It feels like the last couple of days, each morning bought a new story about the Iranian nuclear program. Is Iran cooperating or not? How did their meeting with the IAEA go? What are the Iranian leaders saying about the ElBradei deal? How is the United States responding to Iran’s equivocation?

Here is a quick recap of Iranian nuclear program saga starting from October 26, 2009:

October 26, 2009, Monday:

Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency inspected the newly discovered Iranian uranium enrichment site near Qom on Sunday.  Iran’s Mehr news agency said the UN team is expected to make “several visits” to the plant during their three-day stay.

But the big headline was that Iranian leaders failed to respond in time to meet the deadline for the deal on Friday. Iranian disquiet stems from their fear that the United States is cheating it out of nuclear fuel. Though Iran is not the only country with concerns.  As the New York Times reported the U.S. administration is worried that Iran is trying to prolong the administration’s offer of engagement to buy time for a secret nuclear weapons program.

October 27, 2009, Tuesday:

Iranian nuclear program received a boost when the Turkish Prime Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, stated that Iran’s nuclear program “is an energy project with peaceful, humanitarian purposes.” Al Jazeera reported that Erdogan, who arrived in Tehran for bilateral talks on Tuesday, accused Western nations of hypocrisy in criticizing Iran’s uranium enrichment program while remaining silent on Israel, which is believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

October 28, 2009, Wednesday:

Wednesday bought some good news from the Obama administration’s point-of-view. Reports emerged that Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has stated that Iran could endorse a United Nations deal for it to send uranium abroad for processing for peaceful uses, the first official indication that Tehran could respond positively to the agreement. The Reuters quoted Mottaki as saying “In order to obtain this fuel, we might spend money as in the past or we might present part of the fuel that we have right now, and currently do not need, for further processing.” He said Iran would announce its decision “in the next few days.”

October 29, 2009, Thursday:

Thursday bought some mixed news for President Obama. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his intention to cooperate with world powers on its nuclear program: “We welcome cooperation on nuclear fuel, power plants and technology and we are ready to cooperate.”

But he did vow that the Iranian government will not retreat retreat “one iota” from Iran’s nuclear rights. He also expressed concerns about the deal: “Iran needs to receive guarantees that the nuclear fuel for Tehran’s research reactor will in fact be supplied. Iran as the buyer of the nuclear fuel should determine how much fuel it requires to purchase.”

Meanwhile, international inspectors visiting Iran’s nuclear facility near the city of Qom returned to Vienna today.

October 30, 2009, Friday:

By Friday though the debate about Iranian Nuclear Program headed back to stalemate.  Iran announced that they are rejecting a key element of the draft atom deal.  United Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh presented a case for Iran to ship itsuranium out in batches and swap it for new material continuously, rather than shipping it in one batch by the end of the year, as proposed by Obama administration.  This suggestion will be rejected by the United States and its allies as the new plan will not significantly reduce Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

The United States and its allies are urging Iran to adopt the ElBaradei’s plan, under which Iran would transfer about 75 percent of its known 1.5 tons of LEU in one shipment to Russia by the end of this year for further enrichment. The material would then go to France to be converted into fuel plates. These would be returned to Tehran to power the U.S.-built reactor, which produces radio-isotopes for cancer treatment.

Iran has also refused to commit to another meeting to discuss its nuclear program

October 31, 2009, Saturday:

On Saturday, Iranian rhetoric was again impugning the nuclear deal. The Reuters reported that senior Iranian lawmakers have voiced opposition to a U.N.-drafted nuclear fuel deal- casting further doubt on a proposal aimed at easing international tension over Tehran’s atomic activities.

“We are completely opposed to the proposal on delivering uranium with 3.5 percent enrichment in exchange for uranium with 20 percent enrichment. There is no guarantee they would give us fuel with 20 percent enrichment in exchange for our delivered LEU,” said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee.

