JOHN W. PARKER. PERSIAN DREAMS. MOSCOW AND TEHRAN SINCE THE FALL OF THE SHAH. Washington: Potomac Books Inc., 2009. 423 p.*

A significant event for Western (primarily American) researchers of the Near and Middle East region in 2009 was the publication of a book by a major American Sovietologist, a high-ranking civil servant, and a former employee of the US Embassy in the USSR, J. R. R. Tolkien. Parker's book, which provides a detailed analysis of the development of relations between Moscow and Tehran since its formation in 1979. Of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The topic of Russian-Iranian relations is one of the most burning and actively discussed in both expert and political circles in the United States, which is explained not only by the development of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program, but also by the traditional rivalry between Moscow and Washington for influence in the region, which began long before the first information about Tehran's ongoing nuclear. In this regard, such a thorough work, which is the work of J. Parker, could not fail to attract the attention of the general public and turned out to be very popular among regional specialists both in the West and in the IRI. An additional hype around the peer-reviewed monograph was caused by the personality of the author himself - the owner of a doctoral degree from Yale University, a freelance employee of the Institute for National Defense Research (National Defense Research

* J. R. R. Tolkien Parker. Persian dreams. Relations between Moscow and Tehran after the fall of the Shah's regime. Washington: Potomac Books Inc., 2009. 423 p.

Institute, RAND), who heads the Caucasus and Central Asian division in the structure of the US State Department's Bureau of Research and Intelligence, which allows us to say that the work actually reflects the official position of the US leadership.

The undoubted advantage of the book is the extensive factual material used in writing, which makes it possible to see all the versatility of Russian-Iranian relations. A certain "highlight" is the significant "field" data collected by the author in conversations with various major political figures involved in making certain decisions, as well as authoritative Russian experts. In general, after studying a wide range of sources, J. Parker comes to the conclusion about the dual nature of Russian-Iranian relations. According to him, on the one hand, the interests of these countries overlap in many areas (the Middle East settlement process, the situation in Central Asia and the Caucasus, the solution of the issue of the legal status of the Caspian Sea, the export of energy resources), where each of them claims a dominant role, which inevitably leads to an aggravation of relations. On the other hand, being close neighbors, Moscow and Tehran are forced to maintain a certain level of constructive dialogue, trying to find compromises.

Unlike many foreign researchers, J. Parker draws the reader's attention to the long history of Russian-Iranian relations, thereby showing that the existing conflicts and agreements between Moscow and Tehran did not arise yesterday and not without reason. To do this, the author makes several excursions into history, starting with the Russo-Persian wars of the XIX century, then tracing the continuity in politics in the Persian (Iranian) direction in the Russian Empire, the RSFSR, the USSR and the Russian Federation, and brings his research to 2009.

From the point of view of J. R. R. Tolkien According to J. Parker, both Russian and Iranian approaches to building bilateral relations are very utilitarian. Russia aims to strengthen its position in this country as much as possible, hoping not only to regain what it lost with the collapse of the USSR, but also to take on the role of the United States, which it played before the fall of the Shah's regime. In an effort to implement this program, the Russian leadership is constantly forced to maneuver and show flexibility in relations with Tehran. That is why, according to J. Parker, it actually remains passive in resolving the "nuclear issue", demonstrating its participation in it, but at exactly the level that allows it not to anger the Iranians, which the latter use, perceiving Russia as a kind of intercessor for the West. An advocate for whom, however, they have a serious and historically determined distrust. Tehran is forced to remain silent about past grievances and restrain its aspirations, while interaction with its northern neighbor is one of the few opportunities to avoid international isolation (in fact, the need to get out of it, according to J. Abramovich). Parker, and became the main reason for the rapprochement of the two countries after 1988.At the same time, neither insults nor aspirations are forgotten: in some cases, when Russia behaves in an "inappropriate" way, from the point of view of the Iranians, they immediately remind them of all their claims, starting with the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty.

According to J. Parker, the common pragmatic approach has largely led to mutual understanding, and sometimes tactical interaction of countries in the Afghan, Central Asian, and Transcaucasian areas, Tehran's refusal to interfere in the situation in Chechnya, and the temporary "freezing" of discussions on the legal status of the Caspian Sea. However, in the long run, Russia and Iran are more rivals than partners. The strengthening of Iran's political position in the Middle East, the prospect of its entry into European energy markets (primarily gas), and the intensification of activities in the Caspian Sea are contrary to Moscow's interests. Moreover, as J. R. R. Tolkien writes: According to Parker, clashes are also possible in other areas (in particular, in a certain scenario, an Iranian "revenge" for influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus is not excluded), which suggests that relations between the two countries will never acquire the character of a "strategic partnership".

In addition to this, J. R. R. Tolkien Parker repeatedly suggests that a significant part of the Iranian public (not to mention the political opposition) is very sympathetic to the West (especially to the United States), coolly perceiving Russia. The open expression of these feelings is hindered, they say, by the official ideological doctrine and the current situation around the Iranian nuclear program, which gives Moscow certain opportunities to interact with Iran. However, as the author of the book clearly hints, the situation is unpredictable

and it can always change, allowing him to say with confidence that Russia will never play the role that the United States played (and may begin to play again) in Iran under the Shah.

The main conclusions of J. R. R. Tolkien Parker's account of the dual nature of Russian-Iranian relations, where struggle and interaction are logically linked, and their pragmatic basis, as well as his allusions to the "unconscious" desire of Iranians to restore full-fledged contacts with the United States, are the main advantages of the book. Although the ideas of the American scientist are not new in general, he is the first who dared to say them so openly, confirming his position with a whole set of arguments. Traditionally, Russian researchers are more reserved in their assessments, fearing to provoke criticism both from supporters of "rapprochement with Iran at any cost" and from those who insist on early distancing. Meanwhile, both of them can find facts in the monograph that allow us to understand, on the one hand, that no one in Iran is waiting for Russians with "sincerely opened arms", and on the other - that our countries still have issues on which it is possible and necessary to conduct a dialogue (p. 310).

At the same time, unfortunately, the work of J. Parker is not without drawbacks. The author of the book, being not only a researcher, but also a government official, could not keep in line with an unbiased approach to the problem, and his work has a certain political bias. In an effort to emphasize that the" self-serving " Russian-Iranian relations actually contain more prerequisites for conflict than for cooperation, in some cases he does not quite objectively interpret the situation, and in some cases goes to the unacceptable hush-up and distortion of facts. First of all, the opinion of J. R. R. Tolkien draws attention to itself. In this regard, we have discussed the situation around the determination of the legal status of the Caspian Sea. From his point of view, this problem is a significant "stumbling block" in Russian-Iranian relations. He rightly noted that the legal uncertainty of this issue has long played into the hands of Iran, as it prevented its neighbors in the Caspian Sea from developing their maritime, military and economic infrastructure. However, for some reason, the American "forgot" to say that the factor of legal uncertainty is clearly losing its influence: Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are strengthening their naval forces with the help of Westerners, companies from the United States, France, and China are showing interest in the energy reserves of the region's countries, and prospects for creating trans-Caspian gas pipelines (TCGs) are being discussed in a practical way). All this forces Iran to more actively defend its interests (which is very difficult in the absence of rules of conduct adopted by all participants) and pushes official Tehran to take a more constructive position in resolving the problem of the legal status of the Caspian Sea (Zulkharneyev, 2010).

As for the supposedly unprofitable position of Iran for Russia, one can only partially agree with J. Parker here: the most heated disputes are traditionally conducted around the delimitation of the water area and the seabed, but Iran is not at all the main "problematic" negotiating partner. His position is much more flexible and predictable than that of the representatives of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, who are inclined to make clearly provocative statements at the talks in order to please their Western partners. When dealing with the Caspian issue, Iran has more "points of contact" with Russia than divergences. As in Moscow, Tehran believes that only the Caspian littoral countries have exclusive rights in relation to the Caspian Sea and its resources: the Caspian Sea is a closed inland body of water, and it is not subject to the norms of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea can only be adopted by consensus; Its legal regime is determined by the treaties of 1921 and 1940. providing for freedom of navigation and fishing, with the exception of the fishing zone, and the prohibition of navigation of vessels flying the flags of non-Caspian countries. Iran also supports the inadmissibility of its presence in the Caspian Sea (including in the airspace over the sea) It is also the only negotiating partner that immediately agreed to participate in the CASFOR project and in the work on the relevant agreement.

The author tries to ignore the above-mentioned aspects of Russian-Iranian cooperation (especially those related to NATO's activities in the region). Moreover, it is surprising that J. Parker is trying to find the main reason for the alleged confrontation between Moscow and Tehran in the Caspian and Transcaucasian regions in Russia's unwillingness to allow Iran's independent access to the Turkish and European gas markets. He even unfounded claims that the project "Blue Stream" was implemented by Moscow in opposition to the plans of Tehran. Similar statements by J. R. R. Tolkien. Parker pretty much plays along with those forces in the West, in Iran itself

and, unfortunately, in Russia, which seek to clash the interests of the two countries in the energy field. In reality, Iran's position on the European direction of its energy diplomacy largely corresponds to Russian interests.

In particular, as European states step up their efforts to gain access to the oil and gas resources of the Caspian region and Central Asia, official Tehran is increasingly emphasizing its rejection of the idea of laying trans-Caspian main gas pipelines. We are seriously concerned about the position and actions of the Azerbaijani side, which signed the energy declaration in Prague on May 8, 2009, expressing its readiness to support the option of transporting energy resources to Europe by this route. Under these circumstances, Iran has repeatedly stated that it will take "appropriate measures" to prevent the construction of the TCG, even if it causes serious friction in relations with Baku and Ashgabat. In this vein, Tehran welcomed Russia's active efforts to counter the penetration of foreign forces into the region: from the point of view of representatives of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the signing of an agreement on the purchase of gas from the Shah Deniz field from Azerbaijan during Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Baku in 2009 was "the right strategic step" [Zulkharneyev, 2010; Starchenkov,2010]. 2010].

Other, according to J. R. R. Tolkien. Parker, the" apple of contention", the Nabucco project, seriously interested the Iranian leadership. Iran does not hide its desire to enter the European gas market independently and without Russia's participation. However, there is also an understanding that Tehran will not have a chance to use this opportunity in the near future. First of all, this is due to the fact that the US government has expressed a clear rejection of the idea of Iranians ' participation in the construction of the Nabucco pipeline, which was heard and perceived by Europeans (in his book J. R. R. Tolkien). For some reason, Parker does not focus on Washington's position on the issue of Iranian energy exports). In such a situation, Tehran can only accuse the EU of excessively politicizing the economic issue of gas supplies and point out the unviability of Nabucco without the participation of Iran. At the same time, even if we assume that Iran will still be allowed to work on this project, it is unlikely to be a real rival of Russian companies. Most analysts estimate that in the context of growing natural gas consumption in the EU, all countries will have opportunities to sell their products [Zulkharneyev, 2010].

As you read the book, you also get the strong impression that J. R. R. Tolkien is the author of the book. Parker did his best to show that Moscow and Tehran have no real economic basis for cooperation: they say that the main reason for their dialogue is solely a clash of political interests. The author even goes to the obvious distortion of facts, stating, despite the existing statistics, about the instability and even decline in the volume of trade and economic cooperation. Meanwhile, Iran has traditionally been one of Russia's most important partners in this area in the Middle East. The revolution of 1978-1979, the Iran-Iraq war, and the collapse of the Soviet Union dealt a serious blow to trade and economic relations between the two countries, which took a very long time to recover from. However, since 2000, there have been positive trends [Trushkin, 2010]. According to Russian customs statistics, the foreign trade turnover of the two countries increased from $ 686.9 million to $ 2,144. 1 million between 2000 and 2006. In other words, it increased by 3.1 times. In 2007, it amounted to $ 3.3 billion. and continued to grow in 2008, exceeding the figure of $ 3.7 billion. Despite the impact of the global economic crisis, the trade turnover between the two countries did not decrease in 2009. According to Parker, Russian-Iranian trade and economic cooperation is inferior to Moscow's relations with Beijing, New Delhi or Ankara in a number of indicators, although he does not explain the reasons for this. However, if we study the situation in detail, we can see that the development of Russian-Iranian trade and economic ties is not least hindered by the unilateral sanctions regime imposed by the United States [Trushkin, 2010].

These examples are only the most striking examples of the distortions of facts that take place in the book and, unfortunately, do not exhaust their list. As a result, even one of the main conclusions of J. Parker about the strong desire of the Iranian elite to restore full-fledged contacts with the United States can be questioned. In this case, it would be more appropriate to talk about Tehran's desire to find a reliable partner willing to share the necessary technologies and investment funds for Iran. For objective reasons, Russia cannot meet these parameters, nor can any other country, with the exception of the United States. The memory of the past period of fruitful cooperation with Washington is still alive in the business circles of Iran, but to pass it off as some kind of foreign policy.

"love" for the United States is not worth it, most likely we are talking about the same pragmatic calculation that J. Parker so impartially considered in the Iranian-Russian relations.

In conclusion, the book by J. R. R. Tolkien It will undoubtedly be of interest to both a wide range of readers and specialists in Oriental studies. The comments given in the review do not detract from the importance of the work done by the scientist. Moreover, they give it some additional significance, allowing the Russian reader to get acquainted with the American expert opinion on the past and present relations between Moscow and Tehran, as well as to understand in what way the United States would like to see their further development.

list of literature

Zulkharneyev A. The Caspian Sea in the focus of Iran's Energy Interests. 2010. N 66.

Starchenkov G. I. Iranskie interesy na Kaspii [Iranian Interests in the Caspian Sea].

Trushkin I. Russian-Iranian trade and economic cooperation and new sanctions // Security index. 2010. No. 1 (92), Vol. 16.

Pasquali V. An Interview with John Parker on Russia - Iran Relations // Washington Prism. 2009. February 10.

Permanent link to this publication: