Meir Javedanfar at the Guardian has an article entitled "Did the US do a deal with Russia?" Duh. I wonder when Israel sends a wry thank you letter to Poland and the Czech Republic.
Should Russia desert Iran's side and join the west, China could find itself standing alone. Under such circumstances, its leadership could also decide that the cost of supporting Iran far outweighs the benefits. This would mean that the US achieved two goals, with one move.
Obama's decision shows that the US president is prioritising. Although the missile defence shield is important, stopping Iran from becoming armed with nuclear weapons is far more vital. America could always replace the system in the future. It has no "point of no return". But Iran's path to becoming a nuclear state does, and the US president seems to be applying smart chess moves to prevent this from happening.
Did I miss something? You've reported that the U.S. gave in on missile defense, but as far as I know you have not reported ONE SINGLE FACT indicating that Russia has moved away from Iran. Instead, you've ignored recent reports that Russia has responded instead by promising not to station offensive missiles in or near Eastern Europe. It has not recognized ANY linkage between its Iran policy and missile defense.
Maybe the "deal" is only in your own imagination? If not, what is the deal exactly? What is Russia going to do to make Iran safer? Its most recent policy moves indicate the exact opposite:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wary-of-an-israeli-attack-putin-arms-iran/
I hope this the right move in the right direction for our country.
Whether Russia will "ditch" Iran is highly doubtful; the Russian-Iranian relationship is too complex and important to throw away because of a quid pro quo deal over a badly thought out political project (missile defense). Russia may make some gestures in the next few weeks which may show that it may quietly tolerate some of the west's push for more sanctions, but it will still have red lines in place to ensure Iran doesn't get seriously punished (such as oil or gasoline sanctions). In other words, we are going to see Russia behave the same since 2006 in the UN Security Council; new sanctions will be passed, but they will not be worth the paper they are written on.
If you want to see Russia disengage from its "Iran Project" and firmly join the West's position, you will then need an analogous move from the west where it also disengages from other "political projects" in the former USSR. Such moves would include:
1) Expelling the Baltic countries from the EU and NATO
2) Disengaging from all of Russia's 14 ex-Soviet neighbours and supporting Russia's political position in all of them (especially in Ukraine and Georgia)
3) Formally recognize that the Russia has a sphere of special influence in all of its' 14 ex-Soviet neighbours.
If you want Russia to follow western interests in Iran, you will need to follow Russia's interests in it's backyard. Only that would be a real quid pro quo. Maybe this issue will drag to the point where Obama realizes that trading Misha and Viktor/Yulia with Iranian nukes makes real sense.
Since doing any of that would be unacceptable, I guess we can kiss any hopes of Russian help in Iran.
Unless, of course, oil prices go way down...