by Mansoureh Tajik for the Saker Blog
Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim, “In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. On March 12, 2001, a near-comprehensive agreement was reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation in Moscow. The agreement was signed by Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s president at the time, and Vladimir Putin as the Russian president. It has been in place for 20 years and is about to expire in a few days and needs to be either extended or replaced with another much more comprehensive and strategically-oriented long-term agreement. An important written message from Ayatullah Khamenei to President Putin was delivered by Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the head of the Iranian Parliament, on Monday, February 8, 2021. It appears the latter scenario (i.e. a comprehensive long-term agreement) is inevitably the case.
Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media in the West and anti-Iran Persian language channels immediately focused on insignificant marginal issues about diplomatic and health protocol oddities that surrounded the method of message delivery and ignored entirely the strategic significance of the message and its timing. The timing itself had a message to the US and the European countries who are behaving as if it were high noon in the West while dusk has already settled in.
Image reads: “Those who are inclined to compromise must know that [US of] America is entering dusk.” – Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Extracted from Khamenei.ir available here.
The actual content of the letter has not been revealed either by Ayatullah Khamenei or by President Putin. However, Amir Abdullahian who is the head of international relations committee of Majlis (the Iranian Parliament) and a special advisor to Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and who also accompanied the team to Moscow explained the overall goal of the message and parts of its content on national television during a program titled “Special File” on February 14th. He said (I translate):
“The subject of the message relates to our long-term outlook toward a sustainable foreign policy and protection of security and interests of our nation. It pays particular attention to mutual interests of Iran and Russia, which could in turn affect our relationship with Russia. Of course, this trip and Leader’s message could affect the calculus of three Western players in Barjam (JCPOA) as well as the [US] Americans in their behavior towards Iran.”
Elsewhere in the interview, he also emphasized:
“The Leader’s message was strategically important and was delivered at a correct time. I will speak about the details of the message and the Russians’ response at a more appropriate time but it will suffice to say that the Russian counterparts promptly reviewed and regarded the message with serious attention and it was of particular importance to [President] Putin… In less than 24 hours, we received the first reactions and feedbacks to this message when we were meeting with the Supreme National Security Council of Russia and high-level officials.”
In an evaluation session regarding the trip and the Leader’s message to President Putin, Javad Niki Maliky, a geopolitical analyst with Mashriq News [East News] – the full title of this news outlet is “the Sun always Rises from Mashriq [the East]” – explains:
“Just as the current order of global balance is disintegrating, a new order is rapidly and relentlessly forming. Only nations that have the following four attributes will be among the victors in any future order: 1) those who deeply understand this strategic shift and could correctly identify macro currents, movements, and equations; 2) those who have the belief, the will, and the capacity to play significant roles and to have shares in shaping future global orders; 3) those who have increased the breadth and depth of their strategic assets and have meaningfully operationalized those assets; and 4) those who have, based on the maturing of their assets, increased and solidified their strategic relationships and partnerships. The overall theme of the Leader’s [Ayatullah Khamenei’s] speeches regarding the shift in global order during the past few years has revolved around the above 4 axes and his message to the president of Russia could be understood and explained within the framework of the 4th axis.”
As such, Ayatullah Khamenei’s letter to President Putin aims to solidify the strategic relationship and partnership that has already been established between Russia and Iran in accordance to the maturing of each country’s respective assets. As soon as the Leader’s message was delivered to President Putin by his Special Representative, who is also the current chairman of State Duma, and while the Iranian delegation was still in Russia, Ayatullah Khamenei’s Tweeter account in Russian read: “The era of post [US] America has begun.”
The upcoming long-term agreement (likely a 25-year agreement), would be similar in many ways but potentially and qualitatively different in nuanced ways with what was reached with China. There are some critically important social and historical factors that would affect the quality of the relationship between Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia in a very fundamental way regardless of current and future formal agreements. These factors, in my view, are the basic requisites for a transition from meager tactical actualities between Iran and Russia to an actualization of a deep strategic potentials. I would like to address, very briefly, three of those factors in this essay and they include: 1) A shift in the perspective of Iranians regarding Russia; 2) A shift in the perspective of Russians about Iran; and 3) A religious approximation between Shi’a Islam and Russian Orthodoxy.
1) A Shift in the Perspective of Iranians about Russia
First a quick note about perspectives. A nation’s perspectives could both regulate and be regulated by its overall perceptions. To be sure, national perceptions are like individual perceptions but at a more complex hierarchical level. They are not rigid and have a dynamic and ever-changing nature to them. Some socio-political environments have nurturing effects that help promote individual and national thoughts and perceptions in the direction of maturing and evolving cultures. Other environments encourage cultural stagnation wrapped in an illusion of real movement, or hamster-on-the-wheel phenomenon. There are also some environments that aid human minds and societies in the direction of ever-devolving mental and cultural atrophies and decay. Therefore, the media and its role in shifting perceptions.
About a decade ago, if you had asked almost any older Iranian of any background or younger Iranians in middle and high school about Russia-Iran relationships, you would have been highly likely to hear “Qaraardaad_e Nangin_e Turkmanchaai” [the Nefarious Treaty of Turkmanchai] and “Qaraardaad_e Nangin_e Golestan” [The Nefarious Treaty of Golistan].
Even now when people are weary and/or dissatisfied with any agreement reached with some foreign power, or when a propaganda and smear campaign is leveled at Iran for reaching meaningful agreements with any power outside of those in the Western circle, you hear the opposing side, too, uses phrases like “worse than Turkmanchaai,” or “the second Turkmanchaai.” We heard these ad nauseam from Western-backed Persian-language loudspeakers and media outlets regarding the 25-year agreement with China and we are going to be fortunate enough to hear them again with any agreement between Iran and Russia. Turkmanchaai has, therefore, been a “nefariousness standard” by which to measure or falsely portray to the Iranian public how bad, shameful, or dishonorable a particular agreement is. In recent years, Barjam (JCPOA) has become the catchphrase to invoke similar sentiment.
A bit of history about that. Golistan and Tukmanchaai treaties, reached in 1813 and 1828 respectively, were two agreements according to which major portions of the Iranian soil were ceded to Russia by the incompetent kings of the Qajar dynasty and 13 years (10 +3 years combined) of wars of aggression by Russia waged against Iran during Romanovs. Specifically, the areas ceded included the Caucus region of what is now eastern part of Turkey, Republic of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, 1360 kilometer of shorelines in Caspian Sea (approximately 20,000 square kilometer area of water), and 310 kilometer of shoreline in Black Sea (120 to 150 thousand square kilometer area of water).
Before these two treaties, Iran (then Persia) and Russia had a formal and sustained relationship that had begun during Safavi Dynasty and went back to more than 300 years. The connection between the two nations was a strategic alliance of necessity against a common threat from an aggressive and ruthless power: the Ottomans. The Ottomans, for most parts but not always, were not only a menace to the security of Russia, but also were actively involved attacking Iran and the Shi’a and performing their “cleansing” acts. I provide more details about that history in the upcoming essays in Wilayat and Imamat series. For this essay, it is suffice to say that Iran-Russia alliance in earlier periods was based on common threat posed by the Ottomans.
Throughout the centuries, however, in multiple occasions and at very sensitive junctures, the Russians betrayed the Iranians and repeatedly broke the pledges and agreement they had made with them. There were different factors at play for this erratic behavior. One could point to conniving influence of some European powers especially the British over Russian ruling elites (the Europeans perceived a closeness between Russia and Iran as a threat to their own interests), progressive weakening of the Ottomans therefore diminishing of their threat, and Russia’s own expansionist and hegemonic dreams, especially under Romanovs with Peter I being the most prominent among them as the most prominent factors.
These are, of course, painful historical facts. Naturally, any Iranian with minuscule amount of zeal, honor, and dignity would be disgusted and shamed and it is understandable that s/he would not look too favorably toward Russia given the experiences of the past 500 years. However, there is something more paradoxical going on here than simple facts of history. I extracted a map from an Iranian news and information network, Raah_e Dana [or “Informed Path News Network”] and formatted, adapted, and annotated it (see below) to illustrate a specific point. The dotted yellow and pink areas of Iran were ceded to Russia. The dotted red and green areas plus the purple area (Bahrain) were ceded to the British.
If we add total territorial areas separated from Iran by aggressive means and mischief of foreign powers in the past two hundred years, for sure, the actual territorial loss caused by Britain is far greater than that caused by Russia. Qualitatively speaking the geostrategic importance of areas lost to Britain were not any less, if not more, than those lost to Russia. It is also important to note that even Golistan, Turkmanchaai, and Akhaal treaties between Iran and Russia were the handiwork of Britain. Furthermore, if we were to catalogue national calamities exacted upon Iran and the Iranians, the backstabbing, reneging of contracts and agreements, aggressions, and plundering of Iranians’ wealth and resources by Britain, France, and the US, and killing of half the Iranian population by starvation by Britain in particular, the West wins the race in shamefulness, malevolence, and aggression by a landslide.
By simply examining facts of history and separating them from historical fictions related to Iran’s interactions with foreign powers, Iranians should then be far more resentful of the Wes and less willing to cooperate with them than with Russia if those historical experiences were the deciding factors. How come such has not been the case? How come the number of person-hours by our statesmen in official trips and state-meetings (and even backdoor meetings) with a handful of Western powers –whose treacherous and criminal treatment of Iran and Iranians has been infinitely more widespread and deep— has been manifold (until recently) of that with Russians of any level, one might be curious to ask.
We will look at the short answers first and examine a few evidences next. The first has to do with a defunct perception of strength of the West and a perceived weakness of Russia. The second relates to an obsolete perception of relative “openness” of Western societies and a perceived relative “closeness” of Russian society. The third pertains to an outdated and crude perception of Russia as a “Godless” country.
A major shift in the above perceptions within the Iranian population occurred with the Islamic Revolution. The pace for various segments of the Iranian society to catch up with realities, however, has been different. Thankfully, global events of the past two decades have been great catalysts to speed up the shift in perceptions globally for everyone including various segments of the Iranian society.
In addition, a deepening and maturing of Iran-Russia relationship has occurred in these decades as well that could be justly attributed to the efforts of significant figures like Ayatullah Khamenei and Shahid Soleimani in Iran and to President Putin in Russia. I conducted a simple search in the archive regarding meetings with heads of states and high-level officials from 1368 to present. The following data is simple yet telling. It is the search result for Russia and any of the Western triplets (US, Britain, and France):
97/6/16 [Sept. 7, 2018] – Meeting with President Putin
96/8/10 [Nov. 1, 2017] – Meeting with President Putin
94/9/2 [Nov. 23, 2015] – Meeting with President Putin
86/7/24 [Oct. 16, 2007] – Meeting with President Putin
85/11/8 [Jan. 28, 2007] – Meeting with Chairman [et al.] of Russia’s National Security Council
77/7/1 [Sept. 28, 1998] – Meeting with Chairman [et al.] of State Duma
Number of meetings with any head of state and high officials from the Western triplets: Zero.
It is quite clear to independent analysts that Russia has benefited greatly from the stewardship of President Putin than any other statesman in the history of the Iran-Russia relationships in terms of relative freedom from foreign influence. The Zionist entity wields some noteworthy influence but very soon that entity, too, will become a non-issue.
Amir Abdullahian’s candid interview (referenced above) highlights this “Putin phenomenon” this way:
“When we wanted to enter into talks with Russia regarding Syria, Shahid Soleimani told us, ‘I have worked with the Russians in Afghanistan and you must have dialogue with them and if the Russians are convinced of your logic and rationale, and know exactly how the mutual interests are defined, then you could see good results in working with Russia.’ I must say though that when I was working at the Ministry of Foreign Relations and during negotiations with the special representative from President Putin in Middle East relations, when I began to talk about Syria’s crisis, my impression was that you cannot work with the Russians. However, after working closely with them for 5 years, I must clearly state that Putin’s Russia is different from Soviet Russia and even different from Russia prior to Putin. This is what I could say in terms of attending to our own national interest and in our outlook with Asian and the Eastern domain.”
In another part of his interview, he provided additional clues but this time from the Iranians’ corner:
“Some, when they see an official going to Russia or China, they begin their allegations in virtual space claiming that, ‘See how these people are pushing the country in to the arms of Russia and Communist China!’ However, our motto of Neither East, Nor West means that in the political arena we will not be subjugated to any power [East or West]. In the event of looking out for our interests, we explore both sides. The legacy of the West, the history of the West with our nation, they created so many problems for us. With the East, we have the Turkmanchai and Golestan treaties, which are our bitter experiences from the previous eras.”
Evidence also shows that Ayatullah Khamenei is among the very few top Iranian statesman, religious scholars, and thinkers who has championed and promoted an in-depth, realistic, and nuanced look at Russian society, culture, and history compared to any other scholar and/or statesman close to his caliber in Iran. Just to illustrate by way of example, I have translated a part of his talk in a meeting with government officials during President Khatami’s administration on 1379/4/19 [July 9, 2000] for you:
“Here, our own television was showing images from CNN. We saw Yeltsin had climbed up a tank and was chanting slogans like, ‘No, we do not surrender to the coup!’ Then, he went to the parliament. But the coup organizers let Yeltsin, who was then sitting in protest in Duma, be. They did not go after him but they went to Gorbachev who was on vacation in Crimea and arrested him! And Yeltsin kept on shouting and chanting slogans! They created a media mayhem in the world and, of course, there was no traces of truth and reality to what they were saying! A few tanks appeared in the streets of Moscow but three days later, there was nothing. After three days, they announced they had arrested the coup organizers at night and in their sleep! The result from this coup was that Yeltsin who was the number two character practically became number one in charge!”
Right at that time, our foreign minister was visiting Central Asian Republics. Upon his return, I asked about his assessment and he said, ‘It’s clear that Yeltsin is in charge of the Soviet and not Gorbachev!’ It was also clear to the world that was the case. Then, the Republics demanded their independence one after another. For instance, Crimea would ask for its independence. Gorbachev would refuse but Yeltsin would say ‘We accept.’ Then, after two to three days, Gorbachev would accept it as well. Therefore, they had created a condition that Gorbachev would either feel compelled to pre-emptively agree and chant the same slogans so that he is not left behind; or, after a few days, he would follow the other one [Yeltsin] because the world-wide propaganda would not allow anything other than what Yeltsin was saying.
This trend had begun around the end of Khordad (3rd month in spring). After that, they brought up the issue of Gorbachev pulling out of the Party’s chairmanship, then the dismantling of the communist party, then the announcement regarding the defeat of communism – the exact things that made [US] Americans quite gleeful – and, finally, they spread the rumor about Gorbachev’s resignation. Right at that time, during an interview, they asked Gorbachev, ‘Will you resign or not?’ and he responded, ‘I am waiting for the [US] American secretary of state to come to Moscow to see what happens!’ The [US] American secretary of state came to Moscow and before making any contacts with Gorbachev, he went straight to Yeltsin. In main official meeting hall in Kremlin! That meant Gorbachev was finished! Three days later, Gorbachev resigned and Soviet disintegration was announced! This was a successful [US] American plot in the Soviet. That means, they were able to fully destroy a superpower with a very well-designed plot, a bit of money, purchasing some people, and extensive media propaganda; they were able to completely demolish it with a three-to-four-year plan and a six-to-seven-month implementation!”
“Of course, I must tell you that Russia, after disintegration of the Soviet, like they wished for, did not become the 2nd Brazil. They wanted to turn Russia into another Brazil – it means, into a 3rd rate country in the world – high production but afflicted with deep poverty and very little significant role in world’s politics. You look, where in the world the words and opinion of Brazil attracts anyone? They wanted to turn Russia into this but it did not happen. Why? Because Russia is a very strong and tough nation. Racially speaking, they are resilient people. Their progress in industry, in nuclear science, their scientists, their research works and other assets are quite noteworthy.”
“The plotters of these events (refers to the civil uprisings during late 1990s in Iran), too, were dreaming of similar dreams regarding the Islamic Republic. They were cutting and sewing for themselves. They cannot imagine that if the Islamic Republic of Iran were to face a similar fate as the Soviet, it becomes something like today’s Russia. No. They think Iran is a country at the level of Pahlavi era. That means, a level lower than Turkey! Because they imagine that there is no atom [nuclear research or bomb] here, no scientific progress, no 300-million population, no country as vast as Russia which even today is almost the largest country in the world. That’s what they are thinking!”
The above sorts of detailed narrations and clarifications (and in simple terms for the public) are extremely effective in replacing shallow perspectives with insightful ones, especially at the population level. Even though these noteworthy forces counter a barrage of attacks in the past couple of decade or so, lots more work in all arenas are needed. These are other straight forward realities: Persian-language media (in all their forms from written books to children cartoons) available to the Iranians have been dominated by anti-Russia discourse. One can find something for everyone: For religious groups, the communist (read Godless) episodes in Russian history have often been emphasized. For the liberal-minded groups, some sorts of cultural rigidity and closed-system aspects have been highlighted. For national zealots, aggressive and expansionist dimensions of Russia’s past against Iran have regularly and artfully been flashed. For those who are quite distrustful, specific instances of Russia’s reneging on their pledges to Iranians have been put on display.
2) A Shift in the Perspective of Russians about Iran
For evidence on a shift in the perspective of Russians about Iran, I have to rely mostly on the publicly available information and reports of interactions that have revolved around socio-cultural, political, and security issues available to us here in Iran. This blog and the Saker’s writings and emails have been, by all means, invaluable sources of information, I must add. By design and their nature, these lenses allow a very limited point of view and cannot qualitatively compare to first hand empirical knowledge one gains by being personally present in a given society. Therefore, I apologize, in advance, to the readers of this essay and good people of Russia for the shortcomings of what I write.
I present segments of transcripts from video clips that are in Russian with Farsi subtitles. My translation here is of the Farsi translations of those segments which are in Russian. So, you could imagine this sort of flow inevitably gathers a good amount of verbal debris on its path. Nevertheless, for now, that is the best I could do and for the purpose of the points I am making, I think an illustration of approximate sentiments are adequate for now.
During a discussion panel shown in Rossiya 1 TV channel on the subject of a US Navy destroyer (I am guessing it is about McCain nav.-ship) which had accidently on purpose wandered into Russia’s territorial waters, Alexey Naumov, an expert at the Russian International Affairs Council (Russia) expressed the followings in that panel:
Alexey Naumov: “The American experts are saying it this way. They say that they are providing for the security of America. If they were moving near American borders, that is, if they were moving within 12 miles of their maritime, we, too, would have viewed it relatively positively. Also, let us remember how other countries react to American deception, especially Iran. This is an example of a good lesson for us. We remember how in 2016, the border patrols of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard brought the American navy personnel to their knees.”
Another participant: “They disarmed them and brought them to their knees!”
Alexey Naumov: “…this was while they had ‘accidently’ [he draws air quotes] entered into the Iranians’ water territories.
Another participant: “They had been ‘lost’! So long as we know.”
Alexey Naumov: “Next we remember how Iran targeted American bases in Iraq after General Soleimani was killed. But Russia behaves leniently. Sometimes they behave too leniently. But why are Americans doing this? Note that Americans do stupid things but we do not yield to their pressure.”
