By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
March 16, 2012
Famously predicted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
rapprochement between Russia and China can be traced back several years. In
this article, first published in 2007, Nazemroaya analyzes the successive
stages of a historical process consistently driven by the same anti-hegemonic
principles that underpinned the two countries’ common stance on Syria at the
UNSC.
Today, the alliance between the two Eurasian
giants is Washington’s worst nightmare come true, of which, ironically, the
United States may well be the unintentional architect.
Ambassador Li Baodong, Chinese permanent representative to the United Nations, and his Russian counterpart Ambassador Vitaly Churkin during the debate on Syria at the Security Council in February 2012.“But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically.The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia].” ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states
that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These precepts
of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference
to social relations and geo-politics.
America and Britain, the Anglo-American
alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy
resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions,
which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to
challenge the Anglo-American axis.
ENCIRCLING RUSSIA AND CHINA:
ANGLO-AMERICAN
GLOBAL AMBITIONS BACKFIRE
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force — military force — in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.” ~ Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)
What U.S. leaders and officials called the
“New World Order” is what the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.”
This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged
the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.
China and Russia are well aware of the fact
that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance.
Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the “New World Order.”
The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration
were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global
imposition of single-state hegemony.
Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that
all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each
other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs
of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government
and its partners.
The Chinese and Russians also called for the
establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both
nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their
respective countries. They also underscored U.S.-led ambitions to Balkanize and
Finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew
Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up
the Russian Federation.
Both the Chinese and Russians issued a
statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the
contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would
destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese
and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that the United
States was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught
of the “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was
withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
On July 24, 2001, less than two months before
September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness
and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact
against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was
surrounding China. [1]
The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty
Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth
noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates
that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic
balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and
maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear
disarmament.” [2]
This seems to be an insinuation about a
nuclear threat posed from the United States.
STANDING IN THE WAY OF AMERICA AND BRITAIN:
A
“CHINESE-RUSSIAN-IRANIAN COALITION”
Presidents of SCO members meet for SCO
summit in Shanghai, 15 June 2006.
As a result of the Anglo-American drive to
encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have
joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia
as a powerful international body.
The main objectives of the SCO are defensive
in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite
Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and
manipulation from the “Trilateral” of North America, Western Europe, and Japan,
which controls significant portions of the global economy.
The SCO charter was also created, using
Western national security jargon, to combat “terrorism, separatism, and
extremism.” Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements
in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured,
funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments.
Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even
have offices in London.
Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all
SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading.
Iran is a de facto member. The
observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation
between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized
as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.
The stated interests of China and Russia are
to ensure the continuity of a “Multi-Polar World.” Zbigniew Brzezinski
prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand
Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned
against the creation or “emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that
could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” [3]
He also called this potential Eurasian
coalition an “anti hegemonic’ alliance” that would be formed from a
“Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” with China as its linchpin. [4]
This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups
that are connected to the SCO.
In 1993, Brzezinski wrote
“In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China ~ but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world ~ may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan].” [5]
Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to
challenging the global status quo
would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: “For Chinese
strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and
Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion
a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian
Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union
[and Eastern Europe].” [6]
Brzezinski goes on to say that the
Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an “anti-establishmentarian
[anti-establishmentarian] coalition,” could “be a potent magnet for other
states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo.” [7]
Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that
“The most immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that no state or
combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from
Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” [8]
It may be that his warnings were forgotten,
because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia and U.S. forces have been
evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
“VELVET REVOLUTIONS” BACKFIRE IN CENTRAL ASIA
Central Asia was the scene of several
British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter
were characterized by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution
in Georgia.
These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S.
failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the
so-called Tulip Revolution.
As a result the U.S. government has suffered
major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders
have distanced themselves from America.
Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals
in the region. U.S. efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in
Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet
revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.
Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of
President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President
Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the
Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President
Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy
stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years
later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan
represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and
was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to
secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan also has the largest military force
in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in
Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as
Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial
aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to
Uzbek forces.
With the launching of the “Global War on
Terror,” in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases
and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad.
The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the
direction the “Global War on Terror” would take.
To the irritation of the Bush Jr.
Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The
honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when
Washington, D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He
was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at
removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in
geo-political alliances.
The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005
were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The
people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which
resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives.
Armed groups were reported to have been
involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused
narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the
Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible
accusing them of inciting rebellion.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian
ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was
one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek
government. [9]
The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan
and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in
London and they enjoy the support of the British government.
London is a hub for many similar organizations
that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and
Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down
on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events
of Andijan.
The Anglo-American alliance had played its
cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a
NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM
(Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Group on May 24, 2005.
On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered
to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10]
Literally, the Americans were told they were
no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices
to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.
Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June
26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President
also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out
of Central Asia. [11]
Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to
allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain
atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S.
operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.
MAJOR GEO-STRATEGIC ERROR
It appears that a strategic rapprochement
between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of
the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations
supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of
terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as
potential partners in the “Global War on Terror.”
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran
expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the
invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian
opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian
jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window
of time.
Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked
together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the
Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been
supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani
military and intelligence.
The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at
what they saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 ~ this is in light of
the fact that in October, 2001 they had stated that they would hand over Osama
bin Laden to the U.S. upon the presentation of evidence of his alleged
involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001
that “a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if
the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran
simultaneously.” [12]
The arrogance of the Bush Jr. Administration
has resulted in this shortsighted policy.
According to The Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of
Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago [in 2003], an unusual two-page document
spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department.
