the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east

Grazia.Tanta@gmail.com 19 feb 2012 1
The Empire's warlike manoeuvres in the Middle East
Abstract
1 - A decadent Europe shows its decaying teeth
2 - A quick glance on the Pentagon/NATO's last brave interventions
2.1 – Libya
2.2 – Iraq
2.3 – Afghanistan
2.4 – Syria
3 - What is left from tragedies and comedies of the recent past?
4 - Iran, the rich target of the Westerners
4.1 - Recent history of Western's interventions in Iran
4.2 – The Iranian foreign relationships matrix
4.3 - The Iranian nuclear programme
4.4 - The impact of the energy sanctions dictated by EU

The Empire's warlike manoeuvres in the Middle East
The geopolitical approach has an advantage the multidisciplinary
integration (geography, history, economics, cultures, demography…)
and is the one that allows for a global vision of the world.
Accordingly, although this text focuses in particular in the Middle East
and Iran, we will take into account that there are no closed regions from
a geopolitics point of view and that the planet is a communicating
vessels' system, without denying the regional or local particularities.
1 - A decadent Europe shows its decaying teeth
To the enlightened European leaders, the absence of problems in
Europe - where, as is well known, the welfare standards are distinctly
increasing - justifies the indefinite postponement of any solution to minor
problems such as the banking and state bankruptcies or the economic
recovery.
Therefore, they have plenty of time to dictate sanctions against Iran1
following their usual obedience of Washington's orders where - indeed -
there is a strategy for the whole world and in particular for the Middle
East. Tuning to the same strategic obtuseness, they reinvented on
January 30 a discredited formula to shackle the indebted EU countries to
the provision of perennial revenues to the financial system, thus avoiding
bankruptcies amongst major European banks. Stupidly, or to benefit
major oil corporations, they contribute to the rise in prices, without
disclosing that Europe's relevance for the Iranian exports is not that big,
as will be seen below.
What are they preparing? Probably, one more summit preceded by the
customary meeting of the "Merkosy" mishmash.
1
http://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/home.php?template=SHOWNEWS_V2&id=533239

2 - A quick glance of the Pentagon/NATO's latest brave interventions
Let us look at a few notes on the most recent amongst all the Western-
led well-intentioned military interventions;
2.1 - Libya
News on Libya are coming through on a regular basis and they are not
reassuring - military conflicts, torture, dissents within the new power and
people's actions against the transitional government imposed in Libya by
NATO through the democratic formula of bombing. After the
humanitarian Western intervention, how many of us would expecting the
Libyans still have not stopped praying as a token of gratitude for the
Western bombings? The real success of the U.S. “nation-building”
strategy will be seen in the near future, in addition to the appropriation of
the country's energy resources2.
One less well reported aspect is that, following the end of Kaddafi's age,
the Tuareg troops merged into the Libyan army positioned themselves in
Mali, demanding the secession of that country's part inhabited by Tuareg
tribes. This people are indeed a Stateless nation (they have never had a
State) and the borders established by the colonial power are
meaningless for them. The MNLA – Mouvement National pour la
Libération de l’Azawad (National Movement for the Liberation of
Azawad) has recently attacked/occupied various locations near the
Niger "curve" in Mali.
Given the weakness of the Malian army, it is no surprise that the "counter-
terrorist" plan - with which the U.S. have involved Africa's governments in
2
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=2271069&tag=L%
EDbia
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=2256946&tag=L%
EDbia
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/internacional/tripoli-libia-tvi24-confrontos-tiroteio/1322018-
4073.html
http://pt.euronews.net/2012/01/26/msf-suspende-operaces-em-localidade-libia/
http://pt.euronews.net/2012/01/21/libia-sede-do-cnt-invadida-e-saqueada/

general and Sahel's government in particular within the past few years of
AFRICOM's intense activity - be implemented.
2.2 - Iraq
Late in 2011, the U.S. and their eager faithful left Iraq – leaving behind the
customary "consultants" of the local army – a ballast of over 1 M civilian
deaths and the massive destruction of the country's infrastructures; these
are the usual collateral issues - as used in NATO's jargon - to pacify the
country. However, bombs continue to explode and to create victims3.
This withdrawal, despite not ending the military presence or reducing the
strategic Middle East’s relevance for the U.S., demonstrates, in essence,
failures and non achieved objectives.
A number of relevant notes can be drawn from the invasion and later
occupation of Iraq by the U.S. and their appendages - all of them
anxious to leave the scene from very early – in order to approach the
present Western posture against Iran and Syria:
a)Let us remember the choir of the Western leaders and their conductor,
the famous George W. Bush, all of them assuring to have
incontrovertible evidence of the existence of weapons of massive
destruction in Iraq. It has been confirmed that such weapons were
non-existent but what actually existed was its role as central argument
in a rough propaganda move. The argument against Iran on weapons
of massive destruction - or a similar line of argumentation - will certainly
not benefit from the same support as in 2003. However, it is always
possible to buy or enlist in the U.N. a few faithful such as the Marshall
Islands or the dutiful minister Portas* to participate in any circus show.
b)The promise of establishing a democracy - even a market democracy
- has failed abysmally. To Saddam's authoritarian and corrupt regime
succeeded a more diverse mandarinate – but no less corrupt - which,
immediately after the U.S. invasion, knew how to make the best - the
3
http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/efe/2012/01/24/diferentes-ataques-no-
iraque-deixam5-mortos-e7-feridos.htm
http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/saida-do-iraque-marca-fim-das-grandes-
intervencoes-dos-eua3457957#ixzz1l9bIJJSW
* Portas is the surname of the Portuguese minister of the Foreign Affairs

