Assessing Iran and U.S. policy under the next administration

Needless to say, the nuclear standoff with Iran lingers on as the West attempts to threaten the Islamic state with more sanctions. Despite its consistent defiance of the obligations listed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran seems to not be willing to negotiate on many aspects of its "peaceful" nuclear program. As the Bush administration leaves office, it appears Iran will be a situation dealt with by the next U.S. President.


As reports come out that suggest President Bush is willing to give Iran some diplomatic legitimacy by establishing an interests section potentially during his final month in office, one must wonder at what point does a lame duck president sit back and allow his successor to take the reigns. After three years of consistent rhetoric on alienating Iran diplomatically, a sudden reversal of U.S. policy would be detrimental in allowing the next administration to resolve the issue.


While the next administration will likely change the U.S. approach towards Iran, it must continue to declare that an Iranian state that sponsors terrorism and desires to possess a completely unregulated nuclear program is not acceptable. Without Iran providing any reasons to change U.S. policy drastically, preemptively providing a potential incentive to bribe them into coming to the table is not going to be the missing piece to the issue.


The best hope is to potentially pursue paths of alienating Iranian allies such as Syria. By potentially separating an Iranian ally that has historically held an anti-Western approach and providing a new face on U.S. policy in the Mid-East of cooperation with regimes that are willing to change their stance, a new phase of negotiations in this crisis can be achieved. However, if either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to separate state sponsors of terrorism. Without any form of commitment on that regard, U.S. relations should not be pursued with those countries. By removing a strong Iranian ally, the potential to enhance relations could be achieved through Syria's establishment as a comfortable middle-ground and precedent.


Under the new President and his Secretary of State, there is potential for a breakthrough regarding Iran. However, it is necessary that the pressure remains existent on all levels until a reversal of support for international meddling via terror groups is obtained from Iranian leadership. Issues should be addressed one step at a time, and while the U.S. would like to see numerous changes in Tehran, the situation should be dealt with one step at a time. If either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to encourage Iranian participation, not isolation, in international affairs. This issue should be addressed as the primary goal, and could be an issue that if pursued by Iran, could allow easier negotiations on the requirements of its nuclear program.


Only time will tell how Iran will greet the change of American leadership, but it will continue to be a difficult situation so long as each side consistently promotes a division and intolerance for the other. By potentially connecting the cultures in common pursuits, this gap can be overcome. Through forming common partnerships that enhance cooperation in the region, the U.S. can not be seen as an invading force but rather as an ally of the Middle East. The situation is difficult, but there is the hope that doors will open that allow Iran and the West to pursue negotiations and relationships in the future.

If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. III)

This is the third of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.


After President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the Western powers lost any successes obtained in negotiating a resolution to Iran's nuclear pursuits. Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that the nuclear "know-how" is part of a vast religious obligation to utilize his power for the coming of the Mahdi. There was one dilemma. Iran was not capable of independently creating its nuclear program, it needed assistance. Once again, Ahmadinejad set out on his goal of forming a strategic partnership with a country that possessed what the Islamic republic lacked.

The criteria that formed the African and Latin American alliances was the same - a leader who was not willing to bow to Western influence and opposed the increasing American Imperialist movement. With North Korea constantly in talks over its program and Libya's agreement to abandonment, Ahmadinejad found a friend in Russia. Russia offered a partnership that elevated Iran from the shadows of international diplomacy and brought it to new levels. With Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated criticisms of U.S. policy, Iran now had a major voice in international affairs - as well as a country which possessed the ability to veto any measures drafted in the UN Security Council.

With Russia's increased involvement with Tehran, there are several issues of concern. In 2005, it is reported that trade between the two countries was in excess of $1 billion, making Russia the seventh largest exporter to Iran. Estimates suggest that exports from Russia could grow to $10 billion annually within years. With such an invested stake in Iranian exports, Russian desire to impose increased sanctions has predictably been in opposition. It should be no surprise then that on September 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he saw "no need for urgent measures against Iran." Those comments were made one week after an IAEA report criticized Iran for not allowing the agency to fully investigate certain aspects of the nuclear program.

