The derivations of conflict between Russia, Ukraine and NATO are getting wider. In addition to the mainly economic consequences of the sanctions on Russiaexperienced with particular intensity in Western Europe, lately there have also been different results in the political field, above all, in the always complex scenario of Middle East.
The recent summit produced in Tehran between the presidents Vladimir Putin, of Russia, Ebrahim Raisi, of Iran, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of Turkey, not only evidenced the existence of an entente with clear influence in the Middle East but also capable of challenging Western countries, and mainly to the USAalmost at the same time as Joe Biden toured Israel and Saudi Arabia to show that the United States still has a decisive weight in the region.
Beyond the dialogue on Syria, the main axis of the meeting focused on the conflict in Ukraine. Raisi and Erdogan not only showed their support for Putin (since, in the words of the Iranian ruler, a confrontation with NATO was “inevitable”). According to information from Washington, the support would translate into expressions of military aid through the use of Iranian-made drones. The Raisi government did not deny this information which, if true, would take the war to a new phase.
Leaving aside the military aspect, the main result of the meeting in Tehran was in economic and energy terms. The national energy companies of Iran and Russia signed a Memorandum of Understandingconsidered as “historic”, according to which the Russian company will participate in the extraction of oil and gas in various sites of the Persian nation for a potential value of 40 billion dollars.
The energy agreement is a novelty for two governments that have been sanctioned for different reasons, with an impact on their own economies, and that are currently seeking to show signs of strength (and that, beyond the preaching constantly launched from the West, they are not necessarily “friends” nor have they forged an indissoluble unity).
What in any case might be considered as a novelty of these times, marked by conflicts, realignments and, above all, uncertainty in the short term, is Washington’s intention to buy Iranian oilin part, to contribute to the drop in the price of a resource whose scarcity, promoted by the policy of sanctions applied from the West, has experienced a significant rise since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.
Indeed, the Biden administration is conducting assessments to ease sanctions on Iran under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). With this initiative, he seeks to obtain a greater volume of oil in the global market without increasing its extraction, a fundamental element in the government’s green agenda. In exchange, Tehran would find concessions to continue with its nuclear policy.
So put it, John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, when he announced that a new nuclear deal with Iran would have “positive side effects” that would include lower gasoline prices. In the same terms it was stated Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman in an interview on July 12 when mentioning that it was still possible to reach a new agreement with the government of Iran, which “just has to say yes”.
Sherman concluded his speech by stating that the Iranians “would get sanctions relief. They might improve their economy and sell their oil once more and the world needs oil, so they can get a good price for it (…). The European Union, the French, the Germans, the British who have negotiated this deal, along with Russia and China, all want this deal.”
Of course, Biden’s initiative has generated widespread domestic opposition, from companies seeking to increase oil extraction in the United States to Democratic and Republican leaders who oppose a soft policy towards Tehran. The same resentments are perceived in Middle Eastern nations such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, increasingly related in their common apprehension towards the Shiite regime. Justly, Biden’s recent tour of these countries might well have been an attempt to calm things down.
Definitely, the geopolitical dispute over iranian oil constitutes the last step in a totally irrational plot of sanctions that, in an increasingly globalized world, ends up also affecting the governments that promote embargoes and penalties, as can currently be seen in Europe, and as a foreshadowing of what will surely happen in the coming boreal winter.
Despite the growing crisis in which they find themselves immersed as the days go by due to the lack of energy supplies, the NATO leaders thus persist in a firmly hostile policy towards Russia rather than favoring dialogue and concrete initiatives for pacification in the tragic ukrainian scenario.
Daniel Kersffeld has a doctorate in Latin American Studies (UNAM). Researcher CONICET-Torcuato di Tella University.
