If War Comes Tomorrow...

The law, allowing the US President to significantly cut the Irranian oil export, caused plenty of comments and sharp response of Iran. Later on the situation with the anti-Iranian critisizm has blown away and softer notes from the both sides could be heard. This, certainly, does not change the matter itself and the principal problem is still vivid on the global agenda: it is whether the US still bears the plans to start the war against Iran, and if the answer is positive, then when it is planed to happen.

The forecasts of this kind in politics are not just guesswork, because any war has to be well prepared. An interesting picture appears out of the puzzle-steps, being made by Washington. 

Practically at the same time, when the law, concerning new sanctions against Iran appeared, on the eve of the New Year we heard the US Vice-President, Joseph Byden, as saying that the Taliban movement is no longer an enemy of the USA. “Mr. President has never declared that the Taliban threatens our interests. The problem will arise if this movement starts posing a threat to the government of their country, the government that helps us to struggle against bad guys”.

This statement amused many people on both Sides of Atlantic  But Mr. Byden’s words were met with enthusiasm by the Prime-Minister Karzai in Kabul. The atmosphere of the tragic Past cannot but bother the Afghan Leader. That is why he was so much satisfied, when the Republicans’ hard position to conduct no negotiations with the Taliban, was, at last., rejected by the Democrats. 

But, nevertheless, some other thing presents interesting to us here. The statements of Mr. Byden sounds, at least, inconsistently from the point of view of the American Politics of commitment and support of the democratic regimes, in particular in those  countries, where the USA carries out direct military and political intervention.

What could, in fact, change the moral and political essence of the Taliban since the last September, when armed bandits occupied the centre of Kabul and were holding it for 20 hours , meanwhile striking the Administrative buildings and NATO Headquarters? May be any ideological changes towards tolerance and democratic values occurred in the Taliban movement since then? Certainly, not. 

No doubt, the White House is preoccupied with the future of the regime in Kabul, which can now feel itself with free hands to conduct negotiations with Taliban. But, apparently, it does not seem to be the end herewith. 

The fact that the USA retreated from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as its attempts to reconcile with the Taliban – even formally all these steps seem to be an alignment of the front line. The maneuvers with the Taliban descend the level of confrontation with one of the most radical and dangerous movements in the region, which turns out to become very sensitive point for America in case it unleashes a war with Iran. Alongside here may be considered, as well, the US conciliation with its other former enemies in the Middle East. It is, for instance, easing of relations with the “Brothers Muslims” movement and even with the Safatist party “An Nur”, which is evidently leading by a wide margin at the Parliamentary Elections in Egypt. The radical programs of all those parties (they, in particular, deny women and Christians the right to occupy a high-level post in their countries) remain the USA surprisingly indifferent. As far as the situation with transformation of the “new Middle East”  does not come out a success now, then it presents quite sufficient to confine itself with a pragmatic idea of political and economic dependence.

The more so, that in case the United States get Iran under its control, then it will be able to start anew arranging the Middle East, being more confident in its own resources. And meanwhile, let them just not disturb. 

Well, it is time now to talk about the potential allies of Iran. As a matter of fact, only Syria alone may be mentioned here. But Syria is out of the game now due to the overheated situation at home. However, it is not sufficient. Only loyal and obedient to the USA  Syrian Government should seat in Damascus, and this is a strategically important factor, provided a war against Iran will be unleashed. And Israel, in its turn, would calm down as well after the shock, caused by the elections in Egypt. Syria should be suppressed on stronger and stronger. But there are Russia and, partially, China who are in the American road here. A few words about Russia, by the way. Diplomatic demarches, including those in the United Nations, are, certainly, unpleasant,  but there is no reason for the USA much to quarrel with Moscow now as these expenses may be corrected in the future. Let’s say, the position, regarding the Anti-Ballistic Missile System may be partially revised and something could be promised to the Russians here.

China is, perhaps, rather a serious obstacle today. The Legislative Law, which enables to impose embargo on the Iranian oil may, any moment, play the role of a detonator, thus rapidly provoking

Tehran for aggressive response. But the Iranian oil considerably satisfies the Chinese demands in  power resources. Even if these losses are compensated for China, then Peking will, in any case, become dependant on the USA. 

And, to crown it all, Peking  has no plans to enforce his Pacific neighbor at the expense of Iran., even more so after Mrs. Hillary Klinton declared the program “Our American Pacific Century”. The Chinese Leaders were some late, but still criticized the Draft Bill, concerning some additional sanctions against Iran. A Chinese Foreign Ministry official made a statement as follows: ”China is against any state, which positions its national legislation system over the international one, neither to unilaterally impose sanctions on other states”. Yes, China seems to be a decent object to work at.   

  So, and what is happening in the camp of the American Allies now? France, for instance, which has recently become, due to its special relations with Washington,  as something like “a Royalist, who is higher than the King itself”, i.e. higher than Merry England, and it shares the idea to suppress Iran at their utmost.. And this is a rather important support for the USA. But one can hardly see unity in the European Council. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of critics in both, Old and New Worlds, who are against “harsh movements” in the global politics. They are doing so because of their confidence that the situation in the global economics and financial system, as well as the crisis in the euro-zone, exclude the possibility of enforcement actions. The more so, that such actions can lift up the prices for the energy resources and exhaust the budgets for non-productive expenditures, thus slowing down the rates of economic recreation.

Joseph Stiglitz, a well-known economist and a Nobel Prize Winner writes the following: “As a matter of fact, the year 2012 may turn out to become a year, when the experiment with Euro, that has become the climax of a 50-year economic and political integration in Europe, will come to its end”. His appraisal of the situation in the American economics is not more optimistic. To his mind, none of the US politicians wishes to acknowledge

 the fact, that the reconstruction of the banking system turned out to become non-sufficient to recover the economics. And then Stiglitz resumes: “The year 2012 may proclaim a new, still more desperate stage of a global economic crisis, the most profound one for the recent 75 years.”

The widely-mentioned argument, that a war manages to draw the economics of the USA itself out of the crisis, as it happened in the times of the Great Depression and the Second World War-this argument is beneath criticism. The war against Iran is not World War II, some other laws guide the global economics now, the laws, which are ever more complicated and unpredictable that those in the middle of the past century.

All these circumstances involve in the situation around Iran the people, who possibly even do not have a slightest idea of that or may be just do not want to see it.

But the fact remains unchanged: Washington intensified the preparation phase for a military operation, but which will hardly start tomorrow (the preparation has not been completed yet). The more so, that every solution concerning Iran will be thoroughly examined through the prism bearing a name the “ USA ELECTION COMPANY”.

But we are still speaking not about the up-to-the minute, tactical plans of Washington. One of the American chief political analysts, George Fridman, writes as follows: “Iran is rapidly transforming from marginal into dominant force in the region. Iran has prepared for the American march-back from Iraq. We should say here that Iran will dominate in Iraq, but, frankly speaking, its influence to Baghdad will be enormous. And this influence will be increasing step by step, as the USA will be leaving the country. The Iraqi politicians well realize that the Iranian force is nearby whereas the American power is going away.

As a matter of fact,. when on earth appeared  the plan to “dismantle” Iran using military muscle. In this regard, one can recollect the interview given by Wesley Klark in 2007. In this interview General Klark, the former Commander-in Chief of the NATO Armed Forces in Europe, was spoking about the plans of invasion in  Iraq, which he was informed about in early 2000’s. Here we quote his words as sounding in the “Voice of America” radio station:

“W. Klark: And a few weeks later I ask him again (he means a General from the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S.): “So, what you settled there? To attack Iraq or what?” And he answers: “”Iraq alone would be OK. Look here what I got from atop today. Starting from Iraq. Then go Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan. And giving up in Iran…”