Whose Side is Russia On?

While Obama pursues a world free of nuclear weapons, Russia continues to deliver slaps in the face to American peace initiatives. In the world of international relations, it is no accident that as pressure builds against Iran, it is Iran's greatest ally - Russia - that is reminding the world of its powerful influence over the Middle East. This at the same time as Barack Obama painfully seeks an exit from the region after 8 long years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, rather than suggesting peaceful alternatives to a nuclear Iran, Russia is boldly declaring new military powers, including the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

Such a declaration is disturbing, if not surprising. A mere three weeks ago, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev agreed with Barack Obama and the rest of the United Nations Security Council members at the G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh, on the need for the pursuit of a world "free of nuclear weapons". As genuine as the initiative is, there is no mistaking that both Russia and the US will always possess nukes. Nonetheless, the "nuke-free world" idea at the very least offered hope for continued stability between the major powers and a reduction of tensions between the West and Russia.

Therefore, the report suggesting Russia's pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons -- which was released yesterday as negotiations with Iran resumed in Vienna -- comes across as a tremendously provocative move by the Kremlin. In as many words, Russian Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev is warning the Western powers against taking any further aggressive steps toward pressuring Iran to halt its nuclear program. Their words are also inherently destabilizing. What could possibly be gained from reminding the world of Russia's pre-emptive right to use nukes at such an uncertain time as this? While professing a nuke-free world, Russia is seen defending the world's sole nuclear-aspirant -- Iran -- by reinforcing Russia's right to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the defence of Russian interests.

Russia's pre-emptive reminder may as well have come from the public relations department inside Tehran. While Iran is perhaps still a few months away from physically possessing a nuclear weapon (some reports suggest a far shorter timeline), the fact that Russia delivered such a bold statement in the midst of negotiations serves as a "pre-emptive" rhetorical attack against Iran's enemies, namely Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. The Russo-Persian message is simple: mess with Iran and you will feel Russia's wrath. As a rebuke, it would be equally provocative to suggest that Russia might unleash tactical nukes against Israel, Iraq, or US troops in the region - but if such horror has not been contemplated by Putin and Medvedev, why would Russia remind the world as such?

There is one nation shuddering under this clammer among the major powers - Israel. The Jewish State is caught squarely in the middle of the Iranian nuclear question, threatened existentially by Iran's nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often reminding the world of his nation's willingness to take unilateral action against Iran's nuclear program should negotiations fail. But with the release of Russia's pre-emptive nuclear strike policy, the ultimate question for Israel becomes this: would Russia pre-emptively strike the Jewish State if Israel were to unilaterally bomb Iran? Perhaps more realistically, would Russia authorize its military, allied with Iran, to unleash counter-attacks against Israel in response to Israeli pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear sites?

Russia's policy indicates precisely this dystopian reality. The proposed doctrine would allow for the use of nuclear weapons "to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war," Patrushev was quoted as saying. He further stated that a government analysis of the threat of conflict in the world showed "a shift from large-scale conflicts to local wars and armed conflicts." Precisely which nations are likely to be the scene of local wars in the very near future? Both Israel and Iran. The probability of future conflict involving Israel is growing daily, as nations - including Turkey most recently - are aligning against Israel in an effort to squeeze the nation into making concessions in the peace process. At the same time, this strategic re-alignment also unites Arab militaries against Israel, encircling the Jewish State.

Waiting in the wings, and supplying many of the Middle East's armies with advanced missiles and weaponry, is Russia. These weapons deals mean that if Israel were to take defensive action against her enemies - be they in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, or most likely, Iran - the probability of a Russian response against Israel grows exponentially. At the furthest extreme is a nuclear attack against Israel by Russia, which - as incredibly preposterous as it sounds today - may not seem so extreme once Israel has delivered precision strikes against Russia's billion dollar investments inside Iran's assorted nuclear enrichment facilities. Even if Russia did not resort to pre-emptive nuclear strikes, their very doctrine of pre-emptive action suggests Russia is prepared for almost-as-lethal non-nuclear military alternatives.

These are dire circumstances for global stability. For a world that a mere decade ago seemed on a path toward peaceful globalized prosperity, the situations in the Middle East today are unequivocally dragging the world closer to conflagration than ever before. With Barack Obama at the helm of the world's preeminent military power, the likelihood of American military action against Iran, or the containment of Russia in the protection of Israel, is dramatically diminishing, if not yet non-existent. Thus the concurrent likelihood of unilateral Israeli military action on Iran is rapidly approaching. Russia has now declared her disturbing willingness and blatant intentions to protect Iran at all costs - even advocating nuclear warfare. How will the rest of the world respond when the Iranian nuclear crisis reaches its grand finale? The clock is ticking.

Robert D. Onley
---------------------------------------------------------------
Headlines to Track:
BreitBart - Report: Russia to allow pre-emptive nukes

Tensions Between Turkey And Israel Escalate

Iranian FM: We Won't Stop Uranium Enrichment

Iran Mourns Suicide Bomb Victims


Articles to Read:

A Lesson in Unintended Consequences for Our President

Why A Month Matters: Don't Let Iran Stall Even For A Month

Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

New Battle for Iraq

The Russia-Iran Paradox

By: Robert D. Onley

Intel leaks, defections and outright disinformation are dragging the Iranian nuclear crisis into an unprecedented stage of uncertainty, with growing concern in Israel about Russia’s role in provoking instability. A week after the Geneva summit, the ever furtive Russian Bear is practically directing the UNSC’s moves with increasing leverage over both the United States and Iran. This comes after the revelation that Russian scientists are assisting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and is made possible given President Obama’s intractable positions in a wobbly Iraq and a withering Afghanistan. Together this has given Russian Prime Minister Putin powerful sway over the Iranian nuclear crisis.

All of these emerging factors, delivered practically rapid-fire following the Oct. 1 Geneva summit, highlight what are obvious issues in Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear story. Indeed, however optimistic Iran’s recent good-will gestures may seem, this optimism is misguided and ignorantly damning. Put bluntly, Iran’s nuclear pursuit has been nothing but a convoluted concoction of deceit. To borrow a phrase from Netanyahu’s now famous speech at the UN on September 25^th, the belief that Iran’s nuclear program will be proven peaceful is wrong - “dead wrong.” The problem for Israel is that to casual international observers, Iran appears to have come to its senses and may even relinquish its uranium enrichment powers to a third-party nation.

Such a move has been deceptively calculated by the Iranians. Which nation immediately (and seemingly out of the blue) offered to enrich Iran’s uranium? Once again, it was Russia. Surely Iran would not permit a single inspection of its top-secret Qom enrichment facility if the underground complex was in fact engineered specifically for the weaponization of nuclear materials. Armed with yet more “peace” credibility found in the form of highly sensitive nuclear assistance by none other than Russian scientists, Iran has been allowed to perform another daring about-face on nuclear policy.

Israel must be critically aware of Russia’s meddling on both sides of this sordid nuclear tale. While professing to desire a nuclear-free Iran, the reports this week that Russian scientists are assisting Iran with the development of nuclear weapons proved otherwise. Whether these scientists were sent by the Kremlin or were simply private citizens taking jobs in Iran, the fact is that Russia was certainly aware of their presence in Iran. Russia was also crucially conscious of the highly contentious work the scientists were likely achieving in Iran.

This is perplexing, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cohorts have for years declared, unequivocally, that the Iranian nuclear program is for entirely peaceful purposes. When evidence to the contrary arose in light of the Qom revelation, suddenly Ahmadinejad is seen allowing inspections and denying allegations that the Iranian government had kept Qom a secret. Could it be that Russia’s offer to enrich uranium has given Iran a perception of blanket immunity from further international consternation? Little else explains Iran’s bold new “openness”. The Russian-Iranian paradox thus deepens.

The tragic reality that emerges from this Russian-Iranian set-up is that even the most thorough UN and IAEA “inspections” of Iranian nuclear facilities are unlikely to expose these glaring paradoxes in the Iranian nuclear story. After just one session of negotiations in Geneva, suddenly all of Ahmadinejad’s hateful pronouncements of his deadly intentions against Israel are brushed aside by the IAEA’s fantasy of somehow monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities – all with Russian support.

This plainly does not add up. Neither does Russia’s offer to enrich Iran’s uranium to 19.75%, a paltry quarter of a percent below the weakest weapons grade standards for high enriched uranium. An agreement like this would effectively provide a legal shortcut for Tehran to then pursue even higher enriched uranium back on Iranian soil after Russia has done the initial dirty work. Meanwhile the rest of the Middle East’s aspiring nuclear powers – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and even Iraq – are being told to rest easy while Iran ‘goes nuclear’ under the ‘scrutinizing’ eyes of the IAEA.

The very fact that Iran just recently revealed its secret facility at Qom highlights another missing link in Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear story. For Iran to have designed, built and hid the Qom facility for so long implicates its very illegitimate, malevolent nature - this is self-evident. But for Iran to then declare, once more, that this top-secret, hardened, buried-deep-underground-uranium-enrichment facility is actually peaceful as well – dramatically showcases the overwhelmingly deceitful nature of the entire Iranian Islamic Republic. Put simply, Iran’s entire nuclear story doesn’t add up. The P5+1 must always contextualize this with any cooperative efforts that Iran may now be professing.

Nonetheless, compounding the Iranian nuclear crisis are the “unfettered” inspections of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment facility at Qom set to begin next week. With their announcement, the world body practically let out a collective sigh of relief, knowing Israel was blocked from potentially taking military action against Iran - at least in the interim. Meanwhile the IAEA could not be happier, with Director Mohamed El Baradei even callously shifting the world’s focus onto Israel by labelling the Jewish State the “number one threat to the Middle East.” This is a shamefully disturbing tactic of a supposedly apolitical international agency.

Intelligence agencies have known of Iran’s malicious intentions for years, if not decades. Iran’s covert efforts to procure highly sensitive nuclear and weapons materials – including, recently, possible navigation microchips designed for missile guidance systems, shipped from Canada – highlight the very fact that no matter what Iran professed to be the case about its nuclear program (and continues to profess), none of their statements were true, nor are true today. Quite the opposite, Iran is still pursuing the rapid development of both the world’s most lethal weapons technology in nuclear weapons, as well as the missiles to deliver them, all in flagrant defiance of the international community.

After making obvious attempts to deceive the rest of the world for nearly 30 years, why would Iran suddenly change tactics just before reaching the pinnacle of its nuclear program – ‘the Bomb’? Perhaps because Iran is aware that its relationship with Russia will almost certainly guarantee its success barring any US or Israeli attack on its facilities. It is shocking then, that despite entering negotiations with Iran and agreeing to inspections of the Qom site (there are certain to be others), US President Obama still holds some illusion of belief that somehow the Iranian nuclear program will be made peaceful, or that the West will be capable of containing Iran’s nuclear technology for peaceful ends.

This is simply fanciful on the part of Obama. Iran will never, under any circumstance, allow forces from the “Great Satan” to control any aspect of their most prized technological achievement. Even forces from the European Union will be viewed with highly skeptical Iranian eyes. Hence Iran’s reflexive and continued turn to Russia for logistical support for weaponization.

The world can have no illusions about Iran’s intentions. This author has repeatedly warned about the deadly seriousness of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. If the West backs off Iran and agrees to let the theocratic Islamic Republic ‘go nuclear’, the world must be made painfully aware of the impending consequences. Not only will Israel’s enemies Hamas and Hizbullah be protected under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, but so too will any future militant group which Iran supports.

Thus the final paradoxical pieces in the Iranian nuclear saga are this: if Iran is about to “peacefully” go nuclear, why be so hell-bent on propping up terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbullah? Why draw further negative international attention and condemnation if Iran is only pursuing peaceful nuclear energy? Clearly Iran’s “peace” story is a farce. So too is Russia’s relationship with Iran if Russia truly wants a nuke-free Iran. As a result, Israel may soon be forced to unilaterally stop Iran, and Russia will be very, very angry if Israel does so. The decision before Israel today is thus one of undeniably apocalyptic proportions.