NATO and Israel: Instruments of America’s Wars in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, January 29, 2008

NATO’s Role in the Middle East War Theater

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the iron fist of America, Britain, France, and Germany. These four Western nations are the pillars of NATO.

In the post-Cold War era, NATO has become an instrument in support of Anglo-American and Franco-German foreign and security objectives. Although intra-NATO differences exist, the interests of the U.S., the E.U. and Israel — which since 2005 has held a de facto membership in NATO — are interlocked within the Atlantic military alliance.

Two areas in the Middle East have been militarized by foreign powers: the Persian Gulf and the Levant.

In this regard, there have been two distinct phases of militarization in the Middle East since the late-1970s, the first being distinctly Anglo-American, going back to the Iraq-Iran War and the later being a unified NATO endeavour involving France and Germany as key players.

Although the militarization process in the Levant started after the Second World War with the establishment of Israel, NATO’s distinctive role in this process took shape since the launching of the “Global War on Terror” in 2001.

Paris and Berlin reveal their functions in the “Global War on Terror”

The E.U., led by France and Germany, has actively supported Anglo-American foreign policy since the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror.” This has resulted in the ever expanding NATO involvement in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Both NATO and Israel are slated to take on major responsibilities in forthcoming regional conflicts with Iran and Syria, should they occur. This is evident by the positioning of NATO troops and warships in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and on the borders of both Iran and Syria.

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative: Entrapping the Palestinians in Mecca and via a Gaza-West Bank Split

In regards to Palestine, the chain of events that will be discussed will eventually lead to Annapolis. These events start with the 2002 Arab Initiative that was proposed by Saudi Arabia in Beirut during an Arab League conference in Lebanon. The Annapolis Conference was only an extravagant answer to the carefully crafted Saudi-proposal, which was really handed over to the Saudis by London and Washington in 2002 as part of their roadmap for the Middle East.

To understand where the path advertised at Annapolis is taking the Palestinians and the Levant one must also understand what has been happening in Palestine since 2001. To get to Annapolis one must recognize what happened between Hamas and Fatah, the calculated deceit behind Saudi Arabia’s role in the Mecca Accord, and the long-term objectives of America and its allies in the Middle East and the Mediterranean littoral.

First of all, America and the E.U. realized that Fatah did not represent the popular will of the Palestinian nation and that other Palestinian political parties would eventually take power away from Fatah. This was a problem for Israel, the E.U., and America because they needed the corrupt leaders of Fatah to implement their long-term objectives in the Palestinian Territories, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East.

In 2005, the U.S. State Department, the White House, and Israel started preparing themselves for a Hamas victory in the Palestinian general-elections. Thus, a strategy was created to neutralize not only Hamas but all the legitimate forms of Palestinian resistance to the foreign agendas that the Palestinians have been held hostages to since the “Nakba.”

Israel, America, and their allies, which included the E.U., were well aware that Hamas would never be a party to what Washington foresaw for the Palestinians and the Middle East. Simply stated, Hamas would oppose the Project for the “New Middle East” and what would be one of its consequential outcomes in the Levant, the Mediterranean Union. All along, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was a gateway for the materialization of both the “New Middle East” and the Mediterranean Union.

While the Saudi’s played their part in America’s “New Middle East” venture Fatah was manoeuvred, at a loss for better words, into fighting Hamas so that an understanding would be required between Hamas and Fatah. This was also done with the knowledge that Hamas’ first reaction as the governing Palestinian party would be to maintain the integrity of Palestinian unity. This is where Saudi Arabia comes into the picture again through its role in arranging the Mecca Accord. Saudi Arabia did not give Hamas any diplomatic recognition before the Mecca Accord.

The Mecca Accord was a setup and a means to entrap Hamas. The Hamas-Fatah truce and the subsequent Palestinian unity government that was established was never meant to last from the day that Hamas was deceived into signing the agreement in Mecca. The Mecca Accord was in advance a preparation to legitimize what would happen next, a Palestinian mini-civil war in Gaza.

It is after the signing of the Mecca Accord that elements within Fatah led by Mohammed Dahlan (supervised by U.S. Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton) were ordered to overthrow the Hamas-led Palestinian government by the U.S. and Israel.

There probably existed two contingency plans, one for Fatah’s possible electoral success and the other contingency plan (and more probable of the two) in the case of Fatah’s failure. The latter plan was a preparation for two parallel Palestinian governments, one in Gaza led by Prime Minister Haniyah and Hamas and the other in the West Bank controlled by Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas and his associates have also called for the creation of a parallel Palestinian parliament in the West Bank, a rubber stamp all but in name. [1]

The Mecca Accord effectively allowed Fatah to rule the West Bank in two strokes. Since a unity government was formed as a result of the Mecca Accord, a Fatah withdrawal from the government was used to depict the Hamas-led government as illegitimate by Fatah. This was while the renewed fighting in Gaza made new Palestinian elections unworkable. Mahmoud Abbas was also put in a position where he could claim legitimacy for forming his own administration in the West Bank that would have been seen worldwide for what it really was, an illegitimate regime. It is also no coincidence that the man picked to led Mahmoud Abbas’ government, Dr. Salam Fayyad, is a former World Bank employee.

With Hamas effectively neutralized and cut off from power in the West Bank, the stage was set for two things; proposals for an international military force in the Palestinian Territories and the Annapolis Conference. [2]

The Annapolis Peace Summit: Foreshadowing events yet to Come

According to Al Jazeera prior to the Annapolis Conference, agreements drafted by Mahmoud Abbas and Israel called the Agreement of Principles guaranteed that the Palestinians would not have a military force when the West Bank is given some form of self-determination.

The agreements also called for the integration of the economies of the Arab World with Israel and the positioning of an international force, similar to those in Bosnia and Kosovo, to supervise and implement these agreements in the Palestinian Territories. It also becomes clearer with the revelation of this information why there was a need to neutralize Hamas and legitimize Mahmoud Abbas.

This is where France, the E.U., and the creation of a Mediterranean Union re-enter the picture. For years, even before the “Global War on Terror,” Paris had been calling for a troop contingent from either the E.U. or NATO to be deployed in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. The people of the Middle East must open their eyes to what has been planned for their lands.

February 19, 2004, Dominique de Villepin stated that once the Israelis left the Gaza Strip foreign troops could be sent there and an international conference could legitimize their presence as part of the second phase of the Israeli-Palestinian Roadmap and as part of an initiative for the Greater Middle East or the “New Middle East.” [3] This statement was made before Hamas came to the government scene and before Mahmoud Abbas’ Agreement of Principles. However, it did follow the 2002 Saudi-proposed Arab Initiative.

It is clear, in this regard, that the events unfolding in the Middle East are part of a military roadmap drawn before the “Global War on Terror.”

This brings us to Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposals for a Mediterranean Union. The economic integration of the Israeli economy with the economies of the Arab World would further the web of global relationships being tightened by the global agents of the Washington Consensus. The Saudi-proposed Arab Peace Initiative, the Agreement of Principles, and Annapolis are all phases for establishing the economic integration of the Arab World with Israel through the Project for the “New Middle East” and the integration of the entire Mediterranean with the European Union through the Mediterranean Union. The presence of troops from both NATO and E.U. countries in Lebanon is also a part of this goal.

Lebanon Déjà Vu: Internationalization of the Gaza Strip by NATO?

There is ample evidence that the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon was planned by Israel, the U.S., and NATO. [4]

After deploying inside Lebanon in 2006 under the banner of UNIFIL, NATO was also slated to enter the Gaza Strip at some time in the near-future. Coinciding with the 2006 war on Lebanon, Israel was due to launch a major campaign against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials were saying that in the aftermath of the fighting between the Israeli military and the Palestinians that NATO was designated to move into Gaza. The Gaza Strip was viewed as the next destination for NATO “peacekeeping operations,” by Avigdor Lieberman, the former Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs. Avigdor Lieberman was also the deputy prime minister of Israel at the time.

Avigdor Lieberman even insisted, in the presence of Condoleezza Rice and U.S. officials, that a military operation against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was “inevitable” and “the results of such a action should be the entry of 30,000 NATO forces [meaning troops] to deploy in Gaza” so as to prevent any further [Palestinian] armed build-up. [5] Amir Peretz, while in the post of Israeli defence minister, had also stated in March of 2007 that the Israeli military had authorization for fresh military operations in the Gaza Strip. [6]

The fighting that Israeli officials and military commanders predicted has occurred, but not initially between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The fighting unfolded between the Palestinians in Gaza and then the Israelis started their operations. The Israelis merely outsourced their dirty work to Palestinian collaborators in Gaza, such as Mohammed Dahlan. Even the Israeli calls for the internationalization of the situation in Gaza, like the situation in Lebanon, have been outsourced to Palestinian collaborators. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, has been incriminatingly following the U.S. and Israeli script verbatim.

Israel: The De Facto Arm of NATO

“Israel’s diplomatic and security goal…must be clear: joining NATO and entering the European Union.”

-Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs

Israel has established a high-level military cooperation agreement with NATO. Avigdor Lieberman has stated that Israel is destined to become an outpost of the E.U. and a formal member of NATO. [7] The former Israeli minister also managed Israeli high-level contacts with NATO and the Iranian war dossier. He has been involved with the U.S. and NATO in regards to coordinated preparations against Syria and Iran.

Since the founding of the Jewish State, Israel has been perceived as a protrusion of the so-called “West” and its interests into the Middle East and the Arab World. Israel is an active member of NATO’s Operation Active Endeavour in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although Israel is not a NATO member, Israel together with Turkey constitute the backbone of NATO strength in the Middle East. Both Turkey and Israel are slated in the future to also take on major military roles in the Mediterranean region.

By the end of 2007 Israel started claiming that it was given the “green light” from the U.S., the E.U., and their mutual military body, NATO, to launch an attack against Iran. This would spark an all embracing war in the Middle East. The Israeli military has been training continuously and Israeli troops have been told by their superiors to prepare for an “all-out war.”

Creating Barriers in the Palestine Territories: Calculated Steps for the Future?

The Gaza Strip has been compared by many in Palestine and Israel to a large detention centre or prison. Movements are restricted, mobility rights are violated, and the whole area is surrounded by barriers and barbwire. Portions of it are also still occupied by the Israeli military and used as buffer zones.

The West Bank is a vast area compared to the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip is also a fraction of the size of the West Bank. It has an approximate 360 square km (139 square mile) total area and shares a 51 km (32 mile) border with the Israelis. The West Bank on the other hand has an official 5, 949 square km (2, 297 mile) total area. It is far easier to control or seal off the smaller Gaza border for the Israeli military than the West Bank. In regards to the demographics of the Israeli military and Israeli manpower the case is the same. In this sense sealing off and manning Gaza would be the easier of the two areas.

In the West Bank it will be Fatah with the help of foreign troops that will be used to restrain Palestinian fighters in the event of a broader Middle Eastern war. The venture to internationalize the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with foreign troops from NATO and Arab nations can also be seen as part of the effort to create a military barrier for Israel.

Gabi Ashkenazi, an Israeli general of mixed Bulgarian and Syrian descent, with ground experience in Lebanon as a supervisor of the South Lebanon Army (SLA) has succeeded Daniel Halutz as the head of the Israeli military. Ashkenazi was placed in charge of building the barrier, widely talked about as the “Apartheid Wall,” between the West Bank and Israel. Although not complete, the Apartheid Wall in the event of a regional war, would also obstruct Palestinian fighters from crossing the West Bank and fighting Israeli forces.

Creating Additional Barriers between Lebanon and Israel

The post-2006 UNIFIL that deployed to South Lebanon after the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon is not the same as the pre-2006 UNIFIL. It is a more robust and battle-ready entity and it too can be used as a shield for Israel and against the Lebanese in the case of a regional war launched by Israel.

Another important point is the Israeli military’s firing of about 3 million (or more) American-supplied cluster bombs into South Lebanon during the 2006 war against Lebanon. What came across as extremely sinister was the Israeli rush to saturate South Lebanon with these cluster bombs when the Israeli 2006 attacks on Lebanon were drawing to an end. South Lebanon’s geography gives a partial explanation; it is the region of Lebanon which borders Israel.

The mass ejection of the Israeli cluster bombs into South Lebanon was a calculated move to create another Israeli barrier from potential combatants in a future Middle Eastern war. These cluster bombs have basically become landmines that will prevent a wave of Lebanese fighters from crossing into Israel in the case of a major war against Iran, Syria, the Palestinians, and Lebanon.

Regional War Scenario: Israeli Preparations for a Retaliatory Missile Storm

The Project for a “New Middle East” will come at a high price and that price is war. The militarization of the Gaza Strip is multi-faceted in rationale and is linked to preparations for a broader Middle Eastern conflict. The deployment of foreign troops to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, like in Lebanon, and the walling up of the West Bank also serve the purpose of keeping the Palestinians at bay should a major war break out in the Middle East between Israel, America, and NATO on one side and Syria, Iran, and their allies on the other.

The rationale for this analysis is based on the fact that a war against Iran and Syria would reduce and weaken the Israeli military: Iranian ballistic missiles would leave Israeli forces exposed and the different Palestinian resistance groups are well aware of this. If a regional war were to break out between Israel and Iran and Syria, the Palestinians could be elevated to an almost equal fighting status on the ground with the Israelis in the Palestinian Territories. The dynamics of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would be transformed overnight.

Divisions amongst the Lebanese and the Palestinians would obstruct the effectiveness of a combined military endeavour against Israel in the case of a broader regional war. The situation is the same as in Iraq: the more divided the Iraqis are the weaker their war effort would be against the U.S. and its allies occupying Iraq. Aside from Palestine, the Nakba has been repeated in Iraq. There should be no mistake about it, the occupations of Palestine and Iraq are from the same cloth and architects. Bilad Al-Sham, Iraq, and their peoples suffer from the same source.

Does a Link exist between Talks of a Palestinian Nation and War?

“The war we [Israel] are waging in the Middle East is not a war of the State of Israel alone (…) and we [Israel] are situated on the front lines.”

– Avigdor Lieberman, the Minister for Strategic Affairs

Following the Hariri assassination, France and Germany have become more active in the diplomatic waltz of the Middle East. Franco-German resources are fully active in alignment with Anglo-American interests on the diplomatic front. Before going to Egypt on a state visit, Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Germany and the E.U. would restart the Arab-Israeli peace process. [8] Franco-German diplomats and the E.U. have also harmonized their efforts with Saudi Arabia in regards to mollifying the Palestinians. [9]

Many parallels can be drawn between the march to war of 2002 and 2003 in relation to Iraq and the ongoing march to war against Syria and Iran. One of these parallels was the White House initiative to revive a so-called “Arab-Israeli peace process” and to help establish an independent Palestinian State before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

There is a strong relationship between American wars in the Middle East and overtures of Palestinian statehood to the Arabs. The Oslo Accords were also linked to the 1991 defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War. Is this why George W. Bush Jr. talked more about the threat from Iran than about peace during his presidential tour of the Middle East and his visit to Israel?

One of the rationales for U.S. statements about statehood for the Palestinians, a façade, was to ensure that none of the client governments in the Arab World would be displaced through revolts by Arab populations and replaced. The Palestinian Question and support for the Palestinians is an issue that can win or lose hearts and minds in the Arab World and with many Muslim populations. The notion is that while there is temporary silence on the Palestinian front, new fronts may be opened without creating a massive outburst in the Middle East and elsewhere.

NATO-Israeli War Consultation at NATO Headquarters in Brussels

A consistent pattern is unfolding involving NATO, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the “Global War on Terror.” In late-June 2007, Avigdor Lieberman and Israeli officials had high-level meetings with NATO officials at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. [10] The Deputy Secretary-General of NATO, Alessandro Minuto Rizzo of Italy, and an Israeli delegation led by Avigdor Lieberman discussed the anticipated deployment of NATO units and forces in the Gaza Strip. [11]

The NATO Deputy Secretary-General and the Israeli side also discussed deploying an international force in Gaza to preserve order and prevent the Palestinians from arming themselves. [12] The meetings also pertained to Iran and the matter of air defences for Israel, and the deepening of intelligence cooperation between NATO and Israel. [13] Avigdor Lieberman returned to Israel from his meetings in Western Europe claiming on Israel’s Army Radio that the U.S., the E.U., and NATO had given Israel the “green light” to ignite war in the Middle East by launching an attack on Iran at an undisclosed time. [14]

In 2007 NATO gave Israel the “Green Light” to start a war with Iran at an Undisclosed Time

“Iran is a complicated country and it doesn’t seem that Israel has the power to counter [challenge] it.”

-Javier Solana, European Union Foreign Policy and Security Chief and former NATO Secretary-General (Der Tagesspiegel)

After returning from his trip to Western Europe and conferring with NATO Headquarters the former Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, said on early-July, 2007 that he received the tacit blessing of the E.U., the U.S., and NATO to initiate an Israeli military strike on Iran. “If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the U.S. will support us,” Avigdor Lieberman told Israeli Army Radio, in a message geared towards Israeli servicemen, following his European tour and his meetings with E.U. officials, José María Aznar of Spain, and the Deputy Secretary-General of NATO.

Avigdor Lieberman also asserted that because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S., Britain, and their European allies were unable to initiate a war with Iran and its allies, but were willing to allow Israel to attack Iran.

Avigdor Lieberman also affirmed that the U.S. and NATO would intervene on the side of Israel once the war with Iran and its allies were started. The message conveyed to Lieberman by NATO and E.U. officials was that Israel should “prevent the threat herself,” which means that Israel must launch the war against Iran and its regional allies. [15]

Israel will be protected by NATO in a war scenario with Iran and Syria

“The best way to provide Israel with that additional security is to upgrade its relationship with the collective [defence] arm of the West: NATO. Whether that upgraded relationship culminates in membership for Israel or simply a much closer strategic and operational [defence] relationship can be debated. After all, a classic security guarantee requires clear and recognized borders to be defended, something Israel does not have today. Configuring an upgraded Israel-NATO relationship will require careful diplomacy and planning.”

-Ronald D. Asmus, Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center in Brussels (February 21, 2006)

Israel can not challenge Iran militarily. Militarily Tehran is above Israel’s league, despite the illusions of Israeli strength. Tel Aviv will only launch a war against Iran, if the U.S. and NATO are partners in the military operation.

In such a scenario, the U.S., Britain, and NATO will immediately or almost immediately come to the side of Israel, as Avigdor Lieberman has stated.

This is a premeditated arrangement. The leaders of NATO will tell their citizens that Israel was compelled to attack Iran out of fear and because of its “right to exist.” Then they will close ranks with Israel. It should also be stated when a living organism’s “right to exist” comes at the deprivation of the “rights to exist” of everything else around it then it becomes a threat like cancer.

In March of 2006, it was reported in Britain that NATO officials had alluded that they would play a role in an Israeli-U.S. attack against Iran.

Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi reported that Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, NATO Commander of Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (AWAC) assured Israeli officials that NATO would be involved in a future campaign against the Iranians. [16]

“[Major-General] Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance [NATO] could play a supporting role if America [and Israel] launches air strikes.” The report also revealed that the Major-General was showcasing AWAC’s early warning surveillance plane to the Israelis. [17] The showcasing of NATO surveillance planes suggests the existence of joint Israel-NATO war preparations.

Strategic studies analyst Patrick Cronin of the International Institute for Strategic Studies also told The Guardian (U.K.) in 2007 that if Israel insisted on striking Iran, the U.S. would have to take “decisive action,” insinuating that America will enter the Israeli-sparked war on the side of Israel. [18]

Israel Working to Shape Strategic Atmosphere and Environment: But for Whom?

Napoléon Bonaparte once said, “International incidents must not be allowed to shape foreign policy, foreign policy must shape the incidents.” Whatever is said and claimed about this historic figure, he was a military genius and a grand statesmen. In his life time the Corsican officer escalated himself up to the rank of a general and became the Emperor of France, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Helvetic (Swiss) Confederation. His campaigns took him from the Pyramids of Mamluk Egypt and the hillsides of the Iberian Peninsula to the plains of Poland and the riverbanks of Moscow. He was a man of intellect who knew very well about the depth of international relations and the politics of incidents.

Were Napoléon Bonaparte still alive, he would not have been surprised at the events unravelling in the global environment, especially in the Middle East. Today, foreign policy is still shaping international incidents. Israel has been a battling entity that has been striving to sculpt and shape its strategic environment.

If the U.S. or Britain were to take the initiative to launch another war, their political leaders would face fierce opposition from public opinion, which could threaten the Anglo-American political establishment and even create national instability. But if Israel were to launch a war the situation would be quite different.

If Israel were to launch a war on the pretexts of defending itself from a growing Iranian menace, the U.S. and NATO would intervene to “protect Israel” from Iranian reprisals without appearing to have started another illicit international war.

Blame would be shouldered on the Israelis for the war rather than on the U.S. administration and its indefectible British ally. Western political leaders would argue that it is their national duty to protect Israel regardless of the Israeli breach of international laws.

Nuclear Armageddon in the Middle East: Israel to target the Arab World and Iran with Nukes?

According to Norman Podhoretz, one of the so-called intellectual forces behind the foreign policies of the Bush Jr. Administration, in the February 2008 issue of Commentary Magazine, “The only alternative that seemed even remotely plausible to me was that he [meaning George W. Bush Jr.] might outsource the job [of starting a war with Iran] to the Israelis.”

Not only has Podhoretz called for getting Tel Aviv to attack Iran for the U.S., he has also argued that a nuclear war in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Iranians is inevitable unless Iran is bombed. This is despite the fact that the Iranian nuclear energy program has been certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as peaceful. Based on the work of Anthony Cordesman, Pordhoretz has also brought up the notion that Israel will also have to eliminate its Arab neighbours, such as Egypt and Syria (even if they are Israeli allies and at peace with Israel like Egypt).

In Podhoretz’s own words: “In the grisly scenario Cordesman draws, tens of millions would indeed die, but Israel — despite the decimation of its civilian population and the destruction of its major cities — would survive, even if just barely, as a functioning society. Not so Iran, and not its ‘key Arab [neighbours],’ particularly Egypt and Syria, which Cordesman thinks Israel would also have to target in order ‘to ensure that no other power can capitalize on an Iranian strike.’ Furthermore, Israel might be driven in desperation to go after the oil wells, refineries, and ports in the [Persian] Gulf.”

Osirik/Osiriq Déjà Vu: Israeli Attack against Iran in the Works?

It should be noted that Pervez Musharraf started a tour of Europe in the same window of time as the presidential tours of the American President and Nicolas Sarzoky in the Middle East and the withdrawal of Avigdor Lieberman from the Israeli cabinet. [19] The aim of Musharraf’s tour is to coordinate with the E.U. and NATO in Brussels, as well as to visit France, Britain, and Switzerland. [20] Musharraf’s trip comes at a time when Pakistan is in a divisive political crisis and in the eve of Israeli calls for war with Iran.

The Secretary-General of NATO, Jakob (Jaap) de Hoop Scheffer, also visited the U.A.E. shortly after the tours of George W. Bush Jr. and Nicolas Sarkozy; de Hoop Scheffer told his hosts in Abu Dhabi that NATO would work in the Persian Gulf to contain Iran. [21] The Secretary-General of NATO also called Iran a common threat to both the GCC and to NATO members. Secretary-General de Hoop Scheffer’s trip and statements are in line with Anglo-American and Franco-German plans in the Middle East to confront Iran. While in the U.A.E. the Secretary-General of NATO also inferred that NATO would get involved in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which as noted has been in the works for years. [22]

Alarming statements that have been insinuating a looming attempt by Tel Aviv to attack Iran have been made repeatedly since 2004 and have been getting stronger. At the 2008 Herzliya Conference, an annual Israeli conference on national security, John Bolton encouraged Tel Aviv to bomb Iran while mentioning the September 2007 Israeli air strike on Syria as a precedent for another attack. [23] In a state of irony, Ehud Barak started making claims in late-January, 2008 that Iran is in the final stages of manufacturing nuclear warheads while the Israeli government was announcing the success of missiles that carry nuclear warheads. [24]

Paris has also suggested that Israel will start a war against Iran; in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Nicolas Sarkozy stated that the likelihood of Israel starting a war against Iran are far greater than an American attack on Iran. [25] The U.S. Homeland Secretary, Michael Chertoff, has also confirmed that the U.S. would not launch any attacks against Iran in an interview with RIA Novosti. [26]

Iran and Syria have stated that they are ready to protect themselves and would retaliate to any Israeli aggression. [27] All around the Middle East the forces that are resisting foreign control are on alert for some form of Israeli hostility. “If Israel launches a new war against Lebanon, we promise them a war that will change the face of the entire region,” the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has also warned Tel Aviv in anticipation of renewed Israeli aggression in the Middle East during a public ceremony in Beirut. [28]

Israel: An Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Tel Aviv has been justifying its opponent’s claims that it is a tool of colonial projects in Middle East. The majority of Israelis are themselves being manipulated by a complex system that includes media disinformation, fear mongering, and longstanding psychological conditioning. Israeli blood is being used to oppress, kill, appropriate, and to fuel the engines of economic empires. Mercantilism is still very much alive, but in a mutated form.

Israel through its officials and government leaders is being used to maintain tension in the Middle East. Israel is an instrument which justifies Anglo-American and Franco-German intervention. Why else would the U.S. get angry with Israel because Tel Aviv did not endanger its own interests by attacking Syria during the 2006 Israeli against Lebanon and facing the wrath of an expanded regional war with Iran and Syria? [29]

Despite the demands and views of the majority of the Israeli population, Ehud Olmert, a man who was known for his corruption as the mayor of West Jerusalem, is still in the office of prime minister. Just as the democratic will of the American public has been ignored in regards to Iraq, the democratic will of Israelis has been ignored about the removal of Ehud Olmert. Like in many other places, the interests of the population of Israel are meaningless to the upper echelons of power. Israel’s leaders do not serve the interests of Israelis, they serve the “Washington Consensus.”

Ehud Olmert’s coalition may last long enough to start a regional war. Prime Minister Olmert’s political career is virtually over and he has nothing to loose from starting another war. Avigdor Lieberman, the man who led the high level consultations with NATO on behalf of Tel Aviv, left the Israeli cabinet during George W. Bush Jr.’s visit to Israel as a part of his recent presidential tour of the Middle East. Lieberman stated that his departure was because of “the peace talks” with the Palestinians, but in reality he took the decision because of the Winograd Commission and as part of a tactic to keep the Labour Party of Israel within Ehud Olmert’s coalition government. This is a tactic to possibly give enough life and time to Ehud Olmert’s government to launch a regional war by attempting to attack Iran.

Even the enemies of Israel agree that Tel Aviv is a proxy of Anglo-American and foreign interests. Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the defence minister of Iran in 2004, warned the U.S. government that in the case of an Israeli attack, Iranian military retaliation would be directed against both the U.S. and Israel. It is understood, in this regard, that were Tel Aviv to launch a war, it would need a U.S. green light before commencing the attacks. [30] The White House has also been fully involved in all Israeli missile tests and Israeli war preparations have involved joint Israeli-American coordination through such bodies as the Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group. [31]

In the wake of the 2006 war on Lebanon, the Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassam (Kassam) declared in an interview given to Al-Manar Television: “Who started the war? Israel. It turned out that Israel does not respond proportionally, but rather executes pre-planned American decisions. The aggression was planned in advance.” [32] Sheikh Naim Qassam further accused “Israel of functioning as an arm of the United States.” Sheikh Naim Qassam explained that “Everyone has always said that Israel pulls America’s strings, but now it turns out that America rules Israel. Israel has turned into America’s arm.” [33]


Related articles from the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG):

The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East & North Africa by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

NATO and Israel: Instruments of America’s Wars in the Middle East

America’s “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The “Great Game” Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is:

The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East & North Africa by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, February 10, 2008

The Middle East and North Africa are in the process of being divided into spheres of influence between the European Union and the United States. Essentially the division of the Middle East and North Africa are between Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. There is a unified stance within NATO in regards to this re-division.

While on the surface Iraq falls within the Anglo-American orbit, the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas resources have been set to fall into the Franco-German orbit. In fact the Mediterranean region as a whole, from Morocco and gas-rich Algeria to the Levant is coveted by Franco-German interests, but there is more to this complex picture than meets the eye.

Unknown to the global public, several milestone decisions have been made to end Franco-German and Anglo-American squabbling that will ultimately call for joint management of the spoils of war. Franco-German and Anglo-American interests are converging into one. The reality of the situation is that the area ranging from Mauritania to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan will be shared by America, Britain, France, Germany, and their allies.

These spheres of influence are really spheres of responsibility in a long campaign to restructure the Middle East and North Africa. The services agreement between Total S.A. and Chevron to jointly develop Iraqi energy reserves, NATO agreements in the Persian Gulf, and the establishment of a permanent French military base in the U.A.E. are all results of these objectives. Militant globalization and force is at work from Iraq and Lebanon to the Maghreb.

Redrawing European Security Borders: The Road to Redrawing the Map of the Middle East

“The politics [foreign policy] of a state are in its geography.”

-Napoleon Bonaparte I, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Helvetic (Swiss) Confederation

Before NATO’s Riga Summit it was agreed upon that the western periphery of the “Arc of Instability” would be manned by NATO and fall under Franco-German responsibility. [1] Signs of the consensus reached between the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides had emerged through Franco-German representatives a month prior to NATO’s conference in Riga, Latvia. While lecturing at Princeton University in October 2006, Joschka Fischer the former German Foreign Affairs Minister, a member of the Green Party of Germany, and a representative of the Franco-German entente gave a profound revelation about the direction of the foreign, security, and defence policy that Germany and France were heading towards.

The direction according to Joschka Fischer was “eastward,” with both the Middle East and its Eastern Mediterranean waters being named as the new borders of Europe. This region would be part of the new security sphere of the E.U. and Europe. The former German minister stated that the terrorist bombings in London, Britain and Madrid, Spain showed that the Middle East “is truly our [Europe’s] backyard, and we in the E.U. must cease our shortsightedness and recognize that.” [2]

Furthermore, Joschka Fischer warned that Europe needed to shift its attention to the Middle East and Turkey — a member of NATO and one of the “gateways” or “entrances” into the Middle East. It is not coincidental that The New York Times also argued for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East just months after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003. [3] By 2004 and through the joint Anglo-American and Franco-German coordination in Lebanon it was clear that France and Germany had agreed to be America’s bridgeheads in Eurasia. This is what brought about the leadership of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in Berlin and Paris.

The statements of Joschka Fischer reflected a broader attitude within the leading circles of France and Germany. They are not coincidental remarks or innovative in nature or isolated statements. They are part of long-standing objectives and policies that have existed for decades. Fischer’s lecture foreshadowed the drive towards the harmonization of foreign policy in the Middle East between France, Germany, Britain, and the United States. What Joschka Fischer said marked the rapprochement of the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance and foreshadowed the greater role the E.U. and NATO would play in U.S. foreign policy.

The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s school/university newspaper, quoted the former German official as making the following statements: [4]


1. “Europe’s security is no longer defined on its [Europe’s] eastern borders, but in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.”

2. “Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted.”

Joschka Fischer’s statements also foreshadow Nicolas Sarkozy’s public campaign in the Mediterranean region. Franco-German policy is also exposed in regards to Turkey; before Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in France, Chancellor Angela Merkel intensified her calls for the inclusion of Turkey within the framework of the E.U. through a “special relationship,” but not as part of the actual European bloc. [5] This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the Turks.

This could mean one of two things: Franco-German policy is part of a continuum regardless of leadership and party politics or that the outcome of the 2007 French presidential elections were known in Berlin or decided beforehand. Whatever the case, the German statements expose a calculated agenda in Paris, Berlin, and other European circles for expansion linked to the Anglo-American march to war.

Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective govemments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians. These economic interests determine in both France and Germany as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy.

The Mediterranean Union: Expanding the E.U. into the Middle East and North Africa

The whole Mediterranean is slated to eventually fall within the European Union’s sphere of influence. This initiative is being spearheaded by France and was officially kicked off by Nicolas Sarkozy on a tour of the Mediterranean that started in Algeria. [6]The idea of a “Mediterranean Union” was presented to Europeans with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, but this idea is not as new as the mainstream media presents it. Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in 1997 that “France not only seeks a central political role in a unified Europe but also sees itself as the nucleus of a Mediterranean-North African cluster of states that share common concerns.” [7] An extension of the E.U. sphere of influence will also result in an extension of Anglo-American influence and the economic diktats of the Washington Consensus. In this case the question is how much Anglo-American influence will there be within the Mediterranean Union?

The E.U. is a shared body which support both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests. It is through America’s “special relationship” with Britain and NATO that America has a foothold in the European Union. However, the E.U. is still predominately managed by Paris and Berlin. Thus, the Mediterranean littoral will be brought largely under Franco-German influence when the E.U. model is fused onto the Mediterranean.

The mechanism and structure established by the extension of the E.U. in the Mediterranean will determine the level of Anglo-American influence within the Mediterranean littoral. If the E.U. creates an overlapping mechanism in the Mediterranean where the nations of the Mediterranean littoral are linked only directly with E.U. members bordering the Mediterranean and indirectly with other E.U. members, then Anglo-American influence will be much weaker than it would be in the case of full integration between the E.U. and Mediterranean. This type of relationship would greatly empower Paris and Berlin within the Mediterranean.

Hypothetically, this arrangement could exclude Britain, as well as America. The Mediterranean could strictly fall into the Franco-German orbit, but this seems to be an unlikely scenario. Anglo-American control and influence will be maximized if the Mediterranean is wholly amalgamated into the European Union. However, this could damage the E.U. and hurt Anglo-American and Franco-German interests for different reasons, including demographics, if it is not done at a proper pace. If amalgamation is not achieved gradually, the E.U. could face internal instability. In reality, it is in the interests of the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides to share the Mediterranean.

This is another case where cooperation with the Franco-German entente, is in the interest of both and Britain and America. To insure a strong Anglo-American role, NATO has been involved, and Israel has been integrated into the framework for a Mediterranean Union.

Israel’s role in this process also hinges upon its bilateral relationship with Turkey.

The role of Turkey as a Mediterranean country is considered pivotal in the creation of a “union in the Mediterranean region,” as one of its backbones. What has been created is an extensive network of relationships and links that will make the whole structure of a Mediterranean Union easy and quick to formalize. The far-reaching economic and military ties between Turkey and Israel will ensure that Israel is well integrated into the proposed Mediterranean entity.

Dual membership for Turkey within the E.U. and the Mediterranean Union, but without full E.U. benefits, would also benefit Anglo-American interests. This may explain why Britain and America publicly support the direct entry of Turkey into the European Union. The roles of Turkey and Israel in the Mediterranean are also topics that must be touched upon to themselves.

Establishing a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone and Sharing the Spoils of Libya’s Oil Wealth

Both the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides are sharing the spoils in Libya, one of the targets of threats of war through the “Global War on Terror.” After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Libya surrendered peacefully to demands from the “Western Powers.” The Washington Consensus made its breakthrough into Libya.

Tripoli was on a blacklist of nations, which included Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. It was also in 2003 that construction of the Greenstream Pipeline was made to supply the E.U. with Libyan natural gas via a route running through the Mediterranean Sea to the Italian island of Sicily.

It seems just like yesterday when Libya was categorized as a “rogue state” and vilified as a supporter of international terrorism. Its status changed almost overnight with the opening up of its markets. A country’s economic policy is what determines its status in the eyes of Washington and London.

There have been no political or ideological changes in Libya nor has there been any change in leadership, but Libya is no longer seen as a rogue state. The only thing that has changes is that Libya has flung its doors open to U.S. and E.U. economic interests.

The economic, energy, and weapons deals signed with Libya in 2007 reveal the ultimate economic intent of the “Global War on Terror.” Moreover, Libya has committed itself to a program of “national reform.” [8] The media has picked up on this, but fails to talk about the real shape of reform in Libya.

The reforms are being presented as merely “democratic reform.” In practice, Libya has also accepted to undertake a “free market” program of economic restructuring in accordance with the demands of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany. Additionally, Colonel Qaddafi the ruler and Libya’s authority can not be challenged, which exposes the true cosmetic face of these so-called democratic reforms.

Moreover, the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 that calls for a Euro-Mediterranean Partnership stands in the backdrop of the neo-liberal economic reforms, which will open up the Libyan economy to foreign investors.