Another participant: “In fact, the issue here is what is it that we are proud of? What is the right thing to do? They violated our borders. Either we must shoot missiles at them in a way there wouldn’t be any damages like shooting one to the sky and one right behind its rear [other participants laughing], or we should aim straight for the deck.”
Alexey Naumov: “The violators must be arrested just as we do with others who violate our borders. Arrests would yield good results but the current anti-ship missiles do not operate this way.” </blockquote>
In the above panel, based on the dialogue and the body language of the participants, one gets a distinct impression that they have a more positive view of Iran’s firm and decisive reaction when faced with the US infractions than what they perceive as Russia’s meek response. It is just human nature to root for the one who challenges a bully. It is rather simple.
A speech by the Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, aired more than a year ago again in Rossiya 1 TV channel, included the following segment in reference to Iran:
<blockquote> “… See how they [US] occupied Iraq. They easily walked into Iraq. Without any resistance. Nine Iraqi generals got a few million dollars and went to London and Iraq no longer had any armies. That is it!”
“But Iran, whose regime is being criticized; it is Shi’a; it is in control of the situation. The Sunni world does not have a leader but Iranians do. Imam Khamenei, and before him Imam Khomeini. Because of this, the regime is resilient. Because of this, this country is not like Iraq. They [the Iranians] do not go off the path. Why were there millions of people in General Soleimani’s [funeral] walk? He had the charisma of Dzerzhinsky and … [cannot figure the names] in one. He was faithful to the revolution and destroyed all the enemies of the Iranian revolution and was very famous. Then everything happened together in Iran. They are on at the top of the Shi’a world. The killing of their most important symbol caused the nation to cry for him. Even some people who may not have supported him before cried.”
“This country is [one of] the youngest countries in the world. [Few] countries are as young as this country. It has 80 million population and very soon it will reach 100 million in the next 20 years. Median age is 25 and 70 percent are young. They will all work. There is no need for them to be sent to violence. They can make bombs in their own country. That means, they are ready for everything. Today, this system is a great system.”
“But what do we do? We destroyed our own religion. We filled our priests’ mouths with molten lead! Do you get it?! We threw away our young people. We destroyed our whistle blowers. We threw away our intellectuals. They don’t throw away anyone but we chase away everyone.”
Some of the statistics about Iran in the above statement are inaccurate but the overall tone reflects the speaker’s positive view regarding Iran’s religious leadership, sacrifices of commanders like Sardar Soleimani, diversity of views, and the Iranian society’s endurance. Iran’s positive, energetic, and youthful outlook, too, holds promises and could increase the potential for greater exchange between Iranian and Russian societies.
I have translated one last segment from statements made by another Russian expert on regional security and military issues that is reflective of a Russian perspective that gives a more labyrinthine character to Iranians in general and its leadership and the Revolutionary Guard in particular.
“But what is more interesting is that if there is a conflict, Iran has the capacity for extensive retaliation against the Americans in Iraq. The Americans in Iraq have less than 10,000 military men but what is the paramilitary force that enters the conflict? That is Hashd Al-Shaabi. With more than 100,000 organized force and 40 diverse paramilitary units and Shi’a, among which there are smaller units of Assyrian Christians and Yazidi groups. When something happens there, of course the Iranian military advisors are there, too. On the other hand, these forces are equipped with American arms which had been specially shipped to Iraq during Daesh presence. Abrams tanks 2, 3, and so on. Exactly here, the Iranians could retaliate.”
“If we had been in place of Revolutionary Guard commanders, we would have planned what to do with the Americans. But how do the Iranians manage things? [They say,] ‘There is no need to take anyone to any of the bases there. Why should we do something stupid like that?! Let’s put the pressure on them in Iraq and exactly there demolish American forces. And we will show them that two billion dollars they spent and a thousand of their forces did not benefit them even a bit. In Iraq, we were present and we will continue to be present.’ This is a real and great victory from the perspective of military relationships. [They say,] ‘Let the Americans try and imagine they could control [things] there [in Iraq].’”
These discussions and dialogue demonstrate great potential for a positive and nuanced change in perspective of Russians about Iran and the Iranians and a fertile ground to cultivate a mutually respectful and non-transgressive relationship between the two nations.
3) A Religious Approximation between Shi’a Islam and Russian Orthodoxy
Taqrib_e Mazahib (or, Religious Approximation) is the term used to describe activities by the Islamic Republic of Iran especially Qom Seminary to bring together scholars, practitioners, and representatives from diverse religions and denominations of the world for an ongoing and meaningful discourse in order to improve knowledge and understanding among these religions and help improve the condition of humanity in all material and spiritual domains.
To shed some light on the history of the relationship between Shi’a Islam and Russian Orthodoxy, I bring here a short presentation by Dr. Muhammad Masjidjamei, a scholar and thinker who has been quite active in the area of Taqrib related to Russian Orthodox Church. He delivered his lecture titled “We and the Russian Orthodox Church: Iran Eurasian Reality of Russia,” during a two-day conference held by the University of Religions and Denomination in Qom in Shahrivar 1393 [2014/8/25-26] on Evaluation of Eight Rounds of Religious Dialogue between Muslims and Orthodox Christians over Seventeen Years. Since it contains many key points and gives a mini-history of the interaction (up until 2014), I have translated all but the very first greeting lines:
“…Under current critical conditions in the region and the world crises, perhaps one could say extreme crises, we desperately need gatherings of this nature so that we could find solutions for current crises or at least ways to reduce them by relying on meaningful cooperation and sharing of thoughts and ideas. Part of the reason for current difficult conditions is a lack of serious discussion and counsel among those who have shared view points and interests. I very much hope this conference could offer a real platform for these sorts of cooperation.
It was midyear 1991 when I was sent to Vatican as an ambassador for my country. It was a few months after the occupation of Kuwait and right at the heels of disintegration of the Eastern Block and Soviet Union. These events had great impacts on Europe especially the relationships among various churches, in particular two major and quite different Catholic and Orthodox churches. Even a very short explanation about the transformative events between these two churches would take a very long time. But the most noteworthy point for me was that reached a realization about the logic and thinking behind the behavior of the Orthodox Church. At that time and under those critical conditions, the Church was in a rather passive and defensive position. To discover the root of this logic, I needed to study extensively their works be those of the church officials or the others or what related to their contemporary history , or the history, culture and beliefs and their harsh experiences with the communist regimes, or their position and grievances with the Catholic Church, the media, and other publications.
This was my first serious encounter with the realities of Orthodox Church. A church that in those early years in 90s few open ears in Europe were willing to listen to what they had to say. The strong waves of criticism against communism was so fierce and widespread that no one was willing to see a single positive point in the Eastern Block of that time. The Orthodox Church, too, was being viewed as part of the ruling socialist system and was perceived to have been at the service of the system. The reality was that this distorted view and these sorts of propaganda had influenced the thinking of the Muslim World. The war of the Balkans and Bosnia was fueling it even further.
The reality was not at all like what was being portrayed. Probably, Iran realized this point faster than any other Muslim country and began to have a more open and active policy with Orthodox churches. At the height of the Bosnian war, many meetings took place between our ambassador in Sarajevo and Late Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Pavle. In addition, several meetings took place between some of our political and religious representatives and the bishop of Zagreb, Cardinal Kuharic, and the bishop of Sarajevo, Puljic, who had just become a cardinal.
What was important here was that Iran understood rather quickly that to solve the Bosnian problem, or at least to reduce tensions, first and foremost the venue of religion was instrumental, and secondly, Orthodox Church had the most fundamental role in this and should not be neglected because of negative propaganda. As such, Iran, in establishing relations with Serbian Orthodox Church was a maverick and a leader among the Islamic countries. So long as I remember, from among the Western countries, [US] Americans and the British tried to establish relations with Serbian churches much later.
It was more or less around this time, as well, that Iran realized the great importance of Russian Orthodox Church as a historical and cultural identity of Russian nation, as a reality that could help expand and deepen the reciprocal relation between the two nations (Iran and Russia), and in the internal scene, as a catalyst to improve the relations between the Russian Muslim minorities, the Russian society and the Russian State. This was especially critical since there were problems in Caucus and Northern Caucus regions. The sort of problems that kept on accumulating and getting worse.
In fall of 1993, I took a trip to Moscow and met with late Russian Patriarch Alexy II, There I became closely familiar with different sections and teachings of this church. Following that, the Russian Orthodox Church representative to Iran was assigned and the bilateral dialogue and relationship started and have continued to this date.
Even though Iran has had great many dialogues with many churches, its dialogue with the Russian Church has remained one of the most systematic, sustainable, and institutionalized one today. This demonstrates the importance of the relationship between the two and the resolve on both sides to continue this relationship. So, the question now is how this relationship could become even more active and constructive. What additional potentials does it have?
Russia is a Eurasian reality. This reality existed throughout ups and downs of history whether it was during the tsars, or the socialist rulers, or thereafter. And it will continue to exist in the future. The problem of the West with Russia, to some extent, is due to this very historical and identity reality. They want a Russia that is European not Eurasian. A Russia whose policies and politics are played within the European frameworks and by their standards. Russia wants to be Russia and remain Russia. From this perspective, this country, too, is parallel in line with everyone and all countries which want to have a life according to their own culture and identity.
In addition, Russia is one of the few countries that stands up to multi-faceted Western dictatorship. The clearest sign of this is seen in Russia’s Middle East policies in the aftermath of Arab springs. Another important point is that the Eurasian characteristic of Russia and its look towards Asia makes it a weighty Asian component in international relations. No doubt, a closer cooperation with Asian countries as well as China and India makes this share weightier and to the benefit of all Asians, us, and Russia itself.
Here, I cannot count all the points that relate to Eurasian reality/nature of Russia and its many significances. But I could very summarily say that it [Russia’s Eurasian nature] is to the best interest of us and all independent countries which want to rely on their own culture and potentials in life. What is important to remember is that Russian Church, both directly and indirectly, is the most significant cornerstone of this reality. Orthodox churches, including Russian churches, are far more eastern than the Catholic and Protestant churches. This is an intrinsic characteristic of this church.
We should not forget that Russia is the largest country in the world and has within it many diverse people, religions, and cultures and to be sure, Russian Church has its own unique place. This does not mean that other religions and cultures are pushed aside. Islam and Islamic culture, too, is an important reality and part of Russian identity. Also, the Eurasian characteristic of Russia, to a notable extent is due to its Islamic heritage as well. Besides, if Russia wishes to have independent policies in the international arena free of Western domination, it needs, at the least, receptive co-thinkers. For sure, among the Muslim nations, there are countries which can and want to stand besides Russia but this is possible only if the Muslim minority in Russia have a suited status. From this perspective, acknowledging other religions and groups, including Islam, is a necessity for Russia. Although a great portion of this attention relates to the state and the ruling system, Orthodox Church can play a significant constructive and facilitative role.
It is for certain that a cooperation between Iran and this Church is very valuable, nay, extremely valuable. Also, this cooperation can be instrumental in remedying takfiri thoughts and extremist groups in Russia. Parts of the causes of takfiri thoughts go to a lack of depth in understanding the religion itself. Without a doubt, Iran, for the richness of its religious, philosophical, and spiritual thoughts is one of the most suitable countries to help fill these gaps.
It is rather difficult to put all potential areas of cooperation in one short article. Certainly, scientific and academic cooperation is one of them. Right now, there are so many Western religious texts written by either formal religious figures or non-religious thinkers and translated into Farsi. However, you can rarely find authentic translations of Orthodoxy texts that have been written by the Orthodox themselves. This is also true of research in Christianity. Many books and manuscripts about history, culture, and beliefs of Protestant and Catholic churches are written but the Orthodoxy texts are quite sparse.
Another key point is the existence and continued presence in Middle East of Christians who are mainly Orthodox. They are part of the history and culture of this region and have had much greater impact on literature and culture of contemporary Arab societies relative to their numbers. However, the upheavals of Arab spring have shaken up their positions as well. This is while their presence in the region, for various reasons, is positive and beneficial to a social and cultural balance and prevention of a polarization in these societies. If they had played a more active role, takfiri thought would not have found an opportunity to expand and monopolize the scene.
Fortunately, the Christians in the region, especially the Orthodox, do not have evangelical tendencies which is an important point because such situation itself prepares the ground for salafi thoughts. Without a doubt, cooperation and co-counseling between Iran and Russian church, and other churches in the region, could help reform the conditions. If such relation had existed at the beginning of Syrian crisis, the overall condition of the country and the situation of its Christians would have been much better than what it is now.
Indeed, the areas for cooperation is far more than what has been mentioned here. Given the circumstances of the two countries and international and regional realities, when this cooperation starts, new opportunities will also emerge. What is important is that both sides must, having taken into account the actualities and the limitations, must pursue their collaboration and cooperation with serious will and make progress.”
