The future of their strategic partnership is bright, but in order to fully appreciate its prospects, observers must acknowledge its non-military nature instead of continuing to fantasize about a joint war against Israel and/or the US like some are doing.
However, this article did not touch on the aspect of military trades, such as Su-35 assembled in Iran and likely S-400 sales (if not already there). The partnership is not aimed at the military on the surface, nor do Russia and Iran usually share common geopolitics goals and concerns. However, the partnership has several impacts on geopolitics indirectly but strongly: (1) Reducing financial pressure suffered by the Iranian people and government. Everything depends on "money". (2) If Hamas can claim victory by surviving the onslaught for a year, then Iran being able to survive US sanctions and Israel's military provocation will be a psychological boost. (3) technology exchange includes military technology exchange.
Russia does not need China, Iran, or India to serve as minions or blind followers. Russia merely needs each of them to remain independent and prosper. The same can be said for KSA, Brazil, and South Africa.
Israel didn't defeat anyone single-handedly. The US provided them with everything that was necessary, and then some. I know that is not breaking news, but I just had to put it out there. I feel better now...
I addressed that point here, which isn't anywhere near the focus of my analysis, but has for some reason offended two people thus far into reacting specifically to it at the expense of ignoring every other point that I made in my piece:
Do you want to exchange ideas about the energy implications of this strategic partnership or are you just making a talking point about the US and Israel in response to what I wrote in that single sentence and that's it?
Wrong, I'm just sharing "politically inconvenient' observations, which in this case is the fact -- and yes, it's an objectively existing and easily verifiable fact -- that the outcome of the West Asian Wars was the opposite of what most Alt-Media expected. Israel wasn't destroyed, the Resistance Axis was, but I don't expect diehard dogmatists like yourself to ever admit this.
Now you're getting argumentative though, you're not asking me to clarify my views, elaborate on them, or shed more insight into Russian policy, all three of which I enjoy doing, but I don't have the time nor interest to "argue" with random people whose opinion I literally don't care about. This conversation is over because you're starting to get very rude, I didn't like your other comment.
I went through this short comment section and agree completely with your points, Mr. Korybkow, as far a the West Asia aspect is concerned. Obviously the »Axis« lost. Your argumentation concerning the gas, I find convincing, too. And of course, from a realist point of view that always should be applied to international relations, this gas-policy is far-reaching in time to come and thus much more shaping the geopolicy-chessboard than the genocide in Gaza, which makes me simply mad. That, of course, is an emotional reaction and does not count at all, I admit. I appreciate, finally, that you point out the Russian realism with respect to the Chinese. I am still not sure who might turn out to be the die-hardest realist, the Russians or the Chinese. Would appreciate your opinion on that non-alliance someday.
I disagree at all. Abstracting all other considerations, and only considering the mention from Iranian side of unacceptable situation of double-standards one geopolitical crucial issue is already inserted...
Russia seems to have gotten another written confirmation that Iran will abide by it's commitment to UN treaty against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Maybe it was a free-bee, but I wonder what they had to give in return.
I went through this short comment section and agree completely with your points, Mr. Korybkow, as far a the West Asia aspect is concerned. Obviously the »Axis« lost. Your argumentation concerning the gas, I find convincing, too. And of course, from a realist point of view that always should be applied to international relations, this gas-policy is far-reaching in time to come and thus much more shaping the geopolicy-chessboard than the genocide in Gaza, which makes me simply mad. That, of course, is an emotional reaction and does not count at all, I admit. I appreciate, finally, that you point out the Russian realism with respect to the Chinese. I am still not sure who might turn out to be the die-hardest realist, the Russians or the Chinese. Would appreciate your opinion on that non-alliance someday.
The War with Iran will be done by PROXY TERRORISTS (MeK,Emirates,Saudi MERCENARIES) PROXY ARMIES OF VASSAL STATES ,including U.S,ZIONISTS for AIR SUPPORT. Americans want their WARS fought by others.
7000 dead Americans for nothing. You would think with the lost in VEITNAM would tell the FASCIST AMERICA YOU CAN NOT DEFEAT A PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW AN IDEOLOGY.
Uh, America just lost 7000 troops over 20 years attempting to make the world safer for everyone! We invaded Iraq to improve the lives of Iraqis and unleash their oil production to help China expand their economy. Bush and Tillerson are the only two Texans that couldn’t find oil and gas under Texas!! WTF??
" that there aren’t any mutual defense obligations as clarified in Article 3. They only committed to not aid any aggression against the other, including assistance to the aggressor, and to help settle the subsequent conflict at the UN. "
Russia wont sell Iran any weapons and now this, which can only mean one thing, Iran is next to fall.
I think they'll sell them more weapons, I don't see any indication to suggest that they won't, but Russia's imperative will solely be to bolster Iran's defensive and deterrence capabilities (including through the possible export of some offensive weaponry like fighter jets), not to give Iran an edge in any hypothetical first strike against Israel.
G'day Andrew, the trade angle of this agreement seem very positive and beneficial for both parties but if Iran's economy perishes and regime change takes place from attacks by Isreal or the US through lack of obvious deterents then how could the pipeline or benefits be obtained. An inferred military pact as in Article 5 NATO could not hurt.
I do agree with the conclusions drawn. But two details in the analysis are in my humle opinion not accurate:
1. Israel did not single handed fight Iran and its axis of Resistance. They were almost as dependant on American weapon deliveries as Ukraine is. The main difference is that Israel does not jeed to be afraid that the US stops its deliveries due to the influence of the Israel Lobby in the US. But without American support, Israel could not have fought this war.
2. Israel has not defeated the axis of Resistance. The war is more of a loose loose Situation as both sides did not arcive any of their war aims. But I do agree, that the Axis of Resistance is more badly battered than Israel. But without archiving its war aims, that does not constitude a real victory for Israel.
I would appriciate Your thoughts about this statement Mr. Korybko.
A significant share of the arms that Israel used to defeat the Resistance Axis -- and yes, I do believe that they're defeated, but they're not yet fully destroyed and might eventually come back in a different form -- are American but Israel still planned and executed its operations.
The past 15 months were characterized by calls for the US to de-escalate and mild pressure on Israel, both political and media, to "restrain" itself. We all remember Rafah for example, where Bibi ultimately still went in despite the Biden Admin being strongly against it. He also didn't tell them about his plans to assassinate Nasrallah.
That's not to say that Biden Admin was fully against everything that Israel was doing, but just that they did indeed show disapproval yet always declined maximally pressuring them to stop, which they could have succeeded doing if they had the political will. The Biden Admin also wanted to topple Bibi and called for regime change against him:
Being militarily dependent on supplies from a certain patron doesn't make that patron responsible for the planning and execution of whatever operations are carried out using their arms. Take Russia's alleged use of North Korean and Iranian arms in Ukraine: does anyone REALLY think that Pyongyang and Tehran played a role in planning and execution?
Sure, each arms supplier is partially responsible for perpetuating each respective conflict, but it's categorically false that their arms transfers automatically make them responsible for planning and execution. So while Israel relied heavily on American arms, they ultimately planned, executed, and accepted the costs for defeating the Resistance Axis.
But that single-sentence point isn't the focus of my analysis so why not address the gas aspect instead of focusing on that point? I'm pretty sure you're a leftist and/or activist, which is fine and I'm not judging, but it's usually those types (and especially a combination thereof) that get angered by one point and miss the rest of the whole article.
I am neither an activist nor an leftis or an analyst. I am just an observer reading several analysts (of which You are the most objective in my eyes). As stated I fully agree with your conclusions (no direct geopolitical influence due to a lack of a military conponent but a possible massive economic influence) and I also agree that the notion, that Russia is anti Israel is wishful thinking shared by many in the Alt Media Community.
I asked about those points because here, Your statement differs from statements made by other respected analysts i.e. John Mearsheimer and I enjoy askimg people who know more than me about topics, where I have not formed an opinion yet.
You're welcome, and thanks for clarifying. I get "hate mail" on X almost daily and it's been by leftists and activists for the most part for the past two years now, hence my sensitivity.
Check out Qatar’s and Australia’s and America’s LNG export numbers. And keep in mind Qatar and America both plan to double their output by 2030. So an OPEC for LNG already exists.
It doesn't yet exist since Qatar and Australia aren't coordinating their activities on the market as far as I'm aware, and being US allies, they're also unlikely to coordinate such with their Russian and Iranian competitors.
Keep in mind OPEC exists because of how easily transportable oil is…shipping oil only adds a few dollars to the price of a barrel of oil. The problem with LNG from a cartel perspective is that every continent will have more than enough gas through pipes and then LNG might never develop a global spot market. So LNG might just be for a harsh winter once Europe sorts everything out. And China is developing huge natural gas storage capacity and they have huge hydro capacity…and so China will buy natural gas in April and not in the northern hemisphere fall when it would be most expensive in a global spot market. America’s Big Oil wants to develop a spot market which is what the “LNG export pause” that’s been in the news is really about…Democrats don’t want a global spot market because it could only harm American consumers after 2030. So right now LNG involves diplomacy and huge infrastructure investments at both ends and long term contracts.
Tillerson is pretty much a member of the Qatari royal family because of how much XOM has invested into Qatar. And Qatar is investing billions in American LNG export infrastructure:
“These plans would run in parallel with, but were likely to be finished significantly sooner than, the plans for Qatar to also make available to Germany sizeable supplies of LNG from the Golden Pass terminal on the Gulf Coast of Texas. QatarEnergy holds a 70 percent stake in the project, with the U.S.'s ExxonMobil holding the remainder.”
A stronger position for russia and iran in the global gas industry is trivial to israeli terrorism and the horrors of zionism. Who cares about global gas while the genocide in Palestine continues thru the faux ceasefire? Are you a zionist?
You need to stop with the name-calling ("Zionist") because I don't tolerate personal attacks on my page and you'll be blocked the next time you do it.
I analyze and articulate Russian policy so that observers can better understand it, and Russia isn't against Zionism nor does it accuse Israel or terrorism.
It also hasn't described what's happening in Gaza as a genocide either, instead regularly referring to it as collective punishment.
You seem angry, but your anger is misdirected. I don't formulate policy, I just analyze and articulate it. Write an angry letter to the Kremlin if you're so upset.
However, this article did not touch on the aspect of military trades, such as Su-35 assembled in Iran and likely S-400 sales (if not already there). The partnership is not aimed at the military on the surface, nor do Russia and Iran usually share common geopolitics goals and concerns. However, the partnership has several impacts on geopolitics indirectly but strongly: (1) Reducing financial pressure suffered by the Iranian people and government. Everything depends on "money". (2) If Hamas can claim victory by surviving the onslaught for a year, then Iran being able to survive US sanctions and Israel's military provocation will be a psychological boost. (3) technology exchange includes military technology exchange.
Russia does not need China, Iran, or India to serve as minions or blind followers. Russia merely needs each of them to remain independent and prosper. The same can be said for KSA, Brazil, and South Africa.
Israel didn't defeat anyone single-handedly. The US provided them with everything that was necessary, and then some. I know that is not breaking news, but I just had to put it out there. I feel better now...
I addressed that point here, which isn't anywhere near the focus of my analysis, but has for some reason offended two people thus far into reacting specifically to it at the expense of ignoring every other point that I made in my piece:
https://open.substack.com/pub/korybko/p/the-russian-iranian-partnership-might?r=i1iin&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=87094287
Do you want to exchange ideas about the energy implications of this strategic partnership or are you just making a talking point about the US and Israel in response to what I wrote in that single sentence and that's it?
you SEEM almost impressed by israel. you seem to favor israel over hamas. israel could NEVER defeat the Resistance Axis without america and nato.
Wrong, I'm just sharing "politically inconvenient' observations, which in this case is the fact -- and yes, it's an objectively existing and easily verifiable fact -- that the outcome of the West Asian Wars was the opposite of what most Alt-Media expected. Israel wasn't destroyed, the Resistance Axis was, but I don't expect diehard dogmatists like yourself to ever admit this.
Now you're getting argumentative though, you're not asking me to clarify my views, elaborate on them, or shed more insight into Russian policy, all three of which I enjoy doing, but I don't have the time nor interest to "argue" with random people whose opinion I literally don't care about. This conversation is over because you're starting to get very rude, I didn't like your other comment.
If it helps to prevent more global chaos and unnecessary death it'll be good.
I went through this short comment section and agree completely with your points, Mr. Korybkow, as far a the West Asia aspect is concerned. Obviously the »Axis« lost. Your argumentation concerning the gas, I find convincing, too. And of course, from a realist point of view that always should be applied to international relations, this gas-policy is far-reaching in time to come and thus much more shaping the geopolicy-chessboard than the genocide in Gaza, which makes me simply mad. That, of course, is an emotional reaction and does not count at all, I admit. I appreciate, finally, that you point out the Russian realism with respect to the Chinese. I am still not sure who might turn out to be the die-hardest realist, the Russians or the Chinese. Would appreciate your opinion on that non-alliance someday.
I disagree at all. Abstracting all other considerations, and only considering the mention from Iranian side of unacceptable situation of double-standards one geopolitical crucial issue is already inserted...
Russia seems to have gotten another written confirmation that Iran will abide by it's commitment to UN treaty against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Maybe it was a free-bee, but I wonder what they had to give in return.
I went through this short comment section and agree completely with your points, Mr. Korybkow, as far a the West Asia aspect is concerned. Obviously the »Axis« lost. Your argumentation concerning the gas, I find convincing, too. And of course, from a realist point of view that always should be applied to international relations, this gas-policy is far-reaching in time to come and thus much more shaping the geopolicy-chessboard than the genocide in Gaza, which makes me simply mad. That, of course, is an emotional reaction and does not count at all, I admit. I appreciate, finally, that you point out the Russian realism with respect to the Chinese. I am still not sure who might turn out to be the die-hardest realist, the Russians or the Chinese. Would appreciate your opinion on that non-alliance someday.
The only country that did things with a focus of improving other countries was Bush/Cheney America….still the dumbest 8 years in recent human history.
The War with Iran will be done by PROXY TERRORISTS (MeK,Emirates,Saudi MERCENARIES) PROXY ARMIES OF VASSAL STATES ,including U.S,ZIONISTS for AIR SUPPORT. Americans want their WARS fought by others.
7000 dead Americans for nothing. You would think with the lost in VEITNAM would tell the FASCIST AMERICA YOU CAN NOT DEFEAT A PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW AN IDEOLOGY.
Uh, America just lost 7000 troops over 20 years attempting to make the world safer for everyone! We invaded Iraq to improve the lives of Iraqis and unleash their oil production to help China expand their economy. Bush and Tillerson are the only two Texans that couldn’t find oil and gas under Texas!! WTF??
" that there aren’t any mutual defense obligations as clarified in Article 3. They only committed to not aid any aggression against the other, including assistance to the aggressor, and to help settle the subsequent conflict at the UN. "
Russia wont sell Iran any weapons and now this, which can only mean one thing, Iran is next to fall.
I think they'll sell them more weapons, I don't see any indication to suggest that they won't, but Russia's imperative will solely be to bolster Iran's defensive and deterrence capabilities (including through the possible export of some offensive weaponry like fighter jets), not to give Iran an edge in any hypothetical first strike against Israel.
G'day Andrew, the trade angle of this agreement seem very positive and beneficial for both parties but if Iran's economy perishes and regime change takes place from attacks by Isreal or the US through lack of obvious deterents then how could the pipeline or benefits be obtained. An inferred military pact as in Article 5 NATO could not hurt.
Maybe so, but I'm going by passed history and all the unfilled contracts and questionable " delays". We shall obviously see though.
I do agree with the conclusions drawn. But two details in the analysis are in my humle opinion not accurate:
1. Israel did not single handed fight Iran and its axis of Resistance. They were almost as dependant on American weapon deliveries as Ukraine is. The main difference is that Israel does not jeed to be afraid that the US stops its deliveries due to the influence of the Israel Lobby in the US. But without American support, Israel could not have fought this war.
2. Israel has not defeated the axis of Resistance. The war is more of a loose loose Situation as both sides did not arcive any of their war aims. But I do agree, that the Axis of Resistance is more badly battered than Israel. But without archiving its war aims, that does not constitude a real victory for Israel.
I would appriciate Your thoughts about this statement Mr. Korybko.
A significant share of the arms that Israel used to defeat the Resistance Axis -- and yes, I do believe that they're defeated, but they're not yet fully destroyed and might eventually come back in a different form -- are American but Israel still planned and executed its operations.
The past 15 months were characterized by calls for the US to de-escalate and mild pressure on Israel, both political and media, to "restrain" itself. We all remember Rafah for example, where Bibi ultimately still went in despite the Biden Admin being strongly against it. He also didn't tell them about his plans to assassinate Nasrallah.
That's not to say that Biden Admin was fully against everything that Israel was doing, but just that they did indeed show disapproval yet always declined maximally pressuring them to stop, which they could have succeeded doing if they had the political will. The Biden Admin also wanted to topple Bibi and called for regime change against him:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/alt-media-is-in-a-dilemma-after-biden
Being militarily dependent on supplies from a certain patron doesn't make that patron responsible for the planning and execution of whatever operations are carried out using their arms. Take Russia's alleged use of North Korean and Iranian arms in Ukraine: does anyone REALLY think that Pyongyang and Tehran played a role in planning and execution?
Sure, each arms supplier is partially responsible for perpetuating each respective conflict, but it's categorically false that their arms transfers automatically make them responsible for planning and execution. So while Israel relied heavily on American arms, they ultimately planned, executed, and accepted the costs for defeating the Resistance Axis.
But that single-sentence point isn't the focus of my analysis so why not address the gas aspect instead of focusing on that point? I'm pretty sure you're a leftist and/or activist, which is fine and I'm not judging, but it's usually those types (and especially a combination thereof) that get angered by one point and miss the rest of the whole article.
Thank You for Your answer.
I am neither an activist nor an leftis or an analyst. I am just an observer reading several analysts (of which You are the most objective in my eyes). As stated I fully agree with your conclusions (no direct geopolitical influence due to a lack of a military conponent but a possible massive economic influence) and I also agree that the notion, that Russia is anti Israel is wishful thinking shared by many in the Alt Media Community.
I asked about those points because here, Your statement differs from statements made by other respected analysts i.e. John Mearsheimer and I enjoy askimg people who know more than me about topics, where I have not formed an opinion yet.
You're welcome, and thanks for clarifying. I get "hate mail" on X almost daily and it's been by leftists and activists for the most part for the past two years now, hence my sensitivity.
Check out Qatar’s and Australia’s and America’s LNG export numbers. And keep in mind Qatar and America both plan to double their output by 2030. So an OPEC for LNG already exists.
It doesn't yet exist since Qatar and Australia aren't coordinating their activities on the market as far as I'm aware, and being US allies, they're also unlikely to coordinate such with their Russian and Iranian competitors.
Keep in mind OPEC exists because of how easily transportable oil is…shipping oil only adds a few dollars to the price of a barrel of oil. The problem with LNG from a cartel perspective is that every continent will have more than enough gas through pipes and then LNG might never develop a global spot market. So LNG might just be for a harsh winter once Europe sorts everything out. And China is developing huge natural gas storage capacity and they have huge hydro capacity…and so China will buy natural gas in April and not in the northern hemisphere fall when it would be most expensive in a global spot market. America’s Big Oil wants to develop a spot market which is what the “LNG export pause” that’s been in the news is really about…Democrats don’t want a global spot market because it could only harm American consumers after 2030. So right now LNG involves diplomacy and huge infrastructure investments at both ends and long term contracts.
Tillerson is pretty much a member of the Qatari royal family because of how much XOM has invested into Qatar. And Qatar is investing billions in American LNG export infrastructure:
“These plans would run in parallel with, but were likely to be finished significantly sooner than, the plans for Qatar to also make available to Germany sizeable supplies of LNG from the Golden Pass terminal on the Gulf Coast of Texas. QatarEnergy holds a 70 percent stake in the project, with the U.S.'s ExxonMobil holding the remainder.”
A stronger position for russia and iran in the global gas industry is trivial to israeli terrorism and the horrors of zionism. Who cares about global gas while the genocide in Palestine continues thru the faux ceasefire? Are you a zionist?
You need to stop with the name-calling ("Zionist") because I don't tolerate personal attacks on my page and you'll be blocked the next time you do it.
I analyze and articulate Russian policy so that observers can better understand it, and Russia isn't against Zionism nor does it accuse Israel or terrorism.
It also hasn't described what's happening in Gaza as a genocide either, instead regularly referring to it as collective punishment.
You seem angry, but your anger is misdirected. I don't formulate policy, I just analyze and articulate it. Write an angry letter to the Kremlin if you're so upset.
wasn't name-calling, i was asking.