The Barcelona Declaration was intended to establish a European dominated free trade zone in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean region by 2010. Everything is on track, in regards to the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration. The U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) is also a parallel to this. The E.U.’s Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), an aggressive free trade agreement being imposed under economic threats on former European colonies, also has similar templates in regards to the ACP States in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

Justifying ties to Libya: The Bulgarian Nurses and a Shameless E.U. Public Relations Campaign

It is no accident that a group of Bulgarian nurses were freed by Libya in connection with the visit of President Sarkozy while he was on a Mediterranean tour to talk about the establishment of the Mediterranean Union. [9] The whole event was an E.U. public relations stunt. Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in Libya on July 25, 2007 to sign five major deals with Libya just one day after his former wife, Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz, shuttled out of Tripoli on board a French presidential jet with the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor that France and the E.U. had negotiated for.

The Bulgarian nurse ordeal has been used as a justification for improving economic ties with Libya, a nation otherwise demonized as an international rogue, despite the E.U. claims of commercial relationships being tied to human rights. The whole affair was stage managed and was an attempt to hide the underlying economic interests that dictate foreign policy in the E.U. and America. At the time, it was also reported that Libya blackmailed the E.U. for economic benefits in regards to the freedom of the Bulgarian nurses. However, in reality it is the E.U. that benefiting from the economic arrangements with Libya and not the other way around.

The mainstream press in the E.U. attempted to make it look like President Sarkozy was acting on his own in regards to Libya and started calling him a maverick, but nothing could be further from the truth. The French government claimed that their business deals with Libya were part of an effort to bring Libya into the light of “respectability” and that human right issues were also discussed between the French President and Colonel Qaddafi. However, Colonel Qaddafi stated at UNESCO Headquarters, in Paris, that human rights were never even talked about between the French President and himself. [10] This was during a highly reported five-day state visit made by Colonel Qaddafi to France where the Libyan leader was welcomed by President Sarkozy on December 10, 2007. [11]

The freedom of the Bulgarian nurses also came after major Anglo-American arms and energy deals were announced with Libya. [12] Both Anglo-American and Franco-German economic interests were being served in Libya. In May of 2007, in a state of irony, the British prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, announced a major Anglo-American arms and energy deal while visiting Libya and Colonel Qaddafi. [13] The French, with the knowledge and support of their German partners, also announced an arms deal between the European Aeronautics and Defence Space Company (EADS) and Libya. [14] France also announced a major nuclear deal with Libya. France, like Britain and the U.S., has coddled Libya in pursuit of economic interests and this should dispel for once and for all the mirage that the U.S. and the E.U. are defenders of democracy and human rights.

In a related event Colonel Qaddafi has also told African leaders that if plans for an African Union were delayed that Libya would divert billions of dollars worth of investments from the African continent to the Mediterranean region and become its most influential player. [15] Pertaining to the Mediterranean Union Qaddafi also stated that the fates of Libya and North Africa are tied to Europe. [16]

Exposing Paris and Berlin at their game: Germany’s role in the Mediterranean Union

It has been reported in the mainstream media that the weapons and nuclear agreements between France and Libya have upset Berlin, but German officials have denied this as untrue. [17] Chancellor Angela Merkel has also claimed that France’s idea of a Mediterranean Union threatens the E.U. and its institutions. German leaders are playing a game of on-and-off-again opposition to Paris in regards to Libya and the Mediterranean Union. Berlin makes critical statements of French actions, but then denies them to create a shroud of confusion.

Media reports and Berlin’s statements are utterly false and intended to deliberately mislead the public. Germany had to approve the French deals with Libya, because EADS is a Franco-German company that has both private and governmental interests and representation from both Paris and Berlin. The contracts with Libya could never have been formalized without the okay of the German government.

Germany is fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, as are America and Britain. The hypocrisy of the whole act that is being played out in Paris, Berlin, and E.U. capital cities is part of a tactic to mislead the public opinion. In Britain, The Financial Times called attention to the fact that Angela Merkel really wants Germany and the E.U. to be fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union: “Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, pointedly told France’s ruling UMP [Union pour un Mouvement Populaire/Union for a Popular Movement] party yesterday that the future stability of the Mediterranean region affected the whole European Union and that all 27 [E.U.] member states should be involved in the engagement process.” [18]

The context of the German Chancellor’s speech was for the creation of something going beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995, which she called too “bureaucratic,” that would fully include all E.U. members. Frau Merkel emphasized that the Mediterranean was vital for Germany and northern E.U. members and not just France and Mediterranean E.U. members like Spain and Italy: “‘Germany wants to assume its responsibilities in the Mediterranean and we want to offer to all [E.U.] member countries the possibility to participate,’ she said. ‘We should have a reinforced co-operation [between the E.U. and Mediterranean]. I am convinced that all European countries are interested in this.’” [19]

In her speech, Frau Merkel stated that she was convinced that all E.U. members would be interested in having roles in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, but this is an untruthful statement — Frau Merkel knows that the entire E.U. was slated from the start to be a part of that process. The issue is not about interest, but about a calculated long-term arrangement.

Nicolas Sarkozy has moved forward with the staged act of presenting a compromise by saying that Germany and any other non-Mediterranean E.U. members (e.g. Britain) that want to participate in the creation of the Mediterranean Union are welcome. This is all a complete act. This is part of the commencement of publicly making the Mediterranean Union into what it already was, which is an E.U. initiative.

It should also be noted that German representatives were also in West Africa in connection to the French initiatives in the Mediterranean region. [20] The Germans are also preparing for the road ahead when the Mediterranean Union would economically link Africa to Europe and set the stage for further expansionism.

E.U. Declarations of support for the Mediterranean Union

The Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has also announced Spain’s support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union and for new migration laws during a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy. [21] Although it is not being tied to the creation of the Mediterranean Union, the rationale for a drive to establish new migration laws is precisely because of the Mediterranean Union and the influx of migrants that could arrive into the E.U. from the poorer countries of the Mediterranean. Italy has also signalled its support for the Mediterranean Union and new migration laws in the E.U. during the same meetings between Prime Minister Zapatero and President Sarkozy, which involved Prime Minister Prodi. [22]

All the Mediterranean members of the E.U., also called the “Olive Group,” have also declared their support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union at a two-day conference (January 17-18, 2008) held in Paphos, Cyprus. [23] The Cypriot Foreign Minister, Eros Kazakou-Marcoullis told the international press that the Mediterranean members of the E.U. fully back the creation of a Mediterranean Union: “We reaffirmed our support to all efforts which have as an objective the strengthening of the cooperation between European and Mediterranean countries and reiterated the importance of the Mediterranean region for the security, stability and prosperity of the European Union.” [24]

The Annapolis Conference and the Arab-Israeli Conflict were also discussed in Paphos because of their deep relevance to the integration of the Arab World and Israel with the European Union. A forced agreement on the Arabs would pave the way for the political and economical restructuring of the Arab World. Without mentioning it directly, the Mediterranean Union has also been inferred to as a solution to the issue of unifying Greek and Turkish Cypriots by Gerhard Schröder (Schroeder), the former federal chancellor of Germany. [25]

PART IIThe Mediterranean Union: NATO’s Role in Conquering the Middle East and North Africa

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


Related articles from the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG):

NATO and Israel: Instruments of America’s Wars in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

America’s “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The “Great Game” Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is:

Israel’s Nuclear Missile Threat against Iran by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, January 19, 2008

“What troubles me is that perhaps the Americans will attack Iran. (…) That would thrust us [Israel] into a war and the home front [in opposition to Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Syria] is not ready [yet].”

Major-General Ze’evi-Farkash, former Chief of Israel Military Intelligence (March 4, 2007)

In the former Yugoslavia, militarily the NATO campaign was a failure in defeating the Yugoslav military. It was because of the harsh targeting of civilian infrastructure and the slaughter of civilians that Yugoslavia decided to surrender.

The Iranians have learned a great deal from watching the indiscriminate bombardment of Belgrade and Baghdad. The Yugoslavs and the Iraqis did not posses air power or strong air defences, but the Iranians have been working precisely on this matter through the development of their domestic missile industry. It is Tehran’s missile technology, which distinguishes Iran from Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Syria: A Strategic Objective for Israel

It was the Iranian missile arsenal, along with the fact that the Israelis did not penetrate far enough into Lebanese territory, which prevented the Israelis from expanding their July 2006 war on Lebanon into Syria.

Syria was one of the three strategic objectives for the Israelis and the international mainstream media was preparing the public for an outbreak of war between Israel and Syria. [1] The Syrian government was also openly bracing itself for war. [2] Israel wanted to invade Damascus through the vulnerable Lebanese-Syrian border instead of the heavily fortified Israeli-Syrian frontier. However, the Israelis underestimated the strength of the Lebanese Resistance and were not prepared to confront Iran and the Iranian missile arsenal during July of 2006.

In March 2007, thousands of U.S. and Israeli troops amassed in the Negev Desert of Israel in their fourth joint exercise, code-named “Juniper Cobra.” This exercise was designed to test U.S. and Israeli air defence systems.[3]

The exercise was portrayed as routine, but the purpose of the Israeli air defence system was originally created in the 1990s on the assumption of an eventual military confrontation with Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

These 2007 Israeli-U.S. war games were in response to a series of Iranian military exercises and missile tests conducted since 2006. Iranian missile and rocket technology has developed to a level where Iran has successfully launched its first space rocket into orbit and is preparing its own satellite launches. [4]

The Israeli-U.S. tests and war games seem to be geared towards consolidating Israeli air defences in relaiton to Iranian missile capabilities, prior to a possible and long anticipated showdown with Iran and Syria.

By the same token, Israel is also preparing for war with Syria, which has been upgrading and advancing its missile arsenal and technology with the help of both Iran and Russia.

Israel’s Nuclear Missile Test: Veiled Nuclear Threat against Iran?

Is Iran threatening Israel or is it the other way around?

The Israeli government has said that all options at Israel’s disposal are legitimate in crippling Iran. According to Reuters, Israel stated on January 17 that a missile tested by Tel Aviv was “capable of carrying an ‘unconventional payload’ — an apparent reference to the nuclear warheads Israel is assumed to possess, though it has never publicly confirmed their existence.” [5]

Israel Radio (which is the object of censorship regarding military issues), claims that according to unidentified foreign sources, Israel was developing its Jericho III long-range surface-to-surface missile and that  Jericho III has a range which can reach Iranian territory. [6] Are these statements intended to intimidate Tehran and its regional allies in the Middle East?

According to another Reuters report, “Israel is believed to have atomic arms and foreign analysts have said for many years that its Jericho I and Jericho II missiles can carry nuclear warheads.” [7] Without giving its sources the same report also stated, “Amateur photos posted on Israeli news Web sites showed a white plume in the sky above central Israel.” [8] This appears to be a reference to some form of a nuclear weapons test.


[1] The Strategic objectives of the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon were the following;

.1. Neutralizing the Lebanese Resistance and finlandizing (pacifying) Lebanon, while empowering Lebanese fractions collaborating with the governments of America, France, and Israel to control Lebanon as a proxy state.

.2. Engage Syria in a devastating war that would open the door for possible U.S. and NATO involvement and eventually result in controlling the Syrian coast and regime change in Damascus.

.3. Militarizing the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean and giving NATO forces valid rational for their naval and troop presence in the region.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Syria Preparing for US-Israeli Attacks, Centre for Research on Globalization, May 24, 2007Syria will intervene if Israeli troop approach, Xinhua News Agency, July 24, 2006; “Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said on Sunday that Syria will not sit tight if Israeli ground troops invade Lebanon and approach his country, the official SANA news agency reported. ‘If Israel invades Lebanon over ground and comes near to us, which threatens the national security (of Syria), Syria will not sit tight,’ Bilal was quoted as saying in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.”

[3] Aron Heller, Israel, U.S. Test Missile Defense, The Guardian (U.K.), March 18, 2007.

[4] Iran Lunches First Space Rocket, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), February 25, 2007Iran rocket claim raises tension, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), February 25, 2007.

[5] Firouz Sedarat, Israel “would not dare attack Iran”: Ahmadinejad, Reuters, January 17, 2008.

[6] Ori Lewis and Daniel Williams, Israel says carried out missile launching test, Reuters, January 17, 2007.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is:

America’s “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, January 17, 2008

The Presidential Tour of George W. Bush to the Middle East: A New Cold War?

In 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in Missouri that helped set the rhetorical stance for the rivalry between the two camps or poles respectively formed by the Soviet Union and the United States after the Second World War.

Starting in 2006, the Middle East has been depicted in a similar way by the White House and 10 Downing Street. In the end, history will decide and give its verdict on the miniature version of the Cold War now unfolding in the Middle East.

It is no secret that the 2008 presidential tour of George W. Bush Jr. to the Middle East is more about rallying hostility and antagonism against Iran and those forces resisting Washington’s political and socio-economic curriculum for the Middle East. The U.S. President’s tour is part of an exhorted effort to replace Israel with a vilified Iran as a looming threat to the Arab World. This undertaking which is part of America’s Project for a “New Middle East” was initiated after Israel’s war against Lebanon in July of 2006.

Balkanization and the Muslim Divide: Shiite Muslims versus Sunni Muslims

In relationship to the preparations for creating the “New Middle East” there have been attempts, with partial success, to deliberately create divisions within the populations of the Middle East and Central Asia through ethno-cultural, religious, sectarian, national, and political differentiations.

Aside from fuelling ethnic tensions, such as those between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq, a sectarian divide is being deliberately cultivated within the ranks of the people of the Middle East which consider themselves Muslims. This divide is being fostered between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

These divisions have been fuelled by the U.S., British, and Israeli intelligence apparatus. The intelligence agencies of Arab regimes within the Anglo-American orbit have also been involved in the construction of these divisions. This divide is also being cultivated with the help of various groups and leaders in these respective communities.

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the rulers of the Arab League were aware that the U.S. and Britain intended to redraw the borders of the Middle East. It was openly mentioned at the summit of Arab rulers being held in Egypt prior to the Anglo-American invasion.

The interests of many of the corrupt Arab elites, the self-proclaimed cream of the crop within the Arab World, and autocratic Arab authorities have historically convened and adhered to Anglo-American and Franco-German political and socio-economic interests.

The House of Saud, the Hariri clan of Lebanon, and the absolute rulers established throughout the Arab World all share common financial and economic links with the Project for the “New Middle East.” They have a vested interest in the promotion of the economic and political model that the U.S. wishes to entrench in the Middle East.

The “Shia Crescent” and the Phantom Iranian Conquest of the Middle East

To create hostility within the Muslim populations of the Middle East, Iran is being portrayed as the vanguard of Shia or Shiite expansionism in the region, vis-à-vis the so-called “Shia Crescent,” and Saudi Arabia portrayed as the champion of the Sunni Muslims.

The truth of the matter is that Iran does not represent all the Shiite Muslims nor does Saudi Arabia represent all the Sunni Muslims; these efforts are part of the politicizing of faith for U.S. foreign policy goals and for misleading public opinion throughout the region.

This animosity between peoples of Muslim faith and the populations of the Middle East has been created to justify animosity against Iran and those perceived to be in the same camp as Iran, such as Syria and Hezbollah.

Arab leaders also have an easier time controlling their populations when they are fighting amongst each other and diluted through divisions. Sectarian and ethnic division also create confusion within the various populations, distracts them from their problems at home, and projects their animosity towards their leaders on others. Fear or anger towards the “Other” or the “Outsider” has always been a form of manipulating large groups and whole segments of societies.

With the peoples of the region divided against each other, their resources can be controlled and they themselves governed and further manipulated with greater ease. This has been part of the objective of British and American foreign policy all along. In this effort, local rulers and foreign forces have been partners.

“The Coalition of the Moderate” in the Mid-East and the manipulation of the Arabs

“We [Israel] must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran.”

-Brigadier-General Oded Tira, Israeli Military

“Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.” The historical context of this statement is very significant. This admission was made during the First World War in the Middle East when the British were fighting against the Ottoman Turks with the help of the Ottoman’s rebellious Arab subjects. The Arab’s help was insured through false promises and London’s deception. What was being revealed by this interlocutor of British policy was British forces should not do most the active fighting in the Middle East and let the Arabs fight Britain’s war against the Turks.

Revealing the author, these were the words of a man who has been inscribed into the pages of history as a legendary figure and as a hero to the Arabs. In reality he was an agent of British imperialism that misled the Arabs with the help of of corrupt local leaders. His name was Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence or, as most people know him, “Lawrence of Arabia.”

The 27 Articles of T.E. Lawrence
(August 20, 1917) is where these words can be found for all to scrutinize. Thus started the road down to the modern entanglement of the Arab masses to colonial masters and handpicked Western vassals.

Some may argue that the British were helping the Arabs gain autonomy, but history shows this to be an absolute lie. London was furthering its own interests and it had been a geo-strategic objective of theirs to divide the Ottoman Empire up regardless of the fact that that there was a war with the Ottomans and the Central Powers.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement reveals this as does the creation of British and French mandates in the place of what were supposed to be independent Arab nations. It should also be noted that all the major problems in the Middle East are rooted in this period from the Armenian Genocide, the Kurdish Question, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, to the issue of Cyprus and the territorial disputes of the Persian Gulf and the Levant.

The Arab elites are being marshaled into formation yet again to do the dirty work of foreign powers. Once again, Arab leaders are also accessories to the agenda of foreigners in the Middle East against their own people.

Links between the U.A.E. Speeches of Messrs Bush and Blair: Dividing the Mid-East into Camps

The “us and them” mentality is being lodged into the mindset of Middle Easterners in regards to themselves. The ancient region is being divided into two camps by the White House and its partners.

After the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in July 2006, Condoleezza Rice the U.S. Secretary of State and others such as Tony Blair started this venture by categorized the Middle East into two groupings. Those in the Middle East that fell into the Anglo-American camp and colluded with Israel were described as “moderates” and “reformers” and as part of what became called the “Coalition of the Moderate.” It is also around this time that the Pentagon announced its plans to arm Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Arab regimes allied to the U.S. and Britain.

Those in the Middle East who either opposed foreign intervention and hegemony in the region, either because of their own agenda or because of the right for self-determination, were labeled “extremists” and “rejectionists.” [1] These anti-hegemonic forces in the Middle East were categorized as members of the “other camp” even though in some cases they had no links aside from fighting foreign tutelage. This latter camp includes the Iraqi Resistance, Hamas, and Iran, amongst others.

