Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

The New York Times' Peter Baker breaks a story about the Obama administration's efforts to engage in linkage politics with Russia

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia's president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.

“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”

Three things of interest here:

  1. This is the first in what I expect will be a series of linkage/grand bargain efforts by the Obama administration to various rivals and adversaries;
  2. Given the number of officials that talked to Baker, this seems like a planned leak by Obama's foreign policy team -- i.e., they want everyone to know about this proposal to the Russians.  This is curious at first glance, because linkage strategies tend to have greater success when done covertly.  In this case, I suspect the leak was designed to force the Russians to make a decision one way or another, while giving Obama political cover if they reject the linkage (note that they seem to be adopting the same straegy towards Iran). 
  3. The letter was sent to Medvedev and not Putin.  I'm guessing diplomatic protocol played a role in that decision, but one wonders if it was also part of an effort to split Medvedev away from Putin. 

The Times story has already been updated with Medvedev's reaction: 

On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.

“Medvedev appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American relations as “exceptionally positive,” and hopes details can be fleshed out at a meeting on Friday in Geneva between Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev will meet for the first time on April 2 in London, officials said Monday.

My hunch is that, in the end, the Russians will spurn this deal [UPDATE:  Drezner gets results from Dmitri Medvedev!].  Russia has sizeable commercial and strategic interests in Iran, and will want to maintain as much flexibility as possible in dealing with Tehran.  If Moscow is smart, however, they will try to parlay this as a means for acting as the interlocutor between Iran and the West.

On the other hand, it seems though the Obama administration can't lose.  If the Russians say no, then Obama's hand is strengthened in both Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia loses some leverage in trying to get missile defense out of their backyard. 

Developing....

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BRETT

4:56 PM ET

March 3, 2009

Three things of interest

Three things of interest here:

1. This is the first in what I expect will be a series of linkage/grand bargain efforts by the Obama administration to various rivals and adversaries;

I have to smile at these types of things, because they reflect such a liberal view on foreign policy; they tend to think that the rest of the world is just waiting for the right deal, and that fundamentally opposition and conflict, much of it rooted in the institutional policies of foreign states, can simply be bargained away. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't find it particularly realistic.

2. Given the number of officials that talked to Baker, this seems like a planned leak by Obama's foreign policy team -- i.e., they want everyone to know about this proposal to the Russians. This is curious at first glance, because linkage strategies tend to have greater success when done covertly. In this case, I suspect the leak was designed to force the Russians to make a decision one way or another, while giving Obama political cover if they reject the linkage (note that they seem to be adopting the same straegy towards Iran).

That wouldn't surprise me. It would be interesting, though, to know if Obama has any serious expectations for this process.

3. The letter was sent to Medvedev and not Putin. I'm guessing diplomatic protocol played a role in that decision, but one wonders if it was also part of an effort to split Medvedev away from Putin.

Possibly, but Medvedev is the President. One must follow the protocols, after all.

My hunch is that, in the end, the Russians will spurn this deal [UPDATE: Drezner gets results from Dmitri Medvedev!]. Russia has sizeable commercial and strategic interests in Iran, and will want to maintain as much flexibility as possible in dealing with Tehran.

To be honest, I have no idea why the US and others ever saw trying to get Russia to give these interests up in exchange for the dismantling of missile defense in Eastern Europe as a serious idea, other than the fact that they have nothing else in the tank (they don't exactly want to bomb Iran and possibly start a regional war, and they don't like the idea of giving a rising regional power nukes). Russia has never shown any indication that they would ever give these interests up, and they've only gotten their fingers deeper over time (they are the biggest partner in helping to run Iran's nuclear program0.

For that matter, does Moscow have something to lose if Iran goes nuclear? They need regional allies in the area, and they've already been approaching isolated, Iran-friendly states in the area, like Syria. The Iranians are no enemies of theirs, and in fact they are enemies of their enemies (violent central asian sunnis).

On the other hand, it seems though the Obama administration can't lose. If the Russians say no, then Obama's hand is strengthened in both Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia loses some leverage in trying to get missile defense out of their backyard.

What I think the Russians will do is try to get something for nothing, like saying "Dismantle missile defense and we won't put missiles in Kaliningrad". They've never shown any interest in actually giving up something important, like their Iran ties, in exchange for missile defense in Eastern Europe.

As is, the above is what will probably happen; Russia will reject the idea, and Obama will say "Go forward with missile defense".

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:56 AM ET

March 4, 2009

Incident reflects sorry state of US Diplomacy

As is, the above is what will probably happen; Russia will reject the idea, and Obama will say "Go forward with missile defense".

Everyone has the right to float ideas, and whom it concerns has the right to reject them. Rahm Emanuel or whatever member of the Israel Lobby inside the White House floated this one, has the right and Russia of course rejected it, as it has the right to do. But you are wrong to assume that Obama just goes forward with the shield after this. This would be perceived as too arrogant and unilateral and inflexible. Now is the time for Russia to float ideas, and the Americans to come up with new ideas, and perhaps a compromise of some sort will come out of it. All this is called diplomacy, and the United States (used) to have several, high-skilled and dedicated diplomats working 24/7 with just such issues. After 9/11 much of this prestine work have been curtailed and decades of their hard work in building Good-will for The United States all over the world have been wasted, so that they in many cased have to start from square one.

Time to open the Embassy in Tehran

What The United States should do as soon as possible is restoring full diplomatic ties with Iran. It is a discrace that they still do not have an embassy in this important country, when so much is at stake. They had an embassy in Moscow during the cold war, a country branded an 'Evil Empire', so of course they could - and should - have one in a country that until recently was part of an 'Axis-of Evil'. After all Diplomacy was invented to prevent misunderstandings that could lead to war. Ask yourself which group of people with links to which country and with not just influence but actual control over U.S. Foreign Policy allways have resisted normalisation of relations

Reasons why this idea was made public

First of all it reflects the sorry state of the State Department (sorry for the pun), and that these policy initiatives apparently still are (half)-baked in The White House, and made public, instead of being conducted by skilled diplomats. It was made public because it is in the interest of The Israel Lobby to portray Russia as 1) a partner to Irans nuclear programme and 2) one that rejects a good proposal.

After all the proposed interceptor missiles in Poland and the radarstation in the Chech Republic were designed by neocons with ties to Israel to make Europeans feel as if they 'are in the same boat' as Israel. The strategic interests of this country - with an inhabitable surface area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland - can briefly be described as a wish to get as many as possible to share its strategic interests. And if Europeans begins to fear Iranian missiles like Israelis does, this is useful in shaping opinions and preparing the ground for military offensives some day.

The plans have greatly offended Russias feelings. They are proposed in the very same area that Russians cleared for Nazis in 1944-45. If they had not done this, there would hardly have been any Jews left in Europe. It was the Realist James Baker who succeeded in getting the Russians to retreat from East Germany in negociations based on trust with his counterpart Eduard Shevardnaze, in what have been decribed as the first time in history that a Major Power have ceased territory voluntarily, without a single shot being fired.

To all this members of the Isreal Lobby replies: "Hey, the Russians, aren't they the ones that have restricted the activities and jailed representatives of our people [the oligarchs]? ["No one shall antagonise our people, not today when we hold so much power, and even control The Foreign Policy of the worlds remaining superpower"] Witness that Mearsheimer & Walt's book is called: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" - not "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Mid East Policy" as perhaps could be expected, implying that they control other areas as well, and it would be naive to think that everything that has got to do with Iranian missiles are not duly controlled.

Gauge for yourself
One of the advantages of the small, close-knit Israel Lobby community, is that it is possible for outsiders quickly to gauge its members moods and fears. You just need to open a newspaper in any City or talk with anyone with affiliations to said Lobby, and you will be aware that Ahmadinejad and Putin are considered 'baddies', because they have talked bad/acted bad against Jews. Actually Putin was elected precisely to deal with the Oligarchs accumulation of wealth, which was considered unfair by the public, themselves in many cases living on the bare minimum. The American variants of the phenomenen, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller were accepted, cause America was a new country with enough for everyone. Russia is old, and furthermore has had 70 years of Communism.

 

DAVEINBOCA

5:06 PM ET

March 3, 2009

Putin Nixed This One, IMHO

Judging from reports that Putin has Stalin's library in his Kremlin office and refers often to annotations Yusuf Vissarionivich made on many subjects, I don't think subtlety encompasses much of Vlad the Empoisoner's playbook. The apparent rejection in today's headlines is another indication that Putin and his sock puppet nominal president are counting on using the Germans to counter American efforts to keep Europe a strong NATO ally.

 

KELLI-K

7:22 PM ET

March 3, 2009

Throwing Eastern Europe under the bus

I'm frankly a little surprised that you are so sanguine about our very green president offering "secret deals" to our most erratic and dangerous rival, especially when they involve (as this one seems to) cutting our Eastern European allies out of the loop. At a time when they are in economic free fall and Putin is stirring up old tensions in the neighborhood, to have Obama saying the shield "was all about Iran" seems a slap in the face.

