Author: Daria Novak

Hope for democracy blooming in Nicaragua this fall have disappeared in totality as the Sandinista National Liberation Front  (SNLF) completed its political domination of Nicaragua. The SNLF now controls 100% of the country’s 153 municipalities after Sunday’s vote. Critics called the unfair elections a “farce” and “final blow” to any possibility of the country emerging from a totalitarian dictatorship to a representative democracy in the foreseeable future. Election officials say the corrupt municipal elections consolidated Daniel Ortega’s position after an election season void of rallies or demonstrations. The single party regime is a Sandinista-led alliance of eight parties, along with religious and indigenous movements, that encompass the ruling party group labeled “United Nicaragua Triumphs.” 

Nicaraguans voted on November 6 in municipal elections after a campaign void of rallies or demonstrations and where opposition and citizen rights are, at best, diminished. The elections are part of an ongoing consolidation of power in the totalitarian regime of Daniel Ortega. Prior to the election Ortega’s party controlled 141 of the 153 municipalities. Ortega previously outlawed opposition parties prior to the vote and jailed dozens of opposition figures, according to a report released this week by the Robert Lansing Institute. One person imprisoned among the clergy by Ortega is an outspoken Roman Catholic bishop. Two years ago, Mgr. Carlos Aviles, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Managua told the media that the Sandinista government views the Catholic Church as an enemy. He stated the Church “tells the truth” and the people can expect the government’s continued anger, repression, attacks on the clergy and places of worship, and constant surveillance from police outside the parishes. No one in Nicaraguan society is left untouched by the violence and chaos in the state. 

“The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed concern that ‘the minimum conditions necessary’ to hold free and fair elections do not exist in Nicaragua. It called on the government to reestablish democratic guarantees and stop the repression,” according to the Institute report. The Ortega government closed down almost 2,000 nongovernmental groups and over 50 media outlets that were among the few remaining dissident voices left in the country. In addition, over 100 civil society organizations were also closed to ensure the one-party takeover. The Lansing Institute identifies the dictatorship as closer in structure to that found in China and Cuba than to a far leftist government.

Although Ortega began the takeover of municipalities in 2018, he has a long history of insurrection in Nicaragua dating back to the 1980’s. Four years ago, massive street protests broke out across the country. Since that time more than 200,000 Nicaraguans have fled the Central American state, with most crossing over the southern border into Costa Rica. With public support lagging, Ortega expanded his power and harsh rule to avoid business leaders from allying to oppose him. In 2020, a CIS-Gallup poll concluded that 70% of the population opposed the Ortega regime, with more than half saying Ortega was doing a “poor” job. Since Ortega’s fourth consecutive and uncontested presidential election win last year, he has cracked down harder on opposition voices. In July, police ousted five opposition mayors who belonged to a party disbanded by electoral authorities and replaced them with allies. The culmination of the process this week has an aim of “imposing a dynastic dictatorship with absolute power, where ungovernability, political polarization and anarchy predominate, because the population no longer trusts the security forces, and there’s no more balance of powers,” notes the report. 

Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia praised the election outcome, while President Biden labeled it a “pantomime election that was neither free nor fair, and most certainly not democratic.” Although promising to help the poor and create a fair system, Nicaragua remains the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. Ortega appointed his wife to a vice president position and other family members to top leadership posts. The lack of a free and independent judicial system ensures that Ortega’s dictatorship will continue as opposition figures are muzzled, thrown in jail, or disappear.  

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

Is an isolated communist giant in Asia more dangerous than one interconnected to the global economy? After the recent Xi-Biden meeting, it is a question economic and military analysts are considering this week in Washington. Since China’s opening to the West, it has engaged in predatory practices that are causing the Biden Administration to consider discussing the suspension of normal trade relations. 

This action was reinforced Tuesday when the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission published its annual report to Congress. If its 39 recommendations are adopted by a Republican-led House, it may represent a new era in post-normalization politics that resets the US-China relationship to pre-2000 arrangements. In that year Congress approved China for permanent membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) under the false assumption that acting “friendly” and relieving the country of high tariffs would “assure responsible state behavior.” 

This week’s Commission report recommendations include expanding the Trump era 25% tariff rate on a range of products. In a Foreign Policy interview with Jack Detsch this week, former Trump State Department official and current chair of the Commission Alex Wong, says that “This is to empower the administration and to empower Congress with the leverage to rebalance the trade relationship that may have gotten out of whack or that is not serving US interests.” He argues that the goal is to impact China. Employing national security rules, the Biden Administration can revoke China most-favored-nation status as it did to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. 

China has failed over the last two decades to abide by its 2000 WTO pledge to enact industrial subsidies and end its stealing of intellectual property. Beijing, under Xi Jinping reversed course and enacted protectionist policies that harm US businesses. The Biden Administration’s  US Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, is due to complete a four-year review of Chinese imports sometime next year. A Congressional decision to repeal China’s preferential status due to its predatory practices should speed President Biden’s slow pace on the issue. Detsch says that “even if the Biden administration and Congress do not decide to implement the report’s 39 wide-ranging recommendations that cover everything from the creation of a White House office to hardening U.S. supply chains to the feasibility of an energy blockade of China, the report adds to Washington’s adoption of more hawkish stances on China on both sides of the political aisle.”

The Commission has taken an increasingly tougher stance on Beijing’s trade practices. Since MFN was enacted, China has bolstered its trade deficit with the US by systematically undervaluing its currency and engaging in unfair trade practices. “If we go back to the 1999 vote, that was essentially an informed wager on the part of the United States that granting this status would make our trade relationship flourish but also lead to general betterment of our relationship with China, bring China into the international system, and create greater stability,” Wong said.

Under Xi, the Chinese strategy is to move further away from any economic dependency linked to the United States. China’s policy of forced self-sufficiency, especially in high technology-based, critical industries, will enable the country to continue on its aggressive path toward reshaping the international rules-based order from the perspective of a Chinese worldview. “The Biden administration has sought to starve Russia of computer chips in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and recent US legislation has threatened China’s high-tech sector, such as the CHIPS Act, which seeks to bring semiconductor production back to the United States,” according to Detsch. This year’s Commission report also adds the recommendation that Congress create a permanent US Government committee to examine sanctions or other possible economic measures to respond to Chinese military action over Taiwan. During the October National People’s Congress, Xi reaffirmed his commitment to take back Taiwan. The standoff between the US and China is likely to continue and may further heat up in the coming year should China see real action by the US Congress, despite the Administration’s lagging posture on US-China trade. Perhaps, it is time to leave the Chinese chips where they lay and stand up for free trade in an international, rules-based system based on a Western order?

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Officials in the Kremlin are facing collapse on a number of fronts this year. One, in particular, has gone almost unnoticed by the Western media. Putin’s ambitious plans for the Arctic region are coming under increasing pressure as ethnic Russians are fleeing the country’s northern regions. They are leaving in such large numbers that it threatens Russia’s plans for the development of the Northern Sea Route and its ability to project power in the high north. “That flight is making it impossible for Moscow to maintain, let alone expand, the facilities needed to support its ambitious plans for the Arctic, tipping the ethnic balance of the population there away from ethnic Russians to indigenous populations increasingly at odds with the Kremlin,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. The power vacuum created by the migration away from the region is so dramatic that the US and China may see it as a near-term opportunity to challenge Russia for control of the Northern Sea Route.

Two historically critical factors are no longer available as tools to help the Kremlin populate the area. Unlike the Stalinist era, Putin does not have a large prisoner base that can be forcibly sent to live in the Arctic. Second, the Russian government does not have the money needed to entice workers to move to  and remain in the high north. The population loss is so severe that some analysts are reporting the trend is irreversible. In a Regnum interview last week with Pyotr Tolstoy, the Deputy Chairman of the State Duma talked about the importance of creative people in the north. “In our difficult economic situation, caused by unprecedented sanctions, a special military operation, attention and funds are directed to the south-west, not the north-east. But it is wrong to leave the topic of the Arctic now. Colleagues are working with the governors of the Arctic regions to create a system of state support for the Arctic.” Goble suggests desperate attempts to reverse the mass departure trend will continue to fail. He points out that “in many places soon there will not be any Russian audience for such cultural productions.” 

A 2022 report released recently by the Federal Sociological Research Center (FSRC) of Russia’s smaller cities, which has a chapter devoted to settlements in the north, says that some Arctic cities are now declining in size by 10 percent or more every year and that smaller villages are disappearing by the hundreds. Although no comprehensive public report has been released, analysts note the FSRC report indicate in Dikson, called “the world’s Arctic capital” by Putin, has lost 500 out of its population of 5,000. Those that are leaving the region are ethnic Russians who are young professionals. Left in areas like Dikson are pensioners and indigenous nationalities without the skillsets needed to support the Kremlin’s economic plans for the region.

As the ice roads melt further isolating these communities, food and supplies are becoming harder to obtain in recent years. Small airports are also closing under Putin’s “optimization” plans. Railroad and many highway  projects have been cancelled or delayed indefinitely. Cumulatively this leaves the Russian Arctic, especially in areas nearer to China, vulnerable to Beijing’s influence. The Russian Journal of Economic History and History of Economics, says “The stretched-out communications and low population density undermine the competitive opportunities of the Russian state.” It points out that the population flight puts Russian sovereignty and territorial integrity at high risk.

“This past week, expressions of alarm about such a possibility intensified in response to the appearance of an article [in the Russian publication Stoletie] suggesting that Washington should seek the return of Wrangel Island in the northern Chukchi Sea, now under Russian control,” according to Goble. 

Ethnic Russians remaining in the high north see Putin as abandoning them since the government lacks the political willpower to fix the problems and is not providing money for the infrastructure development needed by the region. If the exodus continues unabated, Moscow will not be capable of extracting the resources located there or promoting the Northern Sea Route. 

Non-Russian populations effectively abandoned by Moscow are growing more hostile toward the Russian Federation in general, with some beginning to shift toward Beijing or the US, both politically and economically. Goble suggests that this marks a period when Washington and Beijing will have more opportunities to “provide support and build influence in what will be an ever-less Russian Arctic—thereby creating yet another challenge to Russia’s territorial integrity that Putin cares so much about.”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

The economic dislocation unnecessarily caused by radical green energy policies are about to be overshadowed by a far worse and equally irrational move.

Throughout the world, from distant Sri Lanka to Canada on America’s northern border, environmental extremists are seeking to eliminate chemical fertilizers. The move will do more than present financial hardships.  It could easily result in significant food shortages.

“Chemical fertilizers,” notes fruitgrowers.com, refers to any number of synthetic compound substances created specifically to increase crop yield. Some chemical fertilizers, for example, are “nitrogenous” — containing nitrogen — while others are phosphate-based. Other fertilizers are potassium. Complex (or blended) chemical fertilizers often contain a mix of ammonium phosphate, nitrophosphate, potassium, and other nutrients.Chemical fertilizers allow growers to maximize their crop yield on a specific piece of land — the more the plant grows, the better. Fertilizer works to ensure that each piece of land produces as efficiently as possible.

The practice makes food more plentiful and less expensive. If used correctly, they do not harm the soil or the environment.

Climate extremists have ignored the reality that there is currently no alternative source currently in existence that can provide the world’s energy needs (wind and solar can barely produce about 20%)  That same overreach is now being brought to food needs. The results will be devastating.

In Sri lanka, reports Reuters, a dramatic fall in crop yields was the result of  “a decision last April by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to ban all chemical fertilisers in Sri Lanka…Although the ban was rolled back after widespread protests, only a trickle of chemical fertilisers made it to farms, which will likely lead to an annual drop of at least 30% in pa…The impact of the poor paddy crop could push up the retail price of rice by around 30%, said Buddhi Marambe, an agriculture professor at the University of Peradeniya, who blamed the decision to ban chemical fertilisers.”

As with other aspects of environmental extremism, exaggerated claims are used to justify policies which will have dramatically negative impacts, in this case, making food scarce and unaffordable. Reasonable measures such as ensuring that fertilizers are used correctly are ignored.

Local governments, not as swayed by environmental extremist politics as their national counterparts, are sounding the alarm.  In Canada, the Governments of Saskatchewan and Albeta issued a statement estating “We’re really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit said. “The Trudeau government has apparently moved on from their attack on the oil and gas industry and set their sights on Saskatchewan farmers…Western Canadian producers base fertilizer inputs on realistic targets based on moisture availability. Producers are conservative in the use of fertilizer inputs and don’t add more than what is needed. They alone simply cannot shoulder the impact of this shortsighted policy.”

The timing couldn’t be worse.  Reliefweb notes that “The population continues to feel the brunt of the economic and food crises. About 3 in 10 households (6.26 million people) are food insecure, 65,600 of which are severely food insecure, according to WFP’s latest food security assessment. Food inflation is alarmingly high at 57.4 percent in June 2022. Steeply increasing food prices have crippled the population’s ability to put sufficient and nutritious food on the table. The majority of assessed households (61 percent) are regularly employing food-based coping strategies such as eating less preferred and less nutritious food, and reducing the amount of food they eat. Two in five households are not consuming adequate diets.”

Moneyscoop notes that “Decreased food production and higher prices as a result will not only hit your wallet, but could create a humanitarian emergency not seen since the 2008 global food crisis”

Illustration: Pixabay

Talk of a coup in American government reflects an all too real crisis, but it’s not the singular incident that gets all the publicity.

Unlike the hyperbole centered around the one-day January 6 riot, a true crisis has been in the making for decades. Understanding the threat of unelected bureaucrats and radical appointees hijacking the real power of the national government, and the steps taken to further the control of relatively unaccountable individuals explains much of the vicious fighting that has devastated America politics over the past six years.

In terms of impact on the daily lives of the citizenry, Congress, the President and the Supreme Court combined all play second fiddle to the bureaucracy.

 Writing for Mises.org, Gary Galles notes that “Congress has increasingly abdicated its lawmaking responsibility, delegating its power through vague laws and mandates to executive agencies, which then impose and enforce the actual regulations that legally bind Americans.”

According to the Brookings Institute and the historian Ryan Gingeras, “The concept of the deep state is used to explain why and how agents employed by the state execute policies that directly contravene the letter and spirit of the law.”

The real reason why so many powerful forces launched unprecedented attacks on the 45^th President was inadvertently revealed during testimony at an impeachment hearing. The subtext of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman’s remarks was that Trump was unfit to be President because he refused to be ordered about by bureaucrats.

Donald Trump, even before announcing his presidential bid, loudly complained about this unconstitutional reality.  In doing so, he ignited the fierce and unrelenting enmity of the most powerful segment of the Washington establishment.  To deflate the power of the bureaucrats who pushed radical agendas through their regulatory authority, the Trump Administration initiated a policy of abolishing two regulations for every new one implemented, as mandated by Executive order 13771.

In a Government Executive article, Charles Clark reported that “a month after President Trump took the oath of office, his chief strategist offered a controversial description of what Americans, including the 2 million career civil servants Trump now leads in the executive branch, could expect from the new president: Every day would be a battle for ‘deconstruction of the administrative state,’ said Stephen Bannon.”

Susan Milligan, writing in U.S. News back in 2019 described the former Presidents’ anti-Deep State perspective and the price he paid for it.  “President Donald Trump has never been shy about expressing his contempt for career government workers … after many months of investigations, subpoenas and reports of alleged Trump offenses, it is these same career officials who are poised to provide the defining evidence in the impeachment case against Trump…Trump has seen pushback from career public servants since the start of his term.”

Precisely the opposite is true of Joe Biden. Whether due to personal incapacity or through choice, it is clear that the individual elected in 2020 is completely under the influence of the leftist Washington professionals that now rule the D.C. roost. It is difficult to see much of the personality and political inclinations of Biden, who many had seen as a moderate, in the extreme progressive policies of those bureaucrats and staffers who clearly and solidly rule his Administration.

The powerbroker lobbyists, bureaucrats, and Wall Street donors who profit from the cheap labor provided by an open southern border, generous government “green” grants, and other distributions from the public treasury have what they always sought: a chief executive totally under their control. The extreme progressive ideologues who have slowly built careers in Washington agencies have their chance to implement agendas that no candidate for elective office could both advocate and win.

Illustration: Pixabay

On February 14, 2018, Nicholas Cruz shot and killed 17 people at Majorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida – 14 students, and 3 staff members.  Cruz “brought an AR-15 style rifle to the school he formerly attended and began firing at students in hallways and classrooms…(t)he gunman was arrested shortly after the killings, and his responsibility for the heinous crime became a foregone conclusion after a video emerged in which he discussed his plans and his state of mind, in footage recorded shortly before the killings. ‘With the power of my AR, you will know who I am,’ Cruz said, referring to his rifle.”

His actions should have surprised no one.  As reported by NPR, “(t)he 19-year-old was the subject of dozens of 911 calls and at least two separate tips to the FBI. He also came to the attention of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Despite warning signs stretching back over a decade, no one intervened to stop the Valentine’s Day shootings.” 

After Cruz pled guilty to 17 counts of Murder in October of 2021, one year later, a jury recommended a sentence of life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty (under Florida law, a jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty, not the judge, who would normally handle sentencing after conviction).  “(L)awyers for Cruz presented testimony from counselors and a doctor who say the defendant suffers from a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a condition that they argued affects his reasoning and behavior. Witnesses testified that his birth mother…had abused alcohol and cocaine while she was pregnant with him.”  Apparently, the jurors believed the defense testimony, since “(t)he jury unanimously found that there had been aggravating factors in the murders Cruz committed… resulting in the recommendation of a life sentence.”

The outcry was immediate.  “‘I am disgusted with our legal system. I am disgusted with those jurors,’ said Ilan Alhadeff, the father of victim Alyssa Alhadeff. ‘That you can allow 17 dead…and not give the death penalty. What do we have the death penalty for? What is the purpose of it? You set a precedent today. You set a precedent for the next mass killing, that nothing happens to you. You’ll get life in jail.'” 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis expressed his agreement with Mr. Alhadeff.  “I think that if you have a death penalty…where you are massacring those students with premeditation and utter disregard for basic humanity that you deserve the death penalty,” the governor said at a press conference held immediately after the verdict was announced. 

There is no denying that for some, there is satisfaction to be found in the imposition of a sentence of death on someone who has committed a grievous crime, particularly for the survivors and loved ones of the victims.  “Jason Johnson, whose father was sentenced to death for killing his mother, stated, ‘(I will got to see him executed not to see him die (but) just to see my family actually have some closure.  He’s an evil human being.'”   Further,  “Phyllis Loya, mother of police officer Larry Lasater who was killed in the line of duty, stated ‘People use closure, and I think it means different things to different people. What it would mean for me is that my fight for justice for my son would be complete when his (killer’s) sentence,..would be carried out as it should be…'” 

There is even biblical support for the death penalty.  “Exodus 21:23-25 states, ‘But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’  Leviticus 24:19-21 echoes this assertion, ‘Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.'”    

But there are just as many survivors who find no comfort in the execution of the person responsible for their suffering.  “If you ask murder victims’ families, ‘closure is the F-word,’ said Marilyn Armour, who directs the Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue at the University of Texas at Austin. ‘They’ll tell you over and over and over again that there’s no such thing as closure.’”

In fact, “(i)n 2012, Armour and University of Minnesota researcher Mark Umbreit interviewed 20 families of crime victims in Texas — a state which regularly uses the death penalty — and 20 more families in Minnesota, which instead offers life without parole.”  According to the study, “families in Minnesota were able to move on sooner…because their loved ones’ killers were sentenced to life without parole, rather than the death penalty.”  

At first impression, the results of this study could not possibly be correct.  But there may be a good reason for this outcome.  As described by Phyllis Loya in a 2019 interview “(t)here are families that have waited decades over 30, 35 years (for an execution) and now we’re supposed to wait until [California Governor Gavin Newsom] finishes his election time because he has decided to put his own personal will ahead [by imposing a death penalty moratorium. He blindsided us. He stole justice from us like a thief in the night…” 

Ms Loya expresses a common frustration with the death penalty – the length of time between imposition of the sentence, and the actual execution of the defendant.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2019, “the average amount of time a prisoner has been incarcerated pursuant to their latest death sentence is 18.7 years. That figure is calculated from the date of a prisoner’s latest death sentence and does not take into consideration the time nearly 10% of those on death row had previously been imprisoned because of unconstitutional capital trials or death sentences that had been judicially reversed. More than half of the prisoners currently on death row (1,317, or 51.7%) were sentenced to death in 2000 or earlier…(f)or the 22 prisoners put to death in 2019, the average time elapsed between the imposition of their death sentence and their execution was 264 months, or 22 years, by far the longest time between sentence and execution since capital punishment resumed in the U.S.” 

20 years is an awfully long time to wait for justice. But is there a reason for this long delay between sentence and execution?

“Any person who has been sentenced to the death penalty…has a right to appeal. Some states allow the sentence and the verdict to be appealed separately. The defense team has a number of steps they can pursue. These include post-trial motions for acquittal, asking for a reduction in the sentence, motions for a mistrial, and requesting a new trial. If none of these actions result in a change in sentencing, the next step is a direct appeal….Depending on the state, this first appeal will go to the state appellate court. If the appellate judge’s verdict is unfavorable, the defense team can ask the state’s highest court to hear the case. In some states, the highest court is obligated to review every case with a sentence of capital punishment… If all avenues have been exhausted at the state level, the appellant can appeal their case at the federal level. They can file a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court… Finally, they can petition the U. S. Supreme Court. In Supreme Court cases, the defense is asking for a review of federal constitutional issues. ..Because of the multiplicity of proceedings, capital punishment cases can take decades to work their way through the criminal justice system.” 

And are the lawyers handling all those appeals working for free?

“Combining all cost categories, the average cost of a death penalty case in Washington (State) is $3.07 million, compared to $2.01 million (in 2010 dollars) for cases in which the prosecutor does not seek death. Adjusted to 2014 dollars, that difference is $1.15 million… average trial level defense costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 2.8 to 3.5 times more expensive than cases not seeking the death penalty.   Average trial level prosecution costs in death penalty cases are 2.3 to 4.2 times more expensive. Court, police/sheriff, and miscellaneous costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 3.9 to 8.1 times as much. Assuming a life sentence for all offenders, post-conviction lifetime incarceration costs…are .7 to .8 times that of (a death penalty) case.  Average jail costs related to pursuit of the death penalty are 1.4 to 1.6 times more expensive than for non-death cases.” 

In Pennsylvania, the “death penalty system since 1978 has produced three executions at a stunning cost: $272 million each, for a total of $816 million,” while in Nevada, “(b)ased on our sample of 28 cases and average costs we were able to accumulate, we estimate the death penalty, from arrest through the end of incarceration, costs about $532,000 more than other murder cases where the death penalty is not sought.” 

Then there is Florida, where the Parkland slayings took place. In 2010,  “Rex Dimmig, chief assistant public defender of the 10th Judicial Circuit in Bartow (Florida)…’discovered that the most expensive, most time-consuming, and least cost-effective service we provided was representation in death penalty cases’…(h)e estimated that Florida spends $51 million a year to impose and implement the death penalty, rather than sending convicted first-degree murderers to prison for life without parole. It is estimated that each execution costs taxpayers $24 million.” 

