December 18, 2006

Iran - the Pivot of Geopolitics. Part Three

The Greater Iran’s Strategic Value the more that America treats it with Contempt.
Iran’s geostrategic stature has soared as putin has transformed russia into a fossil fuel superpower. And yet america’s hostility towards both russia and iran has increased dramatically.

America is still faced by the same choice with which it was confronted after the 1979 islamic revolution. It can either try to woo iran because of its geostrategic importance or it can continue its belligerent policies in order to bring about regime change. Klare mentions some of the temptations of the latter approach – and in doing so highlights iran’s strategic importance. "For Washington, the replacement of the clerical government in Tehran with a U.S.-friendly regime would represent a colossal, threefold accomplishment: It would eliminate a major threat to America's continued dominance of the Persian Gulf, open up the world's number two oil-and-gas supplier to American energy firms, and greatly diminish Chinese and Russian influence in the greater Gulf region." (Michael T. Klare ‘Putting Iran in Great Power Context’ June 16, 2006). However, america’s regime change tactic is self defeating since the more propaganda pressure america applies to iran, the more it alienates the iranian people, thereby reducing the likely success of regime change. Iranians still remember that in 1953 america destroyed their democratic system and imposed phlavi’s brutal regime upon them. It is true that many iranians born after the islamic revolution held america in great respect and admiration but since america’s utterly barbaric occupation of afghanistan and iraq they’ve lost all respect for it. "While most Iranians welcomed the elimination of Saddam, the horrors inflicted and unleashed by US military forces next door have left many of the old rich in Tehran with the realization that the dream of American intervention may turn into a nightmare. My trip convinced me that support for US intervention does not exist to any significant degree but rather resides solely in the minds of those in the West who have had their impressions of Iran shaped by pro-Shah expatriates who have been absent from the country for more than a quarter-century." (Scott Ritter ‘The Case for Engagement’ November 03, 2006). The overwhelming majority of iranians bitterly resent america telling them that they cannot develop civil nuclear power. They even find it unreasonable to be told they can’t have nuclear weapons - like their neighbours. "The country is not only ringed by atomic states (India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel), it also faces a string of American bases with potential or actual nuclear stockpiles in Qatar, Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear-armed US aircraft carriers and submarines patrol the waters off its southern coast." (Tariq Ali ‘High-Octane Rocket-Rattling Against Tehran Won't Work’ May 11, 2006).

During phlavi’s reign iran had a substantially greater geostrategic value than the jos. American politicians appreciated that their national interests were best served by an alliance with iran rather than with the jos. However, since 1967 an american alliance with the jos became more popular and after 1979 america’s alliance with the jos became one of its most important in the region. American jews thus have a vested interest in denouncing iran to protect america’s alliance with the jos. Overwhelmed by jewish propaganda and by jewish bribes, america’s wasp politicians have been manipulated into ignoring their country’s national interests by aligning their foreign policies with the jos rather than iran.

Today, the superiority of iran’s geostrategic value over that of the jos’s is even greater than it was during phlavi’s time and yet jewish anti-iranian propaganda has so poisoned americans against iran that virtually no mainstream politician advocates talking with iran let alone forming an alliance with it. Americans are so blinded by the jewish parasites who infect them, they no longer see their own national interests and make no attempt to woo iran. The only way that america could reap the vast geostrategic benefits of an alliance with iran is by ridding itself of the jos’s parasitic influence. America’s jewish elite continues to churn out an endless stream of scandalous accusations against iran. It must at all costs prevent americans from realizing their national interests because this would lead them to dumping the jos for a far more fruitful relationship with iran. Odom outlines the bare minimum of a new american alliance with iran .. "the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's because we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq (Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we do, but neither Washington nor Tehran want chaos). And we can help each other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil, and we simply need more oil." (William E. Odom ‘How to cut and run’ October 31, 2006). Bush’s new secretary of defence robert gates once noted iran’s value to america, "In a 100-page report for the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Iran: Time for a New Approach, written in 2004, he argued that isolating Teheran was "manifestly harmful to Washington's interests"." (Kay Biouki and Harry De Quetteville ‘Iran offers to arm enemies of Israel with rocket arsenal’;jsessionid=3XP1NWCXIANTHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/12/wiran12.xml November 12, 2006); "(Robert Gates) has publicly urged for more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?’ November 20, 2006).

Objectively, if the world was a rational place, it would make much more sense for america to threaten war against the jos until it abolishes its nuclear weapons rather than continuing with its current catastrophic foreign policies which are leading inexorably towards a war against iran.

The apparent focus of America’s Foreign Policies on Oil is a Cover for the pursuit of Global Jewish Interests.
Most liberal and left wing political commentators argue that america’s foreign policies are almost wholly determined by the economic interests of the country’s multinational energy corporations. They believe america invaded afghanistan and iraq to get access to their fossil fuels. Liberal realists proclaim such policies as legitimate whilst left wingers denounce them. This article has highlighted the importance of fossil fuels in global politics. It has assumed that if american politicians were implementing foreign policies based on america’s short term national interests then the promotion of the country’s multinational energy corporations would be near the top of its agenda. But it has been concluded that the fossil fuel hypothesis simply does not explain america’s current foreign policies. These policies diverge fundamentally from those it would be following if it intended to maximize the interests of the country’s multinational energy corporations.

Firstly, america believes in the free market. It shouldn’t matter to america who owns fossil fuels as long as they are placed on the global markets and prices are kept low. If american energy companies can get involved in the exploration and production of fossil fuels around the world this is an additional economic benefit. But clearly, america’s foreign policies go far beyond protecting the free market. It has been concerned to ensure that the vast wealth accumulated by arab countries is not used to buy weapons to defend themselves from attack by america’s cuckoo strategic ally.

Secondly, in 1995 america banned its gigantic multi-national energy companies from investing in iran’s fossil fuel industry. This policy runs counter to america’s economic and national interests. Indeed, from america’s perspective this policy makes no sense at all. It was imposed because of iran’s alleged terrorist activities. But such a rationale is absurd. Firstly, america was punishing its own energy companies for the alleged terrorist activities of another country. Secondly, because these allegations have never been substantiated. Thirdly, because of the negligible scale of the alleged terrorism. And, finally, because the punishment on american energy companies was completely disproportionate to the crimes alleged to have been committed. Here was the world’s greatest economic power banning its gigantic fossil fuel multi-national corporations from investing in iran, thereby throwing away tens of billions of dollars in profits, just because of unsubstantiated allegations of iran’s involvement in minor acts of terrorism. Whilst this policy blatantly runs counter to the interests of america’s wasps, it makes perfect sense from the perspective of america’s ruling jewish elite which wanted to ensure that america did not develop a close relationship with iran which would undermine its relationship with the jos. It is not surprising then that it was america’s jewish ruling elite which was solely responsible for hyping up the allegations against iran.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, the jewish neocons made scandalous, unsubstantiated allegations that russia was developing highly sophisticated, technologically advanced, weapons of mass destruction against which america had no defences and that it was also involved in spreading terrorism around the world to promote its interests. After the collapse of the soviet empire, these jewish extremists simply transferred these allegations to saddam hussein and iraq. They alleged that saddam had wmds and was funding al quaeda to carry out acts of terrorism against american interests around the world. After the invasion of iraq and the overthrow of saddam hussein, these lunatics once again transposed these accusations to another country i.e. iran. The belligerent, paranoid, jewish fundamentalists who promoted wild, unsubstantiated, accusations of russian wmd and who denounced russia’s conspiracy to promote global terrorism, are the same people who in the 1990s made exactly the same type of allegations against iraq and who today are repeating these same types of allegation against iran. Before he became a jew-ish neocon, dick cheney spoke for the interests of the country’s energy industry when he denounced clinton’s ban imposed under pressure from the jewish lobby.

Thirdly, after the collapse of the soviet empire, russia was taken over by jewish oligarchs who gained control over the majority of russia’s largest industries and proceeded to ransack the country’s natural resources. During this time virtually no american jews, whether in the jewish lobby, the media, or politics, made any criticism of these events. However, since putin routed the worst of russia’s jewish oligarchs, american jews embarked on a massive media campaign to denounce putin’s democratic credentials in the hope of bringing about regime change thereby restoring the jewish oligarchs to power. The consequence of this torrent of jewish abuse towards putin has been that putin has refused to allow america’s multi-national energy corporations to exploit russia’s fossil fuel resources. "Plainly speaking, Gazprom's decision on Shtokman implies that as of today there are no major plans on the anvil in the Russian energy sector aimed at the US market. This is a dismal legacy for the Bush administration, which is supposed to be tied to the US oil industry by the umbilical cord." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy’ October 14, 2006). Yet again, america’s jewish fundamentalists have pushed america into acting against its own interests for the benefit of a jewish elite which believes it is entitled to rule russia.

The parallels between america’s attitude toward iran and its attitudes towards russia are stark. America has shown little but belligerence towards both countries even though it is in america’s interests to treat them as allies in order to allow its multi-national fossil fuel companies to exploit their fossil fuels. In both cases america’s belligerence has resulted in america’s energy companies being unable to exploit these country’s fossil fuels. In both cases, america’s jewish elite in conjunction with the jewish dominated media and the jewish lobby, have made scandalous accusations against both country’s for being involved in acquiring wmds and in global conspiracies to promote global terrorism when there has been not the slightest evidence for such allegations. In both cases, these allegations have resulted in america’s energy companies losing out on highly lucrative energy deals – simply because of jewish propaganda.

Fourthly, the belief that it is possible to carry out a large scale invasion of a country speckled with fossil fuel facilities in order to steal these resources is absurd. Even the most avaricious politicians, as long as they are sane and rational, cannot fail to appreciate that sending Bulls to guard china shops is self-defeating. ".. the failure in Iraq where, as Anthony Cordesman, the US strategist and supporter of the war, recently observed: "we essentially used a bull to liberate a china shop"." (David Gardner ‘Misplaying the Islamic power game’ August 10 2006). Fighting wars in the middle of a country with a large number of fossil fuel facilities and an extensive network of gas and oil pipelines is not merely irrational but insane.

In what must be one of the most predicable outcomes in modern history, america’s invasion of iraq has resulted in less oil being exported from iraq than during saddam’s time. What is more, the amount of oil that america has expended in invading and occupying iraq is probably not that much different from the amount of oil that america was hoping to steal from iraq. The cost of invading iraq is far in excess of how much would have been spent buying oil from iraq if it had not invaded the country.

America’s energy companies were not in favour of the invasion of iraq. It is quite true that some have profited considerably from the rise in fossil fuel prices as a result of the chaos brought about by america’s two invasions but if they had had a motive for invading it would have been to keep down the price of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel producing countries/companies do not like high oil prices. High prices may provide a short term bonanza, a profits’ windfall, but over the long term they are against the interests of the fossil fuel industry since they speed up the switch to alternative energy. Over the last few decades saudi arabia has deliberately kept global fossil fuel prices as low as was necessary to make it uneconomical for industrialists to invest in alternative forms of energy. The higher the price of fossil fuels, the greater the incentive there is for environmentalists to usher in alternative forms of energy.

It is true that, as a result of these invasions, american oil companies are now in the best position to gain control of these countries’ fossil fuel industries. "This is the point of the US invasion - a return on investment on the hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money spent. It's not war as politics by other means; it's war as free-market opening by other means - full US access to the epicenter of the energy wars and the perfect geostrategic location for "taming", in the near future, both Russia and China. US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman duly landed in Baghdad this past summer, insisting that Iraqis must "pass a hydrocarbon law under which foreign companies can invest". Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani was convinced, and said the law would be passed by the end of 2006, as promised to the IMF." (Pepe Escobar 'Stability First': Newspeak for rape of Iraq’ October 27, 2006). But in reality being in the best position to expropriate these countries’ resources means nothing. Iraqis/afghanis are now closer to removing the american military from their countries, than america’s fossil fuel companies are to gaining control over these resources. The basic conditions which multi-national fossil fuel corporations need in order to maximize their interests are peace and stability not war and chaos.

Fifthly, if the bush regime had invaded afghanistan for oil it would not have neglected the country to such an extent as to allow the taliban to reassert itself making it impossible to carry out any further work on oil exploration and distribution. "The Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) has disappeared from view - obliterated by the Taliban resurgence - but the project remains in the cards, although the realistic prospects are grim, according to Seyed Shah Bukhari of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad." (Pepe Escobar ‘In the heart of Pipelineistan’ March 17, 2006); "Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it is the only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push Delhi away from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline. As Afghanistan falls again into substantial chaos, India is being forced to reconsider, and to seek to draw on Iran's Yadavan fields, with a pipeline coming down through Pakistani Baluchistan and over to the Indian border. The turn for the worst in Afghanistan may explain the sudden warming of relations between Delhi and Tehran." (Juan Cole ‘The Iraqization of Afghanistan’ September 08, 2006); "By deserting Afghanistan to run off to war in Iraq, Bush ensured that it would risk falling again into social turbulence, and thus helped seal the fate of the Turkmenistan pipeline through Herat (wouldn't the Taliban just blow it up?). In turn, that may have ensured that Iran would be able to sidestep US sanctions by dealing, not only with China, but also with India. And that may mean that Bush let the big fish get away by getting bogged down in Iraq, which is turning out not to be any prize for him, either." (Juan Cole ‘The Iraqization of Afghanistan’ September 08, 2006). If america was so concerned about promoting the interests of its energy companies it would have consolidated its position in afghanistan rather than risking everything on a military adventure in iraq. The only reason america followed the latter course is because jewish pressure overpowered the interests of america’s energy companies.

Sixthly, many left wing commentators regard cheney as the real president rather than the imbecilic bush. They deduce that since cheney had been heavily involved in america’s energy industry then he must be promoting foreign policies to boost its interests. For example. "The "Cheney presidency", which is what historians will no doubt dub the George W Bush years, has been based on a clear strategy. It has often been misunderstood by critics who had overly focussed on its most visible component, namely, Iraq, the Middle East and the strident war-hawks around the vice president and his old crony, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The "Cheney strategy" has been a US foreign policy based on securing direct global energy control, control by the Big Four US or US-tied private oil giants - ChevronTexaco or ExxonMobil, BP or Royal Dutch Shell." (F William Engdahl ‘The Emerging Russian Giant, Part 1: Moscow plays its cards strategically’ October 25, 2006).

Engdahl explanation as to why cheney supported the invasion of iraq is as follows. "At that time, Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, was under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Iran, which has the world's second-largest reserves of natural gas, in addition to its huge oil reserves, was ruled by a nationalist theocracy which was not open to US private company oil tenders. The Caspian Sea oil reserves were a subject of bitter geopolitical battle between Washington and Russia. Cheney's remark that "Oil remains fundamentally a government business", and not private, takes on a new significance when we do a fast forward to September 2000, in the heat of the Bush-Gore election campaign. That month Cheney, along with Rumsfeld and many others who went on to join the new Bush administration, issued a policy report titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". The paper was issued by an entity named Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Cheney's PNAC group called on the new US president-to-be to find a suitable pretext to declare war on Iraq, in order to occupy it and take direct control over the second-largest oil reserves in the Middle East." (F William Engdahl ‘The Emerging Russian Giant, Part 1: Moscow plays its cards strategically’ October 25, 2006).

But cheney is no more of a determinant of america’s foreign policies than bush. After his defeat in 1995 at the hands of the jewish lobby over the fossil fuel industry’s investments in iran, cheney knew he would never advance his political career merely by promoting the latter’s interests. He could succeed only by becoming a neocon which is why he signed up to pnac and became one of their leading political advocates promoting jewish foreign policies. Pnac’s sole interest was boosting the jos’s military supremacy in the middle east. Cheney’s hope was that america’s fossil fuel industry could take advantage of any opportunities opened up by what fundamentally would be the bush administration’s jewish foreign policies. Cheney went along with jewish neocons’ plan because he did not have the power to stop them and simply hoped that, like a vulture, america’s energy industry could make as much profit as they could from whatever ensued during the transformation of the middle east. If cheney had been concerned primarily about the interests of america’s fossil fuel industry he would have ensured the invasion of afghanistan was benefiting america’s energy companies before supporting an invasion of iraq.

Seventhly, if america’s foreign policies were primarily concerned with boosting the country’s fossil fuel industry then, given a choice about which oil-rich, middle eastern country to invade, it would have chosen iran rather than iraq. This is because it possessed far more energy reserves and had a far greater geostrategic value than iraq. And yet the jewish dominated bush administration went after iraq first because it posed a much bigger military threat to the jos than iran.

Finally, and most critically, if america was concerned with pursuing its national interests, maximizing the country’s fossil fuel industry, then by far and away its most important policy would have been the establishment of an alliance with iran rather than the jos or saudi arabia. This is because iran possesses vast fossil fuel, and considerable uranium, reserves; it occupies a critical geographical position for the export of fossil fuels from the caspian sea area; it could challenge russian domination of fossil fuel supplies to europe; it could challenge increasing russian dominance over the world’s fossil fuel resources; and, finally, it could undermine the growing power of the russian-chinese military and political alliance. If america was intent on securing its oil supplies, dominating the world’s fossil fuel industry, and using fossil fuel politics to promote its global power then it would have looked to iran as its primary ally in the middle east. It needs to be re-emphasized that although saudi arabia may export more fossil fuels than iran, iran is far more geostrategically important than saudi arabia. America’s failure to develop an alliance with iran is proof that its foreign policies have been hijacked by the country’s ruling jewish elite which is concerned solely with boosting the regional supremacy of the jos even if this takes place at the expense of america’s national interests.

It is paradoxical that it is the oil hypothesis itself which exposes the fact that america’s foreign policies are concerned about enhancing the jos’s regional supremacism not maximizing america’s oil interests. If america was following an oil based foreign policy its main focus would have been an alliance with iran rather than with saudi arabia or the jos.

It has been noted that it is liberal and left wing political commentators who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, continually pump out the propaganda that america’s foreign policies are concerned with the interests of its energy corporations. This fantasy is also promoted by the jos’s political agents throughout the western world who seek to provide a smokescreen for the power of america’s jewish elite which implements foreign policies boosting the interests of the jos rather than america. In addition, it is not just a coincidence that liberal and left wing commentators promote this fantasy since so many are jewish. The belief that america is pursuing an oil based foreign policy is an illusion conjured up by neo-liberals and neo-lefties who refuse to confront the reality of jewish power in america and around the world. "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element. Some Americans believe that this was a "war for oil," but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.30).

The Rise of Iran in Global Politics.
Russia’s newly-acquired status as a fossil fuel superpower would be enhanced considerably by an alliance with iran just as, conversely, it would be undermined by an iranian alliance with america. In the realm of global politics, iran is gradually emerging as the pivot which will determine who comes out on top of the power struggle between america and the asian bloc of russia/china and their allies. If iran joins america then america could consolidate its position as leader of the new world order but, if it joins the russian/chinese bloc, then they will emerge as the new global leaders. If america wants to remain the world’s hyperpower it must forge an alliance with iran. But to do this it must sacrifice its support for the jos.

The jos is responsible for inflicting a succession of increasingly catastrophic economic and military disasters upon america which is undermining america’s position as the world’s hyperpower. The longer the jos and america’s ruling jewish elite continue to manipulate america into demonizing iran, the more they will undermine america’s global dominance. "By incessant strategic blunders, the US has isolated itself internationally and fanned the fires of global anti-Americanism, which increasingly engulf the very regions where its own resources-based strategic interests lie." (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ Aug 25, 2006).

America did not become a hyperpower because the jos was america’s strategic asset in the middle east. On the contrary, it became a hyperpower in spite of its alliance with the jos not because of it. The jos has been ruining american interests in the region on an increasingly catastrophic scale. This sabotaging of american interests cannot last. The jos’s manipulation of america into demonizing iran will provoke a regional war that will be so catastrophic as to bring about the collapse of america’s hyperpower status. The jos, and its jewish fifth columnists in america, will have inflicted their last catastrophe upon america for it to survive as the world’s number one power.

America’s ruling jewish elite have forced america to turn its back on its own national interests i.e. an alliance with iran to benefit from the country’s immense geostrategic value, for the sake of supporting the jos which has no oil and a negligible strategic value. But america’s alliance with the jos is even more bizarre considering that the jos has inflicted on america a series of increasingly devastating military and economic disasters. America has suffered one jewish-lobbied disaster after another and yet such is the power of the jewish dominated media that they’ve managed to persuade the american public that these have not been disasters, that they have not been the fault of the jewish lobby, and that the jos is america’s most unwaveringly loyal ally despite having done nothing for america. It seems as if america’s jewish elite can promote as many anti-american policies as their heart desires and still have enough political power to manipulate members of congress into supporting them and enough media power to continually deceive americans into believing that these policies are in their interests.

Jewish interests have come to predominate in american politics to the detriment of america’s national i.e. oil, interests and, as a consequence, american is being trounced by russia in the world’s oil wars. If americans want to remain a hyperpower they must dump the hysterical, paranoid, psychotically belligerent, jews who are solely concerned with triggering off endless wars in the middle east and beyond solely for the benefit of jewish supremacism.

America’s threatened invasion of iran runs counter to america’s national interests and, if it proceeds, will have a catastrophic impact on these interests. It will also have a catastrophic impact on europe’s national interests. And yet neither america nor europe are powerful enough to dismiss the twaddle of jewish propaganda and insist that their interests would be better served by an alliance with iran rather than with the jos. Jewish elites around the world must have some colossal global power if they can force america and europe to undermine their own national interests for the greater good of the jos and the global jewish empire.


Post a Comment

<< Home