Russia clarifies demanding written guarantees from United States

Russia has provided clarifications on its demand for written guarantees from the United States regarding the talks in Vienna over reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The clarifications were offered in a briefing at the Russian Embassy in Tehran with a limited number of reporters.

In the meeting, Russian Ambassador to Iran Levan Dzhagaryan spoke in detail about the Russian special military operation in neighboring Ukraine. But he also spoke broadly about the Russian demand in Vienna.

Responding to questions from the Tehran Times about the nature of guarantees Russia is now demanding at the Vienna talk, the Russian Ambassador lambasted Western media for spreading misinformation about the Russian demand, underlining Moscow’s positive approach toward the 2015 nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), both during the 2015 negotiations that culminated in the deal and the current talks to revive it. 

“You now are hearing contradictory voices claiming that Russia does not want the JCPOA talks to succeed,” the ambassador told the press briefing, noting that these voices are wrong. “Russia has adopted a positive approach toward both the JCPOA negotiations in 2015 and the current talks. But it is natural that we will take into account our interests,” he added. 

The Russian demand for guarantees was first made public by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in a joint press conference with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Ruslan Kazakbayev in Moscow on March 05.

Responding to a question on the prospect for the conclusion of the Vienna talks in the near future, Lavrov said, “Some problems regarding the interests of the Russian Federation have arisen recently. Agreements on resuming the JCPOA provide for a package of reciprocal commitments.”

He added that the original JCPOA provided for the absence of any obstacles to trade, economic and investment relations with Iran and to the implementation of military-technical cooperation projects with it. This could seem all right, but the avalanche of aggressive Western sanctions that is still rolling down gives one food for thought. These sanctions should be primarily reviewed by the lawyers.

He then broached the issue of guarantees. “We would like to receive a clear answer. We need guarantees that sanctions will not affect in any way the regime of trade, economic and investment ties set out in the JCPOA on Iran’s nuclear program. We asked our American colleagues (because they are running the whole show here) to give us guarantees in writing, at least at the level of the Secretary of State, that the current process launched by the US will not impinge in any way on our free full-scale trade, economic, investment and military-technical cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said.

The European parties to the JCPOA hinted that the Russian demand is extraneous in their March 08 joint statement to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Iran has so far refrained from evaluating the Russian demand and preferred to pursue the matter through diplomatic channels. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian spoke over the phone with Lavrov on Monday. Dzhagaryan said the two went over the Russian demand for guarantees in detail. 

The Russian Foreign Minister told his Iranian counterpart that the resuscitation of the JCPOA should ensure that all its participants have equal rights regarding the unhindered development of cooperation in all areas without any discrimination, according to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement.

Dzhagaryan reiterated this in his Wednesday briefing, saying that Russia wants the Vienna talks to achieve its goal. But we will also take into account our interests, he reiterated.

When asked to provide details about the guarantees Russia is seeking, the Ambassador said he is not authorized to give details in this regard. But he said, “We asked the United States. to give us a clear text on the guarantees which does not have any brackets so that we review it.”

Dzhagaryan said he is in regular contact with Iranian officials and they are fully aware of the Russian demand.

The Tehran Times asked the Russian ambassador whether the possible Western failure to provide written guarantees would impinge on the conclusion of the Vienna talks. “I’m not authorized to make predictions. Only the heads of the negotiating delegations in Vienna and the high-ranking officials in Moscow are in the know about this,” he said.

 

United States disappoints Ukraine, once again

The Pentagon on Wednesday spelled out reasons for not supporting the transfer of aging Polish fighter jets to Ukraine, calling it a high risk plan that would likely heighten tensions with Russia.  

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a morning conversation with his Polish counterpart, said the US government does not support the transfer of MiG-29 aircraft to the Ukrainian Air Force at this time, Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters. 

The United States does not want Poland to directly transfer the aircraft to Ukraine, nor does it want Warsaw to first give the MiG-29s to Washington to then give those to Kyiv, as publicly suggested by the Polish Government on Tuesday. 

“The intelligence community has assessed that the transfer of MiG-29s to Ukraine may be mistaken as escalatory and could result in significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO,” Kirby said.  

“Therefore, we also assess the transfer of the MiG-29s to Ukraine to be high-risk.” 

NATO ally Poland caught Washington off guard with the announcement it would transfer its fleet of MiG-29s to the US military’s Ramstein Air Base in Germany, a move that would allow Washington to then move the jets to Ukraine. Kyiv has begged Western officials for the Russian-made combat aircraft, which its pilots are trained to fly.  

But the Pentagon swiftly met the announcement with one of its own on Tuesday, calling the plan untenable, due to the geopolitical battlefield that is moving jets from a US-NATO base to a non-alliance country to help in its fight against Russia. The Kremlin warned this week that such a move could be seen as NATO inserting itself into the conflict.   

The United States has already quickly moved to send Ukraine hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal aid — including a US$350 million package approved late last month — but Wednesday's announcement appeared to draw a line at transferring combat aircraft. 

Kirby said the US is not drawing a red-line here, but would not detail the sausage making of how this particular decision was made. 

The US believes the best way to support Ukraine is by providing the weapons and the systems that they need most to defeat Russian aggression, in particular anti-armor and air defense, Kirby said. 

He also asserted that the Ukrainian Air Force already has several squadrons of mission-capable aircraft and adding to the inventory is not likely to significantly change the effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force relative to Russian capabilities. 

In addition to ruling out combat aircraft transfers, at least for now, Washington has repeatedly stressed it would not send US troops into Ukraine to fight or to patrol the skies.  

The United States also does not support a no-fly zone over Ukraine over fears it could set off another world war with nuclear-capable Russia.

Austin will travel to Brussels next week to meet with his NATO counterparts, where the Ukraine-Russia conflict will likely dominate talks, Kirby said. 

 

Russia-Ukraine conflict: Indian dilemma

Russian war in Ukraine has exposed Indian strategic vulnerabilities as few other things could, raising fundamental questions about the country’s position in the world, its regional security and the wisdom of its long-term relationships.

India abstained in a succession of United Nations votes—in the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council—condemning the Russian invasion. In its initial explanation of vote, India didn’t even mention Russia or deplore the invasion. Instead, India merely urged a de-escalation of the conflict by those involved, as if both countries were belligerents, when in fact there is an obvious aggressor and a clear victim. India didn’t even object to Russia’s earlier recognition of the independence of the separatist Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

In subsequent statements, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has at least reiterated India’s longstanding principles, while calling for ‘concerted efforts from all sides to return to the path of diplomatic negotiations and dialogue’. In the face of mounting casualties—including an Indian student killed by Russian fire while queuing for food in Kharkiv—Modi’s government continues to call in vain for peace, while ensuring that no criticism, let alone condemnation, of Russia passes official lips.

The reasons for India’s reticence are easy to discern. For starters, Russia supplies India with about 50% of its weapons and defence equipment. And while India’s other commercial ties with Russia are much more modest than those it has with the United States, diplomatic relations with the Kremlin have been close since the days of the Soviet Union. Soviet vetoes at the UN frequently shielded India on Kashmir, and the Kremlin’s protection was indispensable during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence, when the US and China supported Pakistan.

Russia’s increasing closeness to, and geopolitical affinity with, China has therefore been worrying Indian policymakers for some time. The Kremlin has also been visibly warming to Pakistan, China’s client state. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow on the day Russia invaded Ukraine, and continued with his meetings, including with President Vladimir Putin—a clear sign that Russia’s calculations in the subcontinent have shifted. India seems to feel that it needs to cling to Russia’s goodwill in order to avoid losing it altogether.

But India has also been looking west in recent years, building a strategic partnership with the US that includes increasingly significant defence ties. It has embraced the US-led Quad (an informal four-country grouping that also includes Japan and Australia) as a useful counter to China. But Indian leaders realize that their continuing failure to join their Quad partners in opposing Russia’s invasion could jeopardize these links. The government thus finds itself on a tightrope, anxious not to fall to either side.

The war in Ukraine poses another strategic challenge for India. Until the crisis began to escalate late last year, the US seemed to be focusing on the global threat posed by China, and on the Indo-Pacific rather than Europe. But America may now revive its adversarial obsession with Russia. That could reduce US hostility towards China, India’s menacing northern neighbor, which has repeatedly encroached on Indian Territory along the two countries’ disputed Himalayan border, even killing 20 Indian soldiers in an unprovoked attack less than two years ago.

All this is happening at a time when the security threat from Afghanistan is at its greatest since the Taliban were last in power two decades ago. China’s build-up of military infrastructure in the region, its financial patronage of the Taliban, its opening to Iran (which cooperated with India in countering the previous Taliban regime) and an increase in Pakistani-supported militancy in Kashmir have put India on the defensive. Russia, China and Iran recently conducted joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean.

India’s traditional allies in the region can sense which way the wind is blowing. Nepal has allowed China to build major railway lines and highways across its northern border areas. Bhutan signed a border agreement last October that surrenders territory coveted by China, giving the Chinese an advantage in any future conflict with India. Most of India’s other South Asian neighbors have signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which India strenuously opposes.

China’s increasing influence over these countries undermines India’s diplomatic position in its own backyard. And to the east, the ruling junta in Myanmar has declared a ‘special kinship’ with China, whereas its predecessor had come to see India as a valuable counterbalance to China.

In short, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed India in an unenviable position. Ideally, India would have liked to continue strengthening its partnerships with Western democracies, especially Australia, France, Japan, the UK and the US, while maintaining its traditional closeness to Russia, in the hope of deterring China from further encroachment on India’s core security interests. Instead, India finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It could antagonize the West while still losing Russia to China’s embrace, even as Pakistan—with friendlier Afghan and Iranian neighbors—feels emboldened in Kashmir.

The conflict in Ukraine is posing a profound challenge to Indian grand strategy. Non-alignment is hardly an option for a country with antagonistic neighbors seeking to violate its borders. India’s traditional reluctance to choose sides on major international issues could prove highly costly in the not-too-distant future, when it wants other countries’ support. It will be either Hobson’s choice, or Modi’s.

 

Russia or United States: Who benefits from revival of Iranian nuclear deal?

Russian invasion of Ukraine is throwing into doubt global efforts to revive the nuclear deal with Iran, just as international mediators appeared poised to announce a breakthrough.

Negotiators from the United States, Europe, Russia, China and Iran had largely managed to seal themselves off from outside crises around the globe over nearly a year of talks in Austria.

But international condemnation against Russia and a globally coordinated sanctions regime – now targeting Russian oil exports, its main financial artery – is reverberating through the conference rooms in Vienna.

“The Russia-Ukraine crisis has certainly cast a darker shadow over the talks than it did a few days ago,” said Naysan Rafati, senior analyst on Iran for the International Crisis Group.

Biden administration officials say that Russia has a key stake in reviving the agreement to reduce global risk for another nuclear-armed state, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin waging war against the West.

“Russia, for its own reasons, has chosen to be a participant in these negotiations because it wants to see Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon constrained,” Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for political affairs, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

Nuland said negotiators in Vienna have nearly completed an agreement on a pathway for the US and Iran to return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the formal name for the nuclear deal that former President Trump withdrew from in 2018.

But Russian and Iranian officials in recent days have issued statements laying out hard-line demands and casting doubt on the potential of the talks concluding.

Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said Tuesday that Tehran would not abandon its red lines over rejoining the deal, which are said to include guarantees that would bar any future US presidential administration from withdrawing from the deal, lifting all sanctions and allowing Iran a measure of recourse if United Nations sanctions were reimposed in a so-called snap-back, according to Iran’s semiofficial FARS News agency.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has recently pressed for Russia to have unhindered access to the Iranian market when sanctions are lifted against Tehran, as Moscow is buckling under sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s ambassador to Iran, Levan Dzhagaryan, reiterated on Wednesday, “The negotiations on the nuclear deal with Iran should take into account the legitimate interests of Russia in the implementation of comprehensive cooperation with Iran.” 

Yet Nuland, in front of lawmakers, said the US would not bow to Russian extortion efforts related to the nuclear deal.

“Russia is trying to up the ante and broaden its demands with regard to the JCPOA and we are not playing let us make a deal,’” she said.

Meanwhile, critics opposed to the nuclear deal in general are expressing fury over Russia potentially benefiting from sanctions relief on Iran.

“Let me get this straight, we're working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin to reach a deal that will help Russia evade sanctions being imposed for its aggression in Ukraine and work with its ally, Iran,” Senator Bill Hagerty, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

Senator Bob Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an opponent of the deal, said “I am specifically concerned that returning to the JCPOA will benefit Russia economically at a time when the international community is committed to squeezing Moscow.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was the architect of the Trump administration's maximum pressure sanctions campaign on Iran after the US exit from the deal, called it “completely nutty” to both work with the Russians in Vienna and consider lifting terror designations on Iran, “who are trying to kill people all across the world.”

“But the Biden admin is doing both,” said Pompeo, who is considered a potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

The Biden administration argues that reviving the Obama-era nuclear deal is the best chance to box in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with the regime in Tehran having significantly advanced its nuclear stockpile of weapons-grade uranium and infrastructure for building a bomb since it started violating the agreement’s terms in 2019. 

“Nuclear capability of the kind that we don't want to see could come to Iran in a matter of weeks and months if we don't get them back into this agreement,” Nuland said, “That is not good for the planet. And to have both Iran and Russia able to threaten all of us in that way would be catastrophic at this time, not to mention what they might do if they teamed up.”

