Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 10, 2009
Pressing Russia to Get Iran

The Obama administration is trying to press and bribe Russia to get further sanctions on Iran. That has not worked at all in the first try. But the U.S. still thinks it can get their, simply by raising the price.

On March 3 the New York Times reported:

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

While Obama called the NYT report inaccurate he essentially confirmed the pressure tactic.

The Russian President Medvedev welcomed the letter, but dismissed the connection the U.S. tried to make between missile defense directed against Russia and Iran's nuclear program.

If Russia would agree to such a deal, it would look in the eyes of the world like a tiny little state that can be pressed or bought off. There is no way the Russians will allow that to happen. If the U.S. really builds the missile defense in eastern Europe, the Russians have effective ways to respond to that. There is no need for them to bow before Obama. It is principal raison d'état for them not to bow and not to give in to such extortionary deals.

But it seems that the Obama administration does not understand that principle. It seems to think that Russia is some dirty bazaar haggler that simply wants a higher price. Writes Swoop:

With new ideas being in short supply regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as toward the Middle East peace process, we are hearing that one major new idea under consideration focuses on Russia. As explained to us, this involves a “grand bargain” between Moscow and Washington. The essence is that, in exchange for Russian pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, the US will both abandon its proposed ballistic missile defense installations in Eastern Europe and will soft-pedal its efforts to gain NATO entry for Ukraine and Georgia. This idea is still under review but we understand that it received a tentative airing at the May 7th meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and Foreign Minister Lavrov. The rationale behind this idea is that if US relations with Iran can be stabilized, then interesting new options may become available regarding the Middle East, Afghanistan and terrorism. In the words of a National Security Council adviser: “We have come to realize that the road to Tehran may lead through Moscow.”

So to get Russia to do what the U.S. wants it to do the Obama administration has now simply raised the bribe. Additionally to the BMD issue it now offers to 'soft-pedal' NATO enlargement in eastern Europe.

The Russians will laugh about that. NATO enlargement in eastern Europe is already dead. The Western European NATO members have seen how Saakashvili started his disastrous tiny little Georgian war last year. They will not commit their children to fight for such Caucasian lunatics as they would have to do if Georgia and the Ukraine would be accepted into NATO.

The 'rational' that 'the road to Tehran may lead through Moscow' is simply nuts. What Swoop characterizes euphemistically as 'stabilized relations with Iran' are harsher sanctions on Iran through blackmailing Russia. By the way – didn't the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran say that Iran has no current nuclear weapons program?

The Obama administration wants a bowing Russia and a bowing Iran. Both will not bow unless the U.S. bows itself and accepts them as equal in rights and honers their national pride.

The arrogance expressed in the idea Swoop reports on is again breathtaking. Has anything changed with the Obama administration taking over?

Comments

Do you mind if I link to this?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | May 10 2009 19:18 utc | 1

@Anonymous Coward – Do you mind if I link to this?
Certainly not – links are free …

Posted by: b | May 10 2009 19:20 utc | 2

“Obama sent a secret letter…” Hmmmmm. I don’t deny that I’m cynical but what kinda secret is it gets published in a newspaper ??
Oh yeah, of course, one from officials who speak on “condition of anonymity”.

Posted by: sam_m | May 10 2009 19:40 utc | 3

Nothing has changed, yet.
Not in foreign relations or anything else. It cannot change from within. The inertia is too strong. The system is not built for change. The only change will come by necessity. When the Treasury is broke and cannot borrow any more. That day is not too far off. As long as we can borrow nothing will change. The elites, both financial and political which are one and the same, cannot be dislodged or forced to change as long as they can disburse money. Money they don’t actually have.
Repeat this as a mantra. Nothing has changed. Be thankful really. For real change in all likelihood will be sudden and uncontrollable.

Posted by: rapier | May 10 2009 23:39 utc | 4

maybe one day someone will figure out a way to put the omelette back in the egg

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 11 2009 0:00 utc | 5

A while back I posted a connection between the Eastern Europe missile deployment to the sale of Russian S-300 missiles to Iran (in a reply to Dos). This is why the reference to an Iranian nuclear weapons program makes no sense when the NIE states they don’t have have one. I suspected then and still do that this is the real goal. If Iran gets the latest S-400 system it esentially changes the game ruling out an Israeli threat of an airstrike.
I wrote early during the Obama, Hillary campaign that it wouldn’t matter if they voted Mickey Mouse in office that it would not change. Malooga outlined how Obama was groomed for the position and change was the slogan, but people here on this board attacked him/her for it and chased him/her out of here. Like rapier says above as long as they can borrow money nothing will change. As long as there are lots of suckers willing to part with their money and lots of collaborators throughout the key countries in the region the show will go on.

