Axis of Evil Threat is Real

The United States faces the largest contiguous alliance of states opposed to Western ideals in the history of our country. While most news reports cover the war in Ukraine, Russia is busy shoring up its ability to cause trouble in the Middle East and the Caucasus. Russia, together with China, North Korea, and Iran, are working together to oppose American values, the dignity of individual lives, and the capitalist system that has raised so many societies out of poverty. The alliance is not only opposing the West on political and economic grounds, but these states today are also cooperating in the upgrade of their offensive military capabilities. A year ago this week, the world witnessed Russia attack its neighbor, Ukraine. This February the world is quietly witnessing the deepening of Russo-Iranian relations with news that Tehran is purchasing Russian-built Sukhoi Su-35 advanced fighter jets and not the less advanced Su-30’s.

Washington was able to stop past attempts by Algeria, Egypt, and Indonesia to purchase the Russian jets. To date, only China has succeeded in buying the Su-35 jets and India has made little progress in closing a similar deal, according to Vali Kaleji, of the Jamestown Foundation. “…in the new geopolitical environment brought on by Russia’s war against Ukraine, Iran may indeed become the new destination of the Russian fighter, which underlines a burgeoning military relationship between Moscow and Tehran,” says Kaleji.

Last September the world learned from the commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), Brigadier General Hamid Vahedi, that “the purchase of Sukhoi Su-35’s is currently being discussed, rather than Sukhoi Su-30’s,” according to the Tehran Times. The Russian jets are expected to arrive in Iran in less than four weeks. Russia also sold air defense systems, missile systems and helicopters; all of which are due in Iran soon. Euromaiden Press reported in mid-December that the fighter jet deal may have been part of an exchange for Iranian drones sent to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine.

So far, it appears the US intelligence community is finding it difficult to establish a clear and irrefutable link or contract between Moscow and Tehran, although Russia has not denied one exists. Kaleji suggests that deepening ties may be the reason for the secrecy as Russia and Iran are developing new defense and security programs. One analyst suggests that sanctions on Russia means they can’t deliver the 24 Su-35’s Iran ordered last year, however, most other analysts studying Russia argue that Moscow may have found a way around sanctions to obtain the special technology required from abroad to build the planes.

“Tehran’s purchase of Su-35 fighter jets would facilitate the renewal of some of the IRIAF’s capacities and possibly lay the foundation for further cooperation in defense production between Russia and Iran,” says Kaleji. According to the Russian-outlet Sputnik in late January, “Even though the cost of maintaining and operating this jet appears to be high for Iran, these costs could be reduced if there are agreements on the joint production of the Su-35 engine in the Islamic Republic.” The Russian jet is versatile and Iran may be capable of installing its original weapons on it. Should that occur, Putin will have in effect provided Iran a means of creating a combat-ready mini-AWACS [airborne warning and control system]. Kaleji argues that if the Russian jet is then connected to Iran’s radar network, it will acquire unique point defense capabilities. Along with other military purchases from Russia, Iran could gain a significant advantage over neighboring states and impact the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The Russian deal may also push other nearby states to try to secure a deal with the United States to obtain F-35 fighter jets. Although some Iranian experts suggest Iran’s power is based on deterrence backed by missiles and drone power and not a turning point, the Russian deal when finalized will be one of the most consequential arms purchases for the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It will also represent a new era in Moscow’s relationship with Tehran and alter the balance of power throughout the South Caucasus and Middle East. Should the war in Ukraine expand into NATO Member states the US, under its obligations in the NATO Charter, would be required to support the states under attack.

At its present level, the United States cannot effectively handle military action simultaneously in two separate theaters of operation. The Su-35 advanced fighter jet deal may be the spark that ignites the Middle East.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.