Russia & China End Game for Iran?

Great post from Dan Drezner today - bottom line is that Russia and China seem to be acting in their short-term interest, but detrimentally to their long-term interest in refusing to go along with sanctions/pressure against Iran.

[i]What are Russia and China’s end game on Iran?

Last year I questioned what Bush administration hawks saw as the end game in U.S. dealings with Iran. ( danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Someone explain the hawks' plans to me )

After reading Elaine Sciolino’s excellent review of the current state of play regarding Iran in today’s New York Times ( On Nuclear Seesaw, the Balance Seems to Shift to Iran - The New York Times ), I’m going to have to put the same question to Russia and China:

[quote] Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is known for overheated, boastful pronouncements. So it was hardly a surprise earlier this month when he declared that despite demands from the United States and other countries that Iran stop enriching uranium, Tehran was pressing ahead and negotiations were out of the question.

"From our point of view," he said, "this subject is closed."

But in this case, Iran's intransigence is not only real; it also appears to be defeating attempts by the rest of the world to curtail Tehran's nuclear ambitions, at least for the moment....

[N]othing seems to be bending the will of Iran, which is flush with oil revenues. The incentive strategy, led by Javier Solana, the European Union�??s foreign policy adviser, has failed to entice Iran to stop enrichment in exchange for economic, political and technological rewards. So has the punishment approach, as Russia and China hold firm to the view that further pressure will only intensify the standoff.

In May, desperate to engage Iran, the six nations offered a brief freeze in further sanctions if Iran freezes its enrichment program at the current level, effectively dropping their demand that Iran stop enrichment altogether. But that "double freeze" proposal barely got Tehran�??s attention.

"The chosen strategy of pressure and engagement is not working," said one senior European official involved in the diplomacy. "As a result, you have a lot of people desperately banging on the door of the Iranians. All of them are coming back empty-handed."....

Russia has recently tried but failed to sway Iran to compromise. During a recent visit to Tehran, President Vladimir V. Putin was granted a rare audience with Iran�??s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Mr. Putin made no threats, but focused on the benefits that would flow to Iran, including the delivery of sophisticated nuclear technology, if it made some gesture on enrichment, according to officials familiar with the visit.

Iranian officials described the meeting as very friendly, but when Mr. Putin sent his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to Tehran, Mr. Lavrov received a frosty reception, and returned home frustrated, Russian, Iranian and European officials said.

Still, Russia prefers to make the next priority not more sanctions but winning Iran�??s cooperation on allowing wider inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations agency, Russian and Western European officials said.

China, whose trade with Iran is soaring, has taken what might be characterized as a passive-aggressive diplomatic approach.

It did not send a representative to a key meeting of the six powers in Brussels on Monday, causing the meeting to be canceled. The Chinese delegation also refused to attend the previous scheduled meeting of the group, to protest both a meeting Germany�??s chancellor, Angela Merkel, held with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader, and the decision by the United States Congress to honor him. The Chinese are expected at Saturday's meeting.

The only negotiation with Iran that seems to be progressing is the limited one aimed at resolving the United Nations agency�??s questions about Tehran's past nuclear activity. Under a formal agreement last summer with the agency, Iran has begun to turn over documents and make various officials and former officials available for interviews.

As long as Iran is making progress on this front, the United States and its European allies are likely to have a difficult time persuading Russia and China to agree to further sanctions.[/quote] 

As near as I can figure, China and Russia don’t want to think about the end game because the status quo benefits them enormously.

The status quo is a situation in which:

a) The US and EU are committed to work through the United Nations;

b) China and Russia hold leverage over any sanctions process; and

c) The uncertainty over Iran's possible nuclear program acts as a useful check against any further expansion of American or Israeli influence in the Middle East.

This is all well and good, and rational in the short run. The thing is, I’m reasonably sure that neither Russia nor China really wants Iran to develop a nuclear fuel cycle that is independent of any IAEA or UNSC strictures ( danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: The twin sins of Norman Podhoretz.... ) – which is what the status quo will lead to in a few years. Clearly, solving the problem now will be less costly than solving the problem later. And as much as China and Russia might disdain sanctions, I’ve seen zero evidence that inducements are having any effect either.

Question to Russia and China-watchers – what do they believe the end game is on Iran?

UPDATE: This Reuters story ( http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-nuclear-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ) highlights another problem – as long as Iran believes that the great powers are not coordinated, they have no incentive to make any concessions:

[quote] Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said late on Thursday that nothing would deflect the Islamic Republic from its pursuit of nuclear technology and that Washington had “lost” in its attempts to stop them.

"The Iranian nation will never return from the path that they have chosen and they are determined and decisive to continue this path (to obtain nuclear technology)," Mottaki was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

The West says Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at building atom bombs. Iran, a major oil exporter, says efforts to enrich uranium are intended only to produce electricity.

