Russia Doesn’t Believe in Carrots or Sticks – It Believes
in Time
|
by
John Helmer, Moscow President
Donald Trump has asked President Vladimir Putin to assist him in arranging a
grand Middle East peace deal. This, according to officials
leaking to Bloomberg reporters, requires Iran to agree to dismantle its
nuclear weapons programme, and also “Iran’s support for its allied groups
such as Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East.” The
leakers, “people with knowledge of the situation, asking not to be identified”,
according to Bloomberg, reportedly did
not ask Putin to mediate the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy. The news
agency story follows by three weeks the White House announcement on February 4
of “a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring maximum
pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, denying Iran all
paths to a nuclear weapon, and countering Iran’s malign influence abroad. The
NSPM establishes that: Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and
intercontinental ballistic missiles; Iran’s terrorist network should be
neutralized; and Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other
asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered. The
NSPM directs the Secretary of the Treasury to impose maximum economic
pressure on the Government of Iran, including by sanctioning or imposing
enforcement mechanisms on those acting in violation of existing sanctions.” The US
officials briefing Bloomberg claim that after his big stick move, Trump made
two small carrot moves in the direction of the Russians. On February 12,
Trump told Putin on the telephone that he had a deal to end the war in the
Ukraine if Putin would help with a deal to end Iran’s war in the Middle East. Trump
then told Secretary of State Marco Rubio to say more when he met in Riyadh
with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 18. Whatever the Americans
say they said, Lavrov omitted to mention it in the communiqué and press
briefing in Riyadh. During
his subsequent meetings in Teheran on February 25, Lavrov was
explicit – almost — in opposing Trump’s stick-wielding. “We underscored the
inadmissibility of unilateral economic sanctions,” Lavrov announced after
meetings with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas
Araghchi. “We will continue substantive and focused efforts to mitigate the
adverse effects of these unlawful restrictions on the economies of Russia and
Iran…We have discussed at length the developments around the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. We remain convinced that the diplomatic resource is still
there and should not be left unused. Instead, it should be engaged as
effectively as possible and no threats or allusions to forceful solutions
should be made. We are committed to continuing the search for acceptable
solutions to the situation at hand which was created by our Western
colleagues, not Iran.” Since
the refusal of Kremlin support for Iran’s military alliance with Bashar
al-Assad’s government in Damascus last November and December, the subsequent
recriminations between Teheran and Moscow have not been entirely or clearly
resolved. For the record of the recriminations, click; for the attempt
to resolve them in the January treaty signing, read this; for the
continuing irresolution, look again. On
Friday, March 7, Trump said he
believes Putin will do more for Trump’s Ukraine “deal” than the Kremlin is
admitting publicly. “I think he’s going to be more generous than he has to
be, and that’s pretty good.” Is this true? Is it an American attempt to sow
suspicion and distrust in Moscow between the General Staff and the Kremlin?
Is it also aimed at splitting the Iranians from the Russians? Lavrov’s
announcement after his meeting with President Pezeshkian was non-committal on
the concessions Trump wants from Iran for denuclearization and withdrawal of
support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah (Houthis). “During the exchange
of views on pressing global and regional issues, the focus was placed on the
evolving situations in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict zone, and matters pertaining to the Caspian region. The sides
coordinated their positions regarding the state of affairs surrounding the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme,” the
Russian communiqué announced
after Lavrov met with Pezeshkian. “Coordination”
is a camouflage term in the current Russian-Iranian relationship. It appears
71 times in the January pact Pezeshkian signed in Moscow with Putin. Its
meaning, Russian
sources believe, carries outer ambiguity, inner secrecy – also uncertainty
under the pressure Trump is applying. A
Russian source in a position to know believes the strategic consensus in
Moscow, and also at the Ukraine front, is that “the empire [US] won’t stop
its war with Russia. But we need time to correct the tactical mistakes that
have been made. Trump’s peace is going to be short-lived. Maybe five years,
maybe eight. There’s no point fighting him at every step. We’ll try to get
the best deal possible that leaves him thinking he looks good. After losing
eight years, Russia wants to gain eight years.” A military
source comments that in the short run the more confusion Trump and his
officials create, the more time the Russian General Staff has to accelerate
the military offensive westward from the current line of contact towards
Kiev. “The American learning disability is showing across the board,” he
says. “The kettle is now on the boil in Sumy. The Ukrainians are cut off in
Kursk and don’t have much more time left. East of the Dnieper, it’s apparent
that Putin’s foot is off the brake.” The US
side is now calling time. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz has
announced that he, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Steven Witkoff will
return for negotiations with their Russian counterparts in Riyadh next week.
The Kiev regime has announced they will be
meeting the US delegation on Tuesday. As
Russians report, analyse, and debate the implications of policy-making by
press release and tweet from Trump and his officials, Moscow sources
acknowledge what physicists have long recognized as the Observer
Effect.
The closer the observer and his methodology get to the object or target, the
more disturbance is created, the less clear the object’s visibility, and the
more unpredictability of how it will behave. This is
intentional on Trump’s part, the sources believe – it’s his idea of how to
conduct deal-making. Uncertainty and confusion are also the condition in
which Trump’s officials find themselves, competing with each other for
factional policy positions, influence at the White House, and personal power.
For the time being, the Russian response to Trump’s Ukraine end-of-war deal
and also his Iran and Middle East end-of-war deal is – the sources emphasize
— to delay, wait and see. Responding
to the Bloomberg report, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “”Russia believes
that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through
negotiations” and that Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to
achieve this.” The
Iranian response has been
similar. “Given the significance of these matters, it’s possible that many
parties will show good will and readiness to help with various problems,”
Bloomberg reported the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, as saying
during a press conference in Teheran on March 3. “From this perspective, it’s
natural that countries will present an offer of help if it’s needed.” Baghaei
refused to speak directly with Bloomberg. In
preparing for the coming round of Riyadh talks, the Russian positions on
terms for the Ukraine settlement are clearer than the US terms. It is quite
the opposite for the terms of the Iranian settlement – the US is clearer than
Russia. To
understand how officials in Moscow are thinking, the state-funded internet
publication Vzglyad is both a sounding board for different
policy factions around the Kremlin and a windvane of the direction Putin is
expected to take. Interpreting this new report, published on Friday
afternoon, it is necessary to read between the lines where the meaning is
reversed.  |
by
Gevorg Mirzayan via: https://vz.ru/world/2025/3/7/1318799.html “This is
evidence of a general warming of relations between Moscow and Washington.”
With these words, experts assess reports that Washington has asked Moscow to
mediate in negotiations with Iran. Such mediation opens up both opportunities
and dangers for Russia. What is this about? The
United States needs Russian help in normalizing relations with Iran. This is
reported by the American publication, Bloomberg. According to its sources,
Donald Trump voiced the relevant request during his talks with Vladimir Putin
on February 12, and then US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed it at their meeting in Saudi Arabia. The
logic of the American side is clear. Despite Trump’s dislike of Iranians, he
has no time for conflict with the Islamic Republic right now – there is
neither time, energy, nor desire for this. “For the Trump administration, any
reduction in tensions with … Iran could be a victory, as it would not have to
focus on the Middle East,” writes The Jerusalem Post. On the
other hand, the United States cannot let the situation with Iran take its
course either. After the failure in Syria, the Iranians feel vulnerable –
and, according to Western media, they are accelerating the process of
creating a nuclear bomb as their ultimate weapon of defense. At the
same time, there is now a unique chance to resolve all the problems
peacefully, partly because Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also a
proponent of a diplomatic solution to the conflict. And the defeat in Syria,
multiplied by the economic crisis in the country, allows him and his
supporters to “sell” a compromise with the United States as the best solution
to all problems. It is
clear that Washington and Teheran cannot speak directly, which means that an
intermediary is needed. Influential and at the same time honest, whose word
is trusted by both sides. That is, Russia. “The
United States understands that negotiations with Iran will be difficult, and
therefore, not wanting to greatly increase the number of intermediaries, they
turned to Russia.” “They
took into account Moscow’s good relations with Teheran, as well as Russia’s
proven ability to manoeuvre between various players,” says Yelena Suponina,
an international political scientist and expert at the Russian International
Affairs Council. Yelena
Suponina speaking (in Arabic) at the Emirates Policy Centre. Moscow
neither confirms nor denies the American request for cooperation. “I cannot
confirm, but I said that, in general, Putin has repeatedly said that the
problem of the Iranian nuclear dossier should be solved exclusively by
peaceful means. Russia, being an ally and partner of Iran, is ready to do
everything possible to facilitate this process,” said Dmitry Peskov, a
spokesman for the Russian president. [Russia
wants] to contribute not only because it is beneficial to an ally, but also
because Russia does not need a war in the Middle East, nor nuclear
proliferation, which will increase if Teheran gets a nuclear bomb. And
finally, to contribute because it is beneficial to Russia. Such mediation enhances
its role in the Middle East, and also makes it an important and necessary
partner for Washington. However,
we must not forget about the risks of such mediation. “This proposal is
evidence of the general warming of relations between Moscow and Washington,
but such proposals should be treated very carefully,” adds Suponina. “Firstly,
because the level of distrust between the parties is enormous. And it’s not
just about Iranian-American relations. Washington – and this is not
surprising after so many years of conflict – does not trust Moscow either.
But trust in an intermediary is a key condition for successful negotiations.
Moscow is also not sure that Washington will comply with the agreements
reached under its leadership.” “Secondly,
there is an unstable domestic political situation in both countries. Donald
Trump has actually declared war on a significant part of the American foreign
policy establishment, and it is far from certain that he will win it. The
Iranian leadership is also split, including into supporters and opponents of
negotiations with the Americans. And not only with the Americans, but also
personally with Trump, the man who withdrew from the previous peace deal
(concluded under Barack Obama), and also ordered the assassination of General
Qassem Soleimani, the most popular figure on the Iranian street.” “At the
same time, the serious state of health of the country’s Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei creates additional uncertainty – no one knows who will be chosen as
the successor and what policy position this successor will take. And this
uncertainty, both in the United States and in Iran, does not allow us to
enter into any serious, long–term deals right now.” “Thirdly,
the position of the key American allies in the region, the Israelis, cannot
be ignored. “Israel has a very negative attitude towards the idea of peace
talks with Iran. And Trump himself is unpredictable. Therefore, it is
possible that if the negotiations break down at some stage, he will take into
account Benjamin Netanyahu’s idea of forceful solutions to the Iranian
issue,” says Suponina. Finally,
Iran’s skepticism about the warming of Russian-American relations should be
taken into account. A number
of politicians and experts in Teheran believe that Russia, in exchange for
concessions from the United States, will be able to distance itself from
allied relations with Iran. And neither the recently signed strategic
agreement, nor the statements of the Russian leadership, nor elementary
common sense (dictating that no one should change a strategic partner for
American promises) can convince them. And Russia’s attempts to mediate, as
well as generally discuss the Iranian issue in negotiations with the
Americans, may strengthen these suspicions and, therefore, harm bilateral
relations. At the
same time, there are always risks – they are the flip side of opportunities.
And Russian diplomacy has repeatedly proven its ability to sail safely
between the reefs of world politics.  |
No comments:
Post a Comment