See other War, War, War Articles
Title: The Middle Eastern Powder Keg Can Explode at Anytime
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11762
Published: Jan 13, 2009
Author: .
Post Date: 2009-01-13 10:06:07 by PSUSA
Keywords: None
Views: 80
Comments: 2
by José Miguel Alonso Trabanco Global Research, January 13, 2009 Historically, some great powers have originated in the Middle East: The Persian Empire, the Islamic Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire. Following the collapse of the latter as a result of World War One, no great power indigenous to the Middle East has emerged, The aforementioned meant that, from that point onwards, outside powers became the most important players in Middle Eastern geopolitics. That was not necessarily a new reality because both the Romans and the Mongols had invaded a considerable portion of the Middle East. Indeed, after World War One, France and Britain forged the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in order to establish mutually recognized influence zones there. The region became more strategically important when it was discovered that the Middle East possessed the world's largest oil reserves. For both Paris and London, an outcome of World War Two was the loss of their colonial possessions in the Middle East. Thus, this area of the planet, located in Eurasia's rimland, became one of the main battlefields during the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States. Right after World War Two, both the Americans and the Soviets supported the creation of Israel hoping they could gain the new State's geopolitical loyalty. In the early years of the Cold War, US (and British) intelligence instigated a coup d'état to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh, who had previously masterminded the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, an ancestor of today's British Petroleum. As a result of that intrigue, the Shah of Iran took over the country's government. Washington also forged an understanding with Saudi Arabia's ruling elite: The House of Saud. Riyadh thus agreed to ensure that oil supplies for the West would be uninterrupted in exchange for American military and diplomatic protection. The Soviet Union also became heavily involved in regional affairs. Moscow welcomed the arrival of a friendly regime in what was known as the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. The Soviets obtained access to naval facilities there. The Kremlin was also the main backer of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Back then, Egypt was a recipient of Soviet financial, military, technical and political aid. Nasser established a close relation with Syria and promoted the creation of an Arab United Republic, which would be willing to challenge both Western and Israeli interests. However, Nasser's plans were shattered when American-backed Israel infringed a crushing defeat on Cairo. Egypt would eventually be disengaged from the Soviet orbit and embed into the Pro-American camp. Furthermore, Western and Israeli intelligence apparatuses covertly encouraged Radical Islamic movements, bearing in mind the geopolitical objective to tackle secular Pan-Arab governments and political forces. Some groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban or even the Muslim Brotherhood flourished as a result of the American (and also Western and Israeli) needs to counter organizations which were or that could be prone to align with the Kremlin. Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows indeed. The Iranian revolution was a huge geopolitical earthquake whose shockwaves heavily reverberated in both Washington and Moscow. The fall of the Shah and the empowerment of the Ayatollahs was a major cause of concern. The US feared that some of its allies (think of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and so on) could be the targets of similar uprising due to their populations' discontent for lack of economic progress and governmental corruption among other reasons. That scenario was utterly threatening for the West because it could potentially endanger their oil supplies. The Kremlin regarded this situation as extremely dire because a growing contagion of Islamic-inspired unrest, if not dealt with, might have very well reached deep into the Soviet Union's Central Asian Republics, all of them inhabited by populations predominantly Muslim. There was another concern for Moscow. The triumph of radical Islamic forces in Iran could enhance the Muhadijin's determination to fight the Soviet-friendly government of Afghanistan. The Americans supported those 'Holy Warriors', hoping it could lure Moscow into a war of attrition there. In short, both the US and the USRR saw the Iranian revolution as a problem that needed to be taken care of. They knew (and their successors still do) that, historically Persia has been a large Empire which was feared by the Greeks, the Romans and the Ottomans and that Teheran's rulers (weather its government was Zoroastrian, Secular, Royal, or Shiite) had envisioned and embraced the idea of a 'Greater Iran'. Such unfulfilled agenda, coupled with a high dose of Islamic fundamentalism, could spell a recipe for disaster if unattended. History does not lack a certain dose of irony. Both the Americans and the Soviets supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a counterweight against Iran. Nevertheless, the US was not willing to afford an Iraqi victory over the Ayatollahs in the Iraq-Iran war. The balance of power had to be preserved while at the same time containing the Iranians. So America (with some Israeli help) decided to sell weapons to Iran and then invest those profits in funding anti-Soviet covert operations all over the world. Israel's main motivation was to prevent Iraq from becoming a regional power. That is what the Israeli attack launched on Iraq's Osirak nuclear testing was all about. The American invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq generated an interesting byproduct. Two of the most antagonistic regimes toward Iran had been militarily crushed. The Iranians saw this as an opportunity to enhance their power and extend their influence throughout the Middle East and even beyond. The Persians have resorted to its Sunni as well as Shiite militant proxies (Hamas and Hezbollah) to challenge Israel, a hostile power not