Posted by: Sam | May 11 2009 0:39 utc | 6

Maybe what Obama is contemplating is face-saving deal, whereby the US backs away from the missile deployment in Eastern Europe. Haggling is is an ugly word here; but it certainly sweetens he pot for the Russians if there is a stipulation for the US to stop meddling in Georgia.
Probably the quid pro quo for the Russians would only amount to a barrage of diplomatic language aimed in the Iranians’ general direction. At the end of the day Iran will probably not face much more in the way of sanctions, and the Russians will possibly sell them the anti-aircraft missiles anyway. Obama is in a poor bargaining position because the missile deployment on Russia’s border is a collosal over-reach in the first place, and ill advised.

Posted by: Copeland | May 11 2009 3:11 utc | 7

He, he – two can play the ‘linkage’ game: Russia to link missile defense in Europe with nuclear arms treaty

MOSCOW, May 10 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will link U.S. plans for a missile shield in Europe with the issues of strategic offensive armaments in relations with the United States, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Sunday.
“One needn’t be an expert to understand: if one party wants or would have an umbrella against all kinds of threats, this party would develop an illusion that it is allowed to do anything and then the aggressiveness of its actions will increase numerously, and the threat of global confrontation will reach a very dangerous level,” Putin said in an interview with Japanese media on the eve of his visit to Japan.

Posted by: b | May 11 2009 4:13 utc | 8

Only a screwed up mind would offer to give up doing what one should not (and probably could not get away with anyway) in order to obtain in exchange a grandiose advantage. Americans are like a bully offering not to rape a girl if they receive tons of money in exchange of depriving themselves of the criminal act.

Posted by: Zemoralist | May 11 2009 4:54 utc | 9

@6
I wrote early during the Obama, Hillary campaign that it wouldn’t matter if they voted Mickey Mouse in office that it would not change.
rather Mickey Mouse than McCain under who we would already be in a 100-year war with Russia

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 11 2009 4:54 utc | 10

Has everyone forgotten that no one, absolutely, no one trusts the the USA, who cares what administration is in power in DC. Did everyone forget the Clinton promise to not expand NATO or the Larry (Summers) and Jeff (Sakes) et al fiascos. Any agreement or promise or pledged from the USA is completely empty and worthless and everyone knows it. Now if Obama gave Russia his children and wife as hostages, just say ’til the kids were 20 or 25 years old – they could take the dog with them – maybe Russia would consider an American proposal.

Posted by: geoff | May 11 2009 11:21 utc | 11

Excellent thread, and equally incisive comments. The general skepticism is justified.

Posted by: Parviz | May 11 2009 12:07 utc | 12

This sounds a lot like a pressure tool for editorialists, just to have the chance to say there’s still a cold war going. “See, Russian don’t want to listen to us, instead they’re talking to Iran, they’re evil!”, and so on. That’s the only thing they can actually do in this moment, spread the idea that “we” are encircled by bad guys, and trying to resist.
If Obama declared a war, a consistent part of his voters would never forgive him that; to make war in Pakistan, they had to sell it as a Pakistani war (and they’re there only to help an ally, of course), and as we can see it worked. But on behalf of who or whom could he sell a war to Iran?

Posted by: andrew | May 11 2009 12:34 utc | 13

Obama says,
“…what I said in the letter [To Russian President Medvedev] is the same thing that I’ve said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed towards not Russia, but Iran.”
This statement by Obama seems pretty bogus to me. First of all, if it’s really true, as Obama says, that these missile defense systems (MDSs) aren’t being programmed to point at Russia, then why is the US so dead-set on building them in former-Soviet satellite states such as Poland and Czechia? The US could have just as easily had them built in, say, France or Italy, thus making the Russians feel less paranoid about being a target of destruction by the US. Secondly, if MDSs are programmable like every other piece of technology being built today, then there’s no reason in the world that these missiles can’t be reprogrammed, at the proverbial flick of the switch, from pointing at Russia to Iran and back again. It’s hard for me to believe that these missile systems are so fixed in stone that they can’t be programmed to point at just about any country on Europe’s side of pond.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 11 2009 15:36 utc | 14

oops — I failed to put “the” in front of the word “pond”.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 11 2009 15:41 utc | 15

Since the US has been putting the screws on Russia not to sell anything arms related to Iran, China has struck a deal with the Iranians to sell them an air defense system called the S-300. But because China is far and away the biggest financier of US debt, Obama and his bird-brained warmongers will keep their traps sealed shut as this arms deal goes through between Iran and China.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 11 2009 18:19 utc | 16

@Cynthia – well – S-300 are already out of date. Russia is introducing S-400 right now. The Jlem-Post is just scare mongering about Iran buying something from China. There is little substance to that ‘report’.

Posted by: b | May 11 2009 19:26 utc | 17