For his crimes, Nicholas Cruz will spend the remainder of his life behind bars.  Perhaps this is an unsatisfactory outcome for the families of the 17 people he murdered in cold blood.  But under current conditions, an execution of the Parkland slayer would not occur until 2042 at the earliest, and cost the State of Florida almost $40 million dollars by that time.

It’s not likely that the jurors who considered Cruz’ fate performed a cost/benefit analysis before they decided on a life sentence.  But given the high cost of executions, perhaps these jurors did the taxpayers an unintended favor with their verdict, after all.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Iran is making money and expanding its influence beyond the South Caucasus and Central Asia areas and is selling weapons in the North Caucasus and the Middle Volga regions of the Russian federation. Tehran is extending its sphere of power into these two Muslim areas of Russia since, due to Western sanctions, it can’t buy weapons elsewhere. What appeared at first to be good economics now has Russia concerned that Tehran’s longer-term cultural and religious influence could compete with Moscow. Tehran is playing a long game, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that previously “Moscow sought to control the situation by limiting Iranian links to economic projects within these Muslim republics, something the Kremlin was confident it could do forever given the fact that Iran is a Shiite nation while the Muslims in these two regions are overwhelmingly Sunni.” Tehran is more than content to see its cultural and geopolitical influence grow.

Two recent events suggest that Tehran is at a turning point. Iranian and Russian officials met recently in Chechnya to promote broad cooperation not only between the two countries but also between Russian regions and Iranian regions, according to a report from the publication Kavkazskiy uzel last week. The second event was the signing of an agreement calling for a radical expansion in trade between Iranian and Bashkortostan officials. “Given that trade between Russia and Iran is currently running at a rate four times greater than in 2020, the two sides expect to realize their plans in which Bashkortostan and the neighboring regions will send Iran agricultural products and Tehran will send the Russian regions industrial exports,” according to Goble. This exchange means more Iranians traveling to the Middle Volga and more Russians from that region visiting Iran.

The two events has already triggered concerns in the Kremlin about more Muslims in Russia and their mindset toward Iran and Russia itself. Tehran insisted the trade meeting inside a Russian republic, adding to Iran’s influence there. Radzhab Safarov, head of Moscow’s Center for the Study of Contemporary Iran, points out that the decision to hold the meetings outside the central capitals “makes possible drawing into relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran not just Chechnya but also the entire North Caucasus. This will undoubtedly give an impulse to the development of trade.” Kavkazskiy uzel goes further saying that it will do more than that “considering the obvious movement of Iran to strengthen cooperation with Russia and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union in all spheres”—including the cultural and political….” The new reality is that where Putin once shunned Muslim influence, he now seeks support.

Lana Ravandi-Fadai of Moscow’s Institute of Oriental Studies, says that “Iranians are known for their pragmatism and try, at least officially, not to divide Muslims into Sunni and Shia.” Instead, she insists, “The Iranians… talk about a single Muslim umma.”  That type of thinking today dominates Iranian relations abroad. Another senior scholar, Akhmet Yarlykapov, at the Center for the Study of the Caucasus at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO), says the situation between Russia and its Muslim regions, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, is quite different from what it was only a few years ago as Iran is seeking new opportunities to expand its influence. Yarlykapov adds that “the Shiite question is in no way connected with Iran’s interest in the North Caucasus” as Iran gains more by presenting itself as a Muslim power interested in promoting Muslim interests more generally. 

Iran, like China, is slowly expanding its influence, accessing markets, and using soft power to steadily penetrate countries. Iran first establishes economic relations. After that, analysts suggests it either expands its cultural or religious influence. Russian dependence on Iranian weapons of war may in the end contribute to increased domestic problems for Putin as the country’s Muslim citizens are turning more often to Tehran than Moscow. About 25 million Muslims live in Russia, more than in any other European state. Iran’s leaders are taking their time in expanding relations and exerting its influence. How far and fast the partnership of convenience can tilt Iran away from the West is uncertain. It is worthy to note that Putin has visited only one foreign country since the beginning of the war in Ukraine – that is Iran.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay