• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Russian Elite Image of Iran: From the Late Soviet Era to the Present

Authored by Dr. Dmitry Shlapentokh.

September 2009

99 Pages

Brief Synopsis

Since the late Soviet era, the presence of Iran has loomed large in the minds of the Russian elite. Soon after the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)—and even before—increasing numbers of Russian intellectuals became disenchanted with the West, especially the United States, and looked for alternative geopolitical alliances. The Muslim world became one of the possible alternatives.

Iran became especially important in the geopolitical construction of Eurasianists or neo-Eurasianists who believed that Russia’s alliance with Iran is essential for Russia’s rise to power. Yet, by the middle of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s tenure, increasing tension with the Muslim community and the rise of Russian nationalism had led to more complicated views of the Russian elite on Iran. At present, the Russian elite does not mind using Iran as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the West, especially the United States, and as a market for Russian weapons and other goods and services. However, the dream of a Russian-Iran axis is apparently abandoned for good.

Summary

The evolution of the Russian elite’s view of Iran is traced over the past 20 years of post-Soviet history. The major thesis and outcome are as follows.

1. During most of the late Soviet and post-Soviet period, two major trends in the approach to Iran have dominated the Russian elite. The first emphasizes the strategic importance of Russia’s rapprochement with Iran and is mostly supported by Russian Imperial Nationalists, notably those defined as “Eurasianists.” For these groups, an Iran-Russia rapprochement would not be a temporary use of Iran as a bargaining chip in dealing with the West, but a permanent alliance. The second group believes that Russia should use Iran as a bargaining chip in dealing with the United States and as a useful trade partner, but not a permanent ally. Supporters of this view usually see Russia either as a self-contained country or as close to the West, mostly Europe.

2. Eurasianism and similar brands of Russian nationalism became popular starting in the early Soviet era, reaching a peak by the beginning of the Vladimir Putin era. By then, elements of Eurasianism had been integrated into the ideology of the upper echelon of the elite, including Putin. Thoughts about a possible, at least loose, strategic alliance with Iran were also becoming popular. Yet soon after the beginning of Putin’s tenure, an opposite trend started to develop, and skepticism toward Iran and its relationship with Russia grew. This trend has dominated the Russian elite’s approach to Iran to the present, regardless of the vacillation in Russian foreign policy. One might assume this would dominate the elite’s view at least for the near future.

3. The changes in the Russian elite’s approach to Iran—from the assumption that Iran should be a strategic ally to a more guarded view—are due not so much to changes in the international situation as to internal changes in Russia. The more guarded approach to Iran reflects increasing internal tension between ethnic Russians, still the majority of the Russian elite, and the Russian Islamic community. The persistence and likely increase of this tension is one of the most important reasons why a Russian/Iranian relationship would be guarded and pragmatic, barring some unforeseeable turns of events.

This monograph focuses on the Russian elite’s perception of Iran and its geostrategic posture. It deals with the actual implementation of policies only insofar as this helps elucidate the images of Iran and the ideological aspect of the Russian/Iranian relationship. The Russian elite are divided into two major groups.

1. The first level makes decisions or plays a considerable role in making decisions. It includes the president, his advisors, influential think tanks, and intellectuals who basically shape the ideology of the government.

2. The second level could be defined as the legitimate opposition. These people criticize the upper ruling echelon, yet they share some of the premises of the ruling elite’s ideology or at least believe that policy can be changed in the future. The ruling elite tolerates them and to some extent provides them a way of influencing public opinion and thus influencing the ruling elite’s decisions. These people have been allowed to occupy positions in governing bodies such as the Duma and the Russian parliament; appear on TV; and publish newspapers with comparatively wide circulation. The influence of this second layer of the elite is also enhanced by the wide circulation of their books and the frequency with which their ideas are discussed in cyberspace.

The monograph considers the dynamics of the Russian view of the elite and the role of both external and internal variables in the changes of images. The role of both sets of variables makes it possible to gauge the sustainability of this or that trend and make predictions about the future.

Access Full Report [PDF]: Russian Elite Image of Iran: From the Late Soviet Era to the Present