How the land lies…

Israel-Russia relations put to the test as ‘Arctic Sea’ episode takes an intriguing turn

A mystery regarding a missing cargo ship has become the latest suggestion of a growing covert war going on between Israel and Iran, involving a variety of actors connected with both. What seemed initially as the latest piracy story to hit the news quickly moved into something quite different, and now resembles an elaborate plot from a James Bond movie.

The Maltese-flagged Arctic Sea and its 15 Russian crew mysteriously vanished in July days after leaving Finland, carrying, according to its official manifest, a cargo of timber to Algeria. It was found on August 16 off the coast of West Africa, with the Russian navy announcing that it had captured the hijackers and rescued the crew. Eight men were later charged by the Russians with hijacking and piracy.

But now it is widely alleged that the Arctic Sea was carrying to Iran S-300 missiles that were detected by Israel, though this continues to be vociferously denied by Russia, including publicly by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who called the media speculation “groundless”. Reports from the US to the UK to Israel claim that Israel was linked to the interception of the missing cargo ship, with the BBC stating they have been so advised by “a senior figure close to Israeli intelligence”.

The Israeli source told the BBC that the piracy story was a cover and that Israel told Moscow it was giving officials time to stop the shipment before making the matter public. The source said Israel had told Moscow it knew the ship was secretly carrying a Russian air defence system destined for Iran. He also promised a “transparent” investigation into the disappearance of the ship.

Soon the plot had thickened further. Reports began surfacing in Israel that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu had flown to Moscow to meet the Russian leadership personally about the crisis. Israeli government spokesmen were quick to deny the story, with the official story put out that he was visiting a military facility.

The story, however, was not to go away, and today, remarkably, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor confirmed that Netanyahu had indeed visited Russia earlier in the week. Meridor declined to elaborate on the reasons for the visit, its covert nature, or the affair in general.

“He was in Russia. It created some controversy about the way it was published in Israel,” Meridor told Reuters in Geneva, on the sidelines of a conference about global issues hosted by Britain’s International Institute for Strategic Studies. “The content was not discussed in public. Some things are better discussed (privately),” added Meridor, who is also Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy.

The initial government denial of the trip has thus brought accusations in the Israeli media of official disinformation, if not outright lies. The secret nature of the Netanyahu Moscow visit, especially as attempts were made to deny it has occurred, has only intensified debate surrounding the growing covert and behind-the-scenes conflict between Israel and Iran, and whether this is the precursor for actual military conflict between the two.

Most specifically it has highlighted the extent to which Israel is willing to act around the globe to limit Iran’s military development, and whether military action may be in the offing. And more often than not — as has been the case in the past, as regards Hamas and Hizbollah weapons deliveries and smuggling — in past months it has been shipping and maritime transportation that has become the focus of Israeli efforts to stop the arming of its enemy.

The Russia Factor

Concerns about Russia, a key power that has active relations with Israel but growing economic, military and strategic with Iran, are also increasing in Israel. As was noted in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz as the Arctic Sea intrigue developed, “The air defence missiles issue has been a sore point in relations between Moscow and Israel, which has lobbied Russia to pull away from selling them to Iran”. And this week, as the Arctic Sea/missile shipment story developed, the Russians also dismayed many in the US and Israel by relieving pressure on Iran in regards to its nuclear programme.

On Wednesday (September 9) Iran submitted long-awaited ‘proposals’ to a group of six global powers leading the efforts to end the long-standing and worsening impasse over Iran’s nuclear activity, the ‘P+5 Group’ comprising the UK, China, France, Russia, the US and Germany. Yet the proposals made no mention whatsoever of the nuclear issue, Iran declaring the issue ‘closed’.

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over global challenges.

Yet despite this Russia was quick — very quick — to welcome the Iranian proposals. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared, “Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers my impression is there is something there to use … The most important thing is (that) Iran is ready for a comprehensive discussion of the situation, and what positive role it can play in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.”

He also made it crystal clear that Russia would not be supportive of attempts to impose further sanctions on Iran via the UN Security Council, a measure the US and European states are actively investigating.

