Iran conflict: Calm before the storm

Mohssen Massarrat is professor emeritus of the University of Osnabrück with scientific and policy priorities in the areas of economy and society, international relations, war and peace, Middle East and co-founder of the Initiative Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME ).

Iran conflict: Calm before the storm

It began in 2001 with the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They had with the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 for an excellent excuse, so had the lie of weapons of mass destruction are invented for the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Immediately after the fall of the Iraqi regime in March 2003, Iran's nuclear facilities were presented as the next threat to the "free world". May in good faith to prevent a new war, the EU-3, Germany, France and England have set a goal for Iran to give up its nuclear program.





In truth, it could be harnessed to the cart so that the U.S. sanctions and war policy. Today, ten years after the start of the Iran conflict, there is little doubt that the Iranian nuclear program is being exploited as a pretext for completely different goals.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the former director of the IAEA, stated in an interview with Spiegel Online: "I consider myself strictly to the facts. Part of it is that the Americans and the Europeans withheld important documents and information to us. They were not interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but in a regime change - by any means necessary "(1).

Similarly, it also formulated Christoph Bertram, former director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), "The U.S. and its European partners do not really want to negotiate, but they require a surrender of Iran on the nuclear issue." (2)

 Netanyahu took the Threat,

Than in 2008, Obama was elected U.S. president, was the legitimate hope now are the neocon wars to an end - hopes that soon turned out to be deceptive. From then stirred Netanyahu - the most loyal ally of the U.S. neo-conservatives - with its ongoing threats against Iran publicity drums of war, while the neocons shifted their activities in opposition with a vengeance in the U.S. House of Representatives. They moved through targeted anti-Iran legislation the noose around Obama's neck, and made him their prisoner of war strategy. This is an example of the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed.

This law aims to "Obama set to a confrontation with Tehran to Michael Lüders. Among other things, it commits the U.S. to support the Iranian opposition logistically and financially, in other words, to destabilize the regime active. Which section 601 'of the law can be interpreted to the effect that neither the President nor a minister, but also not a U.S. diplomat and not a special envoy to the record Iran negotiations or may not lead - unless, that is responsible congressional committees' namely, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a stronghold of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which expressly agree. A similar law has never existed before in the history of the United States. "(3)

While Obama has not this law - which represents a turning point in U.S. history, because it would have meant an unprecedented deprivation of Presidents - but after lengthy negotiations in 2012 ratified a milder version of it. The bill is but the vehemence with which the neocons Iran pursue their project. In fact, Obama (4) also oriented as Lüders rightly observes, to specifications of the old bill.

This assessment also says that Obama has not been distanced from the regime-change goal of the neocons. He had a historic opportunity to free itself from the neo-conservative Iran corset. For this purpose he had only the UN Conference on a WMD-free zone in the Middle East must take as a platform for the solution of the Iran conflict seriously.

This conference is m. E. a godsend, because it would enable both sides of a reasonable alternative, the nuclear issue of the level of unilaterally against Iran addressed the UN Security Council to move into a international law framework with negotiations at eye level and the goal of disarmament of all nuclear potentials and also there to avoid a loss of face.

This would allow the current threat and war escalation policy will be thwarted immediately. Obama blocked, however - as was to learn from the environment of the Finnish conference coordination, under Israeli pressure - the foreseen mid December 2012 start of the conference. Almost simultaneously, the Congress passed the Iran Threat Reductions Act has even been enlarged and conditions for the termination of the Iran conflict formulated that require a regime change. (5) Moreover, prepares the Congress, as the Associated Press on 9 April spread, another bill before, which will lead to "heaviest and most consequential sanctions" against Iran. Netanyahu striking reticence about Iran lately seems so in a new light. He obviously thinks he is sure that the U.S. wants to do the "job" itself. His statement on the occasion of Obama's visit to Tel Aviv, 'he was sure that President Obama will do everything to prevent Iran from access to the A-bomb', speaks for itself.

Why take the risk of another war

Joschka Fischer described the Iraq war recently a "wanted war," thereby "creating a pro-Western Middle East." (6) A pro-Western Middle and Near East was and is still, in fact, the main goal of U.S. neoconservatives. Not only ideological or even personal motives are the driving forces, such as Fischer says shortened, but tangible interests of an overwhelming alliance of militärindustriellem complex, the oil companies and the financial sector, with the Republicans and a part of the Democratic Party and the Israel lobby the environment the U.S. government largely infiltrated.

A Greater Middle East, which is completely pro-Western equivalent, in many ways the long-term interests of the oil financial Weapons Alliance in the United States. Actually now control the oil companies again completely the Libyan and especially the Iraqi oil sector. Also the arms exports to the Gulf States are booming like never before. For a complete pro-Western Middle East, however, the Islamic Republic of Iran the biggest obstacle not only their elimination would solidify the access of the oil companies to the energy reserves of the entire region, but also the de facto oil binding of the dollar and thus the global hegemony of the U.S. ensure financial sector for years or even decades. The U.S. dollar was for the replacement of the gold standard maintained its role as reserve currency, primarily because of the global oil trade denominated in dollars, thus the gold standard was effectively replaced by oil retention.

Thanks to the function of the dollar's reserve currency flows in the years 2003 - 2012 annual average of 1,116 billion dollars additional capital from all over the world to the United States - at least 7.4 percent of GDP, which in fact gave away the rest of the world the U.S. economy. A einträchtigere enrichment of its economy can not exist for a hegemonic power. In addition, the United States can maintain its economic rivals such as the EU and especially China with its huge and inflated to 3,300 billion dollar reserves predicted as a function of its own hegemony.

To realize in this hegemonic imperialist perspective and to the goal of a fully pro-American Middle East, would be a regime change or collapse of the centralized state structures in Iran almost a necessary step. The persistence of the dollar as reserve currency cemented not only the existing dependencies, he solidified the cycle oil rents against weapons and huge capital flow into the U.S. economy against worthless paper into pumping the U.S. central bank in the world economy.

This global overall interest of the United States, far beyond the Partialinteresse the oil weapon financial alliance also may explain why Obama is not the doer, but driven in the Iran conflict, too. The opponents of Iran war in the U.S. are basically also supported by a critic Hegemonialrente U.S. economy, because this term is in danger due to the possibility of unproductive capital accumulation to lose its competitiveness on a world scale completely. These forces are, however, currently in the minority and are unlikely to be able to oppose effectively against the Hegemonialkräfte and their model.

The leadership of the Islamic Republic likes to lie right under international law and its nuclear program have also security policy understandable reasons. In good faith that the U.S. would no longer dare to Afghanistan and Iraq, to ​​break yet another war from the fence. But they risked almost careless, but that the unthinkable happened.

 With bombing conflagration

The cost of the Iraq war are immense with over seven hundred billion dollars so far and it increase due to the demands of the U.S. war invalids still immeasurably. The cost argument runs in the event of an Iran war, however, into the void. Because in this case is the use of ground troops - the most important cost factor in the Iraq war - neither possible nor necessary.

It is believed that several weeks of intensive bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, all centers of power supply and communication facilities to achieve the aim of the war.

The required aircraft of all kinds are already stationed in the Persian Gulf in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics.

Military counter-reactions, including several months of blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the missiles of Hezbollah against Tel Aviv, are taken into account.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Lebanon and Israel would then be inevitable war parties. Representing these forces are already over in Syria.

Civil wars, Kurdish, Arabic, Baluchi secessionist wars, collapse of several countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, would with significant impact on the national cohesion of Turkey, the revival of nationalist potential for violence and religious wars between Shia and Sunni states, etc. all plunge the Middle East into chaos for decades.

So egregious that scenario a Iraqisation the region also appears, it is from the perspective of the U.S. Hegemonialkräfte exactly what reproduces the ideal conditions and forces that are required to virtually self-controlling the hegemony of the U.S. neo-conservatives in the world for more hedge decades. Whether these forces actually succeed in bringing about the disaster or not remains to be seen, of course. In order to prevent under all conditions, however, would have to go out on the international peace movement from the worst-case scenario.

This ultimately opposition to the war in the United States would even be able to have the warmongers in their place. Their success, however, depends crucially on the support of the international community.

As an alternative to war against Iran, the international peace movement needs to get out of the shadows, the United Nations Conference on a WMD-free zone. This, however, spectacular actions and campaigns are essential, especially given the successful demonization of Iran.

Comments

1 ElBaradei on 19.4.2011 in Spiegel Online.
2 Christoph Bertram in "time" of 21 Feb., 2012.
3 Michael Lüders, Iran conflict: The Year of Decision, in: Leaves for German and International Politics, 3/2013.
4 Additional Notes Lueders in an email correspondence from 30.03.2013.
5 Michael Lüders, a.a.o.
6 Joschka Fischer, Iraq ten years later, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung of 23 March 2013.
Source: tlaxcala-int.org

Gulf War - Who the current world political situation and especially To understand the potential for conflict in the Middle East, must know the background of the Gulf War of 1991. The book reveals secret documents and covers completely half-truths, disinformation and censorship of a disaster, the cause until the summer of 1988 until the cease-fire between Iraq and Iran go back. "Anyone who has read this book can save a dozen other books on the same topic. It provides the best background analysis for the second Gulf War, I know. "Here further

Iran: the wrong war - The facts against a false war of aggression! It all seems so clear and simple: in any case without the fanatic mullahs in Tehran come into possession of the atomic bomb. Do not distract them, they just have to bear the consequences. Up to the war. But what evidence is there that Iran really wants nuclear weapons? And it is in this conflict alone to the bomb? Michael Lüders explains why the country is in the crosshairs, and is apparent certainties into question. A bold plea against a war that could shape this century as the First World War the previous one. more here

The Eurasian chessboard - America's new Cold War with Russia - "Eurasia is the chessboard on which the struggle for global dominance will be held in the future," Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Bernhard Rode in this comprehensive study reveals that the U.S. actually comes to the enforcement of a secret agenda of the century, whose main goals are to control Eurasia and the control of its vast raw material reserves. He shall in detail on the schools of thought in Anglo-American geopolitics.

For the first time in German-speaking Washington's secret plan to subjugate Russia is revealed in this explosive analysis. Detailed experiences the new "Great Game" - the still ongoing struggle for resources and pipeline corridors Eurasia - its representation. The author refers to his overall view but also the sources of conflict in the Eurasian border states - whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Georgia, Ukraine and the Central Asian republics - and questioned this against the backdrop of this "Great Game." more here

Rate it:
31 votes
     
Like:
This entry was posted on 09/06/2013 at 10:25 and is filed under "D (E) ÄMOKRATIE," mysterious ", info war, crises, wars +, quality of life, Lupo Cattivo, lupoCattivoblog, media, world domination Tagged with:. Anti Iran's law, oil financial Weapons Alliance, oil companies, threats and war escalation policy, Greater Meddle East, Greater Middle East, hegemonic, imperialist, Iraq War, Iraqi oil sector, IRAN, Iran's nuclear facilities, surrender, reserve currency function of the Dollar, Mohammed ElBaradei, Netanyahu, Obama, pro-Western Middle East, regime change, all centers of power, Foundation for Science and Security Affairs (SWP), U.S. neocons, utility and communication facilities, why the risk of another war. You can follow any responses to this entry watch through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.