A
tectonic shift in the geopolitical map could occur next year, with Iran
finally emerging as the real superpower in Southwest Asia.
The big story of 2014 will be Iran. Of course, the big story of the
early 21st century will never stop being US-China, but it's in 2014 that
we will know whether a comprehensive accord transcending the Iranian
nuclear program is attainable; and in this case the myriad ramifications
will affect all that's in play in the New Great Game in Eurasia,
including US-China.
As it stands, we have an interim deal of the P5+1 (the UN Security
Council's five permanent members plus Germany) with Iran, and no deal
between the US and Afghanistan. So, once again, we have Afghanistan
configured as a battleground between Iran and the House of Saud, part of
a geopolitical game played out in overdrive since the US invasion of
Iraq in 2003 along the northern rim of the Middle East all the way to
Khorasan and South Asia
Then there's the element of Saudi paranoia, extrapolating from the
future of Afghanistan to the prospect of a fully "rehabilitated" Iran
becoming accepted by Western political/financial elites. This, by the
way, has nothing to do with that fiction, the "international community";
after all, Iran was never banished by the BRICS, (ie Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa), the Non-Aligned Movement and the bulk of
the developing world.
Those damned jihadis
Every major player in the Barack Obama administration has warned
Afghan President Hamid Karzai that either he signs a bilateral "security
agreement" authorizing some ersatz of the US occupation or Washington
will withdraw all of its troops by the end of 2014.
Wily puppet Karzai will milk this for all it's worth - as in
extracting hardcore concessions. Yet, whatever happens, Iran will
maintain if not enlarge its sphere of influence in Afghanistan. This
intersection of Central and South Asia is geopolitically crucial for
Iranian to project power, second only to Southwest Asia (what we call
the "Middle East").
We should certainly expect the House of Saud to keep using every
nasty trick available to the imagination of Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin
Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, to manipulate Sunnis all across AfPak with a
target of, essentially, preventing Iran from projecting power.
But Iran can count on a key ally, India. As Delhi accelerates its
security cooperation with Kabul, we reach the icing on the Hindu Kush;
India, Iran and Afghanistan developing their southern branch of the New
Silk Road, with a special niche for the highway connecting Afghanistan
to the Iranian port of Chabahar (Afghanistan meets the Indian Ocean).
So watch out for all sorts of interpolations of an Iran-India
alliance pitted against a Saudi-Pakistani axis. This axis has been
supporting assorted Islamists in Syria - with nefarious results; but
because Pakistan has also been engulfed in appalling violence against
Shi'ites, Islamabad won't be too keen to be too closely aligned with the
House of Saud in AfPak.
Washington and Tehran for their part happen to be once more aligned
(remember 2001?) in Afghanistan; neither one wants hardcore jihadis
roaming around. Even Islamabad - which for all practical purposes has
lost all its leverage with the Taliban in AfPak - would like jihadis to
go up in smoke.
All these players know that any number of remaining US forces and
swarms of contractors will not fill the power vacuum in Kabul. The whole
thing is bound to remain murky, but essentially the scenario points to
the Central-South Asia crossroads as the second-largest geopolitical -
and sectarian - battleground in Eurasia after the Levantine-Mesopotamian
combo.
Zero energy from our neighbor?
As much as India, Iraq is also in favor of a comprehensive deal with
Iran. And to think that Iran and Iraq might have been engaged in a
silent nuclear arms race with one another at the end of the last
century, just for Baghdad now to fiercely defend Tehran's right to
enrich uranium. Not to mention that Baghdad depends on Iran for trade,
electricity and material help in that no-holds-barred war against
Islamists/Salafi-jihadis.
Turkey also welcomes a comprehensive agreement with Iran. Turkey's
trade with Iran has nowhere to go but up. The target is US$30 billion by
2015. More than 2,500 Iranian companies have invested in Turkey. Ankara
cannot possibly support Western sanctions; it makes no business sense.
Sanctions go against its policy of expanding trade. Moreover, Turkey
depends on inexpensive natural gas imported from Iran.
After deviating wildly from its previous policy of "zero problems
with our neighbors", Ankara is now waking up to the business prospect of
Syrian reconstruction. Iraq may help, drawing from its oil wealth.
Energy-deprived Turkey can't afford to be marginalized. A re-stabilized
Syria will mean the go-ahead for the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria
pipeline. If Ankara plays the game, an extension could be in the cards -
fitting its self-proclaimed positioning as a privileged Pipelineistan
crossroads from East to West.
The bottom line is that the Turkish-Iranian conflict over the future
of Syria pales when compared with the energy game and booming trade.
This points to Ankara and Tehran increasingly converging into finding a
peaceful solution in Syria.
But there's a huge problem. The Geneva II conference on January 22
may represent the nail in the coffin of the House of Saud's push to
inflict regime change on Bashar al-Assad. Once again, this implies that
Bandar Bush is ready to go absolutely medieval - plowing the whole
spectrum of summary executions, beheadings, suicide and car bombings and
all-out sectarianism all along the Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanese front.
At least there will be a serious counterpunch; as Sharmine Narwani outlines
here,
the former "Shi'ite crescent" - or "axis of resistance" - is now
reconstituting itself as a "security arc" against Salafi-jihadis.
Pentagon conceptualizers of the "arc of instability" kind never thought
about that.
Missile nonsense, anyone?
Adults in Washington - not exactly a majority - may have already
visualized the fabulous derivatives of a Western deal with Iran by
examining China's approval and the possibility of future Iranian help to
stabilize Afghanistan.
For China, Iran is a matter of national security - as a top source of
energy (plus all those myriad cultural affinities between Persians and
Chinese since Silk Road times). Threatening a country to which the US
owes over $1 trillion with third-party, Department of the Treasury
sanctions for buying Iranian oil seems to be off the cards, at least for
now.
As for Moscow, by coming with a diplomatic resolution to the chemical
weapons crisis in Syria, Vladimir Putin no less than saved the Obama
administration from itself, as it was about to plunge into a new Middle
Eastern war of potentially cataclysmic consequences. Immediately
afterwards, the door was opened for the first breach since 1979 of the
US-Iran Wall of Mistrust.
Crucially, after the Iranian nuclear interim deal was signed, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov went for the jugular; the deal cancels
the need for NATO's ballistic missile defense in Central Europe - with
interceptor bases in Romania and Poland set to become operational in
2015 and 2018, respectively. Washington has always insisted on the
fiction that this was designed to counter missile "threats" from Iran.
Without the Iranian pretext, the justification for ballistic missile defense is unsustainable.
The real negotiation starts more-or-less now, in early 2014. Logically the endgame by mid-2014 would be
no more sanctionsin
exchange for close supervision of Iran's nuclear program. Yet this is a
game of superimposed obfuscations. Washington sells itself the myth
that this is about somewhat controlling the Iranian nuclear program, an
alternative plan to an ultra high-risk Shock and Awe strike to
annihilate vast swathes of Iranian infrastructure.
No one is talking, but it's easy to picture BRICS heavyweights Russia
and China casually informing Washington what kind of weaponry and
material support they would offer Iran in case of an American attack.
Tehran, for its part, would like to interpret the tentative
rapprochement as the US renouncing regime change, with Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei paying the price of trading elements of a nuclear
program for the end of sanctions.
Assuming Tehran and Washington are able to isolate their respective
confrontational lobbies - a titanic task - the benefits are
self-evident. Tehran wants - and badly needs - investment in its energy
industry (at least $200 billion) and other sectors of the economy.
Western Big Oil is dying to invest in Iran. The economic opening will
inevitably be part of the final agreement - and for Western
turbo-capitalism this is a must; a market of 80 million largely
well-educated people, with fabulous location, and swimming in oil and
gas. [1] What's not to like?
Peacemaker or just a trickster?
Tehran supports Assad in large part to combat the jihadi virus -
incubated by wealthy sponsors in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. So whatever
the spin in Washington, there's no possibility of a serious solution for
Syria without involving Iran. The Obama administration now seems to
realize that Assad is the least bad among unanimously bad options. Who
would have bet on it only three months ago?
The interim deal with Iran is the first tangible evidence that Barack
Obama is actually considering leaving his foreign policy mark in
Southwest Asia/Middle East. It helps that the 0.00001% who run the show
may have realized that a US president globally perceived as a dancing
fool engenders massive instability in the Empire and all its satrapies.
The bottom line is that Obama needs to respect his partner Hassan
Rouhani - who has made clear to the Americans he must secure non-stop
political backing by Khamenei; that's the only way to sideline the very
powerful religious/ideological lobby in Tehran/Qom against any deal with
the former "Great Satan". So "Great Satan" needs to negotiate in good
faith.
A realpolitik old hand (with a soft heart) would say that the Obama
administration is aiming at a balance of power between Iran, Saudi
Arabia and Israel.
A more Machiavellian realpolitik old hand would say this is about
pitting Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arabs versus Persians, to keep them
paralyzed.
Perhaps a more prosaic reading is that the US as a mob protector is
no more. As much as everyone is aware of a powerful Israel lobby and an
almost as powerful Wahhabi petrodollar lobby in Washington, it's never
discussed that neither Israel nor the House of Saud have a "protector"
other than the US.
So from now on, if the House of Saud sees Iran as a threat, it will
have to come up with its own strategy. And if Israel insists on seeing
Iran as an "existential threat" - which is a joke - it will have to deal
with it as a strategic problem. If a real consequence of the current
shift is that Washington will not fight wars for Saudi or Israeli sake
anymore, that's already a monumental game changer.
Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin see it is in their interest to
"protect" peacemaker Obama. And yet everyone remains on slippery
territory; Obama as peacemaker - this time really honoring his Nobel
Prize - may be just a mirror image. And Washington could always march
towards regime change in Tehran led by the next White House tenant after
2016.
For 2014 though, plenty of signs point to a tectonic shift in the
geopolitical map of Eurasia, with Iran finally emerging as the real
superpower in Southwest Asia over the designs of both Israel and the
House of Saud. Now that's (geopolitical) entertainment. Happy New Year.
http://www.alternet.org/world/iran-country-watch-2014
0 comments:
Post a Comment