the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east


Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east

  1. 1. 19 feb 2012 1The Empires warlike manoeuvres in the Middle EastAbstract1 - A decadent Europe shows its decaying teeth2 - A quick glance on the Pentagon/NATOs last brave interventions2.1 – Libya2.2 – Iraq2.3 – Afghanistan2.4 – Syria3 - What is left from tragedies and comedies of the recent past?4 - Iran, the rich target of the Westerners4.1 - Recent history of Westerns interventions in Iran4.2 – The Iranian foreign relationships matrix4.3 - The Iranian nuclear programme4.4 - The impact of the energy sanctions dictated by EU
  2. 2. 19 feb 2012 2The Empires warlike manoeuvres in the Middle EastThe geopolitical approach has an advantage the multidisciplinaryintegration (geography, history, economics, cultures, demography…)and is the one that allows for a global vision of the world.Accordingly, although this text focuses in particular in the Middle Eastand Iran, we will take into account that there are no closed regions froma geopolitics point of view and that the planet is a communicatingvessels system, without denying the regional or local particularities.1 - A decadent Europe shows its decaying teethTo the enlightened European leaders, the absence of problems inEurope - where, as is well known, the welfare standards are distinctlyincreasing - justifies the indefinite postponement of any solution to minorproblems such as the banking and state bankruptcies or the economicrecovery.Therefore, they have plenty of time to dictate sanctions against Iran1following their usual obedience of Washingtons orders where - indeed -there is a strategy for the whole world and in particular for the MiddleEast. Tuning to the same strategic obtuseness, they reinvented onJanuary 30 a discredited formula to shackle the indebted EU countries tothe provision of perennial revenues to the financial system, thus avoidingbankruptcies amongst major European banks. Stupidly, or to benefitmajor oil corporations, they contribute to the rise in prices, withoutdisclosing that Europes relevance for the Iranian exports is not that big,as will be seen below.What are they preparing? Probably, one more summit preceded by thecustomary meeting of the "Merkosy" mishmash.1
  3. 3. 19 feb 2012 32 - A quick glance of the Pentagon/NATOs latest brave interventionsLet us look at a few notes on the most recent amongst all the Western-led well-intentioned military interventions;2.1 - LibyaNews on Libya are coming through on a regular basis and they are notreassuring - military conflicts, torture, dissents within the new power andpeoples actions against the transitional government imposed in Libya byNATO through the democratic formula of bombing. After thehumanitarian Western intervention, how many of us would expecting theLibyans still have not stopped praying as a token of gratitude for theWestern bombings? The real success of the U.S. “nation-building”strategy will be seen in the near future, in addition to the appropriation ofthe countrys energy resources2.One less well reported aspect is that, following the end of Kaddafis age,the Tuareg troops merged into the Libyan army positioned themselves inMali, demanding the secession of that countrys part inhabited by Tuaregtribes. This people are indeed a Stateless nation (they have never had aState) and the borders established by the colonial power aremeaningless for them. The MNLA – Mouvement National pour laLibération de l’Azawad (National Movement for the Liberation ofAzawad) has recently attacked/occupied various locations near theNiger "curve" in Mali.Given the weakness of the Malian army, it is no surprise that the "counter-terrorist" plan - with which the U.S. have involved Africas governments in2
  4. 4. 19 feb 2012 4general and Sahels government in particular within the past few years ofAFRICOMs intense activity - be implemented.2.2 - IraqLate in 2011, the U.S. and their eager faithful left Iraq – leaving behind thecustomary "consultants" of the local army – a ballast of over 1 M civiliandeaths and the massive destruction of the countrys infrastructures; theseare the usual collateral issues - as used in NATOs jargon - to pacify thecountry. However, bombs continue to explode and to create victims3.This withdrawal, despite not ending the military presence or reducing thestrategic Middle East’s relevance for the U.S., demonstrates, in essence,failures and non achieved objectives.A number of relevant notes can be drawn from the invasion and lateroccupation of Iraq by the U.S. and their appendages - all of themanxious to leave the scene from very early – in order to approach thepresent Western posture against Iran and Syria:a)Let us remember the choir of the Western leaders and their conductor,the famous George W. Bush, all of them assuring to haveincontrovertible evidence of the existence of weapons of massivedestruction in Iraq. It has been confirmed that such weapons werenon-existent but what actually existed was its role as central argumentin a rough propaganda move. The argument against Iran on weaponsof massive destruction - or a similar line of argumentation - will certainlynot benefit from the same support as in 2003. However, it is alwayspossible to buy or enlist in the U.N. a few faithful such as the MarshallIslands or the dutiful minister Portas* to participate in any circus show.b)The promise of establishing a democracy - even a market democracy- has failed abysmally. To Saddams authoritarian and corrupt regimesucceeded a more diverse mandarinate – but no less corrupt - which,immediately after the U.S. invasion, knew how to make the best - the3* Portas is the surname of the Portuguese minister of the Foreign Affairs
  5. 5. 19 feb 2012 5worse for Iraqis – of the U.S. funding and aids. The example intended tobe shown to regimes and peoples of the Middle East, namely that ofthe joys of market democracy, with the abandonment of the militaryor feudal authoritarianism, had no followers; the changes in Tunisiaand Egypt were essentially the result of the strenuous fight of thecrowd against the dictators and in no case was Iraq the inspiration;c) The result of the intervention in Iraq did not, in the end diminished theanti-American and anti-Western antipathy feelings in Muslim countries.Afghanistan is still occupied and Pakistanis despise the regime of thecorrupt Zardari and of the military, business men and torturers. TheArab monarchies continue calmly and quietly with their manifestationsof authoritarianism, repression and denial of civil and political rights ofthe population. Palestinians continue to be the subject of plunder oftheir land and their property at the hands of a racist sect that operatesas a Cerebrus guarding Western interests, especially energy interests,in the Middle East;d)The presence of American military in the Persian Gulf and on Arablands began in 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.Once the Iraqis were kicked out of "their" 19th Province, the U.S.allowed the continuation of Saddam, with limited sovereignty, with no-fly zones and sanctions which hit the population hard; it is quite clearthat the presence of the U.S. would continue on the argument ofsupervisioning Iraq, containment of its leader who, even weakened,functioned as a false threat to Kuwait or to Saudi Arabia;e) The invasion of Afghanistan (2001) and thereafter, of Iraq (2003) wereall forms of perpetuating the American presence in the Middle Eastwhich, meanwhile, spread on account of the "terrorist" threat, of Al-Qaeda and for the sake of the containment of Iran. Now, with thewithdrawal from Iraq and, from Afghanistan, in the nearest future, newthreats need to be designated to justify the presence in oil lands andin oil transit routes to rival countries. The U.S. is creating a militaryposture composed of 32 bases in the Persian Gulf region4 where Seeb,Thumrait and Masirah stand out in Oman, Al-Ubeid in Qatar, thecommand of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, near Manama and Camp Arifjanor Camp Doha in Kuwait;4
  6. 6. 19 feb 2012 62.3 - AfghanistanThe U.S. have been there since 2001, when they invaded the country onthe pretext of capturing Bin Laden and his host, Mullah Omar, thegovernor of the fundamentalist Taliban, rulers of the country at the time.Obama announced his intention to withdraw from the country in 2014,leaving it to the care of his dependable man, Karzai, linked to CIA and aformer employee of an American oil company, Unocal, meanwhileintegrated into Chevron.Karzais regime is characterized by corruption and electoral fraud towhich the American tutelage closed its eyes to favour its ward. It is theU.S. military presence that guarantees that instability does notdegenerate into chaos and allows for Chinese and Indian investments.However, it appears that the three million refugees in Pakistan and Irando not trust that the Pax Americana will continue.The mountainous nature of the terrain and the difficulties of movementand travelling make ethnic and political differences more evident in arural society with strong patriarchal traditions and tribal, linguistic orethnic links that foster the existence of armed militias and warlords. Thewar and the strategic position promoted a flourishing activity of opiumcultivation and traffic which has caused serious social damage, butwhich is used for financing the warlord’s weaponry.As is clear, the fight against terrorism and the punishment of Bin Ladenwas a false argument to invade Afghanistan in 2001 but it was enough tofurther a patriotic and avenging wave in the U.S. as well as to justify theinfringement of rights and an anti-Islamic phobia that became an exportproduct. Later on, in 2008, the candidate Obama would refer to theunderdeveloped Afghanistan, landlocked in Asia and with no outlets tothe sea, as the real threat to U.S. security!Several factors explain this obsession for Afghanistan or derive from it:a)The presence in Afghanistan is a direct threat to Iran, the largest U.S.military base being located in Shindand, 100 km from the commonborder, although the logistics centre of the U.S. military apparatus is inBagram, to the north of Kabul;
  7. 7. 19 feb 2012 7b)On a proactive trend, the U.S. tried to use Afghanistan to carry theimmense energy resources from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to theIndian Ocean, thus removing them from traffic routes dependent onRussia and at the same time without passing through Iran. This Projectfailed completely, as explained further ahead.c) Just like the Soviets in the 80s, the Americans did not study the failureof the British in Afghanistan, in the 19th century; and they forgot thecultural proximity of the Pashtun from both sides of the artificialborder with Pakistan (itself, another "brilliant" British creation to divideits Indies Empire). Consequently, the political and social instabilityworsened in Pakistan in a way that is likely to provoke conflicts withIndia;d)The poppy cultivation for the production of heroin in Afghanistan(something like 93% of the world production in 2007) occupies moreland than the coca plantation in Latin America and generates $50000 M per year5. The cultivation increased substantially since thedefeat of the Taliban and it plays a significant role in the Mafia-likeworld economy that forwards so much capital to the finance systemand the powerful Wall Street; both of them operating to thediscontent of the overwhelming majority of humanity. The warlordswork as guardians of the plantations, charging money for it under theblessing of the U.S.. This cultivation repeats what the U.S. has done inthe 1970s in Laos, in Cambodia and in Burma, where CIA controlledheroin and opium to finance the American war against theVietnamese guerrillas;e) The U.S. has already spent $ 438 000 M and the British £ 18 000 M withthe war in Afghanistan and it remains to be seen whether, after theirwithdrawal, the settling of accounts between the various warlords, theTaliban and Karzai will not bring the latter the faith of his predecessorNajibullah who, in 1989, after the departure of the Soviets, wasmurdered with barbaric sophistication.2.4 – Syria5
