According to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, “the term ‘paralyzing sanctions’ is, of course, something we completely refuse to accept. Sanctions should follow the aim of strengthening the state of nuclear nonproliferation.”

The minister stressed that sanctions cannot be interpreted as something to be used to punish an entire country and its people.

When questioned about Russia’s plans to sell Iran their S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, Ryabkov said that a contract is already in place and Russia intends to fulfill it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressly asked that Russia scrap plans to sell the system to Iran in a meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier this week, fearing that the system could help Iran stave off any possible attacks from Israel or the United States on its nuclear facilities.

Ryabkov said that recent delays in delivering the system were due to “technical problems” and dismissed questions regarding the two countries partnership on military technology as politically motivated.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said earlier on Friday that Iran’s failure to cooperate with the international community on its nuclear program was “very alarming.” In an interview on Ekho Moskvy radio, Lavrov emphasized the importance of Russia’s relationship with Iran as a “close neighbor” and a “partner,” saying that what happens in Iran “concerns both our economic interests and our interests in regards to security.”

Lavrov also issued what, given Ryabkov’s later statement, appears to have been a serious caveat: “I don’t think that we [the United States and Russia] have a united position [on Iran], because for both the United States and for us – and this is a position where we agree – it is of principle importance to prevent violations of the state of nuclear nonproliferation. This, most definitely, is our common, united position. However,” he continued, “we do not agree one hundred percent on the methods for its realization.”

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov calls for President Barack Obama to face the reality of Russia’s interests in continued high tensions in the Middle East, and to take a serious stance in talks with Moscow over Iran’s nuclear program.

Russia Worries About the Price of Oil, Not a Nuclear Iran
The Obama administration’s foreign-policy goodwill has yet to be repaid in kind.

By GARRY KASPAROV
October 18, 2009
Wall Street Journal

Last Wednesday in Moscow, the remaining illusions the Obama administration held for cooperation with Russia on the Iranian nuclear program were thrown in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s face. Stronger sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, just days after President Dmitry Medvedev said sanctions were likely inevitable. This apparent inconsistency should remind us that Mr. Medvedev is little more than a well-placed spectator, and that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who discounted sanctions in a statement from Beijing, is still the voice that matters.

This slap comes after repeated concessions—canceling the deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe, muted criticism of Russia’s sham regional elections—from the White House. Washington’s conciliatory steps have given the Kremlin’s rulers confidence they have nothing to fear from Mr. Obama on anything that matters.

And nothing matters more to Mr. Putin and his oligarchs than the price of oil. Even with oil at $70 a barrel, Russia’s economy is in bad straits. Tension in the Middle East, even an outbreak of war, would push energy prices higher. A nuclear-armed Iran would, of course, be harmful to Russian national security, but prolonging the crisis is beneficial to the interests of the ruling elite: making money and staying in power.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy has directed a great deal of optimism and good will toward friends and foes. Such a cheery outlook is commendable as long as it does not clash with reality. Unfortunately, there were several clashes in the past week.

On Wednesday, a top Russian security chief, Nikolai Patrushev, said in an interview in Izvestia, one of the main Kremlin propaganda papers, that Russia was planning to reshape its policies on nuclear force to allow for pre-emptive strikes and use in regional conflicts. Since it cannot be a coincidence that this news leaked while Mrs. Clinton was still in Moscow, it can be considered a response to Mr. Obama’s talk of a world without nuclear weapons and rescinding the deployment of missile defenses.

Also last week, Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov was cleared of wrongdoing for dispatching a squad of his paratroopers to interfere with the criminal investigation of a firm owned by his son-in-law. Transcripts of the general’s phone calls demonstrating his involvement were published in Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the last print outlet critical of the Kremlin. But this was not enough to cause trouble for this idol of the second Chechen war, where his forces were repeatedly accused by Human Rights Watch and other organizations of atrocities against civilians.

Then there was the spectacle of Russia’s regional elections. They were as fraudulent and superfluous as every election under Mr. Putin’s reign, with real opposition candidates barred and the ruling United Russia party receiving its predetermined majority. This time the fraud was too blatant even for Kremlin-allowed opposition party leaders Alexander Zhirinovsky and Gennady Zyuganov, who loudly protested results that have moved Russia to the verge of a one-party dictatorship. Mr. Medvedev asserted that the elections had gone perfectly well. Meanwhile, the U.S. statement expressed the usual concerns and quoted President Medvedev’s own words on the importance of free and fair elections—as if he would be shamed by them.

From the shameless expect no shame. And from a corrupt and criminal regime, expect no changes unless real consequences are put on the table. With Russia, this would mean going after Mr. Putin’s coterie of oligarchs and hitting them where it hurts: their privileges and their pocketbooks. If the European Union and the U.S. started canceling visas and prying into finances, they would find the Kremlin far more interested in sanctions against Iran. Mr. Putin has used human rights and democracy as bargaining chips because these things matter to the West and not to him. Until the game is played for stakes with value to the Kremlin, it’s a one-sided contest.

If the U.S. is serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then Mr. Obama must get to the point and state the penalties unequivocally. Repeating over and over that it is “unacceptable” has become a joke. For more than 10 years a nuclear North Korea was also “unacceptable.” If Mr. Obama says the U.S. will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, then we will see if Tehran blinks. At a minimum, the White House should publicly promise that any attack on Israel with weapons of mass destruction will be treated as an attack on American soil and urge NATO to make a similar commitment.

Like many Russians, I was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s inspirational speech in Moscow last July, but he must know there is more to statesmanship than printing money and making speeches. Inflated rhetoric, like inflated currency, can lead to disaster. The goodwill bubble Mr. Obama is creating will burst unless there are real results soon.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

By GARRY KASPAROV
June 26, 2009
Wall Street Journal

Regardless of its short-term outcome, the Green Revolution in Iran is already a tremendously important event. Iranian citizens are risking their lives to defend their votes and giving the lie to the idea that democracy cannot sprout in hostile soil without external influence. This is of great relevance to people living in autocracies, especially in Russia, my home country.

The Iranian dictatorship is harvesting the bitter fruit of its own policies of radicalization. For decades it exploited fanatical religious beliefs and hosted mass demonstrations. Now these forces are turning against the regime. Citizens who once chanted “Death to America” now call for the blood of Ayatollah Khamenei.

This is encouraging news, but autocrats learn from each other and from history how to hold onto power. Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sees not a great reformer in Mikhail Gorbachev but a leader who was too weak to hold the Soviet Union together. Others have learned from China’s Tiananmen crackdown the value of brutal force. So it is interesting that in the midst of the upheaval in Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a trip to the Kremlin.

Mr. Putin has a great deal riding on the outcome in Iran. With the Russian economy teetering, he needs a steep increase in oil prices to stave off the collapse of his government. So he has been working to increase tension in the Middle East and now sees the Iranian crisis as potentially helpful — if Ahmadinejad comes out on top.

According to industry analysts, Iran could produce up to four million more barrels of oil per day if foreign companies were allowed to modernize the country’s oil infrastructure. Rapidly increasing Iran’s oil output would likely force oil prices to fall. However, if Ahmadinejad retains power, foreign companies aren’t likely to be invited in and Israel may well feel compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, which will likely drive up energy prices.

After watching the Iranian regime murder its own people in cold blood, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not be able to tell his people that they won’t face an existential threat if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The Ahmadinejad government has also lost its moral legitimacy and is therefore more likely to support a proxy war against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah in hopes of uniting its people against a foreign enemy.

For Mr. Putin, the unknown factor in all of this is how the West will respond to what’s happening in Iran. It could give him pause if Iran faces penalties of real significance for using lethal force against nonviolent protestors. Surprisingly, European leaders are showing unusual assertiveness in condemning the Iranian regime.

But what has been flagging so far has been leadership from the United States. Only in his second statement, a week into the crisis, did President Barack Obama underscore the importance of nonviolence, though he still declined to support the Iranian protestors. I understand the reluctance to provide Iranian leaders with the opportunity to smear the protestors as American stooges. But can the leader of the Free World find nothing more intimidating than bearing witness when it is clear that the regime doesn’t care who is watching?

Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) and Fareed Zakaria on CNN, among others, have defended Mr. Obama’s extreme caution. Mr. Zakaria even compared the president’s actions to how George H.W. Bush responded timidly to the impending collapse of the Soviet Union and its hold on Eastern Europe in 1989. Mr. Zakaria explained, “Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks.” True. But the Soviet Union used tanks to quash dissent when it could. Dictatorships use force when they can get away with it, not when a U.S. president makes a strong statement.

President Dwight Eisenhower might have learned that lesson in 1956 when he said nothing and the Soviets sent tanks into Budapest anyway. Likewise, in 1968 the Soviets cracked down in Czechoslovakia even though the West said little. Regardless of what Mr. Obama says, the Iranian leaders will use all the force at their disposal to stay in power.

There is no reason to withhold external pressure that can tip the balance inside Tehran. Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi is not an ideal democrat. But should he and his supporters win power they will owe their authority to an abruptly empowered Iranian electorate. It is reasonable to expect that the people will hold a Mousavi government accountable for delivering the freedoms that they are now risking their lives to attain.

Millions of Iranians are fighting to join the Free World. The least we can do is let the valiant people of Iran know loud and clear that they will be welcomed with open arms.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

Iranian film director Mohsen Makhmalbaf, on behalf of opposition presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, accused Ahmadinejad of selling out Iran’s interests to Russia over the past four years.  In part, Makhmalbaf charged that Ahmadinejad gave up Iran’s Caspian Sea rights, and gave concessions in other areas in exchange for support from Moscow.

Makhmalbaf also claimed to have information that Russia had provided high-ranking consultants to teach Iranian authorities effective ways to repress the opposition.

Russia was one of the first countries to congratulate Ahmadinejad of victory in Iran’s highly contested presidential elections.  Observers noted irregularities during the vote, and Mousavi has called the June 12th election a “charade.”

As result of Russia’s quick support for Ahmadinejad, as well as Makhmalbaf’s accusations, supporters of the Iranian opposition staged a protest outside the Russian embassy in Toronto.

The activists were fueled by the fact that Ahmadinejad travelled to Yekaterinburg, Russia shortly after the election on June 16th, even as the country was facing its most severe political crisis since the 1979 revolution.  Ahmadinejad, who had planned the trip before the election, attended a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security organization whose members include Russia, China and four Central Asian republics.  Iran serves as an observer in the SCO.

Ahmadinejad was named the winner of the election on June 13th, with officials announcing he had taken 62.6% of the vote.  In response, supporters of Mousavi took to the streets, alleging that the result had been falsified and that Mousavi had likely won more than 33.75% of the vote as officials claimed.  As many at 100 thousand Mousavi supporters took part in the street demonstrations, which are scheduled to continue.  Some reports indicated that police had opened fire on the crowds.

—

Read more about Iran and the disputed election from the New York Times newspaper
Read an analysis of why Makhmalbaf may be implicating Russia