worse for Iraqis – of the U.S. funding and aids. The example intended to
be shown to regimes and peoples of the Middle East, namely that of
the joys of market democracy, with the abandonment of the military
or feudal authoritarianism, had no followers; the changes in Tunisia
and Egypt were essentially the result of the strenuous fight of the
crowd against the dictators and in no case was Iraq the inspiration;
c) The result of the intervention in Iraq did not, in the end diminished the
anti-American and anti-Western antipathy feelings in Muslim countries.
Afghanistan is still occupied and Pakistanis despise the regime of the
corrupt Zardari and of the military, business men and torturers. The
Arab monarchies continue calmly and quietly with their manifestations
of authoritarianism, repression and denial of civil and political rights of
the population. Palestinians continue to be the subject of plunder of
their land and their property at the hands of a racist sect that operates
as a Cerebrus guarding Western interests, especially energy interests,
in the Middle East;
d)The presence of American military in the Persian Gulf and on Arab
lands began in 1991 following the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.
Once the Iraqis were kicked out of "their" 19th Province, the U.S.
allowed the continuation of Saddam, with limited sovereignty, with no-
fly zones and sanctions which hit the population hard; it is quite clear
that the presence of the U.S. would continue on the argument of
supervisioning Iraq, containment of its leader who, even weakened,
functioned as a false threat to Kuwait or to Saudi Arabia;
e) The invasion of Afghanistan (2001) and thereafter, of Iraq (2003) were
all forms of perpetuating the American presence in the Middle East
which, meanwhile, spread on account of the "terrorist" threat, of Al-
Qaeda and for the sake of the containment of Iran. Now, with the
withdrawal from Iraq and, from Afghanistan, in the nearest future, new
threats need to be designated to justify the presence in oil lands and
in oil transit routes to rival countries. The U.S. is creating a military
posture composed of 32 bases in the Persian Gulf region4 where Seeb,
Thumrait and Masirah stand out in Oman, Al-Ubeid in Qatar, the
command of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, near Manama and Camp Arifjan
or Camp Doha in Kuwait;
4
http://www.tsf.pt/PaginaInicial/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=967511&page=-1

2.3 - Afghanistan
The U.S. have been there since 2001, when they invaded the country on
the pretext of capturing Bin Laden and his host, Mullah Omar, the
governor of the fundamentalist Taliban, rulers of the country at the time.
Obama announced his intention to withdraw from the country in 2014,
leaving it to the care of his dependable man, Karzai, linked to CIA and a
former employee of an American oil company, Unocal, meanwhile
integrated into Chevron.
Karzai's regime is characterized by corruption and electoral fraud to
which the American tutelage closed its eyes to favour its ward. It is the
U.S. military presence that guarantees that instability does not
degenerate into chaos and allows for Chinese and Indian investments.
However, it appears that the three million refugees in Pakistan and Iran
do not trust that the Pax Americana will continue.
The mountainous nature of the terrain and the difficulties of movement
and travelling make ethnic and political differences more evident in a
rural society with strong patriarchal traditions and tribal, linguistic or
ethnic links that foster the existence of armed militias and warlords. The
war and the strategic position promoted a flourishing activity of opium
cultivation and traffic which has caused serious social damage, but
which is used for financing the warlord’s weaponry.
As is clear, the fight against terrorism and the punishment of Bin Laden
was a false argument to invade Afghanistan in 2001 but it was enough to
further a patriotic and avenging wave in the U.S. as well as to justify the
infringement of rights and an anti-Islamic phobia that became an export
product. Later on, in 2008, the candidate Obama would refer to the
underdeveloped Afghanistan, landlocked in Asia and with no outlets to
the sea, as the real threat to U.S. security!
Several factors explain this obsession for Afghanistan or derive from it:
a)The presence in Afghanistan is a direct threat to Iran, the largest U.S.
military base being located in Shindand, 100 km from the common
border, although the logistics centre of the U.S. military apparatus is in
Bagram, to the north of Kabul;

b)On a proactive trend, the U.S. tried to use Afghanistan to carry the
immense energy resources from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to the
Indian Ocean, thus removing them from traffic routes dependent on
Russia and at the same time without passing through Iran. This Project
failed completely, as explained further ahead.
c) Just like the Soviets in the '80s, the Americans did not study the failure
of the British in Afghanistan, in the 19th century; and they forgot the
cultural proximity of the Pashtun from both sides of the artificial
border with Pakistan (itself, another "brilliant" British creation to divide
its Indies Empire). Consequently, the political and social instability
worsened in Pakistan in a way that is likely to provoke conflicts with
India;
d)The poppy cultivation for the production of heroin in Afghanistan
(something like 93% of the world production in 2007) occupies more
land than the coca plantation in Latin America and generates $
50000 M per year5. The cultivation increased substantially since the
defeat of the Taliban and it plays a significant role in the Mafia-like
world economy that forwards so much capital to the finance system
and the powerful Wall Street; both of them operating to the
discontent of the overwhelming majority of humanity. The warlords
work as guardians of the plantations, charging money for it under the
blessing of the U.S.. This cultivation repeats what the U.S. has done in
the 1970s in Laos, in Cambodia and in Burma, where CIA controlled
heroin and opium to finance the American war against the
Vietnamese guerrillas;
e) The U.S. has already spent $ 438 000 M and the British £ 18 000 M with
the war in Afghanistan and it remains to be seen whether, after their
withdrawal, the settling of accounts between the various warlords, the
Taliban and Karzai will not bring the latter the faith of his predecessor
Najibullah who, in 1989, after the departure of the Soviets, was
murdered with barbaric sophistication.
2.4 – Syria
5
http://www.midiaindependente.org/pt/blue/2009/10/456849.shtml

