Carnegie Moscow Center
In assessing this compromise agreement, we should consider all the possible alternatives. There are three: a new Gulf War with airstrikes against Iran. The second option is a nuclear-armed Iran. The third possibility: a strike against Iran, followed by an Iran with nuclear weapons, and then followed by another regional war—only this time, a nuclear one
The intensity of Moscow’s current contact with Tehran is unprecedented in Russia’s post-Soviet history. Yet despite the potential for improvement, there are serious obstacles that may hamper or even halt cooperation.
Unlike Tehran, Pyongyang fears external threats more than internal ones and may at most agree to freeze its nuclear program. Though this scenario is arguably the best one imaginable, political considerations in Washington make it all but impossible.
The tensions in Russian-Western relations will not lead to a direct collision between Russia and NATO. The current surge of mutual psychosis has no relation to the military security.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to lift a ban on the exports of the S-300 air defense missile system to Iran has caused shockwaves in the West and Israel. However, the Kremlin’s move was quite predictable with a rather clearly discernible logic behind it.
President Putin’s decision to lift the ban on the transfer of the S-300 air defense system to Iran signals a new departure for Moscow’s policy in the Middle East.
It will take Iran a long time to make up the ground it has lost in the South Caucasus since the end of the Soviet Union.
The prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran in the next few months, if executed rigorously and embedded in wider strategies for regional order and global nuclear order, can be a significant turning point.
A discussion about the heated politics of the Iran talks, Putin, and past U.S. secretaries of state.
The risk of a failure to reach a comprehensive deal with Iran is growing. However, a gradualist approach is the most realistic option for solving the nuclear issue.