So, likely nothing will be gained from Russia, but we may risk appearing like feckless allies to friendly states already reeling from (what they see as) bad advice over the past decade and a very recent slap in the face from the EU.

Or am I barking completely up the wrong tree?

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:57 AM ET

March 4, 2009

We want to restore common sense after Bush

to our most erratic and dangerous rival, especially when they involve (as this one seems to) cutting our Eastern European allies out of the loop

Russia is not what you describe, but sensible, pragmatic and rational and looking after its own interest, as it should be. They have had their feelings seriously hurt by The Israel Lobby's plans in Eastern Europe. The sooner common sense is restored and Bush' erratic policies reversed, in this field as well as in others, the better for the world, for free people and for peace.

The Israel Lobby are behind

The proposed interceptor missiles in Poland and the radarstation in the Chech Republic were designed by neocons with ties to Israel to make Europeans feel as if they 'are in the same boat' as Israel. The strategic interests of this country - with an inhabitable surface area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland - can briefly be described as a wish to get as many as possible to share its strategic interests. And if Europeans begins to fear Iranian missiles like Israelis does, this is useful in shaping opinions and preparing the ground for military offensives some day.

The plans have greatly offended Russias feelings. It was the very same area that Russians cleared for Nazis in 1944-45. If they had not done this, there would hardly have been any Jews left in Europe. It was the Realist James Baker who succeeded in getting the Russians to retreat from East Germany in negociations based on trust with his counterpart Eduard Shevardnaze, in what have been decribed as the first time in history that a Major Power have ceased territory voluntarily, without a single shot being fired.

To all this members of the Isreal Lobby replies: "Hey, the Russians, aren't they the ones that have restricted the activities and jailed representatives of our people [the oligarchs]? ["No one shall antagonise our people, not today when we hold so much power, and even control The Foreign Policy of the worlds remaining superpower"] Witness that Mearsheimer & Walt's book is called: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" - not "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Mid East Policy" as perhaps could be expected, implying that they control other areas as well, and it would be naive to think that everything that has got to do with Iranian missiles are not duly controlled.

Gauge for yourself
One of the advantages of the small, close-knit Israel Lobby community, is that it is possible for outsiders quickly to gauge its members moods and fears. You just need to open a newspaper in any City or talk with anyone with affiliations to said Lobby, and you will be aware that Ahmadinejad and Putin are considered 'baddies', because they have talked bad/acted bad against Jews. Actually Putin was elected precisely to deal with the Oligarchs accumulation of wealth, which was considered unfair by the public, themselves in many cases living on the bare minimum. The American variants of the phenomenen, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller were accepted, cause America was a new country with enough for everyone. Russia is old, and furthermore has had 70 years of Communism.

 

ERICCOX

7:32 PM ET

March 3, 2009

another angle

Could it also be possible that this gives Obama a possible out to cut missile defense funding? Spending billions of dollars on a system that doesn't really work all that well or choosing not to build that system, saving the money, pretty much being just as secure with some chance that Russia helps with Iran seems to be an acceptable risk.

From Russia's perspective, why would they give the US any concessions to get rid of a system that really doesn't work all that well while the US saves money?

Otherwise, I basically agree with Dan. This is a low-cost initiative in that it is likely to spark little ire at home, makes them look reasonable internationally, has some benefits if it works, and no real cost if it doesn't. It might, to a degree, upset Poland and the Czech Republic, but what are their alternatives? Are they going to look more to Russia, or continue, as they have been, becoming more integrated into Europe?

 

BRETT

7:54 PM ET

March 3, 2009

Could it also be possible

Could it also be possible that this gives Obama a possible out to cut missile defense funding? Spending billions of dollars on a system that doesn't really work all that well or choosing not to build that system, saving the money, pretty much being just as secure with some chance that Russia helps with Iran seems to be an acceptable risk.

The system actually works quite well, and has done very well in the testing they've had of it. That's why, for example, it's not just the US pushing this; the Polish and Czech governments wanted it, and other nations (including China, Russia, Japan, and so forth) are looking into Missile Defense.

From Russia's perspective, why would they give the US any concessions to get rid of a system that really doesn't work all that well while the US saves money?

Because it actually does work, at least in testing. The Russians certainly know this (they've had their own ABM system around Moscow for decades with ground-based interceptors - legal under the defunct ABM Treaty), and it's a problem for them, seeing as they've invested billions in new missile technology for their strategic arsenal.