“Some of the sanctions under discussion, including oil and oil products, are not a mechanism to force Iran to co-operate. They are a step to a full-blown blockade and I do not think they would be supported at the UN Security Council,” he said.

The US and Israel

This view is not one shared by the US or Israel, and there are frustrations in America that the Russian stance — and similar concerns in China — are having the effect of giving Iran confidence that there is limited pressure on them to act, and that if they continue to stall there will be limited international consequences.

US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley stated Thursday, following the release of the Iranian proposals and the Russian response — “Iran reiterated its view [when it released the proposals] that, as far as it is concerned, its nuclear file is closed. That is certainly not the case. There are many outstanding issues.”

The proposals suggest to most that Iran is still stalling, and still remains on its path to developing a nuke, yet with Russia and China taking a different view such stalling may well continue for some time yet. A point emphasised only on Friday by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — the man who may soon be leading Russia again — warned against any military action, saying that any attack on Iran would be “very dangerous, unacceptable” and would lead to “an explosion of terrorism”.

Talking, however, remains on the cards. President Obama warned earlier in the week that if Iran did not respond to his offer of dialogue in return for it making meaningful steps to alleviate fears over its nuclear programme by the end of the month, new US sanctions would follow.

And today the US stated that, unhappy as they are that Iran’s offer “does not address our nuclear concerns”, they would nonetheless be open to Iran’s offer of “comprehensive and constructive negotiations”.

US state department spokesman PJ Crowley stated that Iran had show that it was “open to dialogue”, although he added, “The [proposal] paper itself does not address our nuclear concerns.

“We will seek an early meeting and we will seek to test Iran’s willingness to engage … If we have a meeting, we’re going to bring up the nuclear issue, and we’ll see how Iran responds to that.”

“We’re not talking for talking’s sake,” presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs added. “This [the nuclear issue] may not have been a topic they wanted to be brought up, but I can assure you it’s a topic that we’ll bring up.

“The Iranians have a responsibility to the international community to walk away from their illicit nuclear weapons program. That’s what the focus from our side will be in these talks, and that’s our goal.”

IAEA

This week’s events were a culmination of a fortnight of international developments in regards to the Iran nuclear crisis, that began with an unusually open and bitter spat at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international community’s nuclear watchdog.

In advance of the gathering, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner accused the IAEA of having delayed publication of “important” annexes about enrichment in its most recent report, an accusation formally backedup by Israel. In effect, both stated that by not including this information, the report understated the IAEA’s own internal assessments of the advancement of Iran’s nuclear enrichment efforts.

At the opening of the regular IAEA governors’ meeting in Vienna, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei publicly fought back. “I am dismayed by the allegations of some member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless.

“Such attempts to influence the work of the (IAEA’s non-proliferation inspectorate) and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of … The most important thing is the IAEA Statute and should therefore cease forthwith.”

But a French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman insisted that the French government had proof that key information was left out of the latest IAEA report, their spokeswoman Christine Pages stating Monday (7 September), “France attended a technical briefing at the agency. All of this information was not reflected in the report.”

And this was all despite ElBaradei himself issuing a limited condemnation of Iran in his address to the meeting. He called the situation between Iran and the IAEA a “stalemate”, and cited areas where the IAEA was unhappy about Iran’s activities and lack of compliance — an inquiry into weaponisation blocked by Iran; its refusal to suspend enrichment as demanded by the UN Security Council, and its failure to adopt an IAEA protocol permitting inspections.

He also urged Tehran to “substantially re-engage” with the IAEA.

This public fight and the continued disagreements in the international community regarding Iran and its nuclear programme, do not bode well. For if the requisite pressure does not come from the international community, Iran will continue to be able to feel comfortable that it can do as it pleases without any real consequences, and to assert, as it is doing now, that the subject is closed. And this can only make the ‘last resort’ — i.e. military action from Israel, the US, another party, or one or more of them in unison — more likely and more imminent.

It’s a point the US, Europe and Israel will be making most strongly to Russia and China in the weeks and months to come — help us stop their nuclear weapons programme through talks now, or risk something a lot more messy occurring at some point in the not too distant future.

The Iran nuclear crisis has gathered pace once more.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here