As Iran and the IAEA managed to solve the few remaining continuous factors in ongoing nuclear talks and the prospect for a renewed nuclear deal began to look bright, Russia’s sudden demand for sanctions exemptions has dampened hope the a deal can be reached any time soon.
Linking its support for the deal to a guaranteed right to “free and fully-fledged trade and economic and investment cooperation and military-technical cooperation with Iran” in spite of the newly imposed sanctions on it, Iranian officials have been quick to criticize the last minute change especially after that the U.S. government has refused Russia’s demand as irrelevant. So what explains Russia’s change of heart and what does it mean for Tehran?
There are a number of explanations ranging from the effects of the deal on energy prices to the more long term prospect of Iran moving away from Moscow. To be able to avoid further deterioration of its economy and maintain its war efforts, Russia’s interest squarely lies in higher oil prices, and thus any development that could lower prices, however meagre, is to be prevented. A renewed nuclear deal with Iran would do just that. While Iranian oil will not replace that of Russia nor will it, in the short to medium term, reduce the EU’s dependency on the Russian energy, the addition of Iranian resources and Tehran’s ability to sell its oil on the global market freely will certainly reduce prices.
Equally important is Moscow’s fear of losing access to Iran’s lucrative market and the prospect of Tehran’s drifting away from its strategic orbit. Given its dire economic and military needs, Tehran is in no position to be picky about who it trades with or where it sources its needs from. Hence, and in the light of current sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine, it is safe to speculate that Russian officials are worried that Iran can be easily dissuaded from working with Russian entities by relatively generous offers of cooperation and investment from Europe.
Added to this is Iran’s wariness of sanctions reimposition on its banking system and its companies should they engage in commercial interactions with their Russian counterparts. This, in turn, will serve a severe blow to Moscow’s attempt at carving an exclusive commercial role for itself in Iran and might even dampen Iranian enthusiasm for the signing of a long term strategic pact.
War in Ukraine, it appears, has provided Iran with an unexpected and indeed unique geopolitical opportunity to reduce its over-reliance on Moscow and accelerate its integration into the global economy by banking on increased Western appetite for isolating Russia, curbing its influence, and, perhaps most importantly, reducing their own reliance on it. Such sentiments are best evidenced in Denmark’s resumption of pipeline construction connecting Poland to Norway, the EU’s courting of Azerbaijan for increased supply of gas to Europe, and the United States’ sudden engagement with Venezuela.
To grasp this opportunity, Tehran needs to prioritize pragmatism over idealism and push for a deal with or without Russia. Surely, such undertaking will neither be cost free nor easy. Given Moscow’s direct access to key centers of power, including the Supreme Leader’s office in Tehran, its critical role as operator in chief of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and its influence as the dominant player in Syria, Russia has the means and resources to not just avert pragmatic decision making but also punish Iran for pursuing its interests in defiance of Moscow.
Also at play is Ali Khamenei’s own deeply ingrained suspicious of the West as a reliable partner. However, the point remains that Iranian elites have been presented with a random, yet unique, historical opportunity to put national interests above factional politics and ideological sentiments. Whether or not they will seize it and give up on being “a cause” remains to be seen.
Nima Khorrami is a Research Associate at The Arctic Institute. His areas of interest and expertise lie at the intersection of geopolitics, infrastructure and technology. At The Arctic Institute, his research is mainly focused on Sweden’s Arctic policy, (digital) connectivity, and potential links between China, Russia, and US’s Arctic and Middle East policies.He is an alumni of Nottingham University and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Sept 7, 2018 (photo via khamenei.ir).
Top image credit: Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva attends task force meeting of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 24, 2024. REUTERS/Tita Barros
The city of Rio de Janeiro provided a stunningly beautiful backdrop to Brazil’s big moment as host of the G20 summit this week.
Despite last minute challenges, Brazil pulled off a strong joint statement (Leaders’ Declaration) that put some of President Lula’s priorities on human welfare at the heart of the grouping’s agenda, while also crafting impressively tough language on Middle East conflicts and a pragmatic paragraph on Ukraine.
Key financial issues such as reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs) also continued to make progress.
An organization of 19 states and two regional organizations (the European Union and African Union), the G20 is the high table of global economic governance, which came into its own with annual leaders’ summits in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It inevitably tackles the most prominent issues of security during these summits as well.
In a world racked by two major regional conflicts and several other crises, and with the tectonic power shift underway in Washington, this year’s G20 was shaping up to be a challenge. Although the United States was represented by President Joe Biden, the election of Donald Trump cast a long shadow over the proceedings. This was also the third G20 summit hosted by a Global South state (and South Africa will be the fourth next year), which has led to a concentrated push on “Southern issues” in these summits.
Early in the summit, Argentina indicated it may not sign on to taxing the ultra-wealthy, a cause President Lula had prioritized (though this would require domestic legislation within states to be implemented). Argentinian president Javier Milei’s prior meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago (the first foreign leader the president-elect has met since his reelection) triggered speculation that Argentina was potentially playing a spoiler. But cooler heads prevailed, and Argentina ultimately signed on to the joint statement. Along with another 81 nations, Buenos Aires also joined theGlobal Alliance against Hunger and Poverty inaugurated at Rio.
The G20 has historically focused on the more macroeconomic aspects of global economic governance. By placing hunger and poverty squarely within the grouping’s agenda, Brazil has introduced a more clearly human dimension to the elite body that can only help it gain more credibility across the world, especially across the Global South.
The summit’s achievement of consensus on the horror unfolding in the Middle East was also impressive. There has been a wide divide between the Global West and most of the Global South on Israel’s war on Palestine and Lebanon.
But the joint statement demanded “the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale,” strongly backed the “Palestinian right to self-determination,” a two-state solution, and a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza “in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2735.” On Lebanon, the statement, while not mentioning UNSC resolution 1701 (that has beenprioritized by the United States), called for a ceasefire that enabled “citizens to return safely to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line.”
The Russia-Ukraine war was a major point of contention at the 2023 New Delhi G20 summit and nearly torpedoed the 2022 Bali summit. But the delegates at Rio, perhaps chastened by serious obstacles now evident to maximalist positions on both sides of the war, agreed to a modest paragraph on the conflict.
It mainly cited the UN charter and various dimensions of “human suffering.” Preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity, a consistent point of international consensus on Ukraine, was only mentioned in a separate paragraph that addressed all global conflicts.
Despite Brazil’s current prioritization of the issue in international diplomacy, climate change was one area where the Rio summit could have shown greater muscle. For instance, there was no call to “transition away from fossil fuels,” a major commitment from last year’s COP. Sources in Rio told me that the overlapping dates with the ongoing COP29 at Baku added to the complications, as key climate negotiators of the various nations were holed up many time zones away.
But the challenge also symbolizes an overall weakening of international climate action and an increasing paralysis of the UNFCCC process.
On reforming international institutions, the New Delhi G20 summit provided asubstantive push on MDB reform, an issue the Global South has been pushing vigorously. The Rio process took the next step by producing a comprehensiveroadmap on the question. The joint statement also pushed for greater Global South inclusion in the UN Security Council by inclusion of “underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups (in) Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean”
Brazil’s success at Rio demonstrated that, in a world in which the forces of fragmentation are ascendant, the G20 remains the one forum that can still bring the world’s key states together in one room and engage with each other. That may sound like a low bar, but it is, in fact, an achievement.
As I wrote recently, even America Firsters in the United States will likelyfind the grouping useful due to its informality, lack of a permanent bureaucracy, and the ample opportunity for bilateral meetings with strong global leaders.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Ukrainian military returns home to Kiev from conflict at the border, where battles had raged between Ukraine and Russian forces. (Shuttertock/Vitaliy Holov)
A new Gallup study indicates that most Ukrainians want the war with Russia to end. After more than two years of fighting, 52% of those polled indicated that they would prefer a negotiated peace rather than continuing to fight.
Ukrainian support for the war has consistently dropped since Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022. According to Gallup, 73% wished to continue fighting in 2022, and 63% in 2023. This is the first time a majority supported a negotiated peace.
Throughout the country, Kyiv polled the highest in support of a continued fight with Russia at 47%, and the eastern regions of Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, and Zaporizhzhya all polled just 27% in support. Every region in the country polled below 50%.
Of the majority who supported a negotiated end, 52% agreed that “Ukraine should be open to making some territorial concessions as a part of a peace deal to end the war.” Additionally, of those polled who supported continuing the fight, 81% said that a victory should occur “when all territory lost between 2014 and now is regained, including Crimea.” But that number is down from 92% and 93% in 2022 and 2023 respectively.
The polling was conducted from August through October. During this period, President Volydmyr Zelensky ordered troops into Russia for the first time, taking a portion of Kursk in August, followed by a string of Russian battlefield successes in October in eastern Ukraine, and news that North Korean troops would soon be present on the battlefield, fighting for the Russians.
Even before these developments, however, the Ukrainian consensus around the war has been complex. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a poll in June, which found 46% of respondents supporting an end to the war if Russia withdrew from the territories occupied since 2022, and 50% supporting an end if Russia withdrew from everywhere, save Crimea.
“These realities of Ukrainian public sentiment sadly weren't widely known until recently, but they were knowable,” said the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos in a June article in The Nation. “This widespread sentiment in favor of peace provides President Zelenskyy with a powerful mandate to work with the incoming administration toward a shared strategy for reaching a negotiated settlement.”
In addition to the Ukrainian public, members of the military and government have also spoken in support of negotiation with Russia. Battery commander Mykhailo Temper told The Financial Times in an early October interview that “it’s quite hard to imagine we will be able to move the enemy back to the borders of 1991.”
According to FT, European diplomats noticed that Ukrainian officials were more open to agreeing to a ceasefire, even while Russian troops occupied parts of the country. One of the diplomats said, “We’re talking more and more openly about how this ends and what Ukraine would have to give up in order to get a permanent peace deal.”
As the war continues, life in Ukraine has gotten more difficult for the average citizen. A summer study from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 77% of respondents had experienced a loss of family members, friends, or acquaintances and two-thirds indicated that their wartime income was insufficient.
Additionally, an October report from Florence Bauer, head of the U.N. Population Fund in Eastern Europe, pointed to a population crisis in Ukraine, as 10 million (25% of the population) had either fled the country or been killed as a result of the conflict. In addition to the population loss, Bauer also highlighted a steep decline in fertility: “The birth rate plummeted to one child per woman – the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world.”
The Gallup report also found that more Ukrainians preferred that the European Union or the United Kingdom play a significant role in the peace process over the United States, with 70% preferring the EU and 63% the UK, compared to 54% supporting the United States under a hypothetical Harris presidency, and 49% under President-elect Trump.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Flag of Sweden and Russia on a concrete wall (Tomas Ragina via Shutterstock)
Experts say that some European countries are exaggerating perceived security threats with recent moves to push their respective publics to prepare for worst-case scenarios.
On Monday, the Swedish government began distributing a booklet that purports to help citizens prepare for war. This 32-page pamphlet advises citizens on digital security, how to seek shelter, and how to identify warning systems.
“We live in uncertain times,” the booklet reads. “Armed conflicts are currently being waged in our corner of the world. Terrorism, cyber attacks, and disinformation campaigns are being used to undermine and influence us.”
This comes shortly after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use American-made missiles to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. This move Russia’s foreign ministry said, would result in “an appropriate and tangible” response.
Sweden Defense Minister Pål Jonson singled out Russia as being a “principal threat to Sweden,” and said that “the risk of an attack cannot be excluded.” In response, Sweden will increase its defense spending by 10 percent starting next year, amounting to a boost to 2.4% of GDP.
Sweden also joined NATO in March of 2024 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The pamphlet reminds its citizens of its obligations. “Sweden is part of the military alliance NATO,” it reads.“The purpose of the alliance is that the member countries collectively will be so strong that it deters others from attacking us. If one NATO country is nevertheless attacked, the other countries in the alliance will aid in its defense.”
Other regional NATO members have taken similar measures, citizens of Norway and Finland — which also joined the alliance after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — have also received similar resources seemingly meant to prepare citizens in the case of "incidents and crises.”
However, experts say that these steps are unnecessary. “Russia has made no military deployments to threaten Finland or Sweden,” says Anatol Lieven, Director of the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program. “Given the way that the Russian army is tied down in Ukraine, the very idea is absurd. Nor has any Russian official threatened this.”
QI Research Fellow Mark Episkopos echoed this sentiment. “It is not reflective of the military realities of Russia-NATO relations,” he said, adding, “nor can it be taken as in any way suggestive of an impending Russia-NATO confrontation.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.