It might be interesting for you to know that the exchange between Iran and the Russian Orthodox Church went on for several years before Sardar Soleimani could convince President Putin to commit Russia’s military to Syrian war as a practical step to block the spread of takfiries. The Church had already been convinced!
To wrap up the essay and put things succinctly, cooperation between Iran and Russia regarding Syria was only a pilot test and shifts in the Iranian and Russian nations’ perspectives have already occurred. However, a lot more media products, people-to-people exchange and interactions in socio-economic, scientific, and cultural fields are also needed to help promote a more insightful and culturally mature public perceptions on both sides.
 Center for Research of the Islamic Republic of Iran Majlis [Parliament]. “The policies pertaining to the agreement between the Islamic of Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation based on mutual relationship and principles of cooperation.” The Date of Approval: 1380/10/16 [Jan. 6, 2002]. Available in Farsi online at: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/print_version/93690
 Entekhab News Site, Video Archive, “Explanation by Special Advisor to the Head of Majlis regarding Qalibaf’s trip to Moscow.” 1399/11/22 @ 22:41, News Code: 602070. Accessed online at: https://www.entekhab.ir/002Wco
 Niki Maleki J. (1399). “Why the Leader’s Message to Putin is important.” Mashriq News, the Sun always Rises from the East, Bahman 21, 1399 [Feb. , 2021]; 18:57; News Code: 1179189. Accessed online at: mshrgh.ir/1179189
 Mashriq News, Trans. from Farsi: “The Important Tweet from the Russian Account of the Publication Office of the Revolution Leader’s Works.” 20th Bahman, 1399, 14:36, News Code: 1178619. Accessed online at: mshrgh.ir/1178619
 Golistan and Turkmanchaai Treaties
 Karami J (1397 HS ). Trans. from Farsi: “Iran and Russia in the Passage of History: Security Environment and the Issues of Threats and Alliances.” Quarterly of History of Foreign Relations, No. 75, Summer 1397, Pages 65-97.
جهانگیر کرمی، “ایران و روسیه در گذر تاریخ: محیط امنیتی و مساله تهدید و اتحاد.” فصلنامۀ تاریخ روابط خارجی، شماره 75، سال نوزدهم، تابستان 1397، صص 65 تا 97.
 Rah_e Dana Information Network. Trans. from Farsi: “Turkmanchaai, a Nefarious History in Auctioning off the Homeland.” 1396/2/12, 15:29, News ID: 1096763. Accessed online at: https://www.dana.ir/1096763
 List of official visits from heads of states with the Leader of Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. Accessed online on March 2, 2021 @ 12:00 noon; at: https://farsi.khamenei.ir/tag-content?id=11172
 Sayyed Ali Khamenei. “Speech during visit with officials and members of government of Islamic Republic of Iran” on 1379/4/19 [July 9, 2000]. Accessed online at: https://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=3016
 KavoshMedia, What They Say About Us. “Iranians disarmed and brought American navy personnel to their knees.” 2021/1/11 @ 13:01:28 Tehran Time, Original in Russian Language. Accessed on line at: https://kavoshmedia.com
 Tabnak Javan News Agency. “Nuanced View of the Leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia about Iranians.” 1398/12/8 [Feb. 27, 2020] @ 18:09; News Code: 14130.
 Kavoshmedia. “Russian expert’s view regarding Iran’s great victory in Iraq,” aired on Rossya 1, Posted 24/11/2020 @ 4:30 UTC.
 Masjidjamei M. “We and Russian Orthodox Church: Iran and Eurasian Realities of Russia.” University of Religions and Denominations, Publication date: 1393/6/12. Accessed online at: https://urd.ac.ir/fa/cont/355
It probably has no global political significance, but I want to know more about Iran’s relationship with Turkey and Afganistan.
Mr. Tajik wrote,
“It is quite clear to independent analysts that Russia has benefited greatly from the stewardship of President Putin than any other statesman in the history of the Iran-Russia relationships in terms of relative freedom from foreign influence. The Zionist entity wields some noteworthy influence but very soon that entity, too, will become a non-issue.”
The author implied that Israel will not have as much or any political sway in the decisions that President Putin makes with respect to agreements with Iran. How will that effect Russia’s relations with the Zionist State, I wonder?
remarkable essay – thank you
Some years ago Iran showed an interest in joining the Euro-Asian Economic Union. I don’t know how far negotiations have progressed, but this fact can hardly have pleased Washington, seeing oil and gas rich Iran joining Russia (and others) in an economic union. This would have confirmed Halford Mackinders warning from 1904 about the economic and political dangers of Euro-Asia vis a vis the British Empire, ie. the West. It is therefore of no surprise that NATO and Washington are showing an aggressive posture towards both Iran and Russia, with China included. This aggressive posture will solve nothing, short of a wider war, which would be a suicidal venture. The old economic and political order is breaking up and a new one is approaching. The West better get used to it, on condition it is capable of doing so.
Iran is itself in an internal existential conflict between the comprador business class led by corrupt billionaire clerics like Rouhani or Rafsanjani (both linked to the anglozionist empire through financial and intelligence ties) and the heirs of the islamic revolution, an anticapitalist force led by Ahmajineyad (who is under home arrest). Thus, the real stakes are between capitalist and anticapitalist forces, like in anywhere else. The empire tries to assimilate the merchant party into their new world order (and the success in Iran of the false scamdemic operation is a worrying signal) whereas a patriot non purchased fraction of the military and the islamic guards push towards the ruso-chinese eurasian capitalism. These tensions are similar to those preceeding 1914, and Iran is at the centre of the stakes.
We also witnessed Russia change of tone in about the same time lapse regarding EU and US so called sanctions (better called economic terrorism) and interference in Russian internal affairs.
It coincides with change in the US administration.
And EU countries disgusting fawning to US and getting back to the so called western values aliiance and Nato umbrella.
Better called the EU disgusting subverience to the US led imperial agenda toward the progressive liberal globalization agenda.
Contrary to EU and US belief, I think Russia and Iran will not accept more of the same Western arrogance and dellusional agenda.
sadly this is what the author believes in, but it is not the truth
Iran helped the Empire dismantle multi-faith Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia.
All in the name of helping their Muslim-“brothers” (who are Sunnis btw),
while actually pushing real brother-on-brother (the Yugoslav people – same people
but different religions) against each other.
