When creating diplomatic relations between Iran and regional, regional and international authority, there is only one “redline” that “protects the national interests and safety of the country in a chaotic, external environment. “That’s what it means. Therefore, based on the principles of “East and West”, Iran’s Islamic Republic, in addition to emphasizing its independence, has sought to pursue a “balanced and realistic foreign policy” and at the same time, it has sought to achieve national interests. We want to maximize and reduce it. A threat to the security of the country and territorial integrity in defining relationships with each international actor.
However, Iran is always at the heart of the Heartland region as a crossroads of communication and the center of hydrocarbon resources, and has always been a major global force, particularly in the US, UK and Russia. It has attracted attention. In this equation, the countries mentioned held the “Tehran Conference” as allies without the permission of the Iranian government at the time, and sometimes the scope of competition expanded, becoming a kind of zero-sum equation! Recently, at the annual conference of the Tehran-based Iranian Political Science Association on the end of the era of long-term alliances and coalitions, Mohammad Javad Zarif reissued last year’s statement and examples of Russian national defense cooperation proposals. The European states mentioned have adopted a rushed approach by the Russian embassy, publishing texts against the vice president on strategic issues, implicitly denounced “lies” and “ignorance.” But what is the truth behind the problem?
What is the reality?
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two streams, the “Western” and “Neo-Eurasians”, took over the management of the Russian Kremlin. Between 1991 and 2009, the new Russian rulers were accepted as part of Western civilization, and even part of the European continent, and due to their economic, technical, political and security interests. I tried to benefit from it. However, under President George W. Bush and subsequent Barack Obama, the United States, together with China, Iran and North Korea, will identify new Russia as revisionist countries in the international system and present it in US national security. The document was determined as a threat to the interests of Washington and the West. The emergence of colour revolutions in Ukraine (Orange Revolution-2004), Georgia (Ballah Revolution-2003), and the influence in Armenia, the influence of moving away from Moscow, is the Western plan to approach the boundaries of federal independent states shows the (cis) area and surrounding the new Russia.
Russian military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine can be seen as a sign of Russia’s response to the approach of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and military installations near Russia’s historic border.
In 2006, with the help of Israel’s “security creation” project, the Bush administration attempted to portray Iran’s missile capabilities not only as countries in the West Asia region, but also as a direct threat to Berlin, Rome and Paris. did. , and even in London. However, apart from psychological manipulation, reality was a different thing. Americans intended to use the situation of the “falling of the Berlin Wall” to approach the Russian border and deploy so-called attack and defense weapons to the east of the European continent. In 2006, Americans began the first round of negotiations with the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary for the deployment of anti-missile systems. A few months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented a security initiative to Washington, which was ostensibly against Iran between the US, Europe and Russia. We asked them to jointly define it. The accuracy of this story can be confirmed by studying White House documents. The delicate and contemplation of this story is that while Russians had no intention of working with the US against Iran, they were forced to go with the “anti-Iran” concept to prevent the deployment of nearby anti-missile systems. That means that. Their boundary.
In other words, to prevent the US from exploiting the waves of “Iranphobia” in the West, Russia had no choice but to temporarily and superficially side it to block NATO’s anti-Russian plan. . The issue was forever on the sidelines after the US announced its opposition and never again was raised.
However, there are many questions and ambiguities about the narration of former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, why it was published in the current situation, and at the same time the Russian Embassy’s response to the issue. Regardless of the internal conflict over the legality of Zarif’s existence as an advisor on the 14th government’s strategic issues, the essence of his speech at the annual meeting of the Iranian Political Science Society was not fundamentally “anti-Russian.” It seems to have happened. Rather, on the contrary, it was created with a realistic view of national interests, celebrating pragmatism. The former Iranian foreign minister has defended the need to expand relations between Russia and China on various occasions as part of Iran’s balanced foreign policy.
Despite historic ups and downs, Tehran and Moscow’s relationship lies at the highest level of strategic coordination and cooperation. The signing of a comprehensive strategic agreement between Iran and Russia during the management of President Masudo Pezeshkian’s visit to Russia can be seen as a turning point at the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between two powers.
In a new era, Russians should know that the Iranian government places great value in developing cooperation with its north neighbours, but they may interfere with Iran’s internal affairs or have the country’s origin or current state To sham a public official is equivalent to crossing the “red line” of a can, breaking down the barrier of trust between the two countries, turning it into “pessimism” and “distrust.”
MA/6375797