The Syria situation – despite all the ambiguity of such designation, is
presenting new episodes on a daily basis.
Where there is repression, there is resistance. There is dissent in Syria but
apparently it is unable to overthrow the regime and the various social
forces that support it: the Orthodox Christians (4%), the Sunni oligarchs
and Druses (3%), or the Armenians who tolerate the Alawite power, a
Shiite sect that represents 12% of the population and guarantees it
stability; and whose opinion will probably change when Bashar will be
falling. On the other hand, the predominance of the “Muslim Brothers” in
the contestation to Bashar does not attract many of those who prefer
the secularism of the Syrian regime to a Sunni based religious regime with
the imposition of the Koran’s rule.
a)Contrary to what has happened in Tunisia or in Egypt, where peaceful
mass protests were (and still are) witnessed, in Syria and maybe not
only through desertions in the army, which were not relevant to break
its unity, the opposition has resorted to arms. From a strictly legal point
of view, this option justifies the brutal and heavy intervention against
the insurgents, moreover only armed with Kalashnikovs;
b)It is true that an armed insurrection, without a strong support of the
crowd, is always weak and it is bound to fail. Guevara paid with his
life his romantic vision of revolutions based on vanguards of heroes.
Any guerrilla manual reflects Mao's teaching “a revolutionary must be
integral to the people as a fish is to the water". In this sense, either the
insurgents widen their popular support to the point of isolating and
dividing the present supporters of Bashar, or they will be crushed; and
it does not appear realistic that a military intervention will take place in
Syria as that observed in Libya, led by NATO;
c) In the Syrian opposition there are not many adherents of an external
military intervention to solve internal problems, since the country has a
rich history of humiliations, occupations and aggressions, the most
recent of which came from the Israeli entity. The Iraqi and Libya cases
have showcased the altruistic aims of the Westerners; thus, the
Western commitment against Bashar does not give credibility to the
opposition in Syria and neither does the tension of their Turkish
neighbours. Let us also remember that the Ottoman Turkey ruled (the
Great) Syria until the 1914/18 war; that the French occupiers offered a
slice of Syrian territory (the Sandjak of Alexandretta, known today as
Iskenderun) in 1939 in order to ensure the Turkish neutrality in the world

conflict of 1939/45. However, Turkey refuses a foreign intervention
and even the establishment of no-fly zones over Syria;
d)There is a clear interest on the part of Russia (and China) to curb
Western urges against Syria. Their acceptance of Resolution 1973
against Libya has been taken over and it has been used as stepping
stone for NATO's aggression against that country. Once the war was
over, the redistribution of Libyan oil resources was carried out in favour
of the Westerners, in particular of the French and the British, to the
detriment of the continuity of Russian and Chinese business with
Gaddafi. That is why both – Russia and China – used their right of veto
in the UN Security Council on the proposal against Syria, on the past
February 4; they surely do not want to see repeated in Syria the poor
results obtained in Libya. As far as oil is concerned and in a world
thirsty for its consumption, despite the fact that Syria has no impressive
reserves when compared to Libya's (2500 million barrels against 46400
million barrels), cannot be ignored;
e) On the other hand, Russia has a close relationship with Syria where it
owns a naval base in Tartus, its only permanent position in
Mediterranean, a remnant of the Soviet greatness. It is not difficult to
imagine that, after Bashar al-Assad's fall, a new power created by the
U.S. or thankful for the role played by the U.S. in the crusade for the
"democratization" of Syria, will request the Russians to abandon Tartus.
f) Following this veto, on February 6, the U.S. withdrew its diplomatic staff
from Damascus, while Obama said the problem could be solved
without military intervention. Interestingly, the Western market
democracy regimes, in order to pressure the fall of the dictatorial
Syrian regime, use as supporters the Arab League countries, the
majority of which are dictatorships when they are not absolute
monarchies. In politics, gratitude is low valued; the Emir of Kuwait will
have forgotten that the Syria of Hafez al-Assad (Bashar's father)
condemned, in 1990, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, although this
and Hafez were the paramount leaders of two sister parties, the Iraqi
and the Syrian Baas;
g)A few years ago, Syria was the major obstacle to a project for the
building of pipelines between Turkey (Ceyhan) and Israel for oil, water
and electricity transportation to the Zionist territory, since it would
necessarily have to pass through Syrian territorial waters. A change of
regime in Damascus could be a project enabler considering that

Turkey would ease its friction with Israel which resulted from the Zionist
military attack on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in May 2010;
h) Also, Israel would be a great beneficiary of political changes in Syria if
the new power would accept in fact the occupation of the Golan
Heights in exchange for business with Israel and, above all, if it would
make life difficult for Hezbollah in Lebanon or would allow for its
isolation by limiting the influence of Teheran in Lebanon;
i) Finally, and strategically, the democratic concern of the West over the
regime in Damascus is essentially about the period of political and
military pressure against Iran, given the strong ties between Iran, Syria
and the Lebanese government.
3 - What is left from the tragedies and comedies of the recent past?
Intoxicated by the falling apart of dictatorships and of the state-
controlled capitalism in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Westerners
believed that their political and social model would be easily
transplanted to the Muslim world and beyond. If not through a
questionable moral superiority, at least through manu militari which, in
between and with less media coverage, would help re-launching the
powerful military industry, resentful by the end of the Cold War6.
The inevitability of the single neoliberal thought and of market
democracy propagated by the Westerners presents two appalling
denials. On one hand, China's economic growth reveals that a
repressive regime is able to conciliate a state-controlled capitalism with
the private national or multinational initiative and even to become the
main driver of GDP growth or of the world trade, becoming in parallel a
financial power. On the other hand, the recessive drift in terms of
economy and rights, promoted by the neoliberal mania in the West,
causes the Western model to lose credibility. If this model proves to lead
to unemployment and poverty, it cannot encourage the large masses of
population of the Islamic countries to make a simple copy of it, since
their countries are already suffering too much from those problems.
6
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30507981/O-Pentagono-e-a-NATO-Gastos-militares-e-
armamentos
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43856384/The-Pentagon-and-the-NATO

