The ongoing unrest in Iran since mid-September following the death of a Kurdish woman in police custody shows no sign of abating. The unrest has attracted support from all social strata and has assumed anti-government overtones. The effectiveness of suppressing riots is doubtful. Iran is entering a period of turmoil.
The government is not facing an imminent threat, but seems aware of the imperative to address hijab policy to appease protesters. As the protests continue, many women walk the streets of Iran’s cities, especially Tehran, without covering their heads.
There is a long history of Western countries fueling public unrest in Iran. The regime change agenda must be present in the Western calculus but, interestingly, Washington is also showing interest in reaching an agreement with Tehran under certain conditions related to the foreign and security policies of the regime in the current international environment.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian explicitly stated that the United States and several other Western countries have incited riots because “one of the objectives of the United States was to force Iran to make big concessions at the negotiating table” for the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA). Amirabdollahian’s comment followed megaphone diplomacy from Rob Malley, the US special envoy to Iran last weekend.
Speaking in Rome, Malley connected the dots and described the links in the matrix. She said: “The more Iran suppresses, the more sanctions there will be; the more sanctions there are, the more isolated Iran feels. The more isolated they feel, the more they turn to Russia; the more they turn to Russia, the more sanctions there will be, the more the climate deteriorates, the less likely nuclear diplomacy will be. So it is true that at this point all vicious circles are self-reinforcing. Suppression of protests and Iran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine is our focus because that’s where things are happening and where we want to make a difference.”
In effect, Malley admitted that the Biden administration is an interested party in the ongoing protests in Iran. Importantly, he also hinted that while Iran has made a series of fateful decisions that make a full revival of the nuclear deal and the lifting of some economic sanctions a political impossibility for now, the door to diplomacy is not closed if only Iran’s leadership will change course. on relations with Russia.
In additional comments to Bloomberg on Saturday, Malley said: “Right now we can make a difference by trying to deter and disrupt arms supplies to Russia and trying to support the fundamental aspirations of the Iranian people.”
As he said, Washington now aims to “disrupt, delay, deter and sanction” Iran’s arms deliveries to Russia, and any missile supplies or assistance in building military production facilities in Russia would “cross new lines.”
In short, Malley has linked the US approach to the Iran protests with Tehran’s foreign and security policies regarding Russia and its war in Ukraine.
The first signs that US intelligence was focusing on military ties between Iran and Russia, along with their Israeli counterpart, of course, appeared in late July, when US national security adviser. President Jake Sullivan made an allegation during a White House press briefing that Iran wanted to sell weapons-capable UAVs to Moscow.
Sullivan claimed that Iran was already training Russian personnel in the use of drones. Within the week, Sullivan doubled down on that accusation.
The timing of Sullivan’s disclosure must be carefully considered, coinciding with a visit to Tehran by Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 19. Putin’s talks with Iranian leaders heralded an ongoing strategic polarization between Moscow and Tehran, with far-reaching consequences for regional and international interests. politics.
Putin’s discussions ranged from the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria to the legality of Western-led sanctions regimes, de-dollarization, the geopolitics of energy, the International North-South Transport Corridor, defense cooperation , etc., anchored in the congruent interests of the two countries on a number of important strategic and policy issues.
Following Putin’s discussions, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, General Mohammad Bagheri, traveled to Moscow in mid-October. Bagheri met with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, indicating that military relations between the two countries were gaining irreversible momentum.
Fifteen days after Bagheri’s visit, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev came to Tehran to discuss “various issues of Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of security, as well as a number of international problems.” according to the Interfax news agency.
Russian state media said Patrushev discussed the situation in Ukraine and measures to combat “Western interference” in the internal affairs of both countries with his Iranian security counterpart Ali Shamkhani. Patrushev also met with the President of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi.
Meanwhile, Washington feels there is a lack of harmony within the Iranian establishment over how to handle the protests and, in turn, this is sharpening the internal Iranian debate over the wisdom of a growing alliance with Russia versus re-engaging with the West. in a new attempt to revive the nuclear deal.
Clearly, Malley’s comments hinted that, amid the US support for the protests in Iran, it still remains open to doing business with Tehran if the latter reverses its deepening strategic partnership with Moscow and refrains from any participation in the conflict in Ukraine.
In fact, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, (who has the report from Washington) also weighed in with a comment Monday that the UN watchdog has no evidence that Iran is carrying out a nuclear weapons program, which implies that the resumption of the negotiations in Vienna does not face any “systemic” blockade.
That said, Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow on foreign and security policy has long-term consequences for Iran, and it’s not about Iranian leaders putting all their eggs in the American basket. Also for Russia, the association with Iran has a strategic importance in the conditions of multipolarity.
Significantly, Iranian media reported that Iran’s nuclear negotiator and Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani recently visited Moscow and met his Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov in Moscow to “discuss the prospects for large-scale implementation” of the JCPOA, the 2015 nuclear agreement, “to strengthen the approach of multilateralism and confront unilateralism and adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations”, as well as the “efforts of the two countries to prevent instrumental political abuse and the selective treatment of human rights problems by Western powers”. .
The official IRNA news agency later reported from Tehran, citing Bagheri Kani, that the two sides “reviewed bilateral relations in recent months and created frameworks and mechanisms in agreement with each other to develop relations.” He mentioned Syria, the South Caucasus and Afghanistan as areas of cooperation between Tehran and Moscow.
To be sure, the latest round of Iran-Russia consultations stood out in Washington. On Saturday, the director of national intelligence in the Biden administration, Avril Haines, issued a veiled threat that while Iranian leaders may not see the protests as a threat now, they could face further unrest due to high inflation and the economic uncertainty. She said: “We see some kind of controversy even within them about exactly how to respond, within the government.”
On the other hand, Bagheri Kani’s consultations in Moscow reportedly took into account recent large-scale US and Israeli air exercises that simulated attacks against Iran’s nuclear program. The Israeli military said in a statement that the joint flights of four Israeli F-35i Adir stealth fighter jets accompanying four US F-15 fighter jets through the skies of Israel simulated “an operational scenario and long-distance flights ”.
The statement added: “These exercises are a key component of the two militaries’ growing strategic cooperation in response to shared concerns in the Middle East, particularly those raised by Iran.”
The US-Israeli exercises underscore the criticality of the situation surrounding Iran. Tehran’s switch to 60% enrichment causes concern in Washington. But a military attack on Iran is fraught with unpredictable consequences not only for the West Asian region but also for the global oil market, which is facing uncertainties due to the US attempt to cap the price of Russian oil.
The bottom line is that the protests in Iran are assuming the proportions of a casus belli. The United States has internationalized Iran’s internal turmoil.
East Globetrotter article was produced in collaboration with indian auction.
MK Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.
