state’s affairs first, and think of what to do with it later. And this is a serious problem.

The second problem here are the actual intentions of the Iranian side. There is no conclusive proof of any significant progress in the area of nuclear bomb construction there, and the question of Iran’s true intentions is still open. Does it want to become a nuclear power? Or does it want to become a state that possesses the technology of nuclear warheads creation, but doesn’t make this final step? There’s a number of such ‘threshold’ states in the world today. Or maybe Iran is merely developing a peaceful nuclear program, as it claims to, and has no secret agenda? There’s the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, signed, among others, by Iran, so it bears all the responsibilities stipulated by the treaty. Russia took up an active position in this discussion as we are interested knowing exactly where the Iranian nuclear program is headed.

The third problem is the appropriate pattern of behavior for Russia in such a situation. There are several different means of influencing the situation. There are political and diplomatic forms, there are sanctions… Up until now Russia has strongly objected to the co-called military scenario. From what was said by various Russian officials one could conclude that Russia is ready to support quite a variety of our partner’s actions aimed at making Iran take its opponents concerns into account, but it would not support any military action. This was the essence of Russia’s position, and there are no reasons to suggest that it has changed. But would Russia limit itself with mere non-support? Or we could do something else, something to prevent the military action? Military means can’t resolve any problem, it only makes them more acute. We see that in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and the support of the armed opposition in Syria also led to the aggravation of the crisis, it almost ruined all hope for political dialog. So even a theoretical possibility of peaceful resolution is being destroyed by the foreign intervention. If we try to resolve problems by arms, there will be no dialog. They say that they support the mission of Annan, but at the same time they allocate $12 million to support the armed opposition in Syria. Weird, isn’t it?

So how are we to treat the issue of Iran in such a situation? What options does Russia have? It is within the sphere of our national interests. And we should weigh this aspect of our national interest towards the general picture.

Leonid Ivashov, the president of the Geopolitical Sciences academy

Nuclear weapon isn’t the main reason for preparing the military strike. After the nuclear monopoly was destroyed is a sort of a ‘peaceful weapon’, an instrument of strategic deterrence. The main problem of the whole region is that there’s only one state possessing nuclear arms in it – I mean, Israel, supported by the US and GB. It would be wrong to say that if Iran gets the bomb it would be a catastrophe. No, on the contrary, it would make the region more stable, there will be new possibilities for a dialog. So what does Iran want? Iran wants to assure its safe and stable development. Of course, Teheran has some ambitions to lead the Islam world, but it has no real desire to deliver a nuclear strike against anyone. It would be the end of the state, the end of a whole civilization.

Evgeniy Buzhinky, vice-President of the Political Research Center

The military way of resolving the Iranian issue is a road to nowhere. It is hard to carry out technically for the Israeli Air Force: its plains have to re-fuel in the air, etc. Israel doesn’t possess bombs powerful enough to destroy underground bunkers. Of course, the US could have delivered all that, but the whole venture is very complicated and is unlikely to succeed from the practical point of view. There’s no accurate intelligence as to where Iran is carrying out its secret nuclear program (if it’s carrying it out at all). They’re underground, so it is impossible to destroy them completely. And as a result they’ll have the consolidation of the Iranian society. It would only speed up the nuclear program of Iran (if it exists at all), and carry it to its realization, Nuclear deterrence worked just fine even in the worst years of the Cold War. It could have worked on the Middle East: maybe, in this case Iran and Israel would be finally able to come to some agreements – which is absolutely impossible now.

Alexander Isayev, deputy director of the RSAS Economic Strategy Institute

As for the military solution, it is not impossible, but I think for now it is at least delayed. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO doesn’t plane an operation against Iran. But what would happen if the operation really takes place? It would push Iran closer to getting the bomb, as Iran would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty immediately and start open work on nuclear weapons. And this is only one of the troubles that a military strike would result in.

The sanctions that are being imposed aren’t a catastrophe for Teheran, but they’re still hard. They damage Iranian economy and the quality of life of the general population of Iran. Constant oppressive economic measures push Iran to develop closer cooperation with regional powers, including Russia, and we have quite a good potential for developing beneficial economic relations. Iranians invest good money into Astrakhan port construction. We’re talking of developing economic ties between Russia’s South and Iran’s North. Iran creates working groups in order to do that, there’re transit projects for Dagestan, and it is very beneficial for Russia. A visit of the Gilyan Province governor to Makhachkala is to be carried out soon, on 12 or 13 of April. Other points of our possible cooperation are possible equipment shipments for oil industry, selling of technologies that are not under sanctions. It is a broad field that is open for Russia despite the sanctions, so Iran is really a very perspective partner for us.