There is an obvious theme in the underlying rhetoric of the December 2006 and January 2008 Middle East policy speeches of Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Both were presented in the U.A.E. and held almost exactly a year apart. Both speeches depict a bloc of radicals in the Middle East led by Iran and both speeches attempt to divide the Middle East into two opposing blocs.

It was soon after the disastrous 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon that Tony Blair, in line with Condoleezza Rice, subtly called for “an alliance of moderation in the region and outside of it to defeat the extremists.” [2] While in Dubai the former British prime minister called Iran a “strategic challenge,” which according to Paul Reynolds, an international affairs correspondent, was a replacement for the words “strategic threat” from his original speech read in California. He also replaced the words “trying to acquire a nuclear weapon” with “trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.” [3] This obvious change in word selection was because the people of the countries living next to Iran know better and would not have taken Tony Blair’s speech seriously.

This was simply the beginning of the public revelation of the alliance system that already informally subsisted in the Middle East. Tony Blair’s U.A.E. speech was another stage in the media phase of the war effort that includes the preparation of the general public for confrontation in the Middle East. It was also part of the attempt to turn the conflict into one of ideas and an ideological one like the Cold War.

The U.A.E. and Israel as models for the “New Middle East”

By the start of 2008, the White House and its allies have ceased their insincere chatter about democratization in the Middle East, except in the case of Iran where it is mentioned ad nauseam. This sidesteps the reality that Iran holds democratic elections and that Iran is a far less inhibited state than any of America’s Arab sponsored regimes. Democracy has never been a goal for the U.S. in the Middle East, especially in regards to its own set of autocratic and dictatorial allies.

The White House is promoting two models on two different levels in the Middle East as a part of its regional project. One is the latent model of Israel as a homogenous nation. The second model, which is openly promoted, is the Khaliji (Gulf) model or that of the Arab Sheikhdoms that form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in the Persian Gulf littoral. The Khaliji model applies in particular to the U.A.E. and one of its seven emirates, Dubai, as its embodiment. Israel is the socio-political model for the Middle East, whereas Dubai is the socio-economic model for the Middle East. Both models also bare staggering social ramifications.

The Israeli model, which is being moved forward is not based on any democratic values, quite the opposite. It is predicated on ethnocentrism and discrimination. The Middle East is being reconfigured in Israel’s image as a region with homogenous states and this is evident in Iraq and a reason for the tensions being fanned by foreign influence in the multi-confessional Lebanese Republic. Just as Israel is considered the “Jewish State” the Project for the “New Middle East” wants to establish a whole series of single-identity states in the ancient region.

The socio-economic model of Dubai and the GCC is based on a vertical mosaic, in the tradition of John A. Porter’s The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada, where ethnicity, heredity, and origins play a role in individual status and its system in itself is a reconstruction of the caste system of India.

Dubai is a place that is rabid with the exploitation of foreign workers and nationals and is infamous for the institutionalization of gross inequities and immorality. Local laws are made to only benefit the privileged and powerful, while the poor are suppressed. Money laundering and prostitution are also far spread in Dubai and the U.A.E. is a modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

Israel, NATO, and the Arab Regimes: A Nexus against Resistance

The House of Saud and Saudi Arabia have emerged as the main force in configuring a public embracement between Israel and the Arab World under the auspices of the 2002 Arab Initiative. [4] This Saudi-proposed initiative is deeply tied to the Project for a “New Middle East” and allows Israel to integrate its economy with that of the Arab World and allows for the creation of an alliance between Israel and the Arab regimes against any forces in the Middle East resisting America, its allies, and more importantly their political and socio-economic model.

Despite King Abdullah’s speech in Riyadh during the March 2007 Arab League Summit, Saudi Arabia has officially opposed any end to the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq and the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq under the pretext that the Iraqi Shiites and the Iranians will kill the Iraqi Sunnis.

A representative of the Saudi Monarchy, quoting Prince Turki Al-Faisal, informed the U.S. press that, “Since America came into [meaning invaded] Iraq uninvited, it should not leave [end the Anglo-American occupation] uninvited,” and rhetorically added that “If it [the U.S.] does [withdraw its troops from Iraq], one of the first consequences will be a massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shia militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.” [5]

Israel has always considered the leaders of Jordan as important assets and allies to pacify the Arabs. On April 18, 2007 King Abdullah II of Jordan reconfirmed this publicly known Israeli secret. King Abdullah II told a visiting Israeli delegation that Jordan and Israel were allies, emphasizing that he not only spoke for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. [6]

The Jordanian King narrated to Dalia Itzik, Acting Israeli President, Tzachi Hanegbi, the Chairman of the Israeli Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, and other Israeli officials that “we [Arab rulers and Israel] are in the same boat; we have the same problem [the forces of resistance in the region]. We have the same enemies [Syria, Iran, the Palestinians, and Lebanon].” [7]

It is worth noting that the Saudi government and the Arab leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf were fully involved, covertly and/or overtly, in the 1991 Gulf War and in the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. These rulers also played major roles in the Iraq-Iran War and the economic warfare against Iraq which prodded Iraq into invading Kuwait for economic relief after its bitter war with Iran.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are all firmly in the Anglo-American camp. They are part of the extended international military network controlled by the United States. They are already members of the coalition that has been formed against Iran, Syria, and those forces that have allied themselves with Tehran and Damascus. [8] To varying degrees these Arab states are also allied with Israel and NATO. All of these Arab governments that are labeled as “pro-Western” or “pro-American” also have bilateral military and security ties and agreements with the United States or Britain and NATO. However, it is not certain that these states will stay by the side of Washington, D.C. and London.

Turning the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf into NATO Lakes

NATO is expanding, but not only in Europe and the former Soviet Union. There have been longstanding plans to turn the Mediterranean into a permanent “NATO lake” and an arena closely linked to the European Union. The Russian naval build-up in the Eastern Mediterranean and off the Syrian coast is a move to challenge this process.

Several Arab regimes have had agreements and military arrangements with NATO through NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue (established in 1995) for over a decade. Amongst them are Egypt and Jordan. These are the Arab nations that border the Mediterranean or are in close proximity to it. While on the other hand, the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf have lately entered into arrangements with NATO. For example, Kuwait recently signed security agreements with NATO and effectively opening the door for NATO entrance into the Persian Gulf.

The GCC agreements underway with NATO are effectively an extension of the Mediterranean Dialogue and NATO expansion eastwards. The shift to create a Gulf common market similar to the E.U. and a Mediterranean Union are also linked to NATO expansion and the project to permanently compel the Washington Consensus on the Middle East and the Arab World

The expansion of a mandate for NATO in the Persian Gulf has been in motion for years and has followed behind NATO’s objectives in the Mediterranean Sea. NATO influence in the Persian Gulf effectively allows the area to fall under the joint management of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. It is no coincidence that Nicholas Sarkozy started his presidential tour of the Middle East in the same window of time as the U.S. President nor is it a twist of fate that France and the U.A.E. signed an agreement on January 15, 2008 allowing France to establish a permanent military base in U.A.E. territory on the shores of the Persian Gulf. [9]

The Real Divisions in the Middle East: Indigenous Forces versus Foreign Clients

In Palestine, during past demonstrations in 2006, the press reported that small groups of Fatah supporters chanted “Shia, Shia, Shia” in mockery of Hamas because of its political links to Tehran, because Iran is a predominately Shiite Muslim country.[10] This was a dismal sign of the growing animosity that has been inseminated in the Middle East. Yet, it also reflects that the divisions in the Middle East, such as the Shiite-Sunni divide, are manufactured and artificially engineered.

Hamas, like Syria, is Sunni Muslim in identity and it is allied with Iran, which is predominately Shiite Muslim. This alliance clearly demonstrates that the real divisions in the Middle East are not based on religious or ethnic affinity or differences. Similarly, in Lebanon the forces of resistance are Muslim, Christian, and Druze and not just Hezbollah or Lebanon’s Shiite Muslims as is often described in the Western media.

In reality, the regional differences in the Middle East are between the independent and indigenous forces, regardless of religion, politics, and/or ethnicity, in the region and the client forces and governments in the region that serve Anglo-American and Franco-German foreign policy and economic interests.

The Resistance Bloc

“As Lord Chatham said, when he was speaking on the British presence in North America, he said ‘if I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms.’”

-General Sir Michael Rose, British Army

To generalize, the independent and indigenous forces of the Middle East are:

.1. Most of the various Palestinian fractions. This included the Palestinian Authority under Hamas before the Mecca Accord and the truce that was reached with Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah;

.2. The Lebanese Resistance and National Opposition in Lebanon, which is a combination of Muslims, Druze, and Christians;

.3. The Iraqi Resistance, which is a genuine series of diverse peoples’ movements that reflects the will of the Iraqi people(s);

.4. Syria;

.5. Iran, which is both a rival and the centre of the organized political and state-levels of resistance.

People-based Resistance and State-based Resistance

The forces of resistance in the Middle East and neighbouring Afghanistan can be classified as being either a peoples’ resistance or being a state-level force of resistance. However, there is a third and hybrid category.

Iraq and Afghanistan both purely represent peoples’ resistance movements. Iran and Syria, for whatever rationale (good and bad), represent cases of state-level centres of resistance to the U.S., NATO, and Israel. Sudan also falls into this category.

The forces of resistance in Palestine and Lebanon fall in between these two categories as a mixture of state-level and people-based resistance. In close proximity to the Middle East in the Horn of Africa, Somalia is a debatable case, but is also an authentic centre of resistance against foreign control that is linked to the struggle to reconfigure the Middle East.

The forces of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine are also distinctive in that they are also locked in internal or domestic struggles between client and co-opted forces serving the Anglo-American, Franco-German, and Israeli agenda in the Middle East.

The involvement of a whole nation’s assets is obviously one of the major differences between the state-level centres of resistance, such as Iran, and the peoples’ movements of resistance that is disenfranchised from governing, such as in Iraq. However, wherever there is a greater amount of foreign military subjugation the forces of resistance are stronger and spring from the support of the local populaces. The heavy casualties that the U.S., Britain, and NATO are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan are because of the will of the peoples’ and their resistance.

Struggles across the Mid-East: The “Coalition of the Moderate” versus the Resistance Bloc

The existing divisions between the independent and indigenous forces of the Middle East and those aligned within the Anglo-American orbit are represented by the following:

.1. The struggle between Hamas and its allies with Israel, Fatah, and their allies in the Palestinian Territories;

.2. The ongoing struggle between the Iraqi Resistance, which is essentially the Iraqi people, with the U.S. and Coalition forces over the occupation of Iraq;

.3. The political face-off between the Lebanese National Opposition (the majority in Lebanon) and the Lebanese governing parties (the minority in Lebanon);

.4. The clash over Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq taking place between Syria and both NATO powers and their Arab clients;

.5. And finally the many bitter regional and international rows between Iran and the United States, which includes the Iranian nuclear energy program and Iraq.

The Bush Tour: War Drums, Resistance, and the “New Middle East”

“One cause of instability is the extremists supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world — while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home. It undermines Lebanese hopes for peace by arming and aiding the terrorist group Hezbollah. It subverts the hopes for peace in other parts of the region by funding terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. It sends arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia militants in Iraq. It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region by refusing to be open and transparent about its nuclear programs and ambitions. Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf — and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.”

-George W. Bush Jr., 43rd President of the United States (Speech in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, January 13, 2008)

It is no secret that the main purpose of the U.S. presidential tour of the Middle East was to raise opposition against Iran and anyone resisting the “New Middle East.” Almost immediately, Syria claimed that the presidential Middle Eastern tour of George W. Bush Jr. was mostly made to try and further isolate Syria and orchestrate a future war scenario against Iran. [11]

The U.S. President’s tour of the Middle East came at a time when the U.S. Navy made false claims about threats being made by Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats in the Persian Gulf.

After the U.S. Navy withdrew its allegations the U.S. President stated that if any thing negative should happen to U.S. warships in the region it would be Tehran that would be held responsible.

At the same time there was a bombing in Beirut that was directed against the American embassy. The bombing in Beirut could have been staged, just as the U.S. Navy’s claims were fictitious, to justify the U.S. President’s position against Iran and the Resistance Bloc. In addition, reports were released from Israel about an Iranian-made rocket being fired from the Gaza Strip by the Palestinians during the U.S. President’s tour of the Middle East.

In 2007, the Syrian President while in Deir ez-Zor, on the eve of an important conference on Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh in which Condoleeza Rice publicly initiated contact with the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran, warned his countrymen that “Syria, the Arab region and the Middle East are going through a dangerous period. Destructive colonial projects are seeking to divide and reshape our region creating a new Sykes-Picot [Agreement].” [12]

Abdel Al-Bari Atouani, a noted Palestinian figure and the editor-in-chief of the Al-Qods Al-Arabi in London, warned in a televised interview with ANB TV in early-February, 2007 that the U.S. is exploiting the Arab countries through their governments as the firewood to wage a war against Iran and its allies in the Middle East.

The Jerusalem Post, in sequence with the U.S. President’s arrival in Saudi Arabia from the U.A.E., released statements from an unnamed senior Palestinian official from the West Bank claiming that “Syria and Iran have stepped up their efforts to overthrow Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his ruling Fatah party.” [13] The claims were compiled by Khaled Abu Toameh and also brought to light the political gathering of a large array of Palestinian political parties (referred to by Abu Toameh as “radical groups”) that will be hosted by the Syrians in Damascus.

Not surprisingly, Khaled Abu Toameh’s article failed to point out that the Palestinian government running the West Bank is illegitimate and follows the orders of Mahmoud Abbas instead of a popularly elected Palestinian prime minister. The Palestinians gathering in Damascus will study ways to make the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) more inclusive and representative of mainstream Palestinian desires instead of the edicts of Mahmoud Abbas and a few other individuals that run portions of the West Bank as personal fiefdoms with Israel and the White House as their overlords.

In Lebanon, a newspaper affiliated with the Hariri family and its political allies also started to toe the American-led campaign line to demonize Iran. An-Nahar, the newspaper once edited by the slain Lebanese parliamentarian Gebran Tueni, stated in an opinion piece by Ali Hamade that the Arab League must pressure Tehran for a settlement in Lebanon and it is in Iran that the path lies to a Lebanese settlement or towards confrontation “if developments [in the Middle East] headed towards a confrontation with the Iranian imperial agenda for the Arab East.”

The Oval Office, the Establishment, and Anglo-American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

U.S. and British foreign policies are more about the objectives of the Anglo-American establishment than the distinctiveness of the individuals that hold the office of American president and British prime minister. This reality has been confirmed in the course of the election campaign by the potential successors of George W. Bush Jr., Democrats and Republicans alike.

Aside from a few individuals who represent the true aspirations of the American people, the majority of presidential contenders in the U.S. are talking about a virtual continuation of the military policies of the Bush Jr. Administration.

John McCain has talked about attacking Lebanon and Syria. [14]

Hilary Clinton wants a permanent occupation of Iraq or a “post-occupation phase” as U.S. officials decadently call it and she has threatened Iran.

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, has made it clear he intends to mirror the Bush Jr. Administration and that he does not intent to recognize a Palestinian state and that he would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear Iran.

The era of wars will not be over with the departure of George W. Bush Jr. and Vice-President Cheney from the White House.

The problem is deeper and more complicated than the persona of one man and his cabinet. George W. Bush Jr. is only a figurehead in the mechanisms of a larger machine; he represents the establishment but he alone or his cabinet do not steer the helm of U.S. foreign policy.

Important Questions: The Nature of Cooperation and Rivalry between America, Iran, and Syria

Our reality is a far more complicated one. Once upon a time, before coming to power, Hamas used to collaborate with Israel against Yasser Arafat’s Fatah.

The Christian Science Monitor made a good point in an article by Marc Lynch: “‘Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos,’ Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned Gulf dignitaries in Bahrain last month [December, 2007]. But in reality, everywhere you turn, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, you now see Iranian leaders shattering longstanding taboos by meeting cordially with their Arab counterparts.” [15]

In fact the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to the important GCC Summit in the Qatari capital, Doha, which discussed the economic integration of the Persian Gulf and GCC-Iranian cooperation. Iran, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia also were making public shows of drawing closer even before the gathering in Doha, which included military and economic agreements between Oman and Iran.

Cairo and Tehran have also publicly opened the door for the full normalization of diplomatic relations. What develops in Egyptian-Iranian relations is yet to be seen. Iran is also making further economic and commercial inroads into both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and Syria are also linking their energy infrastructure with Iraq and also taking steps that undeniable assist the U.S. in Anglo-American occupied Iraq.

The nomination of General Michel Sulaiman as the next Lebanese president has also been called a concession to Syria for its cooperation with the U.S. in Iraq and even for its attendance at the Annapolis Summit.

However, if this is so then there are unanswered questions not only about Syrian-American cooperation, but about the meeting between David Welch, the U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and General Sulaiman before the fighting between Fatal Al-Islam and the Lebanese Army erupted in 2007.

It is clear that there is an agenda to redraw the borders of the Middle East in order to institute lasting economic policies that benefit Anglo-American and Franco-German interests, along with their Israeli bulldog in the Middle East.

The Syrians and the Iranians are well aware of the plans to divide their home region and to play the peoples of the Middle East against one another. Tehran and Damascus too have been guilty of playing the same game for their own interests, but what America and its allies envision is a far broader partition and reconfiguration of the Middle East, which also places Syria and Iran in the sights of this historic struggle.

The question here is: are these efforts to divide the Middle East (into “moderates” and “radicals”) part of a policy of containment, a war strategy, or something far more sinister?

The intentions of people-based resistance movements like those of the Iraqi Resistance are simple and mostly clear, but state-based resistance — if it can really be called that — is often ambivalent in its intent.

Are Iran and Syria genuinely resisting the “New Middle East” which in the end serves the Washington Consensus? The ongoing economic reforms including the privatization programs in both Iran and Syria suggest that these countries are not totally opposed to the dominant neo-liberal agenda, which characterises Washington’s expansionary policies. [16]

It is no sin to question motives, especially when circumstances call for it, but it is a sin and a crime to mislead the masses. As developments in the Middle East unfold, the political stance of Iran and Syria will become clearer.


[1] Jonathan Beale, Rice seeks Mid-East support on Iraq, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), January 13, 2007.

[2] Paul Reynolds, Blair and the ‘strategic challenge’ of Iran, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), December 20, 2007.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Uzi Mahnaimi, Saudis lead Israel peace bid, The Times (U.K.), December 3, 2006.

[5] Simon Tisdall, Iran v Saudis in battle of Beirut, The Guardian (U.K.), December 5, 2006.

[6] Shahar Ilan, Jordan’s Abdullah tells Israel: We share same enemies, Haaretz, April 19, 2007.

The remarks were immediately denied by the Jordanian King once they were circulated by the Israeli press. These denials are parallel to the denials of the House of Saud about its diplomatic meetings and negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Israel which were divulged as true after the initial denials.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Anatole Kaletsky, An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe, The Times (U.K.), January 4, 2007.

[9] Laurent Pirot, France Signs UAE Military Base Agreement, Associated Press, January 12, 2008; Emmanuel Jarry, France, UAE sign military, nuclear agreement, Reuters, January 15, 2008; Paul Reynolds, French make serious move into Gulf, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), January 15, 2008.

[10] Fatah, Hamas clash in Gaza after Abbas calls early elections, Associated Press, December 16, 2006.

[11] Damascus slams Arab leaders for allowing Bush’s ‘criticism of Syria,’ Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA)/ German Press Agency, January 14, 2008.

[12] Mazen and Thawra, President al-Assad says Arab Region passes through new juncture, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), April 30, 2007.

[13] Khaled Abu Toameh, Syria, Iran trying to overthrow Abbas, The Jerusalem Post, January 15, 2008.

[14] Shani Rosenfelder, McCain: Disarm Hizbullah, tackle Assad, The Jerusalem Post, August 9, 2007.

[15] Marc Lynch, Why U.S. strategy on Iran is crumbling: Gulf states no longer want to isolate Iran, Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 2008.

[16] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), August 26, 2007; Julian Barnes-Dacey, Even with sanctions, Syrians embrace KFC and Gap, Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2008.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is:


The Myths behind Iraq’s Civil War by Jennifer

Bush-George W

The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, December 3, 2007

The History of War

History is often self-repeating. Those who are oblivious to the lessons of history are, by virtue of ignorance, doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” is an outright camouflage, an ideological instrument used to reach geo-political objectives.  This “conflict notion” is part of a broad strategy which has been used throughout history to divide, conquer, and rule.

By Huntington’s definitions, nine diverse civilizations co-inhabit Eurasia; establishing conflict between them is a means towards controlling them and eventually absorbing them in the Spencerian sense of war and the social evolution of nation-states and societies, as defined by British sociologist Herbert Spencer.

Is humanity witness once again to a gradual march towards a large-scale international war like the Second World War, as Vladimir Putin has warned the Russian people? Or is fear being used to push forward otherwise unacceptable global economic policies?

If the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the dual-thrones of Austria and Hungary (the Austro-Hungarian Empire), on June 28, 1914 was the cause of the First World War why then was there talk of a major war throughout Europe in 1905?

It was on the eve of the First World War that radical changes were made to the banking system in the U.S. and on the eve of the Second World War that otherwise unpopular economic reforms were implemented in Britain. War allows otherwise unpopular measures to be accepted by domestic populations or gives them stealthy means for execution.

Mackinder’s Warnings: Divide the Continentals (Eurasians)

Mackinder warned British strategists about preventing Eurasian unification:

“What if the Great Continent, the whole World-Island [Africa and Eurasia] or a large part of it [e.g., Russia, China, Iran, and India] were at some future time to become a single and united base of sea-power? Would not the other insular bases [e.g., Britain, the U.S., and Japan] be outbuilt [sic] as regards [to] ships and outmanned as regards [to] seamen?” [1]

Mackinder also went on to instruct Britain to prevent this unification from ever happening: a policy of balkanization was adopted by London, with a strategic aim of preventing Eurasian unification.

In addition, Mackinder also warned about the large populations of Eurasia. Mackinder argued that lasting empires were based on manpower:

“[The] vast Saracen [Arab] design of a northward and southward Dominion of Camel-men crossed by a westward and eastward Dominion of Shipmen was vitiated by one fatal defect; it lacked in its Arabian base the necessary man-power to make it good. But no student of the realities about which must turn the strategical thought of any government aspiring to world-power can afford to lose sight of the warning thus given by History.” [2]

Mackinder also makes the same observation about the short-lived empires of the peoples’ of the Eurasian steppes, such as the Mongols:

“When the Russian Cossacks first policed the steppes at the close of the Middle Ages, a great revolution was effected, for the Tartars, like the Arabs, had lacked the necessary man-power upon which to found a lasting Empire, but behind the Cossacks were the Russian ploughman, who have to-day [1905] grown to be a people of a hundred millions on the fertile plains of the Black and Baltic Seas.” [3]

Population is clearly an important geo-strategic issue. Under this scheme Russia, China, and India are viewed as threats. This is also why the U.S. will never give up its nuclear weapons. Aside from military superiority and nuclear weapons, how can the generally less populated NATO states keep a balance of power with such heavily populated states? It should also be noted that one of the reasons for European conquests and colonial expansion was also the fact that, at the time, European countries had (in relative terms) large populations.

Dividing, balkanizing, and finlandizing Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. to the Middle East and India, is consistent with these historical objectives outlined by Britain prior to the First World War. This is one of the reasons why Britain, France, and America gave refuge prior to World War I to various separatist movements from within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Czarist Russia. Today, the U.S. and Britain are harbouring similar political groups against Iran, Sudan, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China, and India. Nothing has changed. Only today Zbigniew Brzezinski makes these warnings and not Halford Mackinder.

Learning from History: The Prevention of the German Ostbewegung

In 1848, at St. Paul’s Church in Frankfurt there was an attempt to create a single and large Central-Eastern European, German-dominated nation. This project did not move forward until half a century later, because of the opposition of the Habsburg Dynasty and the rivalry between Prussia and Austria.

Britain feared the German Drang nach Osten, the “drive to the East,” or the Ostbewegung or “eastward movement.”

For the most part this eastward movement, which started in 1200 with the extension of long distance trade, was not part of any German imperial ambitions. [4] The fear in British circles was that some form of unification between the two dominant powers in the Eurasian Heartland, namely Germany and Russia would occur. The fear in the Twenty-First Century is the unification of Russia, China, India, and Iran.

Before the First World War, British strategists believed that Germany was making important inroads towards becoming a global superpower. All that was required to elevate Germany was industrial control over Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which was well underway. Germany was already taking over British markets and threatening the U.S. and Britain economically.

Historically, Eastern Europe has been sandwiched between two great nations, Germany and Russia. After the Napoleonic era and up until the First World War, Eastern Europe was dominated by the Russians and then the Germans. Historically, British strategy was aimed at weakening Czarist Russia until Germany replaced Russia as the dominant power in Eastern Europe. This is one of the reasons why Britain and France supported the Ottoman Turks in their wars against the Russians.

German influence in Eastern Europe was secured under a partnership between the Hungarians (Magyars) and Austrians. German influence had also been growing economically, politically, and industrially under the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East. In Czarist Russia, before the First World War, German influence was politically and economically significant. The Russian capital, St. Petersburg, was in a Germanized area of the Russian Czardom and many Russian aristocrats and nobles were Germanized and German speaking.

German industrial colonies or settlements were also established in the Ukraine and the Caucasus within the territory of Czarist Russia. Similarly German settlements were established in the Levant, within the territory of the Ottoman Turks. The Ostbewegung was more about economics and a united and strong Eurasian industrial base under the control of Germany than it was about the myth of German colonization of all Eurasia.

However, Germany’s means of economic expansion did change about half a century later with the rise of Adolph Hitler in Berlin, who tried to force a German-driven form of globalization in Eurasia by military means. Is this being repeated by those who hold power in Washington, D.C. and London?

A Lesson from History: Playing the Russians and the Germans in War

Economics and industrial competition was the real key behind the tensions that resulted in the First World War. Mackinder also states this. In reality the truth of the matter was that the Germans were from an economic standpoint expanding eastwards. The German demographic push to the East was also over exaggerated. Historically, in many cases Germans were invited as merchants and craftsmen by Eastern European states, such as Bohemia and Hungary, before the unification of Germany under Prince Otto von Bismarck the Prime Minister of Prussia.

Mackinder and others in Britain saw this all as part of a gradual trend that would unify the Eurasian Heartland under a single and powerful player.

The key to stopping the emergence of a single powerful player in the Heartland was to play the Germans against the Russians:

“In East Europe there are also two principle elements, the Teutonic [German] and the Slavonic, but no equilibrium has been established between them as between the Romance [Latin-based speaking] and Teutonic elements of West Europe. The key to the whole situation in East Europe — and it is a fact which cannot be laid to heart at the present moment — is the German claim to dominance over the Slavs. Vienna and Berlin, just beyond the boundary of West Europe, stand already within territory that was Slav in the earlier Middle Ages; they represent the first step of the German out of his native country as a conqueror eastward.” [5]

In the eyes of Britain, playing the Russians and the Germans against one another was vital to keeping the Continentals from uniting.

The Roots of an Anglo-American Compact

The British and the U.S. were clearly trying to weaken both Germany and Czarist Russia. This is evident from British and American support for the Japanese “when it [meaning Britain] kept the [naval] ring round the Russo-Japanese War,” in 1904 to 1905. [6]

By the time  of the Russo-Japanese War the Anglo-American alliance had already formed between the U.S. and Britain as Mackinder notes:

“Those events began some twenty years ago [in 1898] with three great victories won by the British fleet without the firing of a gun. The first was at Manila [in the Philippines], in the Pacific Ocean, when a German squadron threatened to intervene to protect a Spanish squadron [in the Spanish-American War], which was defeated by an American squadron, and a British squadron stood by the Americans.”[7]

In Mackinder’s words “So was the first step taken towards the reconciliation of British and American hearts.” [8] This was also the point in history where the U.S. became a major imperialist power.

It should also be noted that the Spanish-American War is believed by some historians to have been started under a false pretext. The U.S. government started the war, blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Cuba, from whence comes the quote that was used to build American public support against the Spanish: “Remember the Maine!

The Second World War: Playing the Soviets against the Germans

The strategy of playing the main players in Eurasia against one another continued into the Second World War. Germany, France, and the Soviet Union were played against one another just as Germany, Czarist Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were before the First World War.

This is evident from the fact that Britain and France only declared war on Germany when both Germany and the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland in 1939. The Locarno Pacts and Hoare-Laval Plan were used by the British government to push the Germans eastward to confront the Soviets by neutralizing France and allowing Germany to militarize, while appeasement under Neville Chamberlain was a calculated move aimed at liquidating any states between Germany and the Soviet Union and establishing a common German-Soviet border. [9]

Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were aware of Anglo-American policy. Both countries signed a non-aggression pact prior to the Second World War, largely in response to the Anglo-American stance. In the end it was because of Soviet and German distrust for one another that the Soviet-German alliance collapsed. Presently, the U.S. government is using the same strategies in regards to Russia, China, Iran, India, and other Eurasian players.

The Roots of Strategic Balkanization: Preventing the Unification of Eurasia 

Mackinder stipulated that the Eurasian Heartland started in Eastern Europe and on the frontiers of Germany. It was from Eastern Europe that a foothold could be established for entrance into the Eurasian interior.

London’s greatest fear, until the division of Austria-Hungary and a creation of a buffer zone between the Germans and the Russians with the emergence of several new states after 1918, was the unification of the Germans and the Slavs as a single Eurasian entity.

British balkanization policy was a synergy of colonial policy, power politics, economics, and historical observation.

Strategic balkanization probably came to maturity when Italy and Germany became unified nation-states and the British realized the dangers that centralized and strong states in Europe could pose. Once again, economics was a driving force. Before this period balkanization was used for colonial means. After the formation, or rather unification, of Germany and Italy balkanization also became a means to neutralize potential British rivals.

František Palacký, the famous Czech historian, is quoted as stating: “If Austria [meaning the Habsburg or Austro-Hungarian Empire] did not exist, it would be necessary to create her, in the interests of humanity itself.”

This is a noteworthy statement because Palacký was a Slav, who defended the Austro-Hungarian Empire due to its multi-ethnic characteristics.

The Habsburg Empire was a regional synthesis between the Germans, the Hungarians (Magyar), and the Slavs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, like the former Yugoslavia that would spring from its ashes, was also religiously diverse. Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived within its borders and in 1912 Islam became a state religion, alongside the Roman Catholic denomination of Christianity. The British feared that this model under the leadership of German industrial might could be extended to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Czarist Russia, thereby creating a powerful German-Slavic political entity in the Eurasian Heartland. [10] The synthesis was already underway, with the inclusion of the Ottoman Empire, until the First World War stopped it. As already stated this process was part of a historical fusion. Austria-Hungary had to be dismantled in the eyes of London, with a view to obstructing any unification process between the Continentals.

For these reasons separatist nationalist movements were utilized and manipulated. Czechoslovak leaders, such as Milan Rastislav Štefánik, fought for the French and British during the First World War. It should also be noted that in September 1918, the U.S. government recognized Czechoslovakia before it was even created and that the Pittsburgh Agreement, which paved the way for breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating Czechoslovakia, was signed in Pennsylvania with the support of the British and U.S. governments. Three “Czecho-Slovak” legions were also formed to fight Germany and the Austro-Hungarians by Britain and France in the First World War.

Redrawing Eastern Europe and the Middle East: The Template for Iraq

Since the First World War instability has been continuously fueled from Kosovo in the Balkans to the province of Xinjiang, which constitutes China’s Western frontier. This is an important fact that manifests itself from events such as the division of India to the division of Yugoslavia.

The rationale for establishing new states in Eastern Europe is also explained by Mackinder:

“Securely independent the Polish and Bohemian [the Czech and Slovak] nations cannot be unless as the apex of a broad wedge of independence, extending from the Adriatic and Black Seas to the Baltic; but seven independent States, with a total of more than sixty million people, traversed by railways linking them securely with one another, and having access through the Adriatic, Black, and Baltic Seas with the [Atlantic] Ocean, will together effectively balance the Germans of Prussia [meaning Germany] and Austria, and nothing less will suffice for that purpose.” [11]

Although Bohemia is properly a reference to the Czechs, in this case Mackinder is using it to mean both the Czechs and the Slovaks or Czechoslovakia.

By 1914, the Germans had already secured significant inroads into the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire had to be dismantled too. However, in the eyes of British strategists, Russia and Germany were the two main long-term opponents. To undermine the process of unification between the Germans and Russians, a shatter-belt region had to be created in Eastern Europe between Germany and Russia.

After the First World War, Anglo-American planners projected the replacement of Germany by the Soviet Union, the player that emerged from the ashes of Czarist Russia, as the most powerful player in Eurasia. Creating a shatter-belt zone around the western portion of the Soviet Union from the Baltic to the Balkans and the Persian Gulf became a strategic objective for the British. This is one of the reasons why so many new nations were created in Eastern Europe and the Middle East after the First World War and again in Eastern Europe and Central Asia after the Cold War.

As Anglo-American strategists started looking at global strategy in a holistic view they adopted the concept of trans-continental encirclement.

The Rimland is the concept of a geographic area adjacent or circling the Eurasian “Heartland.” Western Europe, Central Europe, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, and the Far East comprise this area from Western Eurasia to Eastern Eurasia. Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland helps give an objective and historical context to the present zones of conflict encircling Russia, China, and Iran that start from the Balkans, the Kurdish areas of the Middle East, Iraq, Caucasia, and go through NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Kashmir, Indo-China, and finish in the Korean Peninsula. The geographic locations of these areas say much as to which countries or players are disturbed.

Iraq is being redrawn in a step by step fashion, but firstly though its political landscape and a system of soft federalism. This holistic concept is also getting stronger and the existence of European and Asiatic missile shield projects are connected to this approach as is the brinkmanship to create an American-dominated global military alliance.

The Pirenne Thesis

In his book, Mohammed and Charlemagne, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, states that Charlemagne and the Frankish Empire would never have existed if it were not for the period of Arab expansion in the Mediterranean region. Henri Pirenne became known for his thesis that the Germanic barbarians, such as the Franks and Goths, that were traditionally credited by historians for the fall of the Western Roman Empire in reality merged themselves with the Western Roman Empire and that the economic and institutional templates of Western Rome continued and stayed intact. Pirenne challenged the traditional historic narrative that the Germanic barbarians were the reason for the decline of Western Rome.

Pirenne seems correct in the basis of his theory. In most cases Western Roman ways were maintained by the Germanic kingdoms. The facts that the Franks, a Germanic people, adopted Latin (which eventually evolved into French over time) as their language or that the Roman Church stayed intact as an important societal institution supports his observations and thesis.

The decline of Rome is more probably based on an end to an economy based on imperial expansion, slavery, over-militarization, and political corruption as its main factors. The decline of the Western European economy was not because the Arabs were unwilling to continue trade with Western Europe, but because of militarism and the de-centralization that went with it, hand-in-hand; the end result being European feudalism. Is this process repeating itself today?

To Pirenne, it was clear that the economic framework of the Roman Empire, Western and Eastern (Byzantine), was fixed around the economy and trade of the Mediterranean Sea. Western Rome only transformed from a politically centralized entity to a network of politically separate kingdoms and states, but with the same economic framework, fixed on the Mediterranean, intact.

Pirenne theorized that the real decline in the Western Roman entity was brought about by the rapid expansion of the Arabs. The Levant, Egypt, various Mediterranean islands, portions of Anatolia (Asia Minor), Spain, Portugal, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, which were all Mediterranean regions, were all incorporated within the vast cosmopolitan realm of the Arabs. According to Pirenne, the reason that this decline was brought about was the cut in ties between the integrated economies of most of the Mediterranean and Western Europe that was brought about by the Arabs. Western Europe effectively degenerated into a marginalized economic hinterland.

Another factor that should be added to Pirenne’s theory about the economic decline of Western Europe after the fall of Rome was that Eastern Rome (Byzantium) also diverted its trade, or reduced its level, from Western Europe due to economic realities brought about by the Arab expansion in the Mediterranean. Also in part the dissolved economic links between Western Europe and the Byzantines was because of the differences and rivalry between the Western Christian Church and the Eastern Christian Church that developed with time. Animosity also existed between the authorities in Constantinople and Western Europe and further effected economic ties. These tensions were also in many cases economic in origin.

The Pirenne Thesis states that Western Europe was transformed into a series of farm-based economies, which slowly gave rise to European feudalism, due to Arab expansion. Raw resources were being exported outwards with little imports to Western Europe, whereas before items and resources such as valuable metals and Egyptian papyrus would enter Western Europe. This was because the economy of Western Europe was cut off from the rest of the globe. The European voyages of discovery that occur later can also be traced to this period as a means to reverse this process.

The Eurasians Strike Back: The New Silk Road

Today, across Eurasia there is a renewed drive at economic and socio-political cooperation and integration. The Silk Road is being revived. Iran, Russia, and China are the most important forces in this project. Kazakhstan is also playing a very important role. Railway networks, transport corridors, electric grids, and various forms of infrastructure are being developed, linked, and built in an effort to integrate Eurasia.

Central Asia is set to become the mid-axis and the heartland of a series of north-south and west-east corridors. A strategic triangle between Russia, Iran, and China will set the border for a Eurasian trade zone that can eventually bring Africa and chunks of Europe into its orbit. Latin America has already anticipated this shift and is preparing to redirect part of its trade from the U.S. and E.U. towards this area.

China is a global centre of labour while Russia, Iran, and Central Asia hold 15% or more of global oil reserves and 50% of the world’s reserves of natural gas. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) also holds half the planet’s estimated population. Together these areas also have vast and important markets.

Eurasia is coming together in a wave of regional integration and cross-border trade. Russia and Kazakhstan have also made proposals for the eventual formation of a Eurasian Union. The customs union established between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan is a step towards this Eurasian Union. Iran has also made proposals for the formation of a so-called Islamic Union between nations with Muslim populations.

This is all effectively a re-introduction of the Pirenne Thesis in a modern context. In this second round of the Pirennian cycle it is the trade-dependent economies of Western Europe and the U.S., the players of the Eurasian periphery and the maritime realms, that are under threat of being marginalized like the former areas of Western Rome were during the Arab expansion in the Mediterranean. The Eurasians are striking back; they realize that it is not them who needs the U.S. or E.U., but the other way around.

A Mediterranean Union and an Islamic Union: The West versus the Eurasian Heartland

Reflecting on the Pirenne Thesis, it is also not historically ironic that the E.U. is pushing for the establishment of a Mediterranean Union, which would economically merge the nations of the Mediterranean and E.U. together with both Israel and Turkey playing key roles. This is a Western answer to the growing strength and cohesion in the Eurasian Heartland between Russia, Iran, and China.

To counter this drive Russia, China, and Iran have been courting the nations of the Mediterranean. In fact after Nicholas Sarkozy’s trip to Algeria, as part of a tour to promote the creation of a Mediterranean Union, an Iranian delegation led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived with a counter-proposal for the creation of an alternative bloc; this was what the Iranians called an Islamic Union.

The Islamic Union is essentially a rival economic project to the Mediterranean Union in the Mediterranean lands of North Africa and the Middle East, rather than the institutionalization of Islam within any of these states. Undoubtedly, the Iranian proposal must have had some backdoor support from Moscow. It is more than likely that the Islamic Union will be linked in some form to the Eurasian Union proposed by Russia and Kazakhstan. These regional blocs can be overlapping and countries like Iran can hypothetically belong to the Eurasian Union and the Islamic Union, just as how France and Italy could belong to the E.U. and the proposed Mediterranean Union. This is also part of the brinkmanship of turning several regions into supranational entities and ultimately into super-national entities that would merge with like entities.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the so-called Mid-East Peace Process, essentially including the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002, are tied to the joint American-E.U. economic project that is the Mediterranean Union, which will see the integration of the economies of the Arab World with that of Israel in a network of regionalized economic relations that will ultimately merge the economies of Europe, Israel, Turkey, and the Arab World. The Mediterranean Union is a project that was drafted years before the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. The deep ties between Turkey and Israel have been a preparatory step towards eventually establishing this Mediterranean Union with the participation and full involvement of Israel as one of its pillars.

The Bloc Concept and Regionalization: Orwellian Showdown between Oceania and Eurasia?

The players of the Eurasian Heartland realize what is happening. Moreover, France and Germany, like India, are being courted by the players of the Eurasian Heartland to encourage them to de-link themselves from the Anglo-American axis.  This is probably why the euro is not being targeted on international currency markets by Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China in the same way as the U.S. dollar. Or is this because America is the immediate threat to these countries?

The Eurasians are slowly prying the hold of Western financial centres on global transactions. The establishment of a petro-ruble system in Russia and the republics of the former U.S.S.R., as well as the establishment of an international Iranian energy bourse on Kish Island are part of this trend.

However, it seems too late to end the concord between the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides. Franco-German interests appear to have become entrenched with Anglo-American interests. A deal has been reached to eventually merge, with regard to trading systems, the economies of the E.U. and North America that will guarantee the interests of Britain, the U.S., France, and Germany.[12] This deal will also allow the four major powers within the so-called Western World to challenge the Eurasian Heartland as it merges into a single powerful bloc or player.

Whenever a dominate player has started to emerge in the Eurasian Heartland there have historically been wars fought — even the fear of the emergence of one has been the cause of conflict — to prevent the ascendancy of such a power or player. These different stages of regionalism and regionalized mergers mean several things, but what this can mean in Orwellian terms is that Oceania and Eurasia are preparing to challenge one another. [13]


This article is a continuation of The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’ Ambitions in Eurasia (Nazemroaya, 26.08.2007) and lightly touches on the concept of the Mediterranean Union, which is covered in an article yet to be released.

[1] Halford John Mackinder, Chap. 3 (The Seaman’s Point of View), in Democratic Ideals and Reality (London, U.K.: Constables and Company Ltd., 1919), p.91.

[2] Ibid., Chap. 4 (The Landman’s Point of View), p.121.

Note: This chapter in Democratic Ideals and Reality is based on an essay, Man-power as a Measure of National and Imperial Strength, that Mackinder wrote for the National Review (U.K.) in 1905. It should also be noted that Mackinder and various circles in London viewed the large populations of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Czardom of Russia as threats that should be addressed. If one reads the full works of Mackinder they will come to realize that he advocated for some form of Social Darwinism amongst nations, and saw democratic idealism as a subject that should be put aside to preserve the British imperial order. Mackinder even states that the commerce that the British enjoyed was due to the use of British guns and force (Chap. 5, pp.187-188).

[3] Ibid., p.142.

[4] Lonnie R. Johnson, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, 2nd ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 37-42.

[5] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5 (The Rivalry of Empires), pp.160-161.

[6] Ibid., Chap. 3, p.78.

[7] Ibid., pp.77-78.

[8] Ibid., p.78.

[9] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro, California: GSG & Associates Publishers, 1981), pp. 233-235, 237-248, 253, 264-281, 285-302.

“…from 1920 to 1938 [the aims were] the same: to maintain the balance of power in Europe by building up Germany against France and [the Soviet Union]; to increase Britain’s weight in that balance by aligning with her the Dominions [e.g., Australia and Canada] and the United States; to refuse any commitments (especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any commitments to aid France) beyond those existing in 1919; to keep British freedom of action; to drive Germany eastward against [the Soviet Union] if either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace [probably meaning economic strength] of Western Europe (p.240).”

“…the Locarno agreements guaranteed the frontier of Germany with France and Belgium with the powers of these three states plus Britain and Italy. In reality the agreements gave France nothing, while they gave Britain a veto over French fulfillment of her alliances with Poland and the Little Entente. The French accepted these deceptive documents for reason of internal politics (…) This trap [the Locarno agreements] consisted of several interlocking factors. In the first place, the agreements did not guarantee the German frontier and the demilitarized condition of the Rhineland against German actions, but against the actions of either Germany or France. This, at one stroke, gave Britain the right to oppose any French action against Germany in support of her allies to the east of Germany. This meant that if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually [the Soviet Union], and if France attacked Germany’s western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound her to do, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts to come to the aid of Germany (p.264).”

“This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date [1936], certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and [the Soviet Union] against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and [the Soviet Union] might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that [the Soviet Union] might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism (p.265).”

“In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against [the Soviet Union], it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia; (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries [i.e., Czechoslovakia and Poland]; and (3) to hoodwink the [British] people into accepeting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the [geo-strategic] implications of their policy and tried to reverse it (p.266).”

“Four days later, Hitler announced Germany’s rearmament, and ten days after that, Britain condoned the act by sending Sir John Simon on a state visit to Berlin. When France tried to counterbalance Germany’s rearmament by bringing the Soviet Union into her eastern alliance system in May 1935, the British counteracted this by making the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935. This agreement, concluded by Simon, allowed Germany to build up to 35 percent of the size of the British Navy (and up to 100 percent in submarines). This was a deadly stab in the back of France, for it gave Germany a navy considerably larger than the French in the important categories of ships (capital ships and aircraft carriers), because France was bound by treaty to only 33 percent of Britain’s; and France in addition, had a worldwide empire to protect and the unfriendly Italian Navy off her Mediterranean coast. This agreement put the French Atlantic coast so completely at the mercy of the German Navy that France became completely dependent on the British fleet for protection in this area (pp.269-270).”

“The liquidation of the countries between Germany and [the Soviet Union] could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east (p.272).”

“The countries marked for liquidation included Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but did not include Greece and Turkey, since the [Milner] Group had no intention of allowing Germany to get down onto the Mediterranean ‘lifeline.’ Indeed, the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Plan of 1935, which wrecked the collective-security system by seeking to give most Ethiopia to Italy, was intended to bring an appeased Italy in position alongside [Britain], in order to block any movement of Germany southward rather than eastward [towards the Soviet Union] (p.273).”

[10] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5, pp.160-168.

[11] Ibid., Chap. 6 (The Freedom of Nations), pp. 214-215.

[12] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

[13] Critical thinking should be applied to this last statement and the level of cooperation between both sides should be carefully examined.

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

Missing Nukes: Treason of the Highest Order by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 29, 2007

Missing Nukes on August 29-30, 2007

According to a wide range of reports, several nuclear bombs were “lost” for 36 hours after taking off August 29/30, 2007 on a “cross-country journey” across the U.S., from U.S.A.F Base Minot in North Dakota to U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale, near New Orleans, in Louisiana. [1] Reportedly, in total there were six W80-1 nuclear warheads armed on AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs) that were “lost.” [2] The story was first reported by the Military Times, after military servicemen leaked the story.

It is also worth noting that on August 27, 2007, just days before, three B-52 Bombers were performing special missions under the direct authorization of General Moseley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. [3] The exercise was reported as being an aerial information and image gathering mission. The base at Minot is also home of the 91st Space Wings, a unit under the command of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC).

According to official reports, the U.S. Air Force pilots did not know that they were carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Once in Louisiana, they also left the nuclear weapons unsecured on the runway for several hours. [4]

U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Requirements, Major-General Richard Y. Newton III commented on the incident, saying there was an “unprecedented” series of procedural errors, which revealed “an erosion of adherence to weapons-handling standards” [5]

These statements are misleading. The lax security was not the result of procedural negligence within the U.S. Air Force, but rather the consequence of a deliberate tampering of these procedures.

If a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor were even to be issued a rifle and rifle magazine — weaponry of a far lesser significance, danger, and cost — there is a strict signing and accountability process that involves a chain of command and paperwork. This is part of the set of military checks and balances used by all the services within the U.S. Armed Forces.

Military servicemen qualified to speak on the subject will confirm that there is a stringent nuclear weapons handling procedure. There is a rigorous, almost inflexible, chain of command in regards to the handling of nuclear weapons and not just any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is allowed to handle nuclear weapons. Servicemen specialized in handling nuclear weapons and the loading procedures for nuclear weapons are only perm certified to handle, access, and load nuclear weapons.

Every service personnel that moves or even touches these weapons must sign a tracking paper and has total accountability for their movement. There is good reason for the paperwork behind moving these weapons. The military officers that order the movement of nuclear weapons, including base commanders, must also fill out paper forms.

In other words, unauthorized removal of nuclear weapons would be virtually impossible to accomplish unless the chain of command were bypassed, involving, in this case, the deliberate tampering of the paperwork and tracking procedures.

The strategic bombers that carried the nuclear weapons also could not fly with their loaded nuclear weaponry without the authorization of senior military officials and the base commander. The go-ahead authorization of senior military officials must be transmitted to the servicemen that upload the nuclear weapons. Without this authorization no flights can take place.

In the case of the missing nukes, orders were given and flight permission was granted. Once again, any competent and eligible U.S. Air Force member can certify that this is the standard procedure.

There are two important questions to be answered:

1. Who gave the order to arm the W80-1 thermonuclear warheads on the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles (ACMs)?

2. If this was not a procedural error, what was the underlying military-political objective sought by those who gave the orders?

The Impossibility of “Loosing” Nuclear Weapons

As Robert Stormer, a former U.S. lieutenant-commander in the U.S. Navy, has commented: “Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with.” [6]

Stormer also makes a key point, which is not exactly a secret: “There is a strict chain of custody for all such weapons. Nuclear weapons handling is spelled out in great detail in Air Force regulations, to the credit of that service. Every person who orders the movement of these weapons, handles them, breaks seals or moves any nuclear weapon must sign off for tracking purposes.” [7]

Stormer continues:

“Two armed munitions specialists are required to work as a team with all nuclear weapons. All individuals working with nuclear weapons must meet very strict security standards and be tested for loyalty — this is known as a ‘[Nuclear Weapons] Personnel Reliability Program [DoDD 5210 42].’ They work in restricted areas within eyeshot of one another and are reviewed constantly.”[8]

Stormer unwraps the whole Pentagon cover-up by pointing out some logical facts and military procedures. First he reveals that: “All security forces assigned [to handle and protect nuclear weapons] are authorized to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat [including would-be thieves].” [9]

He then points out a physical reality that can not be shrugged aside: “Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile — or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.”

He further explains another physical and procedural reality about nuclear weapons assembly:

“The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft. The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository — not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations.” [10]

This last point raises the question of what were the nuclear weapons meant for? In this context, Stomrer puts forth the follwing list of important questions to which he demands an answer:

1. Why, and for what ostensible purpose, were these nuclear weapons taken to Barksdale?
2. How long was it before the error was discovered?
3. How many mistakes and errors were made, and how many needed to be made, for this to happen?
4. How many and which security protocols were overlooked?
5. How many and which safety procedures were bypassed or ignored?
6. How many other nuclear command and control non-observations of procedure have there been?
7. What is Congress going to do to better oversee U.S. nuclear command and control?
8. How does this incident relate to concern for reliability of control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere?
9. Does the Bush administration, as some news reports suggest, have plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?

It is a matter of perception, whether it is “clear” or “unclear”, as to why the nuclear warheads had not been removed beforehand from the missiles.

For those who have been observing these series of “unclear” events it is becoming “clear” that a criminal government is at the helm of the United States. There was no way that the six nuclear missiles could have been “mistakenly” loaded, especially when their separate warheads had to be affixed to them by individuals specialized in such a momentous task.

It is also being claimed that military teams in both U.S.A.F. Base Minot and U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale made major procedural errors. What are the probabilities of this occurring simultaneously in two locations? It is also worth noting that original reports from military sources talked about only five of the six nuclear warheads from Minot being accounted for in Barksdale. [11] Nuclear warheads are also kept in specialized storage areas or bunkers. Moreover, nuclear weapons are not being decommissioned at Barksdale.

The Role of the Nuclear Weapons Surety Program: What happened to Electronic Monitoring?

The Nuclear Weapons Surety Program is a joint program between the U.S. Department of Defence and the U.S. Department of Energy. The National Security Agency (NSA) is also involved as well as other U.S. federal government agencies. The Nuclear Weapons System Safety Program is part of this program, which involves a monitoring and safeguards regime for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The Nuclear Weapons Security Standard falls under the Nuclear Weapons Surety Program and is in place to disallow any “unauthorized access to nuclear weapons; prevent damage or sabotage to nuclear weapons; prevent loss of custody; and prevent, to the maximum extent possible, radiological contamination caused by unauthorized acts.”

Under this or these safeguards system there also exists a rigorous control of use scheme, which is tied to the military chain of command and the White House.

“Command and Control (C2)” and “Use Control”

“Use control” is a set of security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear weapons. These measures involve weapons design features, operational procedures, security, and system safety rules.

“Command and Control” or “C2” involves the Office of the President of the United States of America. C2 is an established line of command, which is tied to the White House. Without it, nuclear weapons cannot be deployed or armed as they were in U.S.A.F. Base Minot. It is these two control elements that establish the basis of authorization through which “absolute control of nuclear weapons” is maintained “at all times.”

In addition to the checks and balances in place in regards to handling nuclear weapons, the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and its partners manually and electronically inspect and monitor all U.S. nuclear weapons through the Nuclear Weapon Status Information Systems.

More Unanswered Questions: What Happened to the Computerized Tracking System?

The Nuclear Management Information Systems “interface with each other and provide [the U.S. Department of Defence] with the ability to track the location of nuclear weapons and components from cradle-to-grave [meaning from when they are made to when they are decommissioned].” [12]

Military Times also makes an omission that the exposes the official narrative as false and indicates that the event was not just a mistake; “The Defense Department uses a computerized tracking program to keep tabs on each one of its nuclear warheads, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. For the six warheads to make it onto the B-52, each one would have had to be signed out of its storage bunker and transported to the bomber.” [13]

This is where the chain of command in regards to military officers falls into play. If any of the stocked inventories of nuclear weapons are moved to an authorized location they will be noticed and tracked by the DTRA and will require the relevant authorization. There is also a code system involved that is tied to the chain of command.

The fact that the incident only apparently became known to the U.S. Air Force when military personnel reported it, suggests that either the nuclear weapons were ordered to be moved or that the electronic tracking devices had been removed or tampered with. This scenario would need the involvement of individuals with expertise in military electronics or for those responsible for the monitoring of nuclear weapons to look the other way or both.

Mysterious Deaths in the United States Air Force: Whitewash and Cover-up

Several military personnel died under mysterious circumstances shortly before and after the incident. There are now questions regarding the fate of these individuals in the U.S. Air Force who could have had relationships in one way or another to the incident or possibly have been directly involved. It is also necessary to state that there is no proof that these deaths are linked to the August flight from Minot to Barksdale in question.

Citizens for Legitimate Government has pointed towards the involvement of the U.S. Air Force in a cover-up and has linked several deaths of U.S. servicemen to the incident. Lori Price has also stated for Citizens for a Legitimate Government that “you need about fourteen signatures to get an armed nuke on a B-52.”

Based on several news sources, including the U.S. military, we provide below a detailed review of these mysterious and untimely deaths of U.S. servicemen.

Airman 1st Class Todd Blue went on leave days after the nuclear weapons were “lost.” Blue died under questionable timing while on leave, visiting his family in Wytheville, Virginia at the age of 20 on September 10, 2007. He was a response force member assigned to the 5th Security Forces Squadron. What does this mean?

Airman Todd Blue occupied a key position in weapons systems security at Minot. [14] At Minot U.S.A.F. Base the 5th Security Forces Squadron to which he belonged was responsible for base entry requirements and a particular section, the Weapons System Security section, was responsible for preventing the unauthorized removal of military property. The latter is responsible for security of all priority resources, meaning the security of nuclear weapons. In other words not only did the 5th Security Forces Squadron keep eyes on what entered and left Minot, but they kept an eye on and monitored the nuclear weapons.

U.S. Air Force Captain John Frueh is another serviceman who could have been indirectly connected to the “lost” nuclear weapons. He was reported as being last seen with a GPS device, camera, and camcorder being carried with him in a backpack. Local police in Oregon and the F.B.I. seemed to be looking for him for days. His family also felt that something bad had happened to him.

On September 8, 2007 Captain Frueh was found dead in Washington State, near his abandoned rental car, after the Portland Police Department contacted the Skamania County Sheriff’s Officer. [15] The last time he spoke with his family was August 30, 2007. He had arrived from Florida to attend a wedding that he never showed up at. The Oregonian reported that “Authorities in Portland found no activity on his credit or bank cards since [Frueh] was last seen (…) [and that] the last call from his cell phone was made at 12:28 p.m. [August 30, 2007] from Mill Plain Boulevard and Interstate 205 in Vancouver [Washington State].” [16]

His background was in meteorology and the study of the atmosphere and weather. He was also reported to be a U.S. Air Force pararescue officer. [17] He was also a major-select candidate, which means he was selected for a promotion as a U.S. Air Force major, but was not officially promoted.

Captain Frueh belonged to the U.S.A.F. Special Operations Command. U.S.A.F. Special Operations Command has its headquarters in Hurlburt Field, Florida and is one of nine major Air Force commands. It is also the U.S. Air Force’s component of U.S. Special Operations Command, a unified command located at MacDill Air Force Base, which is also in Florida. The force provides special operations forces for worldwide deployment and assignment to regional unified commands, such as CENTCOM. Its missions include conduct of global special operations. These operations — and this is where careful attention should be paid — range from “precision application of firepower, such as nuclear weapons,” to infiltration, exfiltration (the removal of “devices,” supplies, spies, special agents, or units from enemy territory), re-supply and refuelling of special operational elements.

In Captain Frueh’s case his death is questionable too. The U.S. Air Force would not let a missing persons’ investigation go forward by the police without conducting its own investigation. Usually the different service branches of the U.S. military would investigate for missing servicemen, to see if these individuals are Absent Without Authorized Leave (AWAL) or have deserted, before an individual’s case is handed over to the police.

Another military weatherman, along with his wife, also died after August 30, 2007. Senior Airman Clint Huff, belonging to the 26th Operational Weather Squadron and his wife Linda Huff died in a motorcycle accident on September 15, 2007. [18] The husband and wife fatality happened on Shreveport-Blanchard Highway, near U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale, when according to the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Officer a Pontiac Aztec, a medium-sized SUV, initiated a left turn at the same time that the couple attempted to pass on a no passing zone and collided. [19]

First-Lieutenant Weston Kissel, a B-52H Stratofortress Bomber pilot, also died in a reported Tennessee motorcycle accident. This was while he was on leave in, less than two months from the nuclear B-52 flights, on July 17, 2007. [20] His death came after another single-vehicle accident by another Minot serviceman, Senior Airman Adam Barrs. [21]

Senior Airman Barrs died as a passenger in a vehicle being driven by Airman 1st Class Stephen Garrett, also from Minot. Garrett, also belongs to the 5th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron.

The death of Barrs was reported as being part of a single-vehicle car accident. Associated Press reports state that “[Minot] Base officials say 20-year-old Barrs was a passenger in a vehicle that failed to negotiate a curve, hit an approach, hit a tree and started on fire late Tuesday [July 3, 2007] night.” [22] Barrs was pronounced dead on the scene of the accident, while Garrett was taken the hospital with no updates released by the U.S. Air Force. Adam Barrs also belonged to the 5th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, where he was responsible for the maintenance and securing of the electronic communicational and navigation mission systems aboard the B-52H Stratofortresses on base. The 5th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron is also one of the units that are responsible for loading and unloading weaponry onto the B-52H Stratofortresses.

The deaths of Kissel and Barrs could be dismissed as irrelevant because they occurred prior to the incident. However, Barrs and Kissel could have been in one way or another connected to the advanced planning of the special operation, prior to the incident (special operations are not planned in a few days and may take months and even longer). There is, of course, no proof and only an independent investigation will be able to reveal whether these deaths are connected to the incident.

If there was an internal and secretive operation bypassing most military personnel, a few men in key positions would have to have been involved over a period of time prior to the August 29-30, 2007 flight. Senior Airman Barrs, due to his expertise in communication and navigational systems, could potentially have been involved in the preparations that would have allowed the nuclear weapons to escape detection by military surveillance and be ready for takeoff.

Reprimands, Replacements and Reassignments in the U.S.A.F. Chain of Command

Senior officers, including three colonels and a lieutenant-colonel, are among 70 personnel that will reportedly be disciplined for negligence, allowing a B-52H Stratofortresses Bomber to fly across the U.S. carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles that should never have been loaded under its wings. [23]

According to the Military Times, George W. Bush Jr. had been swiftly informed. This is a lockstep procedure. This illustrates the importance tied to the authorization needed for handling nuclear weapons. This is part of a two-way process in regards to authorization from the White House.

The commander of the 5th Munitions Squadron and the commander of the 5th Bomb Wing, Colonel Bruce Emig, have been replaced along with a series of other senior officers. This implies that the U.S. Air Force chain of command is directly involved in this event. None of these senior officers have been authorized to speak or make statements, according to U.S. military sources. Will any of these officers receive lucrative departure packages? Have they been reassigned?

More generally, the nature of the reprimands directed against senior officers involved has not been fully disclosed.

The “memory” of the incident is being erased through a reorganization of the ranks and a purge at U.S.A.F. Base Minot. The streamlining of the chain of command as well as the mysterious deaths of personnel who could have been involved in the incident, raise a series of far-reaching questions.

There are several important issues regarding the senior officers’ chain of command at Minot, which will be addressed in this article. Once again, the most important questions in regards to the missing nukes are: Who gave the orders and authorization for the operation and what where the underlying objectives of loading armed nuclear missiles?

Other Mysterious Deaths: Was the Missing Nukes Incident connected to US War Plans directed against Iran?

A U.S. Air Force official, Charles D. Riechers, has been found dead on October 14, 2007. [24] Riechers was a retired Air Force officer and master navigator specializing in electronic warfare. He was a member of the Senior Executive Service of the U.S. Air Force, and was the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management. A description of his duties includes “providing sound expert advice and guidance on acquisition and procurement policies, as well as formulating, reviewing and, as assigned, execution of plans, programs and policies relating to organization, function, operation and improvement of the Air Force’s acquisition system.”

He apparently killed himself by running his car’s engine inside his suburban garage in Virginia. The death of Charles D. Riechers has been casually linked by The Washington Post to his involvement in fraudulent activities and embezzlement. [25] The Washington Post reported that the Air Force had asked defense contractor, Commonwealth Research Institute (C.R.I.), to give him a job with no known duties while he waited for official clearance for his promoted rank in the Pentagon. Riechers is quoted as saying: “I really didn’t do anything for C.R.I.,” and “I [still] got a paycheck from them.” The question, of course, was whether the contractor might expect favors in return upon his assignment to the Pentagon last January. [26] A mysterious suicide letter expressing shame was subsequently reported; the letter was reportedly from a man who had already admitted without shame that he was receiving money for doing nothing. This was known to the U.S. Senate, which had approved his promotion.

In a report featured by Pravda, Russian Intelligence analysts have said that the reported suicide of Charles D. Riechers was a cover-up and that he was murdered because of his involvement in the controversial flight of nuclear weapons over the continental United States.

Pravda reports that “Russian Intelligence Analysts are reporting today that American War Leaders have ‘suicided’ [sic] one of their Top US Air Force Officials Charles D. Riechers as the rift growing between the U.S. War Leaders and their Top Military Officers over a nuclear attack on Iran appears to be nearing open warfare.” [27]

According to the Pravda report, the incident was linked to an operation to smuggle nuclear weapons from the U.S. military in connection to launching a war against Iran.

The Commonwealth Research Institute (CRI), a registered non-profit organization is a subsidiary of Concurrent Technologies, which is registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt charity, which is run by Daniel Richard DeVos. Devos is also an associate of John P. Murtha, who was investigated by the F.B.I. for his Saudi links.

Certainly the ties of the Commonwealth Research Institute (CRI), a non-profit organization working for the Pentagon, are questionable and the organization could be a front for internal operations that bypass most military personnel. The case appears to be part of an internal operation that was being kept a secret from the most of the U.S. military, but what for?

More than a month before the death of Riechers, General Russell Elliot Dougherty, a retired flag officer, was also reported to have died on September 7, 2007 at his home in Falcon Landing military retirement community in Potomac Falls located in Arlington, Virginia. [28] He once was one of the most senior individuals responsible for the nuclear arsenal of the U.S. military and also the former commander of Strategic Air Command (SAC) and director of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, which identified nuclear targets worldwide amongst its responsibilities. At Minot next to his obituary was a military information notice on suicide, telling servicepersons what the signs of suicide are. [29]

Russell Dougherty in the course of his military career in the U.S. Air Force had dealt with the issues pertaining to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), full spectrum dominance, how to defeat the enemy and avoid a nuclear war, other uses for nuclear weaponry, Nuclear Primacy for the U.S., and tackling the effects of the wind and weather — due to their unpredictable natures — on the use of nuclear weapons.

The fact that the nuclear warheads were attached to the nuclear cruise missiles could mean that someone wanted to take the weapons in one step or to use them right away.

Timely Appointments at U.S.A.F. Base Minot

Several of the commanding officers at Minot were freshly appointed in June, 2007. This may have been part of standard procedures, but the timing should not be ignored.

Colonel Robert D. Critchlow was transferred, just before the incident, from the Pentagon to Minot and appointed commanding officer for the 91st Operations Group, a missileer unit and the operational backbone of the 91st Space Wing. In Washington, D.C. he was involved in research for the Congressional Research Services and later posted into Air Force Nuclear Response and Homeland Defence.

Colonel Myron L. Freeman was transferred from Japan to Minot in June, 2007. Colonel Freeman was appointed as the commander of the 91st Security Forces Group, which is responsible for securing Minot’s nuclear arsenal.

Colonel Gregory S. Tims was also appointed as deputy commander or vice-commander of the 91st Space Wing in June, 2007. However, Colonel Tims was transfered to Minot from California almost a year before.

One of the most senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs) or non-commissioned members (NCMs), Chief Master Sergeant Mark R. Clark, was also transferred to U.S.A.F. Base Minot from Nebraska in July, 2007.

Colonel Roosevelt Allen was also transferred to Minot from Washington, D.C. to become commander of the 5th Medical Group.

Colonel Bruce Emig, the now-former commander of the 5th Bomb Wing, was also transferred to Minot from U.S.A.F. Base Ellsworth in South Dakota in June, 2007. Colonel Emig was also the base commander of Minot.

Colonel Cynthia M. Lundell, the now-former group commander for the 5th Maintenance Group, the unit responsible for loading and unloading weaponry onto the B-52H Stratofortresses was also freshly transferred from a NATO post in Western Europe in June, 2007. Were these appointment temporary? Were any of these appointments related to the six “lost” nuclear missiles?

Prior to the Missing Nukes Incident, Minot Airmen Meet with the President and the U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff

On June 15, 2007, George W. Bush Jr. met senior officers from U.S.A.F. Base Minot at U.S.A.F. Base McConnell in Wichita, Kansas during a visit to Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems facility. Amongst them was Major Daniel Giacomazza of the 5th Operational Support Squadron.

Senator Patrick Roberts of Kansas was also present. “While he chaired the Senate Intelligence Committe from 2002 to 2007, [Senator] Roberts stonewalled attempts to investigate everything from the manipulation of intelligence in the rush to war in Iraq, President Bush’s warrantless wiretaps, and even allegations of the use of torture by the CIA,” according to Associated Press (AP) reports. [30] The same report also indicates that the U.S. President was in Wichita for a political fundraiser, and stopped at a new Boys and Girls Club of America to defray the costs of getting to Wichita via Air Force One for Senator Robert’s campaign.

Military sources have reported that a B-52H Stratofortress was flown to Wichita so that Boeing’s engineers could take a look in order to make adjustments to the war planes for a new military program. [31] Nothing has been reported about any private meetings between President Bush Jr. or any of his presidential staff and the personnel from Minot. However, reports have been made of meetings between military families and the U.S. President in his office on Air Force One.

General Moseley, the Air Force Chief of Staff, had previously visited Minot on March 14-15, 2007, a month before Minot airmen went to Wichita. [32] If a secret mission was being prepared, these events could have played a role in the recruiting phases for an important internal special operation. Following their recruitment, Minot servicemen could have symbolically met General Moseley or White House officials to understand that the mission was being sanctioned by the highest ranks and offices in the United States.

Orders had to Come from the Top: Treason of the Highest Order

Orders had to come from higher up.

The operation would not have been possible without the involvement of more than one individual in the highest ranks of the U.S. Air Force command structure and the Pentagon.

The only way to bypass these separate chains of command is “to be above them” (from higher up), as well as have the possibility of directly overseeing their implementation.

These orders would then have been communicated to lower levels in the US Air Force command chain in different locations, to allow for a so-called “oversight” to proceed. The alternative to this is “an alternative chain of command”, although this also needs someone in the highest ranks of office to organize and oversee it.

The post given to Riechers was politically motivated, given his track record in the U.S. Air Force. Riechers had been in a position of responsibility in the U.S. Air Force special operational support activities; something he had in common with Russell Dougherty, the former SAC commander. He would have been one of the best suited individuals for making arrangements in the case of an alternative command structure for a secretive nuclear operation. Moreover, he already had a record of corrupt behaviour through his involvement with the Commonwealth Research Institute. The possible involvement of U.S. Air Force weathermen and special operatives raises many questions as to what exactly was the objective of making the nuclear weapons disappear. [33]

The Investigation

The U.S. Air Force has publicly stated that it has made a “mistake,” which is very unusual and almost unprecedented for a military organization that tries to continually assure the American public of their safety.

The fact that seventy or more military personnel have been punished in the case of the “lost” nuclear weapons does not mean, however, that the senior commanding officers responsible for having carried out the special operation will be identified and punished.

Quite the opposite. The investigation could indeed result in a camouflage of the chain of command, where lower-ranking military personnel are accused and court-martialed, with a view to ultimately protecting those in high office who have committed an act of treason.

The series of deaths mentioned above, may have no ties whatsoever with the the August flight in question from Minot to Barksdale, but the issues of command, monitoring, and authorization cannot be overlooked or ignored. The American people have before them a case of treason that involves the highest offices of government and most probably the offices of the President and the Vice-President.

Once again, the “C2” process involves the Office of the President and Commander in Chief. It is an established line of command, without which nuclear weapons could not have been deployed or armed as they were in U.S.A.F. Base Minot. It is this command element that establishes the basis of authorization through which “absolute control of nuclear weapons” is maintained “at all times.”

With time it is possible that military servicemen and servicewomen may come forward with more information.

However, in the meantime, there has been a streamlining of military personnel at U.S.A.F. Minot. Base personnel have become dispersed and reassigned to other locations.

If they on the grounds of loyalty to their country, the United States of America, come forward and reveal what has taken place, they are to be saluted with full honour by all ranks. As George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act,” and indeed these are deceitful times.

The fact that US Air Force officers came forward and reported this incident is contrary to U.S. military procedures, regulations and laws. The U.S. military will never release any information that will risk to damage its reputation. Any information in regards to nuclear weapons cannot be released without prior consultations with and authorization by the White House.

The nuclear weapons were armed and moved deliberately. Orders had to have come from the highest echelons of the U.S. government.

The question is what exactly were they meant for? Were they part of a war agenda or something else?

Bush Threatens Iran with Nuclear Weapons

What adds intrigue to an understanding of the missing nukes, are the international events and war games taking place just after the “lost” nuclear weapons incident, not to mention the President’s ongoing threats to attack Iran with nuclear weapons and Vice President Cheney’s repeated warnings that a second large scale terrorist attack on America is under preparation, with the support of Iran.

In the U.S., under the Vigilant Shield 2008 war games (initiated in September) and the TOPOFF anti-terrorism exercises, some form of nuclear terrorist attack on American soil had been envisaged. The roles of Russia and China had also been contemplated. The latter would be “a likely scenario” had the U.S. attacked Iran and as a result Russia and China had decided to intervene. [34] Under Vigilant Shield 2007, held in 2006, the possibility of a nuclear war with Iran’s allies, Russia and China had been contemplated in the war games scenario.

The Kremlin has responded by holding its own war games.[35]

An unveiled threat to trigger World War Three has been the response of George W. Bush Jr. to Russia’s statements warning that a US sponsored war with Iran, could result in an escalating World War III scenario.

The six nuclear warheads were not meant for use in theatre operations against Iran. This is obvious because if they were they would have been deployed via the proper procedural routes without the need to hide anything. Besides, there are already theatre-level nuclear weapons ready and armed in Europe and the Middle East for any possible Middle Eastern mission. There was something more to the incident.

