The Iran drama continues. First, the BBC reports that Russia has lifted a ban on arms deals with Iran in response to the emerging nuclear deal:
Russia said the embargo was no longer necessary after an interim deal was reached on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Tehran and six world powers aim to reach a final deal by 30 June.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest did not give details of Mr Kerry’s phone call, but said that “coordination and unity” with nations like Russia had been key to reaching agreement with Iran. …
Russia agreed to sell the S-300 system in 2007, but blocked delivery in 2010 after the UN imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.
The S-300 is a surface-to-air missile system that can be used against multiple targets including jets, or to shoot down other missiles.
Russia is fighting to stay afloat in the face of low oil prices, so this represents an opportunity for cash – AlJazeera reports the deal is worth $800 million. This also lets Russia tweak the United States at the same time for its part in keeping oil prices low.
The Israeli government is quite unhappy, as The Jerusalem Post reports:
Russia’s decision to lift a ban on the sale of the advanced S-300 air defense system to Iran is a “direct result of the framework agreement reached in Lausanne,” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Tuesday, referring to the recent nuclear agreement between the P5+1 and Tehran.
Ya’alon said that a storm is raging around Israel, and that Iran is “continuing to arm itself, and arm others.” Moscow’s S-300 deal with Iran is “something we have been warning about even before the details [of the agreement] were concluded. It was clear, even then, that sanctions will be lifted, and that of course this will influence and strengthen the Iranian economy.”
Meanwhile, Ya’alon said, Iran continues to arm elements around Israel, particularly Hezbollah in the North, while supporting combat in Syria, and the Houthi-Shi’ite takeover of Yemen.
The headline at the conservative American website Breitbart.com says it all: “Countdown to Israel Attack: Russia Lifts Ban on Missile Sales to Iran“.
Meanwhile, Iran stands accused of backing the Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to AL Monitor’s Mohammad Ali Shabani:
If there is a Saudi-Iranian contest in Yemen linked to the Houthis, its roots can be traced back to late 2009. As Saudi forces attacked border regions controlled by the Houthis, talk of the latter’s alleged Iranian connection reappeared — with force. The reason was clear, at least in Worth’s view: “A ragtag militia had held out for months against the high-tech Saudi military, and even scored some humiliating punches against it. … Meanwhile, the Iranian media lionized the Houthis for their heroic ‘resistance.’” US State Department cables published by WikiLeaks expressed skepticism of the Houthis’ alleged connections to Iran at the time.
The motivations of many of these actors is not clear, even to journalists detailed to cover it; but it can be fascinating.
For Iran, then, is Yemen less about gaining an ally than it is about depriving the Saudis of an anti-Iran ally? Can the same be said about the Saudi calculation?
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the Yemen war is the regional response. A number of states were quick to commit forces to the Saudi offensive, surprisingly including Iran’s longtime ally Sudan. It was also reported that Saudi Arabia had requested that Pakistan commit physical and human assets to the military operations.
However, in past days, active diplomacy on the part of Iran appears to have undermined Saudi Arabia’s effort to regionalize the conflict. Shortly after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s trip to Tehran last week, which featured a joint Iranian-Turkish call for an end to the conflict in Yemen, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif traveled to Oman and Pakistan, holding talks focused on Yemen. Surprisingly, Pakistan, a strong ally of Saudi Arabia — which some even portray as Riyadh’s Plan B in case of an Iranian nuclear weapon — has refused any involvement in the Yemen war.
Pakistan has more than a few internal problems of its own. Being nuclear armed and faced with various horrifying insurgencies and massacres, their stability should be a desirable objective. I do not worry that Iranian fundamentalists would use nuclear weapons if they had them, as they’ve not shown themselves to be suicidal – and they know nuclear hell would rain down on them if they were to develop and use nuclear weapons. But the various insurgencies have displayed a disturbing trend towards suicide missions and belief in religious creeds that may lead them to use nuclear weapons. Technical problems might not permit them to actually use them, but they might try.
Google is good enough to supply this map:
