Has Russia just destroyed Obama’s chances of adopting sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear programme?
Anyone who has followed developments in Russia over the last few years had to be sceptical that the Obama administration’s decision to scrap missile defence facilities in central and eastern Europe would really yield the hoped for response from Moscow in securing meaningful sanctions against Iran.
Appeasement would never work, we all said. Isn’t it blindingly obvious that the people who run modern Russia see themselves as locked in a zero sum, geo-political game with America and the wider West?
Didn’t Obama understand that Moscow sees the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran as negative for the United States but neutral or positive for Russia?
Still, there was always that nagging sensation of doubt. Surely, given the stakes, Obama would not humiliate staunch American allies like the Czechs and the Poles without a cast iron commitment from Russia to shift its position on Iran. Surely the Russians had been persuaded that they must now come into line allowing the prospect of serious sanctions to at least be put on the table. Surely the scrapping of missile defence was part of a grand bargain even if, following diplomatic protocol, the Americans would never say so publicly. Surely Obama knew what he was doing.
Yesterday, that debate appeared to come to an end with the following words from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “We are convinced,” he said, “that threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the present situation are counter-productive.”
Be under no illusions. If this really is the Russian position — and Lavrov’s words appear both emphatic and entirely consistent with long standing Russian attitudes — the sanctions route to preventing Iran going nuclear may now be closed.
Russia was always crucial to sanctions for two reasons:
First, Russia is one of the world’s most important energy suppliers. Since the only meaningful sanctions against Iran must, of necessity, target the country’s oil and gas industries any such sanctions would be pointless without Russian cooperation.
Second, unless Russia comes on board with sanctions China has made it clear that it will not cooperate either. In other words, failure to secure cooperation from Russia means failure to secure the cooperation of not one but two of the five permanent members of the UN Security council.
Historians may, therefore, see the meeting in Moscow between Lavrov and Clinton as a fateful and historic moment. If the sanctions route really is now closed, we have just moved into an entirely new phase.
But what do you think? Please leave your comments at the bottom.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
To be honest, I’m not convinced that sanctions against Iran would have any effect other than making the lives of the Iranian people even more intolerable. As we can all see, the Iranian regime does not care a jot what its citizens think and has no respect for them whatsoever. Would such a regime really cave into pressure from below if its people were cold and hungry? I rather think that it would be business as usual.
BTW, Robin, I have just finished reading your book and as an Israeli, would like to thank you for taking the time and making the effort to write it. When I first came to the UK almost 3 years ago after a 30 year absence, I could not for the life of me understand what was going on here; everything seemed to be topsy-turvey. After about six months I stumbled across Nick Cohen’s ‘What’s Left?’ and began to understand a little better what I had missed over 3 decades. Your book gave me an additional angle of understanding of the malaise affecting this country and even had the rather pleasant effect of convincing me that I’m not entirely wierd or mad!
October 14th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
No, Israeli Nurse. You’re not wierd or mad. As Barry Rubin described it so well: currently the lunatics are running the asylum. Kudos also to Robin Shepherd and others who so succinctly point this out and help maintain our sanity.
Regards,
Darryl Dempsey.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“Has Russia just destroyed Obama’s chances of adopting sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear programme?”
I hope so.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“I’m not entirely wierd or mad!”
On the contrary, you are one of the sanest and most articulate posters I’ve come across at blogs in the UK. I always make an especial effort to carefully read what you have to say. It’s the very rare post of yours that doesn’t shed an illuminating light on the subject at hand.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
It does not matter now how well sanctions would have worked . What matters is that the US looks so pathetic and can not deliver anything to the Arab oil producing countries that asked for it.
Iran is free to intimidate all the middle east. We already see how Turkey Syria and who knows who else looking to improve relations with the stronger bully in the neighborhood.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Robin I agree with 95% of the article. Obama will be viewed as weak, by his willingness to appease, and it will all go horribly wrong. However was not the pulling out of the missile defence was as much a technical decision (ie a decision of military futility) as much as a gesture to the Russians?
Robin Shepherd says: As I understand it missile defence is technically more reliable than some have argued, although I am no expert on the matter. I think that whatever the truth about the technical issues the whole affair had taken on a life of its own. For the Czechs and Poles it had become a symbol of US commitment to their security. For the Russians it had become a test case of Western resiliance. The Russians will certainly see this as a sign of western weakness and the move will embolden them to be more aggressive. That’s my view at least….
October 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
It was obvious months ago that the only way the Iranian nuclear bomb would be stopped is through military action. Iran was never acting in good faith in negotiations, and sanctions would never detract them from their chosen path. The question is – who will have the guts to do it?