MOSCOW, Oct. 24 (UPI) -- Daniel Fried, assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the U.S. State Department, said last week that Washington could change its approach to developing its anti-ballistic missile, or ABM, shield in Europe opposed by Russia if Iran were to suspend uranium enrichment in its nuclear program "and worked with the international community, and had a different approach to things."
Moscow is strongly opposed to U.S. plans to extend its vast missile defense system into Europe by installing 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic.
The new U.S. initiative can be described as a "quiet move," which in chess means a move that is neither a capture, nor a check or a direct attack, but is still seen as a threat.
In other words, the initiative does not seem viable and therefore is not serious. In fact, the initiative is doomed because Washington will have to deal with the Iranian mullahs, who view the United States as the Great Satan.
The White House has offered a formula where Russia is to use its levers of pressure on Iran to convince it to suspend uranium enrichment.
One of the levers is their nuclear cooperation, including Russia's assistance in building the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran's share in the international nuclear fuel center and supplies of such fuel, and other issues, as well as confidential relations between the two countries, which the recent visit by President Vladimir Putin has strengthened.
The proposal voiced by Fried is a win-win initiative. Whether Moscow accepts it or not, Washington has again confirmed that its ABM system in Europe is geared exclusively toward Iran, thus gaining an additional argument in dialogue with Moscow.
There is one more interesting side to the Iranian problem, which has appeared only recently.
Russian, American and European experts currently tend to think that the Iranian problem can be solved without going to extremes, such as harsh sanctions, let alone the use of armed force, but by ensuring cooperation between Russia and the United States.
The two countries should form a common attitude to the problem, with Russia assigned the main role, similar to China's role in the North Korean quandary.
In other words, the U.S. initiative put forth by Fried is a trial balloon aired to test Moscow's readiness for cooperation with Washington.
Will the Kremlin accept this proposal, which has not been made official yet?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said with regard to the recent consultations between the Russian and American defense and foreign ministers that Washington "often links the issue of the European ABM system to the solution of the Iranian nuclear problem." This may mean that the system has indeed been "designed to repel the Iranian threat," he said.
The American intelligence community has estimated that Tehran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States before 2015 if it chooses to do so.
Iran has medium-range missiles and claims that its longer-range Shahab-3 missile has a range of 1,200 miles, which would put U.S. bases on the Arabian Peninsula within reach.
Russia believes that Iran does not possess such missiles, which adds interesting details to the situation.
The Kremlin seems ready to consider the U.S. proposal and make its own offers to Tehran and Washington. What will the United States do now? Will it formally present its missile defense proposals in writing to Russia, as the Kremlin wants?
--
(Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
