Obama: Finding the Right Word for Russia

Related Post: Space War - Russia and US in Satellite Shoot-out?

The media are going ga-ga over an incident at yesterday's showpiece meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. Before their working dinner, Clinton handed Lavrov "a small green box with a ribbon. Inside was a red button with the Russian word peregruzka printed on it."

For many of us older than 35, it was a jaw-dropper in post-Cold War humour. Ohmygosh, Clinton just handed the erstwhile Soviet Commies the nuclear button! Go on, Sergei, push it. Push it with a smile and blow us to oblivion.

All right, it was meant to be a reassurance that Dr Strangelove and Mutual Assured Destruction is so yesterday. But the media, who must be younger than 35, were focused on some inadvertent humour.
l
With the gift, the Americans meant to indicate unsubtly that they wanted to "reset" relations with Russia. However, when Clinton asked if peregruzka was the right word, Lavrov --- obviously not just laughing about annihilation comedy --- replied, "You got it wrong. It should be perezagruzka. This says peregruzka which means overcharged."

Great. We'll now have days of bad political gloss upon the jokes --- Clinton already started it with, "We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the minister and I have an overload of work." Are we screwing the Russians by giving them the wrong change from the relationship? Will the US-Russia talks get too electric over issues like Georgia (the country, not the US state), Iran, and missile defence?

The right word, in fact, is the very boring realpolitik. Clinton's visit with Lavrov yesterday, and Obama's forthcoming meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the start of April, fulfil the long-expected Administration approach. The Bush policy, trying to ensure Russian co-operation by putting Moscow in a corner, is scrapped. The white elephant of Missile Defense is gone, although Washington will try to get some Russian reward for the "concession". NATO will not be pushed further onto Russia's doorstep with the entry of Georgia and Ukraine; indeed, the separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia will be quietly accepted.

Instead, Washington will be looking for Russia's assistance on a number of issues. Immediately, there will be hope that Moscow will help the US get supplies into Afghanistan. The bonus of Russia pull political, economic, and technological support from Iran is still envisaged, even if was not in the Obama letter to Medvedev sent last month. And the US will look for Russia to cause no problems over political and economic development in Eastern Europe.

All very sensible, but all obscuring the realism of realpolitik. Russia holds most of the political cards at the moment. Indeed, Moscow has been showing one of those cards on Afghanistan over recent weeks: no, you can't have your airbase in Kyrgyzstan, yes, you can have our support for non-military supply lines in Afghanistan, maybe you can have assured military routes if there are clear limits on the American bases in the region.

Vladimir Putin, the former Russian leader and still more than a political shadow, even had the cheek this week to point to the card up his sleeve. You know, he said quite loudly, we could hold up energy supplies to the Ukraine.

But you don't even have to look that far to see Moscow's smiling manoeuvres in the new relationship with the US. Hey, Mr Lavrov, now that we gave you that joke gift, how about cutting off Russian supplies for Iran's nuclear programme? The unfunny answer: The decision "will be made exclusively on the basis of law in accordance with Russian law, and will be under expert control, which is one of the strictest in the world and of course in accordance with international agreements."

That would be a No then. And, by the way, Sergei added, "We want our partners to act the same way and show restraint in military supplies to those countries where, including very recently, those weapons have been used very close to our borders."

That was the statement which led to the real comedy moment of the day --- watching State Department staffers burble that in no way was Lavrov thinking of Georgia. Nope, nope, nope.

There will be some screeching from Washington babble-ocracy today --- from some Congressmen, shout sheets like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute --- that the Obama Administration has sold out to the Russians, handing them our new Eastern European partners, letting them off the hook on Iran. And some of those folks will pull out the argument that the Russian economy is in no shape to withstand a US kick-back against Moscow's intrigues.

Sorry, folks. The Russian economy may be shaky, but it's a very large shaky economy. There's no way that the world, including the US, can afford for it to collapse, especially when Russia --- with its control of key resources --- can take some folks with it.

