.
Spanish version /
Versión en Español
“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 American 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 American-led amibitions 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 America was headed towards. In
June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the
“Global
War on Terror,”
George W. Bush.
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 Cooperation
Organisation (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”
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
“‘antihegemonic’ 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
“antiestablishmentarian [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.
| |
 |
|
Euroasia |
“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 characterised 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. America’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 Moldava)
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 negotiatiations 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 Ambassodor 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 North American or 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.
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.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in
Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He
is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG).
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.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t15771.htm
The following are treaty
articles that are relevant to the mutual defence of China
and Russia against American-led encirclement and efforts to
dismantle both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the
Russian side in its policies on the issue of defending the
national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian
Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies
on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial
integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms
that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as expounded
in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads
of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain
unchanged. The Russian side acknowledges that there is only
one China in the world, that the People’s Republic of China
is the sole legal government representing the whole of China
and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian
side opposes any form of Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter
into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they
embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such
treaty with a third country which compromises the
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other
contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties
shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to
jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the
setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which
shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial
integrity of the other contrasting party and their
activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in
which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is
being threatened and undermined or its security interests
are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of
aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold
contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such
threats.
ARTILCE 12
The contracting parties shall
work together for the maintenance of global strategic
balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting
the observation of the basic agreements relevant to the
safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the process
of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of chemical weapons,
promote and strengthen the regimes on the prohibition of
biological weapons and take measures to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of
delivery and their related technology.
[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).
[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, The
lessons from Ferghana, Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE18Ag01.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh,
Uzbekistan kicks US out of military base, The
Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1540185,00.html
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin,
Uzbekistan rejoins defence pact, The Hindu, June
26, 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/06/26/stories/2006062604491400.htm
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand
Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler, In
2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue, The
Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.A16.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
[14] James A. Baker III et
al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward —
A New Approach Authroized ed. (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.
[19] Iran, Turkey sign
energy cooperation deal, agree to develop Iran’s gas
fields, Associated Press, July 14, 2007.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of
Caspian nations Oct.18, Russian News and Information
Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22, 2007.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070822/73387774.html
[21] Azerbaijan, Iran
reinforce energy deals, United Press International
(UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente
in the Middle East or “Calm before the Storm?,”
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 10,
2007.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281
[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, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki,
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22,
2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958440.stm
[27] Hassan Nafaa, About-face on
Iran coming?, Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 859, August
23-29, 2007.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/859/op22.htm
