Accueil > Articles in English > Iran : Obama is at the limit of absurdity

Iran : Obama is at the limit of absurdity

© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – September 22, 2009 | The President of the Mullahs is awaited in New York in view of his speech on peace and respect between nations at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Washington was hoping that Ahmadinejad would profit from this opportunity and resume direct talks with them, but Tehran refused. In riposte the U.S. pulled out its usual menaces : A possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and the threat of further sanctions. Washington however to a further step towards appeasement made the incredible vow of “shooting down any Israeli aircraft using Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.” This promise came from Zbigniew Brzezinski, a super Czar of the American diplomacy, and personal advisor to Obama, a man extremely well listened in Iran. This announcement has nothing to do with Israel but with Brzezinski’s doctrine on Central Asia followed for the past 33 years by all the American Presidents.

We have been listening to the same American music for the past six years. Washington merely evokes harsh and realistic sanctions, but they are never applied for the U.S. does not wish to overthrow the Mullahs, but to scare them into accepting an entente that would open the door to Central Asia via Iran to them. This region highly interests the U.S. for it has a vital role on Chinese and Russian economies.

The hidden American agenda (1) | Central Asia is an enclave without any access to any major sea or ocean. In order to deliver their precious resources to the West, Central Asian countries need to transit through neighbouring countries : Russia, China, Iran and Afghanistan. In this group of nations, Afghanistan is a lame duck, for it is itself an enclave but mostly prone to incessant civil war. If it were a more stable country it could become a corridor to the Indian Ocean through American allied Pakistan. However, the high stakes around the control of Afghanistan leads Russia and China in supporting the Talibans (via the aid of the Mullahs) in order to deprive the U.S. from the control of the country. Thus, China and Russia share the natural gas resources of Central Asia, China for its industrial needs and Russia by selling them with high margin to Europe. If the U.S. were to access Central Asia, they would not only slow down China’s economic development but also deprive Russia of an important source of revenue. Therefore, the only stable option left to Washington is an entente with Iran, the third corridor between Central Asia and the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf.

The hidden American agenda (2) | The complexity of the situation is not that the U.S. just wants a simple corridor, for it has the means to help the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs and in exchange get access to Iran for its trading purposes. Washington also wishes to have the Mullahs as regional allies. The heirs of Khomeini are venerated by Muslims around the globe for their anti-Zionist stands, and could encourage the Muslims of the Western Chinese region of Xian Jiang to move towards independence from China and deprive Beijing of a region rich in natural resources. Washington could give a fatal blow to its new economic rival China.

The hidden Iranian agenda | In exchange for an entente with the U.S. that would eliminate the Sino-Russian adversity, Tehran wants the abandon of sanctions and American demands of demilitarization of the Hezbollah. For the past three years the Hezbollah has been engaged in a military war with Israel. This conflict has greatly troubled the U.S. allied Arab nations, for they are being accused of complacency towards Israel by the Arab opinion. The Hezbollah is therefore an indispensable arm for the Mullahs allowing them to put pressure on the U.S. and its allies when needed. The Hezbollah is a warranty clause in their entente negotiations with Washington. Their survival depends upon it.

The Iranian demands are obviously incompatible with American interests. Washington therefore deploys its threats of sanctions and military strikes in order to push the Mullahs in lowering their pretentions. The threats do scare the Mullahs, for they are aware of their unpopularity with the Iranian people and know that a strike or harsh economic sanctions would irremediably lead to an uprising and their downfall. It is exactly because this risk exists that Washington refuses to carry on its threats for the Mullahs would be an extremely valuable pawn if an entente was reached. Despite the fact that the Mullahs are aware of their interest for the American agenda, they do not know how long the U.S. patience would last, for the control of Central Asia is becoming urgent. Washington is using the Mullahs doubt in their intimidation strategy.

The architecture of credible threats | In the Bush era, the threats were credible but fictive, in the form of either American or Israeli rumours, never denied. This strategy was stamped “the drumbeats of conflict” by the American Admiral Fallon before he resigned. The threats ended up being useless for Tehran used them as a pretext alongside the Western demand it suspend its nuclear enrichment program in order to snob any dialogue. Obama has slightly changed his strategy by renouncing on any preliminary conditions to engage a dialogue with Tehran, the threats being left to Israeli lower hierarchal officials, and quickly denied by the American State Department to avoid giving excuses to Tehran to snob the dialogue. To put an end to the Bush Administration’s counterproductive aggressive attitude, the U.S. has changed their credible threat strategy radically.

In this new strategy after an Israeli threat, we got an official American denial of Israeli strikes, followed by a denial from an Israeli high official on the absence of certitude in this domain, and last an article in the Jerusalem Post citing an anonymous high ranked American official affirming that in case of a non concerted Israeli attack on Iran Washington would “shoot down Israeli aircrafts overflying Iraq.” The Post, an accomplice in the rumour, then makes the precision that the author of the above information “does not have a decisional position in the Obama administration.” However, we know the contrary for the author of this affirmation is non other but Zbigniew Brzezinski, the author of the principal strategic doctrine carried out in the Middle East by Washington for the past 33 years.

PNG - 220.6 ko

At the limit of absurdity | Brzezinski is the hidden chief of American diplomacy for he past 33 years, he also has a foot in the Obama administration through one of his closest lieutenants Robert Gates, who already served in the Bush administration. Without being officially a representative of the U.S. government, Brzezinski was used as an alternative to flatter the Mullahs and try to obtain a concession on the Hezbollah issue.

With this latest version of the credible rumour strategy we have reached a new limit of virtuosity but also of absurdity to reach an impossible entente with the Mullahs. It is not surprising to see Brzezinski hold a role in this comedy for he is after all its author. The actual American policy regarding Iran is a failure, for it is a renewed version of Brzezinski’s old doctrine of the green belt that has also failed in the instrumentation of radical Islam with the objective of agitating the Muslim regions of Communist USSR and China and lead them to their demise.

Brzezinski first initiated his doctrine in 1977 in Pakistan with an Islamic coup against the progressive Bhutto, followed in 78 in Iran and 79 in Afghanistan. In Iran he proposed the idea of an Islamic revolution to topple the Shah, who’s preference for a secular system, his industrialization projects and his refusal to reconduct the petrol agreement with a multinational consortium composed of American, British and French [1] oil companies in 1979. But Brzezinski broke an established order in the region and his doctrine did not achieve the results hoped for. In Afghanistan the U.S. lost the control of the Taliban monster it had created. And in Iran, the Mullahs who were not initially destined to holding on power, kept it by sweeping aside the pro-American Islamo-Nationalist Iranians.

Despite the failures, Brzezinski has remained influential, for he was one of the first to predict in the 1970’s the extraordinary Chinese economic leap and to imagine a manner of preventing it. But today China has become an economic giant and Washington is still applying Brzezinski’s preventive doctrine imagining that the control of Central Asia would push China to attack Russia to take over Siberia’s resources : the two former Communist nations confronting each other for the pure pleasure of Washington ! Meanwhile, whilst the Brzezinski doctrine has remained unchanged despite a few modifications after repeated failures, the Russians who in the past because of an anti-Chinese jealousy had delayed the construction of a Siberia-China pipeline, signed the construction of one in 2008, making it operational in 2010.

Time has come to throw away this defective doctrine that has proven ineffective in its Iranian objectives since 1979 and is outdated in its Sino-Russian chapter.

It will be an even greater feat than an entente with the Mullahs to abandon this doctrine, for Brzezinski has over the years weaved a large web of researchers and politicians, like Gates and Obama , who owe their careers to him, and fear that by admitting that the doctrine is faulty they would lose their advantages. A change would not only be salutary for the region but also for the United States, for like all great empires, the American weak point is in the heart of its power. Meanwhile, we will witness other examples of the Obama administration’s absurdity with ephemeral but credible threats. A greater and greater absurdity as an entente with the Mullahs will become less and less probable by following the Brzezinski doctrine.

All our articles in English...
The french version of this article :
- Iran : Obama va atteindre le seuil de l’absurdité
- (22 SEPTEMBRE 2009)

| Mots Clefs | Histoire : Brzezinski et Carter |
| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : OBAMA |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Garanties Régionales de Sécurité : le DEAL US |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Apaisement |

| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Option militaire |
| Mots Clefs | Zone géopolitique / Sphère d’influence : Israël |


[1Revolution and Oil | The Islamic revolution took place in 1979, the year that the oil agreement with the Multinational Consortium composed of American, British and French companies would come to an end. The Shah had announced as early as 1973 that he would not reconduct this agreement. Immediately, in the three concerned countries a vehement press campaign against “torture in Iran” began. That explains why the three countries supported the Islamic revolution. On the contrary, Germany who was not part of the consortium, but had an important role in the Shah’s industrial projects in Iran, refused the project of a revolution that was submitted to them during the historic Guadeloupe Summit of 1979.