too far from Iranian soil. Teheran has also forged closer links with mostly-Sunni Syria. Mahmud Ahmadinejad's victory also meant that Teheran began seeking a convenient relation with Beijing and Moscow. China has become an important buyer of Iranian petroleum. Both the Chinese and the Iranians have seriously considered the possibility to build an oil pipeline running from Iran to China. There has also been some talks regarding an eventual Chinese military base in Iranian soil. Meanwhile, Russia has become Iran's largest provider of weapons and it is the Russians who are collaborating in building the Busher nuclear plant. It is quite telling that Iran's government has requested full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and has manifested an interest to join the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. All of the above does not necessarily mean that Beijing and Moscow regard Iran as full-fledged ally. It can be suggested that they use it as a tool of leverage to extract important concessions from the West should the need arise. Nonetheless, this cooperation has not gone unnoticed in Washington. An American military simulation called Vigilant Shield took place in 2006. Its assumptions were that if the US went to war with 'Irmingham' (a thinly guised version of Iran), it was possible that 'Churia' (which stands for China) and Ruebek (read Russia) might become somehow involved. Although Iran is targeted by American neocons for belonging to the so called 'Axis of Evil', Ahmadinejad's government has been pragmatic enough to engage the Americans in covert negotiations about Iraq becoming some sort of buffer state which does not become a client state of neither America nor Iran. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the US has delayed a strike on Iran even though Washington refuses to dismiss its military threat. Israel's operation Cast Lead, as Professor Michel Chossudovsky demonstrates in his analysis entitled "War and Natural Gas", was in part motivated by Israel's desire to control gas reserves. It is conceivable that a political factor plays an important role as well. Israeli current government, headed by the Kadima-Labor Axis Ehud Olmert-Tzipi Livni-Ehud Barak can be defeated in the upcoming elections by Likud's Benyamin Netanyahu so perhaps they are trying to demonstrate to Israeli voters that they are not hesitant about using hard power. There is not a huge difference between both factions, but it cannot be denied that Netanyahu is far more hawkish than the Olmert-Livni-Barak trio. If Netanyahu becomes the next Prime Minister, the likelihood of war will increase. As the Prussian strategist Carl Von Clausewitz warned: "War is a gamble" and Operation Cast Lead might bring about some serious consequences indeed. Whether its outcomes are unintended or deliberate is yet to be seen. For instance, Israel's military incursion in Gaza has already enraged the Arab Masses all over the Middle East. Some Pro-Western governments in the region are in a rather dire situation (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) and their position can become ever more fragile for they can become the target of their own populations discontent because of their rulers' (covert or otherwise) collaboration with the Americans and/or the Israelis. Those Arab governments are afraid of Iran's using its proxies and allies to fuel unrest and to topple them, thus advancing Teheran's agenda of becoming a regional leader. If those governments are overthrown, their hypothetical successors will surely be much less willing to collaborate with the West, which knows that, if such thing ever happens, the Middle Eastern balance of power would dramatically change, not to mention that the price of oil would skyrocket. Israel fears a nuclear Iran would mean the end of the Israeli monopoly over nuclear weapons in the region. An Iran armed with nuclear weapons (even if it is ruled by hardline Mahmud Ahmadinejad) would not be foolish enough to attack Israel first because Teheran is well aware of Israel's menacing stockpile of nuclear weapons. So what the Israeli government really is scared of is the possibility that any rival of Israel, covered by a hypothetical Iranian nuclear umbrella, would feel less intimidated by Israel. Moreover, such scenario could encourage other Middle Easter States to develop their own nuclear weapons. So far, the Israelis have implemented a policy of dispensing carrots (negotiation proposals) and sticks (air strikes) to Damascus in an attempt to seduce Syria away from Iran. On the other hand, the West is not afraid of a nuclear Iran per se. One can infer that from their refusal to do anything meaningful to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by States like India, Israel or Pakistan. Rather, the Americans and the Europeans cannot accept a 'Pax Iranica' in the Middle East because Teheran would, de facto, control a zone which contains the world's largest oil reserves, a resource the Western economies have to import because their domestic supplies are not enough to meet their consumption needs. In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A possible countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases in the regions. Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effectively setting in flames a large portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is indeed asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, this a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial and economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary conditions for a major war in the Middle East are given. Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control and thus a relatively minor clash could quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole region and perhaps even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their respective allies and some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America, Russia, Europe, China). Therefore, any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something no one can stop. Taking into consideration that the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the middle of a powder keg.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PSUSA (#0)
Israel and the USA are helping to expedite the process. Follow the $$$ and see who would benefit from a WWIII.
