HERE'S ONE THAT HAS TO HAVE THE MILITARY PLANNERS IN THE PENTAGRAM CONCERNED: A RUSSO-IRANIAN CANAL

HERE’S ONE THAT HAS TO HAVE THE MILITARY PLANNERS IN THE ...

Mr. P.K. spotted this story on Russia's RT site, and passed it along, and my initial reaction was that this deal - if it goes through - will definitely have western Anglosphere unipolarists more than slightly concerned:

Russia & Iran negotiate canal from Caspian Sea to Persian Gulf

Here's the meat of the story:

Moscow and Tehran are holding talks on digging a ship canal from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, said Iranian Ambassador to Russia Mehdi Sanai, speaking to students in St. Petersburg. Any canal linking the two has to go through Iran.

"Yes, this issue is being discussed", said the ambassador on Thursday without specifying details, quoted by TASS.

The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed inland body of water in the world. Its coastline is 7,000 kilometers long and is bordered by Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Azerbaijan.

...

The North-South corridor, when built, is expected to significantly reduce the time of cargo transport from India to Central Asia and Russia. At present, it takes about 40 days to ship goods from Mumbai in India to Moscow. The new route will be able to cut this time to 14 days.

The corridor will also bypass the overloaded and expensive Suez Canal.
(Emphasis added)

Obviously, such an engineering project will be huge, particularly through the mountainous terrain of Iran, but as the article points out, the route would bypass the troubled Middle East entirely (perhaps allowing it to sink ever more backward into Wahhabism), but it comes on the heals of the other recent news concerning the ongoing development of Central Asia. namely, the recent shipment of goods by rail directly from China to Iran, a shipment that cut down shipment costs and time dramatically.

Geopolitically, the Russo-Iranian canal project, if it comes to fruition, will be yet another game-changer, for as the article avers, such a canal, coupled with the planned railroad development of the region, will remake the economic and therefore the geopolitical lanscape considerably, and again, bypass almost entirely the Anglo-American structures of finance, alliances, and geopolitics as they have obtained more or less since the nineteenth century after the defeat of Napoleon. In effect, by developing land-based rail and canal links, the Anglo-sphere's dominance of the seas is effectively flanked.

There's another point that will probably have the analysis experts in the Pentagram burning the midnight oil, and that is with the close ties between Russia and Iran, the Caspian canal would provide an outlet for Russian naval power directly into the Indian Ocean, completely bypassing the Bosporus bottleneck, and making the long trip from Russian naval bases in the Baltic, Arctic, and Vladivostok, unncessary.  This will necessitate that Washington review and attempt to renew the often shaky relationship with India, and with that in mind, I have a modest suggestion as to how they might go about attempting to begin that process: Tell Mon(ster)santo and other GMO companies doing business with India, to cool it, and quit the strong arm tactics with Indian farmers.

See you on the flip side...

23 thoughts on “ HERE’S ONE THAT HAS TO HAVE THE MILITARY PLANNERS IN THE ...”

  1. A Caspian Canal? Not So Fast…

    Alternative media outlets have been enthusiastically sharing the news that the almost mythical plans for a trans-Iranian Caspian Canal are once more inching towards reality, eagerly welcoming such a move as being in all of the Caspian States’ ultimate self-interest. As true as that is in pertinence to the economic front and even somewhat to the geopolitical one as well, these analyses are so caught up in the positive transformative effects that this initiative would have that they neglect to consider the long-term and possibly negative strategic impact that such a literally earth-moving project might also result in.
    The purpose of the present article isn’t to condemn the prospective trans-Iranian Caspian Canal, but rather to engage in a sober assessment of the projected long-term geostrategic ramifications that it will irreversibly have for the Caspian Sea region and Russia’s southern frontier.

    http://orientalreview.org/2016/04/11/a-caspian-canal-not-so-fast/

  2. This is kind of related, i shared it with Joseph yesterday, i think most that come here might enjoy this. (Don’t be put of by the 1st 7 mins i nearly stopped watching, it’s clearly a fake interview & the maker says so, saying this is what an interview might have been like. Risky move for the start of a documentary). She even interviews the last leader of the German Democratic Republic.

    Craters for Peace – Building a canal with Nukes & Nazi’s in Patagonia

    https://youtu.be/JGWUcHhiU-k?t=1s

    How the military industrial complex survived disarmament
    In 1959, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev called at the United Nations for an end of the arms race and for an end of nuclear testing. The atmosphere was poisoned by radioactive particles. And he offered a peace treaty for a united and neutral Germany. These proposals should be discussed and concluded at a summit conference in May 1960 in Paris by the victorious Allies of War World II. The US government and the “military-industrial complex” were against this offer. An end of the Cold War would have shaken their supremacy. How did they manage to bring about the failure the summit? There is an official version, and a story that is told the first time in this documentary.

    According to official history, the Summit in Paris failed because of Krushchev´s anger. Related to the U-2-incident, that spy plane of the CIA. According to the official history, the Soviets alone are responsible for the division of Germany. The official history denies the existence of nuclear tests in Patagonia, invents an „heroic kidnapping“ of a Nazi War Criminal by Israeli agents and describes the earthquake in Chile as a natural event.

    A true “intelligence fabric” had been built around the Summit conference by the CIA and the Pentagon, consisting of several provocations: Shortly before the summit, a U-2 spy plane violated Russian airspace – at an altitude that made it impossible for the Soviet air defense not to detect it. While Eisenhower was staying at the disarmament summit, his generals arrived in Argentina with four aircraft carriers – full of nuclear explosives. They wanted to conduct nuclear tests, said the newspaper. These tests however were at that time prohibited by the US-Soviet moratorium and by the US Atomic Energy Law. During the summit, the CIA took Russian hostages.

    But the US nuclear tests in Argentina ended in catastrophe. Thousands of people died. They had to cover up everything. But in the archives of the US, Germany, Argentina and even the Catholic Cathedral are still documents that show what really happened.

  3. how many years did the suez take?
    how many years for the chunnel?

    this sounds insane
    or a work project

    rails and ports are magnitudes of order cheaper, faster and saner
    if they’re serious, that’s what they’ll do

    think they hire bechtel? halliburton? binladen?
    who’s left?

    1. I think you’re looking at it from a civilian (sane) point of view. You can’t move sizeable warships on rails. Movement of those from sea to sea is the real point of the endeavour. Russia would like a warm-water ‘port’ (with access through a friendly power) in addition to Murmansk or on the Baltic coast…

      1. I have to agree with you goshawks Russia is thinking military first civilian second. A best case scenario is a combination of both civil-military with this project.

      2. The Russians are thinking very, very long term. This is not the USSR’s five-year plan thinking rather these are Russians thinking with a thousand year mind.

        Also, we do not know what technological capacities the Russians have developed in their versions of black ops and secret enterprise. Perhaps they have developed the technological means to create this canal far faster and more efficiently than we can imagine.

        Even if there are no significant technological advancements, it would provide a much welcomed source of employment for Russians and Iranians for a long time period.

        1. Pellevoisin, that brings up an interesting thought. Even if no gee-whiz, zero-point engineering takes place in the building of a canal, there is another path:

          The world has seen much evolution of ‘nukes’, as demonstrated in various covert ‘hits’ across the world. I use ‘nukes’ in quotes, because they may have learned how to go straight to hydrogen fusion without a uranium or plutonium core. Perhaps high explosives in just the right configuration to squeeze the hydrogen, perhaps something else. (Or, a core with just a suitcase-nuke’s worth of fission materials and lots of compressed hydrogen.)

          As the gasification of the remnants of the fission core is the main source of radioactive fallout, the above ‘progress’ could lead to a revolution in ‘ditch digging’. Long-lived radioactive debris doomed previous nuclear-engineering efforts. If you could produce a boom without long-lived byproducts, that might open up intriguing projects…

          1. Not necessary, current Russian mining equipment and Earth moving equipment is more than adequate to make quick work of it. They already level and rebuild whole mountains with it and huge dredges starting from each large body of water would chew through the low lands and pile up the Earth on either side of the canal in very short order. Maybe even run it through a sluice box in certain areas to possibly recover some of the costs in precious metal recovery.

  4. They are going to have a h@ll of a time building it:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Iran_Topography.png

    One proposed route (the shortest) goes North-South through the mountains in the west of Iran, and empties-out at almost the Iraq border. Tough engineering.

    The long route stays to eastern Iran, hugs lower ground, and empties-out to the east of any choke-points due to the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman. If Russia wants untroubled access to the Indian Ocean for its ships, this is the way to go.

    1. They would be better off if they just built huge ports on each side of Iran and used rails to move the shipping containers through the mountains and over land to a waiting ship on the other side.

  5. Another point here is that Iran and Russia have the capital to undertake such a massive project. At one time the USSA could finance a Panama Canal. Now the USSA has to use large infrastructure as collateral (or sell it outright) to prop up its $19T debt (at least this is the public figure). The USSA has the dominant military to cause chaos and keep some players in line but no longer has the capital to create the new unipolar world they want. Of course this assumes that the USSA deep state is in control of its own destiny. The true TPTB behind the scenes may be playing Nato / G7 vs Brics as the new hegellian psyops just as they use Dem vs Repub in the USSA.

  6. Commercial as well as military use.
    The Eurasian theater is taking a shape the Western Oligarch certainly doesn’t approve of in ant shape or form that is not copyrighted by a U.S. rubber bureaucratic stamp.

    1. In yesterday’s blog my comment went under moderation[aka file 13]. In today’s blog refers to India and the GMO issue. Ironically I had just finished reading Vandana Shiva’s new book Who Really Feeds The World? and was primed to write a comment framed from a Commons’ perspective rather than a Russian or USA frame.
      This was then promptly filed in the 13th memory-hole holding-cell.

      1. Hi Robert,

        I am curious as regards this comment of yours and this comment as referencing food issues in the world. I have not heard of this book, but the issue is an interest of mine as
        is your use of the word Commons, the Commons perspective.

        Which article were you commenting on? I am sorry but I have
        not been able to keep up with things on this site as much as I might like.

        But the great articles and comments I see keep chugging along.

        1. First off, Gaia Mars-hall
          the book, Who Really Feeds the World/The failures of agribusiness and the promise of agroecology by Vandana Shiva will become available June 28, 2016. I received an early copy to read and review[@ amazon]. Great read!
          The commons goes back a long ways. There are several good books on the commons. A couple of authors that appealed to me; touched on the subject matter from a perspective that simply drilled it down to its core. One such author, Douglas Rushkoff, did an excellent job in these two books: Life Inc: How Corporations Co9nquered The World and How We Can Take It Back[Jan 4, 2; and Throwing Rocks At the Google Bus: How Growth Became The Enemy of Prosperity[March 1, 2016].
          Another book on the subject that views the commons through a perceptive 21st Century Lens is: Commonwealth by Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri.

  7. I thought the West believed in competition just wondering when this project begins. What will their spin about this new canal as a alternative to the Suez Canal another plot against the West or a asset to free trade.

  8. Geographics woes ++. The USA must be rethinking want went wrong during the Yeltsin years. Sole plundering is beautifull in the short term but long term it seems a disasterous non plan.

    Russia, at one time beaten and broken by the mighty imperialists and still they couldn’t manage the cub bear. Too late now, the bear is full size, lets hope they let it have its habitat and don’t poke it too much.

    1. This bear species appears to be the geopolitical top predator performer[co-staring with the Dragon] in that famous Eurasian theater[rumored to be the most sought after stage on the entire global stage].

Comments are closed.