Russian President Dmitry Medvedev yesterday was said to have told the United States he would support new economic penalties against Iran if the nation fails to act on pledges aimed at addressing concerns over its nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 13).
(Oct. 14) -
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend a press conference after meeting yesterday. Russia's president reportedly pledged to support new sanctions against Iran if the nation fails to meet its nuclear commitments (Alexander Nemenov/Getty Images).
The United States and other Western powers have expressed concern that Iran's uranium enrichment program could produce nuclear-bomb material, but Tehran has maintained that its nuclear work would only generate electricity.
At talks in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month with the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany, Iran tentatively agreed to rely on other countries for enrichment of uranium needed to operate a research reactor in Tehran. In addition, the nation agreed to allow international inspectors to examine its recently disclosed Qum enrichment facility for evidence of weapon activities.
In a meeting yesterday with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Medvedev was "quite clear that while pleased with the Geneva results he expects Iran to implement them and if they don't there should be sanctions," a high-level State Department official said.
"That was a clear statement of the Russian position that we found reassuring," the official said (Jeff Mason, Reuters, Oct. 13).
Medvedev offered the pledge in a private discussion with Clinton that took place separately from her meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, three U.S. officials told the Associated Press.
The sources expressed confusion at Lavrov's apparently contradictory statement yesterday that new sanctions against Iran would be "counterproductive" (Douglas Birch, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 13).
Russia might be hedging its support for new Iran sanctions in an effort to retain diplomatic leverage over the United States, one analyst told the Los Angeles Times.
"Being in this position of having America trying to get Russia on board makes Russia look important and equal, a strong nation," said Maria Lipman, an expert with the Carnegie Moscow Center. "If Russia delivers, it's losing an important trump card. So Russia is consistently avoiding making firm and formal commitments on Iran" (Megan Stack, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 13).
Another expert, though, suggested that Medvedev's recent remarks suggesting a willingness to lean on Iran were intended only as a symbolic gesture in return for U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a European missile defense initiative fiercely opposed by Moscow (see related GSN story, today).
“It was not based on a new assessment of an Iranian threat,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of Russia in Global Affairs, told the New York Times, referring to comments the Russian president made while in the United States last month. “It was just a feeling that Russia had to be polite and react to what Obama did.”
“Iran is seen by Russia as much more rational and reliable than it is seen by the United States or Israel,” Lukyanov added (Landler/Levy, New York Times, Oct. 14).
Meanwhile, Washington today sought greater assistance from China in confronting Iran over its disputed nuclear activities, Agence France-Presse reported. Beijing and Moscow, which each wield veto authority on the Security Council, have in the past resisted opposed some Western proposals for sanctions on Tehran.
"If we are to make real progress on sending a consolidated message to Iran, we are going to need the support of China," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said in Beijing. "We're going to need to see more cooperation and coordination between the United States and China if we are going to be effective in Iran" (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Oct. 14).
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley suggested Monday that new international sanctions could place considerable pressure on Iran to halt its controversial nuclear work.
"When you look at Iran's economy, it has vulnerabilities. And we think there are still opportunities to apply pressure, if Iran is unwilling to address the concerns ... about its nuclear aspirations," Crowley said.
"Certainly, it's safe to say that the United States, Russia, China may look at the prospect of sanctions from a slightly different vantage point," he said (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Oct. 13).
An Iranian lawmaker yesterday played down the ability of economic penalties to sway his nation's nuclear policies, the Xinhua News Agency reported.
"The word sanction is neither worrisome nor alarming to the Iranian nation," said Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission.
The United Kingdom yesterday announced new sanctions against two Iranian entities with alleged ties to nuclear and missile activities in the Middle Eastern state.
"Unfortunately, such acts are instances of the double-standard policies sought and practiced by certain Western countries," the lawmaker said (Xinhua News Agency, Oct. 13).
"The new decision by the British government needs further study, but past experience shows that imposing any kind of sanctions against Iran will benefit the Iranian nation in the end," added Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a press official for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"If the British government decided to impose sanctions against Iran this would show that Britain is getting far from the realities of the current world and such a trend will be against the interests of the British people," he said, according to China Daily (China Daily, Oct. 12).
An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would delay the nation's progress toward a nuclear weapon by no more than five years, one expert told the Christian Science Monitor.
"It would be a very complex operation," said retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, former strategic planning chief for the Israeli military's general staff.
"I don't think you can make the comparison to Osirak or Syria," he said, referring to two past Israeli strikes on known or suspected nuclear facilities in the region. "In those cases it was one target ... and the ability of those two countries to do anything (against Israel) was nonexistent."
Iran, on the other hand, has no fewer than 17 nuclear facilities, and it could lash out against some Israeli targets as well as U.S. military assets in the region.
"Iran has a very limited ability to strike out directly at Israel, but they have much more influence closer to home," Brom said, referring to U.S. military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They can affect the behavior of others in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Arab Gulf states, and they can cause much harm to the export of oil from the Gulf, which hurts everybody."
Still, Israel might eventually deem retaliation to pose less of a threat than a nuclear-armed Iran, said Gerald Steinberg, a politics professor at Bar Ilan University in Israel.
"If nothing happens in a few months and Iran is going full steam, (and) there's no greater [nuclear] monitoring, then I think the Israeli view will be, 'Let's go and look at our other options,'" Steinberg said.
"Even the more hawkish Israelis are very aware of the costs of a military operation, not just in terms of retaliation but in long-term Israeli-Iranian relations and in the stability of the region. Military action is the last and least desirable option" he said (Dan Murphy, Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 11).