Diplomats and analysts say Iran will see little reason to relent in its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment given that six big powers remain at odds over how soon to resort to more United Nations penalties and how harsh they should be.[/quote]

It’s important to keep in mind that the root of Putin’s power, both at home and abroad, is energy. High prices ensure broad prosperity and government revenue at home while tight supplies give Russia extraordinary leverage in international affairs. I seriously doubt that the implications of a continued threat of war with Iran-- namely the potential severing of Persian Gulf supplies and the extra $20 per barrel which result, not to mention the need to look for alternative suppliers which result from the possibility-- are lost on Putin. The benefits reaped through the continuation of the US-Iran standoff are immediate and quite substantial while the costs and risks associated are minor in comparison. Putin is playing game properly.

Good insite, etaco…

What we should do is tell Russia and China that if they aid Iran with nukes, we will give nuclear energy to Georgia and Taiwan.

I mean Christ sakes, China refuses our ship a harbor because we gave missiles to Taiwan and Russia suspends a missile treaty because we want to put defensive missiles in European countries…but arming Iran with potential nukes is fair game?

That is bs in the first degree.

[quote]etaco wrote:
It’s important to keep in mind that the root of Putin’s power, both at home and abroad, is energy. High prices ensure broad prosperity and government revenue at home while tight supplies give Russia extraordinary leverage in international affairs. I seriously doubt that the implications of a continued threat of war with Iran-- namely the potential severing of Persian Gulf supplies and the extra $20 per barrel which result, not to mention the need to look for alternative suppliers which result from the possibility-- are lost on Putin. The benefits reaped through the continuation of the US-Iran standoff are immediate and quite substantial while the costs and risks associated are minor in comparison. Putin is playing game properly. [/quote]

Interesting - but that assumes one of the EU (near impossible), the U.S. or Israel, or some combination thereof, is willing to go to war to stop Iran from attaining the bomb.

Otherwise Russia will have a nuclear-armed, terrorist-supporting Islamic state with aspirations of regional hegemony almost at its door - not good for a country that considers itself a regional hegemon and has its own large problem with Islamic terrorism in Chechnya.

And it doesn’t explain China - unless one assumes China figures Russia is going to push that course anyway, and since one member of the security counsel can block with a veto, China is trying to find a best-course assuming a Russian veto.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What we should do is tell Russia and China that if they aid Iran with nukes, we will give nuclear energy to Georgia and Taiwan. [/quote]

Do us all a favor and get a map.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting - but that assumes one of the EU (near impossible), the U.S. or Israel, or some combination thereof, is willing to go to war to stop Iran from attaining the bomb.[/quote]

That proposition could be interesting to Russia and China. To have America’s already overextended army extend itself even further; to have America fund another costly war which would drive up oil prices benefiting Russia greatly.

It might even be interesting to Iran. Any war with the US/Israel is likely to be limited to bombing, not invading/occupying (no troops). Regime change would be unlikely and the present regime might use the situation to crush any pro-western movements within it’s borders.

With the Iraqi “surge” coming to an end and having failed to produce any political progress, you can also be sure that any factions that had been contained by the additional troop levels would not miss the occasion of reasserting themselves and making the most of the US’s inability to maintain troop levels. Proposing a draft during an election year would have the GOP practically eliminate itself from the running.

It might be an acceptable trade-off if it also leads to a much weakened U.S. I’m sure Russia and China would love to be considered “superpowers” too… If they can’t reach the US’s level, they might settle for dragging down the US back to theirs…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
What we should do is tell Russia and China that if they aid Iran with nukes, we will give nuclear energy to Georgia and Taiwan.

Do us all a favor and get a map.[/quote]

I do not need a map to know that Georgia is a US ally and Russia keeps encroaching on it’s borders, and Taiwan is also a US ally and China has tons of missiles aiming at the island.

Do us a favor and read some REAL news for a change.

And I was talking about Georgia the country, not Georgia the state.

  1. Georgia seems like it borders Russia to me.
  1. and there’s Taiwan (you probably know it as Formosa), right on the border of China.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

  1. Georgia seems like it borders Russia to me.

  2. and there’s Taiwan (you probably know it as Formosa), right on the border of China. [/quote]

My point exactly.

I do not understand. My point was, if China and Russia arm our enemy and their ally with nuclear energy and the potential to make a bomb, then we should arm their enemies and our allies.

See, you call their bluffs.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I do not understand. My point was, if China and Russia arm our enemy and their ally with nuclear energy and the potential to make a bomb, then we should arm their enemies and our allies.

See, you call their bluffs.[/quote]

I think lixy’s point is that Iran is on the other side of the globe; whereas you’re proposing putting nukes on their doorsteps.

Maybe China and Russia could supply Cuba with a nuclear arsenal and you’d be even.

But Lixy said often times that the Iranians have the potential to hit our mainland with attacks. If that is not a serious threat, I do not know what is. Imagine if they could detonate a nuke or dirty bomb on our soil once they get the capability to make one.

The Ruskies tried to supply Cuba with nukes once and we called their bluff, you do not think this strategy would work again?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
But Lixy said often times that the Iranians have the potential to hit our mainland with attacks. If that is not a serious threat, I do not know what is.[/quote]

So lixy is the final word on Iran’s capabilities?

Anyway, every country on the planet has the “potential” to hit you… actually realizing that potential is another thing entirely.

Any nuclear nation that would strike at the US would ensure it’s near immediate annihilation, backed by world wide sympathy too… It’s not going to happen.

Personally, a nuclear Pakistan worries me a lot more than a nuclear Iran would.

Iran being surrounded by nuclear armed neighbors (Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc.) having them go nuclear might increase the regional stability. Deterrence works pretty well, but only if every player is on a more or less equal footing.

Assuming they even had a reliable way of doing that, why would they do it? They might as well nuke themselves off the map and save every one some time.

If you’re really worried about a mainland nuke attack, you’d be better off increasing the security in your ports, airports and borders. That would cover every nation and terrorist group.

I’d rather not see nuclear brinkmanship anymore than I have too… I was simply pointing out that what you’re proposing is to put nuclear weapons almost inside China and Russia to punish them for letting a country half a world away from us develop them. America can (and does) get away with a lot of bullshit, but there are limits… you already probably have a bunch of nuclear armed submarimes patrolling close to China and Russia, which they probably know or suspect. But publicly humiliating them would only force them to respond forcefully. First thing you know, we’re all back to living in a worse than medieval economy with no hair and peeling skin.

Though I see your point…

Ok, sure, let Iran have nukes, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, UAE, and every other ME nation, because that is what I see happening if Iran gets nukes. The world will be a hell of a lot safer with even more maniac nations having their fingers on nuclear hair trigger wires.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Though I see your point…

Ok, sure, let Iran have nukes, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, UAE, and every other ME nation, because that is what I see happening if Iran gets nukes. The world will be a hell of a lot safer with even more maniac nations having their fingers on nuclear hair trigger wires.[/quote]

Having nukes is still different than having nukes with ICBMs. ie, the means of putting them anywhere on the globe within the hour. Or having a fleet of nuclear armed submarines, which is just as good, or better in some scenarios…

Your all-or-nothing claims are also debatable… just because Iran develops nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that each and every neighboring country will do so. They might want to, but wanting them and having the technology to do it is two different things. And if you’re low-tech, you might buy some from someone else, but you’ll lack the required technology to keep them in good working order. Saddam had no nukes and it wasn’t from lack of wanting them.

Also, historically, nations getting nukes have all become more cool-headed. India and Pakistan still argue over Kashmir, but the situation has been kept on a low simmer since both nation became nuclear armed.

If rogue nukes ending up in the hands of terrorists is really what worries you, then devoting more resources to tracking the old USSR’s decrepit arsenal or making sure the situation in Pakistan doesn’t devolve in a chaotic civil war would probably be a more advisable course than bombing Iran.

[quote]pookie wrote:
If rogue nukes ending up in the hands of terrorists is really what worries you, then devoting more resources to tracking the old USSR’s decrepit arsenal or making sure the situation in Pakistan doesn’t devolve in a chaotic civil war would probably be a more advisable course than bombing Iran.
[/quote]

We tried to contain the Russian nukes the best we could. And, no, I do not condone attacking Iran.

How about undercutting the Iranian regime by ceasing the threats that are backing the most progressive population amongst the major powers in the region (besides Israel) into a corner?

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
How about undercutting the Iranian regime by ceasing the threats that are backing the most progressive population amongst the major powers in the region (besides Israel) into a corner?[/quote]

They tried when the moderates were in charge and got no where.

The best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear capability is to bolster and fortify Israel’s…That’d piss them off.
I think Iran going nuclear is a forgone conclusion.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They tried when the moderates were in charge and got no where.[/quote]

Well try again; if in fact that is true. Giving it an honest try requires time and more than just being less hostile than usual.

Nobody supports openly hawkish behavior when they feel safe and secure. Amadineghad was elected on an economic platform stressing job creation. Forces of reform inside Iran don’t want the threats of sanctions or force because it undercuts their abilities to bring about change. The regime is entrenched via public fear and the reliance upon it for protection and subsistence.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They tried when the moderates were in charge and got no where.[/quote]

Nonsense. The US never tried to get closer to the Iranian regime. What they did is reject an offer to negotiate the nuclear issue.

And let’s not forget the support Washington gives to terrorist groups operating inside Iran (MEK, etc.)

The moderates in the region - and beyond - lost to the radical kooks precisely because of the belligerent attitude and inflammatory rethoric of your president. Had he not bombed and invaded Iraq, things could have been very different.

Read up the following piece. It’s very well written and you’ll probably end up learning something.