Intelligence Brief: Russia Shifts Course on Iran

Moscow's decision against delivering nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor demonstrates a change in Russian foreign policy. Previously, Russia has supported Iran throughout its confrontation with the United States and with the West over its nuclear research program.

Russia saw relations with Iran as positive for a number of reasons: Iran is a major purchaser of Russian arms and nuclear technology; Iran's negative relationship with the United States has encouraged Moscow to support it against U.S. ambitions in the region, which Russia sees as a threat to its interests in the Middle East and to its near abroad; and Russia, along with China, has been pursuing a policy of multipolarity in world affairs, which means that Washington's attempts to limit the ambitions of regional powers should be opposed. In light of these interests, Moscow's decision on Bushehr signifies a change in its foreign policy toward Iran.The Kremlin has stated publicly that its decision to halt production of the reactor is due to a payment dispute. Tehran, however, denies that it has failed to complete its payments, and has blamed Russia's decision on "political reasons." Yet Reuters journalist Christian Lowe claimed that European officials had told him that Russia said it would not deliver nuclear fuel to Bushehr until Iran complies with U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment activities. It is not clear why Moscow has chosen to limit its involvement in Iran's nuclear program. While Moscow has stated on a number of occasions that it is opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that this is the reason for its decision on Bushehr. From the start of its nuclear involvement with Iran, Russia has known that the technology could be used for weapons purposes. If it were not for resistance from the West, Russia would have continued its nuclear involvement with Iran and would have loaded the Bushehr reactor with fuel. Furthermore, even after limiting involvement in Bushehr, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov still defended the country, saying that Russia "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran," and noted that the March 24 U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed against Iran was softened as a result of Moscow's negotiations. Additionally, Russia continues to arm Iran, and recently provided it with the sophisticated TOR-M1 anti-aircraft missile system, which is capable of hitting targets at an altitude of 30,000 feet. If Russia saw Iran as a potential threat, it would be unlikely to assist in Iran's military development.Some analysts argue that Russia's decision had more to do with Western pressure. This explanation appears to be the most accepted, although it too does not seem to be entirely accurate. During the past few years, for instance, President Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken an increasingly aggressive stance on the world stage. He has pursued a number of policies that have directly contrasted with the West, yet he has not stood down in spite of Western pressure. Moscow's energy policy that resulted in the cut-off of gas flows to Europe was an extremely provocative decision that was taken in stride despite Western outrage. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Moscow would curtail its involvement with Iran's nuclear industry simply due to Western pressure.Instead, a more realistic possibility explaining Moscow's decision is that some form of a political deal has been reached with the United States and the Europeans. As part of such a deal, Washington and Brussels would achieve Moscow's support on Iran, which would allow the United States and the European Union to better isolate the country. It is unclear, however, what Russia would receive from such a deal. There are a number of outstanding issues that Moscow hopes to resolve in its favor, from Western pressure over NGOs operating in Russia, to the status of breakaway provinces like Abkhazia and South Ossetia.While it is unclear at this stage why Russia has chosen to cool its relations with Iran, Moscow's decision on Bushehr marks a definite change in Russian policy. Time will tell whether this is a one-time tactical decision, or if it is a long-term strategic change of direction on the part of the Kremlin.

ALSO :

26 January 2007''Intelligence Brief: U.S. Moves to Regain Leverage over Iran''
n September 2004, PINR released an in-depth report on Iran's foreign policy objectives. According to the report, the "best-case scenario for Iran is that the U.S. military is forced to withdraw from Iraq, leaving Iran with a dominant sphere of influence over a Shi'a-dominated Iraq or a breakaway Shi'a mini-state in the south, and that Iran is able to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Were this outcome to occur, Iran would be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, displacing the United States." Iran's worst-case scenario, according to the report, "is that the United States or Israel launches a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear complex, possibly associated with American military efforts at regime change." [See: "Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities"]In the two years that have passed since the report's release, developments have clearly moved in a direction closer to Iran's best-case scenario. Not only has the U.S. intervention in Iraq deteriorated to the point where some form of withdrawal is a likely outcome, but Iran's influence in southern Iraq has increased; Iranian-supported Hezbollah managed to defend its positions against an Israeli invasion; Afghanistan has grown increasingly unstable; North Korea tested a nuclear weapon without significant repercussions; and Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology has not been thwarted despite threats and economic sanctions.All of these developments have proved positive for Iran and explain its aggressive posture on the world stage. Tehran sees developments in the Middle East moving rapidly in its favor and it considers the United States to be in a weak position strategically. As a result, Tehran believes that its window of opportunity to increase its regional power -- which formed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- remains open. As a result, it has not backed down on any of its foreign policy ambitions despite mounting pressure.The United States, on the other hand, remains at a loss over how to deal with Iran effectively. Washington's recognition that the intervention in Iraq may not be salvageable, however, has recently caused it to look down the road strategically. It now appears to be pursuing new actions aimed at preventing Iran from achieving its best-case scenario. One such action was the recent U.S. decision to move a second aircraft carrier fleet -- the U.S.S. John C. Stennis -- into the Persian Gulf, joining the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group. The U.S. Navy has called this development a "warning to Syria and Iran." In addition to this tactical move, U.S. forces recently arrested six Iranians in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, accusing them of being part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and having an active role in the insurgency. Also, there were reports from Turkey that the United States moved 16 F-16 fighter aircraft into the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey; the official reason is that they are there for exercises with Turkish and N.A.T.O. forces, but combined with these two other developments, the action has greater significance.These moves are clearly attempts to change perceptions that the United States is in a position of weakness and that it is unwilling to further embroil itself in conflict. Eliminating this perception is critical for the United States in order to regain geopolitical influence in the Middle East.Perceptions of U.S. weakness -- which PINR has warned of since 2003 -- were recently confirmed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. On January 15, Gates confirmed that "the Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways. They're doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point." Gates went further, admitting, "I think that our difficulties have given them a tactical opportunity in the short term…" Gates, however, added that "the United States is a very powerful country." This caveat is a military reality that Iran must carefully take into account. While the United States is reluctant to further embroil itself in conflict, it retains the ability to attack Iran. In fact, it is possible that Washington's latest moves are in preparation for a strike on Iran, even if such a course of action would not be in the interests of the United States.Nevertheless, even if the United States did not achieve its objectives in an attack -- such as ending Iran's nuclear research program permanently and eliminating its influence in Iraq -- it would prove detrimental to Iran's regional ambitions. For this reason, Iran will make efforts to avoid this outcome and it is here where the United States retains the most leverage. Indeed, there are reports that forces within the Iranian government are pressuring President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to tone down his aggressive posture so as not to invite a U.S. or Israeli attack.