Published: 2025-02-07

Working with Dialogue

Re-invited to Alkhorshid’s Dialogue Works to discuss the recently signed Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between Iran and Russia, John Helmer began his response by establishing three lenses through which to understand the agreement. We are at 200 years into the history of the significant agreement if we start, as Helmer encouraged, in 1827 at the conclusion of an imperial war between the Tsarist Russian and Persian (he used “Iranian”) Shah empires.

Helmer named the diplomatic lens after Russian diplomat Griboyedev, who was murdered by a mob in Tehran 1829. He named the military lens named after Yermolov, a Russian General who distinguished himself during the Napoleonic Wars (1803 to 1815). Yermolov then commanded Russian forces (artillery) during the conflicts in the Caucasus (modern day Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) in the late 1810’s and early 1820’s during the Russo-Persian war. Helmer’s third lens was trust, or distrust, between the peoples and political leadership of the then empires, now nations.

During the “first hundred years” of the relationship the other common regional powers from the perspective of Russia and Iran were the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire and the British empire. The Crimean War (1853 to 1856) involved the Ottoman Empire, supported by the British and French, attacking the Russian empire in the Black Sea.

The simple elements of the treaty can be seen as regional economic and political management. Iran and Russia’s CSTO member states are, or border, central Asia’s nations, to the Caspian Sea’s east. To its west are the Caucasus. These two regions include the majority of states on Russia’s southern border, if one incorporates Kazakhstan into “Russia”. As noted by Escobar, the International North-South Economic Corridor from the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf via Iran and the Caspian Sea to/from Russia features strongly in the treaty. Investment in this trade connectivity network will provide economic growth to the states which choose to be a part of it, with Russia and Iran driving the project.

[From Escobar’s article first published at The Cradle]

The political forces in these areas, as Helmer repeatedly stressed, are complex. However, both Russia and Iran have been involved with them for centuries and understand their economic, tribal and religious contexts. Divisions among them have been and still are driven by external forces to foment conflict.

The recent string of terrorist attacks in Russia from Moscow (Crocus Hall) to Dagestan serve as examples. These fomented divisions are a constant threat to stability in the regions for both Russia and Iran. Helmer noted that the use of extremist Wahhabist proxy forces for destabilization began with the West’s (CIA & co.) use of Saudi funded mercenaries (Mudjahadeen) in the 1979 to 1989 war in Afghanistan. For an in depth analysis of the recent manipulations of Armenia and Azerbaijan by Western powers, please see “Russia, Iran, and the Caucasian Chalk Circle” by Pietro Shakarian.

Helmer repeatedly stressed the evil of racism, for it is the fulcrum on which external powers leverage regional destabilization. He noted the specific targeting of secular Arab leaders in southwest Asia and the Maghreb. He cited Assad and Ghadafi. I would include Hussein and Nasser. Secularism is a defence against the racism which external powers exploit to divide and rule.

The military details of the treaty expose the issue of trust between Iran and Russia. Neither side commits to an alliance which would force them to defend the other. Instead, they commit to not assist any third nation or group of nations which attacks the other. Helmer refers to the agreement as the Pistachio Pact, for its military intelligence sharing and other components are deliberately obscure. The details are to be agreed in private. The shell hides the important kernel.

Helmer noted that Russia and Iran are the most heavily sanctioned countries. It comes as no surprise that the treaty is extensive on support between the signatories, and pro-active efforts to combat this economic warfare. Another heavily sanctioned nation, Syria, is discussed too, and through that discussion two other nations are brought into view: Turkiye and Israel.

One of the primary difficulties between Iran and Russia is Russian Federation President Putin’s leniency toward Israel. The topic of why Putin is so supportive of Israel, given the inhumanity of its recent genocidal war in Gaza, is essentially taboo in Russia. A fracture exists between the President and other significant political forces in Russia, including its military, over this. This tension extends between Russia and Iran.

The recent allowance by Russia of the takeover of Syria by the predominantly Turkish backed Islamic extremists provided Helmer an opportunity to present his analysis of the challenge. Two conflicting objectives were placed in front of the Russian leadership. One must understand that Russian intelligence knew of the HTS campaign weeks, if not months in advance.

Either Russia could work with Iran and honor its commitments to Syria and prevent the success of the Turkish sponsored militias, but in so doing begin fighting two wars at once. Or Russia could abandon Assad and focus on the more threatening conflict in Ukraine. The cost of choosing the later option has been a loss of trust which has naturally emerged in southwest Asia and the Maghreb (northern Africa).

Another element which must be added into the calculus is the importance of Turkiye. When was asked by Alkhorshid, “who is winning in Syria?”, Helmer responded deliberatively declaring that Turkiye, then Israel and then the US is “winning”, which is to say, Iran and Russia “lost”. Turkiye now has Ottoman like control over the Syrian coastal regions. Israel has extended its annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights into Syria and to the outer suburbs of Damascus. The US retains control via its Kurdish proxy of Syria’s oil and agriculture, and effectively blocks Iraqi and Iranian support. Russia appears to be abandoning its naval base in Tartus and its airfield at Khmeimim.

Helmer noted that Russia is moving military assets to Libya and that neighbouring Algeria, ruled by an aging group which may be nervous of the stability of their political support, have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the US. This, says Helmer, hints towards an upcoming conflict in Libya. Russia is also trying to repair some damage caused by the Prigozhin “Wagner” forces in the Sahel.

The conclusion, of course, is that there is no conclusion. We are looking at fluid political, diplomatic, military and economic regions. Russia has spent more than 20 years attempting to build trust between itself and Iran. The withdrawal from Syria has damaged those efforts, to the ire of many Russians.

Though the treaty helps, there is much to be done to reinforce trust between the powers.

 

or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.

Sources

Text of joint comprehensive strategic agreement between Iran and Russia, IRNA (Iranian Government), 2025-01-17

Russia, Iran, and the Caucasian Chalk Circle; Pietro Shakarian; Antiwar; 2025-02-04

The Pistachio Pact Is The Russian-Iranian Strategic Agreement The Nut Or The Shell? ; John Helmer; Dances with Bears; 2025-01-19

On the Eve of Trump, Iran and Russia Launch Historical Deal; Pepe Escobar; Scheerpost; 2025-01-21

Russia & Iran The Podcast Exposing The Miscalculations They’Ve Been Making Toward Each Other For 200 Years ; John Helmer; Dances with Bears; 2025-02-04

Crocus Hall: Ukraine’s GUR/SBU Are Allowed to Execute an Incompetent Operation and Russian Civilians, at once; YesXorNo; 2024-03-26

John Helmer: Russia-Iran Pact Explained: Is Trump Trapped?; Alkhorshid interviews John Helmer; Dialogue Works; 2025-02-04