It might, to a degree, upset Poland and the Czech Republic, but what are their alternatives?

"To a degree"? Both governments put themselves out on the line for this project, particularly the Czech government. If Obama just pulls the rug out from under them, he'll find much less co-operation from them the next time he needs something.

 

BLUE13326

11:42 PM ET

March 3, 2009

I don't understand such a

I don't understand such a skewed view that considers this to be a no-lose proposition (such things are extremely rare in these areas, and this certainly isn't one). Here's one possible 'loss', for example: a new leftist president, pledged to 'repair' our relations with the world, completely undermines the faith of Eastern Europe in us by floating the possibility of breaking pledges made by the previous president. Russia is emboldened, knowing that Obama is willing to sacrifice Eastern Europe (haven't we seen this before). These are the same Eastern European countries who are currently a tinderbox, ready to explode as their economies are on the brink of collapse.

And you think this is a no-lose move? Wow.

 

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:57 AM ET

March 4, 2009

Russia have proposed a radar in Azerbajdsjan instead

The Russians - as well as other informed people -knows that if you want to shoot down a missile, the chances of success are greater if you do it as early on and as close to the place where it is fired - as possible.

For this reason the Russians have proposed that The US could use one of its old bases in Azerbajdsjan.

The Israel Lobby are behind

The proposed interceptor missiles in Poland and the radarstation in the Chech Republic were designed by neocons with ties to Israel to make Europeans feel as if they 'are in the same boat' as Israel. The strategic interests of this country - with an inhabitable surface area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland - can briefly be described as a wish to get as many as possible to share its strategic interests. And if Europeans begins to fear Iranian missiles like Israelis does, this is useful in shaping opinions and preparing the ground for military offensives some day.

The plans have greatly offended Russias feelings. It was the very same area that Russians cleared for Nazis in 1944-45. If they had not done this, there would hardly have been any Jews left in Europe. It was the Realist James Baker who succeeded in getting the Russians to retreat from East Germany in negociations based on trust with his counterpart Eduard Shevardnaze, in what have been decribed as the first time in history that a Major Power have ceased territory voluntarily, without a single shot being fired.

To all this members of the Isreal Lobby replies: "Hey, the Russians, aren't they the ones that have restricted the activities and jailed representatives of our people [the oligarchs]? ["No one shall antagonise our people, not today when we hold so much power, and even control The Foreign Policy of the worlds remaining superpower"] Witness that Mearsheimer & Walt's book is called: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" - not "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Mid East Policy" as perhaps could be expected, implying that they control other areas as well, and it would be naive to think that everything that has got to do with Iranian missiles are not duly controlled.

Gauge for yourself
One of the advantages of the small, close-knit Israel Lobby community, is that it is possible for outsiders quickly to gauge its members moods and fears. You just need to open a newspaper in any City or talk with anyone with affiliations to said Lobby, and you will be aware that Ahmadinejad and Putin are considered 'baddies', because they have talked bad/acted bad against Jews. Actually Putin was elected precisely to deal with the Oligarchs accumulation of wealth, which was considered unfair by the public, themselves in many cases living on the bare minimum. The American variants of the phenomenen, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller were accepted, cause America was a new country with enough for everyone. Russia is old, and furthermore has had 70 years of Communism.

 

J-P-R

12:45 AM ET

March 5, 2009

Base-play

Getting rid of the ABM defense system in Eastern Europe will prove disastrous for the U.S. interests in the region. Not only is it a slap in the face to Poland and CR, but with Russia's recent moves to restore old bases in Soviet successor states and the Kyrgyz government giving us the boot (coincidentally following a healthy aid package from Russia [with love]), it threatens America's strategic posture in E. Europe and Central Asia. Think Vova doesn't realize this? Plus, even if Russia agreed to stop aiding Iran in return for some concessions, who/what is to stop them from continuing to do it covertly? Lets be serious here...

 

SCOTT LUCAS

7:36 AM ET

March 6, 2009

Iran, Hillary, and State Department Hi-Jinks

Good post, Dan. I'm reading this initiative differently, both in light of Clinton's trip to Middle East this week and Obama's distancing from the manoeuvre.

1. I no longer think the letter made the Missile Defence-Iran link initially claimed.
2. I think leaker, probably in combination with Hillary's trip to ME, was trying to apply pressure on Iran before any "engagement", both on direct US-Iran issues and (more importantly) Israel/Palestine.

Latest analysis at http://enduringamerica.com/2009/03/05/persian-letters-iran-missile-defense-and-a-clinton-power-play/

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More