I vividly remember a video where Iranian mujaheddin played soccer with a severed head
of a Serbian soldier, whom they previously lured out with a white flag
Iranians should introspect and drop this notion that they are faultless. they are not
The only possibility that bad blood is forgiven, is if Khamenei comes and apologizes
to the people of Serbia directly (an apology to Vucic wont suffice)
Same also goes for Russia. Putin to come and apologies for Yeltsin’s betrayal.
If he can give them medals and build status, who should apologies for their misdeeds.
Heed my warning: Russians call Serbia – Серце = the heart of humanity
whoever wins Serbian love will have God’s grace. Btw, the West isnt out of the play yet.
The Iranian regime at the time (early to mid 1990s) behaved in a truly immoral & opportunistic manner by teaming up with the US, partnering with the CIA, & in their stupid naivety believing they would get a foothold in Europe by exploiting the conflict in Bosnia. What they got was nothing – other than the eternal contempt & resentment of the Serbian people, & strong sympathies – especially amongst the Serbs of Bosnia – for Israel. Fast forward to 2021, Iran has no influence in Bosnia whatsoever, a significant number of Bosnian muslim joined jihadists in Syria & fought against Iranian forces both in Syria & Iraq, both for ISIS & Al-Nusra. On the other hand, Israel has influence & ties in Republika Srpska. So well done Iran, that endeavour turned out splendidly.
i found this essay answered or @ least opened some avenues i’d often wondered about: putin during the yeltsin coup, putin’s entry into syria (which even saker didn’t expect to happen), & the iraq disaster. the 8 generals taking the money & fleeing beggars belief, knowing the devastation, the utter destruction their fellow iraqis suffered/are suffering. i suppose most iraqis know their names/faces but when the trials begin i hope all 8, along with cheney, bush etc will stand on the docket. thank you for this illuminating essay & thank you saker for publishing it.
Dear Mansoureh Tajik,
thank you for your heartfelt article. I would go as far as to qualify Iran as Russia’s political horizon. Iran and Russia are neighborly complementary civilizations that could not meet and cooperate as they should have, and maybe could have. I know, that “what-ifs” are not the thing of history or serious analysis, but in the case of Iran and Russia, I think the missed appointments of the past could help avoid the same mistakes. Just immagine if the Soviet Union had supported militarily Iran, when it was attacked by Iraq on behalf of we all know who, and in exchange Iran had provided diplomatic and political support to the “shuravis” in their battle against wahabbism in Afganistan. My hunch is that Iran would have won the war against the aggressor, rapidly, and that that part of Northern Afganistan, of Persian language and culture would have been pacified quickly.
Didn’t happen unfortunately, the gerontocracy in Moscow was probably blinded by its suicidal atheism, did not see the value of a Revolution that clearly claimed God on its side, and the rest is history as they say…
Now as of today, the only serious threat is the presence of a very wily and articulate Zionist lobby in Russia, which make it hard for Russians to assess Iran fairly. There is another issue, unfortunately very much of a taboo which makes it hard for Iran to trust Russia, and it isn’t the historical grievances due to past wars and treaties, but a matter that can only be discussed privately.
That said let me share with you an episode I had the privilege to partecipate to in Moscow: some time ago the Embassy of the Islamic Republic organized an evening on Persian poetry at a bookstore in central Moscow. On top of Iranian, Tajik and Afghan expats, the place was packed with ethic Russians. The intellectual quality of the evening was very high, the interest was sincere, the curiosity was healthy.
Thus there is hope for Russia and Iran, dear Mansoureh Tajik, and if so, for also the rest of us insh-Allah.
Pray tell, what is that tabooed issue? Not even a hint?
Since you ask Selah…. I will give you a hint: a topic easy to debate amongst boys, but almost impossible to debate with the girls…
Say, Selah, pray tell, are you a boy or a girl?
I’m an aging boy, whiter and whiter is my hair, as if it is snowing on my head, and it doesn’t stop.
Salaam-aleykum Selah, Roberto
Thank you for the essay, which took us through a wonderful journey of ideas, thoughts, as well as, geopolitics 🙏
Iran and Russia are not ‘natural’ allies throughout history but I hope these two proud and independent nations are able forge a strong and mutually beneficial alliance that can, with the help of China and other allies, challenge the US-led globalist hegemony.
A big problem facing countries that wish to remain, or to become, independent of the globalist’s tentacles is that almost every major nation state on earth is enmeshed in the global economy. This includes Russia, Iran and China. Iran, for example, is seeking an IMF loan to make up for economic loses due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The US, having the worlds foremost reserve currency, wields immense power over other nations. This fact is often overlooked in articles about challenging western domination. Having a powerful military deterrence is not enough. As Trump has shown during his term in office, the US can quite easily substitute economic warfare for conventional military war and do a lot of damage to its “enemies.”
The new Secretary of State Tony Blinken has indicated the US will continue along this path. Massive military mobilization and invasions like the war on Iraq in 2003 are a thing of the past. Syria is the model for post-Iraq invasion warfare. It’s a hybrid war of proxy forces, covert special operations, economic warfare (aka sanctions), media driven propaganda offensives, aerial bombardment and cruise missile attacks and only limited use of conventional troops.
So far, Russia, Iran and China have not been able to successfully counter American sanctions against Syria and Venezuela, for example. Iran and Russia are themselves under US sanction, with the sanctions on Iran being very serious.
Official statements and so forth from governments announcing their intentions, partnerships etc will always use positive language and give a best case scenario. The reality is the fight against US/globalist hegemony will be a long and difficult. There is no magic formula. The US is in decline and facing huge internal problems but it is still a very powerful nation and will remain so as long as the US dollar is the global reserve currency.
Another issue, at least in the Middle East, is the close relationship between Russia and Israel. Israel would not be able to constantly bomb Syria with impunity if Russia disallowed it. But Russia only issues verbal rebukes which are useless. This is a known point of tension and disagreement between Iran and Russia. The official Russian position is that its military is in Syria to prevent the spread of terrorism. This is quite a narrow framing and the leaves the door open for things like the Israeli attacks.
If Russia, with its partners Iran and China, is able to successfully stymie American attempts to economically strangle countries like Syria, that will be a huge success. Given economic and geopolitical realities that is a very challenging goal indeed.
Are these countries prepared to go that far? I don’t know. On the surface, their actions can seem quite timid. Their rhetoric is in the right place, but rhetoric without robust action to back it up is just nice sounding words. I realize it’s easy to sit comfortably on the sidelines and impatiently say this should be done and that should be done, like I am doing here, and that dethroning the empire is hard work that will take many decades. Only fools underestimate their enemies and Iran and Russia are certainly not led by fools. There are no doubt a lot of work happening in the background that we don’t see.