A restoration of the JCPOA is likely to entail the Biden administration lifting specific sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran disposing of its nuclear material stockpiles and opening itself up to intrusive monitoring by international nuclear watchdogs.

Suzanne DiMaggio, an expert on diplomacy with Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Russians’ most recent demands for access to the Iranian market could be met using legal carve outs, if they are limited to the implementation of a restored JCPOA.

“But if the goal is broader – such as sanction-proofing a range of Russian interactions with Iran beyond the scope of the deal – it will complicate things,” she wrote in an email to The Hill. 

“The implications are still unclear because the Russians haven’t clarified their objectives. The longer they take to spell out their end goals; it appears their intention is to derail the process.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that reaching an agreement is still possible with Russia’s eleventh-hour demands, but it does require grit and a willingness to delay the deal.

“Make no mistake, Russia is looking to use Iran as a sanctions busting hub to offset Ukraine-related sanctions pressure,” he wrote in an email to The Hill.

“Russia and Iran have often raised last minute demands in negotiations in a bid to get more and offer less. What makes this different is Russia's raging war in Ukraine.”

Both US and European officials have stressed that the indirect talks between the US and Iran over the past 11-months in Vienna are nearing an end, either to revive the JCPOA or allow it to become obsolete.

Iranian officials have refused to engage directly with the Biden administration in objection to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal, a position DiMaggio urged Iran to reverse. 

“The Iranians should seriously consider moving from indirect to direct communications with US negotiators,” she wrote to The Hill. 

“If the talks collapse, there will be efforts to get them back on track, but it will take time and it’s possible that the JCPOA will no longer be the vehicle. In such a case, we shouldn’t expect that either the Biden administration or the Iranians could easily pivot to a new basis for negotiations given rapidly changing circumstances. 

While Moscow’s new demands may kill the talks, there are some signals that the Vienna negotiators could announce an agreement shortly. 

Rafati, of the International Crisis Group, said an agreement reached by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency over the weekend to resolve an investigation into uranium particles at old yet undeclared sites signaled one step forward on a key sticking point. 

And Iran’s chief negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Bagheri Kani, reportedly returned to Vienna on Wednesday after discussions in Tehran with Iranian leaders, a strong signal that specific decisions are being reached.

Russia’s representative in the talks, Mikhail Ulyanov, tweeted on Wednesday that negotiators are at the very last stage of the diplomatic marathon towards restoration of the deal.

 

 

What is going on in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Three days after Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, the details are beginning to emerge. According to people who were privy to details about the meeting, the current situation is that Russia has offered a "final" version of its offer to end the crisis, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky needs to accept or decline.

The proposal was deemed difficult but not impossible, the sources said. It is worse than what Zelensky would have gotten before the invasion but the gaps between the sides are not great.

Putin ordered his forces to halt – and the command for a ceasefire to be enacted was given – in order to wait for Zelensky's decision, the sources said. 

If Ukraine's President rejects the proposal, French President Emmanuel Macron's assumption that the worst is before us is prone to happen. In that scenario, Putin will order his army to put the pedal to the metal and change the face of Ukraine. 

Zelensky is torn, the sources said. On the one hand, he is enjoying immense popularity and has become the perfect Che Guevara. On the other hand, he knows well what the Argentinean revolutionary and guerrilla leader's end was.

Zelensky can fortify Ukraine's independence but will have to pay a heavy price, the sources said. Assumptions are that he will be forced to give up the contested Donbas region, officially recognize the pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine, and pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO, shrink his army and declare neutrality. If he declines the proposal, the outcome may be terrible, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainians will die and there is a high probability that his country will completely lose its independence.

According to the sources knowledgeable about the content of the talks, Bennett's trip to Moscow was not meant to mediate between the sides and no arbitration proposal was officially offered. Rather, the trip was meant to get a sense of what Putin's position was, what his state of mind was and what his redlines were, and report them to the West. 

The real negotiations, according to the sources, are happening directly between Russia and Ukraine and are much more serious than what the West has been saying. Kyiv has not shared with the West what has been going on in the negotiations since they do not want to damper the worldwide sense of emergency. 

In reality, the Ukrainians know well what Putin's demands are and they know they will have to make a dramatic decision in the coming days.

No one will pressure the Ukrainians, the sources said; the decision is Zelensky's.

One thing is certain, Putin is determined, and the growing complications since the invasion will not deter him. On the contrary, he cannot turn back, so the more the war becomes difficult and casualties mount, the more he will be pressured to show real achievements. 

