Spotted in the Guardian this morning, possibly the most bonkers suggestion ever as to how Putin could stay at the top of the Russian power tree:

Another scenario involves a foreign policy crisis, such as a US airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Under this scenario, Putin holds and wins an emergency referendum and keeps going.

Even 24 wouldn’t go with a plotline this absurd.

Russian security services claim that they have uncovered a plan by a group of suicide bombers to assassinate Russian President Putin during his visit to Iran later this week. Advisors have informed Putin of the threat - but he’s going to visit Tehran anyway.

It’s not clear who wants to kill Putin - apparently there are not just one, but several groups of suicide bombers wandering around Iran looking for the Russian President - nor is it clear why they’d want to assassinate him, but here are a few of my own stabs in the dark (in descending order of probability):

• A Chechen group with sympathisers in Iran (true, there aren’t many of these, but there are a few)
• A group of domestic political opponents, who have just realised the only way they are going to be more powerful than Putin is if he is six feet under
• The CIA (come on - the CIA want to kill everyone, including from time to time, their own Presidents)
• The Iranian government - they’re really puppets of Russia, who are forcing nuclear weapons on Iran as a part of their own nefarious plots.

Hmmmm.  I’m not convinced, and I wrote these possibilities down myself.  How about this for a more plausible reason:

Putin is about to enter the most risky period of his leadership of Russia - he’s about to stand down as President and attempt to transfer real power from the Presidency to the Prime Minister’s office, despite the existence of a constitution which puts technical power in the hands of the President.  He’ll most likely be able to pull it off, but what if his hand-picked President suddenly grows a backbone?

It’s vital for Putin that he is seen as  strongman, capable of standing up for and fearlessly defending the interests of Russia’s people - both at home and abroad.  He’s already made a stab at showing off his masculinity with his “Fishing with Putin” photos, and the revelation of this assassination attempt - whether there is a grain of truth in it or not - and the news that Putin will be visiting Iran regardless, is really about giving Putin the opportunity to say “look at me!  Mad and bad foreigners want to kill me but - for you, the Russian people - I will put my head into the lion’s jaw.” 

Georgia is to more than double the size of its forces in Iraq, from 850 to 2,000.  The increase will make Georgia the fourth largest contributor of troops to the Coalition in Iraq, behind the US, UK and South Korea:

In a statement, President Mikhail Saakashvili said that Georgia wanted to do everything possible to help the Iraqi people and US-led forces to bring peace and freedom to the country.

The move comes on the back of recent US Congress for Georgian moves towards membership of NATO. 

I also wonder if the Georgian government’s decision to send extra troops abroad signifies a growing confidence in the stability of the security situation within Georgia itself.  2,000 men, after all, is a significant proportion of the Georgian army. 

Tim Newman has an article up at TCS daily correcting some misinformation about oil and gas Production Sharing Agreements, using both Russia and Iraq as case studies. 

Oh, this is going to just thrill the boys at the Kremlin - Iran is training Chechens in terror techniques:

Iran is secretly training Chechen rebels in sophisticated terror techniques to enable them to carry out more effective attacks against Russian forces, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Teams of Chechen fighters are being trained at the Revolutionary Guards’ Imam Ali training camp, located close to Tajrish Square in Teheran, according to Western intelligence reports.

In addition to receiving training in the latest terror techniques, the Chechen volunteers undergo ideological and political instruction by hardline Iranian mullahs at Qom.

If it’s true, of course. Iran does some pretty stupid things from time to time, but is it really going to get caught offering terrorist training to the enemies of its only real superpower?

Well, actually, I wouldn’t put it past them.

It looks as though Russia may be becoming isolated over it’s position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. An anonymous (it’s a pre-requisite for employment in Brussels these days) EU official told the Guardian:

“The Chinese are very, very constructive and on board with the US-European position,” one official said.

At the same time, though, Russia seems to be taking a slightly more pro-active role (perhaps because of China’s shift of position?) and has announced a new plan which it hopes will break the deadlock.

EU diplomats said discussions would focus on a Russian proposal that Iran transfer to Russia its uranium enrichment — a process that can be used to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

“The meeting will be to discuss the Russian initiative and to define conditions for the resumption of negotiations between the two sides,” one diplomat said.

A key stumbling block to the resumption of negotiations with the EU has been Tehran’s refusal to mothball the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, which produces a gas that, when enriched, can be used to make atomic reactor or weapons-grade fuel.

Under the Russian proposal, Iran would be allowed to continue to convert uranium ore at Isfahan provided it then shipped it to Russia for enrichment.

I’d imagine the EU negotiators will look seriously at Russia’s suggestion, as it does seem to offer a better route out of the impasse than any previous plans. I’m not sure what the US government will think, though. Not much, I’d imagine, as they seem to believe that an all or nothing approach is the only one that will pay dividends.

Whether this plan provides a solution or not, I’m pleased to see Russia becoming more constructively involved. Let’s face it, Russia and Iran have very close nuclear links and, without Russian support, any plan to convince Iran to abandon it’s nuclear ambitions will fail.

Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s charming call for Israel to be “wiped off the map” Russia’s response, coming mainly from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who is currently in the Middle East, has been rather mixed.

On the plus side, came this blunt condemnation:

“What I have seen on television is unacceptable. We will convey our opinion to Iran.”

Lavrov later commented that Iran was now more likely to find itself hauled before the UN Security Council:

“I cannot fail to recognize that those who favor transferring the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council now have an additional argument.”

But, at the same time, Lavrov felt the need to reaffirm Russia’s opposition to taking Iran to the Security Council:

“Our position on Iran remains unchanged. We favor cooperation through the IAEA in dealing with problems related to the Iranian nuclear program.”

So, essentially, I think Russia’s underlying position remains unchanged. Russia’s desire to (a) sell nuclear material to Iran and (b) continue to thumb their noses at the rest of the world remains and, although the Russian Foreign Minister has been forced to condemn Ahmadinejad’s comments, he will continue to do his best to keep Iran away from the Security Council. Having said that, his job has got much more difficult, as opinion in the rest of the world seems to have shifted.

By the way, following the UN’s report implicating Syria in involvement in the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Lavrov pretty much ruled out further significant action against the Baathist regime:

“I do not think one may speak seriously about sanctions.”

Good to see Russia stands by her friends. Shame about the company she keeps.

BBC Newsnight aired an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on tv last night.  The realaudio file can be found here, and a text report here.

Lavrov - who speaks very good English, by the way - got a grilling from Jeremy Paxman on the sale of weapons to Syria, whether Syria should withdraw from Lebanon, why Russia is selling nuclear material to Iran, and the state of democracy in Russia.  It only runs to six minutes, and is well worth checking out. 

My favourite question, towards the end of the interview, has to be this one:

[After pointing out that 90-95% of Chechens voted for Putin]

"Now, the only person who gets that kind of turnout is someone like Saddam Hussein, isn’t it?"

Sadly, Lavrov didn’t find it within himself to rise to the bait.  But he did come up with a couple of memorable replies of his own:

[On selling nuclear fuel to Iran]

The US, France, UK & Germany fully understand what we are doing in Iran.  They don’t have any complaints about it.

[On putting Yukos CEO Khodorkovsky on trial]

"Enron managers are waiting for trial. Parmalat managers are waiting for trial.  Elf managers in France are waiting for trial.  Just today a gentleman called, uh, Anderson, Walt Anderson, was arrested in the US for not paying some half-billion dollar taxes, and this is not considered a retreat from democracy."

Window on the Arab World notes that neither Russia nor Syria have been paying attention in history class, and are still stuck in a timewarp of ultra-realist international politics.

So instead of recognizing the course of history and moving toward the free world, Syria has decided to become a post-Soviet Soviet client state, and Russia is aiding a state which supports the same kind of Islamist terrorists who are blowing up Russian airliners and taking Russian children hostage. Brilliant.

The problem for both Syria and Russia is that the number of states still living in this ultra-realist world is shrinking almost daily.  If these two states cannot adapt to the new global political structure (which, to be sure, does still retain many realist aspects), they are doomed to be outmaneuvered at every turn.  Ukraine may turn out to be just the first in a long line of humbling setbacks that Russia suffers over the next few years.

Note (added 29/10/04): Shaw’s claims (below) have been rejected by the White House and the Pentagon.

John A Shaw, America’s Deputy Undersecretary for International Technology Security, is behind the remarkable claim that Russian special forces (Spetsnaz) spirited “special weapons” (read: WMDs) out of Iraq in early 2003.

