NEW GEOPOLITICS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

August 25, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

In the wake of the deal between the USA and Iran over its nuclear program, and in the wake of recent Saudi visits to Russia, Mr. S.D. sent me this important article outlining the possibilities that a new Middle Eastern geopolitical earthquake may be in the making:

“New Silk Road” and Iran’s Potential as “Energy Disruptor”. Polar Reorientation In the Middle East

The essence of the article is that the USA may be gambling on a very radical reorientation of Middle East geopolitics, essentially throwing over Saudi Arabia for Iran, and for the ability to use or manipulate Iran as a base of operations for destablization efforts in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and to shut Russia out of the Middle East once and for all:

The current situation can be summed up with the following dilemmatic axiom: the closer that the US and Iran move to one another, the more suspicious this makes Russia and Saudi Arabia; likewise, the closer that Russia and Saudi Arabia move to one another, the more suspicious this makes the US and Iran. In both instances, each pair feels compelled to continue moving in their newfound direction out of fear that failure to do so would place it in a comparative disadvantage vis-à-vis its primary rival’s engagement with its thought-to-be ally, as such is the nature of this strategic security dilemma.

...

The US awaits the day that it can use Iran as an indirect proxy of destabilizing influence against Russia’s southern former Soviet periphery. Part I touched upon this possibility in citing the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine for Central Asia and how it holds open the prospect of strategic collaboration with Iran in penetrating that region. While short in words, it’s big in implications, and with Iran feeling rightfully confident and newly assertive as a result of its nuclear ‘victory’, it could very well be guided into a ‘Northern Pivot’ of influence projection along the Caucasus, Caspian, and Central Asia if ‘properly’ manipulated. This would relieve Saudi Arabia of whatever ‘pressure’ it feels and ease some of its anti-Iranian paranoia, which could help the US convince them that the deal wasn’t ‘so bad’ for its interests and thus work to reverse the Russian reorientation to a certain degree. This would leave Russia as the biggest loser, since it wouldn’t really have anything to show for its advances with Saudi Arabia, and it would also have a heated rival in Iran (which would be behaving that way both for its own ‘self-interested’ reasons [supported by the US, directly or indirectly] and perhaps even to pay Russia back for its prior relationship with Riyadh).

Well...maybe, but all of this depends in large part on how the USA is assessing the long term prospects in the Ukraine. So long as American military and financial interests there (and in the old cordon sanitaire in Eastern Europe) can be maintained, then the necessity for such a radical and revolutionary remaking of geopolitics in the Middle East seems at best redundant (why have Iran as an anti-Russian base of operations when the Ukraine is closer?) and at worst, wishful thinking. As I indicated earlier this week, the Ukraine itself, however, is in question, with the Donbass region planning to hold a referendum on whether or not to join the Russian Federation. If that happens, and if Mr Putin and his advisors accede to that, then it might possibly spell the beginning of the end for The Ukraine, as other secessionist efforts in the country might be tempted to form and break away, in Galicia and the Ciscarpathian regions of the western Ukraine. If so, then Mr. Korybko's speculations about US intentions vis-a-vis Iran in the article begin to make sense, but it would also mean that the US analysis of the long-term strategic interest and outcome of its Ukrainian policy has read the handwriting on the wall.

The chief problem here is that it ascribes too much sanity to Washington. Additionally, with the penetration of the Ukraine by IG Farbensanto and other big American and European GMO "agribusiness" giants, it is unlikely that Washington needs a second base in central Asia in the form of Iran, a dubious ally even under the best of circumstances. So why the deal, and what's going on?

Any high octane speculation here is perhaps as good as any other, and there are all sorts of possibilities: the USA, as Mr. Korybko hints, might be vying simply for a relaxation of tensions in order to mount a "color revolution" in that country and install a more friendly government. However, there are other possibilities, and the key here is in the word "nuclear", for there is a country in the west that has much to gain, and little to lose, by the USA acceding to the deal it recently noegotiated with Iran, a deal that was aided, abetted, and brokered by yet another western country...

...You know who it is...

See you on the flip side....