The New York Times is in trouble with the Russian authorities. On Tuesday, the newspaper reported the encouraging news that “Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel . . . unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment." Yesterday’s editorial further asserted that “The [Bush] administration needs all the friends it can get, and this is another case where quiet persuasion can go a lot further than bludgeoning." However, it now seems that “quiet persuasion” has failed to convince the Russians of much of anything.

As reported by most major Russian news networks yesterday, the Russian authorities are furious with Times’s reporting. The spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mikhail Kamynin, has vehemently denied that any such ultimatum was issued to Iran. Said Kamynin: “As a whole, this article and the 'leaks' on which it is based do not reflect well on a newspaper that claims to be authoritative," adding that the information provided by the Times is, in fact, “blatant disinformation." The press service of the Russian National Security Council released a similar statement noting that “the claims [by the Times] that any ultimatums were issued during the March 12 bilateral consultations with Iran, do not correspond to reality. The resolution of Iran’s nuclear problem and the completion of the Bushehr facility by Russia are not interrelated.”

Moreover, claims by Western media that Russian specialists have begun leaving Iran are also said to be part of this “disinformation campaign." Today, officials from Atomstroiexport--the Russian company charged with construction of the plant at Bushehr--likewise issued a denial, stating that any such insinuation is “groundless” and that the departures can be explained as the “rotation of specialists… which is part of a normal working process."

The editors at the Times thought Moscow could be helped "to see where its larger interests lie," but Rosbalt offers another explanation--"that the Americans, unaware of the peculiarities of Russian national business matters, simply cannot believe that the disruption in payments is the reality . . . and are searching for reasons that are easier for them to comprehend." Yesterday's editorial in RIA Novosti likewise counsels that “the heart of the conflict is financial disagreements between contractor and client. . . . Nuclear fuel is not pistachios or almonds, and the cash-and-carry logic of the Oriental bazaar does not fit in here.”