Welcome to the Reset of the New Realism. Somewhere Henry Kissinger is giving a chuckle, and not just because it's 21st-century leaders who have to deal with charges of war crimes.

Persian Letters: Iran, Missile Defense, and a Clinton Power Play?

Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride - Iran is Still Very, Very Dangerous
Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride - A US “Grand Strategy” on Israel-Palestine-Iran?

If Hillary Clinton's proclamations this week do signal a new American approach on Iran, the initiative is already coming a bit unstuck.

On Tuesday, we noted the Obama Administration's leak to The New York Times of a letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, sent in January, reportedly offering to trade US missile defence plans for Moscow's abandonment of Iranian nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. We predicted the manoeuvre was a non-starter: "The Russians have no desire to link their relations with the US to a change in their position on Iran."

We should have taken that bet straight to the bookies. Within hours of the Times revelation, Medvedev was telling reporters that "any swaps...would not be productive". Obama scrambled for cover, “What I said in the letter was that obviously to the extent that we are lessening Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for, a missile defense system."

But, with the text of the letter still secret, here's the key question: did it actually link a US pullback on missile defense to a Russian concession on Iran or did someone, possibly in Clinton's circle, make that up as part of the grand scheme she unfolded in the Middle East?

Here was the initial response from Medvedev's office: "Obama's letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives." That is in accord with the US President's statement, which suggests either that this is close to the truth.

We have already the US military spin furiously against the White House to push their plans on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would be far from surprised if a bloc in the State Department is doing the same here: today's New York Times drinks the Hillary Kool-Aid again, "Iran Looms Over Clinton’s Mideast Trip", making it seem as if she is merely reacting to an unexpected wave of concern from those she is meeting: "After three days of meetings in Egypt, Israel and the West Bank, Mrs. Clinton said she was struck by the depth of fear about Iran and the extent to which officials say it meddles in their affairs."

Clinton made no comment on the letter to Moscow, a wise move given Obama's reaction to the leak, but she kept up the general drumbeat: "It is important to make the case that I, and others, have been making, that we think Iran poses a threat to Europe and Russia."

So we now have the prospect that in trying to play one diplomatic hand --- mobilising support against Iran --- Clinton or someone else influential in the State Department has jeopardised another effort, the US rapprochement with Russia. In which case....

Can anyone get me in the White House when Barack welcomes Hillary back from her journey?

Ms Clinton's Wild Ride: Iran is Still Very, Very Dangerous

Latest Post: Clinton/Gates to Israel (and Congress) - Back Off on Iran

More evidence, for me, that the mission of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) is more than a separation of Iran from the Palestine and Lebanon issues (a running debate amongst us and our readers, and one we'll return to later today). This is shaping up to be a major US diplomatic offensive to "put Iran in a box", whether in advance of another attempt at diplomacy from a position of strength or further pressure on Tehran.

On Wednesday, Clinton used a stopover at the European Union in Brussels to warn of Iran's threat to the Middle East via local groups: ""It is clear Iran intends to interfere in the internal affairs of all these people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism -- whether it is Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies."
She returned to the idea of missile defense devoted primarily, if not solely, to facing down Iran: ""We've made the point to Russia and will again, and I think they may be beginning to really believe it. We have real potential threats, and obviously Iran is the name we put to them as a kind of stand-in for the range of threats we foresee."

Clinton's latest verbal barrage was in part an effort to keep Iran at a distance from US policy on Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world: ""There is a great deal of concern about Iran from the entire region. I heard it over and over and over again in Sharm el Sheikh, in Israel, in Ramallah." En route to Brussels, she reiterated to reporters on her plane that she heard "over and over and over again" from Arab representatives their deep-seated worries about Iranian threats.

At the same time there was clearly a general perspective to curb Iranian power beyond the region, ""We think Iran poses a threat to Europe and Russia. Well, how do we cooperate on that? ... I think this is a very rich area for exploration, and that's what we're going to do."

The Inaugural Enduring America Award for Global Irrelevancy

John Bolton.

Latest Irrelevancy: Bolton informs Sean Hannity of Fox News that Obama is "anti-Reaganesque" on missile defence.

Latest Made-Up "Fact": Iran can nuclear-weaponise "within 6 to 9 months".

Ms Clinton's Wild Ride: Is Dennis Ross in the Saddle on Iran?

Related Post: Ms Clinton’s Wild Ride - A US “Grand Strategy” on Israel-Palestine-Iran?

In our analysis today of a possible US "grand strategy" linking its approach on Israel and Palestine to a change in policy on Iran, we speculated, "One explanation for this shift is the long-awaited entry of Dennis Ross, who has long advocated “Diplomacy Then Pressure”, into the State Department." Jim Lobe takes up the theme:

Ross Is Clearly a Major Player

Since Secretary of State Clinton set out for the Middle East over the weekend, it has seemed increasingly clear to me that Dennis Ross, contrary to my earlier speculation, pretty much got the job that he and WINEP [the Washington Institute for Near East Policy] were hoping for. Not only has he claimed an office on the coveted seventh floor, but Obama’s conspicuous placement of Ross’ name between those of Mitchell and Holbrooke in his speech on Iraq at Camp Lejeune last week strongly suggested that he considers Ross to be of the same rank and importance as the other two.

More to the point is what Clinton and those around her have been saying during the trip, including, most remarkably, the report by an unnamed “senior State Department official” that she told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that she was “very doubtful” that diplomacy would persuade Iran to abandon its alleged quest for nuclear weapons. This, of course, very much reflects Ross’ own view (as well that of neo-conservatives) and will no doubt bolster hard-liners in Tehran who believe that Obama’s talk of engagement is simply designed to marshal more international support for eventual military action, be it a bombing campaign or a blockade to cut gasoline imports. That Obama essentially confirmed today’s New York Times report about a proposed deal with Moscow whereby it would go along with increasing sanctions against Iran in exchange for Washington’s non-deployment of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic only adds to the impression that some version of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s September ‘08 report on Iran strategy (drafted by hard-line neo-cons Michael Rubin and Michael Makovsky and signed by Ross), which I wrote about here, is in the process of being implemented. (I was going to write about this later this week, but the Moon of Alabama beat me to the punch. See also Stephen Walt’s analysis of Clinton’s scepticism on his Foreign Policy blog).

Adding to my growing sense that Ross occupies a critical role in policy-making, at least in the State Department, are what Clinton has had to say so far on her trip about Gaza, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. As Marc Lynch reports in his truly excellent blog, also on the Foreign Policy website, “her remarks suggest that rather than seize on the possibility of Palestinian reconciliation, Clinton prefers to double-down on the shopworn ‘West Bank first, Fatah only’ policy” strongly advocated by Ross. In that respect, you should definitely read Tuesday’s extended colloquy between Lynch, Brookings’ Tamara Wittes (who is more optimistic), and Carnegie’s Nathan Brown, who shares Lynch’s “disappointment” about Clinton’s performance. As Lynch notes, it seems that Clinton is stuck “in a bit of time-warp” regarding Hamas’ power in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority’s abject failure to enhance its legitimacy, and the Arab League’s renewed efforts to both unify itself and to reconstruct a Palestinian government of national unity. This insensitivity to Palestinian and Arab public opinion bears all the hallmarks of Ross’ failed Mideast diplomacy during the 1990’s.

I also have the impression that Ross and the so-called “Israel Lobby” whose interests he represents believe that enhancing conditions on the West Bank, combined with diplomatic engagement with Syria, will somehow be sufficient for Washington to regain its credibility in the region and rally the Sunni Arab states — along with the European Union, Russia, China, etc. — behind a policy of confrontation with Iran.