Are Iran and Russia becoming enemies?

August 27th, 2008  

Topic: Are Iran and Russia becoming enemies?

Analysis: Shifting Middle East alliances

Alliances in the Greater Middle East are written in sand, not stone, and as the winds blow and the sands shift, so do alliances. Today the prevailing wind appears to be blowing from Moscow.

Russia's aggressive response in Georgia has unleashed what Joshua Landis, co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies and a specialist on Syrian affairs at the University of Oklahoma, calls "a tectonic shift in the region."

"It has emboldened Syria, Hezbollah and Iran to push harder against Israel and the U.S. in an attempt to capitalize on recent setbacks in the Balkans, Lebanon and Afghanistan," Landis writes on his Syria Comment blog at

Indeed, Russia's heavy-handed reply to Georgia has established a landmark phase in a new era in East-West relations. This is the new realpolitik as perceived by the Kremlin, and it will set the pace of Moscow's offensive policy in dealing with regional crises.

One of the first "casualties" of Russia's muscle-flexing will be a drastic shift of alliances in the Caucasus/Greater Middle East region.

U.S.-Iranian relations -- or lack thereof -- may very well turn out to be one of the first changes this new political reality will dictate. Tehran, which has regarded the United States as its enemy ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah, abolished the monarchy and established a strict theocratic regime, suddenly might re-evaluate its policy of anti-Americanism.

Iran's mullahs may yet awaken to the reality that the United States, or the "Shaitan Bozorg," the "Great Satan," as the mullahcracy often refers to the United States, is not all bad and could, in fact, come in very handy in a showdown with the Russians.

Despite the many disagreements and exchanges of rhetoric between Tehran and Washington, at the end of the day the United States has no territorial desires over Iran. This is more than can be said about Russia, which long has craved access to a warm-water port and has ogled with great envy ports on the Persian Gulf.

On the reverse side of the coin, the United States might find it serves its national interest to cut Tehran some slack and have the Iranians on the same side when trying to thwart Russia's efforts to expand its zone of influence in the Caucasus/Middle East region. The nukes Iran so badly craves might after all serve to deter the Russians, ironically enough.

Here is how the cards are stacked at this point:

As the contention over Iran's nuclear program continues, the Islamic Republic suddenly could find itself in a much tougher situation than it initially expected, this time with Russia breathing down its neck. For reference, just ask the Georgians what that means.

Given the shifting alliances likely to emerge in this post-Georgian conflict, a nuclear-armed Iran is very likely to render the Russians even more nervous than the United States or Israel.

Russia is only about 106 miles from the closest Iranian border, well within striking distance of Iran's Shahab-3 missiles, which have a range of more than 1,200 miles. The United States, however, remains far beyond the reach of the Islamic Republic's arsenal.

A nuclear-armed Iran, in fact, would represent more of a deterrent to Moscow than a threat to Washington. And the Russians, as was demonstrated by their recent show of force in Georgia, would have no qualms about destroying Iran's nuclear arsenal, regardless of the amount of "collateral damage" -- the military euphemism for civilian casualties -- that would cause.

Additionally, Russia and Iran have an existing dispute over rights to the Caspian Sea, which Russia might just decide to settle in the same manner in which it addressed its contention with Georgia over the two autonomous republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia is 860 miles from the Persian Gulf waters on Iran's southern coast. Russia's longtime ambition is to have direct access to a warm-water port for its navy, as it is currently restricted to using bases on Russia's Pacific coast headquartered in Vladivostok or the limited capacity of the Baltic Fleet based in Kaliningrad, a small Russian exclave situated between Poland and Lithuania that tends to freeze during those long northern European winter months, restricting the navy's movements. As for Russia's Black Sea and Mediterranean fleets, both are obliged to pass through the Bosporus in Istanbul, a 19-mile-long and only half-mile wide passage separating Europe from Asia. As a strategic point with great tactical value, the Bosporus is under the tight control of the Turkish military -- and therefore NATO.
However, as the winds of change blow through the region, Washington will need to engage proactively, accepting that it too needs to change its Middle East policy.****...ances_999.html

Personally, I find this "analysis" a bit on the rediculous side simly because of the -not mentioned- fact that Iran and Russia are currently in a state of full cooperation from political issues to military and Iran's uranium enrichment, but the author does have a good point when he says alliances in the Middle East are written in sand and prone to change all the time. What do you all think?
August 27th, 2008  
Interesting, although highly speculative analysis.

If Russia had the economic stability it did in the early 80s maybe, but they are still too dependent on the West, and will be for quite a while.
August 28th, 2008  
Unfortunately Ski, if they were that dependant on us I would think this new aggression would not be present. They might benefit from some of our goodies and like it but I doubt we would be fortunate to control them by dangling that over their heads. I am sure their is a lot of stuff here very interesting and all that we don't know that is probably considered pretty secret and the general public don't know about but that our President and his staff discuss behind closed doors together.
August 28th, 2008  

Topic: Russia & Iran

Interesting article in ways but lacks anything you could really sink your teeth in. Russia and Iran have increased trading on many levels and may go to new heights with future arms deals. Russia like any powerful country must play different sides of the street and their learning like us dealing with some of the governments in this region isn't fun. I think they regret dealing with Iran with the reactor and nuclear program, but there's no going back now. Weíre have been burn by Iran a number of times as well so we known.

The article mentions Russia looking for a warm port and maybe reaching into this area and brings up the lessons Georgia learn. The end result in the Georgian five days or so war might have turn out that way for them but it showed interesting things. Russia isn't nearly what it was by a long shot and could never even attempt going after Iran's warm water ports with force. Yes in theory if they move enough of their forces and assets they could pound their way through at a high cost and holding even a thin section of Iran would be nearly impossible I think. Just don't think it would happen.

Russia on the other hand showed flaws and weakness to me with their armed forces. They couldn't even take out the small Georgian AF right away in a small US State size country; I think Georgia was flying sorties even on the third day. Why wasn't air used to quickly take out the few small air assets they had? Why weren't these key targets marked and taken at from 15,000 feet ten miles away? Any modern force not just NATO or American would have slice up Georgia so fast they wouldn't have known what hit them. Why wasn't every Georgian command and control hub or hub's, taken out in second? Itís not like the Russians never been in the country before they know where the important stuff is. Why did it take so long to hit a toad over the head with a baseball bat? Itís not like they would holding back shooting tactical missiles and heavy artillery to clear a path for their mighty T-72Bs to march through.

My point is the Russian are still fighting in the 80s and sadly there basically equipped like the 80s. I think Russia should watch China and leave Iran's warm ports alone. Ten years from now if China could offset their nukes China just might make a play for the oil. By that time how many of those T-72s will be able to even turn over. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/280/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Similar Topics
Israel warns Russia: We'll neutralize S-300 if sold to Iran
Russia Can Be Part Of The Answer On Iran
U.S. Bid To Limit Iran Gets Wary Response
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis