There’s a new “Great Game” underway in Central Asia,
and the stakes could not be higher...

As the world gathered in Beijing, Bush and Putin both on hand to witness the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games, pieces began moving on a strategic chessboard in Central Asia in a game that will have dramatic repercussions.

After five years of an aggressive campaign against “terrorism” the US has succeeded in realizing a long held strategic aim: control over 80% of the world’s oil and gas reserves--or have they?. As early as  the late 1970s,  Zibigniew Brezezinski came to the conclusion that Central Asia was the future key to global primacy for the US. In a his 1997 book THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, he wrote: “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” His book urged a policy to identify the key states that would allow power projection into the region, which he called “the Central Asian Balkans,” and then the formulation of “specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above...” He went on to clearly identify the prize at stake in this new global chess game: “The Eurasian Balkans (The Central Asian States of Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Turkmenistan, etc)  are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold."

Brezezinski’s interest in the region is long entrenched from his days as National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81). At that time, the old “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union had an ironclad hold on access to Central Asian Oil. Its southernmost provinces all bordered on the Caspian Sea. The USSR was, in fact, in a commanding position in the region, with easy access to Central Asia by land and rail, and a network of airfields to provide cover for any planned military move. The old US and British plan to halt Soviet expansion to the Persian Gulf so that oil could be controlled by the  West was about to face its most severe challenge yet in 1979-81 when Russia invaded Afghanistan. Today, as then, the stakes remain the same--control of oil and gas.

With the issue in Afghanistan in doubt, the West’s only access to the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin are now centered on a 1000 mile pipeline through the Caucasus Republic of Georgia. So while the torch of peace was lit in Beijing, the rumble of war began again in Georgia when the republic sent its army against the Russian backed separatists in South Ossetia. Putin call the outbreak of violence regrettable and “sad” and immediately indicated a response was required. It came in a column of Russian armor, some 150 tanks backed by truckloads of infantry, all coming to support Russian “peacekeepers” who have been watching the simmering kettle in Georgia for some time.  The speed of the Russian response, just a day after Georgian troops stormed the separatist capitol if Tskhinvali, made it clear that their military units had been pre-positoned to enter South Ossetia, where the important Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline transits the region. Clearly the Bear was not caught sleeping this time.

Russia’s interest? All other routes for delivery of Caspian Oil and Gas must now go through Iran or Russian territory. Georgia is the only route over soil friendly to Western interests. While the Bear has been hibernating in its long sleep of recovery after the collapse of the Soviet Union, look what western nations have helped themselves to in terms of lucrative oil and gas development contracts in the Caspian Basin. 16 US, 8 British and 12 European nations have contracts. Russia, the former “owner” of the entire region, has but 2. Even Japan has 5 companies involved. So Russia’s recent signing of a major deal on natural gas in Iran must also be seen in light of the new “Great Game” that has been underway in the region for years, decades in fact. Russia and the West have been struggling for strategic control here since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the Carter Presidency—an event that also took place during the Olympics. Carter’s response was to boycott the Olympic games. Bush and Cheney, with the reins of power slowly slipping from their grasp, may not be so weak kneed. This is their final hour; their last chance at seizing or at least securing the prize Brezezinski was writing about.

It was the Russian occupation, and eventual defeat in Afghanistan that was a prelude to their collapse as a great power. Now we seem to have a strange echo of the conflict, only this time it is the US occupying Afghanistan as the American economy teeters on the brink of implosion. The echoes of history are quite haunting.

It would therefore be a mistake to dismiss the outbreak of fighting in Georgia as nothing more than another squabble in the Caucasus. The US, (and Israel), has provided military training and both political and economic support to Georgia in recent years. Israeli interest is not simple fealty to the US, but economic. There is a proposal to transport oil from the BTC pipeline via the Israeli oil terminals at Ashkelon and Eilat, the overland trans-Israel sector being controlled by the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline owned by the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC). Russia has been intent on bringing the region back under its control.

With the Taliban insurgency preventing construction of pipelines through Afghanistan--after all that was what led to the collapse of Enron--Georgia’s importance as an access point to the Caspian Basin increased dramatically after the fall of the Soviet Union. According to Wikepedia: “The pipeline starts from the Sangachal Terminal near Baku in Azerbaijan. The route of the pipeline crosses Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to Ceyhan. The pipeline's destination is the Ceyhan Marine Terminal (Haydar Aliyev Terminal) on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Of its total length of 1,768 kilometers (1,099 mi), 443 kilometers (275 mi) lie in Azerbaijan, 249 kilometers (155 mi) in Georgia and 1,076 kilometers (669 mi) in Turkey.”

The Neo-Con plan, outlined clearly in publications by the “Project For A New American Century,” all focused on the necessity of linking the strategic resources of the Caspian Basin to those of the Persian Gulf, under US or Western control. To succeed, control of the transit routes for this oil and gas must be maintained, which is why the US has been cozy with many of the small Central Asian breakaway republics after the fall of the Soviet Union. With Russian influence minimized, the opportunity to realize Brezezinski’s dream became a reality. But what would justify such a major shift of US foreign policy and military assets into the region? The answer came on September 11, 2001.

The US gambit under Bush and Cheney, using 9/11 as a pretext, was: 1) to invade Afghanistan, establishing bases in Central Asia and flanking Iran to the north and east. 2)  Invade Iraq, securing its vast reserves of light sweet crude, flanking Iran to the south and west and driving a wedge between Iran and its ally Syria. The grand prize was Iran itself. “Yes, we can go to Baghdad , but real men go to Tehran,” went the Neo-Con mantra. They have been planning their return ever since the ouster of the Shah and the rise of a hostile regime there under a more radical Islamic government. All of the belligerent Bush rhetoric concerning the non-existent Iranian “nukes” has been in the service of this goal. The threats, the sanctions, the military strike options that have been discussed about Iran for years, all aim to secure this last great prize in the eight year Neo-Con romp through history on the back of the Bush presidency.

Russia, weakened and embittered after its internal collapse, has made a remarkable recovery, largely based on the strength of its energy position in the world. Gazprom, the Exxon-Mobil of Russia, is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world, with over 16% of all known reserves. It is instrumental in providing natural gas to the Ukraine and other European countries, all through pipelines it controls on its sovereign territory. The Russians have sat on the sidelines as America flexed its military might in Afghanistan and Iraq, but all that is about to change. Recent months have seen Russian missiles retargeted to Europe, Russian Backfire bombers positioned in the south to cover the Caspian and Persian Gulf regions, the return of Russian naval escadras to the Eastern Med, including their prize carrier Admiral Kuznetzov,  and the latest move, the invasion of Georgia, perhaps aimed at cutting the last Western link to Caspian Oil and Gas the US has been courting since 9/11. The entire focus of the Bush-Cheney administration has been about influence and control of the oil and gas of the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia, once out maneuvered, defeated and dismissed, is now back in the game.

So as Bush and Putin chatted in the Olympic bleachers, Russian tanks were moving south into Georgia. The scale of the Russian response to Georgia’s aggressive attempt to cement South Ossetia was quite telling. Russian intelligence was clearly ready to react to an provocation. The 58th Army was on alert and moved rapidly to support South Ossetia with elements of the 20th Guards, 19th and 42nd Motor Rifle Divisions. These forces were joined by units of the Russian 76th and 98th Airborne Divisions and the 45th  Spetsnaz (Special Operations) Reconnaissance Regiment. The three Georgian brigades supported by a single independent T-72 tank battalion were no match for such overwhelming force, particularly considering that the Russians used extensive air support as well.  A Russian version of the “Powell Doctrine” was clearly evident. They had no intention of committing lighter forces that may become embroiled in any protracted fighting in Georgia, a lesson the West should clearly note.

The US Response? Two more US Carrier battlegroups were rushing to reinforce CVBG Lincoln in the North Arabian Sea.  CVBG Ronald Reagan has left Japan and is now headed for the Gulf, and CVBG Roosevelt, fresh from its war game off the Carolina coast dubbed “Operation Brimstone,” is now heading east into the Atlantic, also bound for the Gulf.  It will be accompanied by the British Carrier Ark Royal, French naval units and US Marines on the carrier Iwo Jima, joining a similar MEU on Pelilu, already deployed to the Gulf. Russia is back. Two great powers are now both flexing their muscles again in the region, and the stakes could not be higher.

The US Navy is not likely to use assets in the North Arabian Sea to oppose Russian advances in Georgia. These ships would be best positioned in the Eastern Med to bring and credible pressure on the Georgian crisis. That they are bound for the Gulf region is telling, and speculation abounds that a blockade of Iran is the next step in the Bush-Cheney sanctions. Such a blockade would be an act of war under international law, but then again, while Bush roundly condemns Russia in Georgia, the US apparently reserves the flouting of international law as its own special privilege.

Salon.com said it perfectly in their recent assessment of the crisis in Georgia: “The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar: Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary. It called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow. It championed a separatist movement as a way of asserting dominance in a region it coveted. Indeed, despite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's howls of outrage at Russian aggression in Georgia and the disputed province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration set a deep precedent for Moscow's actions -- with its own systematic assault on international law over the past seven years. Now, the administration's condemnations of Russia ring hollow.”

The inability of the US, or Israel, to do anything really substantial to support Georgia is also quite glaring, and Europe has been mute on the matter, too beholden to Gazprom for its natural gas. The Russian play in Georgia demonstrates a dramatic shift in strategic power in the region, particularly if the incident ends up unseating the current Georgian government. At the very least, they will prevent the dissident provinces from ever being re-integrated into Georgia. Other breakaway provinces in the region, like Armenia and Azerbaijan cannot help but notice the feeble US response to date--two C-17s loaded with humanitarian aid for displaced Georgian citizens. I cannot help but note that the two million Iraqi citizens displaced by Bush’s invasion are still sitting in Syria waiting for their aid package to arrive. Again, Bush’s feeble protests and chest thumping were pathetic in light of his own abysmal record.

 B A C K G R O U N D :  A History Lesson

The First Mistake - The US Overthrows Iran’s Elected Leader

Long before the great crisis, in the 1950s, US and British interests in the region were primarily focused on the Persian Gulf, and engaged in protecting those vital oil and gas reserves from a growing Soviet threat. At that time the  Anglo-Iranian Oil Company  (AIOC) had a stranglehold on petroleum development in Iran, and was the most profitable company in England, (much like our modern day Exxon/Mobil today,) but many Iranians looked at British influence with resentment. In 1951 they turned to “democracy” for redress and parliament elected Mohammed Mossadegh as their Prime Minister. When the new Prime Minister decided to nationalize Iran’s oil to limit foreign interference and control, he incurred the wrath of the two Western powers most interested in the region, Britain and the United States. Britain sent warships to the gulf, imposed sanctions on Iran and complained roundly in the World Court, but to no avail. At the last extreme, they planned to launch a military attack to seize their old refinery in Abadan, and secure the Iranian oil fields, but abandoned the plan when then President Truman failed to support it.

Yet elections have a way of quickly changing US policy in the world and, when Eisenhower was elected, the British floated the idea of overthrowing the recalcitrant Iranian government by coup. By couching their argument in geopolitical terms, they convinced Eisenhower, and his secretary of State Dulles, that the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to Iran. If Iran were to fall to the communists, the Soviet menace would have ports on the Persian Gulf! In the cold war environment of the 1950s, the argument was a seed that quickly fell on fertile ground. Shortly after taking office in January of 1953, the US and Britain launched “Operation Ajax,” a covert plan to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and install a new pro -Western leader who would perform two vital functions. For the aggrieved British, he would restore their control of the oil development, and for the Americans he would stand as a strong bulwark against Soviet expansion towards the gulf.  The United States had just launched itself on its first act of aggressive imperialism in the post WWII era, and its target was another democracy. Members of the Iranian parliament were bribed to pave the way, CIA controlled mobs staged riotous protests in the streets to feed the world media, key generals in the army were removed or replaced to prevent the Iranian government from obtaining their support. It was a sad day for democracy, and the first of many sad days to come when the interests of oil and gas companies and world politics trumped the ideals that our country was founded on. The realities of “geopolitik” overshadowed the lofty words of our constitution and laid the groundwork for seven decades of turmoil in the middle east.

For a while, however, the plan seemed to work. The Soviet tide was held at bay when the US armed the Shah of Iran and tolerated the repression of the Savak secret service, which ruthlessly ensured his hold on power. Yet the very same resentment that had inspired the Iranians to turn to democracy for redress continued to simmer—only now against both Britain and the United States. The two greatest democracies of the West were, in fact and practice, embracing and supporting a repressive dictatorship. It did not take long for the repercussions to force the pendulum of history in an undesirable direction, only this time it was not democracy, but revolution that would be used to throw off the yoke of Western influence and interference.

Some historians believe that the Old Soviet Union and KGB were deeply involved in the rebellion that threw down the Shah of Iran. Others feel that the Iranian revolution brought by Khomeni was the inevitable result of the Shah’s oppression. Democracy had failed in Iran—rather, it had been betrayed by its strongest advocates in the world, and stolen from the Iranian people in suitcases full of bribe money to fuel CIA sponsored “Black Operations.” Revolution would now rage in its stead, and the old Soviet ambitions to push for the warm “blue waters” of the Persian Gulf, where another great prize in oil and gas lay unprotected, would find new life and opportunity.

The inevitable result of this Western meddling in the affairs of an oil rich nation was a popular backlash against the West. In CIA terms, the effect is called “Blowback,” an undesirable result of covert operations that end up having the opposite effect. In this case, the same forces that had placed Mossadegh into power to nationalize Iran’s oil and curtail Western interference now turned to another champion-- and we got the Iranian Revolution. They would achieve in the streets what they could not achieve by the ballot box. The Ayatollah Khomeni was the result.  In 1979 he overthrew the Shah and assumed power in Iran, and the crisis of the Middle East that has plagued our lifetime entered a dangerous new stage.

With the Caspian basin well in hand and the Western dam breached in Iran, the Soviet Union shocked the world that same year by invading Afghanistan on President Jimmy Carter’s watch. While Soviet troops rolled south, Americans first became acquainted with the radicalized elements of Islam in our first real crisis with “terrorism.” America was “Held Hostage,” nightly, on the television show that later would become Ted Koppel’s “Nightline.” Now the waters of the Persian Gulf finally rolled up on unfriendly shores. Beyond that, OPEC flexed its might and caused a severe oil crisis in the West with its oil embargo. Many Americans still remember the unprecedented rationing of gasoline, where you could only buy fuel on “odd” or “even” days.

Here is a map, showing the dominant position of the Soviet Union as the Carter presidency evaporated in the Fall of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The threat to the Persian Gulf was now clear and obvious to Western strategists. In Afghanistan, the Russians quickly controlled the key cities and installed a pro-communist government, (much like the US has recently done in Iraq and Afghanistan). The problem was that the insurgency continued to fight, forcing the Soviets to abandon conventional tactics and begin relying on Helicopters and light forces to suppress the Mujahadin. The US countered with shipments of Stinger AA missiles that soon neutralized the Soviet Hind-24 attack helicopter. Suddenly, in spite of overwhelming military superiority, the Soviets realized they could not win the war, or maintain control of Afghanistan. The war had drained their strength, and the fall of the “Evil Empire” was soon at hand.

The strategic situation depicted above was dire indeed. NATO member Turkey and little Israel seemed surrounded in a sea of Red. Iraq was neutral, opposed to Iran, yet allied with the other Arab countries hostile to Israel. Egypt and Yemen were Soviet “Client States” choking off the Suez canal and Gulf of Aden. Western leaning Saudi Arabia, (whose leadership was installed by the British after WWI), was feeling increasingly threatened.  US ships in the Arabian sea were shadowed by Soviet escadras and silent squadrons of attack submarines...and oh yes, the Soviets completely controlled the Caspian Basin region and its immense reserves of oil and gas. It was all in “their country,” and to have any future stake in the development and resources there, job one was to make the region someone else’s country.

Blowback, from the covert operation that unseated democracy in Iran led to near disaster. It was a nightmare that promised more bad days ahead… unless something was done. Strategic thinkers in the West were soon to answer the challenge, however, when another Republican president, Ronald Reagan, replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981. One such plan came to view the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan not as a defeat for the West, but as a great opportunity. Zibigniew Brezezinski summed up the idea in saying that the Russians would be subjected to “a death of a thousand cuts” in Afghanistan. The United States was in no position to directly invade and oppose the Soviets there, but instead, they chose to arm, train and support the Afghan insurgents resisting the large Russian army occupying the country. The Mujahadin, the holy fighters, were born, and among them was a man named Bin Ladin.

Brezezinski remained involved in the shaping of US policy as a member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Ronald Reagan. He has also served as Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force in 1988.

The strategy he helped shape, however, was a bit like playing with fire. In order to combat Soviet communism, the US resorted to arming the Afghan Mujahadin. Then, amazingly, as the Soviet Union collapsed and the threat to the region eased, the US abandoned the Afghans, and turned its focus on the Persian Gulf. It’s intention now was to neutralize the radical influence of the Khomeni regime and prevent any move by Iran against the gulf. To do this the US exploited the natural regional rivalry between Iran and Iraq...and 8 years of war and deception were the result.

Once again, the US resorted to the “Strong Man” theory to exercise influence in the region. Backed again by the CIA, a man named Saddam assumed full control of the Iraqi government by coup. He purged opposition, got friendly with the US, had his country removed from the US terrorist sponsor list in 1979, received cordial visits from a man named Rumsfeld, received arms shipments and....surprise...launched a war against Iran! It was a long, bloody 8 year struggle. Over 2 million were killed. The battle lines shifted back and forth like WWI trench lines, but Saddam was slowly losing under the weight of Iran’s population, more than triple that of Iraq. Then, Ronald Reagan quietly began another covert operation aimed at keeping the pot stewing. Reagan secretly traded arms to Iran to secure US hostages and then used the money to fund anti-communist “contras” in Central America. The deception embittered Saddam, so the US sent him a trump card--chemical and biological weapons. He used them to force a stalemate in the war, turning back the tide of Iranian revolutionary guards with mustard gas and VX nerve agents. Eventually a peace was signed, but Saddam never forgot how he was manipulated by the US. He decided to “punish” America by using oil as a weapon.

As the #2 nation for proven oil reserves on earth, Iraq began to trade lucrative oil contracts with countries like France, Germany, Russia and China. The old masters of Iranian and Iraqi oil, Britain and the US, were locked out. This was the cardinal sin insofar as the US and Britain were concerned. It was the very same sin that old Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran committed, leading to his overthrow in “Operation Ajax.” Blowback, the unintended negative effect of covert meddling in foreign affairs, was again in high summer. It was now time for “regime change” in Iraq. Saddam, America’s strongman and war foil  against Iran, was now a liability of the highest order. He was no longer playing ball.

At the same time the remnants of the Mujahadin fighters in Afghanistan had become radicalized by the Islamic fundamentalism sweeping the region. They soon came to be called the “Taliban”  or “students” of this new, radial view of Islam. While they cemented power there, new discoveries of huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Basin set a new price on the region. Exxon/Mobil, Enron  and other companies were quick to respond (See the opening map which details the pipeline routes). With the fall of the Soviet union, the newly created independent countries of Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Georgia took on prime importance. They were all struggling states, many ruled by oppressive dictators, holdovers from their days in the Soviet Union. The promise of hefty US oil company investment for development of the oil, and major pipelines to move it to market, were dangled before these regimes, including the  Taliban. The pipelines leading to the Caspian basin could go through Afghanistan and Pakistan...where a man named Bin Ladin, an ex- Mujahadin leader, has set up a group of radicalized fighters called “Al Qaeda.” (The foundation or base).

The seeds of blowback were already sprouting when the Taliban refused to go along with US oil company plans for the region. It was decided that “regime change” was needed in Afghanistan as well, and the US pulled old contingency plans off the shelves to consider its options for intervention... (well before 9/11). Both Saddam and the Taliban must go...but how? Should the US try assassination, covert ops? Should we support the “Northern Alliance” against the Taliban? Should pressure be put on another “strong man” in the region, “President” Musharaf of Pakistan, an army general who seized control of that country’s struggling democracy by military coup in 1999?

Then something happened that created the perfect contingency. 19 Arab hijackers flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon--a major terrorist attack that made Jimmy Carter’s hostage crisis seem like nursery school. It happened on the watch of President George Bush, (II), the son of an ex-CIA chief and oil family man from Texas. His administration was, in fact, heavily staffed at the highest levels with ex-CEOs and executives of the very same oil and gas companies who were having “difficulty” in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban would not play ball, and the pipeline project through Afghanistan went belly up. Saddam would not play ball and he was soon giving all the oil development contracts in Iraq to France, Russia and China! Some simply had to be done...and it was, ignoring the protests of those same three countries in the UN.

With the shock of 9/11 to propel the policy, the US quickly invaded and overthrew the Taliban, who melted away into the hills and villages to wait for another day. The Bush regime then offered the dire threat of WMD development in Iraq as a pretext for “pre-emptive war.”  It was later proven to be completely false, but then, most pretexts for war are false by nature. The invasion was launched with every confidence inspired by the first clash with the Iraqi army in 1991. The first Gulf war was a 100 hour affair. There was every reason to expect that this invasion would go swimmingly well-- and, at first glance,  it did. Take a look at the map now!

The current map shows key areas of US intervention and new military base developments. The US has driven a huge wedge into the region, strategically separating and flanking both Iran and Syria at the same time. It has protected the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and now has a network of troop deployments and bases that completely surround Iran. The wayward strongman in Iraq has been replaced by a fledgling “democracy” that came to power after a heated and controversial election. The same is true of Afghanistan...But look closer , neither Iraq nor Afghanistan can be colored “green” just yet. There are still disturbing shades of red and orange on the map there, and something has gone terribly wrong.

The aftermath of the invasion first sounded the hollow tone of blowback once again. When rioting and looting started after Saddam fell, it was first characterized as the jubilant outcry of an oppressed people yearning for freedom. It soon became apparent, however, that the disorder was not to be replaced by a new order of our own making. A new government was set up under Prime Minister Allawi, who has had close ties to the CIA and MI6 since fleeing Iraq years ago. (Sound familiar?) Rumsfeld was back again, directing the military plan that removed Saddam, but somehow chaos was the only result.  Instead of passive “freedom loving” citizens of a new nation, Iraq has become a magnet and massive catalyst for the radical Islamic movements of the region. A third of the country, the old US bulldogs, the Sunnis, were soon in open revolt, and most of the cities there were entirely outside the control of the US backed government. Not even Baghdad was safe, where the government hunkered down in an enclave called the “Green Zone” and came under regular mortar fire. Car bombs exploded on a daily basis, kidnapping and crime were rampant, foreign news reporters were virtually imprisoned in a few guarded hotels, unable to venture out to cover events in the country. The roads were perilous to travel, even for well armed US Army convoys that were regularly attacked by roadside bombs and ambushed...And this went on for five years.

In Afghanistan the Karsai government had control of Kabul, but little else. The US maintained a few strongholds there in places like the old Soviet air base at Baghram. The warlords have reasserted their authority over 80% of the countryside and, among them, the Taliban have returned to control large swathes of territory, unopposed. The opium trade is flourishing, providing money and keeping nefarious contacts with the underworld alive. And Iran... Iran, surrounded, edgy, belligerent, has supposedly resorted to a crash program to acquire a nuclear deterrent,  test firing the missiles to deliver it anywhere in the region. IAEA inspectors, like those sent to Iraq, have discovered no evidence of any real weapons program in Iran, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Bush invokes the nuclear threat, the same old pretext used to invade Iraq, and the game is on.

Just as the Shah was replaced by radical Islamic movements, the very same forces are fomenting the insurgency in Iraq. While the overthrow of Mossadegh may have seemed the right geopolitical move at the time, to secure the oil for Britain and the US, look at the unintended blowback effect of that intervention!  It does not take a genius to see that very same effect at work again in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Once again, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a glowing move in geopolitical terms. It further isolated the Russians from the region, it secured access to the resources of the Caspian Basin, and oh yes, it re-assigned all the oil and gas contracts there to the US and Britain.

But the old maxim is apparently true: that “those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.”

What will the unintended consequences of this mismanaged war in Iraq and Afghanistan be? Something tells me it will be severe, undesirable and possibly catastrophic. One can only think of Yeats at a time like this, when he wrote: “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” The Russian troops entering Georgia are backed by a nation that does indeed have a nuclear option. This “beast” may end up having a nuclear bite, and it may make the events of 9/11 seem like nothing more than an inconsequential prelude.

Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen. The Neo-Cons, their strategy so roundly discredited and badly managed, are about to make one last move in the game. If the US fleet assembling now in the CENTCOM region has a mind to blockade Iran, the result will make the war in Georgia pale by comparison. Iran will certainly move to close the straits of Hormuz, as they have clearly stated in recent months. All it will take is damage to a few big tankers to make their point. Should a US warship be targeted or hit, it could prompt a major escalation, and  the fate of the US economy, now teetering on the brink of collapse, may be decided by the outcome.

LESSON SUMMARY:

IRAN This guy wouldn’t let the US and UK manage Iran’s Oil, So... The CIA and MI6 overthrew the government and put in this guy. IRAQ This guy was helped to power by the CIA to fight with Khomeni but, after the war was over, he wouldn’t let the US and UK manage Iraq’s Oil, So... Maliki   The CIA, MI6 and US Army overthrew the government and put in this guy. Which resulted in this guy taking power in Iran, and the loss of the oil contracts that started the whole thing. Which may very well result in this guy taking power in Iraq, and the loss of the oil contracts that started the whole thing. One might think that a foreign policy aimed at making sure we control all the oil and gas contracts is...well...not a good idea? There are many, however, who bristle at the notion that oil and gas lie at the root of all these incredible US interventions in the region. They immediately claim that our real intention is to spread “freedom and democracy.” If that is so, we have a profoundly disturbing way of going about it. America has befriended tyrants and dictators, offered bribes, co-opted resources, monopolized development contracts, conducted assassinations and covert operations, staged riots, enforced crippling economic sanctions, fomented war, shipped arms (even WMDs), overthrown elected governments and launched wholesale invasions of nations in the region with the same claim that Wilson first uttered in WWI: that America was “keeping the world safe for democracy.” Along the way we have also discarded the Geneva Conventions, instituted programs of “rendition” and torture, struck down Habeus Corpus, set up military tribunals, and began sweeping programs aimed at spying on Internet and telephone traffic to and within the US. No one argues that it is not a good thing to have democracy flourish in this troubled region, but democracy does not appear to be the primary motive for US policy in the area. Even if it were, the methods outlined above are not the way the world’s leading democracy should go about spreading its ideals and values. Let’s face it: the only reason--the ONLY reason we focus our freedom loving energies on the Middle East and Central Asia is because of the vast energy resources there. You don’t see the US flooding Africa with armies out to set the oppressed masses free. Millions die there without the slightest notice or coverage in the Western press,  because there is simply no significant energy resource base in Africa that our oil hungry economy covets. So we are out to install “democracy” elsewhere--and one has only to follow the projected plans for pipelines and oil and gas development by our major energy corporations to find out where. Unfortunately, the US record (after WWII) when it attempts to “install” democracies by covert or overt means is dismal indeed. One has only to look at the results in Indochina and the Middle East! Those who think the US is justified with these bungling and lawless interventions on foreign soil in the name of “freedom” should realize that true democracy always grows from within. It arises from a people, who must embrace it and carry it forward with their own lives and blood until they achieve it by themselves. We can help and support that effort, but democracy can NEVER be imposed from without--and if we truly value “freedom” for others in the world, then we must let them choose the government they want without interference from the CIA and the US military. Given our bullying and bungling track record, is it any wonder that other nations who do not see eye to eye with us are desperate to acquire a nuclear deterrent?  - Article by: John Schettler (2004) - Updated August 2008

Contact Us Here