  8. 8. 19 feb 2012 8The Syria situation – despite all the ambiguity of such designation, ispresenting new episodes on a daily basis.Where there is repression, there is resistance. There is dissent in Syria butapparently it is unable to overthrow the regime and the various socialforces that support it: the Orthodox Christians (4%), the Sunni oligarchsand Druses (3%), or the Armenians who tolerate the Alawite power, aShiite sect that represents 12% of the population and guarantees itstability; and whose opinion will probably change when Bashar will befalling. On the other hand, the predominance of the “Muslim Brothers” inthe contestation to Bashar does not attract many of those who preferthe secularism of the Syrian regime to a Sunni based religious regime withthe imposition of the Koran’s rule.a)Contrary to what has happened in Tunisia or in Egypt, where peacefulmass protests were (and still are) witnessed, in Syria and maybe notonly through desertions in the army, which were not relevant to breakits unity, the opposition has resorted to arms. From a strictly legal pointof view, this option justifies the brutal and heavy intervention againstthe insurgents, moreover only armed with Kalashnikovs;b)It is true that an armed insurrection, without a strong support of thecrowd, is always weak and it is bound to fail. Guevara paid with hislife his romantic vision of revolutions based on vanguards of heroes.Any guerrilla manual reflects Maos teaching “a revolutionary must beintegral to the people as a fish is to the water". In this sense, either theinsurgents widen their popular support to the point of isolating anddividing the present supporters of Bashar, or they will be crushed; andit does not appear realistic that a military intervention will take place inSyria as that observed in Libya, led by NATO;c) In the Syrian opposition there are not many adherents of an externalmilitary intervention to solve internal problems, since the country has arich history of humiliations, occupations and aggressions, the mostrecent of which came from the Israeli entity. The Iraqi and Libya caseshave showcased the altruistic aims of the Westerners; thus, theWestern commitment against Bashar does not give credibility to theopposition in Syria and neither does the tension of their Turkishneighbours. Let us also remember that the Ottoman Turkey ruled (theGreat) Syria until the 1914/18 war; that the French occupiers offered aslice of Syrian territory (the Sandjak of Alexandretta, known today asIskenderun) in 1939 in order to ensure the Turkish neutrality in the world
  9. 9. 19 feb 2012 9conflict of 1939/45. However, Turkey refuses a foreign interventionand even the establishment of no-fly zones over Syria;d)There is a clear interest on the part of Russia (and China) to curbWestern urges against Syria. Their acceptance of Resolution 1973against Libya has been taken over and it has been used as steppingstone for NATOs aggression against that country. Once the war wasover, the redistribution of Libyan oil resources was carried out in favourof the Westerners, in particular of the French and the British, to thedetriment of the continuity of Russian and Chinese business withGaddafi. That is why both – Russia and China – used their right of vetoin the UN Security Council on the proposal against Syria, on the pastFebruary 4; they surely do not want to see repeated in Syria the poorresults obtained in Libya. As far as oil is concerned and in a worldthirsty for its consumption, despite the fact that Syria has no impressivereserves when compared to Libyas (2500 million barrels against 46400million barrels), cannot be ignored;e) On the other hand, Russia has a close relationship with Syria where itowns a naval base in Tartus, its only permanent position inMediterranean, a remnant of the Soviet greatness. It is not difficult toimagine that, after Bashar al-Assads fall, a new power created by theU.S. or thankful for the role played by the U.S. in the crusade for the"democratization" of Syria, will request the Russians to abandon Tartus.f) Following this veto, on February 6, the U.S. withdrew its diplomatic stafffrom Damascus, while Obama said the problem could be solvedwithout military intervention. Interestingly, the Western marketdemocracy regimes, in order to pressure the fall of the dictatorialSyrian regime, use as supporters the Arab League countries, themajority of which are dictatorships when they are not absolutemonarchies. In politics, gratitude is low valued; the Emir of Kuwait willhave forgotten that the Syria of Hafez al-Assad (Bashars father)condemned, in 1990, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, although thisand Hafez were the paramount leaders of two sister parties, the Iraqiand the Syrian Baas;g)A few years ago, Syria was the major obstacle to a project for thebuilding of pipelines between Turkey (Ceyhan) and Israel for oil, waterand electricity transportation to the Zionist territory, since it wouldnecessarily have to pass through Syrian territorial waters. A change ofregime in Damascus could be a project enabler considering that
  10. 10. 19 feb 2012 10Turkey would ease its friction with Israel which resulted from the Zionistmilitary attack on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in May 2010;h) Also, Israel would be a great beneficiary of political changes in Syria ifthe new power would accept in fact the occupation of the GolanHeights in exchange for business with Israel and, above all, if it wouldmake life difficult for Hezbollah in Lebanon or would allow for itsisolation by limiting the influence of Teheran in Lebanon;i) Finally, and strategically, the democratic concern of the West over theregime in Damascus is essentially about the period of political andmilitary pressure against Iran, given the strong ties between Iran, Syriaand the Lebanese government.3 - What is left from the tragedies and comedies of the recent past?Intoxicated by the falling apart of dictatorships and of the state-controlled capitalism in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Westernersbelieved that their political and social model would be easilytransplanted to the Muslim world and beyond. If not through aquestionable moral superiority, at least through manu militari which, inbetween and with less media coverage, would help re-launching thepowerful military industry, resentful by the end of the Cold War6.The inevitability of the single neoliberal thought and of marketdemocracy propagated by the Westerners presents two appallingdenials. On one hand, Chinas economic growth reveals that arepressive regime is able to conciliate a state-controlled capitalism withthe private national or multinational initiative and even to become themain driver of GDP growth or of the world trade, becoming in parallel afinancial power. On the other hand, the recessive drift in terms ofeconomy and rights, promoted by the neoliberal mania in the West,causes the Western model to lose credibility. If this model proves to leadto unemployment and poverty, it cannot encourage the large masses ofpopulation of the Islamic countries to make a simple copy of it, sincetheir countries are already suffering too much from those problems.6
  11. 11. 19 feb 2012 11The memory of the colonial humiliations and the failed or sabotagedattempts to repeat the Western path are lucidly perceived by thepeoples as a legacy of the colonial period. Finally, the existing barriers inthe Western countries to exports from other countries or to the entry ofimmigrants – the subject of racist and discriminatory treatment - are notexamples of individual or collective solidarity for the resolution ofunderdevelopment and poverty problems.The great majority of the regimes existing in Islamic countries associatewith Western capital by coupling with the exclusive globalization system,thus being both accomplices in maintaining poverty and the absence ofrights as well as in the repression of the peoples claims all over the worldand not only in more or less emerging countries. Also in 2011, given thepopular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the Westerners, with HillaryClinton’s lead, expressed greater concern to ensure an evolution incontinuity of the authoritarian model than enthusiasm for the liberatingdrive of the peoples.The overwhelming military power of the Pentagon, of NATO and of theirallies proved to be, at times, insufficient to strategically win the wars inwhich they get involved. Thus Israel did not manage to crush Hezbollahin 2006; the U.S. was not able to establish a democratic regime andpeace in Iraq, even spending $ 1 trillion; and in Afghanistan the U.S. try toget out of the quagmire in which they are involved, even if theiropponents do not, by any means, have their military, technological orfinancial power. In the end, when they leave the scene, the Pentagonand NATO always leave behind metastases of conflict, dictatorships,suffering and misery and it cannot be said that the world has becomemore safe and happy after the military defeat of the successive "roguestates".The insistence on wars and invasions over the past twenty years by theU.S. and its allies, including the Israeli branch, does not contribute to thepreparation of negotiating formulas for conflict management. The“nation-building” concept is based on racist attitudes of civilisationsuperiority over the "indigenous", on contempt for their culture, theirhistory, their ethnic or religious diversity, relying only on the power ofweapons to crush the enemy and of money to buy mandarins forrepresenting their interests;
  12. 12. 19 feb 2012 12Although the attitudes of the vast majority of Islamic countries regimestowards Palestine are highly hypocritical and instrumental for thepurposes of propaganda, in fact, the crowds in the Middle East countriesare very much in favour of the Palestinians and contrary to the Zionists.Now, by systematically having attitudes exonerating the crimes and theIsraeli occupation – when not clearly being supporters thereof – the U.S.and its subordinates destroy, a priori, the development of sympathies onthe "Arab streets". Although Turkey is not an Arab country, itsgovernment had to support the indignation of its people upon Israelsterrorist action on the Mavi Marmara, with damage to the commercialand political relations between Turkey and the Israeli entity. In turn, theregime change in Egypt had immediate consequences favourable tothe Palestinians, whom the Egyptians declared their support to. In a face-saving exercise and with an assistance logic, the EU makes donations tothe Palestinians, in particular to the corrupts in Ramallah;In Iraqi, the Western energy multinationals are back to the wells that giveaccess to 8.3% of world oil reserves, as everybody would have guessedbefore the American and British invasion. Exactly the same happened inLibya by using a grim sharing criterion - France took possession of onethird of the Libyan oil since it had one third share on the bombingscarried through7;In Iraqi, from the very beginning of the conquest, the U.S. imposed thetransposition into law of such interesting aspects as legal immunity toforeign contractors and to private military and security firms as thenotorious Blackwater; the absence of taxes on profits from exportedgoods; or the obligation to purchase registered seed (GMO) from themajor companies Monsanto or Cargill8;A semi-independent Iraqi Kurdistan was established that was toleranttowards its Kurdish brothers in Turkey, which sometimes causes heartburnto Erdogan; and in Iraqi it is feared that, if there is a radical powerchange in Syria, the province of al-Anbar in Syrias border and with alarge Sunni majority will be tempted to secession because of being7 Edicts Curb Power Of Iraqs Leadership, 27 de junho, 2004
  13. 13. 19 feb 2012 13displeased with the Shiite power in Bagdad. The borders resulting fromthe colonial sharing era are almost all full of artificiality and nonsense;Perhaps the part that appeals less to the U.S. and its affiliates is the factthat the anti-Iranian antagonism developed by Saddam and ordered bythe U.S. gave rise to a strong link between the Iraqis – people andgovernment, mostly Shiite - and Iran. Even during the Americanoccupation, the UN sanctions against Iran, from 2006 onwards, weretotally ignored by the Iraqis, thus contributing to the harmlessness of suchsanctions. The bloody Iraqi episode – we are looking forward to the nextchapters – reminds us that the military always shout "missionaccomplished" even when they withdraw strategically defeated.4 - Iran, the Westerners juicy targetIran is the great enemy to the US and the European party in the so-called "Arc of Instability" that runs from the Mediterranean Sea to theEastern border of Pakistan. However, today it appears to be too largea bone for the Pentagons teeth; of course not for strictly militaryreasons but also, and mainly, for economical and political reasons.4.1 - Recent history of Western intervention in Irana) Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadegh, in the 50s of the last century,humiliated England - which exercised suzerainty over the country since1913 – when he nationalized the oil sector controlled by BPsforerunner;b) In 1953, CIA and MI6 overthrew Mossadegh, supporting the Shah in adespotic regime. The Iranians only freed themselves from the Pahlevidynasty in 1979, after a democratic revolution which was latersuperseded by the enforcement of the Sharia law imposed by theShiite clergy around Khomeini, considered by the people as aconsequent opponent of the Shah. But in real life there are manytolerance situations towards the rigours of the Islamic law;c) Still in 1979, within the scope of that democratic revolution, thepeoples anti-americanism took to the streets and the studentsoccupied the U.S. Embassy, thereby sequestering dozens of officials fora possible exchange with the Shah who had taken refuge in the U.S.Dissatisfied, the U.S. tried a military rescue operation but failed