November 1, 2009, Sunday:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminded Iran that the United States and its allies had limited patience: “We are willing to work toward creative outcomes, like shipping out the low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed outside of Iran, but we are not going to wait forever. Patience does have finally its limits and it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community and accepting this deal would be a good beginning.”

November 2, 2009, Monday:

By Monday, Iran was once again sending positive signals. Iranian officials stated that it has not rejected a U.N.-backed plan aimed at limiting the country’s ability to make nuclear weapons. Earlier last week, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said his government will persist with its nuclear program despite international concerns. Asked if this meant Tehran has rejected the deal, Iranian foreign minister Mottaki simply said, “No.”

However, Iranian officials did ask for a technical review of the plan designed to restrain its potential for making a nuclear bomb.

November 3, 2009, Tuesday:

On Tuesday,  headlines were once again dominated by Hillary Clinton. She urged the Iranian leadership to fully accept the deal which had already been agreed to in principle, saying “we are not altering it”. Al Jazeera quoted Clinton as saying “This is a pivotal moment for Iran. Acceptance fully of this proposal … would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to co-operate with the international community.”

And the saga continues….

European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana, left, with Irans chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili as they arrive for talks over Irans nuclear ambitions at a villa in Genthod, near Geneva, on Thursday.

Yesterday was a very historical day as the Iranian delegation met with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia in Geneva.  It is a little too soon to judge the efficacy of these talks, but there has been some positive news.  As the New York Times reported, Iran has agreed to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes.  While the talks are being hailed as a “constructive beginning”, there is still plenty of doubt regarding Iran’s intention to deliver on these promises.  President Obama reiterated these doubts in his remarks on the meeting of P5+1 with Iran:

This is a constructive beginning, but hard work lies ahead.  We’ve entered a phase of intensive international negotiations.  And talk is no substitute for action.  Pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled.  We have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, but our patience is not unlimited.

Since the big question on everyone’s mind is how we should proceed on Iran, here is some advice given on this topic by the experts:

Iran Sanctions: Who Really Wins?

By Djavad Salehi-Isfahani

In this Brookings analysis, Isfahani averred that the emerging consensus in Washington that new, “crippling” sanctions could persuade Iran to change its nuclear policy is based on false premises.  He points out that it is a specious argument that the existing sanctions are largely responsible for the weak state of Iran’s economy and the weak economy helped fuel the popular discontent that boiled over in Tehran’s streets this summer.

How to Press the Advantage With Iran

By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

In this New York Times Op-Ed, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett opine that if President Obama seriously believes that a relationship with Iran is profoundly in our national interest, then he needs to take the step that President Richard Nixon took with his diplomatic opening with China.  Obama should “demonstrate acceptance of the Islamic Republic, even as problematic Iranian behavior continued in the near term.”  Leverett and Leverett argue for a pragmatic approach that would require:

INSTEAD of pushing the falsehood that sanctions will give America leverage in Iranian decision-making - a strategy that will end either in frustration or war - the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.

On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation - something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative - that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts.

Some may say that this is too high a price to pay for improved relations with Iran. But the price is high only for those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged American interests in the Middle East and made our allies there less secure.

Over a Barrel: Why Iran Sanctions Won’t Work

By Pamela Falk

In this CBS report, Falk argues that Iran’s vast oil reserves will undermine Obama administration efforts to increase U.N. sanctions.  Due to China’s energy needs, it is unlikely that the Security Council will ban international investment in Iran’s energy sector, ban insurance for Iran’s oil tankers, and ban Iranian oil imports.  The New York Times also has a great article on this topic: China’s Ties With Iran Complicate Diplomacy by Michael Wines.

How Badly Would Sanctions on Gas Imports Hurt Iran?

By Vivienne Walt

In this Time’s article, Walt shows that sanctions on gas imports will not be effective.  She points out that Iran has been preparing for these sanctions, and is importing far more than it was using.  Intelligence consultancy Stratfor noted last week that Iran has probably stockpiled at least three months’ worth of gasoline.  Furthermore, it is hard to predict if Chinese and Malaysian companies would bend to the same pressures that Western firms have to stop exports to Iran.  Also, in order to cut its local consumption, Iran can end its gas subsidies.  Iran can also boost his gas supplies by cracking down on rampant smuggling. About 10.6 million gal. (40 million L) of gas are smuggled out of Iran daily to neighboring countries like Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Turkey, where it is sold at higher prices.

