This story by Nikolai Dimlevich, political scientist, Strategic Culture Foundation expert, was published in International Affairs magazine.
The situation in Iraq, the country de facto partitioned by the US, is a vivid example of the current state of the international affairs. Chunks of Iraq have been appropriated by the Kurds (a development which strained the relations between the US and its former staunch ally Turkey), the Shia Iran (the main foe of the US that was thus geopolitically empowered in the region), and the Sunni Muslims. The US invasion bred chaos of such proportions in the Sunni triangle that currently Washington is forced to pay the Sunnis for abstaining from military activity. US President B. Obama says the US will withdraw from Iraq in 2010, but the stated parameters of the “withdrawal” undermine the credibility of the plan – for years to come, the US will maintain stronger military presence in Iraq than in Afghanistan.
Russia faces biting criticism over its position on the Middle Eastern affairs, especially over its contacts with HAMAS and its “dissent” concerning Iran. As for HAMAS, Moscow maintains that no stable and cohesive Palestinian state can be established without the organization's help. Moreover, the Kremlin regards attempts to expel Arabs from Jerusalem as an open aggression. The ruthless blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip turned it into a huge concentration camp where some 500,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs are enduring unprecedented hardships. Russia is doing everything it can to have the blockade of the Gaza Strip lifted.
While Moscow is lambasted over its ties with HAMAS, the US and European envoys are also - on a confidential basis – dealing with the organization which in fact legitimately represents the Palestinians. It is an open secret that, in pursuit of its own objectives, the US resorted to arm-twisting in its relations with Israel to get HAMAS to win in Palestine. It is a well-known story that in 1978 a group of high-ranking US and Israeli military officers came to Iran to help train commandos for countering the surging resistance to the shah's regime. Oddly enough, at the same time a group of people from the US Department of State and affiliated NGOs landed in the country to promote democracy and human rights. As a result, the military officers left shortly since it became clear that the victory of Ayatollah Khomeini was imminent.
The Russian political science community is increasingly adopting the view (to which I do not subscribe) that the US is implementing the chaos control strategy in various parts of the world. In the Middle East, the outcome may be the demise of nation-states and the formation of a Muslim caliphate. I do find the scenario unrealistic, at least because its materialization would entail the collapse of the XX century grand project of the Jewish statehood in the Middle East. I am not sure that the US establishment is ready to sacrifice Israel in its political games, though is is true that the US – as well as Great Britain – have permanent interests, but no permanent allies.
Therefore, the US is trying enthusiastically to subject its strategy to an overhaul, and not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. In the latter case, the shift largely amounts to the readiness to work tightly with the Talibs who used to be regarded as nearly the worst enemies of the US. At this point, not only Russia but also the public in the US can expect the new rules of the game to be spelled out. Lots of questions have to be answered. From the outset, what sense did it make to invade Afghanistan? Is Washington going to admit that the motivation was to route energy supplies from Central Asia to the south, diverting them from Russia and China? Promises of future American-style democracy in Afghanistan or allegations that the country posed a terrorist threat to the US cannot be taken seriously.
These days, the actual threat emanating from Afghanistan is its steadily growing drug output, which has risen by a factor of 44 since the 2001 invasion. Washington's representatives say fighting the drug business is not part of the mandate of the international coalition occupying the country. The US position is explainable – narcotics from Afghanistan are flowing into Europe and Russia, not into the US. In contrast to what we see in Afghanistan, Washington shows much greater assertiveness in Mexico and Columbia, the two countries from which drugs are trafficked to the US, and does not shy away from using defoliants to eradicate drug crops regardless of the consequences the practice carries for human health.
A while ago, the forecasts for Iran were totally pessimistic regardless of whether the country actually had any nuclear weapons ambitions (which it would have been hard to put into practice in any case). The current developments around Iran seem to replicate those of 2003 around Iraq on which - as an obvious prelude to war - sanctions were slapped following charges of possessing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. It transpired soon that the US intelligence data implicating Iraq was bogus, but it was late. The war took hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraqis and positioned the omnipresent Halliburton the top candidate for Iraq's oil fields.
Iran is currently being confronted with a kind of “the presumption of guilt”. Its leader M. Ahmadinejad has to prove that he is not hiding what the IAEA inspectors are trying but are unable to find, and the country risks being punished militarily in case he fails to do so. The situation is patently absurd. A court case against Abdul Qadeer Khan was opened in the Netherlands almost three decades ago, but his dossier disappeared in 2005. Judge Anita Leeser said she had no doubts as to who wanted it stolen. Israel's nuclear arsenals are also of the illicit origin. Overall, the country claiming the role of the top guaranspelltor of nonproliferation selectively helps countries to develop nuclear weapons while threatening with sanctions and military action others who say they have no nuclear weapons or plans to develop them.
The Israeli aspect of the problem is significant. The purely hypothetical nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran still would not expose Europe, Russia, or the US to considerable risk. Things are different for Israel. Considering the state of relations between Israel and Iran, the former can realistically be expected to attack the latter. It cannot be denied that the international crisis around Iran is, among other factors, bred by the international community's efforts to neutralize the scenario under which Israel attacks Iran and the conflict escalates into a wider war with unpredictable consequences.
Furthermore, natural gas for alternative projects of energy supply to Europe is supposed to come from the Iranian reserves. For example, the Nabucco project is viable only provided that Iran contributes its gas – otherwise the planned new pipeline is bound to lack the necessary workload. Europe therefore needs Iran's gas, and the European capitals as well as Washington are fully aware of the fact.
The recent trilateral Iran-Brazil-Turkey uranium enrichment deal has certainly been good news. Brazil proposed the uranium enrichment scheme employing Turkey, the country Tehran has no reasons to suspect of hostile intentions. Russia will have its own reasons to feel satisfied in case the breakthrough solution materializes as Moscow was instrumental – albeit not quite publicly – in devising it.
Like all things in the world, the global politspellical climate tends to be fluid, but geopolitical landscapes do persist. On the whole, the contours of the Eurasian geopolitical landscape remain unchanged, and a special place in it belongs to Russia. Moscow is well aware of its standing, and all countries will have to reckon with it.
(Views expressed in this article reflect the author's opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of RIA Novosti news agency. RIA Novosti does not vouch for facts and quotes mentioned in the story)
