Obama to go hat in hand to the Russians to beg forgiveness.

[Sheilbh]

I think Bush gets somewhat of an unfair rap about his "eye/soul" comment-- I don't think Bush or anyone in the administration genuinely thought Putin or the rest of the Russian leadership were good guys.  I think it was just the administration's well-intentioned (but wrong IMO) approach to speak of the Russians as we wanted them to be/act, hoping that would somehow influence them to act/be that way. 

Although I think, with a few exceptions, it's difficult to judge Bush's first term normally.  I think they fucked up Iraq and didn't commit sufficiently to Afghanistan and I think they missed a chance with Iran.  But aside from those issues in terms of Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa policy I think it's entirely understandable that they didn't entirely have their eye on the ball because the over-riding concern was terrorism and the Middle East.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yi, Berkut -

The Russian policy towards Iran has been one of ambivalence.  The Russians have taken advantage of Western hostility to expand trade relationships.  That includes exports of weaponry, which happen to be one of the Iranian import needs that coincides with a Russian export capability (it's not like the Iranians are going to import Russian gas).  The Russians have had no motivation to cooperate on sanctions, because the Europeans weren't fully on board, and because the US couldn't secure Chinese cooperation - why disrupt their own trade for what would have been a symbolic gesture?  At the same time, the Russians have been quietly cutting back on Iranian student and work visas, and have been squabbling over the Caspian.  The Russians also still have enormous headaches with Islamist movements within and on their borders, and have little long-run interest in emboldening the Islamic Republic.

This is an area where if we wan't them to cooperate, we will need to have their goodwill.  It's possible they will never play ball out of spite, but that I think misreads the situation.  The Russians have quietly been helping out on Afghanistan, facilitating the flow of supplies to NATO allied forces.  Whatever schadenfreude they may get at seeing the US struggle in the ME is outweighed by their own interests in stable southern border.

It is also possible that the price required for their cooperation is not worth paying.  But the Potemkin Village missile defense installation in the Baltic is not even close to be being an untouchable chip.

[Berkut]

They have been "quietly helping out" by pressuring Kyrgyzstan to close the US airbase there that supplies troops in Afghanistan.

That is pretty quiet, I will give you that.

If they have such an interest in a stable border with Iran, and they want to avoid emboldening Islamist movements, why are they selling them advanced air defense systems that can be used to shoot down NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, much less aircraft attacking Irans nuclear program?

If in fact they care more about keeping Iran from getting nukes than they do about hampering US efforts, then they would not sell the SA-10 to Iran regardless of "boondoggle" missile defense systems...right?

[The Minsky Moment]

Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?

Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.

I am gonna go with "weakness." 

That is my view as well, although I don't think it is so obvious as to make it a purely rhetorical question. 

There has been a lot of talk recently about the instability along the US-Mexican border, but a similar story of perhaps greater significance hasn't gotten a lot of play: the "russian connection" drug trade running from the poppy fields of Afghanistan through the former SSR "stans" through Russia proper to the customers in Europe.  The combination of governmental corruption in the -Stans, lots of cheap vintage weaponry lying around, piles of drug cash and the accompanying money laundering facilities, poorly policed borders, and Islamist fanatics roaming about - is worthy of serious concern.  This is a part of the world we will be hearing more about soon.

[Berkut]

Actually, the problem of heroin within Russia is becoming a large concern for them.

[The Minsky Moment]

If they have such an interest in a stable border with Iran, and they want to avoid emboldening Islamist movements, why are they selling them advanced air defense systems that can be used to shoot down NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, much less aircraft attacking Irans nuclear program

While I understand that the S-300 is a capable AA missile, I doubt very much that S-300s deployed anywhere in Iran can shoot down aircraft operating above Kandahar.

Personally, I think the more interesting question is not "why are the Russians proposing to sell S-300s to Iran" (Obvious A: "To make money"), but rather, why is it going to take an entire year before any deliveries are made?

[Berkut]

The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.

Believe it or not, NATO aircraft operate over more than just Kandahar.

And I don't think that is all that interesting a question at all - in fact, I think it is your attempt to distract from the rather basic point. Which is that them supplying Iran with one of the most advanced SAM systems in the world pretty much sinks the idea that they care all that much about containing Iran, as opposed to "containing" the West.

I am not even sure I can blame them, given their priorities.

[garbon]

I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true).  But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies.

[Berkut]

I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true).  But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies.

Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.

[The Minsky Moment]

The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.

Kandahar is about 500 miles from the Iranian border.  While it is a matter of academic interest that a hypothetical Sa-10 battery that was deployed right on the wilds of the Iranian-Afghan border could reach into the near-empty wastelands of far-western Afghanistan, it is of questionable practical consequence.

[katmai]

I keep thinking you are Marty, Berk...as in my head I have that Marty once had a horse avatar (no idea if this is true).  But then I figure it out when someone quotes you or when I don't see any evidence of mismanaged analogies.

Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.

Glad to see keeping his sense of analogies alive as well.

[Berkut]

The SA-10 has a 120 mile range, so yeah, one deployed along the border can certainly reach into Afghanistan.

Kandahar is about 500 miles from the Iranian border.  While it is a matter of academic interest that a hypothetical Sa-10 battery that was deployed right on the wilds of the Iranian-Afghan border could reach into the near-empty wastelands of far-western Afghanistan, it is of questionable practical consequence.

Tell me more about how you know that no NATO aircraft fly within 100 miles of teh Iranian border in Afghanistan?

It is interesting that you hang your acceptance on this issue though - it is a-ok for Russia to give Iran advanced SAM systems, as long as they cannot shoot down planes actually over Kandahar with them!

[garbon]

Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.

I don't particularly care for artichokes but I suppose they are better(healthier) for one than an F-150.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is interesting that you hang your acceptance on this issue though - it is a-ok for Russia to give Iran advanced SAM systems, as long as they cannot shoot down planes actually over Kandahar with them!

It's not a question of accept or not accept.  I know we aren't going to use force to prevent it.  We can't use the Security Council to stop it because Russia can veto.  We can stamp our feet, beat our chests and talk about how "tough" we are, and call Vlad Putin rude names, but that is not likely to work either.

What I do know is that the Iranians are not going to use their hypothetical Russian supplied missiles to take out NATO aircraft operating in Afganistan.  First because the primary areas of Taliban activity are out of range.  Second, because the most likely deployment areas are places like their nuclear development facilities (Bushehr, Yazd, Natanz, Isfahan) - none of which are within 500 miles of the Afgan border.  (The only major city vaguely near the Afghan border is Mashhad - there is an airbase there so I suppose they could deploy the missiles there.  It would still be out of range of Herat).   Third, because if a NATO aircraft got hit by a SA-10 it would be pretty obvious who was responsible and we could and would retaliate disproportionately.

[Queequeg]

There's been quite a bit of fighting in Iranian, Pakistani and Afghan Balochisan, but I doubt we are using Zaranj as a major supply center or anything, or that the Iranians would strike against Pakistani Balochistan.

Then again, this is semantics.  I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland.