This long and detailed essay is an obligatory read for strategists for it provides a point-by-point analysis of America’s stand in relation to Iran and through it to Russia, the Middle East, Europe. Basing on great factual material and dozens of footnotes, Bob Finch proves that Iran is the pivot of Eurasian Geopolitics; friendship with Iran is the paramount interest of America, while hostility to Iran is in Israel’s interests and is achieved by efforts of American Jewish elite. Finch provides an answer to the long polemics with Chomsky, standing squarely on the position of Mearsheimer and Watts: Jewish elites carry anti-American policy and undermine America’s standing in the world. His main points are:

·         who benefits from American hostility towards Iran? Certainly not America nor Iran. The only beneficiary is the Jewish state. The primary reason America has never adopted a pragmatic course of action towards Iran based on its own national interests is because America’s ruling Jewish elite has continually demonized Iran to deter Americans from abandoning Israel as America’s main ally in the Middle East.

·         America did not become a hyperpower because Israel was America’s strategic asset in the Middle East. On the contrary, it became a hyperpower in spite of its alliance with Israel. Israel has been ruining American interests in the region on an increasingly catastrophic scale. Israel’s manipulation of America into demonizing Iran will provoke a regional war that will be so catastrophic as to bring about the collapse of America’s hyperpower status. The Jewish state, and its Jewish fifth columnists in America, will have inflicted their last catastrophe upon America.

·         America’s belligerence towards Russia does not make the slightest economic or political sense. It should be cultivating good terms with Russia to enable its energy companies to make vast profits from exploiting Russia’s fossil fuel resources. It has to be suggested that the primary reason for America’s belligerence towards Putin is that America’s Jewish neocons are outraged that Putin managed to prevent Russia’s Jewish oligarchs from ransacking the country’s resources. They are far more intent on effecting regime change in Russia than they are with developing good relationships with him to exploit Russia’s natural resources. Here then is a clear difference in the political objectives of America’s wasp elite and America’s ruling Jewish elite.

·         These American-Russian events are almost an exact replica of events transpiring between America and Iran. The same Jewish neocons pursuing the same regime-change policy towards both Iran and Russia. These Jewish policies are doing severe, and perhaps even irreparable, damage to America’s gigantic energy companies. The greater the Jewish neocons’ lies and denunciations of the Iranian/Russian governments, the more Iranians/Russians resist regime-change.

·         Liberal and left wing political commentators, despite all the evidence to the contrary, continually insist that America’s foreign policies are concerned with the interests of its energy corporations. This fantasy is also promoted by the Jewish state’s political agents throughout the western world who seek to provide a smokescreen for the power of America’s Jewish elite which implements foreign policies boosting the interests of the Jewish state rather than America. It is not just a coincidence that so many of the liberal and left wing commentators promoting this fantasy are Jewish. The belief that America is pursuing an oil based foreign policy is an illusion conjured up by neo-liberals and neo-lefties who refuse to confront the reality of Jewish power in America and around the world.

·         America’s treatment of Iran is self destructive – driving the country into the camp of its biggest rivals, Russia and China – both of whom America is also antagonizing! It is bizarre, and highly revealing, that the only country in the world which America is not going out of its way to antagonize and abuse is the Jewish state. America’s hostility towards virtually every country around the world is in stark contrast to its grovelling subservience to the Jewish state.

·         America’s threatened invasion of Iran runs counter to America’s national interests and, if it proceeds, will have a catastrophic impact on these interests. It will also have a catastrophic impact on Europe’s national interests. And yet neither America nor Europe are powerful enough to dismiss the twaddle of Jewish propaganda and insist that their interests would be better served by an alliance with Iran rather than with Israel. Jewish elites around the world must have some colossal global power if they can force America and Europe to undermine their own national interests for the greater good of the Jewish state and the global Jewish empire. The modern day parable of the cave is that the Jewish dominated media and Jewish dominated think tanks have replaced reality with a Hollywood fantasy which serves Jewish interests and all those intellectually entrapped in this Jewish spectacle are unable to perceive their own true interest.

·         George Bush likes to compare himself with Churchill but in many respects he’s quite similar to Boris Yeltsin. Both were elected president with the help of their country’s Jewish neocons, part of a global Jewish network of neocons throughout the world. Both were imbecilic front men for Jewish interests – the only difference being that Bush seems to have managed to overcome his addiction to alcohol during his presidency.

 

 

 

Iran - the Pivot of Geopolitics.

 

“In a similar fashion, but in an even more fundamental sense, US diplomacy in Central Asia is seriously hobbled by Washington's alienation from Iran. Ten years have gone by since the famous article by Zbigniew Brzezinski in Foreign Affairs magazine calling for unconditional abandonment of the US policy of containment of Iran. Brzezinski had brilliantly argued the case (which most US career diplomats assigned to the region then also believed) that for US regional diplomacy to be anywhere near optimal in the Caucasus, in the Caspian region and in Central Asia, it must befriend Tehran. But Washington's mental block over Iran persists. Least of all, Iran remains the wild card in the pack. Depending on which way the Iran nuclear issue develops in 2007, Iran can impact on the energy map of China, Central Asia, the Caspian, the Caucasus, Russia and Europe - and, conceivably, the United States itself.” (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The Great Game on a razor's edge’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL23Ag01.html  December 23, 2006).

 

1. Pahlavi as America’s Primary Geostrategic Asset in the Middle East and Central Asia 1953-1979.

In 1953 Iran’s democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the country’s oil industry. The CIA promptly organized a coup to overthrow him and replaced the country’s democracy with a dictatorship run by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi – yet another example in America’s long history of snuffing out democracy in the Islamic greater Middle East. Over the following twenty five years America showered the newly installed Pahlavi, the so-called Shah of Iran, with the weapons needed to maintain his regime against the wishes of his own people in return for allowing America’s multi-national energy corporations to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. Pahlavi never enjoyed popular support. As time went by he lost most of the support he had and was forced to rely increasingly on the brutality of his security services to survive in power.

 

During the Pahlavi’s reign, America looked upon Iran as a critical geostrategic asset for a number of reasons.

* its possession of vast quantities of fossil fuels;

* its possession of large deposits of uranium;

* its position next to the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asia;

* its proximity to the straits of Hormuz through which passed a major proportion of the world's oil supply – today estimated at a fifth;

* its geographic position surrounded by 15 countries many of which contain fossil fuel deposits; and,

* its geographical position squeezed between Russia and China. “A look at the map will reveal how geopolitically strategic Iran is for Russia, as well as for Israel and the US. Iran controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the choke point for oil from the Persian Gulf to Japan and the rest of the world. Iran borders the oil-rich Caspian Sea.” (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html  Jan 31, 2006).

 

During Pahlavi’s reign America looked upon Iran as a far more important geostrategic asset than the Jews-only state in Palestine (JOS). Israel had little in the way of any geostrategic value since it had no fossil fuels and was located on the fringe of the Middle East, well away from Middle Eastern oil countries and even further away from Central Asian oil countries. The Americans enhanced Iran’s geostrategic value by arming Pahlavi to become a major military power in the region. This gave the shah another major geostrategic advantage over Israel: whilst Iran could use its military might to control most Moslem countries, the Jewish state could not do so without triggering a regional conflagration. Iran is surrounded by 15 countries in the Middle East and Central Asia and could easily and directly take military action against neighbouring countries, whilst the Jewish state couldn’t even reach most of these countries without trespassing on the sovereignty of other countries thereby triggering a regional conflagration. Pahlavi, then, was America’s policeman on the Middle Eastern beat.

 

It was only after the Jewish defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 war that American politicians began to look upon the Jewish state as a possible military asset in the greater Middle East. “The idea that Israel was the «strategic asset» of the United States in the Middle East, or America's «unsinkable aircraft in the Eastern Mediterranean,» was popularized by the intellectual predecessors of today's neoconservatives in the aftermath of the Israel's military victory in the 1967 Middle East War. The relationship between the United States and Israel was promoted as a «strategic alliance» in order to mobilize support for the Jewish state (after all, Israel had defeated Egypt, a military ally of the Soviet Union) and strengthen the political backing by disaffected liberal Jews of an unpopular war in Southeast Asia.” (Leon Hadar ‘Neocons Amid Lebanon’s Rubble: A Challenge to Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument’ http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12062  September 14, 2006).

 

Although after 1967 American politicians began to perceive the Jewish state as a military ally, it wasn’t until Pahlavi’s fall in 1979 that Israel emerged as one of America’s major military assets in the region – despite the fact that its military was strategically unusable. During this period 1967-1979, the primary reason for America’s increasing approval of Israel was because Jewish propaganda in America fabricated Israel’s supposed value as a military ally. Any objective assessment would have concluded the Jewish state was a gross military liability: it couldn’t act militarily on America’s behalf without causing a regional conflagration. “I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war.  They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.” (James Abourezk ‘Letter to Jeff Blankfort’ jablankfort@earthlink.net December 03, 2006).

 

Even worse was that some Jewish politicians let it be known they would never act on America’s behalf unless it was also in Israel’s own interests. As it has turned out, the Jewish state has never gone to war on America’s behalf.[1] So whilst the Jewish state was unwilling to sacrifice itself for America, Jewish propagandists in America were insisting that America sacrifice itself for the Jewish state. During the October 1974 war America’s military intervention on behalf of Israel was a catastrophic disaster provoking an Arab oil boycott which triggered a decade long global, economic recession. And yet Jewish propaganda in America was so powerful it succeeded not merely in sweeping the Jewish state’s catastrophic impact on America’s interests under the carpet but in presenting the Jewish state as an indispensable, unwaveringly loyal, military asset willing to do America any favours it might ask. Jewish propagandists succeeded in elevating the Jewish state as America’s ally by pushing out of sight America’s national interests. In contrast, even after its Islamic revolution, Iran was still, objectively, a far more important geostrategic asset in the region than Israel. As will be seen, the same is true even today. America cannot get a better geostrategic asset in the greater Middle East than Iran. And, conversely, it cannot get a more catastrophic ally than Israel.

 

2. America’s Fruitless, Twenty-Seven year, Policy of Regime Change in Iran, 1979-2006.

 

Pahlavi’s brutal suppression of his own people gradually undermined what little support he had within the country. In turn, America relied too much upon Pahlavi and his security services to maintain its dominance over the country’s oil industry instead of fostering a prosperous, western-oriented, middle class in a stable democratic system which would have been a much more solid and reliable source of support.[2] In 1979, Pahlavi was overthrown by a popular revolt, an Islamic revolution – the first in history. Although America lost a vital asset in the Middle East, Iran’s geostrategic value was too significant to be ignored. The Americans were faced by the choice of either wooing the new Islamic regime, and forgiving it for the relatively minor diplomatic offense of holding Americans hostage, or trying to bring about regime change. Under intense pressure from America’s Jewish elite, American politicians chose the latter option. Since then, American Jews have continually stimulated virtually all American politicians into a knee-jerk, loathing of Iranian politicians no matter what their political objectives.

 

America’s choice of tactic towards Iran should have been decided on pragmatic considerations i.e. the most fruitful means for benefiting from Iran’s geostrategic importance and its huge military potential. Seeking reconciliation with Iran would have been the easiest and quickest option and, given Iran’s considerable geostrategic assets, it would also have been the most sensible. But a succession of American presidents continued to froth belligerently at Iran – even though there was not at any time the slightest prospect of their effecting regime change in Iran. Indeed, the greater the hostility that America has shown towards Iran, the greater the resistance it has generated amongst Iranians, thereby diminishing the prospects of regime change. To date, this tactic has lasted twenty seven years – an appallingly low rate of return for any foreign policy. America has had a number of chances to negotiate with Iranian leaders who have signalled they wanted better relationships with America - but each time they were rebuffed. Given Iran’s vast geostrategic importance and its military potential, America should have swallowed its petty grievances in order to reap the vast economic and political benefits of an alliance with Iran.

 

3. Jews scupper Iran’s efforts to Negotiate with America.

 

The question that needs to be asked is who benefits from American hostility towards Iran? Certainly not America nor Iran. The only beneficiary is Israel. The primary reason America has never adopted a pragmatic course of action towards Iran based on its own national interests is because America’s ruling Jewish elite has continually demonized Iran to deter Americans from abandoning the Jewish state as America’s main ally in the Middle East. The more that Jewish propagandists could persuade American politicians to distrust Iran, the more likely was it that America would continue to support the Jewish state – even though it was in America’s interests to dump Israel and support Iran. That American politicians have failed to realize their country’s national interests is due partly to bribes they were given by the Jewish lobby to support Israel. But it is also due to the virtual monopoly of Jewish propaganda in America. Americans are subjected to a constant flood of Jewish propaganda pumped out by the Jewish dominated American media, the Jewish lobby, Jewish think tanks, Jewish politicians in the democratic/republican parties, and Jewish politicians in a succession of presidential administrations.

 

In the 1980s any desire by American politicians to develop a rapprochement with Iran were undermined by continual Jewish denunciations about alleged Iranian terrorism. “For example, in the fall of 1985 there was an abrupt departure from CIA's analytical line that Iran was supporting terrorism. On Nov. 22, 1985, the agency reported that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had «dropped off substantially» in 1985, but no evidence was adduced to support that key judgment. Oddly, a few months later CIA's analysis reverted back to pre-November 1985 with no further mention of any drop-off in Iranian support for terrorism.” (Ray McGovern ‘The Cheney-Gates Cabal’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9988  November 10, 2006).

 

In 1995 under pressure from America’s Jewish lobby and the Jewish dominated American media, America once again sacrificed its own geostrategic interests by banning its gigantic multi-national oil corporations from investing in Iran’s fossil fuel industry. “Under Executive Order 12959, signed by President Clinton in 1995 and renewed by President Bush, all U.S. companies are barred from operating in Iran.” (Michael T. Klare ‘Putting Iran in Great Power Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9150  June 16, 2006). The ban was opposed by Richard Cheney and by members of Clinton’s own administration. “Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as «counterproductive.» He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War in Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40629  September 29, 2006).

 

After the Pentagon and New York (P-NY) bombings, America suddenly discovered Iran could help it over the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Iranian politicians offered to help America in a number of vital ways in the hope of reversing two decades of Jewish induced, American animosity towards Iran. Firstly, Iran used its armed allies in Afghanistan to help the American military overthrow the Taliban. Secondly, it rounded up Al Qaeda suspects fleeing Afghanistan and offered to exchange them for anti-Iranian terrorists held by the United States. And, thirdly, Iran helped America to stabilize the post Taliban regime. “After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organized resistance by the Northern Alliance and had provided arms and funding at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so. It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November. Two weeks later, the Afghan opposition groups were convened in Bonn under United Nations auspices to agree on a successor regime. At that meeting, the Northern Alliance was demanding 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government, which was blocking agreement by other opposition groups. According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran played a «decisive role» in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to compromise. But the cooperation against al-Qaeda was not the priority for the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon.” (Gareth Porter ‘How Neocons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al-Qaeda’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590  February 23, 2006).[3]

 

Despite this invaluable assistance, in January 2002 the Jewish fundamentalists and their Jew-ish allies within the Bush regime manipulated their imbecilic president into denouncing Iran as part of an entirely fictitious ‘axis of evil’. “Only weeks after the Bonn Conference in December 2001 where Tehran's assistance was crucial in finding a compromise among Afghanistan's many warlords, Bush put Iran into the «axis of evil», along with Iraq and North Korea. Tehran's goodwill gestures were for naught.” (Trita Parsi ‘Iran the key in US change on Iraq’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK11Ak04.html  November 11, 2006). There were no connections between Iraq, Iran, and north Korea except in the paranoid fantasies of Jewish fundamentalists but the fiction succeeded in bringing the Bush administration into line with Israel’s foreign policies. [4]

 

The prime advocate for a war against Iraq was the Jewish lobby. The Jewish lobby was so effective in bringing about this policy it can be suggested America embarked on a proxy Zionist invasion of Iraq. Jewish propagandists lied to the American public that Saddam was going to attack America with weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi people would greet American troops as liberators. However, if America’s occupation of Afghanistan had produced a raft of common interests between America and Iran, the same was true after America’s occupation of Iraq. As time has gone by, the more the occupation has disintegrated into a military and economic catastrophe for America, the greater has become the Bush regime’s need for Iranian help in curbing the multifarious conflicts in Iraq.

 

Both countries have a common political interest in stabilizing Iraq. “The fact is that the United States needs Iran for maintaining regional stability and there is a growing chorus of ex-diplomats, such as James Baker, and policy analysts in Washington advising the US to engage Iran in bilateral talks.” (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran and the US: Fork in the road’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ14Ak02.html  October 14, 2006).[5]

 

In may 2003, despite being demonized as part of the Jewish fantasy of an axis of evil, Iran offered the Bush regime yet another chance for an improvement in their relationship. “The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S. concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs. Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.” (Gareth Porter ‘Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778  March 29, 2006); “Within two weeks, the administration had spurned an unprecedented offer from Iran to negotiate all outstanding differences between the two nations, including its nuclear program and its support for armed anti-Israel groups, in exchange for security guarantees. The Bush administration also broke off all diplomatic contacts with Tehran, including until-then fruitful talks on stabilizing Afghanistan, after accusing Iran of harbouring al-Qaeda militants allegedly linked to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia. The neo-conservatives were euphoric; their agenda had not only become policy, but their vision of a «new American Century» seemed well on its way to becoming reality.” (Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn ‘The rise and decline of the neo-cons’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK22Aa01.html  November 22, 2006). As a result of pressure from the Jewish extremists in the Bush administration, this offer was also rejected.

 

At present Iran is playing a critical role in stabilizing western Afghanistan and could do something similar for the rest of the country if Bush gave the go ahead. “Equally important, Iran has played a major stabilizing role in Western Afghanistan, especially in Herat, severely limiting Taliban influence. Iran works closely with Italian and ISAF reconstruction teams in rebuilding the region. The Financial Times (November 18, 2006 p.11) reports: “The main factor holding the west of Afghanistan together is the positive influence of neighbouring Iran which is ‘pumping a lot of money into the reconstruction of the west’, says a senior US administration official in Washington”.” (James Petras ‘The US and the Middle East: A “Grand Settlement” Versus the Jewish Lobby’ December 2006).

 

In 2006, the United States’ ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad recognizing the common interests between America and Iran, tried to break the Jews’ death grip over the Bush administration by insisting the administration should hold talks with Iran about combating Iraq’s civil war. But, after agreeing to such talks, the Bush administration eventually allowed Iran’s offer to lapse. Even though direct talks with Iran were in America’s best interests because of its military and financial catastrophe in Iraq, the Jewish lobby and the Jewish neocons in the Bush regime succeeded in skippering any meeting.