Sometimes though, as in the case of Israel’s attacks on Syria, a stronger ‘message’ is required. If Syria, fully backed by Russia, began using its S-300 to shoot attacking Israeli F-16s out of the sky Netanyahu and his American spokesman Blinken would lose their minds but with Putin’s determination and Lavrov’s diplomatic skills deployed, they could put an end to such blatant Zionist transgressions and provocations. That would require a higher tolerance for risk and confrontation than the Russian government currently has and it would mean widening the mandate of Russia’s mission in Syria so it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon.
Since Israel is relentlessly fanatical about “containing” Iran and prepared to push the US into a military confrontation with the Islamic Republic, the Russian and Iranian leadership have their work cut out for them here.
Which brings me to my final points. Both Russia and Iran have regular elections and there is always a danger that a traitorous leader (see for example Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno) can get himself voted into office.
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is widely seen in his country as a neoliberal who mismanaged the economy and gives too many concessions to the west and he probably won’t be re-elected. So Russia is in more danger here I think. While I have my criticisms of Vladimir Putin, he brought Russia back on its feet by stopping the wholesale plundering of his country by sociopathic oligarchs and meddling American economic “advisers”, who worked under the guidance of the odious Bill Clinton, and restored Russia’s rightful place in the world. But when Putin retires who will take over from him and can he keep Russia on the path of self-reliance and keep the insidious western imperialists at bay?
American sanctions and overt and covert political and economic interference are open ended projects that, so far, have only ended with the destruction of the targeted nations (Iraq and Libya). The DPRK has been under US sanctions and military threat since the 1950s. Syria, with Russian and Iranian help, thwarted and survived the multi-front hybrid war waged against it by the empire and its satraps but today it is a much weakened nation in a permanent state of crisis that is still under foreign occupation. Occupation is another open-ended imperialist tool employed by the US. (Germany has been occupied since 1945.)
It is clear that many nations and billions of people around the world are fed up with US/globalist order and would very much welcome a more balanced multipolar arrangement where no nation, or bloc of nations, has the power to unilaterally impose its will on sovereign nation states. It is equally clear that a unilateral world order can never succeed in the longterm because it is human nature to resist being dominated by nefarious entities.
But the struggle to bring this about will be a long and extremely difficult one against foes that are often prepared to fight to the bitter end. While I recognize that it is easy to talk from the sidelines, and that there is more going on than what internet commentators see, there is nonetheless a kind of naïveté that’s prevalent in discussions about the shift to a world without imperial domination. Zionist oppression and occupation of Palestine, for example, has been ongoing for over half a century and Israel would rather risk its eventual destruction rather than give even one inch to the Palestinians. The US behaves similarly in its quest to remain dominant and this will likely get worse as its decline continues. It will not go quietly into the night and become a normal country.
This apocalyptic stubbornness combined with economic warfare are two massive issues that are all but ignored in anti-imperialist articles and discussion forums. Leaving these out of the discussion and expecting a quick and decisive victory over the empire is a bit naive. It also lets jokers like Trump pose as “antiwar.”
But I do think the multipolar vision of the Russia-Iran-China axis will prevail…eventually. They will have to keep beating off the moralizing American meddlers with a big club, shut down foreign NGOs etc that operate as intelligence agency cutouts and gradually build up sufficient military and economic power and resources to put Washington in its place. Internet commentators and critics have no choice but to remain patient and keep in mind that empires aren’t usurped overnight and that, like with icebergs, there is much happening that they don’t see.
Last but not least, reality-based constructive criticism of leaders is a good thing. There is a lot of pressure on some boards (not this one) to only say glowingly positive things about anti-imperialist leaders. Those leaders surely have advisors and people they trust to point out things they themselves might miss. Politics is not a cult and they are only human after all and humans are imperfect, fallible beings. Well, except for liberals of course, they are born knowing everything and don’t need to listen to anyone. That’s why they are doing such a good job running things ;-)
Thank you for reading my long post and apologies if my English is not perfect.
One of the best comments I’ve seen on this site so far. Well articulated to the point. Well said👏👏👏
I wholeheartedly agree with you on your concerns over Russia ; Right now Russia is stable under VVP but there remains an uncertainty about what could come once he leaves.
Especially with Russia’s economy still controlled by some West-loving elites and a large number of people suffering from economic difficulties, it’s pretty easy for a conman employed by the West to grab power and turn back all the success achieved in the past two decades.
Russian govt or the people don’t seem to be prepared for an all out war (military, cultural, economic, propaganda) against the empire like China does.
What an excellent and completely unexpected essay!! I hope more is provided along the lines discussed. That’s for uncovering the holes in my historical knowledge!
After 20 years of direct US and indirect US’ mininion defeats in the ME the harmed and bleeding beast is shrieking its agony : “its Iran who dunnit… arggggg !”.
Yep. Iran donnit.
KSA is no more than a proxy fellow of the US and fight the Yemen proxy fellow of Iran.
Surely it shows world power hierarchy.
KSA being in par with Yemen.
Iran being in par with Russia US and P5+1
Surely the US being bombed in ain al asad by Iran proxy. Shows that US is in overreach in Iraq.
That being said.
Russia should learned from it and stop trying reason with US.
Surely ME is Iran playground.
What is Russia doing in Epstein Europe.
Not much unfortunately…
As for EU they are non country and efeatef prositutes who will sell their ans to the highest bidder…
See NS2. Truly shamefull !
There is no way to negotiate with non sovereign EU.
France has been beaten into submission by UK.
German has been beaten into submission bu US
And EU is a creation and beaten into submission by the US pimp. And the EU loves it. Call it stockolm syndrom.
Not sure to understand what is Russia expecting or looking for woth Europe… Europe does not want sovereignty. As sen in JCPOA. EU craves for a pimp.
On the contrary, it is a very informative article, with a very interesting historical panorama of Russian-Iranian relations, and a very insightful perspective on how these relations are evolving and are likely to develop into the future, for the good of the region and the world.
Pragmatically, with the two nations’ interest in view, and no overly indulging in emotional raking of past grievances, but instead, going forward in mutual respect and appreciation of each other’s potential as a valuable partner, in a difficult region and during a particularly dangerous period, with vicious and/or reckless neighbours, and that mad dog trio, FUKUS.
Many thanks to the author, and I for one look forward to the announced future contributions.