NationalJournal.com/TheGate


« Hutchison May Leave Senate In 2009 | Main | McCain Reports More Money Woes In 3Q »

October 16, 2007

Superpower Watch: Picking Sides, Choosing Teams

George W. Who?Once again, the Bush administration is reminded that while it would be preferable to have the world at its back as it attempts to stabilize the Middle East, it simply does not. Iran and Russia have sealed an agreement among the Caspian Sea nations that "under no circumstances will they allow [the use of their] territories by third countries to launch aggression or other military action against any of the member states." Doesn't take a genius to figure out which third country might top that list.

This declaration accomplishes several things, none of which bode well for Washington's push for Iran to come clean on its nuclear program.

1. Remember President Putin's offer to jointly set up a missile defense shield in Azerbaijan as an alternative to planned U.S. systems in Poland and the Czech Republic? The Bush administration was wary of the proposal, even after the Lobster Summit in July. Well, now it has good reason to be: The point of the missile defense system is to shield U.S. interests in Europe against aggression from the Middle East, namely Iran. As a signee to the Caspian summit declaration, Azerbaijan as a weapons base does the U.S. no good.

2. Sandwiched between Russia and Iran, emerging former satellite nations Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have little incentive to cast their lot with the West. The U.S. and EU nations are encouraging these smaller nations to cooperate on a pipeline that bypasses Russia, whose oil wealth has allowed Moscow to behave mobbishly toward surrounding nations. It's in those nations' interests to establish direct ties with the West if they want to hang on to more proceeds from their own natural resources. But claiming their fair slice of the Caspian oil fields is a more pressing need, and requires concessions and cooperation from Moscow and Tehran.

3. The five parties to the Caspian summit also declared that all nations in compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are entitled to nuclear technology for energy purposes. This brings us to the philosophical debate at the heart of the sanctions fight: Is Iran just not allowed to have nuclear weapons, or is it not allowed to have a nuclear apparatus of any kind, even if totally benign? The U.S. and its European allies have apparently decided that when it comes to Iran, the buck stops at enrichment. China and Russia, both nuclear powers chafing under decades of U.S. dominance, view things differently.

The IAEA has struck a deal that gives Iran time to come clean on its history with uranium. The West's impatience with that timeline only reinforces the impression of an itchy trigger finger. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated that "all options [are] on the table." Doesn't take a genius to figure out what that means, either.

China's and Russia's opposition to more sanctions has delayed a further round of Security Council talks for now. Putin appears to be using this time to make plain that unless Tehran blows something up, it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Russia and China would both like the world to know that the U.S. will soon no longer be the globe's lone superpower. That means new sets of rules, and for emerging nations in particular, a menu of protectorate powers that includes options other than the U.S. It almost goes without saying that President Bush's unpopularity and the Iraq war have hurt this country's attractiveness in that regard. If global politics were a high school gym class, the United States would be this guy.

"With a government of that nature, only a united front of nations will be able to exert enough pressure to make Iran abandon its nuclear aspirations," Gates said in his speech before the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs yesterday. You don't need us to point out the obvious irony in that statement.

Need a refresher on the deteriorating state of U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China relations? See our previous coverage here, here, here, here and here.

-JANE ROH

Posted at 1:36 PM
Posted to: Asia, Bush Administration, China, Europe, IAEA, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, Military, Nuclear Weapons, President Bush, Robert Gates, Russia, Terrorism, U.N., Vladimir Putin
Share via Add to del.icio.us Digg this post Share on Facebook Seed this post Fave this on technorati


 
Copyright 2009 by National Journal Group Inc.
600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.