Follow the $$$ and see who would benefit from a WWIII. That would be the usual suspects. I hadn't seen these posted, and so, just in case anyone else missed them, and for the documenting of possible war crimes: Transcription of telephone conversation on August 3, 2006 TBR News 33; January 9, 2009 Transcription of telephone conversation on August 3, 2006 from Israeli Embassy, Washington D.C. Telephone Number (202) 364-5582 to unidentified individual at AIPAC, Washington D.C., Telephone Number (202) 639-5201 Commenced 1821 hrs, concluded 1826 hrs. Speaker A Reuven Azar - Counselor for Political Affairs, Embassy of Israel A. Well, things are going as well as expected, better perhaps than expected. There is military progress there (Lebanon) and we have wonderful cooperation here. B. For sure, but don't forget the dangers in having too much cooperation. All right for this moment but in the long run, this can certainly backfire on us. You know, we are seen as being too much influential with the Bush people. A. I wouldn't worry too much about that. The media is certainly not to worry about and most Americans really do not care about things there (Lebanon) The main point is that by the time the U.S. makes itself felt at the UN, we will have accomplished our goals and established the buffer we need. B. Absolutely but;there is still the future to think about. A. Who cares? Once we establish the buffer, the rest is just shit. It will all be hidden soon in the coming press reports of Arab "attacks" on the U.S. This is for the voting in November. You know, "many Arab groups will for sure attack American targets." They (the U.S. Government) will choose so-called target areas where they need the most support. We don't need to worry about Miami, Skokie or Beverly Hills after all. (Laughter) and this is a little crude but the public here is terribly stupid and the warning color days worked before, didn't they? B. Yes, but there are second thoughts on all of that. If you go to the well too often, there are problems. People lose interest. A. The British are being such swine about this, aren't they? They are causing trouble about the bombs these days. B. Just a few troublemakers. The press here does not cover that and who reads the foreign media? Most Americans can't read anyway. But there is danger that the U.N. might be motivated to move a peace keeping force into Lebanon and this might negate our purposes. Hesbollah must be utterly wiped out and Syria must be made to realize "with force if necessary" that it cannot supply the terrorists with more Iranian rockets. Maybe an accidental airstrike on Syrian military units could say to them to mind their own business. We have done this before. A. It is too bad that we cannot teach Tehran a lesson. The ultimate goal would be to have America attack Iran but I am afraid the American military is dead set against this; B. They are all Jew-haters up there. A. For sure but we know that Americans can bomb the shit out of Tehran and hopefully kill off a number of the militants, probably disrupt their atomic program and teach all of the area that the U.S. means business. We support them, they support us. But they cannot send in ground troops and if we did that, our losses would not be borne at home. As it is, there are the usual malcontents bleating about the Lebanon business. B. They are just afraid they will get a rocket on their house and there are the same ones here. The Lieberman business is not that good, after all. Yes, of course he is a liberal Democrat but his support of us is too obvious. He could be a little critical too. We see the Bush people doing this, just to keep the people quiet. Yes, they say, see, we too are actually critical of Israel33;. A. But not too critical, right? B. No, never that. Too many pictures of dead jerks for example. We need to see more pictures of grieving Israelis, mourning lost sons and children. Can't we get more of those? Fuck the Arabs. A. I feel sorry for the American media. Their instincts are to defend dead Arab children; B. But nits make lice, don't they? Who mourns dead Israeli children? A. I'm sure there would be more on this but not enough children are dead. B. Not yet, anyway. But if they rocket Tel Aviv... A. Well, then, for sure. B. We should have pictures all ready if that happens. Do you think it will? A. Tehran directs that part of the business. We don't have as much inside gen on them there. B. The fucking Russians are on their side. A. We have always had trouble with those Slavic pricks. First weapons33; B. The Chinese assholes also do this, dont forget. A. No one around here will forget that, be assured. The time will come when we get them too. Say we cut off their oil from the Gulf? What then? They will dance to our tunes then, not Tehran's. B. If we had oil. A. But we do not. The filthy Putin has the oil. They should get rid of him while they are at it. Our people almost had it but he forced them out. B. They can always come back. The people here would really support this. We put our people back in after we get rid of Putin and then a guaranteed flow of oil to America. A. And Russia is off the chessboard too. B. They all want that badly here, too. Cheney is the strongest supporter of cutting the nuts off of Russia. The military here are against fishing in troubled waters. A. They can't be replaced, Bush can't sack them all. B. Set an example. Sack a few more of the assholes and the rest will shut up. They always do. . So, send me your latest list and I'll see what I can do here. A .Send someone to pick it up. The mail here is awful. It will take a week if some black doesn't steal it, throw it away or wipe his ass with it. B. Tomorrow for sure. A. OK. And one other matter. We feel very strongly that if the current people get kicked out in November, as it looks like they might, we owe them to help them stay right where they are. It has taken a long time and much money to get all the ducks lined up and we don't want to have to start in again. We can generally rely on sympathy from the Democrats but they will not support any more military ventures over there. That's for sure. B. Then what do you suggest? A. The terrorism card works wonders. We were going to release a statement that Arabs were going to attack an El Al plane on takeoff, with rockets. A. Probably leftovers from the CIA businesses in Afghanistan. A. Let's not get into that now. But this scare would only affect flights to Israel and we don't think it would have any impact on the election. B. Well then, why not have these attacks aimed at American aircraft? Where would they attack from? A. Say at the perimeter fence lines at airports. Or better still, why not a plan cooked up to smuggle explosives on board transatlantic flights to or from America? Something clever that will catch the public imagination. B. That stupid bomb in the shoe routine? A. Don't knock it. It worked, didn't it? We can always find some suckers with a bent to this we can fill up with real enthusiasm and then turn them in, complete with plans. They actually believe they are going to paradise and fuck virgins and we have another propaganda coup. Let's give this some effort. You know, a terrified public will not want to change horses in mid stream. So far, the Rove people have a good line: If you're against the Republicans, you're encouraging the evil terrorists sthick. B. Well, they did that with the alert warnings and it worked, more or less. A. Face it, they aren't too bright here. They ran it into the ground, had to fire Ridge and Ashcroft, one of our very best friends ever, and put those things on ice. They need to discover a huge plot but in America. You know, as you said, infiltrate a group of crazies, plant things on them, call the FBI. B. Oh, they do that themselves. That business in Florida was pathetic. A. But it worked, didn't it? B. For about ten minutes at six o'clock for about three days. A. Well, think about it and get back to me. B. Right. A. What's the situation with your two people? Are they going to be tried or not? B. Probably not, as far as the Bush people are concerned. But it is up to the courts and we are very careful not to fuck with them. They are expected to have the charges thrown out soon. A. Well, I'll pray for them. I have to go now so I'll get back to you later. Don't forget to send someone for the list. B. OK. (Conversation terminated) http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2908.htm#001 Compendium of story of corruption, fraud, and murder at the link, including one on the holohoax and this: "Army sends 7000 "Dear John Doe" letter to families of war dead January 8, 2009 AFP Article image The US Army apologized Wednesday for mistakenly sending letters to 7,000 families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan with the salutation "Dear John Doe." The letter, which was mailed December 20, contained information about private organizations offering assistance to families who lost a soldier, but omitted specific names and addresses. "The salutation says 'Dear John Doe,' which was basically sort of a placeholder where the name of the individual or the recipient was supposed to be," said Paul Boyce, an army spokesman. Boyce said the error was not caught when the 7,000 letters were printed, sorted and sent out to family members. It learned about it from recipients who wrote back to say "the information was absolutely wonderful, but what you need to know, though, is that my particular letter had a glitch," Boyce said. "When we looked we noticed that all of them had that particular problem," he said. General George Casey, the army chief of staff, is sending a personal letter of apology to each of the families, he said. "There are no words to adequately apologize for this mistake or for the hurt it may have caused," Brigadier General Reuben Jones, the army's chief administrative officer, said in an army statement. rawstory.com/news/afp/Arm...oe_letter_to01072009.html Comment: The oft and strongly repeated official Pentagon figures for the deaths of American military personnel in both the Iraqi and Afghanistan theaters is just under 4,000 but now we learn, also from the same official sources, that there are 7,000 dead. Oh, surely the right hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth! Lies have such short legs. BH" [A CNN story claims there are not 7,000 dead but that letters may be sent to more than one of a serviceperson's family. The leters were sent by a private firm having a contract with the government to profit from the war dead.....well, that's not their claim to fame, but my commentary.] =================== HEAD OF AIPAC BOASTED ABOUT HIS CONTROL OF POLITICIANS IN 1992 "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
#2. To: TwentyTwelve, PSUSA (#1)
Israel and the USA are helping to expedite the process.
Speaker B Unidentified individual located at AIPAC headquarters 
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest