Today's POLITICUS in the New York Times tries to fathom the extent to which NATO and the Western powers really trust Russia to cooperate in putting pressure on Iran, regarding its nuclear programme.  Whilst certain recent moves by the West suggest an element of confidence in the Kremlin's good nature, such as the Mistral deal, and, depending on who you read, the scrapping of the missile defence scheme, others imply a latent distrust.  How much trust do -- or should -- the Western allies accord Russia in attempting to get its cooperation to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons?And while good faith is the issue, what practical Western steps or accommodations are understood in NATO Brussels' home-office line that the allies owe Moscow recognition of its "security interests"? ...

Iran is 'unwilling to accept' a deal that would see most of its enriched uranium shipped abroad. 'Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played.'  Russia will share the 'prize' that is the giant Yamal gas resource, but only because Gazprom can't handle the challenge on its own, argues Rossiyskaya Gazeta.  Ecuador's President Rafael Correa made his first visit to Russia this week to court support for a planned overhaul of his country's energy industry.  Signing a series of agreements on arms and energy (particularly hydropower), President Dmitry Medvedev heralded 'the beginning of cooperation'.  Will state-owned nuclear corporation Rosatom take the place of Germany's RWE in the Belene nuclear power plant?  Speaking at the Solar Power International Conference, being held in California this week, Robert Kennedy ...

Good analysis from Douglas Birch of the Associated Press:

So Moscow has walked a tightrope: joining Iran in scolding the West for its alleged imperial ambitions and blocking sanctions on the one hand, while warning Tehran it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran on the other.

Russia has agreed to sell Tehran sophisticated missile defense technology, but has so far declined to deliver those weapons -- without giving up the right at some point to do so.

By holding out the hope of sanctions to the U.S., Russia has won a lot of good will in Washington.

By keeping alive the possibility of missile sales and continuing opposition to sanctions, it insures it has friends in Tehran.

By delivering on neither, Russia has irked both would-be allies. But so far it has preserved its influence in a region where, otherwise, it might have little. Or none.

...

Out of the many, many interesting quotes we got from Vice President Joe Biden during his famously candid Wall Street Journal interview (which sounded like it was done in a cocktail lounge), was the following appraisal of the United States believes that Russia must feel about the possibility of Iran becoming armed with nuclear weapons:  "I can see Putin sitting in Moscow saying, 'Jesus Christ, Iran gets the nuclear weapon, who goes first?' Moscow, not Washington." Logically and rationally, of course Biden is correct here.  Russia and Iran may be enjoying a brief honeymoon in their relations, but over history there are still some serious unresolved conflicts, involving everything from regional political disputes, pan-Islamic anger over Chechnya ...

TODAY: Iran uranium plan waiting to be concluded; Russia backs Serbia on Kosovo; Lavrov exit denied; Ingushetian cabinet out.  Ex-US Yukos unit to launch mammoth lawsuit; picketed journalist gets unlikely defender; UN says Russia should improve immigration policies; grave problem for MoscowThe Washington Post reports that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that an agreement between Tehran and six world powers to allow Russia to help enrich uranium for an Iranian reactor awaits finalizing.  ITAR-TASS says that the Foreign Ministry has denied rumors that Lavrov may resign.  The Foreign Minister has rebuffed questions about who truly runs Russia, Putin or Medvedev, at a press conference, where he answered, 'you should not pit the Kremlin against ...

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post has a new column which digs up a number of quotes from American officials over the years which illustrate how often they have been willing to assume a certain level of rational thinking going on inside the Kremlin with regard to Iran.  Just because it is technically in Russia's interests to not have Iran possessing nuclear weapons, doesn't mean that they will act on those interests.

It might be, for example, that Russia understands the value of keeping Iran nuclear-free, but values even more the fruits of its commercial and military trade with Iran.

It might be that Russia believes that the stalemate status quo is pretty close to ideal. Iran can be delayed in its progress toward nuclear status but also prevented from normalizing relations with the United States and the West. And as long as those relations are

...

With two sets of U.S. weekly oil statistics due out Tuesday and Wednesday expected to confirm fears of high inventories due to low demand, the price of oil dipped to the bottom of its 12-week range. A Reuter’s poll showing a 500,000 barrel inventory increase in the week to September 25 compounded middle distillate forecasts showing a 1.1 million barrel rise.

CEO of Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-run oil company, Khalid Al-Falih indicated Monday that demand from emerging markets and an uptick in China would not offset the loss in demand for oil for some time. Al-Falih also suggested that global consumption would not flag irrevocably and that higher oil prices were needed to fund concurrent development projects.

With the FTSEurofirst 300 broadly falling, U.S. and Brent crude futures were below $65 and $64 respectively by midmorning, Sept. 29. A rebound to $66.59 and $65.71 respectively followed at noon, due

...

Oil traded around $66 a barrel on Monday, steadying after an earlier decline which extended last week’s 8.4 percent slide, as the U.S. dollar lost ground and stock markets moved higher.

The dollar gave up most of its earlier gain against a basket of currencies, boosting the appeal of oil and commodities to investors. European stocks firmed and U.S. equity futures pointed to a higher opening.

“It’s making some progress back up, largely due to the dollar,” said Rob Montefusco of Sucden Financial. “At the same time, we haven’t seen demand pick up and we need that to draw strength back into this sector at the moment.”

U.S crude was up 8 cents to $66.10 a barrel by 1308 GMT, after earlier falling as far as $65.41. London Brentwas down 11 cents to $65.00.

Iran test-fired a type of missile on Monday which defence analysts have said could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the

...

What on earth do you think we'll hear from the Russians this year?  A defensive and hostile discourse on the evils of the United States and the West, or a slightly more conciliatory tone about Russia's long deserved global leadership?  In the Moscow Times, former diplomat Peter Belk writes about what he hopes will happen:Russia can achieve significant political, security and economic gains by positioning itself in a more solution-oriented fashion on Iran, such as by boosting international confidence in its economy and financial sector. Because the road to Tehran does indeed run through Moscow, Russia should view its relationship with Iran as a valuable piece of leverage to advance other core Russian national security interests.This concept, unfortunately, is nothing short of laughable.  The likelihood of Russia taking advantage of the UN General Assembly and G20 meetings to present a new willingness to ...

Robert Amsterdam has an opinion article published in The Moscow Times today:

The recent visits to Moscow and Tehran by Hugo Chavez raise a number of concerns about the deepening relations between Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The motivation behind the Russia-Iran-Venezuela alliance is often misunderstood. On the one hand, there is the narrative that these governments are pursuing national interests, seeking to deepen their security against ever-present external threats and accrue regional power. Others argue that the alliance is driven by an attempt to build an "alternative architecture" of global relations, one that is conveniently unconcerned with democracy and human rights and bound solely by the common value of anti-Americanism.

Both these assumptions are dangerously misleading. In reality, the foreign policies of these three states are driven by the personal interests

...