Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Iran Could Benefit from Georgia Crisis

(Inter Press Service) Iran could emerge as a big winner, at least in the short term, from the rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Moscow's...

(Inter Press Service)

Iran could emerge as a big winner, at least in the short term, from the rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Moscow’s intervention in Georgia, according to analysts in Washington, D.C.

Whatever waning chances remained of a U.S. military attack on Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office next January have all but vanished, given the still-uncertain outcome of the Georgia crisis, according to most of these observers.

Similarly, the likelihood has been sharply reduced that Moscow will cooperate with U.S. and European efforts to impose additional sanctions on Tehran through the U.N. Security Council—where Russia holds a veto—for not complying with the council’s demands to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Not only has Washington’s confrontation with its old superpower rival displaced Tehran at the top of the administration’s and the U.S. media’s foreign policy agenda, but Tehran’s geopolitical leverage—both as a potential partner for the West in containing Russia and as a potential ally of Moscow’s in warding off Western pressure—has also risen sharply as an incidental result of the crisis.

"When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it didn’t do so to improve Iran’s power position in the region, but that was the result," noted Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University who served on the National Security Council staff of former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. "That wasn’t the purpose of the Russian invasion of Georgia either, but it, too, may be the result."

So far, Tehran’s response to the Georgia crisis has been measured. Despite calls by some right-wing voices to side with Moscow, according to Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the government, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has expressed disapproval of the Russian action, particularly its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.

"The reason is on grounds of principle—if Iran is going to start supporting the secession of territories that are unhappy with the central government, then Iran itself has some similar issues with ethnic dissatisfaction," Farhi, who also teaches at the University of Hawaii, told the Inter Press Service (IPS).

In addition, she said, most people in Tehran’s foreign policy establishment "don’t view Russia as a reliable partner. They understand that Russia may support Iran on the nuclear file depending on its own security or policy interests, but Russia has also been quite clever in using Iran as a bargaining chip in terms of its relationship with the United States."

"The Iranians are being very clever here; they’re not likely to rush to Russia’s defense unless Russia comes to them and asks for their help, and then they can ask for something in return," Farhi added.

The latter may include anything from the accelerated completion of the long-delayed Bushehr nuclear plant, to providing advanced anti-aircraft systems (something that Tehran’s ally Syria has already asked Moscow to provide in the wake of Damascus’s public support for the Russian intervention), to full membership in the Sino-Russian-sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a defense group that held its annual summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, last week.

Teheran’s leverage is not just confined to its status as the most powerful nation (along with Turkey) in a strategically critical neighborhood inhabited by relatively weak U.S.-backed buffer states like Georgia. During the Cold War and until the 1979 Revolution, after all, Iran served as Washington’s most important bulwark against Soviet influence in the Gulf.

It also derives from its being a major oil and gas producer that could play a much more important role as a transshipment point for Central Asian and Caspian energy resources bound for Europe, whose growing dependence on Russia for its energy supplies looks more risky than ever. This is particularly so in the wake of Moscow’s demonstration that it can easily reach—and disrupt, if it wishes—the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, the only pipeline that transports oil from the Caspian to the West without transiting either Russia or Iran.

"Oil and gas companies now must factor in a new level of uncertainty," according to Jay Stanley at Kent Moors, an expert on energy finance who writes for Caspian Investor. "Georgia is now unstable, and that increases the risk of transporting hydrocarbons across it."

"If the BTC and Georgia won’t be a reliable source of energy, then Iran will absolutely step up to the plate," according to William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota. "’You want gas? We’ll sell you gas,’ will likely be their position," he added, noting that Switzerland signed a 25-year, $42 billion gas supply and pipeline deal with Tehran last March over strong U.S. objections. "I think the Swiss are a very good bellwether for the rest of Europe on this."

While Iran has alienated some major European energy companies—most recently France’s Total—by demanding tough terms, it might "see the present crisis as an opportunity to go back to European colleagues and say, ‘Let’s take another look at this,"’ said Sick. "It gives them some more leverage by going to the West and saying, ‘You’re shooting yourselves in the foot here. When are you going to come to your senses?"’

That argument naturally becomes more compelling as tensions between Russia and the West continue to escalate and could affect internal Bush Cabinet-level deliberations on whether to act on a State Department recommendation to seek Iranian approval for opening an interests section in Tehran. Such a move, at the present juncture, would likely be seen as a major move on geo-strategic chessboard. Despite reports in August that Bush had approved the recommendation, the issue appears unresolved.

Still, some experts say Iran’s advantage could be short-lived. With a Russian veto over new Iran sanctions all but assured, Washington could decide to drop the U.N. route and try to impose a "coalition-of-the-willing" sanctions regime with its allies, according to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, told IPS he believes that Russia’s unilateral resort to military action against Georgia may actually embolden Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the leader of the administration’s hawks, who is traveling this week in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

"The question is whether Bush and Cheney will feel empowered to behave in a more belligerent fashion or not," he said.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Citations

Analysis by Jim Lobe , "Iran Could Benefit from Georgia Crisis" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
/rw/4948.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share