The memory of the colonial humiliations and the failed or sabotaged
attempts to repeat the Western path are lucidly perceived by the
peoples as a legacy of the colonial period. Finally, the existing barriers in
the Western countries to exports from other countries or to the entry of
immigrants – the subject of racist and discriminatory treatment - are not
examples of individual or collective solidarity for the resolution of
underdevelopment and poverty problems.
The great majority of the regimes existing in Islamic countries associate
with Western capital by coupling with the exclusive globalization system,
thus being both accomplices in maintaining poverty and the absence of
rights as well as in the repression of the peoples' claims all over the world
and not only in more or less emerging countries. Also in 2011, given the
popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the Westerners, with Hillary
Clinton’s lead, expressed greater concern to ensure an evolution in
continuity of the authoritarian model than enthusiasm for the liberating
drive of the peoples.
The overwhelming military power of the Pentagon, of NATO and of their
allies proved to be, at times, insufficient to strategically win the wars in
which they get involved. Thus Israel did not manage to crush Hezbollah
in 2006; the U.S. was not able to establish a democratic regime and
peace in Iraq, even spending $ 1 trillion; and in Afghanistan the U.S. try to
get out of the quagmire in which they are involved, even if their
opponents do not, by any means, have their military, technological or
financial power. In the end, when they leave the scene, the Pentagon
and NATO always leave behind metastases of conflict, dictatorships,
suffering and misery and it cannot be said that the world has become
more safe and happy after the military defeat of the successive "rogue
states".
The insistence on wars and invasions over the past twenty years by the
U.S. and its allies, including the Israeli branch, does not contribute to the
preparation of negotiating formulas for conflict management. The
“nation-building” concept is based on racist attitudes of civilisation
superiority over the "indigenous", on contempt for their culture, their
history, their ethnic or religious diversity, relying only on the power of
weapons to crush the enemy and of money to buy mandarins for
representing their interests;

Although the attitudes of the vast majority of Islamic countries' regimes
towards Palestine are highly hypocritical and instrumental for the
purposes of propaganda, in fact, the crowds in the Middle East countries
are very much in favour of the Palestinians and contrary to the Zionists.
Now, by systematically having attitudes exonerating the crimes and the
Israeli occupation – when not clearly being supporters thereof – the U.S.
and its subordinates destroy, a priori, the development of sympathies on
the "Arab streets". Although Turkey is not an Arab country, its
government had to support the indignation of its people upon Israel's
terrorist action on the Mavi Marmara, with damage to the commercial
and political relations between Turkey and the Israeli entity. In turn, the
regime change in Egypt had immediate consequences favourable to
the Palestinians, whom the Egyptians declared their support to. In a face-
saving exercise and with an assistance logic, the EU makes donations to
the Palestinians, in particular to the corrupts in Ramallah;
In Iraqi, the Western energy multinationals are back to the wells that give
access to 8.3% of world oil reserves, as everybody would have guessed
before the American and British invasion. Exactly the same happened in
Libya by using a grim sharing criterion - France took possession of one
third of the Libyan oil since it had one third share on the bombings
carried through7;
In Iraqi, from the very beginning of the conquest, the U.S. imposed the
transposition into law of such interesting aspects as legal immunity to
foreign contractors and to private military and security firms as the
notorious Blackwater; the absence of taxes on profits from exported
goods; or the obligation to purchase registered seed (GMO) from the
major companies Monsanto or Cargill8;
A semi-independent Iraqi Kurdistan was established that was tolerant
towards its Kurdish brothers in Turkey, which sometimes causes heartburn
to Erdogan; and in Iraqi it is feared that, if there is a radical power
change in Syria, the province of al-Anbar in Syria's border and with a
large Sunni majority will be tempted to secession because of being
7
http://www.angonoticias.com/Artigos/item/18813
http://www.monitormercantil.com.br/mostranoticia.php?id=100841
8
U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership, 27 de junho, 2004

displeased with the Shiite power in Bagdad. The borders resulting from
the colonial sharing era are almost all full of artificiality and nonsense;
Perhaps the part that appeals less to the U.S. and its affiliates is the fact
that the anti-Iranian antagonism developed by Saddam and ordered by
the U.S. gave rise to a strong link between the Iraqis – people and
government, mostly Shiite - and Iran. Even during the American
occupation, the UN sanctions against Iran, from 2006 onwards, were
totally ignored by the Iraqis, thus contributing to the harmlessness of such
sanctions. The bloody Iraqi episode – we are looking forward to the next
chapters – reminds us that the military always shout "mission
accomplished" even when they withdraw strategically defeated.
4 - Iran, the Westerners' juicy target
Iran is the great enemy to the US and the European party in the so-
called "Arc of Instability" that runs from the Mediterranean Sea to the
Eastern border of Pakistan. However, today it appears to be too large
a bone for the Pentagon's teeth; of course not for strictly military
reasons but also, and mainly, for economical and political reasons.
4.1 - Recent history of Western intervention in Iran
a) Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadegh, in the 50s of the last century,
humiliated England - which exercised suzerainty over the country since
1913 – when he nationalized the oil sector controlled by BP's
forerunner;
b) In 1953, CIA and MI6 overthrew Mossadegh, supporting the Shah in a
despotic regime. The Iranians only freed themselves from the Pahlevi
dynasty in 1979, after a democratic revolution which was later
superseded by the enforcement of the Sharia law imposed by the
Shiite clergy around Khomeini, considered by the people as a
consequent opponent of the Shah. But in real life there are many
tolerance situations towards the rigours of the Islamic law;
c) Still in 1979, within the scope of that democratic revolution, the
people's anti-americanism took to the streets and the students
occupied the U.S. Embassy, thereby sequestering dozens of officials for
a possible exchange with the Shah who had taken refuge in the U.S.
Dissatisfied, the U.S. tried a military rescue operation but failed

disastrously, leaving behind aircraft wrecks in the Iranian desert.
Meanwhile, the Iranian property in the U.S. was frozen, to be released
two years later when the Embassy's officials were handed over.
d) With the overthrow of the Shah, in 1979, CENTO, a military organization
dominated by the U.S. and the UK, was dissolved; in it, beyond Iran,
were participating Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey as links of the siege of the
USSR;
e) In 1980, Saddam Hussein's Iraq wished to reverse the democratic
evolution in Iran by taking advantage of the divisions between
Khomeini's supporters and the Iranian left in order to prevent
contagion of the Iraqi Shiites and also to obtain territorial advantages
in oil areas;
f) Thus, began the Iran-Iraq war with very unequal international support;
the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were financing Saddam, who also had
some support from Egypt and USSR; the latter, being a seller of
weapons to Saddam, changed sides when the U.S. became
dominant in the support for Iraq. The supporters of Iran were only Syria
and Libya.
g) Amongst the military forces on the ground there was a great inequality
as far as men and equipment were concerned. Iraq had a superior
military power, although Iran was far more densely populated.
However, Saddam has disregarded the political and cultural uniformity
of Iran, one of the oldest states on earth which, for example, refused
the use of Arabic and got back to Farsi shortly after Islamization –
unlike Syria, Mesopotamia and North Africa. And this notwithstanding
the linguistic and ethnic diversity;
h) Such inequality of forces caused a much greater number of Iranian
casualties - 500,000/1 million dead - against 300,000 Iraqis who even
used chemical weapons and bombed Bushehr nuclear power plant.
This time, the use of chemical weapons by Saddam was not
condemned because the dictator was on the American side of the
war;
i) Iran's foreign policy after the war with Iraq has been curbing the
animosity of the U.S. and breaking the international siege and isolation
proposed by the U.S.. Seen in these terms, Iran does not acknowledge

the existence of Israel and has built political bridges with Syria, the
Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas;
j) Concerning the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan –
respectively along its western and eastern borders - Iran has been very
cautious, without harming its historical links with the Shiite majority in
Iraq (60% of the total) or with Afghanistan, where there are linguistic
or religious affinities with Hasaras, Tajiks, Aimaks and Pashtuns;
4.2 – The Iranian external relations matrix
Globalisation, for which the multinationals and the financial system
have fought so hard, caused a perverse effect in the usual Western
power. Instead of seeing all states and peoples of the world lining up
in a submissive vassal's attitude towards the United States - as thought
or desired after the collapse of the USSR - there was a clear
weakening of the economies and of the capacity for political action
of Western powers, by contrast with a new power – China – which is
increasingly developing and strengthening its influence in the world
scene; along with China, there is a reaffirmation of Russia and the rise
of regional powers such as Brazil and India and, on another level,
South Africa, Turkey and Iran.
In this context, given the Western economic decline, the main powers
in the East - Near East and Middle East - have sought a political and
economic realignment, by looking eastward and southward and by
increasing the relations between themselves as well.
a) Two of these powers – Turkey and Iran – have been cementing strong
cooperation links. Turkey, after the collapse of the USSR felt less
threatened, established bridges with Turkish-speaking nations of
Central Asia and, without dismissing NATO and the American military
bases, has assumed great independence on the international
scene. On the other hand, Turkey understood that entering the EU is
but an elusive dream about which its population is less and less
enthusiastic;
b) The foreign policy of the AKP of Erdogan is to stand like a bridge
between East and West and, as far as Iran is concerned, large-scale
investments were made by them there, thus playing recently an active
role together with Brazil in intermediating the American pressure on

Iran in connection with the latter's nuclear programme (see 4.3 in this
document). Within this "bridge" scope between two worlds, Turkey
receives gas from Iran through two pipelines coming from Tabriz, as
well as, since 2005, being crossed by the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan), the
oil pipeline controlled by BP with the high support of the U.S. in order to
prevent oil transit routes through Russia or Iran. In parallel, BTC
transports gas from Turkmenistan to Erzurum in Turkey, to be
incorporated in the Nabucco project , the viability of which is highly at
risk;
c) To the East and North of Iran are those countries linked to the SCO –
the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formed in 2001 with the
Shanghai Five members (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan) created in 1996, which was joined by Uzbekistan. Later on,
Iran, India, Mongolia (2006) and Pakistan joined as observers. These
countries surround almost entirely an American "enclave" called
Afghanistan;
d) The existence of SCO – in spite of the rivalries and animosities between
some of its members or observers –does not suit the U.S. To unite the
huge populations of China and India, with China's financial power, the
energy reserves of Russia, Iran and Kazakhstan and also Russia's and
China's military power - in addition to the fact that four of the ten
partners have nuclear weapons - is a structuring element in world
geopolitics. Recently, the two major permanent members of SCO
vetoed the Western purposes for Syria and do not demonstrate any
interest in serious participation in any sanctions against Iran;
e) India receives some 15% of its energy requirements from Iran which is
its nearest energy source. One supply route is from Chabahar, a
Southeast Iranian harbour, outside the Persian Gulf, where India is
investing in its development by possibly building an undersea oil
pipeline in order to avoid passing on Pakistani soil. Another strategic
development would be the construction of a multimodal corridor
which would connect Bombay [Mumbai] to St Petersburg, with
branches to Europe and Central Asia, passing through the whole
Iranian territory and Turkmenistan, which would thus send its gas to
India through an exchange system with Iranian gas. This Project does
not please the Westerners who would always stay out of it9;
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chah_Bahar#Chabahar_Port

f) In March of 2010, Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement for building
an oil pipeline connecting both countries, the infra-structure of which
has been completed in Iranian soil, on July 2011, after overcoming the
several years of U.S. pressure, which preferred to transport electricity
from Tajikistan through Afghanistan. The project aims at establishing
branches within Pakistan and a passage to India with subsequent
branches that may subsequently reach Bangladesh10;
g) In January 2010, the transfer of gas from the Dauletabad field in
Southern Turkmenistan and Khangiran in the Northeast of Iran11 was
started, where it integrates the internal network of Iran, thus opening a
new outlet for the huge Turcoman reserves, after the opening of
another connection on the west, in 1977, next to the border between
the two countries, in the Caspian Sea12;
h) Apart from oil and gas, Iran is in the world top ten places regarding to
the production of zinc, lead, cobalt, aluminium, manganese and
copper13.
4.3 - Iran's nuclear programme
Iran's nuclear programme started in the 1950s with the assistance of
the U.S. and it was discontinued after the 1979 revolution. At that time,
the German company Kraftwerk Union AG, linked to Siemens and AEG
Telefunken, withdrew from the construction of the Bushehr nuclear
power plant due to the U.S. pressure.
In 1995, after recovering from the damage resulting from the war with
Iraq, Iran resumed its nuclear programme namely to conclude the
Bushehr nuclear power plant, within the Framework of an agreement
with Russia, meanwhile stating that such nuclear power plant
programme will be developed in Arak and Darkhovin/Ahvaz as well to
produce 6000 Mw electricity up to 2010. For that purpose, it has or
10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Pakistan-India_gas_pipeline
1111
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauletabad%E2%80%93Sarakhs%E2%80%93Khangiran_pipelin
e
12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korpeje%E2%80%93Kordkuy_pipeline
13
http://pt.reingex.com/Irao-Negocios-Economia.asp

plans to have research nuclear reactors in Tabriz, Ramsar and Tehran,
other facilities in Natanz and Isfahan and to explore uranium mines in
the Southeast (Saghand and Jasd).
Since the resumption of the nuclear programme, the U.S., backed by
its European allies and the Israeli subsidiary, has been making never
substantiated accusations that there is a concealed project for the
production of nuclear weapons. Revealing that the dog always barks
first and louder than its master, Israel has been showing its appetite for
the bombing of Iran's nuclear power plants, as it has done on Osirak, in
Iraq, in 1981. However, its master has a firm hand and is hindering the
action, as it prevented Israel's retaliation when Saddam fired Scud
missiles on Israel, in 1991; nevertheless, this action remains latent.
The sanctions adopted by the UN started in 2006, in the framework of
the customary use of the Institution to cover the interests of the U.S.
and the rest of the Western people. In March 2010, Noam Chomsky
clearly expresses that "Iran is perceived as a threat because it never
obeyed the orders of the United States. Militarily, such threat is
irrelevant”.
The U.S. tension has deteriorated the procurement process of nuclear
fuel by Iran, what does not happen with any other country having
nuclear power plants. In 2009, Iran requested the assistance from IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) for obtaining fuel for research
for the purpose of medical use, followed by a set of diplomatic
incidents for the Western control of the material procedures, of the
enrichment technology and of the transformation into fuel intended
for Iran. Refusing the western requirements, Iran began uranium
enrichment at 20% in Natanz (February 2010).
U.S. and its allies then proposed more sanctions against Iran and in
order to ease the tension of the situation, Brazil and Turkey drew up an
agreement with Iran (May 2010) on the exchange of uranium at 3.5%
with another, enriched at 20%, reaffirming “the right for all countries to
research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination"14. This agreement, though similar to the
proposals of Western countries, did not reverse the U.S. decision of
approving new sanctions against Iran within the framework of the UN.
14
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programa_nuclear_iraniano

However, uranium enriched up to 20% has no application in the
production of atomic weapons, as in these weapons is used uranium
at 80% (or even 90%, as is the case of the bomb dropped by the U.S.
on Hiroshima). Although Ahmadinejad has announced both Iran's
capacity and disinterest in the enrichment of uranium up to 80%, this
should be regarded as being with political aims and even IAEA
considers that Iran can only enrich uranium up to 20%.
Meanwhile (April 2010), Obama stated the new U.S. nuclear doctrine
according to which the U.S. would not consider the use of nuclear
weapons against countries that do not have them and have signed
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)15, excluding North Korea
and Iran from such guarantee. Such guarantee will of course not
count for much considering the precedent in view of Japan in 1945 or
the use of depleted uranium ammunitions in Iraq in 1991 or in Serbia in
1999. But it is a political fact to take into consideration, a clear
demonstration of hostility.
Being Iran a signatory of the NPT and having no nuclear weapons, until
there is evidence to the contrary, the threat is obvious. Once more,
the U.S. claim for themselves more rights than the other States, calling
themselves guardians and interpreters of who has or has not the right
to possess such weapons and assuming the perpetuity of its nuclear
arsenal as well as of those of the other members of the nuclear club.
Yet, it is known that peace and security in the world would have
everything to gain from the dismantling of all weapons of mass
destruction, in particular nuclear weapons16.
On the other hand and at the same time, an IAEA consultant stated
that the amount of uranium stored by Iran has been stable for a long
time and that “the possibility of Iran to continue to produce a nuclear
weapon with a hidden uranium stock is utterly false”. The same
consultant also stated: “I believe the problem is not the nuclear issue.
Several geopolitical interests are also at stake, since Iran plays a
balance role in the Middle East. It is a counterweight to countries as
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, local allies of the United
15
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_N%C3%A3o_Prolifera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_Ar
mas_Nucleares
16
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%ADses_com_armamento_nuclear

States. Iran has also relations with Palestinian groups which destabilize
Israel. I believe it is a political rather than a technical problem.”17
There is an overwhelming hypocrisy! India and Pakistan have
admittedly nuclear weapons and they have not signed the NPT, just as
the Israeli entity which does not assume the possession of nuclear
weapons and whose nuclear weapons programme started in 1967
with the collaboration of France18.
Following the NPT review in 2010, a conference for the
denuclearization of Middle East was planned, for which all States in
the region were invited, including the Israeli entity, not a signatory to
the Treaty, although it holds a number about 200 nuclear weapons
and has the capability of delivering them in its Jericho missiles to
targets at flight distance of 11500 km.
This Israel's capability of dropping a nuclear bomb, for example on Rio
de Janeiro, far away from the region where threats to its security might
arise, is not the product of a delirium of its military. This capability
attests that Israel is a Western fortress in the Middle East and that it is
part of the Western strategic military mechanism, the head of which is
Pentagon; it is therefore justified all financial, economic and
diplomatic Western support to the Israeli entity. To this integration at
the military level should be added another well-known between CIA
and Mossad.
To finish the set of U.S. accusations against Iran, a former American
officer, a senior political scientist of the "commendable" RAND
Corporation, Seth Jones, wrote an article in the American "Foreign
Affairs" Magazine in which he reveals the presence of thousands of al-
Qaida members in Iran, who have taken refuge in there when the U.S.
invaded Afghanistan. It is not hard to admit that al-Qaida's militants
have joined the crowd of Afghan refugees in Iran (one million in 2003)
to save their own skin. Especially curious is that this fact becomes
known only now, ten years after the event, at a phase in which
Western propaganda is particularly fierce in diabolizing Iran. It appears
that, even after Bin Laden's death, al-Qaida continues to be a useful
political argument to Pentagon19.
17
http://operamundi.uol.com.br/conteudo/noticias/4120/conteudo+opera.shtml
18
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
19
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137061/seth-g-jones/al-qaeda-in-iran

It is therefore misleading to continue with the tale of Iran's military
nuclear programme. It is worse than misleading; it is to accept a
discussion under the terms deemed convenient by the U.S. and its
Israeli subsidiary which solely aim at isolating Iran and maintaining the
American and the Western supremacy in the Middle East as well as
the control of its energy sources. This means to the Westerners,
especially to the U.S., not only the control of their own energy supply
(see 4.4 in this document) but, most of all, to have the power to
interfere in the supply of strategic rivals, such as China, India, Japan or
South Korea, all of them very dependent on the energy supply from
Persian Gulf, thus having the power to determine the development of
their economies.
A new large-scale war is probably not on the agenda of the U.S.. This
year (2012), the U.S. will start integration between the Afghan army
and the Western troops in order not only to give the former more
experience in the fight against the Taliban but also to substantially
reduce the direct combat of Western troops with the opponents of
their presence. It is a repetition of the vietnamization process of the
war, the results of which are known and which were also considered a
defeat of the U.S. and its allies; it is also a repeat of the process
initiated in Iraq some years ago.
These processes are above all soft forms of leaving the ground without
achieving a strategic victory by eliminating the threat of the enemy
and giving the idea that the military intervention and the "aid" allowed
the "locals" to develop their own and autonomous capabilities of
success in the future and of virtuous progress towards democracy and
civilization. Given that military interventions are very specifically
intended to serve the interests of the invader and occupier, the social
and political changes are not those necessary or those accepted by
the people and hence the fight takes hold again and steps up after
the military withdrawal of the invaders.
This transfer process of military responsibilities to local soldiers has also
several advantages; it is welcome by the American public opinion
which sees its soldiers coming back home, since as far as mercenaries
are concerned, no one really cares whether they continue on the
ground and act without any public scrutiny; it relieves the coffers of
the American state that faces unemployment, poverty and the crucial

support to the financial system; it constitutes a disguised form of
defeat assumption.
It seems to be underway a military strategy of no invasion of enemy
territory with the occupation of its land, the management of
administrative disorder, refugees, attacks and the responsibility for the
reconstruction of infrastructure … even if that might benefit American
companies placed in the first line of the award of contracts.
It should be recalled that in the new NATO Strategic Concept (2010)
are defined four stages of "crisis management" - preventive
protection, proactive crisis management, use of military force and
post intervention stabilization – the latter being known as the most
expensive, the most time consuming and the most difficult, involving
more human and financial costs for the invaders.
In order to avoid this latter stage in Libya, the military intervention was
based on bombing, on the use of information collection and on
logistical support to anti-Gaddafi armed groups. Once Gaddafi was
defeated and the rights over oil resources were reassigned in favour of
the Westerners, no one seems to be concerned about the
arrangements between the various armed groups that fight each
other or, even less so, about the reconstruction of the war-torn areas,
primarily after-effects of the Western intervention.
Also in Bahrain, in face of the popular demonstrations, Saudi and UAE
troops intervened to maintain the power of the al-Khalifa family,
despite the fact that are located in Bahrain, the headquarters of the
command of the U.S. 5th fleet and the number of military present
there is around 5000, plus the garrisons of some 30 ships.
This assumption of strategic weakness becomes clearer faced with the
dimension of Iran and the geopolitical aspects of its vicinity. Therefore,
economic measures, murder and sabotage will be preferred by
relying on the unconditional support of the grim Mossad in the region;
or even provocative measures with drones or others, with intervention
of special groups eventually created in vassal countries of the Gulf
region. In this regard, Saudi Arabia would be the best placed, since its
military expenditure corresponded to 11,2% of GDP in 2010 against
2,5% for Iran in 2007.

In addition to its Israeli fortress, the U.S. in 2012, unlike what happened
in 1979, has no Saddam to confront Iran and are forced to be at the
forefront of the confrontation, in an unpromising but dangerous bluff
game; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can function as
aids but not to enter, by proxy, into direct confrontation with Iran. But,
just like Israel, they would be delighted if the U.S. would crush over Iran
and would militarily occupy the region (even more), since this would
guarantee the perpetuity of the various royal houses of the Gulf as
protectorates of the American, as they have been of the British until
decolonization.
However, any military conflict in the Gulf would impact for an
indefinite period the whole world energy distribution system and the
energy prices (increased by 30%, according to IMF)20 which, in the
disastrous state of Western economies, would only reinforce their steep
decline. The White House and the Pentagon are well aware of that.
4.4 - The impact of energy sanctions imposed by the EU
In 2010, the proven reserve/production ratios for oil and natural gas,
referred to or calculated on the basis of information published in the
Statistical Review of World Energy related to 2010, show the huge
reserves existing on the shores of the Persian Gulf and, in contrast,
China and the U.S. strategic shortages that forces them to ensure
abroad their energy supplies.
Iran, with the third largest reserves in absolute values of oil – after Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela - and the second largest ones – after Russia -
for natural gas, is the most important country in energy terms,
particularly because it holds in its territory huge amounts of the two
most versatile fossil fuels. It should be noted that the European gas
producers have relatively limited reserves, measured through the
above mentioned ratio – Norway with 18.8 years, the Netherlands 17
and England 5.3 years.
(production years – 2010 level)
Oil Natural gas
World 46.2 World 58.6
Saudi Arabia 72.4 Saudi Arabia 13.6
China 10.0 Algeria 56,0
20
http://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/home.php?template=SHOWNEWS_V2&id=533853

