Triangulation

"The missile defense (in Poland and the Czech Republic)....is directed not towards Russia, but Iran....you have potentially a missile from Iran that threatens either the United States or Europe."
President Barack Obama, March 4, 2009 (per Associated Press)

A check of the map of Europe shows that missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic could shield not only those countries from a missile launched from Iran, but also targets in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They would offer no protection to Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, or the rest of Western Europe. But is there even the remotest chance that Iran would attack any of these countries?

Although Obama promised to bring change to the US Government, his rationale for deploying the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the same lame claim that President Bush made: Iran just might shoot a warhead at Europe. The Russians don't buy it, and neither do I. If the leaders of Poland or other countries on Russia's perimeter are worried about a possible missile attack, they are more likely wary of Moscow than of Tehran.

The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 reminded Eastern Europeans that Moscow looks on their nations as part of its "sphere of influence." Until about 20 years ago, the Red Army occupied those lands, and they are justly concerned about the robust nationalism that has replaced communism as Russia's pretext for trying to dominate nearby countries. The real purpose of the US missile shield is to reassure Eastern Europeans that the US and NATO are serious about defending them against Russia, should that country revert to its past aggressive behavior. The Russians know it, the Eastern Europeans know it, and so do we.

Then why claim that the missile defense is directed against Iran? The only country any Iranian leader has ever threatened to destroy is Israel; if Obama is worried about Iranian missiles, he should deploy the defense system in Iraq and Jordan, not Poland and the Czech Republic. (1) As crazy as you might think the Iranian leaders may be, they have nothing to gain and much to lose by attacking any country in Europe, as NATO would respond by a devastating bombing of Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. Even Ahmadinejad is not crazy enough to risk that!

The subliminal story is that Obama, like Bush before him, knows that the Russians hate the very idea of having American missile defenses deployed near their borders. Unlike the US, Russia has real clout with Iran, since Moscow provides the nuclear and missile technology that Iran needs. Obama said that if Iran were not to produce atomic weapons, there would be no need for the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The message was clear: if Moscow will help thwart Tehran's nuclear ambition, the missile defense system will not be deployed.

But, unless the Russians are seriously considering launching warheads at Poland or the Czech Republic, why do they care so much about missile defense systems in those countries? I believe that the real reason is pride: they consider western military activity so close to Russia to be an affront to the dignity of a great power, a status that Russia is anxious to regain. It has been reported that Russia has already canceled the sale of a missile defense system to Iran, so there is reason to believe that Obama's trade-off will be accepted.

Iran has been a good customer for Russian technology, but with world oil prices in the doldrums, Iran's ability to keep paying for more and more of it is questionable, Moreover, I suspect that the Russians are concerned that Iran's irresponsible regime may yet blunder into a disastrous war with Israel, which could destroy Iran's oil pipelines and shipping facilities. In that case, Iran could never pay its debts to Russia for the nuclear power plants and missiles the Islamic Republic has already bought.

The gambit of using Russia to pressure Iran is an example of triangulation, a strategy perfected by the Clinton Administration. Let's pray that it works this time!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Actually, Israel and the US have co-developed the Arrow anti-missile system, which protects Israeli airspace right now. ( The Israelis do not consider it worthwhile to use the expensive and high-tech system against short-range rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah, saving it for strategic missiles.)

Tehran: The New Cairo?

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
French Proverb

The President of a Middle East country threatens to destroy Israel. He is supplied with weapons, diplomatic support and electricity-generating equipment by the Russians.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007?
Why not Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1967?

The Moscow-Cairo Axis
Although Nasser portrayed himself as a Third World leader, in fact he had aligned Egypt with the Soviet Union in 1955. Emboldened by Soviet support, Nasser seized the Suez Canal in June, 1956. When British and French armed forces (in alliance with Israel) reclaimed the Canal Zone four months later, combined pressure from the Soviet Union and the United States (1) made the three invaders retreat.
A recent book (Foxbats Over Dimona) claims that the Soviet KGB deliberately provoked the 1967 Six Day War to provide a pretext for destroying the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona. When Israel quickly demolished the Arab armies, that plan was abandoned. By clearly siding with the Arabs, the Soviet Union secured substantial goodwill among the Arab masses, although most Arab governments remained closer to the United States. Without American support, however, the Soviets were powerless this time to force an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.
The Soviets re-armed the Egyptians and Syrians over the next six years, so that the two countries resumed hostilities on October 6, 1973. After initial victories, the Egyptians were thrown back almost to Cairo by the IDF. The efforts by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saved an Egyptian army from starvation by brokering a separation of forces agreement. This was a turning-point in Egypt's geopolitical alignment----within a few years Soviet advisors were ousted from Cairo and the US brokered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Iran Changes Sides
Iran, under the leadership of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was aligned with the West during the Cold War. The US was even able to monitor Soviet communications from a base in northern Iran.
When massive protests against the Shah erupted in 1978, the Communist Party supported the rebellion, even though it was led by fanatic Muslims whose ideology was remote from Marxism. Presumably, the Communists were motivated by the desire of the Soviet Union to overthrow the Shah and eliminate American power and influence from a country on its southern border.
After the Islamic Revolution, the Communists were suppressed by the new regime, along with all other non-Islamic political forces. The Soviets, however, got exactly what they wanted----an anti-American Iran.
The Soviet move into Afghanistan in 1980 largely forfeited whatever goodwill the Soviet Union had obtained among Muslims by backing the Arab cause against Israel. But meanwhile, Iran had traded places with Egypt in the geopolitical power equation in the final decade of the Cold War.

The Moscow-Tehran Axis
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed solidarity with Iran in a visit to Tehran for a Caspian Sea Conference during the second week of October. He warned other nations (like maybe the US?) not to use military force against Iran. He stopped short, however, of equating an attack on Iran with one on Russia itself .(2) A few days later, Putin met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

What kind of game is Putin playing?

By defending Iran, both in Tehran and at the UN, Russia is showing the world that it is not an American client-state, like, say Britain. Though only a shadow of the now-defunct Soviet Union, Russia is a major power to be reckoned with.

As a major oil-exporting nation, it is in Russia's interest to keep world oil-prices as high as possible; Iran shares that interest. Since tension and the prospects of war in the Middle East drive-up oil prices, Russia finds it useful to keep tensions high by emboldening rogue states like Iran. (3)

The trouble is that if this policy is pushed too far (as it was in 1967), a war could break out that would be dangerous for Russia as well as for other countries in that part of the world. Putin's Tehran remarks were clearly intended to dampen the enthusiasm of those in the US government who favor bombing Iran if other measures to prevent the development of nuclear weaons fail.

Putin's talks with Ahmadinejad and Olmert were private, so we cannot know what he told them, but I believe that his message to both leaders was essentially to "cool it."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)President Eisenhower, like Presidents Roosevelt and Truman before him, opposed the re-assertion of colonial power in the "Third World." The Israel Lobby was not yet strong enough to restrain American pressure on Israel to withdraw from Sinai without a peace treaty.

(2) In October, 1962, President John F Kennedy declared that an attack on any nation in theWestern Hemisphere launched from Cuba would be considered an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union and would be avenged as such.

(3) The theory of chess grandmaster Garry Kasporov, a candidate for President of Russia.