  14. 14. 19 feb 2012 14disastrously, leaving behind aircraft wrecks in the Iranian desert.Meanwhile, the Iranian property in the U.S. was frozen, to be releasedtwo years later when the Embassys officials were handed over.d) With the overthrow of the Shah, in 1979, CENTO, a military organizationdominated by the U.S. and the UK, was dissolved; in it, beyond Iran,were participating Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey as links of the siege of theUSSR;e) In 1980, Saddam Husseins Iraq wished to reverse the democraticevolution in Iran by taking advantage of the divisions betweenKhomeinis supporters and the Iranian left in order to preventcontagion of the Iraqi Shiites and also to obtain territorial advantagesin oil areas;f) Thus, began the Iran-Iraq war with very unequal international support;the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were financing Saddam, who also hadsome support from Egypt and USSR; the latter, being a seller ofweapons to Saddam, changed sides when the U.S. becamedominant in the support for Iraq. The supporters of Iran were only Syriaand Libya.g) Amongst the military forces on the ground there was a great inequalityas far as men and equipment were concerned. Iraq had a superiormilitary power, although Iran was far more densely populated.However, Saddam has disregarded the political and cultural uniformityof Iran, one of the oldest states on earth which, for example, refusedthe use of Arabic and got back to Farsi shortly after Islamization –unlike Syria, Mesopotamia and North Africa. And this notwithstandingthe linguistic and ethnic diversity;h) Such inequality of forces caused a much greater number of Iraniancasualties - 500,000/1 million dead - against 300,000 Iraqis who evenused chemical weapons and bombed Bushehr nuclear power plant.This time, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam was notcondemned because the dictator was on the American side of thewar;i) Irans foreign policy after the war with Iraq has been curbing theanimosity of the U.S. and breaking the international siege and isolationproposed by the U.S.. Seen in these terms, Iran does not acknowledge
  15. 15. 19 feb 2012 15the existence of Israel and has built political bridges with Syria, theLebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas;j) Concerning the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan –respectively along its western and eastern borders - Iran has been verycautious, without harming its historical links with the Shiite majority inIraq (60% of the total) or with Afghanistan, where there are linguisticor religious affinities with Hasaras, Tajiks, Aimaks and Pashtuns;4.2 – The Iranian external relations matrixGlobalisation, for which the multinationals and the financial systemhave fought so hard, caused a perverse effect in the usual Westernpower. Instead of seeing all states and peoples of the world lining upin a submissive vassals attitude towards the United States - as thoughtor desired after the collapse of the USSR - there was a clearweakening of the economies and of the capacity for political actionof Western powers, by contrast with a new power – China – which isincreasingly developing and strengthening its influence in the worldscene; along with China, there is a reaffirmation of Russia and the riseof regional powers such as Brazil and India and, on another level,South Africa, Turkey and Iran.In this context, given the Western economic decline, the main powersin the East - Near East and Middle East - have sought a political andeconomic realignment, by looking eastward and southward and byincreasing the relations between themselves as well.a) Two of these powers – Turkey and Iran – have been cementing strongcooperation links. Turkey, after the collapse of the USSR felt lessthreatened, established bridges with Turkish-speaking nations ofCentral Asia and, without dismissing NATO and the American militarybases, has assumed great independence on the internationalscene. On the other hand, Turkey understood that entering the EU isbut an elusive dream about which its population is less and lessenthusiastic;b) The foreign policy of the AKP of Erdogan is to stand like a bridgebetween East and West and, as far as Iran is concerned, large-scaleinvestments were made by them there, thus playing recently an activerole together with Brazil in intermediating the American pressure on
  16. 16. 19 feb 2012 16Iran in connection with the latters nuclear programme (see 4.3 in thisdocument). Within this "bridge" scope between two worlds, Turkeyreceives gas from Iran through two pipelines coming from Tabriz, aswell as, since 2005, being crossed by the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan), theoil pipeline controlled by BP with the high support of the U.S. in order toprevent oil transit routes through Russia or Iran. In parallel, BTCtransports gas from Turkmenistan to Erzurum in Turkey, to beincorporated in the Nabucco project , the viability of which is highly atrisk;c) To the East and North of Iran are those countries linked to the SCO –the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formed in 2001 with theShanghai Five members (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan) created in 1996, which was joined by Uzbekistan. Later on,Iran, India, Mongolia (2006) and Pakistan joined as observers. Thesecountries surround almost entirely an American "enclave" calledAfghanistan;d) The existence of SCO – in spite of the rivalries and animosities betweensome of its members or observers –does not suit the U.S. To unite thehuge populations of China and India, with Chinas financial power, theenergy reserves of Russia, Iran and Kazakhstan and also Russias andChinas military power - in addition to the fact that four of the tenpartners have nuclear weapons - is a structuring element in worldgeopolitics. Recently, the two major permanent members of SCOvetoed the Western purposes for Syria and do not demonstrate anyinterest in serious participation in any sanctions against Iran;e) India receives some 15% of its energy requirements from Iran which isits nearest energy source. One supply route is from Chabahar, aSoutheast Iranian harbour, outside the Persian Gulf, where India isinvesting in its development by possibly building an undersea oilpipeline in order to avoid passing on Pakistani soil. Another strategicdevelopment would be the construction of a multimodal corridorwhich would connect Bombay [Mumbai] to St Petersburg, withbranches to Europe and Central Asia, passing through the wholeIranian territory and Turkmenistan, which would thus send its gas toIndia through an exchange system with Iranian gas. This Project doesnot please the Westerners who would always stay out of it9;9
  17. 17. 19 feb 2012 17f) In March of 2010, Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement for buildingan oil pipeline connecting both countries, the infra-structure of whichhas been completed in Iranian soil, on July 2011, after overcoming theseveral years of U.S. pressure, which preferred to transport electricityfrom Tajikistan through Afghanistan. The project aims at establishingbranches within Pakistan and a passage to India with subsequentbranches that may subsequently reach Bangladesh10;g) In January 2010, the transfer of gas from the Dauletabad field inSouthern Turkmenistan and Khangiran in the Northeast of Iran11 wasstarted, where it integrates the internal network of Iran, thus opening anew outlet for the huge Turcoman reserves, after the opening ofanother connection on the west, in 1977, next to the border betweenthe two countries, in the Caspian Sea12;h) Apart from oil and gas, Iran is in the world top ten places regarding tothe production of zinc, lead, cobalt, aluminium, manganese andcopper13.4.3 - Irans nuclear programmeIrans nuclear programme started in the 1950s with the assistance ofthe U.S. and it was discontinued after the 1979 revolution. At that time,the German company Kraftwerk Union AG, linked to Siemens and AEGTelefunken, withdrew from the construction of the Bushehr nuclearpower plant due to the U.S. pressure.In 1995, after recovering from the damage resulting from the war withIraq, Iran resumed its nuclear programme namely to conclude theBushehr nuclear power plant, within the Framework of an agreementwith Russia, meanwhile stating that such nuclear power plantprogramme will be developed in Arak and Darkhovin/Ahvaz as well toproduce 6000 Mw electricity up to 2010. For that purpose, it has or10
  18. 18. 19 feb 2012 18plans to have research nuclear reactors in Tabriz, Ramsar and Tehran,other facilities in Natanz and Isfahan and to explore uranium mines inthe Southeast (Saghand and Jasd).Since the resumption of the nuclear programme, the U.S., backed byits European allies and the Israeli subsidiary, has been making neversubstantiated accusations that there is a concealed project for theproduction of nuclear weapons. Revealing that the dog always barksfirst and louder than its master, Israel has been showing its appetite forthe bombing of Irans nuclear power plants, as it has done on Osirak, inIraq, in 1981. However, its master has a firm hand and is hindering theaction, as it prevented Israels retaliation when Saddam fired Scudmissiles on Israel, in 1991; nevertheless, this action remains latent.The sanctions adopted by the UN started in 2006, in the framework ofthe customary use of the Institution to cover the interests of the U.S.and the rest of the Western people. In March 2010, Noam Chomskyclearly expresses that "Iran is perceived as a threat because it neverobeyed the orders of the United States. Militarily, such threat isirrelevant”.The U.S. tension has deteriorated the procurement process of nuclearfuel by Iran, what does not happen with any other country havingnuclear power plants. In 2009, Iran requested the assistance from IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency) for obtaining fuel for researchfor the purpose of medical use, followed by a set of diplomaticincidents for the Western control of the material procedures, of theenrichment technology and of the transformation into fuel intendedfor Iran. Refusing the western requirements, Iran began uraniumenrichment at 20% in Natanz (February 2010).U.S. and its allies then proposed more sanctions against Iran and inorder to ease the tension of the situation, Brazil and Turkey drew up anagreement with Iran (May 2010) on the exchange of uranium at 3.5%with another, enriched at 20%, reaffirming “the right for all countries toresearch, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposeswithout discrimination"14. This agreement, though similar to theproposals of Western countries, did not reverse the U.S. decision ofapproving new sanctions against Iran within the framework of the UN.14
  19. 19. 19 feb 2012 19However, uranium enriched up to 20% has no application in theproduction of atomic weapons, as in these weapons is used uraniumat 80% (or even 90%, as is the case of the bomb dropped by the U.S.on Hiroshima). Although Ahmadinejad has announced both Iranscapacity and disinterest in the enrichment of uranium up to 80%, thisshould be regarded as being with political aims and even IAEAconsiders that Iran can only enrich uranium up to 20%.Meanwhile (April 2010), Obama stated the new U.S. nuclear doctrineaccording to which the U.S. would not consider the use of nuclearweapons against countries that do not have them and have signedthe Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)15, excluding North Koreaand Iran from such guarantee. Such guarantee will of course notcount for much considering the precedent in view of Japan in 1945 orthe use of depleted uranium ammunitions in Iraq in 1991 or in Serbia in1999. But it is a political fact to take into consideration, a cleardemonstration of hostility.Being Iran a signatory of the NPT and having no nuclear weapons, untilthere is evidence to the contrary, the threat is obvious. Once more,the U.S. claim for themselves more rights than the other States, callingthemselves guardians and interpreters of who has or has not the rightto possess such weapons and assuming the perpetuity of its nucleararsenal as well as of those of the other members of the nuclear club.Yet, it is known that peace and security in the world would haveeverything to gain from the dismantling of all weapons of massdestruction, in particular nuclear weapons16.On the other hand and at the same time, an IAEA consultant statedthat the amount of uranium stored by Iran has been stable for a longtime and that “the possibility of Iran to continue to produce a nuclearweapon with a hidden uranium stock is utterly false”. The sameconsultant also stated: “I believe the problem is not the nuclear issue.Several geopolitical interests are also at stake, since Iran plays abalance role in the Middle East. It is a counterweight to countries asSaudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, local allies of the United15
  20. 20. 19 feb 2012 20States. Iran has also relations with Palestinian groups which destabilizeIsrael. I believe it is a political rather than a technical problem.”17There is an overwhelming hypocrisy! India and Pakistan haveadmittedly nuclear weapons and they have not signed the NPT, just asthe Israeli entity which does not assume the possession of nuclearweapons and whose nuclear weapons programme started in 1967with the collaboration of France18.Following the NPT review in 2010, a conference for thedenuclearization of Middle East was planned, for which all States inthe region were invited, including the Israeli entity, not a signatory tothe Treaty, although it holds a number about 200 nuclear weaponsand has the capability of delivering them in its Jericho missiles totargets at flight distance of 11500 km.This Israels capability of dropping a nuclear bomb, for example on Riode Janeiro, far away from the region where threats to its security mightarise, is not the product of a delirium of its military. This capabilityattests that Israel is a Western fortress in the Middle East and that it ispart of the Western strategic military mechanism, the head of which isPentagon; it is therefore justified all financial, economic anddiplomatic Western support to the Israeli entity. To this integration atthe military level should be added another well-known between CIAand Mossad.To finish the set of U.S. accusations against Iran, a former Americanofficer, a senior political scientist of the "commendable" RANDCorporation, Seth Jones, wrote an article in the American "ForeignAffairs" Magazine in which he reveals the presence of thousands of al-Qaida members in Iran, who have taken refuge in there when the U.S.invaded Afghanistan. It is not hard to admit that al-Qaidas militantshave joined the crowd of Afghan refugees in Iran (one million in 2003)to save their own skin. Especially curious is that this fact becomesknown only now, ten years after the event, at a phase in whichWestern propaganda is particularly fierce in diabolizing Iran. It appearsthat, even after Bin Ladens death, al-Qaida continues to be a usefulpolitical argument to Pentagon19.17
  21. 21. 19 feb 2012 21It is therefore misleading to continue with the tale of Irans militarynuclear programme. It is worse than misleading; it is to accept adiscussion under the terms deemed convenient by the U.S. and itsIsraeli subsidiary which solely aim at isolating Iran and maintaining theAmerican and the Western supremacy in the Middle East as well asthe control of its energy sources. This means to the Westerners,especially to the U.S., not only the control of their own energy supply(see 4.4 in this document) but, most of all, to have the power tointerfere in the supply of strategic rivals, such as China, India, Japan orSouth Korea, all of them very dependent on the energy supply fromPersian Gulf, thus having the power to determine the development oftheir economies.A new large-scale war is probably not on the agenda of the U.S.. Thisyear (2012), the U.S. will start integration between the Afghan armyand the Western troops in order not only to give the former moreexperience in the fight against the Taliban but also to substantiallyreduce the direct combat of Western troops with the opponents oftheir presence. It is a repetition of the vietnamization process of thewar, the results of which are known and which were also considered adefeat of the U.S. and its allies; it is also a repeat of the processinitiated in Iraq some years ago.These processes are above all soft forms of leaving the ground withoutachieving a strategic victory by eliminating the threat of the enemyand giving the idea that the military intervention and the "aid" allowedthe "locals" to develop their own and autonomous capabilities ofsuccess in the future and of virtuous progress towards democracy andcivilization. Given that military interventions are very specificallyintended to serve the interests of the invader and occupier, the socialand political changes are not those necessary or those accepted bythe people and hence the fight takes hold again and steps up afterthe military withdrawal of the invaders.This transfer process of military responsibilities to local soldiers has alsoseveral advantages; it is welcome by the American public opinionwhich sees its soldiers coming back home, since as far as mercenariesare concerned, no one really cares whether they continue on theground and act without any public scrutiny; it relieves the coffers ofthe American state that faces unemployment, poverty and the crucial
  22. 22. 19 feb 2012 22support to the financial system; it constitutes a disguised form ofdefeat assumption.It seems to be underway a military strategy of no invasion of enemyterritory with the occupation of its land, the management ofadministrative disorder, refugees, attacks and the responsibility for thereconstruction of infrastructure … even if that might benefit Americancompanies placed in the first line of the award of contracts.It should be recalled that in the new NATO Strategic Concept (2010)are defined four stages of "crisis management" - preventiveprotection, proactive crisis management, use of military force andpost intervention stabilization – the latter being known as the mostexpensive, the most time consuming and the most difficult, involvingmore human and financial costs for the invaders.In order to avoid this latter stage in Libya, the military intervention wasbased on bombing, on the use of information collection and onlogistical support to anti-Gaddafi armed groups. Once Gaddafi wasdefeated and the rights over oil resources were reassigned in favour ofthe Westerners, no one seems to be concerned about thearrangements between the various armed groups that fight eachother or, even less so, about the reconstruction of the war-torn areas,primarily after-effects of the Western intervention.Also in Bahrain, in face of the popular demonstrations, Saudi and UAEtroops intervened to maintain the power of the al-Khalifa family,despite the fact that are located in Bahrain, the headquarters of thecommand of the U.S. 5th fleet and the number of military presentthere is around 5000, plus the garrisons of some 30 ships.This assumption of strategic weakness becomes clearer faced with thedimension of Iran and the geopolitical aspects of its vicinity. Therefore,economic measures, murder and sabotage will be preferred byrelying on the unconditional support of the grim Mossad in the region;or even provocative measures with drones or others, with interventionof special groups eventually created in vassal countries of the Gulfregion. In this regard, Saudi Arabia would be the best placed, since itsmilitary expenditure corresponded to 11,2% of GDP in 2010 against2,5% for Iran in 2007.
  23. 23. 19 feb 2012 23In addition to its Israeli fortress, the U.S. in 2012, unlike what happenedin 1979, has no Saddam to confront Iran and are forced to be at theforefront of the confrontation, in an unpromising but dangerous bluffgame; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can function asaids but not to enter, by proxy, into direct confrontation with Iran. But,just like Israel, they would be delighted if the U.S. would crush over Iranand would militarily occupy the region (even more), since this wouldguarantee the perpetuity of the various royal houses of the Gulf asprotectorates of the American, as they have been of the British untildecolonization.However, any military conflict in the Gulf would impact for anindefinite period the whole world energy distribution system and theenergy prices (increased by 30%, according to IMF)20 which, in thedisastrous state of Western economies, would only reinforce their steepdecline. The White House and the Pentagon are well aware of that.4.4 - The impact of energy sanctions imposed by the EUIn 2010, the proven reserve/production ratios for oil and natural gas,referred to or calculated on the basis of information published in theStatistical Review of World Energy related to 2010, show the hugereserves existing on the shores of the Persian Gulf and, in contrast,China and the U.S. strategic shortages that forces them to ensureabroad their energy supplies.Iran, with the third largest reserves in absolute values of oil – after SaudiArabia and Venezuela - and the second largest ones – after Russia -for natural gas, is the most important country in energy terms,particularly because it holds in its territory huge amounts of the twomost versatile fossil fuels. It should be noted that the European gasproducers have relatively limited reserves, measured through theabove mentioned ratio – Norway with 18.8 years, the Netherlands 17and England 5.3 years.(production years – 2010 level)Oil Natural gasWorld 46.2 World 58.6Saudi Arabia 72.4 Saudi Arabia 13.6China 10.0 Algeria 56,020
  24. 24. 19 feb 2012 24U.S. 11,3 China 28,9Iran 88.4 Un. Arab Emir. 117,6Iraq 128.1 U.S. 12,6Kuwait 110.9 Iran 213,8Mexico 10,6 Qatar 217.0Russia 20,6 Russia 76.0Venezuela 234,1 Turkmenistan 189,4Just like China has been diligently developing an ambitious plan forthe construction of hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants,while simultaneously, investing in renewable energy (therefore itsinterest in EDP- Eletricidade de Portugal), Iran will seek to ensure alonger duration of its reserves and energy exports by creating anuclear alternative desired since the time of the last of the Palehvi.In 2010, as compared to 1995 and according to elements publishedby UNCTAD, we highlight the following elements on Irans foreign tradewhich reveal the enormous relevance of energy products in exports;Variation in total exports 5,5 timesVariation in oil exports, crude or refined oil 5.7 timesVariation in gas exports, natural or non-natural 14.3 timesVariation in the remaining export 4.4 timesThe spatial distribution of Iranian exports in general and of energyproducts shows the structural changes in world trade and productionthat are materialised in the decline of Western domination after somethree centuries of dominance. These global changes lead to tensions,conflicts and strategic adjustments which hierarchically restructure theStates.Balance in energy transactions is normally unstable and there aremany factors affecting prices. When the EU bureaucrats decided tocancel oil imports from Iran, from July onwards, to show the U.S.strategic suzerainty what they could do, they should certainly knowthat no insurmountable difficulties would emerge for Iran there from.Within the proverbial wisdom of the bureaucrats, it is expected thatIrans retaliation to suspend oil exports to France and England,announced on February 19, will not represent another element ofsacrifice for the peoples of Europe.Most likely there will be a logistics reallocation of the origins anddestinations with or without reduction of Irans overall export level.
  25. 25. 19 feb 2012 25Among Irans main customers, China and India, for example, will notbe very keen to keep pace with the EU by refusing Iranian oil,especially because the economic dynamism they are experimentingmakes them eager for oil and unwilling to cooperate with elements ofinstability in energy supply; on the other hand, Japan and South Koreaonly too reluctantly and in the face of Western strong pressure will playthe boycott game.In the past fifteen years there has been a constant drop in the weightof all countries in "developed" Europe relatively to the total exports ofcrude oil or refined products: 42.8% in 1995 and only 22.5% in 2010. Theloss of position of the European countries and, to a lesser extent, ofJapan and South Korea is clearly offset by the increasing significanceof Chinese and Indian imports; these, taken together, were irrelevantin the context of Irans exports in 1995 but they show Chinas growingweight since then and Indias as from 2006. As of 2007, Iranian exportsto China and India, as a whole, clearly exceed those to Europe.Primary source: UNCTADIranian gas export represented, in 2010, only 2.3% of total exportsagainst 79.3% of oil and refined products in the same year. In thiscontext, the relative importance of "developed" Europe representsIrans exports of oil andoil products0%20%40%60%80%100%1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Developed Europe d China India Japan+South Korea Others
  26. 26. 19 feb 2012 26only 7.8% of the total, although it had greater representativeness inrecent years.Primary source: UNCTADNext, let us evaluate the structure of imports by Europe and by the assess the dependence on Middle East suppliers based on datacollected from the Statistical Review of World Energy relating to 2010.The overall crude or refined oil import by Europe and the U.S. has aquantitative value of nearly 12094 thousand barrel per day in the firstcase and 11689 thousand barrels per day by the U.S., for the 2010reference year. The share of supplies from the Middle East is greater inEurope than in the U.S. and therefore sanctions may lead to increaseddependence on Russia in the first case. Marked differences should alsobe noted regarding the geographical position but essentially withrespect to the degree of concentration in the four main supplyingareas of Europe on one hand and of the U.S. on the other hand.(%)Europe U.S.Former USSR 49,5 Canada 21,7Middle East 19,5 S & Cent. America 18,9Irans gas exports0%20%40%60%80%100%1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Developed Europe China India Japan+South Korea Others
  27. 27. 19 feb 2012 27North Africa 13,9 Middle East 14,8West Africa 7,6 West Africa 14,4Others 9,6 Others 30,2It is doubtful whether the U.S. want to get involved in a new war ofgreat territorial and temporal extension and its European allies, evenless, since the Empire wars are not popular in Europe. Moreover, in theintervention in Libya, the European actors have shown that they hadnot a suitable facility and they could not even maintain an adequatesupply of ammunition to the war front21.When speaking about war, upon landing on the Troikas Iberiancolony, it is unavoidable to remember that all submarines have doors,the case of Minister Portas being the only one that reminds you ofsubmarines.Portas, with his excited preacher manners looks like a Torquemadaexhorting to the burning of the Iranian infidels or the protagonist of apopular festival of lies, benefiting from the ignorance or subservienceof the Portuguese journalism in geopolitical matters. We, in Portugal, allalso remember the manifestation of his catholic fundamentalismagainst the so-called "love boat" transporting activists in defence ofabortion, in 2005, casting him into ridicule as he sent two gunboatsagainst it… because the famous submarines ordered to Germanshipyards, had not entered in operation.- - - - -- - - - -- ----------The present text and others in: