Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 02/10/2012

The Missiles of July

To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.
Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.

Email the Opinion Page Editor



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done the impossible. He's made U.S. President George W. Bush look intelligent. Just as the United States was closing the deal with the Czech Republic to station early warning radar there to help shoot down Iranian rockets, Iran fired off a test series of missiles, including the Shahab-3, capable of hitting targets 2,000 kilometers away. Bush went from looking pre-scientific to prescient.

But then it turned out that not all the Iranian missiles were launched successfully, and at least one was the product of computer-image manipulation. One wag quipped that the best defense against Iranian missiles might be Photoshop.

Meanwhile, in a coincidence that defies all odds, the Russian supply of oil to the Czech Republic experienced mysterious technical problems.

The result is a log-jam of separate threats that makes each one harder to assess. There is the Iranian threat to Israel, Europe and the United States. There is also the Russian energy threat to the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries that depend heavily on Russia for gas and oil, as well as the recent threat to put the Czech Republic and Poland in Russia's nuclear crosshairs. Finally, there is NATO's threat to Russia as perceived by the Kremlin.

Iranian-U.S. relations are conditioned by two ticking clocks. One measures the time until Iran actually possesses a nuclear weapon -- approximately two years. The other counts the days until the November election and the inauguration of a new U.S. president in January. Iran is the only element of the axis-of-evil problem that remains unsolved.

The United States won't attack Iran, but Israel might. The Times of London on July 13 reported that Bush has already offered implicit approval for an Israeli attack.

Israel rejects the intelligence reports that Iran suspended nuclear weapons work in 2003. Israel says that Iran is still working on nuclear weapons that will threaten Israel's very existence, and Iran must therefore be denied those weapons. But does Israel possess concrete proof that Iran is still working toward nuclear weapons, or is that just a chance Israel is unwilling to take? With its prime minister facing a possible indictment and bodies coming home to Israel from the miscalculated Lebanon campaign, is Israel in any position to strike Iran?

From the very beginning, Moscow has adamantly opposed the U.S. plan to station radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland. The Kremlin views that plan in the context of NATO expansion, which now essentially cordons Russia off from the Baltic to the Black Seas. "How would Washington feel if we placed interceptors in Cuba or Venezuela?" asked a source close to the Defense Ministry.

The Kremlin's response has been to threaten to target Poland and the Czech Republic with nuclear weapons. Russian officials have recently traveled to the Kaliningrad region to investigate the possibility of deploying such weapons there.

Would Russia really risk placing itself in such a hostile stance toward Europe while also further jeopardizing its reputation as a reliable energy supplier? Would the United States risk global conflict and recession by using Israeli surrogates to attack Iranian nuclear installations for reasons in which partisan politics play as much a part as strategic concerns? And how long will Iran confuse insolence with independence, creating an atmosphere of brinkmanship that may end costing it dearly?

There have been indications in recent days that the United States and Iran might begin talking. It might be the case that Israeli military exercises and the Iranian missile tests were simply signals and posturings, a prelude to negotiation. But those talks themselves may fail or just be a ruse to run out the clock on Bush. The next several months will be especially risky. A lot will be riding on accurate threat assessment and able diplomacy -- qualities that are always in short supply.

Richard Lourie is the author of "The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin" and "Sakharov: A Biography."

Also in Opinion

Putin Chasing Imaginary American Ghosts

Here we go again — another round of anti-Americanism from the Kremlin and state-controlled media. Blaming outside forces for Russia's woes has a long history in the country. The closer we get to the March 4 presidential election, the more intense the anti-American hysteria becomes.


Putting Everything In Its Place

Remember how I drove you all nuts with the innate propensity of Russian creatures and inanimate objects to stand, sit or lie? And how relieved you were when I moved on to other topics?
Well, I'm back.

Russia Gets Bad Rap Over Syria

As the violent standoff between Syria's security forces and armed opposition groups roils the country, the crisis has opened heated divisions at the United Nations Security Council.

A Propaganda Breakdown

Propaganda is not as powerful as many think. You might convince Russians that people in Egypt, Italy and Ukraine are paid or otherwise persuaded to join street protests, but you certainly cannot convince them that their own dissatisfaction with the government is the result of a foreign conspiracy.

Violent Reaction to Protests Could Bury Putin

Nonviolent revolutions do not always remain nonviolent, as the examples of uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria in the Arab Spring have shown. But peaceful movements for regime change often do succeed. For example, they have toppled illegitimate rulers, as with the post-Soviet Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and ended apartheid in South Africa.

Realpolitik Without Realism

People have been asking me all week why the Kremlin is so stubbornly supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. "Is Russia's support based solely on weapons contracts with Syria," they wonder, "or the Kremlin's desire to maintain its naval base at the Tartus port?"




Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook

print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read