Russia, Iran hold common views on Syria

Sochi – It turned out to be a real treat that the speaker of the Iranian parliament who is on a visit to Russia, Ali Larijani (a key figure in the foreign and security policymaking in Tehran) flew down to Sochi from Moscow and joined President Vladimir Putin on the podium Friday evening to address the Valdai Club members and have a Q&A with us, lasting nearly three hours. Syria, Ukraine, missile defence and Russian-American relations — it could have been predicted that these would be the areas of interest for the audience, which was almost entirely western.

The ‘hot topic’ of course was Syria, given President Bashar al-Assad’s sudden visit to Moscow on Tuesday evening. (See my column in Rediff Putin make his move on Syria.) The salience that came through is that there is no daylight possible between the Russian and Iranian positions on Syria. Whereas, speculations were rife lately in the western (and Israeli) media that Russia and Iran are not on the same page regarding the future of Syria, and that it is a matter of time before the contradictions would surface.

Indeed, Russia and Iran are pursuing different objectives in Syria insofar as although both are waging a war against the Islamic State [IS] and other extremist groups, Tehran also has an agenda toward Syria in terms of that country being a frontline state in the so-called ‘resistance’ against Israel as well as in terms of Tehran’s nexus with the Hezbollah in Lebanon (plus of course the rivalry with Saudi Arabia.) Again, Russia would have geopolitical considerations in Syria, whereas Iran has its commitments as an Islamic republic to fulfill. Putin made the following specific points:

• The Russian military assesses that the air strikes in Syria have already yielded some results, although they are ‘insufficient’ and it will still be desirable if ‘all countries’ could work together in the fight against the terrorist groups.
• Russia hopes that Iran will join the FM level talks between the US, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. There cannot be a solution on Syria without Iran’s participation.
• The Syrian army is making progress and this will continue.
• Moscow is not planning any extension of military operations to Iraq. At any rate, the Iraqi government has not approached Russia so far. For the present, Russia is providing arms and intelligence to Iraq within the framework of the coordination centre that has been set up in Baghdad.
• Putin had asked Assad whether he’d be open to working with moderate rebel groups to fight the extremists; Assad promised to consider.

Larijani said:

• He “totally agreed” with Putin’s analysis on Syria.
• Iran regards that the Russian military intervention in Syria is legitimate.
• Compared to the operations against the IS for over the past year and more by the US-led coalition, the Russian operations have proved effective. In fact, Russia has achieved already “much more” than the US-led coalition ever could during the past 18 months.
• The IS transports its Iraqi oil in trucks moving in long convoys. “Don’t the Americans see these convoys?” The US failed to liberate any IS-held territory in Iraq. It is “playing games” with the IS and is virtually “handing over” Iraqi territories to the IS.
• The intelligence agencies of “some major powers” have secret dealings with the IS, providing them weapons and so on with a view to use them as instruments to advance their interests. (Putin also indirectly, but forcefully, alluded to this collusion between the US and the IS.) The IS gets huge financial support from regional states.
• “Long-term strategic bonds” are needed among “responsible countries” so that trust develops amongst them to tackle terrorism.

Both Putin and Larijani asserted that Syria’s unity must be preserved, since the division of the country will lead to protracted conflict. They also repudiated the demand by the US that Assad must quit. Putin said that “an impartial, unbiased election should decide”; the transition should be decided by the Syrian government and the opposition and Assad is ready for a dialogue with the opposition. Larijani endorsed Putin’s view that it is for the Syrian nation to decide on its government. He asked rhetorically how “countries which never had an elected president and which don’t even allow their women to drive motor cars can dictate” on Syria’s leadership.

A conspicuous thing was that Putin and Larijani were often unsparing in their criticism of the US policies (although there was, significantly, no condemnatory tone or rhetoric as such.) Clearly, a Russian-American reset is nowhere to be seen on the horizon yet — notwithstanding a palpable easing of tensions over Ukraine and the gradual acceleration of the ‘Normandy process’. As for Larijani, for sure, the Iran nuclear deal hasn’t lowered Iran’s wariness about the intentions of the ‘Great Satan’. (Larijani is a progeny of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.)

Unsurprisingly, the US’ missile defence system remains a major, seemingly insurmountable topic of discord between Moscow and Washington. Unless the US abandons the deployment of the missile defence system, which it has decided on, Russian-American relations will remain problematic. And, it is highly improbable that the next US president will go back on the planned deployment in Poland. Which means that by 2020, American cruise missiles will be deployed in East Europe. At one point, Putin said in a bitter tone that the US has “deceived” Russia on the missile defence issue.

Interestingly, the American delegates (who included the former ambassador to the Soviet Union and well-known expert on Cold War Jack Matlock, a formidable ‘Russia hand’ who interpreted the great conversation between Nikita Khrushchev and President John Kennedy and was a key protagonist later in the US diplomacy toward Moscow during the negotiations leading to the end of the Cold War in 1988-89 as well as an enviable witness to the Kremlin politics that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union with three insightful volumes on the subject to his credit), did some kite-flying as to the efficacy of resuming the disarmament talks. But Putin didn’t respond positively. Obviously, President Barack Obama whose eyes are scanning the skies for his presidential legacies, wants to chalk up some tangible achievement in disarmament and the Track II message was ‘Barkis is willing’. But Putin didn’t show interest — as of today, at least.

However, a thought that inter alia came to my mind was that the recent reported US’ overture to Pakistan on a nuclear deal was mentioned by more than one American delegate to the Valdai conference as a template of Obama’s disarmament agenda. South Asia was mentioned more than once as a region where there is galloping nuclear programs and Pakistan as the country with the maximum production of nuclear weapons going on at present. Certainly, the American interest in somehow slowing down/capping Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program became visible during the past five days’ conversations.

We in India somehow feel that Obama is doing Pakistan a favor by negotiating a nuclear deal. But it seems to me Pakistan isn’t going to be in tearing hurry to take Obama’s bait. Arguably, Pakistan could be finding itself in the same boat as Russia — a much weaker power in conventional forces than its main adversary, which would heavily depend on its nuclear deterrence to keep at bay the perceived belligerence of the rival. A TASS dispatch on Putin’s interaction with us is here.