The impression is that, despite the fact that the predictions of a quick victory over the Ukrainian army have been proven false, Putin is as determined as ever.

Bangladeshi bulker hit by missile in Ukraine port

According to Seatrade Maritime News, the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority reported that the 38,894 dwt, Banglar Samriddih, at anchor in the Olvia port had been struck by a Russian Navy rocket at 17-25hrs, local time, on March 02.

The port authority said in a Facebook post two tugs were sent to rescue the crew and preliminary reports indicated none of the 29 crew members had been injured. The vessels arrive in the port on February 23 and had been waiting to load.

The 2018 built vessel is owned and managed by Bangladesh Shipping Corp. According to security analysts Dryad Global it is the fourth commercial vessel to be struck by missiles since the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, including the Yasa Jupiter on February 24, and Namura Queen and Millennial Spirit on February 25.

The Ukrainian government said that the Ukrainian-flagged bulk carrier Princess Nicole was approached by Russian warships and made an illogical and sharp change of course while headed to Snake Island, also known as Zmiinyi Island.

The Ukrainian state border guard service also reported that a vessel, Athena, 22nm from Snake Island, reportedly sailing in Russian waters, had been commanded by approaching Russian to allow for inspection. The owner immediately informed the Ukrainian authorities.

UN-body has called an extraordinary session of its council address the impacts on shipping and seafarers of the situation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

IMO said the virtual meeting on 10 and 11 March was being held the request of several council members.

Greece’s Shipping and Island Policy Minister, Ioannis Plakiotakis, revealed he personally contacted IMO Secretary general, Kitack Lim to discuss concerns about the safety of seafarers and vessels trapped in Ukraine.

Plakiotakis revealed the effort in a statement on his ministry's website, as reports started coming in that seafarers have been injured during attacks against vessels since Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 24. Since then, commercial ships about to load or unload cargo have become trapped in Ukrainian ports after military authorities shut down the terminals and stopped vessels from leaving.

France, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, is also leading the initiative in calling on IMO to take immediate measures to protect seafarers in the war-torn region. Besides Greece and France, other nations that have joined the call for an IMO meeting include Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Cyprus and Malta.

Plakiotakis noted that countries from outside the EU, such as Australia and the United States, are early supporters of the request.

Some 40 vessels are known to be trapped in the Ukraine with owners and crew facing harrowing times. For owners war insurance costs have soared and at least one seafarer has been killed and others injured in rocket attacks in the area.

Iran devising mechanism for free trade with Pakistan

Consul General of Iran Hamid Raza Ghomi said the Islamic Republic of Iran is devising a mechanism for free trade with Pakistan to strengthen economic relations between the two brotherly Islamic countries.

If the policy based on the mechanism is implemented, the set mutual trade target 5 billion dollars between the two countries could be achieved easily,” said Hamid Raza Ghomi while talking to Sarhad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCI) President Hasnain Khurshid at the Chamber’s House here on Friday.

SCCI’s other office-bearers and officials of the Iranian Consulate General, including Hossein Maliki, Imtiaz Ali, Dr Fazal Azeem were present on the occasion.

The Iranian diplomat said both countries enjoyed cordial relations owing to common culture and religion. He said the option of barter trade was available to cement the mutual relationship between Iran and Pakistan. The Iranian consul general suggested signing of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between the SCCI and Industries and Mines Ministry in Iran for joint initiatives to promote bilateral trade.

Earlier, the SCCI chief emphasized that joint efforts should be made to enlarge mutual trade and economic relations between Pakistan and Iran.

Hasnain Khurshid pointed out that it was getting difficult to achieve mutual trade targets for lack of proper banking channels between the two countries.

 An ambitious 5 billion dollars mutual trade target is being set between Pakistan and Iran, but in the last year, 504million dollars trade was carried out between the two countries, the SCCI chief pointed out.

However, he hoped the constitution mechanism for free trade would lead to the achievement of the afore-stated set Pak-Iran mutual trade target.

He said the exchange of business delegations, joint exhibitions, signing of agreements between chambers and taking benefits from each other’s experiences and launching of joint ventures would cement bilateral trade relations between Pakistan and Iran.

The SCCI chief stressed the need for early completion of the Pak-Iranian Gas pipeline project.

 Ghomi said a delegation led by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Mushtaq Ghani would soon visit Iran. He suggested to the SCCI chief to become part of the delegation as that would ensure the representation of the business community.

The Iranian diplomat agreed to the proposals made by the SCCI president and other participants. He said the SCCI should get practical and sign an agreement with the Mashhad Chamber of Iran, assuring his full assistance in this regard at every level.