Iran - the Pivot of Geopolitics. Part Two
The Rise of Iran’s Geostrategic Value.
During phlavi’s reign, iran possessed considerable geostrategic value which america was all too willing to exploit and enhance. There are a range of reasons for proposing that iran’s geostrategic value is even greater now than it was then.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: America in the Middle East.
Ever since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings america’s jewish neocon foreign policies have inadvertently boosted iran’s political and military power. Firstly, america’s invasion of afghanistan resulted in the overthrow of the taliban - an implacable enemy of shia iran. Secondly, america invaded iraq and overthrew saddam hussein – iran’s biggest adversary. If this wasn’t enough, the american neocons tried to replace saddam with another dictator - ahmed chalabi – later exposed as an iranian double agent. Thirdly, the coalition provisional authority set up after the invasion of iraq dismantled the iraqi military thereby leaving the country virtually powerless against iran. Fourthly, the bush regime was eventually pressured into accepting national elections in iraq which allowed iraqi shiites, allies of iran, to take a dominant role in the iraqi government. Fifthly, after the assassination of rafiq hariri, america forced syria to remove its army from the lebanon thereby giving default power to hezbollah which has been trained, armed, and financed, by iran. Sixthly, the bush administration insisted on free elections in palestine only for the palestinians to elect hamas - another iranian ally.
So, in a matter of a few, short years america’s neocon foreign policies boosted iran’s power in afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, and palestine. It even boosted the power of hardliners within iranian politics. "So far the administration's magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Common Interests with America.
America has always shared some common interests with iran.
Firstly, developing iran’s fossil fuel reserves. If america had allowed its multinational energy corporations to exploit iran’s vast fossil fuel reserves, both countries would have enjoyed a huge economic bonanza. America’s oil corporations would have made huge profits - profits that would have helped to boost the american economy. The profits made by the iranians would have enabled them to buy american goods and weapons – instead of the current situation where america’s ruling jewish elite manipulates america into giving away american weapons to the jos for free.
Secondly, developing iran’s uranium deposits.
Thirdly, stemming drug production in afghanistan. There are a huge number of heroin addicts in iran – just as there are in america. The drug trade damages iranian society just as much as it does american society. "Like the fact that no nation fights harder against the Afghan drug trade than our axis-of-evil enemy Iran, while our "staunch ally" Pakistan lends support to the trade and to the Taliban as well." (Ann Jones ‘What Are They Smoking?’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9933 October 30, 2006). America’s occupation of afghanistan has caused the production of heroin to soar.
America’s catastrophic foreign policies in the greater middle east have not merely inadvertently boosted iran’s geostrategic value, they have also established new common interests between the two countries. As a result of its invasions of afghanistan and iraq, america has common interests with iran in establishing political stability in these two countries - which would also help to stabilize the middle east as a whole.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Central Asia.
The discovery of vast oil and gas deposits in central asia boosted iran’s geostrategic value. The shortest, quickest, and cheapest, route for the export of these fuels is through pipelines across iran to the country’s persian gulf ports. "Geographically Iran makes the shortest and the most economical route for Kazakhstan’s oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea ,north, to the Persian Gulf south with all the oil-tankers traffic." (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-akleh091106.htm November 09, 2006). The same is also true as regards turkmenistan and, since america’s invasion, afghanistan. "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’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html September 08, 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Europe.
Europe currently obtains a substantial amount of its fossil fuels from russia. Friedmann muller, head of the research group global Issues at the german institute for international and security affairs .. "emphasizes that 10 of the current 25 EU member states depend on Russia for more than 50% of their total natural-gas supplies, and five of them for 100%. France, Germany and Italy import between 25% and 50% each." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006); "At the consumer end of this (russian) pipeline system, reliance on Russian gas is currently 100% in Finland; 99% in Bulgaria; 97% in Slovakia; and 76% in Greece. In volume of Russian gas consumption, Germany takes most, followed by Italy, Turkey and France." (John Helmer ‘Sakhalin gas: Shell loses, whales win’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html December 15, 2006).
Europe’s imports of russian fossil fuels will increase dramatically in the coming decades. "Europe now depends on Russia for 25% of its gas, a figure set to rise to 70% by 2020 ..." (David Clark ‘Putin's power struggle’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1959441,00.html November 29, 2006). But russia is also offering to sell more fossil fuels to asia which means it is unlikely to be able to meet all of europe’s energy needs. This boosts iran’s geostrategic value. "In short, Russia by itself will not solve Europe's gas thirst, especially because Russia also wants to export heavily to both China and Japan. So Europe will have to find the gas it needs somewhere else - North Africa and the Caribbean, for instance. But most of all it will need Iran." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: India and Pakistan.
In the 1990s the jos developed a strategic alliance with india because of their mutual animosity towards pakistan. The jos and india have been collaborating to upgrade their nuclear weapons, and civil nuclear power, capabilities. In stark contrast, america’s geostrategic interests are to keep the nuclear rivalry between pakistan and india in balance to ensure nuclear war doesn’t break out between them. However, such is the power of the jos, and its political agents in america, that it has recently succeeded in fooling the bush administration into supporting a nuclear agreement with india which will considerably boost its nuclear threat to pakistan. "C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing restrictions of nuclear trade as India's "nuclear liberation". It "has not only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with China"." (Sudha Ramachandran ‘India's 'nuclear liberation' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).