 

Despite these rejections, Iranians continue to seek negotiations with America in the hope of resolving their differences. “Najmeh Bozorgmehr, an Iranian journalist now at the Brookings Institution as a visiting scholar, agrees. Based on several years of covering Iran's national security policy, she says, «Iran wants to bargain with the United States on Iran's regional role,» as well as on removal of sanctions and assurances against U.S. attack. Tehran has been looking for any source of leverage with which to bargain with the United States on those issues, she says, and «enrichment has become a big bargaining chip.» (Gareth Porter Iran Nuclear Conflict Is About US Dominance’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8982  May 12, 2006). The Jewish state and the Jewish lobby in America are at the forefront of the pressure to deter Bush from taking the advice of James Baker’s Iraq Study Group to talk to Iran. The day after Bush was presented with the ISG’s report he was back to fantasizing over an American victory over Iraq, ““You saw that the president used the word ‘victory’ again the next day,” said one of Mr. Bush’s aides. “Believe me, that was no accident.”” (Quoted in Jim Rutenberg and David E. Sanger ‘Bush Aides Seek Alternatives to Iraq Study Group’s Proposals, Calling Them Impractical’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt706.html  December 10, 2006); Asked about his comment to The Washington Post this week that the United States is neither winning nor losing the war, Bush pivoted forward. «Victory in Iraq is achievable,» he said.” (Peter Baker ‘President Confronts Dissent on Troop Levels’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000308_pf.html  December 21, 2006).

 

4. Russia’s Dramatic Rise as the World’s Fossil Fuel Superpower.

 

Iran’s geostrategic value cannot be appreciated without an understanding of Russia’s dramatic rise as the world’s fossil fuel superpower.

 

Vladimir Putin has brought about an almost miraculous transformation of Russia’s fortunes since the collapse of the soviet empire and the ransacking of the country’s major industries by Jewish criminals – known in the Jewish dominated western media merely as ‘the oligarchs’. From a point where Russia’s Jewish neocons had been on the verge of selling off the country’s vast fossil fuel wealth to American energy companies, Putin has not merely re-established state control over the country’s resources, he has transformed the country into the world’s premier fossil fuel broker. “Lavrov used an end-of-year press conference to declare Russia's return to «leading power» status. In a dig at critics, Lavrov said: «We understand that such a rapid recovery of Russia seems a surprise. For some it may be an unpleasant surprise.»” (Sebastian Smith ‘Russia hits back at Western criticism, Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061220/wl_mideast_afp/russiapolitics_061220182159  December 20, 2006).

 

The wealth from Russia’s fossil fuels is financing the rebuilding of the country’s economy and society. “It was a matter of time before geopolitics made its entry into the debate, insofar as energy sales contribute as much as a quarter of Russia's GDP and hydrocarbon exports provide the base for the country's economic recovery, and, in turn, act as the strategic underpinning for Russia's return to the international stage as a major power.” (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html  July 6, 2006). Putin is without doubt the world’s greatest political strategist of our time. His dazzling global oil strategy consists of six main components.

 

Russia’s Fossil Fuel Pipeline Network: An Empire of Pipelines.

 

Russia is gaining increasing dominance of the Eurasian fossil fuel pipeline network. Before Putin became president, Russia had constructed nearly two hundred thousand miles of pipelines. Since becoming president he has ordered the construction of a massive extension of the network and is attempting to buy up more pipelines to control the flow of fossil fuels across the planet’s largest landmass.[6]

 

The political implications of this tactic alone are significant as the following examples attest. China is highly dependent on oil imports from the Middle East, particularly Iran. It “depends heavily on Iranian oil to satisfy its growing hunger for energy.” (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/Iran-akleh091106.htm  November 09, 2006). Because this oil is transported via oil supertankers, China is highly vulnerable to American control of the high seas. In a confrontation between America and China, the American navy could block oil shipments to China. “Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in January 2005 in Foreign Policy: «Forty years after acquiring nuclear-weapons technology, China has just 24 ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States. Even beyond the realm of strategic warfare, a country must have the capacity to attain its political objectives before it will engage in limited war. It is hard to envisage how China could promote its objectives when it is acutely vulnerable to a blockade and isolation enforced by the United States. In a conflict, Chinese maritime trade would stop entirely. The flow of oil would cease, and the Chinese economy would be paralyzed.» This is the basis of China's bending backward to avoid a military confrontation with the United States, the danger for which comes entirely from US pre-emptive strategy.” (Quoted in Henry C K Liu ‘The lame duck and the greenhorn’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HF23Ad02.html  June 23, 2006); “China has repeatedly expressed its concerns that in a potential regional conflict, the US Navy would likely attempt to choke Chinese fuel shipments from the Middle East in the narrow Strait of Malacca, through which an estimated 80% of China's energy imports now flow. Indonesia, which represents one of the strait's land barriers, would be crucial in that hypothetical strategic scenario.” (Bill Guerin ‘Indonesia-Russia: Arms, atoms and oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL12Ae02.html  December 12, 2006). However, Russia is in the process of constructing oil pipelines to China which will dramatically reduce the threat posed by an American blockade of oil supplies to China during a crisis.

 

For many years America looked upon Kazakhstan as an important geostrategic ally in Central Asia. “Washington had based its strategy on Kazakhstan being its key partner in Central Asia.” (F William Engdahl ‘The US's geopolitical nightmare’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html  May 9, 2006). American energy companies had made significant investments in the country’s fossil fuel industry and yet their success has been limited by Russia’s ownership of the area’s pipelines. “In 1994, Cheney was a member of Kazakhstan's Oil Advisory Board. He helped broker a deal between Kazakhstan and Chevron, a company where Secretary Condoleezza Rice served on the Board. Today, US oil companies have large stakes in Kazakhstan's oil fields. But most of the oil being pumped goes through Transneft lines out of the Russian port in Novorossiysk. America has been battling with Russia to get Kazakhstan to pump its oil through an alternate pipeline, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, that goes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.” (Mark Ames ‘How Dick Cheney Got His Cold War On A Cold War Timetable’ http://www.exile.ru/2006-May-19/the_cold_war_timeline.html May19, 2006). Putin worked hard to consolidate Russia’s economic, political, and cultural, links with Kazakhstan to ensure it is not lured into a deeper alliance with America. “The US wants to expand its physical control over Kazakhstan's oil reserves and formalize Kazakh oil transportation via the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, as well as creating the dominant US role in Caspian Sea security. But Kazakhstan isn't playing ball. President Nursultan Nazarbayev went to Moscow on April 3 to reaffirm his continued dependence on Russian oil pipelines.” (F William Engdahl ‘The US's geopolitical nightmare’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HE09Ad01.html  May 9, 2006).

 

Russia’s control over Eurasia’s pipelines also gives it considerable advantages in negotiations to supply fossil fuels to India. “Russia's increasing influence in Central Asia and its dominant control of the pipeline routes implies that only a well-crafted energy partnership will enable India to access those oil and gas reserves.” (Zorawar Daulet Singh ‘Reviving the India-Russia partnership’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html  November 14, 2006).

 

Russian pipelines also provide fossil fuels to virtually all European countries and some Middle Eastern countries. The political implications this has for Europe are discussed below.

 

Long term, State to State, Fossil Fuel Contracts.

 

The second component of Putin’s energy strategy has been drawing up long term, fossil fuel contracts with other states rather than supplying fossil fuels for the global market. In effect, what Putin has been doing is reducing the importance of global oil markets where American wealth predominates. “The US-backed liberal, open global oil market order is beset by an accelerating proliferation of private, state-to-state long-term agreements and contracts concluded within the circle Russia and its partners are defining.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25, 2006).

 

The political implications of this tactic are considerable. “Putin explicitly stated that Russia and other suppliers want long-term supply contracts with consuming nations so that suppliers know there will be a «stable demand» for their exports. The long-term supply contract tends, of course, to lock the West's consumer states into deeper and longer-term dependence on Russia, thwarting moves toward diversification of supply. There is also the distinct likelihood that as such long-term contracts multiply, the world's energy supply and even its reserves will become progressively «locked up» into private pools for consumption only by the states that are party to such contracts, thereby robbing oil and gas from the virtual global pool sustained by the traditional liberal global energy market order. The implications could include the development that unless you're inside the circle defined by such long-term agreements, then you're outside the circle of energy security. That implication could develop as a full-fledged concern much more quickly than is generally recognized, because by and large it is the economies of the East, whose rise is meteoric and whose energy appetite is ravenous, that are far ahead in the concluding of such agreements with suppliers to secure their own growing private pools of oil and gas. The West is already far behind that curve.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Part 4: The West's thorny crown’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI28Ag01.html  September 28, 2006).

 

Putin’s adoption of long term contracts is also being copied by other oil producing nations – doubtlessly under his prompting since synchronizing these contracts will yield further benefits to the contracting countries. “Instead, the world's producing regimes are increasingly entering key joint ventures between themselves and in very close cooperation with the powerhouse economies of the rising East, such as China.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25, 2006); “To varying yet alarming degrees, the resource-rich regimes around the globe are copying the Russian model. Resources-based corporate states with a profound political affinity for one another and a simultaneous collective disdain and even a hatred for US-led unipolar dominance are proliferating around the globe.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  Aug 25, 2006).

 

Another major political/financial consequence of long term contracts is that fossil fuels do not have to be bought with petro-dollars. Such contracts lend themselves to bartering arrangements. Petro-dollars are one of the pillars propping up the American economy. Bartering arrangements considerably reduce the colossal financial benefits that America receives from the use of its currency for oil sales around the world.

 

Russia’s Fossil Fuel Market.

 

Although Putin has focused on drawing up long term fossil fuel contracts, he has not totally abandoned oil markets altogether. He is also aiming to create a new Russian market where fossil fuels can be bought and sold in roubles not dollars. “Russia's new St Petersburg exchange, slated to come online next year, will settle transactions in the rouble. According to Russian Economy Minister German Gref, Russian products will be offered on the New York exchange until the St Petersburg exchange is operational, at which time Russian products will be shifted out of the New York exchange to the Russian exchange.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘The New World Oil Order. Part 2: Russia tips the balance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK23Ag01.html  November 23, 2006).[7] Whatever trade is done on this new market will undermine the power of the petro-dollar.

 

Breaking into Consumers’ Fossil Fuel Markets.

 

Another component of Putin’s fossil fuel strategy has been his insistence that if Russia is to provide countries with a reliable, long term, supply of fossil fuels, then Russian fossil fuel companies must be permitted to sell fossil fuel related goods and services in those countries. Thus, although Putin might sell fossil fuels at a cheaper price through long term contracts than he could get for them on oil markets, the financial gains he can make by persuading oil consuming nations to allow Russian energy companies to enter their domestic energy markets, enables Russian firms to increase their long term profits. In the past, many western countries refused to allow Russian fossil fuel companies to play any role in their domestic markets but now these companies can make significant profits all along the fossil fuel chain from production to consumption. “What Gazprom wants is to control the whole chain - from production to the final consumer in Europe. What the EU wants is for Gazprom to bring gas to the EU's external borders, where the gas will be bought by EU partners who will then distribute it inside Europe. This would mean the end of long-term Gazprom contracts with European energy giants - a no-no for Putin.” (Pepe Escobar ‘The Gazprom Nation’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html  May 26, 2006). Putin is pushing the same tactic elsewhere, “Indian policymakers should discern that Russia's long-term energy strategy, evidenced by its public pronouncements and dealings with the European Union, China, East Asia and North Africa, is based on the idea of comprehensive energy cooperation with all its partners rather than the traditional paradigm of import-export relationships. In commercial terms this would amount to the buyer nation opening its downstream energy markets (such as refining, petrochemicals, electricity) for Russian investment in return for assured supplies and reciprocal access to upstream Russian assets.” (Zorawar Daulet Singh ‘Reviving the India-Russia partnership’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HK14Df01.html  November 14, 2006).

 

Energy hungry countries are offering other fossil fuel exporting countries similar package deals to obtain long term supplies of fossil fuels. “The lucrative economic, financial, political and diplomatic package of enticements being offered to producers around the globe by China, India and the other economies of the East far outweigh what the US can offer - the US simply cannot compete.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘The New World Oil Order. Part 1: Russia tips the balance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK23Ag01.html  November 23, 2006).

 

Co-ordinating Fossil Fuel Strategies.

 

Russia is also drawing up agreements with other fossil fuel producing countries that will protect their mutual interests rather than allowing competition on global markets to undermine their interests. “Stronger economic ties could translate into new philosophies surrounding Indonesia's management of its bountiful natural resources. Noting that Indonesia is currently the biggest supplier of energy to Asia, Putin said: «We believe it is extremely important to coordinate our actions on world energy markets so that there is no damage but instead to boost cooperation.» Indonesia and Russia are now set to sign an agreement for Russian energy giants Gazprom and Lukoil to take part in oil and gas projects in Kalimantan, the Indonesian section of Borneo island. That could open the way for Russian companies to secure more lucrative natural-resource deals, which until now has long been the domain of US and other Western resource giants such as Texaco, Exxon Mobil, Unocal and Conoco.” (Bill Guerin ‘Indonesia-Russia: Arms, atoms and oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL12Ae02.html  December 12, 2006).[8]

 

Excluding America’s Energy Companies from Exploiting Russia’s Resources.

 

The final component of Putin’s fossil fuel strategy has been to exclude American energy companies from exploiting Russia’s fossil fuel resources. When Putin first became president of Russia he was willing to allow American energy companies to continue with the one-sided contracts they’d drawn up during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency. Putin built a seemingly trusting relationship with George Bush who looked into Putin’s soul and liked what he saw. The two leaders’ grew even closer in the aftermath of the Pentagon and New York (P-NY) bombings - Russia providing help for America’s invasion of Afghanistan. But, only a matter of months later, Bush repudiated the anti-ballistic missile treaty in the belief that America could develop the technology for winning a nuclear war. This posed a huge strategic threat to Russia.[9]  As Stephen F Cohen has outlined, since 1991 successive American administrations, including the Bush regime, have pursued a twofold policy towards Russia - publicly encouraging it whilst actually undermining it. “The real US policy has been very different - a relentless, winner-take-all exploitation of Russia's post-1991 weakness. Accompanied by broken American promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions, it has been even more aggressive and uncompromising than was Washington's approach to Soviet Communist Russia.” (Stephen F. Cohen ‘The New American Cold War’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060710/cohen  July 10, 2006). It has already been noted that Bush willingly received Iran’s help during the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan but almost immediately afterwards showed little gratitude for what it had done. The same was also true of the way Bush treated Putin. Bush’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty not merely posed an existential threat to Russia but was almost a betrayal of the trust that Putin had put in him. This led to Putin’s disenchantment with America.[10]  Eventually he seems to have decided that every time America transgressed against Russian interests he would retaliate by stopping another American company from exploiting Russian resources.[11]

 

Even in July 2006 it looked as if Putin was willing to give American energy companies the chance to invest in Russia’s fossil fuel industry. “Equally, the Bush administration had been pressing for a mega-deal for Chevron and ConocoPhillips - the US oil majors that have bid for Russia's Shtokman gas fields. Meanwhile, getting a share of the Shtokman fields for the US companies would be a major score for Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney). From the Russian point of view, it is yet another instance of having to appease Washington. Interestingly, Russia's Gazprom announced over the weekend that the successful bidder for the giant Shtokman gas deposits off the Arctic coast would be made known next month. The short-listing of competing companies - Norway's Statoil, France's Total and America's Chevron and ConocoPhillips - was completed last September.” (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The G8 summit: A chronicle of wasted time’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG06Dj01.html July 6, 2006). Putin’s rejection of their bids must have been a shock to America’s energy companies. “Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, announced that it would develop on its own without foreign companies the fabulous Shtokman deposit, holding an estimated 3.2 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 31 million tonnes of gas condensate in the Barents Sea, 360 kilometres off the coast, at a depth of 320 meters. And most significant, Gazprom also said it would send most of the gas from the giant Arctic Shtokman field to Europe, rather than to the United States. Western commentators have rightly analyzed that the Gazprom decision on Shtokman ought to be viewed against the background of the broader increase in perceived US hostility toward Russia. The point is, Gazprom's decision hits US interests hard. There cannot be two opinions about that.” (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006). Putin is shutting the Americans out of Russia’s vast energy business, “Plainly speaking, Gazprom's decision on Shtokman implies that as of today there are no major plans on the anvil in the Russian energy sector aimed at the US market. This is a dismal legacy for the Bush administration, which is supposed to be tied to the US oil industry by the umbilical cord. More to the point, this comes at a juncture when, flush with funds, Moscow is embarking on several new gas-production projects in the Far East, the Yamal Peninsula, the Arctic Shelf and other areas. US oil majors are simply being kept at arm's length from Russia's massive oil and gas reserves.” (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Russian energy: Europe's pride, US's envy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ14Ag01.html  October 14, 2006).

 

Putin is also moving to renegotiate or revoke the licenses of a number of American energy companies which had negotiated deals during Yeltsin’s administrations under conditions far too favourable to these companies. “Russian finance officials accuse Shell, principal shareholder of the Sakhalin Energy Investment Co (SEIC), and operator of the Sakhalin-2 project, of fabricating costs, which have jumped since last year by almost 125% to $22 billion. According to the terms of their production sharing agreement (PSA), signed by corrupt officials of former president Boris Yeltsin's administration when Russia's Treasury was close to bankruptcy, oil production declining, and Russian corporates desperately short of investment capital, Shell (and Exxon Mobil at Sakhalin-1, an oil-export project) would not have to pay profit taxes until they had cleared their project costs. The cost overruns have significantly postponed these tax payments. «If costs continue to rise without control, Russia will be left with only 6% of royalties, while all profit will go to repaying costs,» Sergey Fyodorov, head of geological and subsoil use policies at the Natural Resources Ministry, said in September.” (John Helmer ‘Sakhalin gas: Shell loses, whales win’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html  December 15, 2006).[12] Putin’s action against Shell seems all too justifiable given the way the company seems to have been milking Russia’s natural resources. “The Russian authorities have already attacked Shell, TNK-BP and Exxon Mobil over their environmental records. The news comes after Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil were challenged by Mr Mitvol. The environmental watchdog has threatened to revoke Shell's Sakhalin-2 project licence on ecological grounds. TNK-BP, the Anglo-Russian oil venture, has been threatened with licence withdrawal and a new investigation is set to be launched into Exxon Mobil's Sakhalin-1.” (Marianne Barriaux ‘Russia wipes £130m from gold miner by threatening to revoke licences’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1960249,00.html  November 30, 2006).

