| Russia has not always been willing to cooperate with the United States in restricting the export of weapons-related technologies to "sensitive" states. Therefore, the United States must rely on positive and negative sanctions in an effort to coerce Russia. In some cases Russia has backed down in the face of U.S. pressure, but in other cases it has not. This study attempts to explain why Russia chose to forgo a contract to supply cryogenic rocket technology to India after the U.S. objected, but moved forward with a contract to supply Iran with nuclear reactors despite similar U.S. opposition.;Three propositions are advanced to explain the divergent outcomes in these two cases. First, some have advanced a regime explanation. Others contend that a change in Russia's foreign policy orientation accounts for why Russia was willing to submit to U.S. pressure in the former case but not the latter. The study finds that these explanations are inadequate.;Explaining these outcomes requires an understanding of domestic-level factors in both the United States and Russia. In particular, the study concludes that in the Indian case, divided and weak Russian bureaucratic actors faced a unified United States with credible sanctions resulting in the decision to back down. Whereas in the Iranian case, the United States lacked credible sanctions because of domestic divisions and faced a strong bureaucratic opponent in Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy.;This study provides insight into U.S.-Russian relations in nonproliferation. It also contributes to theoretical debates within the field of international relations and Russian foreign policy. First, it suggests that international regimes may be constrained and manipulated by states, rather than shaping state behavior as some scholars contend. Second, it argues that despite any shift in Russia's foreign policy, Russia remains vulnerable to U.S. pressure. Third, it points to the importance of bureaucratic politics for understanding when coercion is likely to fail and when it will succeed. Finally, in relying on domestic and international-level factors to explain the outcomes, the study underscores the need to integrate domestic variables into international relations theories. |
