New blogs

Leherensuge was replaced in October 2010 by two new blogs: For what they were... we are and For what we are... they will be. Check them out.

Friday, May 21, 2010

USA seems set to attack Iran

The last few days have left us with a spat of contradictory news on the conflict around Iran and its nuclear ambitions. First Brazil and Turkey managed to strike a deal that was tailored to US demands so far on this matter and which counted with the support of Russia, a key UN security council veto-holding power and a major nuclear power itself. The US reaction however has been very hostile, claiming that they had already reached an agreement with Russia and China on further sanctions, including intercepting ships sailing to/from Iran in search of nuclear fuel or components.

They pretext that the agreement comes six months late and that Iran does not renounce to regular uranium enriching, which it is entitled to by the NPT, but the obvious reasons are that the USA wants to increase and not decrease the tension with Iran, in line with what their Zionist masters (the only nuclear power of the region) demand and, also, that it wants to trample the diplomatic movements of Brazil (already under US factual siege in Latin America), Turkey (becoming too independent for Washington's and Tel Aviv's likes) and Russia.

This new block of sanctions proposed by the USA are all but an open declaration of war, because the bulk of the naval intervention would fall to US/NATO hands, who are the interested party and who have a whole fleet in the area.

If Washington's position prevails (and so far it usually does), we should expect rapid escalation towards open war. While the USA is unlikely to occupy Iran right away (too costly and too likely to backfire), a terrible protracted unequal conflict, similar to the situation that Iraq was subjected to in the 1990s and early 2000s of total blockade, takeover of airspace and calculated bombings, is the most likely outcome. If the fundamentalist regime does not fall to that, then outright war is also within the possibilities but probably at a later moment, just like happened in Iraq under Bush Jr.

At the moment the UN security council is made up mostly of US satellites (UK, France, Austria, Japan, Mexico, Gabon, Nigeria, Uganda, Bosnia-Herzegovina), what makes the possibility of defeating US proposals by regular vote something almost unthinkable. This leaves Russia and China, who have the right of veto, as the key players.

China, maybe more concerned right now on what is happening at its own borders (Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Thailand, Korea), has not yet said a word. So Russia seems the most crucial player in this standoff. It's not a comfortable position considering how strong are Zionist interests in Russia too but, as of late, Russia has acted with determination and success against Zionist plans in Georgia, is gaining influence in West Asia (Syria, Turkey and of course cornered Iran).

Clinton has said that they had already persuaded Russia and China to back up their new sanctions package but Russia has spoken with ambiguous words backing the Brazil-Turkey bartered deal.

It's difficult to understand all clues in this complex multilateral situation but I'd say that Russia needs to back up Turkey specially, which is clearly sliding away from US influence, and does not want in any case yet another US engineered war in its West Asian backyard. Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia are already more than enough. I imagine that, unless the USA offers a lot (something like Taiwan), the interest of China is also to back Russia, Iran, Turkey and Brazil in the UN. China, deeply concerned about its own access to West Asian oil resources, does not want more US military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

On the other hand, US attitude is clearly set up for a remake of the Iraq blockade, eventually leading to an outright invasion. This is totally consistent with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rallying of friendly Arab dictatorships into its military alliance system and the government change and potential disintegration of Pakistan. Ideally, for the Pentagon and the White House (and of course for AIPAC, J-street and all the Zionist International), all the area should become submissive to the USA (and Israel), furthering the grip not just in Arab/Muslim nationalist ambitions but also on the access to resources of rising star China and setting advanced positions closer to the soft belly of Russia: Central Asia.

Of course, neutralizing the initiative of free-thinker powers such as Brazil and Turkey is also part of the plan. So, in the best case, expect the new deal to be boycotted by the USA and never gain the seal of approval of the UN Security Council, keeping the situation as it is: an active siege of Iran.

· Thierry Meissan, Strategy Shift in the Middle East (Voltaire Net)
· BBC: Iran hit by fresh UN nuclear sanctions threat
· Al Jazeera: Brazil criticises USA over Iran

No comments: