So, what is Russia really trying to say here?:

Russia is prepared to repel asteroids to save Earth “if necessary,” deputy head of the Russian space agency Viktor Remishevsky said Tuesday, ITAR-TASS news agency reported.

“If necessary, Russia’s rocket-manufacturing complex can create the means in space to repulse asteroids threatening Earth,” Remishevsky said, without giving further details.

The official stressed that saving Earth from the threat of asteroids demanded international cooperation.

The motive behind this announcement is undoubtedly connected to the Bush administration’s recent unveiling of its new National Space Policy, which aims to allot the US space-based hegemony while denying easy space access to other “hostile” states:

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone “hostile to U.S. interests.”

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.

“Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power,” the policy asserts in its introduction.

Are we well on our way to a potential future only Ronald Reagan, Star Wars program in tow, could love? Probably not, but this combined with the frightening resurgence of leg warmers makes me believe it’s 1986 all over again.

James Lewis suggests that China may well turn against a nuclear Iran, but a couple paragraphs are wildly inaccurate and make the rest of his rather weak argument suspect. First off:

China has its own radical Islamists, the restless Ughuirs. Beijing doesn’t want a bloody Chechnyan rebellion, or its own intifada, like the one foolish France is now experiencing. It especially doesn’t want an Islamofascist Pakistan on its borders, armed with nukes and ICBMs and run by expansionist martyrs.

First, the Uighurs. Sure, they’re Muslims, but their desire to be an independent state is based on a nationalistic sense of belonging to the community of central Asian nations, not radical Islamist ideology. While Wahhabism (or Salafism, depending on who you ask) is evident among the Uighurs, it is Sufism, a spiritual, moderate form of Islamic worship, that is the most widely practiced Islamic tradition in Uighuri communities. Also, “expansionist martyrs” is a decent example of an oxymoron. How can one be an expansionist if he is a martyr? I mean, he’d be pretty dead and not very expansive. Khomeini was an expansionist and loved 10-year-old martyrs, aka the Basijj militia, but he certainly wasn’t a martyr himself since that’d be quite a big impediment in overseeing the Islamic Revolution. A small quibble.

Second, Pakistan. While a Pakistan ruled openly by Wahhbist radicals would be disastrous for global security, China is supportive of a nuclear Pakistan as the situation in Islamabad currently stands. China and India aren’t exactly the best of friends, with disagreements over the border territories of Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh remaining long after the 1963 Sino-Indian War. Unless a radical shift occurs in South Asia, it’s doubtful China will make a major course correction in its policies toward nuclear Pakistan.

Moving on, regarding Iran and Russia:

It’s not that Putin wants Islamist fanatics next door in Iran. He instinctively fears them, because the Russians have fought Islamic aggression for a thousand years. But Putin has his own jihadi rebellion to worry about in Chechnya. It seems likely that Ahmadinejad has promised to do his part to hold down the jihadis in Chechnya as long as the Russians support his nuclear program. Like the Chinese, Russia also has oil interests in Iran. So Russia has been pursuing a cynical French-style policy, playing both sides against each other and stealing as much oil and as many bribes as possible in the process.

Certainly Iran has kept it hands out of Chechnya and the former Soviet republics of central Asia, but Lewis is suggesting that Ahmadinejad is continuing such a policy in order to enforce an ultimatum on Russia. Iran would love to have such influence. If anything, Russia is utilizing Iranian intransigence on nuclear development as a “Persian curtain” to cut off Western influence from central Asia. Iran is set to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization alongside Russia, China, and a number of central Asian member states. A rising Iran will only strengthen the organization’s presence and ensure lessened Western — specifically American — influence in China and Russia’s geographic home turf. Plus, Iran is basically nothing without Russian support, something it’d obviously lose if it started trouble in Chechnya.

And Lewis’ oil argument? “Like the Chinese, Russia also has oil interests in Iran… stealing as much oil and as many bribes as possible in the process.” Sadly laughable. Russia produces more oil than Saudi Arabia, meaning there is no reason for oil to play a prominent role in Russia’s Iranian calculations. China is indeed a different story.

Lewis’ overall argument is that China may turn against Iran now that it sees what dealing with rogues, i.e. North Korea, could entail. I’d love to agree, but Beijing undoubtedly sees Tehran as a more rational actor than Pyongyang. And, amazingly, that is the correct view — at least Iran knows it needs to feign a civilian nuclear program to mask its true intentions.

That’s right. We’ve actually lived long enough to see a conservative Iranian establishment not be the most unpredictable regime on the planet. Hats off, North Korea. Hats off.