MOSCOW, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has given the Bush administration a public relations boon at a time when any good news is desperately welcomed. Russia -- seen to be friendly to the Islamic republic -- declared Ahmadinejad's comments as unacceptable. The call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" maybe the wiggle room Kremlin may now want to use to "wash its hands" of a problematic relationship with Iran and the country's suspected nuclear weapons program.
Ahmadinejad's stunningly undiplomatic language may have been for consumption in the Arab world and as a means for the recently elected Iranian president to shore up political support at home. Abroad the reaction has been almost universal -- a member of the United Nations calls for the destruction of another has been met with outrage. While American foreign policy has failed to convince the world that Iran is a member of the "axis of evil," Ahmadinejad appears to have gladly appropriated this appellation for his own country in eyes of the international community.
For more than two years the United States has warned of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. During most of this time, Europe called for patience and engagement of Iran. Russia, the source of nuclear power know-how and the primary contractor of Iran's declared peaceful designs, maintained a hands-off approach and even vouched for one of its most important friends in the Greater Middle East would not develop a nuclear weapon.
As it often happens in Middle East the geopolitics, sands have shifted. EU countries have moved closer to the US position -- stating that unless Iran suspends its conversion activities and return to the negotiations table, they have no choice but to support having the issue referred to the United Nations and possible sanctions put in place against Iran. Russia's position, interestingly, actually hardened during this time.
Shortly after a surprise visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza to Russia early this month to discuss Iran's nuclear program, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated on national television that, "No one, including the United States, will challenge our right to continue building the atomic electricity station in Bushehr."
Move fast forward to Oct. 27 when Ahmadinejad's made his remarks: Lavrov's was crystal clear when stating the Iranian president's words would provide more arguments for those countries that wanted to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council.
Does this mean Russia has changed its position on Iran and the country's nuclear power program? The answer this to question is far from a simple 'yes' or 'no.' At first glance, Russia's foreign policy appears to be replete with contradictions. A closer look depicts a very different picture.
Russia's interest in seeing Iran become a nuclear power is no different from the position of the U.S. or of Europe's -- not to speak of Israel's very real and serious security concerns. Iran with a nuclear weapon would not only destabilize and already very destabilized region, but could also become a direct threat to sovereign Russia.
So why does Russia befriend Iran? There are many obvious reasons. Russia stands to earn billions of the dollars over the long-term out-fitting Iran with peaceful nuclear technology. Second, what Russian can do for Iran -- at an attractive profit -- it can do for other countries in the world seeking to develop the same technologies. Third, engagement of Iran maintains Russia position as a powerbroker in the region. Russia is keen to have good relations with all players in the Greater Middle East -- the U.S. can't say the same.
Additionally, the most important and not so obvious reason, Russia is acting upon its "multilateralism" or "multipolarism" approach to foreign policy. This is not an anti-American or even anti-Western foreign policy agenda. It is an agenda that seeks to avoid conflict with old and new friends at time that the U.S. and Europe, to some extent, are willing to draw thick and hard lines regarding international security issues. America's "unilateralism" and "unipolarism" is obviously not well received in the world, particularly as the conflict in Iraq continues without a clear outcome justifying the war in the first place.
Both "multilateralism" and "multipolarism" can also used to describe the Kremlin's "wiggle room" -- to sit on the fence attempting to exact diplomatic advantage while not being deemed as an obstructionist in the eyes of world opinion.
This means that Russia will support Iran's nuclear program or Syria against Western pressure as long as the political costs end as a net gain. Ahmadinejad's comments clearly over-stepped the line even for the Kremlin's approach to diplomacy. The current logic of the Kremlin's foreign policy suggests that it could withdraw its support of Ahmadinejad's regime with little fanfare.
The Kremlin garners billions of dollars a month in petroleum and natural gas revenues. Finding itself as an international pariah for the sake of a nuclear power program that could eventually threaten Russia and defending a country that goes to extremes undermine its own international standing is the last thing the Kremlin wants.
--
Peter Lavelle is a Moscow-based analyst.
