Do not beg from those who are stronger than you

Like a huge abscess, Iran infects the political world around itself. The political phase of the preparation for a military operation began with Washington's attempts to pacify the Palestinians with Israel. If the Arab elite in Tehran show irritation and even hostility, the same cannot be said about the Arab in the street. Obama does not want to undermine the Iranian campaign and has proclaimed a course of building bridges with the Muslim world. For this it is necessary to break Netanyahu’s resistance, who is in fear of losing face in Israel and the reaction of the opposition, and is in no hurry to extend the moratorium on the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Once Washington and Israel agree upon the Palestinians, we can assume that the initial stage of preparation for the operation will be complete.

According to the classical scenario for the preparation for war, the enemy must be subjected to a trade and economic blockade. This task had been subject to sanctions, firstly by the UN, and then the Americans themselves with the involvement of the EU.

However, these sanctions seem to have launched a mechanism not only of economic pressure.

A recent survey of the PIR Center (The Russian Center for Policy Studies) revealed interesting results: 20% of respondents believe that sanctions will help to create additional incentives for a peaceful resolution of the problem.

Meanwhile, 47% believe that sanctions are a path to confrontation, and Iran will not compromise. Insisting on sanctions, the U.S. has exacerbated the situation and approached the point of no return to a peaceful settlement, despite all the smoke screens of diplomatic assurances.

It is worthy to note here that Washington has more than once provoked Moscow by exposing the "reloading of sanctions" to a severe test. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an address to the UN General Assembly, called for the sanctions imposed by the organization to be binding not only in their performance, but also to respect that their framework does not allow for arbitrary and unilateral measures in the direction of their expansion.

Nevertheless, the U.S. not only did not heed this call, but added to the list of its sanctions against Iran by imposing them against its energy company. Not content with this, they forced a number of major European corporations to stop investing in Iran's energy sector. Even worse. For 30 years there has been no air service between Egypt and Iran. Commenting on its resumption, a spokesman for the State Department made a gross interference in the internal affairs of Egypt, at the same time infringing on the freedom of movement and communication. It turns out that the U.S., according to the statement is, in principle, against any commercial agreements with Iran.

Today in America the import of Persian rugs is banned. So why rugs? It is not the seizure of the accounts of the elite Revolutionary Guards; it is not punishment for "the ruling elite”, but the punishment of the Iranian on the street, whose discontent should sweep away the "Ahmadinejad clique." But what if the Iranian street explodes in anti-American sentiment? Well, when the "Stars and Stripes" once again burn on the streets of Tehran, they will have something to scare ordinary Americans and to justify the coming of military force against Iran.

The second test of the "reload" is a deal by the Pentagon to sell new F-35 fighter jets worth nearly $ 3 billion to Israel, straight after Moscow refused to sell the SS-300 air defense system to Iran. At the same time Israel's defense establishment openly admitted that the F-35 is the only aircraft that can stand up to the Russian anti-aircraft missile systems.

Egypt's Minister of State for Military Production, Al-Meshal recently reminded reporters that since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, "Iran has not fired a single shot in Israel’s side." According to the minister, a much greater threat is the activity of pro-Iranian clandestine groups in a number of Arab states.

As you can see, all parties are aware of their interests, but what about Russia?

Commenting on the above survey by the PIR Center, D. Evstafev, a political scientist, expert of TNK-BP, writes in the latest issue of the magazine "Security Index", "it is a naive argument that by supporting the U.S. and the West, Russia has lost the brilliant prospects of possible cooperation with Iran ... you can say that Russia has at least twice - in 1996 and 2004 - managed to thwart major U.S. action against Iran, perhaps even possible future military action. So what? Has Tehran, which in the meantime has had three presidents, thanked our country? No, they did not. Russia has not received any economic preferences, and Russian companies have not become major partners in the development of Iran's petroleum resources. Just on the eve of the latest exacerbation of the situation, Tehran loudly discussed the prospects of cooperation in the oil and gas industry with European companies. Rather, for a long time we have been fed with talk about a political partnership, working through oil and gas projects with the EU, Japan, South Korea, and by the same Americans who would operate under the roof of third countries. "

This point of view deserves at least a little attention. However, the main outcome of the situation, according to the author, is this: "The question ultimately is not about Russia falling out with Iran ... The question is whether Russia has received from the United States and Europe the compensation it deserves for a change in its position? .. "

Here, I think, a respected expert on the basis of the thesis "everything has a price," is mistaken. Conflict would take place around Iran (partly it already has!) It would not be local but a tectonic shift in a key region of the world, in our southern underbelly. "Compensation" is only possible, if the sides can predict the consequences of the transaction, its benefits, etc. Iran is not in the category of such controlled and predictable consequences in the situation. More important, perhaps, is to soberly weigh up its national interests and opportunities to the red line beyond which the worsening global conflict over Iran and its evolution will be deemed unacceptable damage. In other words, we need an objective strategy which is not dependent on someone else's compensation. You probably remember, the classic line: "Do not beg ... from those who are stronger than you ..."

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs

Do not beg from those who are stronger than you

Share:

Latest articles

Contacts

Partners