There is only one "redline" in drawing up Iran's foreign relations with local, regional, and international powers, and that is "protecting the country's national interests and security" in a chaotic external environment. Accordingly, based on the principle of "neither East nor West", Islamic Republic of Iran, in addition to emphasizing its independence, has tried to pursue a "balanced and realistic foreign policy" while at the same time seeking to maximize national interests and reduce threats to the security and territorial integrity of the country in defining relations with each international actor.
However, Iran, due to its location in the heart of the "Heartland" region as a communication crossroads and a center of hydrocarbon resources, has always been at the focal attention of major global powers, especially the United States, Britain, and Russia. In this equation, sometimes the mentioned countries have held the "Tehran Conference" as allies without the permission of the then-Iranian government, and sometimes the scope of their competition has expanded so much that it has become a kind of zero-sum equation! Recently, the republishing of last year's statements by Mohammad Javad Zarif during the annual conference of the Tehran-based Iranian Political Science Association regarding the end of the era of long-term alliances and coalitions and mentioning the example of Russia's defense cooperation proposal to the United States in Europe has caused the Russian embassy to adopt a hasty approach and publish a text against the Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif, implicitly accusing him of "lying" and "ignorance." But what is the truth of the matter?
What is the reality?
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two currents, the “Westerners” and, the “Neo-Eurasians,” took over the administration of the Kremlin in Russia. Between 1991 and 2009, the new Russian rulers repeatedly tried to be accepted as part of Western civilization and even the European continent to benefit from its economic, technological, political, and security benefits. However, the United States, under President George W. Bush and later Barack Obama, decided to identify the new Russia, along with China, Iran, and North Korea, as revisionist countries in the international system and to present them in the US National Security documents as threats against Washington’s and Western countries’ interests. The emergence of color revolutions in Ukraine (Orange Revolution - 2004), Georgia (Rose Revolution - 2003), and in the following years the influence in Armenia to distance Yerevan from Moscow indicates the West's plan to approach the borders of the Commonwealth Independent States (CIS) area and encircle the new Russia.
Russia's military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine can be seen as a sign of Russian reaction to the approach of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and military facilities near Russia's historical borders.
In 2006, the Bush administration, with the help of Israel's "security creating" project, tried to portray Iran's missile capabilities as a threat not only to the countries of the West Asian region, but also as a direct threat to Berlin, Rome, Paris, and even London. Apart from the psychological operations, however, the reality was something else. The Americans intended to use the situation of the "fall of the Berlin Wall" to get closer to the Russian borders and deploy their so-called offensive-defensive weapons in the east of the European Continent. In 2006, the Americans began the first round of negotiations with the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary for the deployment of anti-missile systems. A few months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin, by presenting a security initiative, asked Washington to jointly define this missile defense system, which was ostensibly against Iran, between the United States, Europe, and Russia. The accuracy of this narrative can be confirmed by studying White House documents. The delicate and contemplating point in this narrative is that the Russians did not really intend to cooperate with the United States against Iran, but they were forced to go along with the "anti-Iran" notion to prevent the deployment of anti-missile systems near their borders.
In other words, to prevent the US from exploiting the wave of "Iranophobia" in the West, Russia had no choice but to temporarily and ostensibly side with it to thwart NATO's anti-Russian plan. This issue was forever sidelined after the US announced its opposition and was never raised again.
However there are many questions and ambiguities regarding the narration of former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and why it was published in the current circumstances, and at the same time, the Russian Embassy's reaction to this issue. Regardless of internal disputes regarding the legality or not of Zarif's presence as an advisor on strategic affairs to the 14th government, it seems that the essence of his speech during the annual conference of the Iranian Political Science Association was not fundamentally "anti-Russian", but rather, on the contrary, it was made in praise of pragmatism and a realistic view of national interests. The former Iranian Foreign Minister has defended the need to expand relations with Russia and China as part of Iran's balanced foreign policy on various occasions.
Despite historical ups and downs, relations between Tehran and Moscow are at the highest level of strategic coordination and cooperation. The signing of a comprehensive strategic agreement between Iran and Russia during the administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian's visit to Russia can be seen as a turning point for the beginning of a new chapter in relations between the two powers.
In the new era, the Russians should know that the Iranian government places great value on developing cooperation with its northern neighbor, but interfering in Iran's internal affairs or insulting former or current officials of the country is tantamount to crossing a "red line" that can break the wall of trust between the two countries and turn it into "pessimism" and "mistrust."
MA/6375797
Your Comment