America is offering to legitimize india’s nuclear capabilities in order to deter india from supporting the construction of an oil pipeline from iran through pakistan to india. "Contrary to the assertions of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it is widely believed that during the nuclear bargaining, he did make three major concessions to Bush. Secondly, Singh conceded to terminate the $4 billion "Peace Pipeline" project, which was to have delivered natural gas from Iran, across Pakistan, to India which was slated to be operational by 2011. And Thirdly, Singh has demoted the main architect and proponent of the Peace Pipeline, his Union Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar to the post of Sports and Youth Affairs." (Ingmar Lee ‘Bush's Destabilizing Nuke Deal with India’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee05082006.html May 8, 2006); "In the corridors of the conference, most of the oil and gas executives and scholars agreed that the way the game is played today in Pipelineistan, everything is politicized. "When Bush tells India, 'You don't need to import gas from Iran,' that's totally illogical," said a Georgian scholar based in Bologna. "The [alleged Iranian] bomb is a pretext," said an Iranian oil executive based in London. "The Americans don't want Iran to develop, and that's equally true of China and Venezuela. We need to talk about security through knowledge."" (Pepe Escobar ‘In the heart of Pipelineistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak03.html March 17, 2006).
India, however, badly needs to acquire vast quantities of energy. It can do this by increasing civil nuclear power with american help or by importing fossil fuels from kazakhstan, iran, or russia. Given the chaotic situation in afghanistan, which discourages the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline from kazakhstan through afghanistan to india, india has had to look more seriously at iran’s fossil fuels. No matter how much bush believes his nuclear deal with india has deterred india from supporting the construction of an iranian oil pipeline, india is unwilling to miss out on this important supply of fossil fuels. "Indian PM Manmohan Singh called up Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and stressed the need to fast track the pipeline project, which had seemed dead earlier this summer. (Last spring the pro-Iranian minister of petroleum had been fired, and some assumed it had been in part as a result of American pressure). 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’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html September 08, 2006).
Putin has recently offered to finance and build the pipeline. "Whatever the West may have thought about it, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already spectacularly preempted this weekend's Group of Eight (G8) summit in St Petersburg with his own bit of Pipelineistan news. Putin announced in Shanghai on June 15 2006 that "Gazprom is ready to support the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India with financial resources and technology". He was referring to a fabled US$7 billion, 2,775-kilometer, 10-year old project - an Iranian idea - which should now be finished by 2009, developed by Gazexport, a Gazprom subsidiary. As a result, by 2015 both India and Pakistan should be receiving at least 70 million cubic meters of natural gas a year." (Pepe Escobar ‘Russia and Iran lead the new energy game’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG14Dj03.html Jul 14, 2006). What russia might lose by not piping its own fossil fuels to india, it can more than make up for by financing, building and owning, this new pipeline. "Another dimension that has gained salience is Russia's emerging position as an energy superpower as the world's largest gas producer and second-largest oil producer and therefore its importance to India's energy security. Russia's increasing influence in Central Asia and its dominant control of the pipeline routes implies that only a well-crafted energy partnership will enable India to access those oil and gas reserves." (Zorawar Daulet Singh ‘Reviving the India-Russia partnership’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html November 14, 2006).
As the legislation for america’s nuclear deal with india goes through congress, india continues to struggle to ensure that america does not obligate it to ignore the peace pipeline. "The controversial demand that India dovetails its Iran policy to US concerns over its nuclear program has been made a non-binding clause in the legislation." (Sudha Ramachandran ‘India's 'nuclear liberation' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).
The construction of the peace pipeline would do much to ensure harmonious relations between india and pakistan deterring them from embarking on a nuclear war. America is abandoning its own national interests by opposing this pipeline in order to promote jewish hostilities towards iran and pakistan. Clearly iran has a high geostrategic value if it can help to avert nuclear war between india and pakistan.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: China.
China depends heavily on iranian fossil fuels which are currently shipped to china and are thus vulnerable to american interdiction. However, there are plans for a pipeline from iran through pakistan and india and then on to china which would avoid american military intervention. This would enhance iran’s geostrategic value.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Russia.
The primary reason for the rise in iran’s geostrategic value is russia’s dramatic emergence as the world’s fossil fuel superpower. This can be appreciated at the most basic level in terms of the supply of fossil fuels to global oil markets. The more fossil fuel reserves that russia ties up in long term, state to state, contracts, the more important becomes iranian supplies of fossil fuels to the world’s oil markets – assuming that is that it chooses to place these resources on the global market rather than copying russia and tying them up in long term contracts.
Conclusion.
Iran’s geostrategic stature is much more substantial now than it was during phlavi’s reign. It could further boost its geostrategic value by forming an alliance either with russia, the world’s fossil fuel superpower, or with america, the world’s economic and military hyperpower. Both russia and america would benefit enormously from an alliance with iran. Iran’s geostrategic importance is such that it can decide whether it wants to boost the global power of either, or both, countries.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran.
Although the bush regime expresses loathing towards iran’s government and refuses to talk directly to it about matters of mutual interest, there are reasons to believe america could benefit immensely from an alliance with iran. It would boost american influence in many areas around the world.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Middle East.
As a result of america’s catastrophic foreign policies since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, iran has acquired significant common interests with america. Iran could endeavor to reduce these common interests by undermining the american military’s occupation of afghanistan and iraq or it could seek to enhance them by contributing to peace and stability in these two countries. Despite bush’s ingratitude towards iran over the help it has given america, iran has continued to aid america in iraq. "This is hardly surprising, given Khamenei's open admission that continuing instability in Iraq was "harmful to everyone in the region". From Iran's vantage point, it has played a constructive role toward the new Iraq, reflected in bilateral trade, energy and other agreements signed between Tehran and Baghdad, as well as in Iran's mediation role in intra-Shi'ite power struggles. Complaining that the West, and the US in particular, has gone unappreciative of Iran's constructive behavior, such as when Iran intervened in the US-Mehdi Army confrontation in 2004 by urging Muqtada to desist from further action, Iran's new, and considerably much tougher, approach is that it may have no choice but to play a rejectionist card with regard to foreign occupation." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Titans square up for clash in Iraq’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL01Ak05.html December 01, 2006).
America’s traditional arab allies have been sunni states such as saudi arabia, egypt, and jordan. However, america’s rash interventions in afghanistan and iraq have inadvertently given birth to a new political phenomenon in the middle east. "In December 2004 King Abdullah of Jordan famously described this emerging alliance as a "Shia crescent", a synonym that outraged Tehran but spoke tellingly of Sunni Arab fears about the ambitions of Iran to become a regional superpower capable of facing up to Israel. Although the inclusion of the Sunni Hamas movement in the alliance weakens the notion of a Shia crescent, the idea is not entirely fanciful." (Nicholas Blandford ‘Shia Crescent Pierces Heart Of Arab World’ The Times July 17, 2006). In the short term at least, it is highly unlikely that the shia crescent is going to disappear particularly since its leaders ahmadinejad in iran, moktada al-sadr in iraq, and hasan nasrallah in lebanon, are far more popular in the sunni arab world than sunni heads of state. So either america accommodates itself to the shia crescent and exploits the assets it offers or america embarks with the help of sunni arab countries on an even more catastrophic regional war to abolish it.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Central Asia.
Given that the cheapest route for the export of fossil fuels from central asia is across iran then the co-operation of american energy corporations with iran in building these pipelines could have two beneficial consequences for america. Firstly, it could significantly undercut russia’s political power resulting from its ownership of the eurasian pipeline network and, secondly, it could boost the amount of oil placed in global markets thereby countering the effects of russia’s refusal to use such markets because of its reliance on long term contracts.
If america chose iran as its primary geostrategic asset in the middle east and central asia there would be much less need for it to be concerned about kazakhstan, iraq, and afghanistan.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: India and Pakistan.
If america had an alliance with iran it could encourage the construction of a peace pipeline from iran to india and pakistan that would bind these two nuclear powers together and thereby lessen the chances of a nuclear war between them. This would considerably boost america’s geostrategic interests. There would then be no reason for it to break the nuclear proliferation treaty by legitimizing india’s nuclear industry.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: China.
If american energy companies had a close relationship with iran this would give america an even greater grip over china. "Controlling Iran leads to the containment of China (America’s greatest competitor), who depends heavily on Iranian oil to satisfy its growing hunger for energy." (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-akleh091106.htm November 09, 2006).
Currently china is highly vulnerable to an oil blockade by the american navy. It has sought to diminish this vulnerability by constructing an oil pipeline from kazakhstan. It is seeking to further diminish this vulnerability by concluding an agreement with russia to build pipelines to china. It is also encouraging the construction of a pipeline from iran, through pakistan and india, to china. However, if american energy companies were operating in iran then america might regain some of its leverage over china by influencing the amount of fossil fuels that iran was pumping to china.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia.
If the bush regime allowed american energy companies to exploit iran’s fossil fuels this would create huge economic advantages for both america and iran. However, the most critical benefit of such cooperation would be geostrategic - countering russia’s recent emergence as the world’s fossil fuel superpower. Iran has benefited considerably from russia’s rise as the world’s dominant fossil fuel broker. However, if america succeeded in developing an alliance with iran it could challenge russia’s fossil fuel domination.
Firstly, and most basically, if american energy companies were allowed to exploit iranian fossil fuels this would boost iranian fossil fuel production thereby countering the effects of putin’s long term, state to state, fossil fuel contracts.
Secondly, if america’s nuclear industry agreed to build nuclear power plants in iran this would reap huge economic benefits for these companies, and the american economy. It would also free up more fossil fuels for export rather than being consumed in the country. This would boost iran’s ability to counter russia’s fossil fuel domination.
Thirdly, if american energy companies were allowed to build fossil fuel pipelines from the caspian sea across iran then russia would lose much of the political leverage it has gained through its ownership of eurasia’s pipeline network. "As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global markets, especially in Europe and Japan." (Michael T. Klare ‘Putting Iran in Great Power Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150 June 16, 2006); "Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, said, "The US's long-term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime; to establish control over Iran's oil and gas; and to use its territory as the shortest route for the transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia and China. This is not to mention Iran's intrinsic military and strategic significance."" (F William Engdahl ‘The US's geopolitical nightmare’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html May 9, 2006).
If america had an alliance with iran it could seriously challenge russian power over the world’s fossil fuel resources thereby consolidating american global power. "The only discernible result of US sanctions on Iran has been to delay Iran's development of its energy resources. Iran's oil and natural-gas reserves equal those of Saudi Arabia. The US has obstructed the development of at least two known large oilfields in Iran (Azadegan and Yadavaran), which together could have proven reserves exceeding 35 billion barrels and produce more than a million barrels per day of crude at their expected peak; has hindered oil and gas development in the Caspian Sea by playing the countries of the region against one another; has vetoed the construction of a Caspian pipeline through Iran (even though it would cost only about half the price of alternative pipelines); and has opposed Iranian gas pipelines to Pakistan and India, even offering India nuclear deals in exchange for not buying Iranian gas." (Hossein Askari ‘Why sanctions on Iran will fail’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI19Ak01.html September 19, 2006).
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and Europe.
Over the last few years the bush regime has tried to foist two adverse policies upon european governments concerning their fossil fuel imports.
Firstly, it has been trying to persuade european countries to adopt a common policy over russia’s export of fossil fuels to europe. Obviously if european governments acted together as a single consumer this would give them much greater advantages when negotiating with russia over its energy exports than if they all individually strike bilateral deals with russia. But america has failed to persuade europe to act in concert and, as a consequence, russia is doing deals with each european country separately to its great financial and political benefit.
Putin has already concluded a major energy deal with germany, "Putin underlined the strategic significance of the Russian-German partnership by saying, "We are linked by the common goals of building a unified and prosperous Europe, dedication to the principles of building a just world order, and the aim of effectively countering international challenges and threats."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html October 14, 2006). Putin got the deal he wanted because russian companies can now play a role in germany’s domestic energy markets. "And last Thursday, Russia's Gazprom and Germany's E.ON AG signed a framework agreement to swap assets in production, trade and sale of natural gas and relating to power industry. Gazprom will acquire the German company's stakes in gas companies in Hungary as well as in regional electricity and gas companies in return for Russia providing access to E.ON AG to Russia's Yuzhno-Russkoye deposits in the Tyumen region, which holds more than a trillion cubic meters of natural gas and will be the source for the US$10.5 billion North European Gas Pipeline project." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The rise and rise of Russia’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG20Ag01.html July 20, 2006).
What made this deal even sweeter for putin is that it punishes poland for its slavish devotion to the bush regime. "Sikorski was voicing Warsaw's complaint that German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored Polish pleas to scrap the US$10.5 billion trans-Baltic North European Pipeline project with Russia, which was negotiated by her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder - a project that would cement Berlin's energy ties to Moscow but bypass Poland and the Baltic states. Planned in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gas-pipeline project was intended to reduce Russia's dependence on having to transit through such countries as Belarus and Ukraine to export its gas to Europe. The 1,200-kilometer line would transport gas from Russia's Baltic Sea coast through international waters offshore Poland and the Baltic states to a landfall in Griefswald on Germany's coast." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Germany, Russia redraw Europe's frontiers’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE03Ad01.html May 3, 2006).
Hungary and italy have also concluded deals with russia. "Meanwhile, Russia is also going ahead with forging bilateral energy deals with European countries. An agreement was signed on June 22 with Hungary for the extension of Russia's Blue Stream gas pipeline to Central Europe. Italy has dealt an even more severe blow to Washington by concluding a significant energy deal bilaterally with Russia on the eve of the G8 summit." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html July 6, 2006).
Even worse for europe is that if putin succeeds in buying up some of the oil pipelines that export iran’s fossil fuels to europe then russia will have even more leverage over europe’s fossil fuel imports. "Significantly, on January 23, the Russian daily Kommersant reported that Armenia, sandwiched between Iran and Georgia, had agreed to sell a 45% control of its Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia's Gazprom. The Russian daily added, "If Russia takes over this [Iran-Armenia] pipeline, Russia will be able to control transit of Iranian gas to Georgia, Ukraine and Europe."" (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). If russia acquires these pipelines then even if there is a future reconciliation between iran and america/europe, it might be too late to reverse the shift in the balance of power between america/europe and russia.
Worse still for europe is that russia’s negotiating position with the european continent is growing stronger since it started constructing oil pipelines to the pacific. It has made it obvious that if europe is not willing to buy russia’s fossil fuels on its terms then it will sell them to china, japan and other asian countries. "It has threatened Europe with accelerated diversification of its exports to the East if Europe fails to open its markets to rapidly advancing Russian investment and acquisition of downstream assets." (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Part 2: Corporate gigantism’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI26Ag01.html September 26, 2006).
The second policy america has pressured europe into adopting is reducing purchases of iranian fossil fuels. For european countries this policy has serious negative implications but it is even more self-destructive in combination with the first policy. America is demanding that europe limits its imports of fossil fuels from both russia and iran. It might be possible for europe to implement one of these policies but to implement both at the same time would be a nightmare.
If america had a strategic alliance with iran then the europeans could have used the supply of iranian fossil fuels as a counterweight to resist excessive russian demands resulting from its increasingly monopolistic position over energy supplies to europe. This has not been possible because of america’s hostility to iran. As a consequence, europe is undermining its own interests by failing to encourage imports of iranian fossil fuels. "Enno Harks, a senior fellow on energy and resources at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and Friedmann Muller, head of the research group Global Issues at the same institute, were both in Tehran recently for an energy conference. Their studies and conclusions are important to understanding what's at stake in the convoluted relationship between the European Union and Iran and how ostracizing and sanctioning Iran may turn out to be yet another case of the EU shooting itself in the foot." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006); "It's going to be an extremely tricky affair. The EU is actively trying to explore deals with Central Asia - with both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - and also with Iran, bypassing Russia via the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. The key project in this Pipelineistan node is the proposed trans-Caspian gasoduct - which would in effect break Russia's monopoly on transit of Central Asian gas." (Pepe Escobar ‘The Gazprom Nation’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html May 26, 2006).
America is trying to deter european countries from exploiting iranian fossil fuels but all that this policy achieves is undermining europe’s negotiating position with russia. It is in effect driving european countries into an even closer embrace with the russians.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and China.
Iran could play an even more valuable role on america’s behalf in confronting the growing geostrategic significance of the asian continent i.e. the increasing political and military co-operation between russia and china. But america’s jewish induced hostility to iran is pushing iran even further into collaboration with these countries at america’s expense. Russia and china seem to appreciate iran’s geostrategic assets far more than america which is blinded by jewish anti-american propaganda. America could use iran as a vital counterweight to both russia and china but, since it has chosen to throw away this asset, china and russia are using iran to boost their power at america’s expense. Not only has america forsaken iranian help in boosting its global interests, its hostility towards iran is driving the country into a closer relationship with russia and china which will enable these three countries to increase their global power at the expense of america and europe. America’s treatment of iran is self destructive – driving the country into the camp of its biggest rivals – both of whom america is also antagonizing! It is bizarre, and rather revealing, that the only country in the world which america is not going out of its way to antagonize is the jos. America’s hostility towards virtually every country around the world is in stark contrast to its groveling subservience to the jos.
During phlavi’s reign, iran possessed considerable geostrategic value which america was all too willing to exploit and enhance. There are a range of reasons for proposing that iran’s geostrategic value is even greater now than it was then.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: America in the Middle East.
Ever since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings america’s jewish neocon foreign policies have inadvertently boosted iran’s political and military power. Firstly, america’s invasion of afghanistan resulted in the overthrow of the taliban - an implacable enemy of shia iran. Secondly, america invaded iraq and overthrew saddam hussein – iran’s biggest adversary. If this wasn’t enough, the american neocons tried to replace saddam with another dictator - ahmed chalabi – later exposed as an iranian double agent. Thirdly, the coalition provisional authority set up after the invasion of iraq dismantled the iraqi military thereby leaving the country virtually powerless against iran. Fourthly, the bush regime was eventually pressured into accepting national elections in iraq which allowed iraqi shiites, allies of iran, to take a dominant role in the iraqi government. Fifthly, after the assassination of rafiq hariri, america forced syria to remove its army from the lebanon thereby giving default power to hezbollah which has been trained, armed, and financed, by iran. Sixthly, the bush administration insisted on free elections in palestine only for the palestinians to elect hamas - another iranian ally.
So, in a matter of a few, short years america’s neocon foreign policies boosted iran’s power in afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, and palestine. It even boosted the power of hardliners within iranian politics. "So far the administration's magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Common Interests with America.
America has always shared some common interests with iran.
Firstly, developing iran’s fossil fuel reserves. If america had allowed its multinational energy corporations to exploit iran’s vast fossil fuel reserves, both countries would have enjoyed a huge economic bonanza. America’s oil corporations would have made huge profits - profits that would have helped to boost the american economy. The profits made by the iranians would have enabled them to buy american goods and weapons – instead of the current situation where america’s ruling jewish elite manipulates america into giving away american weapons to the jos for free.
Secondly, developing iran’s uranium deposits.
Thirdly, stemming drug production in afghanistan. There are a huge number of heroin addicts in iran – just as there are in america. The drug trade damages iranian society just as much as it does american society. "Like the fact that no nation fights harder against the Afghan drug trade than our axis-of-evil enemy Iran, while our "staunch ally" Pakistan lends support to the trade and to the Taliban as well." (Ann Jones ‘What Are They Smoking?’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9933 October 30, 2006). America’s occupation of afghanistan has caused the production of heroin to soar.
America’s catastrophic foreign policies in the greater middle east have not merely inadvertently boosted iran’s geostrategic value, they have also established new common interests between the two countries. As a result of its invasions of afghanistan and iraq, america has common interests with iran in establishing political stability in these two countries - which would also help to stabilize the middle east as a whole.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Central Asia.
The discovery of vast oil and gas deposits in central asia boosted iran’s geostrategic value. The shortest, quickest, and cheapest, route for the export of these fuels is through pipelines across iran to the country’s persian gulf ports. "Geographically Iran makes the shortest and the most economical route for Kazakhstan’s oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea ,north, to the Persian Gulf south with all the oil-tankers traffic." (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-akleh091106.htm November 09, 2006). The same is also true as regards turkmenistan and, since america’s invasion, afghanistan. "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’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html September 08, 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Europe.
Europe currently obtains a substantial amount of its fossil fuels from russia. Friedmann muller, head of the research group global Issues at the german institute for international and security affairs .. "emphasizes that 10 of the current 25 EU member states depend on Russia for more than 50% of their total natural-gas supplies, and five of them for 100%. France, Germany and Italy import between 25% and 50% each." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006); "At the consumer end of this (russian) pipeline system, reliance on Russian gas is currently 100% in Finland; 99% in Bulgaria; 97% in Slovakia; and 76% in Greece. In volume of Russian gas consumption, Germany takes most, followed by Italy, Turkey and France." (John Helmer ‘Sakhalin gas: Shell loses, whales win’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html December 15, 2006).
Europe’s imports of russian fossil fuels will increase dramatically in the coming decades. "Europe now depends on Russia for 25% of its gas, a figure set to rise to 70% by 2020 ..." (David Clark ‘Putin's power struggle’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1959441,00.html November 29, 2006). But russia is also offering to sell more fossil fuels to asia which means it is unlikely to be able to meet all of europe’s energy needs. This boosts iran’s geostrategic value. "In short, Russia by itself will not solve Europe's gas thirst, especially because Russia also wants to export heavily to both China and Japan. So Europe will have to find the gas it needs somewhere else - North Africa and the Caribbean, for instance. But most of all it will need Iran." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006).
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: India and Pakistan.
In the 1990s the jos developed a strategic alliance with india because of their mutual animosity towards pakistan. The jos and india have been collaborating to upgrade their nuclear weapons, and civil nuclear power, capabilities. In stark contrast, america’s geostrategic interests are to keep the nuclear rivalry between pakistan and india in balance to ensure nuclear war doesn’t break out between them. However, such is the power of the jos, and its political agents in america, that it has recently succeeded in fooling the bush administration into supporting a nuclear agreement with india which will considerably boost its nuclear threat to pakistan. "C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing restrictions of nuclear trade as India's "nuclear liberation". It "has not only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with China"." (Sudha Ramachandran ‘India's 'nuclear liberation' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).
America is offering to legitimize india’s nuclear capabilities in order to deter india from supporting the construction of an oil pipeline from iran through pakistan to india. "Contrary to the assertions of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it is widely believed that during the nuclear bargaining, he did make three major concessions to Bush. Secondly, Singh conceded to terminate the $4 billion "Peace Pipeline" project, which was to have delivered natural gas from Iran, across Pakistan, to India which was slated to be operational by 2011. And Thirdly, Singh has demoted the main architect and proponent of the Peace Pipeline, his Union Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar to the post of Sports and Youth Affairs." (Ingmar Lee ‘Bush's Destabilizing Nuke Deal with India’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee05082006.html May 8, 2006); "In the corridors of the conference, most of the oil and gas executives and scholars agreed that the way the game is played today in Pipelineistan, everything is politicized. "When Bush tells India, 'You don't need to import gas from Iran,' that's totally illogical," said a Georgian scholar based in Bologna. "The [alleged Iranian] bomb is a pretext," said an Iranian oil executive based in London. "The Americans don't want Iran to develop, and that's equally true of China and Venezuela. We need to talk about security through knowledge."" (Pepe Escobar ‘In the heart of Pipelineistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak03.html March 17, 2006).
India, however, badly needs to acquire vast quantities of energy. It can do this by increasing civil nuclear power with american help or by importing fossil fuels from kazakhstan, iran, or russia. Given the chaotic situation in afghanistan, which discourages the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline from kazakhstan through afghanistan to india, india has had to look more seriously at iran’s fossil fuels. No matter how much bush believes his nuclear deal with india has deterred india from supporting the construction of an iranian oil pipeline, india is unwilling to miss out on this important supply of fossil fuels. "Indian PM Manmohan Singh called up Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and stressed the need to fast track the pipeline project, which had seemed dead earlier this summer. (Last spring the pro-Iranian minister of petroleum had been fired, and some assumed it had been in part as a result of American pressure). 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’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html September 08, 2006).
Putin has recently offered to finance and build the pipeline. "Whatever the West may have thought about it, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already spectacularly preempted this weekend's Group of Eight (G8) summit in St Petersburg with his own bit of Pipelineistan news. Putin announced in Shanghai on June 15 2006 that "Gazprom is ready to support the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India with financial resources and technology". He was referring to a fabled US$7 billion, 2,775-kilometer, 10-year old project - an Iranian idea - which should now be finished by 2009, developed by Gazexport, a Gazprom subsidiary. As a result, by 2015 both India and Pakistan should be receiving at least 70 million cubic meters of natural gas a year." (Pepe Escobar ‘Russia and Iran lead the new energy game’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG14Dj03.html Jul 14, 2006). What russia might lose by not piping its own fossil fuels to india, it can more than make up for by financing, building and owning, this new pipeline. "Another dimension that has gained salience is Russia's emerging position as an energy superpower as the world's largest gas producer and second-largest oil producer and therefore its importance to India's energy security. Russia's increasing influence in Central Asia and its dominant control of the pipeline routes implies that only a well-crafted energy partnership will enable India to access those oil and gas reserves." (Zorawar Daulet Singh ‘Reviving the India-Russia partnership’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html November 14, 2006).
As the legislation for america’s nuclear deal with india goes through congress, india continues to struggle to ensure that america does not obligate it to ignore the peace pipeline. "The controversial demand that India dovetails its Iran policy to US concerns over its nuclear program has been made a non-binding clause in the legislation." (Sudha Ramachandran ‘India's 'nuclear liberation' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).
The construction of the peace pipeline would do much to ensure harmonious relations between india and pakistan deterring them from embarking on a nuclear war. America is abandoning its own national interests by opposing this pipeline in order to promote jewish hostilities towards iran and pakistan. Clearly iran has a high geostrategic value if it can help to avert nuclear war between india and pakistan.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: China.
China depends heavily on iranian fossil fuels which are currently shipped to china and are thus vulnerable to american interdiction. However, there are plans for a pipeline from iran through pakistan and india and then on to china which would avoid american military intervention. This would enhance iran’s geostrategic value.
The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Russia.
The primary reason for the rise in iran’s geostrategic value is russia’s dramatic emergence as the world’s fossil fuel superpower. This can be appreciated at the most basic level in terms of the supply of fossil fuels to global oil markets. The more fossil fuel reserves that russia ties up in long term, state to state, contracts, the more important becomes iranian supplies of fossil fuels to the world’s oil markets – assuming that is that it chooses to place these resources on the global market rather than copying russia and tying them up in long term contracts.
Conclusion.
Iran’s geostrategic stature is much more substantial now than it was during phlavi’s reign. It could further boost its geostrategic value by forming an alliance either with russia, the world’s fossil fuel superpower, or with america, the world’s economic and military hyperpower. Both russia and america would benefit enormously from an alliance with iran. Iran’s geostrategic importance is such that it can decide whether it wants to boost the global power of either, or both, countries.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran.
Although the bush regime expresses loathing towards iran’s government and refuses to talk directly to it about matters of mutual interest, there are reasons to believe america could benefit immensely from an alliance with iran. It would boost american influence in many areas around the world.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Middle East.
As a result of america’s catastrophic foreign policies since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, iran has acquired significant common interests with america. Iran could endeavor to reduce these common interests by undermining the american military’s occupation of afghanistan and iraq or it could seek to enhance them by contributing to peace and stability in these two countries. Despite bush’s ingratitude towards iran over the help it has given america, iran has continued to aid america in iraq. "This is hardly surprising, given Khamenei's open admission that continuing instability in Iraq was "harmful to everyone in the region". From Iran's vantage point, it has played a constructive role toward the new Iraq, reflected in bilateral trade, energy and other agreements signed between Tehran and Baghdad, as well as in Iran's mediation role in intra-Shi'ite power struggles. Complaining that the West, and the US in particular, has gone unappreciative of Iran's constructive behavior, such as when Iran intervened in the US-Mehdi Army confrontation in 2004 by urging Muqtada to desist from further action, Iran's new, and considerably much tougher, approach is that it may have no choice but to play a rejectionist card with regard to foreign occupation." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Titans square up for clash in Iraq’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL01Ak05.html December 01, 2006).
America’s traditional arab allies have been sunni states such as saudi arabia, egypt, and jordan. However, america’s rash interventions in afghanistan and iraq have inadvertently given birth to a new political phenomenon in the middle east. "In December 2004 King Abdullah of Jordan famously described this emerging alliance as a "Shia crescent", a synonym that outraged Tehran but spoke tellingly of Sunni Arab fears about the ambitions of Iran to become a regional superpower capable of facing up to Israel. Although the inclusion of the Sunni Hamas movement in the alliance weakens the notion of a Shia crescent, the idea is not entirely fanciful." (Nicholas Blandford ‘Shia Crescent Pierces Heart Of Arab World’ The Times July 17, 2006). In the short term at least, it is highly unlikely that the shia crescent is going to disappear particularly since its leaders ahmadinejad in iran, moktada al-sadr in iraq, and hasan nasrallah in lebanon, are far more popular in the sunni arab world than sunni heads of state. So either america accommodates itself to the shia crescent and exploits the assets it offers or america embarks with the help of sunni arab countries on an even more catastrophic regional war to abolish it.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Central Asia.
Given that the cheapest route for the export of fossil fuels from central asia is across iran then the co-operation of american energy corporations with iran in building these pipelines could have two beneficial consequences for america. Firstly, it could significantly undercut russia’s political power resulting from its ownership of the eurasian pipeline network and, secondly, it could boost the amount of oil placed in global markets thereby countering the effects of russia’s refusal to use such markets because of its reliance on long term contracts.
If america chose iran as its primary geostrategic asset in the middle east and central asia there would be much less need for it to be concerned about kazakhstan, iraq, and afghanistan.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: India and Pakistan.
If america had an alliance with iran it could encourage the construction of a peace pipeline from iran to india and pakistan that would bind these two nuclear powers together and thereby lessen the chances of a nuclear war between them. This would considerably boost america’s geostrategic interests. There would then be no reason for it to break the nuclear proliferation treaty by legitimizing india’s nuclear industry.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: China.
If american energy companies had a close relationship with iran this would give america an even greater grip over china. "Controlling Iran leads to the containment of China (America’s greatest competitor), who depends heavily on Iranian oil to satisfy its growing hunger for energy." (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-akleh091106.htm November 09, 2006).
Currently china is highly vulnerable to an oil blockade by the american navy. It has sought to diminish this vulnerability by constructing an oil pipeline from kazakhstan. It is seeking to further diminish this vulnerability by concluding an agreement with russia to build pipelines to china. It is also encouraging the construction of a pipeline from iran, through pakistan and india, to china. However, if american energy companies were operating in iran then america might regain some of its leverage over china by influencing the amount of fossil fuels that iran was pumping to china.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia.
If the bush regime allowed american energy companies to exploit iran’s fossil fuels this would create huge economic advantages for both america and iran. However, the most critical benefit of such cooperation would be geostrategic - countering russia’s recent emergence as the world’s fossil fuel superpower. Iran has benefited considerably from russia’s rise as the world’s dominant fossil fuel broker. However, if america succeeded in developing an alliance with iran it could challenge russia’s fossil fuel domination.
Firstly, and most basically, if american energy companies were allowed to exploit iranian fossil fuels this would boost iranian fossil fuel production thereby countering the effects of putin’s long term, state to state, fossil fuel contracts.
Secondly, if america’s nuclear industry agreed to build nuclear power plants in iran this would reap huge economic benefits for these companies, and the american economy. It would also free up more fossil fuels for export rather than being consumed in the country. This would boost iran’s ability to counter russia’s fossil fuel domination.
Thirdly, if american energy companies were allowed to build fossil fuel pipelines from the caspian sea across iran then russia would lose much of the political leverage it has gained through its ownership of eurasia’s pipeline network. "As a result, if Washington ever lifted its trade embargo on Iran, its territory could be used as the most obvious transit route for the delivery of oil and natural gas from the Caspian countries to global markets, especially in Europe and Japan." (Michael T. Klare ‘Putting Iran in Great Power Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150 June 16, 2006); "Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, said, "The US's long-term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime; to establish control over Iran's oil and gas; and to use its territory as the shortest route for the transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia and China. This is not to mention Iran's intrinsic military and strategic significance."" (F William Engdahl ‘The US's geopolitical nightmare’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html May 9, 2006).
If america had an alliance with iran it could seriously challenge russian power over the world’s fossil fuel resources thereby consolidating american global power. "The only discernible result of US sanctions on Iran has been to delay Iran's development of its energy resources. Iran's oil and natural-gas reserves equal those of Saudi Arabia. The US has obstructed the development of at least two known large oilfields in Iran (Azadegan and Yadavaran), which together could have proven reserves exceeding 35 billion barrels and produce more than a million barrels per day of crude at their expected peak; has hindered oil and gas development in the Caspian Sea by playing the countries of the region against one another; has vetoed the construction of a Caspian pipeline through Iran (even though it would cost only about half the price of alternative pipelines); and has opposed Iranian gas pipelines to Pakistan and India, even offering India nuclear deals in exchange for not buying Iranian gas." (Hossein Askari ‘Why sanctions on Iran will fail’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI19Ak01.html September 19, 2006).
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and Europe.
Over the last few years the bush regime has tried to foist two adverse policies upon european governments concerning their fossil fuel imports.
Firstly, it has been trying to persuade european countries to adopt a common policy over russia’s export of fossil fuels to europe. Obviously if european governments acted together as a single consumer this would give them much greater advantages when negotiating with russia over its energy exports than if they all individually strike bilateral deals with russia. But america has failed to persuade europe to act in concert and, as a consequence, russia is doing deals with each european country separately to its great financial and political benefit.
Putin has already concluded a major energy deal with germany, "Putin underlined the strategic significance of the Russian-German partnership by saying, "We are linked by the common goals of building a unified and prosperous Europe, dedication to the principles of building a just world order, and the aim of effectively countering international challenges and threats."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html October 14, 2006). Putin got the deal he wanted because russian companies can now play a role in germany’s domestic energy markets. "And last Thursday, Russia's Gazprom and Germany's E.ON AG signed a framework agreement to swap assets in production, trade and sale of natural gas and relating to power industry. Gazprom will acquire the German company's stakes in gas companies in Hungary as well as in regional electricity and gas companies in return for Russia providing access to E.ON AG to Russia's Yuzhno-Russkoye deposits in the Tyumen region, which holds more than a trillion cubic meters of natural gas and will be the source for the US$10.5 billion North European Gas Pipeline project." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The rise and rise of Russia’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG20Ag01.html July 20, 2006).
What made this deal even sweeter for putin is that it punishes poland for its slavish devotion to the bush regime. "Sikorski was voicing Warsaw's complaint that German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored Polish pleas to scrap the US$10.5 billion trans-Baltic North European Pipeline project with Russia, which was negotiated by her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder - a project that would cement Berlin's energy ties to Moscow but bypass Poland and the Baltic states. Planned in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gas-pipeline project was intended to reduce Russia's dependence on having to transit through such countries as Belarus and Ukraine to export its gas to Europe. The 1,200-kilometer line would transport gas from Russia's Baltic Sea coast through international waters offshore Poland and the Baltic states to a landfall in Griefswald on Germany's coast." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Germany, Russia redraw Europe's frontiers’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE03Ad01.html May 3, 2006).
Hungary and italy have also concluded deals with russia. "Meanwhile, Russia is also going ahead with forging bilateral energy deals with European countries. An agreement was signed on June 22 with Hungary for the extension of Russia's Blue Stream gas pipeline to Central Europe. Italy has dealt an even more severe blow to Washington by concluding a significant energy deal bilaterally with Russia on the eve of the G8 summit." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html July 6, 2006).
Even worse for europe is that if putin succeeds in buying up some of the oil pipelines that export iran’s fossil fuels to europe then russia will have even more leverage over europe’s fossil fuel imports. "Significantly, on January 23, the Russian daily Kommersant reported that Armenia, sandwiched between Iran and Georgia, had agreed to sell a 45% control of its Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to Russia's Gazprom. The Russian daily added, "If Russia takes over this [Iran-Armenia] pipeline, Russia will be able to control transit of Iranian gas to Georgia, Ukraine and Europe."" (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006). If russia acquires these pipelines then even if there is a future reconciliation between iran and america/europe, it might be too late to reverse the shift in the balance of power between america/europe and russia.
Worse still for europe is that russia’s negotiating position with the european continent is growing stronger since it started constructing oil pipelines to the pacific. It has made it obvious that if europe is not willing to buy russia’s fossil fuels on its terms then it will sell them to china, japan and other asian countries. "It has threatened Europe with accelerated diversification of its exports to the East if Europe fails to open its markets to rapidly advancing Russian investment and acquisition of downstream assets." (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Part 2: Corporate gigantism’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI26Ag01.html September 26, 2006).
The second policy america has pressured europe into adopting is reducing purchases of iranian fossil fuels. For european countries this policy has serious negative implications but it is even more self-destructive in combination with the first policy. America is demanding that europe limits its imports of fossil fuels from both russia and iran. It might be possible for europe to implement one of these policies but to implement both at the same time would be a nightmare.
If america had a strategic alliance with iran then the europeans could have used the supply of iranian fossil fuels as a counterweight to resist excessive russian demands resulting from its increasingly monopolistic position over energy supplies to europe. This has not been possible because of america’s hostility to iran. As a consequence, europe is undermining its own interests by failing to encourage imports of iranian fossil fuels. "Enno Harks, a senior fellow on energy and resources at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and Friedmann Muller, head of the research group Global Issues at the same institute, were both in Tehran recently for an energy conference. Their studies and conclusions are important to understanding what's at stake in the convoluted relationship between the European Union and Iran and how ostracizing and sanctioning Iran may turn out to be yet another case of the EU shooting itself in the foot." (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html May 9, 2006); "It's going to be an extremely tricky affair. The EU is actively trying to explore deals with Central Asia - with both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - and also with Iran, bypassing Russia via the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. The key project in this Pipelineistan node is the proposed trans-Caspian gasoduct - which would in effect break Russia's monopoly on transit of Central Asian gas." (Pepe Escobar ‘The Gazprom Nation’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html May 26, 2006).
America is trying to deter european countries from exploiting iranian fossil fuels but all that this policy achieves is undermining europe’s negotiating position with russia. It is in effect driving european countries into an even closer embrace with the russians.
The Benefits of an American Alliance with Iran: Russia and China.
Iran could play an even more valuable role on america’s behalf in confronting the growing geostrategic significance of the asian continent i.e. the increasing political and military co-operation between russia and china. But america’s jewish induced hostility to iran is pushing iran even further into collaboration with these countries at america’s expense. Russia and china seem to appreciate iran’s geostrategic assets far more than america which is blinded by jewish anti-american propaganda. America could use iran as a vital counterweight to both russia and china but, since it has chosen to throw away this asset, china and russia are using iran to boost their power at america’s expense. Not only has america forsaken iranian help in boosting its global interests, its hostility towards iran is driving the country into a closer relationship with russia and china which will enable these three countries to increase their global power at the expense of america and europe. America’s treatment of iran is self destructive – driving the country into the camp of its biggest rivals – both of whom america is also antagonizing! It is bizarre, and rather revealing, that the only country in the world which america is not going out of its way to antagonize is the jos. America’s hostility towards virtually every country around the world is in stark contrast to its groveling subservience to the jos.
posted by The Mundi Club at 1:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home