U.S. 11,3 China 28,9
Iran 88.4 Un. Arab Emir. 117,6
Iraq 128.1 U.S. 12,6
Kuwait 110.9 Iran 213,8
Mexico 10,6 Qatar 217.0
Russia 20,6 Russia 76.0
Venezuela 234,1 Turkmenistan 189,4
Just like China has been diligently developing an ambitious plan for
the construction of hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants,
while simultaneously, investing in renewable energy (therefore its
interest in EDP- Eletricidade de Portugal), Iran will seek to ensure a
longer duration of its reserves and energy exports by creating a
nuclear alternative desired since the time of the last of the Palehvi.
In 2010, as compared to 1995 and according to elements published
by UNCTAD, we highlight the following elements on Iran's foreign trade
which reveal the enormous relevance of energy products in exports;
Variation in total exports 5,5 times
Variation in oil exports, crude or refined oil 5.7 times
Variation in gas exports, natural or non-natural 14.3 times
Variation in the remaining export 4.4 times
The spatial distribution of Iranian exports in general and of energy
products shows the structural changes in world trade and production
that are materialised in the decline of Western domination after some
three centuries of dominance. These global changes lead to tensions,
conflicts and strategic adjustments which hierarchically restructure the
States.
Balance in energy transactions is normally unstable and there are
many factors affecting prices. When the EU bureaucrats decided to
cancel oil imports from Iran, from July onwards, to show the U.S.
strategic suzerainty what they could do, they should certainly know
that no insurmountable difficulties would emerge for Iran there from.
Within the proverbial wisdom of the bureaucrats, it is expected that
Iran's retaliation to suspend oil exports to France and England,
announced on February 19, will not represent another element of
sacrifice for the peoples of Europe.
Most likely there will be a logistics reallocation of the origins and
destinations with or without reduction of Iran's overall export level.

Among Iran's main customers, China and India, for example, will not
be very keen to keep pace with the EU by refusing Iranian oil,
especially because the economic dynamism they are experimenting
makes them eager for oil and unwilling to cooperate with elements of
instability in energy supply; on the other hand, Japan and South Korea
only too reluctantly and in the face of Western strong pressure will play
the boycott game.
In the past fifteen years there has been a constant drop in the weight
of all countries in "developed" Europe relatively to the total exports of
crude oil or refined products: 42.8% in 1995 and only 22.5% in 2010. The
loss of position of the European countries and, to a lesser extent, of
Japan and South Korea is clearly offset by the increasing significance
of Chinese and Indian imports; these, taken together, were irrelevant
in the context of Iran's exports in 1995 but they show China's growing
weight since then and India's as from 2006. As of 2007, Iranian exports
to China and India, as a whole, clearly exceed those to Europe.
Primary source: UNCTAD
Iranian gas export represented, in 2010, only 2.3% of total exports
against 79.3% of oil and refined products in the same year. In this
context, the relative importance of "developed" Europe represents
Iran's exports of oil and
oil products
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Developed Europe d China India Japan+South Korea Others

only 7.8% of the total, although it had greater representativeness in
recent years.
Primary source: UNCTAD
Next, let us evaluate the structure of imports by Europe and by the U.S.
to assess the dependence on Middle East suppliers based on data
collected from the Statistical Review of World Energy relating to 2010.
The overall crude or refined oil import by Europe and the U.S. has a
quantitative value of nearly 12094 thousand barrel per day in the first
case and 11689 thousand barrels per day by the U.S., for the 2010
reference year. The share of supplies from the Middle East is greater in
Europe than in the U.S. and therefore sanctions may lead to increased
dependence on Russia in the first case. Marked differences should also
be noted regarding the geographical position but essentially with
respect to the degree of concentration in the four main supplying
areas of Europe on one hand and of the U.S. on the other hand.
(%)
Europe U.S.
Former USSR 49,5 Canada 21,7
Middle East 19,5 S & Cent. America 18,9
Iran's gas exports
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Developed Europe China India Japan+South Korea Others

North Africa 13,9 Middle East 14,8
West Africa 7,6 West Africa 14,4
Others 9,6 Others 30,2
It is doubtful whether the U.S. want to get involved in a new war of
great territorial and temporal extension and its European allies, even
less, since the Empire wars are not popular in Europe. Moreover, in the
intervention in Libya, the European actors have shown that they had
not a suitable facility and they could not even maintain an adequate
supply of ammunition to the war front21.
When speaking about war, upon landing on the Troika's Iberian
colony, it is unavoidable to remember that all submarines have doors,
the case of Minister Portas being the only one that reminds you of
submarines.
Portas, with his excited preacher manners looks like a Torquemada
exhorting to the burning of the Iranian infidels or the protagonist of a
popular festival of lies, benefiting from the ignorance or subservience
of the Portuguese journalism in geopolitical matters. We, in Portugal, all
also remember the manifestation of his catholic fundamentalism
against the so-called "love boat" transporting activists in defence of
abortion, in 2005, casting him into ridicule as he sent two gunboats
against it… because the famous submarines ordered to German
shipyards, had not entered in operation.
- - - - -- - - - -- ----------
The present text and others in:
http://pt.scribd.com/people/documents/2821310
http://www.slideshare.net/durgarrai/documents
http://grazia-tanta.blogspot.com/
21
http://www.presseurop.eu/pt/content/article/714431-europa-sem-armas-face-
crises

the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (9)

Ähnlich wie the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east

Ähnlich wie the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east (14)

Mehr von GRAZIA TANTA

Mehr von GRAZIA TANTA (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

the empire's warlike manoeuvres in the middle east