Lastly, as Walt points out all these efforts are stopgap methods to buy time, which is all Iran really needs to do.  Chinese firms and, until recently, India’s Reliance, have been working on massive upgrades of the country’s refineries.  According to the British ambassador to Iran until 2006, John Dalton, “If Iran can maintain its refinery upgrades, they’ll be self-sufficient in gas by 2013.”

Photo taken from the New York Times.

Last week ended on a huge Iran shocker: discovery of a new enrichment plant near the city of Qom.  This week is also starting with a bang: Iran has tested two long-range missiles which defense analysts say are capable of hitting Israel or US bases in the Gulf region.  The Iranian Labour News Agency reported that the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) successfully held the advanced military exercise on Monday.

Iran, who is seen as a miscreant, has only reinforced that belief with these two acts.  Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said that the tests were consistent with the “provocative nature with which Iran has acted on the world stage.”  France also condemned the tests as a “provocation”.

These acts have also renewed calls for harsher sanctions.  The New York Times reported that the Obama administration is trying to assemble a package of harsher economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program that could include a cutoff of investments to the country’s oil-and-gas industry and restrictions on many more Iranian banks than those currently blacklisted.  The administration also is seeking to build a broader coalition of partners for sanctions so that it may still be able to act against Iran even if China and Russia were to veto harsher measures proposed in the United Nations Security Council.

But as I have written before sanctioning Iran is not the right answer.  Sanctions do not work, they hurt the civil society in that country, and most importantly, sanctions hurt ordinary people.

I was glad to see my beliefs reinforced in Roger Cohen’s Op-ed, published yesterday in the New York Times.  In The U.S.-Iranian Triangle, Cohen opines:

Iran has proved resilient to sanctions, having weathered them in one form or another since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. And the political upheaval there creates a new complication: Western countries do not want to impose measures that deepen the misery of ordinary people, because it could help the government and strangle the fragile protest movement.

Cohen also presents an excellent suggestion on how to approach talks with Iran: we need to broaden the context.

Burns must seek to open a parallel bilateral U.S.-Iran negotiation covering at least these areas: Afghanistan and Iraq (where interests often converge); Hezbollah and Hamas (where they do not); human rights; blocked Iranian assets; diplomatic relations; regional security arrangements; drugs; the fight against Al Qaeda; visas and travel.

Isolated, nuclear negotiations will fail. Integrated, they may not. Iran’s sense of humiliation is rooted in its America complex; its nuclear program is above all about the restoration of pride. Settle the complex to contain the program. Triangulate. Think broad. Think E.U., not Versailles.

Dialogue is still the best way forward.

All the newspapers are buzzing with one news: the disclosure of a clandestine uranium enrichment plant in Iran.  Here is President Obama’s statement on the Iranian nuclear facility that he made along with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown  and French President Sarkozy today at the G-20 meeting.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning.  We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements.  We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime.  These rules are clear:  All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them.  That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure.  And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities.  As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program.  Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people.  But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.  Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow — endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.

It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations.  We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-1 negotiations.  Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.

And that’s why there’s a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany.  At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.

To put it simply:  Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations.  We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands.  But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

The Newsweek has published an article revealing that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program.  According to the article:

U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s “Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities” in November 2007.

The new information puts the U.S intelligence agencies in odds with its European and Israeli counterparts.  As the articles notes, “Officials of Israel’s conservative-led government have been delivering increasingly dire assessments of Iran’s nuclear progress and have leaked shrill threats about a possible Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.” Moreover, German court documents released earlier this year by the Germany’s foreign intelligence service, known as the BND, reported in 2008 that “development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003.”

As October 1^st draws near, this new information can play a positive role and help “encourage the White House’s efforts to continue to try to engage Iran in diplomatic dialogue, including discussion of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Mark your calendars. October 1^st is the date when Iran and the five UN Security Council members plus Germany will hold talks about the Iranian nuclear program.  The State Department spokesman Ian Kelly announced yesterday that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns - who was also at the Geneva talks - would represent the United States.  In the press briefing, Ian Kelly told the reporters that “the point of all this is to sit down with the Iranians and explain directly, face-to-face, the choice that they have.  And we’ve explained what that choice is.  They have - they can go down one path which leads to the - to integration with the international community, or they can continue down another path which leads to isolation.”  The full press briefing can be found here.

After eight years of Bush’s “axis of evil” approach, Obama’s promise of engagement with Iran is a welcome break.  Though I do realize that there are plenty of people who disagree with my sentiment (all you have to do is read the Wall Street Journal to realize that).  Iran to them is an intractable country, which can only be set right through tough sanctions or even military strikes.  But these people miss an important point: sanctions and threat of military strike only vitiates the effort to end the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Let’s first examine the military strike option.  The truth of matter is Iranian military is highly vulnerable- they know it and we should know it too.  The RAND document, Dangerous But Not Omnipotent Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East, shows that while Iran might have strong asymmetric doctrinal ambitions, Iran fields a weak conventional force:

Iranian leaders have long trumpeted their shift to an asymmetric strategy of homeland defense that would exact intolerable costs from an invader. Much of this rests on notions of “mosaic defense,” partisan warfare, and popular mobilization of Basiji auxiliaries. On the whole, however, Iran’s military remains mired in conventional doctrine because of bureaucratic inertia in procurement and frequent infighting between the Revolutionary Guard and conventional forces. Most of Iran’s military equipment is out of date and poorly maintained, and its ground forces suffer from both personnel and equipment shortages. With its outdated aircraft, the Iranian Air Force, in particular, is no match for its neighbors and certainly not for U.S. airpower (p. xvii).

The Iranian regime know that they cannot win against the United States in a conventional war.  But this is where the nuclear weapons make a difference.  A nuclear weapon will help change the equation and make it less likely that the United States will strike Iran or conduct a war against them.  Each time we threaten Iran with military strikes, we are reinforcing their belief that a nuclear weapon is necessary to protect Iran.  If a military strike was to happen, their fears will be confirmed and they will have no incentive to stop their nuclear weapons program.

As noted Political Scientist John Mearsheimer says, “Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will require Washington to address Iran’s legitimate security concerns and to refrain from overt threats.”  This is where diplomacy can play a constructive role.

Plus diplomacy is more effective than sanctions.  The logic behind supporting sanctions is blockading Iran’s foreign supplies of gasoline will lead to an increase in the price per gallon at the pump, which will hopefully cause the Iranian people to rise up and demand a halt to Iran’s nuclear program.  But as Jon Cole points out in his blog, sanctions do not work, with Iraq being the prime example:

Sanctions on Iraq just weakened civil society and cast down the country to fourth world status, killing some 500,000 innocent infants and toddlers, while signally failing to remove the regime. In fact, destroying civil society has the effect of bolstering the state, especially when it is an oil state.

The uprising of the Iranian people in the aftermath of the election fraud shows the vibrancy of the Iranian civil society.  As the Iranian regime brutally represses their rights, it would be a tragedy if we in the West were to help crush their voices as well.  Robert Naiman also makes a similar point in this Huffington Post article, Mr. Mousavi’s Gas Embargo on Iran?, showing how sanction against Iran can be used by the Iranian regime to tarnish Mousavi’s  opposition campaign and help fuel anti-Americanism among the ordinary Iranian citizens:

If anyone in the U.S. really cares about the fate of the political opposition in Iran, as opposed to simply seeing it as a temporarily useful tool for attacking the Iranian government, imposing a gas embargo on the country as punishment for enriching uranium is a surefire way to kick the Iranian political opposition in the stomach. What is Mr. Mousavi supposed to say, when reporters ask him what his position is on the gas embargo, as they surely will? If he says he supports the embargo, he may be politically toast in Iran: every bad thing that happens to Iranians as a result of the embargo will be blamed on Mousavi by the Iranian government. If he says he is against it, then he’s saying that the signature Iran policy of the West is a policy to attack Iranian civilians; that’s going to reinforce the government’s case that Iran doesn’t have the luxury for democracy and human rights because it’s under external threat. The more such an embargo bites, the more the dynamic of Iranian politics would be: who hates the U.S. the most? I thought that was the dynamic that we were trying to get away from.

Let’s also not forget the human rights dimension of the effect of sanctions.  As Patrick Disney, Acting Policy Director at the National Iranian American Council, points out in his article, When All You Have is a Hammer, Every Iran Problem Looks Like a Nail, it is not the government that will suffer, but rather ordinary people:

What better way to show our support than by casting the common man into financial ruin? Think about who suffers the most in the US when gas prices rise due to shocks–it’s the poor. Why would it be any different in Iran? Certainly the elite won’t suffer the brunt of these sanctions–the Revolutionary Guards have been getting rich off smuggling sanctioned goods into the country for years. And with Russia and China ready to provide anything the US won’t sell to Iran, the mullahs will surely find a way to fill their gas tanks. So that will just leave the poor and middle class to suffer.

For too long Iran and the United States have continued their execrative policy of portraying each other as being inimical.  As such, I am glad that Obama, instead of following Bush’s myopic foreign policy, is reaching out.  Talks on October 1^st are a step forward.

Today’s newspapers are all buzzing with one news: Russia has stated that sanctions against Iran are unlikely.  Newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov on Thursday as saying Moscow wouldn’t back any new rounds of tough sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council.  “I do not think those sanctions will be approved by the United Nations Security Council,” Mr. Lavrov said at a gathering of experts on Russia.  Mr. Lavrov also repudiated U.S. and Israeli warnings of urgency.  If Iran tried to enrich uranium to weapons grade, he said, it would have to reconfigure its cascades of centrifuges, a move that would immediately be picked up by cameras monitored by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.  There would be time to respond, he said.

Mr. Lavrov further stated that he believed that a new set of proposals that Iran gave to European nations on Wednesday offered a viable basis for negotiations to end the dispute.  “Based on a brief review of the Iranian papers, my impression is there is something there to use. The most important thing is Iran is ready for a comprehensive discussion of the situation, what positive role it can play in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region,” Mr. Lavrov said.

Iran’s package of proposal, however, failed to impress the United States and other Western nation, as it did not even address Iran’s continuing uranium enrichment.  The five-page Iranian proposal, hand-delivered to foreign diplomats in Tehran on Wednesday, has not been made public, but a copy was obtained by ProPublica and is available on their website.  Here is a description of the proposal by ProPublica:

It is also similar to past proposals in that it begins with a flowery recitation of Iran’s view of the world and its place in it. One half of the proposal is a preamble that borrows, in part, from themes included in Obama’s April speeches on nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace. It also emphasizes Iranian national sovereignty and takes a veiled swipe at critics of Iran’s contested June presidential election.

The second half of the proposal outlines three broad areas for discussion, including political and security issues, international issues and economic issues.

While there is no mention of Israel, the political security section wades into the prospects for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal welcomes efforts “to draw a comprehensive, democratic and equitable plan to help the people of Palestine to achieve all-embracing peace.” Iran’s long-stated policy has been to reject Israel’s right to exist.

The Iranian offer also seeks talks on issues that have become increasingly problematic for Iran’s national security, such as drug trafficking, illegal migration and organized crime. Iran has long struggled to stem the flow of drugs and people entering its borders from Afghanistan and now from Iraq.

The Iranian proposal includes seven items for discussion under the theme of international issues, including “putting into action real and fundamental programs toward complete disarmament and preventing development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical” and biological weapons.

So is there anything that can be done to change Russia’s mind?  Probably not.  As the Economist points out Russian economy is in a sticky situation:

Russia’s reserve fund, built up over several years thanks to high oil prices, will shrink to US$52bn in the third quarter of this year from a peak of US$137bn in March, and is expected to be empty by the end of 2010 as transfers are required to plug the yawning gap between government revenue and spending. Assuming that by 2011 the global economy is growing robustly once more, the reserve fund will have done its job. If not, Russia’s government, which has hiked spending sharply in recent years, is likely to return to the international debt markets-and this could change the political realities in which the country’s rulers operate.

It will be a hard job to convince Russians to let go of their most dependent trading partner.  Iran has come to rely on Russia to acquire military weapons. Russia has sold and now delivered to Iran (January 2007) 30 anti-aircraft missile systems (Tor M1), worth over $1 billion. (For more details on Iran-Russia Arms Trade, here is a CFR backgrounder).

Iran also relies on Russia for its energy needs. Lukoil, a Russian company, is a major provider of gasoline to Iran.  Moreover, as reported in the CRS report, Iran’s Economic Conditions: U.S. Policy Issues, in February 2008, Russian state gas company Gazprom announced a deal to establish a joint venture company to develop the offshore Iranian South Pars gas field.  In March 2009, Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) reportedly concluded a hydrocarbon swap agreement under which Gazprom agreed to deliver Turkmen gas to Iran in exchange for gas and petroleum products from Iran.

Iranian imports from Russia more than tripled from 2000 to 2007 and registered at about $3 million in 2007.  Here are statistics taken from IMF on Iran’s trade relationship with Russia:

Major Export Markets and Sources of Imports for Iran, FY2007

(millions of U.S. dollars)

Total Trade: 3,272

Exports: 282

Imports: 2,990

Trade Balance: -2,708

Considering the strong trade relations between Iran and Russia, and the tense relationship between Russia and the United States in the aftermath of Russian invasion of Georgia, it is no surprise that Russia is not supporting new U.N. sanctions on Iran.

Photo taken from here.

A while ago I wrote a blog on how Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, one of the world’s most prominent game theorists, applied game theory to predict that Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons. Here is a presentation he made about his findings:

Looks like the United States will not be alone in pushing for tough sanctions on Iran.  Both French and German leaders have warned Iran that it could face new sanctions if it does not show a willingness to negotiate on its nuclear program.  Speaking after talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated, “If there is no positive answer by September we will have to consider further measures.”  Expressing similar sentiments, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in his annual address to France’s ambassadors, cautioned Iran that if there were no change in their stance, “the question of very substantial strengthening of sanctions will be clearly asked.”  He also criticized the leadership of Iran. “It is the same leaders in Iran who say that the nuclear program is peaceful and that the elections were honest. Who can believe them?,” Sarkozy said.

The United States has given Iran until September to give up nuclear enrichment or face tougher sanctions.

Iran allowed inspectors from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the nuclear reactor at Arak for the first time in a year and has also granted them greater monitoring of uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. The accord breaks a months long impasse between Iran and the IAEA. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, while some diplomats hope that Iran’s decision signals a greater willingness by President Ahmadinejad’s government to cooperate, other diplomats are cynical about Iran’s intentions believing that Tehran’s conciliatory line toward the IAEA might be an early step to split the Security Council on the sanctions issue.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany, are expected to urge Russia and China in talks on September 2 to consider a fourth round of U.N. sanctions on Iran. President Obama has repeatedly stated his intention of pushing for more sanctions on Iran if it does not agree to come to the negotiating table by late September. A big factor in the decision to push for more sanctions will be the IAEA’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program to be released early next week.

The report is already causing controversy. According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli officials have accused the IAEA of hiding data on Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear arms. The newspaper alleged that the new evidence submitted to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors in Iran, indicating Iran’s intention to pursue military applications for its nuclear program, was not incorporated into the agency’s published reports.

For more information on Iranian Nuclear Program, here is the IAEA website on Iran.