In the Washington Times he alleges that Spetsnaz forces visited some 200 arms depots through Iraq between January and March 2003, separated weaponry or WMD components that could be traced back to Russia from regular arms, and transported them out of the country to Syria, Lebanon, and possibly Iran. They also destroyed “hundreds of pages of documents”.

“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”…

…The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

Russia, naturally, has hotly denied the claims.

Defense Ministry spokesman Vyacheslav Sedov dismissed the allegations as “absurd” and “ridiculous.”

“I can state officially that the Russian Defense Ministry and its structures couldn’t have been involved in the disappearance of the explosives, because all Russian military experts left Iraq when the international sanctions were introduced during the 1991 Gulf War,” he told The Associated Press.

I have to say, I’m with Russia on this one. The idea that Russian Spetsnaz forces are needed to truck weaponry across the Iraq-Syria border, or that they are needed to separate “special weapons” from ordinary weapons is laughable. The Iraqi’s under Saddam were perfectly capable of arranging convoys themselves, and I’m pretty sure they can tell the difference between weapon types. There really was no need for Russia to be involved.

Even a closer reading of the Washington Times article which carries Shaw’s claim seems to argue against Russian involvement. UN weapons inspectors visited one of the main Iraqi weapons dumps (Al-Qaqaa) in January 2003, and placed seals on the site. Those seals were still in place, with no evidence of tampering, when they returned in March 2003, just prior to the invasion. The movement of 380 tons of sensitive weaponry would also be pretty hard to disguise - I’m sure the US had Iraq’s key weapons sites under pretty heavy surveillance from the air in early 2003. If the US had observed large scale movement of weaponry, or Russian personnel, how come they didn’t mention it a year and a half ago, when relations with Russia really were tense?

On a related note: Cicero at Winds of Change.net takes Shaw’s claims at face value, and predicts a return to a cold war style freeze in relationships between not only the US and Russia, but the US and ‘Old Europe’

The ‘friendship’ between Russia and the United States is now edging towards diplomatic confrontation over the Al-Qaqaa affair. The next phase that we can all look forward to will be official accusations and denials from each side. And then perhaps an old familiar freeze might reshape itself…

Russian aid to America’s enemy may be the most blatant example of a Europe that seeks a divorce from its old ally.

Update 1: The Financial Times carries a quote from Shaw, setting out his claims of Russian duplicity unambiguously:

“For nearly nine months my office has been aware of an elaborate scheme set up by Saddam Hussein to finance and disguise his weapons purchases through his international suppliers, principally the Russians and French. That network included. . . employing various Russian units on the eve of hostilities to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria.”

The Financial Times goes on to note that Shaw, who works in the Pentagon

has not provided evidence for his claims and the Pentagon distanced itself from his remarks.

“I am unaware of any particular information on that point,” said Larry Di Rita, Pentagon spokesman.

Update 2: Lots of blogs commenting on this story. Michelle Malkin and Wizbanblog have been particularly active in looking at the story, and if you follow their trackbacks you can find a pretty large list of others who are writing about it.

Malkin’s article especially notes that Bill Gertz, the author of the original Washington Times article is also the author of a new book - Treachery - which reports extensively on Russian arms and business dealings with Saddam’s regime.

Here are a few of the more interesting viewpoints I picked out:

INDC Journal speculates that the Russian diplomatic convoy that was fired on by US forces just before the invasion…

may have taken place under the assumption that the Russians were transporting weapons, WMD components and/or other evidence that detailed any illegal pre-war relationship between Russia and Iraq.

(You’ll need to scroll down quite a way to find the theory).

Right on Red notes that John Kerry, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committe should have had some knowledge of this, had it happened. If he was aware of the Russian involvement, he would have been unlikely to directly accuse the Bush administration of incompetence and failing to secure the weapons, on the eve of the election.

The Gantelope doesn’t think much of the seals used by weapons inspectors:

From the look of it, it’s just a conventional brass lock, a wire, and a little crimped metal tag (presumably stamped with an IAEA number).

Powerline notes that, if Shaw’s claims are proved correct, the implications for Kerry are substantial (and negative!):

The Senator will have (a) jumped to a conclusion that wasn’t supported by the facts, (b) assumed the incompetence of our troops, (c) confirmed President Bush’s position that Iraq had weapons worth worrying about, and (d) unleashed evidence that, as Rocket Man notes, suggests that chemical and biological weapons could easily have been moved out of Iraq just before we invaded.