Replies

“To join Putin’s side would be stupid and evil and would align us with Shiite terrorists waging jihad against Israel, as evil Putin has done. That is not acceptable in any way.”

I am only suggesting that our only point of shared view with Putin to be one of wearing it as a badge of honor when Islamists condemn us, and it would not/would not have hurt us to publicly say that to Putin with respect to any Islamist condemnation of him - and that’s all.

As far as Syria goes, I think Putin is likely more correct than we are in his understanding of what is going on there - it is a proxy war between the Shia fundamentalists and the Sunni fundamentalists, and the excuse for why it started now is “opposition to the Assad dictatorship”, which has actually been more secular-minded than either side.

Putin also has national security concerns that more directly, more immediately concern Russia than they do the U.S. - they share a border with Iran and they have large Muslim populations in their southernmost regions as well. Being a friend of convenience - not true shared interest - with such a neighbor on your border is likely and simply good regional politics from a Russian point of view. For Russia to take a position with regard to Iran that was 100% in sync with the U.S. would require Russia to change and to fund and to protect an entirely different military posture in the region; something Russia is neither politically nor economically willing to do and I expect they see that view not as an “anti-U.S.” view as much as a pro-Russian view.

I am sure they are not blind to the fact that such a policy eases any constraints WE seek to place on Iran, but it suggests at a minimum that Russia is saying we will have to make any constraints on Iran work without dragging Russia into it too easily or in too close a cooperation by them. At the end of the day, even after the current theocracy may be toppled in Iran from within, Russia wants to be seen by the Iranian people as a “friendly northern neighbor”, not a threat on their border, regardless of Iran’s politics. That’s simply a local, and immediate security and diplomatic policy that fits Russian self-interest, whether we like it or not.

It also fits with the history in the region, and it’s a history westerners have unlearned but one that modern day Russians and Iranians have not; a history that pre-dates the cold war; a history that was once part of “the great game”, beginning in the early 1800s, where the British Empire and the Russian Empire vied for strategic advantage for themselves all across central Asia, and where the weaker central Asian states were used by both sides - used for Russian and British self interst and often at the expense of the client or allied state. At the end of the most direct conflicts over influence in central Asia bewteen the two empires, Persia (Iran) was divided between a Russian zone of influence in the north, a British zone in the south and a nuetral zone between them. Russia has no desire to give the impression that it seeks such a proxy/subordinate role for Iran today in its relations with Iran. Iranian nationalism, no matter what it’s politics were, would not react kindly to it and Russia does not need to foster such a reaction from Iran; no matter what Iran’s politics are.

I realize that all of this does not undo, or change, or excuse or suggest as “O.K.” the existential threat that Iran may pose to others in the Middle East. At the same time, I expect Russia believes that it’s own nuclear abilities are reminding Iran that it is in Iran’s self-interest to NOT include Russia among those whom it could threaten and get away with it. So, simply from a point of mutual self-interest to NOT be militarially any danger to each other, Russia does not have the same sense of urgency about any threat that Iran may pose to others.

So, yes, Russia may be “helping” Iran by helping Assad in Syria, but a Russian perspective simply does not see the situation the same way we do, and for reasons of Russian self-interest that are not so hard to understand.

I imagine the way Russia sees it, is that it is up to Iran and the U.S. to mend their own relationship; and meanwhile it is not Russia’s job to antagonize Iran in a manner that would be too critically taking sides in the U.S.-Iranian disputes. I am sure that it is not lost on our own intelligence and foreign policy community that if Russia wanted to it could be helping Iran vastly more than it has. Instead, it has walked a fine line of not 100% taking a totally pro-Iran position or set itself as a total hinderance to Iran. Iran sees this too.

I am sure that the U.S., as a client-state of Saudi Arabia in the region, does not want to keep the “status quo” in Syria, and while I see that the status-quo might help Iran, for the moment, I am not so certain it would not help the U.S., once we could remove ourselves as the servant of Saudi Arabian interests in the region. What we ignore right now is that fundamentalist Wahabi-Saudi backed interests would be trying to oppose, and obtain supremacy over, Shia interests in the region EVEN IF TRUE DEMOCRATIC MODERATES INSIDE IRAN COULD TOPPLE THEIR THECRAT DICTATORS.

As it is, the U.S. policies in the region are effectively taking sides between two fundamentalist radical Islamist groups, as if one is “better” than the other. Neither is better from either an immediate or long term western interest, and it is a contest in which we do not have a horse in the race.

It might be amazing to see what changes we could get from Assad if we admitted to ourselves that we do not want to see an increase of Muslim Brotherhood and radical fundamentalist Wahabi-Saudi influence in Syria, and joined Russia in supporting the “status quo” in Syria. We might even be able to break the Syrian-Iran and Syrian-Hezbolla friendships.