 

Putin is also intent on renegotiating or revoking licenses held by non-fossil fuel companies obtained during Yeltsin’s terms in office. “Russia said it was looking at revoking the licences of Peter Hambro, the gold mining company, in a fresh challenge yesterday to western businesses operating in the country.” (Marianne Barriaux ‘Russia wipes £130m from gold miner by threatening to revoke licences’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1960249,00.html  November 30, 2006).

 

Conclusions.

 

Putin’s radical fossil fuel strategy means that Russia will benefit not merely economically but politically in being able to promote Russia’s political objectives. What adds to Russia’s strategic influence over the world’s fossil fuel resources is that it has recently overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil exporter, “Russia, which has now surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest exporter of oil ..” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25, 2006). In order to appreciate Russia’s domination of the fossil fuel industry, it should be noted that Russia not merely exports more oil than Saudi Arabia, it also exports vast amounts of gas. Gazprom, which is on course to become the world’s biggest company, produces about as much gas as Saudi Arabia does oil. “Gazprom had a gas output of 547.2 billion cubic meters in 2005. This is equivalent to 9.42 million barrels of oil a day, or the daily extraction output in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.” (Pepe Escobar ‘The Gazprom Nation’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HE26Ag01.html  May 26, 2006).[13]

 

Since the early 1970s America has had a strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis agreed to sell their oil only in dollars in return for American military protection. The use of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency has brought immense financial benefits to America. However, as a result of Putin’s fossil fuel strategy, Russia has gained greater strategic influence over the world’s fossil fuels than Saudi Arabia. Russia is now the world’s energy superpower not Saudi Arabia nor even Saudi Arabian dominated OPEC. “Resource-rich Russia's mounting global leverage with the world's other producing states and with the powerhouse economies of the East, and its profound political affinity with such producers and key consumer states, far outweighs the influence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  August 25, 2006). In the future, Russia’s influence over the world’s fossil fuels is due to become even more pronounced.

 

Russia’s dramatic rise as the world’s most powerful fossil fuel, power broker is leading to a resurgence in its global political power - much of which has been obtained unobtrusively at America’s expense. Whilst America’s Jewish elite have forced America into an almost exclusive preoccupation with the Middle East to boost the Jewish state’s regional supremacy, Putin has been busy implementing a highly productive fossil fuel strategy around the world to regain Russia’s global influence. Whereas the Bush regime has been squandering vast amounts of financial, and human, resources on military catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost as if it believes its supply of dollar is limitless, Putin has been carefully husbanding his country’s resources to maximize their economic and political potential. Whilst the Bush regime has been belligerently challenging, if not attacking, virtually all the world’s major military powers from Russia to China and Iran, Putin has been using his country’s fossil fuels to nurture alliances with many countries in order to promote Russia’s national interests.

 

America’s belligerence towards Russia does not make the slightest economic or political sense. It should be cultivating good terms with Russia to enable its energy companies to make vast profits from exploiting Russia’s fossil fuel resources. It is impossible to believe that a co-operative relationship between the two governments would not have benefited both countries enormously. It has to be suggested that the primary reason for America’s belligerence towards Putin is that America’s Jewish neocons are outraged that Putin managed to prevent Russia’s Jewish oligarchs from ransacking the country’s resources. They are far more intent on effecting regime change in Russia than they are with developing good relationships with him to exploit Russia’s natural resources. Here then is a clear difference in the political objectives of America’s wasp elite and America’s ruling Jewish elite. America’s Jewish rulers aren’t in the slightest bit bothered about American fossil fuel companies losing out on vast profits in Russia as long as they are able to continue attacking the Putin regime in the hope of restoring to power their ethnic criminal colleagues who once controlled Russia’s resources. If there was a chance that America’s Jewish oligarchs might succeed in helping their Russian counterparts back into power then such belligerence might make sense but Putin is so popular in Russia that there is virtually no chance of this happening. All that the Jewish neocons’ criticisms of Putin achieve in Russia is to remind the Russian people of the intolerable conditions they had to endure whilst Russia’s Jewish criminals were ransacking their country. The vast majority of the Russian people do not want these criminals back in their country but America’s Jewish oligarchs seem to have a compulsive need to continue supporting their Russian counterparts even though they will never regain power and are dramatically damaging America’s fossil fuel companies. And the longer America’s neocon oligarchs persist with their outrageous accusations against Putin – such as his involvement in the murder of Russian dissidents – the more damage they inflict on America’s multi-national oil corporations. America’s Jewish fundamentalists have basically provoked Putin into marginalizing America’s energy industry to such an extent it is being pushed towards extinction! “In virtually all cases, the interests of the West and of its multinational oil companies and big Western financial institutions are being minimized and/or pushed out as the global trend of nationalization, by one means or another, of the oil-and-gas sector picks up speed. That is occurring in Russia, in Central Asia, the Middle East and in Latin America. Within virtually all such regimes the lines of separation between the top levels of political leadership and the directorship of key corporations and industries are not only blurred but are being obliterated. The multinational oil companies of the West are being marginalized as a direct result.” (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html  Aug 25, 2006).

 

These American-Russian events are almost an exact replica of events transpiring between America and Iran. The same Jewish neocons pursuing the same regime-change policy towards both Iran and Russia. These Jewish policies are doing severe, and perhaps even irreparable, damage to America’s gigantic energy companies. The greater the Jewish neocons’ lies and denunciations of the Iranian/Russian governments, the more Iranians/Russians resist regime-change. The Iranian people have seen what America’s Jewish inspired policies have done in Iraq whilst the Russian people have seen what the Jewish neocons did to their country during Yeltsin’s reign, and neither wants to suffer again because of these Jewish criminals stirring up such self-serving hatred.

 

5. The Rise of Iran’s Geostrategic Value.

 

During Pahlavi’s reign, Iran possessed considerable geostrategic value which America was all too willing to exploit and enhance. There are a range of reasons for proposing that Iran’s geostrategic value is even greater now than it was then.

 

The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: America in the Middle East.

 

Ever since the Pentagon and New York (P-NY) bombings America’s Jewish neocon foreign policies have inadvertently boosted Iran’s political and military power. Firstly, America’s invasion of Afghanistan resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban - an implacable enemy of Shia Iran. Secondly, America invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein – Iran’s biggest adversary. If this wasn’t enough, the American neocons tried to replace Saddam with another dictator - Ahmed Chalabi – later exposed as an Iranian double agent. Thirdly, the coalition provisional authority set up after the invasion of Iraq dismantled the Iraqi military thereby leaving the country virtually powerless against Iran. Fourthly, the Bush regime was eventually pressured into accepting national elections in Iraq which allowed Iraqi Shiites, allies of Iran, to take a dominant role in the Iraqi government. Fifthly, after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, America forced Syria to remove its army from the Lebanon thereby giving default power to Hezbollah which has been trained, armed, and financed, by Iran. Sixthly, the Bush administration insisted on free elections in Palestine only for the Palestinians to elect Hamas - another Iranian ally.

 

So, in a matter of a few, short years America’s neocon foreign policies boosted Iran’s power in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. “So far the administration's magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut.” (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r  Feb. 17^th 2006). They have even boosted the power of hardliners within Iranian politics.

 

The Increase in Iran’s Common Interests with America.

 

America has always shared some common interests with Iran.

 

Firstly, developing Iran’s fossil fuel reserves. If America had allowed its multinational energy corporations to exploit Iran’s vast fossil fuel reserves, both countries would have enjoyed a huge economic bonanza. America’s oil corporations would have made huge profits - profits that would have helped to boost the American economy. The profits made by the Iranians would have enabled them to buy American goods and weapons – instead of the current situation where America’s ruling Jewish elite manipulates America into giving away American weapons to the Jewish state for free.

 

Secondly, developing Iran’s uranium deposits.

 

Thirdly, stemming drug production in Afghanistan. There are a huge number of heroin addicts in Iran – just as there are in America. The drug trade damages Iranian society just as much as it does American society. “Like the fact that no nation fights harder against the Afghan drug trade than our axis-of-evil enemy Iran, while our «staunch ally» Pakistan lends support to the trade and to the Taliban as well.” (Ann Jones ‘What Are They Smoking?’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9933  October 30, 2006). America’s occupation of Afghanistan has caused the production of heroin to soar.[14]

 

America’s catastrophic foreign policies in the greater Middle East have not merely inadvertently boosted Iran’s geostrategic value, they have also established new common interests between the two countries. As a result of its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, America has common interests with Iran in establishing political stability in these two countries - which would also help to stabilize the Middle East as a whole.

 

The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Central Asia.

 

The discovery of vast oil and gas deposits in Central Asia boosted Iran’s geostrategic value. The shortest, quickest, and cheapest, route for the export of these fuels is through pipelines across Iran to the country’s Persian gulf ports. “Geographically Iran makes the shortest and the most economical route for Kazakhstan’s oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea, north, to the Persian Gulf south with all the oil-tankers traffic.” (Elias Akleh ‘War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East’ http://www.countercurrents.org/Iran-akleh091106.htm  November 09, 2006). The same is also true as regards Turkmenistan and, since America’s invasion, Afghanistan. “Afghanistan is especially important to Washington because it is the only plausible way to bring natural gas down from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The Turkmenistan alternative is being used to push Delhi away from any flirtation with an Iranian pipeline. As Afghanistan falls again into substantial chaos, India is being forced to reconsider, and to seek to draw on Iran's Yadavan fields, with a pipeline coming down through Pakistani Baluchistan and over to the Indian border. The turn for the worst in Afghanistan may explain the sudden warming of relations between Delhi and Tehran.” (Juan Cole ‘The Iraqization of Afghanistan’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html  September 08, 2006).

 

The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: Europe.

 

Europe currently obtains a substantial amount of its fossil fuels from Russia. Friedmann Muller, head of the research group Global Issues at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs .. “emphasizes that 10 of the current 25 EU member states depend on Russia for more than 50% of their total natural-gas supplies, and five of them for 100%. France, Germany and Italy import between 25% and 50% each.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html  May 9, 2006); “At the consumer end of this (Russian) pipeline system, reliance on Russian gas is currently 100% in Finland; 99% in Bulgaria; 97% in Slovakia; and 76% in Greece. In volume of Russian gas consumption, Germany takes most, followed by Italy, Turkey and France.” (John Helmer ‘Sakhalin gas: Shell loses, whales win’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HL15Ag01.html  December 15, 2006).

 

Europe’s imports of Russian fossil fuels will increase dramatically in the coming decades. “Europe now depends on Russia for 25% of its gas, a figure set to rise to 70% by 2020 ...” (David Clark ‘Putin's power struggle’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1959441,00.html  November 29, 2006). But Russia is also offering to sell more fossil fuels to Asia which means it is unlikely to be able to meet all of Europe’s energy needs. This boosts Iran’s geostrategic value. “In short, Russia by itself will not solve Europe's gas thirst, especially because Russia also wants to export heavily to both China and Japan. So Europe will have to find the gas it needs somewhere else - North Africa and the Caribbean, for instance. But most of all it will need Iran.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Iran impasse: Make gas, not bombs’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE09Ak02.html  May 9, 2006).

 

The Increase in Iran’s Geostrategic Value: India and Pakistan.

 

In the 1990s the Jewish state developed a strategic alliance with India because of their mutual animosity towards Pakistan.[15] The Jewish state and India have been collaborating to upgrade their nuclear weapons, and civil nuclear power, capabilities. In stark contrast, America’s geostrategic interests are to keep the nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and India in balance to ensure nuclear war doesn’t break out between them. However, such is the power of the Jewish state, and its political agents in America, that it has recently succeeded in fooling the Bush administration into proposing a nuclear agreement with India which will considerably boost India’s nuclear threat to Pakistan. “C Raja Mohan, strategic-affairs editor with the Indian Express, has described the US legislation removing restrictions of nuclear trade as India's «nuclear liberation». It «has not only freed India from three and a half decades of nuclear bondage, but also met two of India's very important strategic objectives - breaking the nuclear parity with Pakistan and establishing strategic equivalence with China».” (Sudha Ramachandran ‘India's 'nuclear liberation' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HL12Df01.html December 12, 2006).

 

The Jewish state, and its Jewish political allies in America, persuaded the Bush regime to offer to legitimize India’s nuclear capabilities in order to deter India from supporting the construction of an oil pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India.