The chief area of trade that has seen a spike under Ahmadinejad's presidency is arms sales, which has put Russian arms dealers as the chief suppliers to Iran. In 2006 Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington's Institute for Near East Policy's Military and Security Studies Program, said that the Islamic Republic was specifically seeking to increase it's air defense capabilities.

Late last year, the announcement came that Russia had agreed to sell Iran its S-300 air defense system, one of the most advanced of its kind. Capable of tracking around 100 targets simultaneously while intercepting up to 12 from a distance of over 100 miles, the reported sale was for deployment specifically around Iranian nuclear sites to dissuade Israel from any air strike on such sites. Now, amid reports that the system could be delivered by late this year, both Russia and Iran refuse to confirm nor deny whether there is such an agreement. The Russian Foreign Ministry has only stated that "we do not intend to deliver those types of arms to countries which are located in troubled regions." However, Russia has deployed the S-300 in Syria and the director for the Russian arms exports agency, Rosoboronexport, was quoted by Russian media on September 17 that his agency was in advanced negotiations to sell S-300 missiles to Iran. The agency later issued a statement denying that it had sold such missiles to Iran, but did not speak to whether or not there were talks for their sale. It is highly probable that Iran will seek to enhance its defenses around facilities such as its Bushehr reactor, which the Russian agency Atomstroyexport has stated should be operational by early to mid 2009.

While the official dealings of the Russian government remain unclear with Tehran, the most frightening component of all remains an ever present force in the Russian economy. Black market arms dealers continue to operate with relative ease in Moscow, creating a dangerous link with the Russian government that could extend into Iran and its proxies such as Hizbullah. To see the cooperation that exists between Russian officials and black market arms dealers, one need not look further than the case of Viktor Bout, the "Lord of War," who was arrested in Thailand in March. After Thai authorities agreed to drop their charges to allow a quicker extradition to the U.S., where he faces several charges related to terrorism, there have been several reports that the Russian Foreign Ministry is attempting to broker military sales with the Thai prime minister in exchange for Bout. According to Douglas Farah, despite a 20o2 Interpol Red Notice requiring Bout's arrest and a Belgian warrant for his arrest for money laundering, Bout resided in Moscow and used at least five Russian passports.

Bout is just one example of how Russia has used the black market to insert itself into the global dynamics, enabling and controlling conflict. Russian weapons were present in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which allowed Hizbullah to use advanced armor-piercing Russian missiles. Farah has stated that "such activities project Russian power, at a time when the Putin government is desperate to project Russian power across the world, as well as provide outlets for the sale of Russian weapons." Reports of late, most recently in September by Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested that Russian weapons sold to Syria were ending up in the hands of Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. The increasing concern should be the shadowy trend of Russian deals, specifically regarding the sales of weapons and the continued blind eye given by the Russian government regarding black market operations inside its country.

A growing problem is the scenario of black market sales regarding nuclear material originating in Russia. The growing trend of smuggling nuclear material from Russia has taken a path through the two territories where the Russian-Georgian crisis began in September - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Most of the time, sellers attempt to sell off spent material that would prove useless in the construction of a nuclear weapon. However, there have been several arrests made by Georgian authorities that involve Russian individuals attempting to smuggle Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Last year, a Russian national was sentenced to eight years in a Georgian jail for attempting to sell 100 g of HEU for $1 million. Experts say that while the quality of the material would be suitable in weapons construction, the quantity remained insufficient. It should be noted that so far in Georgia, there have been publicized arrests in 2003 and 2006 that involved the attempted sale of HEU.

There are substantial implications for the fight against terrorism if the international community can not lure Russia to cooperate in an international effort. While Russia states that it will not do business in "troubled regions," its black market agents are involved in conflicts ranging from Africa to the Mideast to Latin America. The partnership of Russia and Iran brings in the component of a criminal network to Tehran's quest for globalization. The ability by both Iran and Russia to mask their global activities promotes a relationship that is dangerous to international affairs and creates yet another obstacle in resolving the West's standoff regarding Iran's nuclear activities. Through Iran's network of terrorist proxies, as well as Russia's connection to global crime, another dangerous alliance has been formed that compromises international security concerns at a time when the UN has sought to create a comprehensive, global effort to combat terrorism globally.