Russia debates benefits of nuclear-armed Iran
In our latest Courcy’s Intelligence Brief we reported on Russian opposition not just to a military strike against Iran’s nuclear programme (which is well-known and unequivocal), but also to the tightening of the sanctions regime. This was the background against which the State Duma (parliament) heard arguments on Friday (6 April) in favour of a nuclear-armed Iran.
In our 4 April report, we noted that, on 3 April, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov attacked the sanctions regime against Iran as pointless, saying that the US and European Union regarded them like some form of “amulet or talisman”. He argued that “years are going by and the Iranian side is not making any concessions under the strengthening pressure of sanctions”. Yet, Ryabkov added, “only one conclusion is being drawn from this, namely that one simply needs to step up the pressure of sanctions...” He described this as “complete surrealism” and said that “no one will be able to obtain concessions from the Iranian side through a policy of threats”.
Ryabkov’s solution was “serious talks” with Iran, but he didn’t elaborate on what concessions should (or could) be given to Iran in order to secure its full compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Since we published that briefing, former head of the Russian Defence Ministry's main directorate of international military cooperation, retired Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov, who is now the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, has told the State Duma that he believes the Middle East would be more stable if Iran were to have nuclear weapons.
Ivashov is an anti-US hawk and a critic of many of the Kremlin’s policies, and it would be easy to dismiss his views as the ranting of a former general. However, he does represent a strand in Russian strategic thinking that needs monitoring. He believes the West is trying to deprive Russia of allies (Syria and Iran in particular) and that Russia should ally itself with China to counter Western dominance. He claims to see signs that president-elect Vladimir Putin is beginning to understand the dangers faced by Russia, particularly since Nato’s intervention in Libya. In a recent interview, he said:
“I think Putin understands perfectly how military weakness and the absence of strategic allies can be the end for Russia. Clearly, the Libyan situation ‘helped’ him understand this, just like what is happening now in Syria, and what they are preparing for Iran. If you can’t defend the country, you are subjecting yourself to a great risk personally. Now Putin is making a sharp turn to the side of strengthening defence capability. One can only welcome this. Because today they don’t simply beat the weak, they destroy them.”
Now Ivashov has made a forceful argument for allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He told the State Duma that an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons would strengthen stability and security in the Middle East. He argued: "After the deprivation of monopoly on their use, nuclear weapons are the most peaceful ones. This is a deterrent factor. Therefore one cannot say that Iran will get nuclear weapons and there will be a disaster. No, and the region will be stable. It will be possible to look for other ways of cooperation.”
In support of his argument he cited not just the Cold War, but the case of India and Pakistan, arguing: "The latest example [is] India and Pakistan. When they did not have nuclear weapons, there were very many conflicts between them every year. When they came into possession [of nuclear weapons], they immediately started treating each other with restraint.”
In Ivashov’s opinion, Iran only wants to ensure its own security. He said: "Of course, it has aspirations for some kind of leadership, a higher status in the Muslim world. But it does not want anything else, [let alone] deliver strikes, all the more so nuclear ones. This is nonsense, this is the end of the state, the whole of civilization.”
As to the consequences of a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran, Ivashov warned: "This aim is obvious. A military build-up will start and China and Europe will be left without Middle Eastern oil, a new war will come to our borders, will lead to the destabilization of the situation in the North Caucasus, infringement on our positions on the Caspian.”
On sanctions, he reiterated Ryabkov’s objections, but he was more explicit about his reasons, saying: “In the economic area, one cannot take part in economic sanctions which lead to the destruction of Iran as a state without using military force...One should jointly tackle the problem of breaching the sanctions.”
Finally, Ivashov argued for the suspension of the agreement on the exchange of intelligence information with Israel. He said: "The effect of the agreement between the Russian and Israeli defence ministers on exchange of intelligence information - this awful agreement signed by [Defence Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov] - should be suspended.”
Nor was Ivashov alone in his support for a nuclear Iran. Speaking at the same State Duma hearings, the former head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international agreements directorate, retired Lt-Gen Yevgeniy Buzhinskiy, said he also believed that an additional nuclear power in the Middle East could “play a positive role”. He said: "No-one has cancelled nuclear deterrent. It worked splendidly during the worst years of the Cold War, it works between India and Pakistan. I think that nuclear deterrent could also work in the Middle East. Then Iran and Israel could resort to some measures of transparency, signing an agreement, which is impossible now.”
We are not saying that these fulminations by retired Russian generals mirror the true views of the Kremlin, but there is little doubt that they do represent a powerful strand in Russian strategic thinking; and, as our 4 April report on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s views indicate, at the very least the Kremlin is continuing to show ambivalence towards Western efforts to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
END