Iran Military Forum

War clouds over the Greater Middle East

I am afraid, I share the same view looking at how things are going!

It appears that Obama is only thinking of his re-election bid and remains oblivious to America’s meandering foreign policy

    By Patrick Seale | Special to Gulf News
    Published: 00:00 June 29, 2012


Six conflict-zones of the greater Middle East are in danger of erupting into fresh violence. In all six, the US and its allies seem unable — or perversely unwilling — to contribute to a peaceful solution. Instead, in each case, they are adding fuel to the fire.

When President Barack Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009, he had a chance to put an end to America’s 30-year estrangement with Iran. There was even talk of a ‘grand bargain’ which would have resolved fears about Iran’s nuclear programme and stabilised the Gulf by recognising Iran’s legitimate place and role in it. There was also a chance that US engagement with Iran would calm Sunni-Shiite tensions across the region brought to boiling point by the Iraq war.

These hopes have proved vain. Instead, the US has chosen to wage an undeclared war on Iran. It is crippling its economy by means of sanctions and has joined with Israel in subverting its nuclear and oil installations with cyber-attacks.

Moreover, in this year’s three rounds of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the so-called P5+1), the US has refused to compromise. A deal was on offer whereby Iran would give up enriching uranium to 20 per cent in exchange for an easing of sanctions and a recognition of its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to master the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. Instead, the US has hardened its position by embracing Israel’s demand that Iran be forced, by means of further sanctions and military threats, to suspend all enrichment.

Undercutting peace plan

In piling on the pressure, the real goal of the US and its Israeli ally would seem to be regime-change in Tehran, rather than putting an end by negotiation to Iran’s so far non-existent nuclear weapons programme. Israel’s friends in the US Congress are already pressing the Obama administration to suspend the talks with Iran and resort instead to military measures.

Just as Israel’s friends in George W. Bush’s administration pushed the US into destroying Iraq, so the aim now would seem to be to push the US into destroying Iran. Needless to say, if Iran is pressed too hard, the danger of a hot war breaking out is ever present.

The US has also entered the fray in Syria, where the beleaguered Al Assad regime is facing a widespread urban guerrilla war together with terrorist attacks — suicide bombings, assassinations, destruction of public buildings — in large cities, including Damascus.

All the major US media — Fox News, Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal — have reported that CIA officers in southern Turkey are ‘coordinating’ arms shipments from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the Syrian rebels, especially, it would appear, to armed Islamic groups. Needless to say, arming the opposition is undercutting Kofi Annan’s peace plan for Syria.

It is Russia rather than the US that is calling most urgently for a negotiated settlement of the crisis. In the Huffington Post of June 21, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov wrote: “We need to bring all the weight to bear on both the regime and the opposition and make them cease fighting and meet at the negotiating table”.

He called for the convening of “an international conference of the states directly involved in the Syrian crisis... Only in this way can we keep the Middle East from sliding into the abyss of wars and anarchy”.

Lavrov rightly sees the assault on Syria as “an element of a larger regional geopolitical game”. Indeed, instead of joining Russia in pressing for an evolutionary transition of power in Syria, the US has adopted as its own the Israeli ambition of bringing down the whole so-called ‘resistance axis’ of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, which has dared make a dent in Israel’s regional hegemony.

Campaigning for re-election and under intense pressure from the Israeli lobby and from a pro-Israeli Congress, Obama is silent when it comes to Israel’s continuing land grab on the West Bank and the unpunished violence of fanatical colonists against helpless Palestinians. Just as he has lost control to Israel of US foreign policy when it comes to Iran, so Obama has collapsed in front of the Greater Israel ambitions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Some commentators are already predicting the outbreak of a third intifada. Palestinian frustrations are very great. They know that Israel will not grant them a state unless it is forced to do so. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has protected Israel from Palestinian militants but has received absolutely nothing in return.

His Hamas rivals in Gaza have, for their part, been greatly encouraged by the election to the Egyptian presidency of Mohammad Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood. The coming phase could be very bloody.

Unforeseen consequences

The fourth, fifth and sixth conflict-zones in the Greater Middle East are in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Yemen, and increasingly in the Sahel, where Nato’s violent overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi has had the unforeseen consequence of spreading mayhem in Mali, Niger and other countries bordering the Sahara. Hungry violent men, once recruited as mercenaries by Gaddafi, have now returned home with their weapons. In Mali, the northern half of the country has fallen to a Tawareq rebellion stiffened by armed Muslim groups close to Al Qaida.

Algeria and all the West African states are deeply concerned by these developments but do not quite know what to do about them. It will no doubt not be long before US drones carry out targeted assassinations in the region.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, long-distance killings by US drones have become the instruments of choice in America’s counter-terrorist operations, to the rage of local populations and the loss of legitimacy of their leaders. In American thinking, drones and cyberwarfare are now a substitute for large-scale military operations — and also a substitute for negotiations and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

In Pakistan, a Taliban commander has banned polio vaccinations in the tribal belt of North Waziristan until the CIA halts its drone campaign. This is because a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, helped the CIA find Osama Bin Laden by running a vaccination campaign in Abbottabad, which led them to Bin Laden’s hiding place in that city, and his subsequent killing by US Special forces in May last year. Dr Afridi has been convicted by a tribal court in Pakistan to 33 years in prison.

American practices of doubtful legality have provoked a despairing cry from former president Jimmy Carter who, in an article in the International Herald Tribune of June 25, declared: ‘As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.’

Is Obama listening? Or is he thinking only of his re-election?

Patrick Seale is a commentator and author of several books on Middle East affairs, Al Assad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/war-clouds-over-the-greater-middle-east-1.1041714

There will be no hot overt war.  The current modus operandi driven by current econogeopolitical conditions dictates a covert cold war mixed in with internal rebellions.  Ongoing events point to that.

Mamdali

You're stopping half way in your description of the ongoing events in the region. Economic, political and covert military action has always led to war. Libya and Syria are current examples, and Iraq and Afghanistan are somewhat older ones. Unless their cold war does not result in a popular uprising they will follow with conventional military strikes. Frankly, there is no need for the USA to wage a cold war against a country it dominates by conventional means.

Mamdali jan, as you know, my point was that the USA dominates Iran by conventional means whereas Iran has the upper hand in unconventional warfare. Why would the USA play on Iran's terms?  Furthermore, the only reason why Iran accepts the current sanctions and covert actions is because it has to. These are all declarations of war by the USA and their pushing it until all hell breaks loose.

I'm simply saying that, as things are developing now, war is inevitable. The western agenda  and strategy ought to be very clear by now. The only good that can come out of this is that Iran is pushed into developing a nuclear weapon. Only then will there be some balance of power and stability in the region.

One thing's sure; the empire needs to use these fake fears in order to rule over people. There will be no such thing as "strategic strikes", a war with Iran would amount to a total war in which case if nukes are to be employed there will be very grave consequences. I do not support any idea of having a nuclear arsenal, indeed I think all nukes should be eradicated from the surface of this planet. On the other hand countries should protect themselves from a bunch of goons and crackpots who like playing with the nuclear push button...

Only BBC. RT has good coverage, and seems honest.

BCC??? honest??? Never thought I'd find those two words in the same sentence / context..The BBC's way of dishing out warmongering propaganda is a lot more subtle and skilled..Listening to them makes me wanna puke..

Having said that, it's true all the ingredients of  major regional war are slowly being put in place..The major one was the downing of that Turkish plane..Erdogan needed the pretext and he's now got it..

We should always look at the latest regional development in a wider context..The turning point(according to me) was 2006. You see, the US wants regime change in Iran at all cost..The problem is, it's not possible to attack Iran militarily at this moment where Iran has friends in the region that are also armed and will not hesitate to get involved, making the war more costly for the US and her allies.

To weaken Iran, the US and her allies must first take out Iran's allies in the region thereby reducing the military risk they may face in any direct confrontation with Iran. The decision to attack Hezbollah in 2006 was mainly about this..But unfortunately for them, their attack dog(Zionist Israel) was badly beaten which even resulted in the subsequent further rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon..The victory of Hezbollah was due in part by both Syria and Iran.

Since the Hezbollah option didn't work, they've decided to take out Syria..Taking Syria will have two effects..It'll definitely weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon and put more pressure on Iran to make stupid concessions to the West which will eventually lead to the same result, regime change!!!

It was easy for them to attack Iraq because Saddam has no regional ally to rely on for support.. Taking out Saddam was peanuts.

To the Radical "Sunni" Angle

The US and allies have calculated the price to achieve regional hegemony is worth every effort, even if the side effects are bad for them. The strategy now is to empower radical "Sunni" groups across the region to implement their goal. This is due to the sheer hatred by these "Sunni" radicals of anything Shiite! They're told all their problems is due to the Shiites in the region. They hate Shiites more than they hate the Zionist regime so they make perfect candidates for this project..So we see more bombing of Shiites in Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen etc...Sunni radicals take their meme from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and other Wahhabi brainwashed monarchies.

For Iran and concerned regional forces to counter this, they must go after the heads these monarchies.They're the paymasters. Taking out their foot soldiers don't really make much difference.Go after their masters!!!