No Love from Moscow

Outside of the occasional criticism of Putin's disregard for civil liberties, few people these days seem to care about Russian foreign policy or Washington's relationship with Moscow. However, there is a vocal segment of the population that believes that American security policy requires the United Nations' stamp of approval. Unfortunately for those people, Russia's seat on the Security Council still comes with veto power. And it looks increasingly likely that veto is going to be used to make sure diplomacy and collective security do little to solve the current nuclear crisis with Iran.

For example, Russian is doing its best to make sure cooperation on the Bushehr nuclear plant continues. According to the Associated Press this week, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said

"The adoption of a commitment on ending cooperation with this or that state in some sphere lies exclusively in the competence of the UN Security Council," and "Up to now, the Security Council has made no decision on ending cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy." Kamynin said that every country "has the right to decide with whom and how it should cooperate," and that the Bushehr project was "under the full control" of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The plant has no relation to Iran's work in uranium enrichment, he said.

The last statement is the most troublesome. Whether the Bushehr plant is contributing to the Iranian uranium enrichment program or not, ending cooperation on the plant is the easiest and most effective way for Russia to express its displeasure with Iran and her recent threats against Israel. But evidently, one UN member state threatening to wipe another UN member state off the map isn't enough to spur some Security Council members to action.

According to Reuters on 21 April, Russia made it clear that it believes that the U.N. Security Council should only consider sanctions against Iran if it had proof the Islamic Republic was trying to build nuclear weapons. Non-compliance with previous U.N. demands to end enrichment, the fact that Iran hid its nuclear program for decades, and again, threats against Israel, don't warrant sanctions as far as Moscow is concerned.

One could, and probably should after the war in Iraq, make the argument that "proof" of a weapons program is the bare minimum required for military action. However, diplomacy is not an exact science. If the United States and the United nations are going to end this crisis by diplomatic means, the bar can't be that high. Sanctions are just the diplomatic response to Iran's diplomacy of threats.

Finally, as Russia sets proof of a weapons program as the requirement for sanctions, she is doing her best to make sure that any possible future military action be as costly as possible for the United States and our allies. The Washington Post reported this morning that despite United states' request to the contrary, Russia will go forward with the sale of 29 Tor-M1 air-defense missile systems to Iran.

So much for collective security.