While Iran's Foreign Affairs Ministry and its representatives have expressed their concern over the recent events in Ukraine and the Crimea, most of the Iranian media took Russia's side in the conflict, claiming that the events in the Ukraine were a plot by the West, which seeks to take vengeance on Russia and the resistance axis over its defeat in Syria (see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5666, Arab Media: Syria And Ukraine – Arenas Of Struggle Between Russia And U.S., West., March 3, 2014).
The Iranian daily Kayhan, a mouthpiece of the Iranian regime and close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stressed in a March 5, 2014 editorial that lesson that Iran should take away from the crisis is that it needs to rely on its military might, and that it must not hesitate to use it to actualize its national interests. In addition to claiming that Russia had learned from Iran to stand fast against its enemies and to force them into passivity and into reliance on rhetoric alone, the editorial also discussed Iran's partnership with Russia in a number of areas. It stated that Iran was assisting Russia in resolving national and security issues, just as Russia was helping Iran with regional crises and with its nuclear issue.
This editorial is a further reflection of the widening rift in the top Iranian echelons between the moderation stream, which includes Hashemi Rafsanjani, Rafsanjani's associates, President Hassan Rohani, and Iranian Foreign Ministry personnel and is attempting to alleviate tension with the West, and the ideological stream, which is led by Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and which adheres firmly to the values of the Islamic Revolution and to a militant anti-West approach. The editorial can also be seen as a response to the policy of avoiding the use of military might that is being promoted by President Obama.
Following are excerpts from the editorial:
"... The upheavals in the Ukraine and the rhetoric that is forming these days in the international arena are reflecting once again the importance of security measures and the military. Several international theoreticians... have said that over time, economics will replace security aspects and minimize their importance in the complex mosaic of national and international power. Others have pointed out the tremendous developments in communications and electronics, and have explained that electronic capabilities will overshadow military means and will bump them from the top of the list of priorities. Others still have also noted the power of media and public opinion, saying that the soft power of the media has overcome, and marginalized, the hard power of the military.
"However, the developments in the Ukraine teach us that these claims are invalid... although these aspects... do carry some weight... [But] military might, along with leaders' knowledge of how and when to use it, still has special status in the power equation.
"In the Ukraine developments, the West's plan was called into question by Russia's use of its navy. In response, the Americans and the British also talked, albeit cautiously, about the military option – which in itself attests to the fact that military might is crucial to any country's national strength.
"[Further] proving this theory [on the importance of military might], and in addition to recent statements by Russian and American officials, we can show that a relatively economically strong country like Japan is incapable of [fully] realizing its national role in international and regional upheavals because it lacks military capabilities. For that reason, [Japan] is known to always [take shelter in] the shadow of other superpowers. Or, in another example, a country like Qatar, which until recently possessed a powerful TV network [Al-Jazeera], was unable to reap success because it lacks military and security capabilities – so much so that Qatari Foreign Minister Muhammad Al-Attiyah said in a January 23 [2014] interview, 'The only thing we always encourage our allies to do is to include us, or at least consider us, in any regional issue.'
"Military forces, if they are under wise leadership, can determine the outcome of any given conflict in favor of their country. This is what happened in the Ukraine. In that case, the Russian army took over the situation without firing a shot, and stopped a greater security plot against Russia from being formed. [From this,] we may learn that the way to overcome a country and to neutralize its other sources of power is to weaken its military status.
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"Take these two examples: [First], at one point, Japan's economy and GDP surpassed even the U.S.'s, and Japanese goods dominated international markets. But shortly thereafter, the Americans, [after warning them] once or twice, raised tariffs on Japanese goods – thus weakening that country.
"Second is how the West deals with Iran. The history of our last 35 years shows that weakening Iran's military might was always on the West's agenda. Even now, with nuclear negotiations underway between Iran and the West, American and British officials are constantly – before, during, and after negotiations – focusing on Iran's military might, and consider weakening it to be the way to resolve the nuclear issue. Ultimately, when they want to [talk about] why the nuclear negotiations are taking place, they point to the aim of ensuring that Iran's military might is restrained.
"These cases prove that every country should always strengthen its military standing to preserve its national might... Only two weeks ago, the U.S. media revealed that over the past three years its military has upgraded its nuclear bombs.
"Another point to note in the developments in the Ukraine was that the Russians' resolute position and the swiftness of President Putin's response led to passivity on the part of the West. Western countries are talking about economic sanctions, and NATO has failed to act, issuing mere statements in response to the Russian military's latest move and maneuvers – indicating that the West is in passive mode.
"Now, imagine that instead of responding swiftly and openly, Russia had merely issued a communique and media statements objecting to the February 22 Ukraine events, and NATO soldiers were deployed in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. [In this situation,] Russia's borders would have been threatened, and its prestige would have been damaged.
"These issues teach us that when dealing with risks to security and national interests, a country's decision-making apparatuses must act decisively and not issue ambiguous statements. The worst tactic for a country during such events is to use vagaries like [Iran did in response to the crisis] – i.e. 'we are concerned by the upheavals in the Ukraine.' This is because ambiguity places any country in a clear losing position. An ambiguous stance often does more damage than standing alongside the loser. Therefore, we should examine Iran's response to the Ukraine situation.
"... Since Iran's political regime draws [its thinking] from a global school of thought, and [its path] from a grand revolution with comprehensive international aspirations, it cannot adopt the policy of introspection and silence that many other countries have vis-à-vis upheavals on the scale of the Ukraine events. The long-term impact of such policies, and of the conflict between the West and Russia, is so all-encompassing that it will affect our national interests too. In addition, this crisis involves a 'neighbor' of ours, with whom we share a number of common interests and outlooks – and therefore a common view.
"Nationally, Russia resolves most of its security and political concerns with Iran's help; in exchange, Iran uses Russian support on the issues of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, its nuclear program, and others. Also, in this case, Russia opposes [Iran's] enemy, the West. This in itself compels us to be pleased with the defeat dealt our enemies, even if we have some criticism of the Russians.
"The conclusion to be drawn from the developments in the Ukraine and their impact on Iran's national interests is simple. Yet all that our distinguished foreign minister [Zarif] said in response to the Ukraine events was, 'We are concerned by the upheavals in the Ukraine.' Dr. Zarif failed to explain our concern, to explain what we perceive as legal or illegal, or even to explain what our opinion regarding this powerful struggle is.
"In this affair, there are three serious assumptions:
"1. Yanukovych or a member of his front will return to power.
"2. Tymoshenko or a member of her front will take over.
"3. The two sides will compromise and establish a coalition government.
"For which of these three options will Iran be able to say, 'I have done something to resolve the crisis and therefore have expectations from it'? Without a doubt, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko need to tell Zarif, 'We did not realize which side of this conflict you were on.' If a compromise is reached, Iran will, because of its position, have played no role in it...
"According to a number of commentators, Iran's 35 years of serious resistance has taught the Russians that it is indeed possible to stand fast against the West and to force it to back down into passivity. Through this lens, the Ukraine upheaval must be seen as important opportunity for us, and we must use it to expand our power and influence..."