It was a proposal from Iran for a broad
dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the
table ~ including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel
and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.” [13]
The White House impressed by what they believe
were “grand victories” in Iraq and Afghanistan merely ignored the letter sent
through diplomatic channels by the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.
However, it was not because of what was
wrongly perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr. Administration
pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002, in a major address, President Bush Jr.
confirmed that the U.S. would also target Iran, which had been added to the
so-called “Axis of Evil” together with Iraq and North Korea.
The U.S. and Britain intended to attack Iran,
Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact immediately
following the invasion, in July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war
scenario entitled “Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT).”
Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration
had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were
also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq.
The intention was to act against Iran and
Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in
Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January
of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned
Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at
Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr.,
eight months before the events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security
Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente,
supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.
American geo-strategists for years after the
Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans
for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that
the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and
that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European
allies.
By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American
alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany.
Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing
an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil
concessions in Iraq.
The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern
Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for
the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military
role in the region.
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred
in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and
Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet
Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiations with Iran and
Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be
unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and
China as its nucleus.
THE BAKER-HAMILTON COMMISSION:
COVERT
ANGLO-AMERICAN COOPERATION WITH IRAN AND SYRIA?
“America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility.‘Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality.‘In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines...” ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton
Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to
engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had
deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about
damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally
intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have
deviated from.
The ISG Report also subtly indicated that
adoption of so-called “free market” economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by
extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession
of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14]
It should also be noted, in this regard, that
Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors
from banking to energy and agriculture.
The ISG Report also recommends an end to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and
Syria. [15]
The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were
also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the
U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16]
It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha,
the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad
Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by
the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17]
The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N., Javad
Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for
years.
It is worth mentioning that the Clinton
Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also
attempting to keep Iran in check under the “dual-containment” policy directed
against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence
Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
Administrations.
It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski
had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its
post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18]
Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002
and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with
the White House.
It should be noted that Turkey has recently
signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This
project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19]
It would appear that this cooperation
agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than
confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997
claimed was in America’s interest.
Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi
government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.
Once again, America’s interests in this deal
should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the
puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
SOMETHING’S AMISS...
The media attention given in North America and
Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in
Baghdad and Kabul is sinister.
Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul
about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the
media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized
the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in
early-August of 2007. The White House and the North American or the British
press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments.
However, this was not the case in August, 2007.
The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a
joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive
force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force
inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests.
What comes across as odd are “when” and
“where” the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed
and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be
questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s
comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that
must have been approved by the White House.
IRAN’S POLITICAL LEVERAGE
In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture
is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters
and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the
Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced
just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization.
Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary
Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from
Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Ambassador
Li Baodong, Chinese permanent representative to the United Nations, and his
Russian counterpart Ambassador Vitaly Churkin during the debate on Syria at the
Security Council in February 2012.
The Iranian President has also invited the
presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in
Tehran. [20]
He invited the Turkmen president while in
Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007
SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of
Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the
Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to
the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and
Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of
the pipeline deals in Central Asia.
Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger.
Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with
Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan
that will supply European markets with gas. [21]
This agreement to supply Europe is similar to
a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the
Russian Federation. [22]
In the Levant, Syria is involved in
energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have
started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus. [23]
Iran has also been involved in diplomatic
exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil
pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24]
The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime
Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news
sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq
have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will
be treated in Syrian plants. [25]
These agreements are being passed as the
sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are
doubtful. [26]
Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free
trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the
political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussions about the eventual
creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.
Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has
indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific
guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French
economic and geo-strategic interests.
In the same period of time as the French
statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to
engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie
Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development,
has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic
reform, and bringing Syria closer to the European Union.
These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by
the discussion between Syria and Germany in regards to the mass exodus of Iraqi
refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The
French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon,
Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by
France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to
Iran and Syria. [27]
Then again, this is part of the two-pronged
U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic
capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and
weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran
should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
HAS THE MARCH TO WAR BEEN INTERRUPTED?
Despite talks behind closed doors with
Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle
East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on
Syria.
Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American
ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate
objective is political and economic subordination.
Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America
cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran,
like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.
What lies ahead is never known. While there is
smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not
necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.
A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” ~ which
forms the basis of a global counter-alliance ~ is emerging. America and Britain
rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria
through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.
War directed against Iran and Syria, however,
cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the
Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have
far-reaching worldwide implications.
NOTES:
[1] "Treaty
of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic
of China and the Russian Federation," signed and entered into
force July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Voltaire Network, July 16, 2001.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and
Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
1997), p.198.
[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a “counteralliance” (p.116).
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a “counteralliance” (p.116).
[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of
the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1993), p.198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit.,
p.198.
[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar,
"
Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
[10] Nick Paton Walsh,
The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin,
The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler,
The Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p. A16.
[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward ~ A New Approach
(NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.204.
Associated Press, July 14, 2007.
Russian News and Information Agency (RIA
Novosti), August 22, 2007.
[21] Azerbaijan, "Iran
reinforce energy deals," United Press International (UPI), August 22,
2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG),
July 10, 2007.
[23] Ibid. It is worth noting that Iran has been involved in pipeline
deals with Turkey and in negotiation between Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the
Republic of Azerbaijan in the possible creation of an energy corridor in the
Eastern Mediterranean. These deals occurred in the same time frame that both
Syria and Iran started talks with the U.S. after the Baker-Hamilton
Commission’s report.
[24] "Syria and Iraq to
reopen oil pipeline link," Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy,
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August
22, 2007.
[27] Hassan Nafaa,
Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 59, August 23-29, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.