Iran : Bush’s pacific strategy
The rumours of attacks or war against the mullahs follow each other and analysts without stature compare the case of Iraq with Iran. It is a total disdain for geopolitics. For our part, the war between the Americans and mullahs is unfounded because the geopolitical conditions are different from the situation in Iraq. Moreover, the American president has just confirmed his decision to resolve the crisis by a negotiation with what he names the Iranian regime.
“I have consistently stated that I’m hopeful that we can convince the Iranian regime to give up any ambitions it has in developing a (nuclear) weapons program, and do so peacefully”, he said during Press Conference at the white house on September 20th.
Indeed, nothing is comparable between Iran and Iraq. Iran is located at the juncture of the Middle East and Central Asia. It dominates the Persian Gulf and the famous Strait of Ormuz. It also borders the Caspian Sea which draws its name from the Iranian city of Qazvin.
Iran has thus the capacity to influence two important zones of oil transhipment, one relative to OPEC and the other relative to the oil and gas richness of the Central Asia. Moreover, the regime in place in Iran supports the factors of instability in the area of the Persian Gulf as well as in Yemen which is the backdoor of the Arabic peninsula.
The mullahs also maintain the factors of instability in Afghanistan which is the passage towards Central Asia. And finally, they support the 3 great factors of instability in the Middle East with Syria, the Hezbollah and the Hamas which can threaten Israel since 3 distinct points.
If a superpower wants to dominate the whole of these strategic regions, it must come to terms with the mullahs. This is the case of Russia which supports this regime for the benefit that it draws from the instability of Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.
It is also the case of the Americans who hope to get this formidable power of instability and to use it against their economic adversaries and more especially against China. We call this “the Strategy of Disorder”. They sell weapons; they cause wars where an adversary such as China has oil interests. The factors of stability are the enemies of the Strategy of Disorder and the factors of instability are its fuel.
According to the Strategy of Disorder, stability is bad for selling weapons and bad for oil quote control. On the other hand, instability will reorganize the area into small mono-religious or mono-ethnic republics hostile each other caused by the inequity of territory divisions. >The instability and this reshaping will destroy the OPEC unity and oil will pass again under the control of oil majors which controlled 86% of the oil in the world before OPEC and control only 16% today.
Oil control is equivalent to control the growth of India and China. It is a global game. What a pity for Iraqi, Iranian and even the Israelis who are submissively following the American programs of disorder by forgetting that they live in the Middle East and not elsewhere.
In opposition to the mullahs’ regime, Saddam’s Iraq was a factor of national and even regional stability because this country was not, at that time, the preferred spot of all the Jihadist surfers lacking in islamist surge. In fact by attacking Iraq, the Americans did not want to destroy a totalitarian regime, but an element of stability.
The president Bush should not attack the mullahs or destroy this formidable fountain of instability. In fact, there is an arm wrestling between the United States and the mullahs, this arm wrestling is concerning the methods of the agreement between them, and the mullah’s nuclear power is only a pretext, only a substitution crisis.