Late on October 14 quite unexpected reports about an attempt on the life of President Putin allegedly prepared in Iran began to arrive. The start of the visit of Russian president to Teheran for the participation in the summit of the Caspian states was slated for October 15. The visit agenda includes talks with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reports about a potential act of terror were quite skilfully constructed from the viewpoint of information propaganda: leaks that allegedly quoted the sources of Russian special services abroad were arranged to Russian media, whereas Western news agencies broke the ”sensational” news with reference to “the Kremlin spokespersons” 1. An avid opposition web site creatively added to the original scarce information its own concoction recalling the ratings published by The Foreign Policy (published by CarnegiCenter) a year ago. The publication held it that president Vladimir Putin was the second on the list of global leaders who stood the threat of an attempt on their lives. The magazine tried to assure its readers that “Russian president’s stringent policies in Chechnya make Chechens and people in the preponderance of the Muslim world hate him. Chechens of Islamic extremists opposing Putin’s line can be potential organisers of an assassination attempt.” 2
Iran’s Foreign Ministry immediately denounced these reports stating they were totally devoid of any foundations, adding that the psychological warfare waged by the West was going on also with an eye to splitting Iran and Russia.
I tend to think that the assessment of Iran’s Foreign Ministry is not a far cry from reality. There is evidence that Western politicians feel edgy about the possibility of rapprochement (a quite natural one) of Moscow and Teheran, especially following the aborted Moscow’s initiatives of the joint use of the Gabala radar in Azerbaijan. Offering that to the Bush administration the Kremlin took chances of breaking its relations with Iran, and more than that, frustrating the sympathies of the entire Arab Middle East, if not the whole Islamic world to this country. By way of answering the initiatives, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates brought to Moscow fuzzy general declarations – and quite clearly expressed intentions to continue the construction of a third positional region in Poland and the Czech Republic. Both sides are quite outspoken about the aborted attempt to find an agreement. Earlier there were reports about a “harsh” conversation in New York that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and RF Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had about exactly the “Iranian problems.” The gist of differences is allegedly in Moscow’s unwillingness to join the American show playing the role of “a good detective” with the “bad detective” Washnigton. In the current complicated situation president Putin’s visit to Iran can have the significance of a breakthrough, rather than a regular event. Moscow and Tehran both need negotiating to restore the faltered trust in each other and a closer economic, and possibly political and military and technical cooperation. It is expedient to reduce to the lowest possible degree the negative effect of external forces on the bilateral trade and economic relations as well as take joint and multilateral measures in order to enhance security of both our countries. The situation, whereby Russian nuclear specialists admit in private conversations that Moscow is putting off the start of the Busher nuclear power plant under U.S. pressure3, cannot be regarded normal. Given there are signs of such an approach mutually advantageous cooperation cannot be installed. The situation must be radically changed. In conditions of U.S. aggressive lobbying of its interests only heads of the Russian and Iranian states that have had long historic ties, can provide a corresponding impetus in full realisation of the geopolitical role played by both countries in ensuring security in Eurasia.
There is much in common in their corresponding situations both Iran and Russia are facing at present, including the essence of threats and challenges to them4.
A new war against Iran can be unleashed under any pretext other than its factual or mythical “nuclear ambitions”. It can be much more prosaic, linked with its oil. This has become more evident after the recent admission of Alan Greenspan concerning the genuine cause of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Both Russia and Iran control vast oil, gas and other natural resources. The situation will give more headaches to our “partners” in what is known as the “anti-terrorist coalition”, which is without any exaggeration “a myth at its finest.”
Significant agreements, both formal and non-formal can be achieved during the Russian president’s visit to Iran. The interested forces that are trying “to go bearish”, assuring the public that Vladimir Putin’s visit to Iran is a “risky” and an empty one, fully realize that. In reality things are exactly opposite: Moscow’s lack of activities in regard of “the Iranian issue” is a great risk of creating illusions to its “partners” across the Atlantic.
____________________1 http://www.regnum.ru/news/899184.html
2 http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=47125043B06D6. Leaving aside the lexicon and phraseology of the representatives of this U.S. foundation so aggressively acting in Moscow. We have grown accustomed to it. Let us just note that the arbitrary “linkage” of Iran with “Chechens” is used to discredit Tehran’s official position on Chechnya (which, from the vantage point of Russia’s interests is advantageously different from that shared by the USA and a number of European states).
3 V.Yadukha. The Busher Stalemate. The USA Overshadows the Caspian Summit.// RBC Daily, Oct. 10,2007.
4 This is true also of the area of domestic politics: last week Iran was swept by a wave of students’ protests, whereas Russia is entering a potentially unstable pre-election period.