It is also worth noting that the Israelis launched an attack on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility that both Tel Aviv and the White House claim was constructed with the assistance of North Korea. This event has been used to draw a Syria-Iran-North Korea nuclear proliferation axis. [36]

In regards to the case of the missing nuclear weapons, weathermen and military personnel with an expertise in space and missile components were involved. The incident took place during a time when the U.S. missile shield projects in Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia, directed against Russia and China, were raising international tensions and alarms. On October 23, 2007 President Bush Jr. stated: “The need for missile defence in Europe is real and I believe it’s urgent.” [37]

Nuclear warfare, the militarization of space, and “the missile shield” are interrelated military processes. The overtones of Nuclear Primacy are hanging in the air. One of the goals of the U.S. military has been to effectively shield itself from a potential Russian or potential Russian and Chinese nuclear response to a nuclear “First Strike” from the U.S. military. [38] The militarization of space is also deeply linked to this military project. Like their advanced knowledge about the U.S. missile shield project, Russian and Chinese officials have got wind of these ambitions and are fully aware of what the U.S. intends to do.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:


Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is By Dave Lindorff

Air Force Confirms Nuclear Warheads Flown Across US (short video)

Simple Error My Ass – Loose Nukes by Larry C. Johnson

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater by Wayne Madsen

U.S. Staging Nukes for Iran? by Larry Johnson

A Major Mistake Involving Nuclear Warheads (video) + B-52 flew nuclear bombs across US by mistake

Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US? by Bill Van Auken

The March to War: NATO Preparing for War with Serbia? by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 19, 2007

Today in the globalized realm of international relations everything is interlinked. Eurasia is all but a giant jigsaw in name. Two opposite forces are creating a synthesis. This state is a result of the dynamic and static pushes to infiltrate the Eurasian Heartland and those opposed to the American-led drive of infiltration, the Eurasian reactionary outward counter-drive.

A Second Kosovo War Scenario against Serbia: NATO’s Noble Midas 2007

Continue reading

The “Great Game” Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 14, 2007

Preface: The Caspian Sea Summit and the Historical Crossroads of the 21st Century

This article is part of The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (September 23, 2007). For editorial and reasons the article is being published in three parts. It is strongly advised that readers also study the prior piece.

History is in the making. The Second Summit of Caspian Sea States in Tehran will change the global geo-political environment. This article also gives a strong contextual background to the what will be in the backdrop at Tehran. The strategic course of Eurasia and global energy reserves hangs in the balance.

It is no mere change that before the upcoming summit in Tehran that three important post-Soviet organizations (the Commonwealth of Independents States, the Central Security Treaty Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Community) simultaneously held meetings in Tajikistan. Nor is it mere coincidence that the SCO and CSTO have signed cooperation agreements during these meetings in Tajikistan, which has effectively made China a semi-formal member of the CSTO alliance. It should be noted that all SCO members are also members of CSTO, aside from China.

This is all in addition to the fact that the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, were both in Moscow for important, but mostly hushed, discussions with the Kremlin before Vladimir Putin is due to arrive in Iran. This could have been America’s last attempt at breaking the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition in Eurasia. World leaders will watch for any public outcomes of the Russian President’s visit to Tehran. It is also worth noting that NATO’s Secretary-General was in the Caucasus region for a brief visit in regards to NATO expansion. The Russian President will also be in Germany for a summit with Angela Merkel before arriving in Tehran.

On five fronts there is antagonism between the U.S. and its allies with Russia, China, and their allies: East Africa, the Korean Peninsula, Indo-China, the Middle East, and the Balkans. While the Korean front seems to have calmed down, the Indo-China front has been heated up with the start of instability in Myanmar (Burma). This is part of the broader effort to encircle the titans of the Eurasian landmass, Russia and China. Simultaneous to all this, NATO is preparing itself for a possible showdown with Serbia and Russia over Kosovo. These preparations include NATO military exercises in Croatia and the Adriatic Sea.

On May, 2007 the Secretary-General of CSTO, Nikolai Bordyuzha invited Iran to apply to the military pact; “If Iran applies in accordance with our charter, [CSTO] will consider the application,” he told reporters. In the following weeks, the CSTO alliance has also announced with greater emphasis, like NATO that it too is prepared to get involved in Afghanistan and global “peacekeeping” operations. This is a challenge to NATO’s global objectives and in fact an announcement that NATO no longer has a monopoly as the foremost military global organization.

The globe is becoming further militarized than it already is by two military blocs. In addition, Moscow has also stated that it will now charge domestic prices for Russian weaponry and military hardware to all CSTO members. Also, reports about the strengthening prospects of a large-scale Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq are also getting stronger, which is deep related to Anglo-American plans for balkanizing Iraq and sculpting a “New Middle East.” A global showdown is in the works.

Finally, the Second Summit of Caspian Sea States will also finalize the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Energy resources, ecology, energy cooperation, security, and defensive ties will also be discussed. The outcome of this summit will decide the nature of Russo-Iranian relations and the fate of Eurasia. What happens in Tehran may decide the course of the next century. Humanity is at an important historical crossroad. This is why I felt that it was important to release this second portion of the original article before the Second Summit of Caspian Sea States.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroya, Ottawa, October 13, 2007.


The “Great Game”
Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

The haunting spectre of a major war hangs over the Middle East, but war is not written in stone. A Eurasian-based counter-alliance, built around the nucleus of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition also makes an Anglo-American war against Iran an unpalatable option that could turn the globe inside-out. [1]

America’s superpower status would in all likelihood come to an end in a war against Iran. Aside from these factors, contrary to the rhetoric from all the powers involved in the conflicts of the Middle East there exists a level of international cooperation between all parties. Has the nature of the march to war changed?

Tehran’s Rising Star: Failure of the Anglo-American attempt to Encircle and Isolate Iran


Shrouded in mystery are the dealings between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan during an August, 2007 meeting between President Ahamdinejad and President Aliyev. Both leaders signed a joint declaration in Baku on August 21, 2007 stating that both republics are against foreign interference in the affairs of other nations and the use of force for solving problems. This is a direct slur at the United States. Baku also reemphasized its recognition of Iran’s nuclear energy program as a legitimate right.

However, the meetings between the two sides took place after a few months of meetings between Azerbaijan and the U.S. together with NATO officials.

Baku seems to be caught in the middle of a balancing act between Russia, Iran, America, and NATO. At the same time as the meetings between the Iranian President and Aliyev in Baku, Iranian officials were also in Yerevan holding talks with Armenian officials.

This could be part of an Iranian attempt to end tensions between Baku and Yerevan, which would benefit Iran and the Caucasus region. The tensions between Yerevan and Baku have been supported by the U.S. since the onset of the post-Cold War era, with Baku within the U.S. and NATO spheres of influence.


At first glance, Iran has been busy engaging in what can be called a counter-offensive to American encroachment. Iranian officials have been meeting with Central Asian, Caucasian, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and North African leaders in a stream of talks on security and energy. The SCO meeting in Kyrgyzstan was one of these. The importance of the gathering was highlighted by the joint participation of the Iranian President and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, Ali Larijani.


Iran’s dialogue with the presidents of Turkmenistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Algeria are part of an effort to map out a unified energy strategy spearheaded by Moscow and Tehran. Iran and the Sultanate of Oman are also making arrangements to engage in four joint oil projects in the Persian Gulf. [2]

Iran has also announced that it will start construction of an important pipeline route from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman. [3] This project is directly linked to Iranian talks with Turkmenistan and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two countries that share the Caspian Sea with Iran. Furthermore, after closed-door discussions with Iranian officials, the Republic of Azerbaijan has stated that it is interested in cooperating with the SCO. [4] In addition, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria are also coordinating energy and industrial projects.

The Nabucco Project, Eurasian Energy Corridors, and the Russo-Iranian Energy Front

Across Eurasia strategic energy corridors are being developed. What do these international developments insinuate? A Eurasian-based energy strategy is taking shape. In Central Asia, Russia, Iran and China have essentially secured their own energy routes for both gas and oil. This is one of the reasons all three powers in a united stance warned the U.S. at the SCO’s Bishkek Summit, in Kyrgyzstan, to stay out of Central Asia. [5]


In part one of the answers to these questions leads to the Nabucco Project, which will transport natural gas from the Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean towards Western Europe through Turkey and the Balkans. Spin-offs of the energy project could include routes going through the former Yugoslav republics. Egyptian gas is even projected to be connected to the pipeline network vis-à-vis Syria. There is even a possibility that Libyan gas from Libyan fields near the Egyptian border may be directed to European markets through a route going through Egypt, Jordan, and Syria which will connect to the Nabucco Pipeline.

At first glance, it appears that the transport of Central Asian gas, under the Nabucco Project, through a route going through Iran to Turkey and the Balkans is detrimental to Russian interests under the terms of the Port Turkmenbashi Agreement signed by Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan. However, Iran and Russia are allies and partners, at least in regards to the energy rivalry in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea against the U.S. and the European Union.

In May, 2007 the leaders of Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan also planned the inclusion of an Iranian energy route, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, as an extension of the Turkmenbashi Agreement. A route going through either Russia or Iran is mutually beneficial to both countries. Both Tehran and Moscow have been working together to regulate the price of natural gas on a global scale. If Turkmen gas goes through Russian or Iranian territory, Moscow will profit either way. Both Tehran and Moscow have hedged their bets in a win-win situation.

Russia is also involved in the Nabucco Project and has secured a Balkan energy route for the transportation of fuel to Western Europe from Russia vis-à-vis Greece and Bulgaria. To this end on May 21, 2007 the Russian President arrived in Austria to discuss energy cooperation and the Nabucco Project with the Austrian government. [6] One of the outcomes of the Russian President’s visits to Austria was the opening of a large natural gas storage compound, near Salzburg, with a holding capacity of 2.4 billion cubic metres. [7] The Nabucco Project and a united Russo-Iranian energy initiative are also the main reasons that the Russian President will visit Tehran for an important summit of leaders from the Caspian Sea, in mid-October of 2007.

Map: Contours of the Nabucco Project
© Jan Horst Keppler, European Parliament (Committee on Foreign Affairs), 2007.

One might ask if Russia, Iran, and Syria are surrendering to the demands of America and the E.U. by providing them with what they sought in the first place.

The answer is no. The Franco-German entente is very interested in the Nabucco Project and through Austria has much at stake in the energy project. French and German energy firms also want to get involved as are Russian and Iranian companies. This is also one of the reasons Vienna has been vocally supporting Syria and Iran in the international arena. Total S.A., the giant French-based energy firm, is also working with Iran in the energy sectors.


Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus have not been fully co-opted; they are acting in their national and security interests. The leverage they now have can be used to drive a wedge between the Franco-German entente and Anglo-American alliance. A case in standing is the initial willingness of France and Germany to accept the Iranian nuclear energy program. It is believed in Moscow and Tehran that the Franco-German entente could be persuaded to distance itself from the Anglo-American war agenda with the right leverage and incentives.

This could also be one of the factors for the marine route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which runs from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany and bypasses existing energy transit routes going through the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Eastern Europe is part of what is called “New Europe” as a result of Donald Rumsfeld’s 2003 comments that only “Old Europe,” meaning the Franco-German entente, was against the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [8] For example Poland is an Anglo-American ally and could block the transit of gas from Russia to Germany if it was prompted to do so by Britain and America. Moreover, Russia could exert pressure on these Eastern European countries by cutting their gas supplies without effecting Western Europe. Several of these Eastern European states also were pursuing transit fee schemes and reduced gas prices because of their strategic placements as energy transit routes.

Russia and Iran are also the nations with the largest natural gas reserves in the world. This is in addition to the following facts; Iran also exerts influence over the Straits of Hormuz; both Russia and Iran control the export of Central Asian energy to global markets; and Syria is the lynchpin for an Eastern Mediterranean energy corridor. Iran, Russia, and Syria will now exercise a great deal of control and influence over these energy corridors and by extension the nations that are dependent on them in the European continent. This is another reason why Russia has built military facilities on the Mediterranean shores of Syria. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will also further strengthen this position globally.

Map: Nabucco Gas Pipeline Project Gas Supply Sources for Nabucco
© Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, 2007.

Map: Levantine Energy Corridor
© Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007.

Map: Gas-Pipeline vom Iran bis Österreich
English translation from German: Gas Pipeline from Iran to Austria
© Der Standard, 2007.

The Baltic-Caspian-Persian Gulf Energy Corridor: The Mother of all Energy Corridors?

To add to all this, American and British allies by their very despotic and self-concerned natures will not hesitate to realign themselves, if presented with the opportunity, with Russia, China, and Iran. These puppet regimes and so-called allies, from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to Egypt, have no personal loyalties and are fair-weather allies. If they can help it the moment they believe that they can no longer benefit from their relationship as clients they will try to abandon the Anglo-American camp without hesitation. Any hesitation on their part will be in regards to their own political longevity. Iran, Russia, and China have already been in the long process of courting the leaders of the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.

The ultimate aim of Russo-Iranian energy cooperation will be the establishment of a north-south energy corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf and with the Caspian Sea as its mid-axis. An east-west corridor from the Caspian Sea, Iran, and Central Asia to India and China will also be linked to this. Iranian oil could also be transported to Europe through Russian territory, hence bypassing the sea and consolidating Russo-Iranian control over international energy security. If other states in the Persian Gulf were included into the equation a dramatic seismic shift in the global balance of power could occur. This is also one of the reasons that the oil-rich Arab Sheikhdoms are being courted by Russia, Iran, and China.

Eurasian Energy Corridors: Two-Edged Knives?

However, the creation of these energy corridors and networks is like a two-edged sword. These geo-strategic fulcrums or energy pivots can also switch their directions of leverage. The integration of infrastructure also leads towards economic integration. If other factors in the geo-political equations are changed or manipulated, the U.S., Britain, and their partners might wield control over these routes. This is one reason why Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that the creation of a Turkish-Iranian pipeline would benefit America. [9] It should also be noted that Turkey will also be jointly developing three gas projects in the South Pars gas fields with Iran. [10]

If regime change were initiated in Iran or Russia or one of the Central Asian republics the energy network being consolidated and strengthened between Russia, Central Asia, and Iran could be obstructed and ruined. This is why the U.S. and Britain have been desperately promoting covert and overt velvet revolutions in the Caucasus, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Central Asia. To the U.S. and E.U. the creation of a Baltic-Caspian-Persian Gulf energy grid is almost the equivalent, in regards to energy security, of a “Unipolar World.”

The “Great Game” Enters the Mediterranean Sea


The title “Great Game” is a term that originates from the struggle between Britain and Czarist Russia to control significant portions of Eurasia. The term is attributed to Arthur Conolly. A romanticized British novel, Kim, written by Rudyard Kipling and published in 1901 arguably immortalized the concept and term. This Victorian novel was a suspenseful story about the competition between Czarist Russia and Britain to control the vast geographic stretch that included Central Asia, India, and Tibet. In reality the “Great Game” was a struggle for control of a vast geographic area that not only included Tibet, the Indian sub-continent, and Central Asia, but also included the Caucasus and Iran. Additionally, it was London that was the primary antagonist, because of British attempts to enter Russian Central Asia. In fact the British had spying networks and facilities in Khorason, Iran and Afghanistan that would operate against the interests of St. Petersburg in Russian Central Asia.


A contemporary version of the “Great Game” is being played once again for control of roughly the same geographic stretch, but with more players and greater intensity. Central Asia became the focus of international rivalry after the collapse of the former U.S.S.R. and the end of the Cold War. For the most part Central Asia, aside from Afghanistan, has been insulated. It has been the Middle East and the Balkans where this contest has been playing itself out violently.

The “Great Game” has also taken new dimensions and has entered the Mediterranean. This gradual outward movement has been creeping in a westward direction from the Middle East and the Balkans as the area of contention is expanded. This is not a one-directional competition. With the drawing in of Algeria, this push has reached the Western Mediterranean or the “Latin Sea” as Halford J. Mackinder refers to it, whereas before it was limited to the Eastern Mediterranean. This extension of the area of the “Great Game” is also a result of the outward push from Eurasia of the Eurasian-based alliance of Russia, Iran, and China. Examples of this are the emerging inroads China is making in the African continent and Iran’s alliances in Latin America.

However, in reality the Mediterranean region is no stranger to international rivalry or conflicts similar to the “Great Game.” The Second Turkish-Egyptian War (1839-1849), also called the Syrian War, was a historical example of this. It was during this war that Beirut was bombarded by British warships. The Ottoman Empire, supported by Britain, Czarist Russia, and the Austrian Empire, was facing-off against an expansionist Egypt, which was supported by Spain and France. The whole conflict had the overtones of underlying rivalries between Europe’s major powers. Another example is the three Punic Wars between the ancient Carthagians and the Romans.

Gas, Oil, and Geo-Politics in the Mediterranean Sea

The Mediterranean has literally become an extension to the international and dangerous rivalries for control of Central Asian and Caucasian energy resources. Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and Egypt are all Arab countries involved. Algeria already supplies gas to the E.U. through the Trans-Mediterranean Pipeline which runs to the Italian island of Sicily via Tunisia and the Mediterranean Sea. Niger and Nigeria are also building a natural gas pipeline that will reach the E.U. via Algerian energy infrastructure. Libya also supplies gas to the E.U through the Greenstream Pipeline which connects to Sicily via an underwater route in the Mediterranean Sea.

Russia and Iran are spearheading a move to bring Algeria into their orbit in order to establish a gas cartel. If Algeria, and possibly Libya, can be brought into the orbits of Moscow and Tehran the leverage and influence of both would be greatly increased and both would tighten their control over global energy corridors and European energy supplies. Approximately 97 percent of the projected amount of natural gas that will be imported by continental Europe would be controlled by Russia, Iran, and Syria under such an arrangement, whereas without Algeria approximately 93.6 percent of the natural gas exported would be controlled. [11] Algeria is also the sixth largest exporter of oil to the U.S., following behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria.

Western and Central European energy security would be under tight controls from Russia, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Syria because of their control over the geo-strategic energy routes. This is one of the reasons that the E.U. has unsuccessfully tried to force Russia to sign an E.U. energy charter that would obligate Moscow to supply energy to the E.U. and one of the reasons that NATO is considering using Article 5 of its military charter for energy security. [12] In addition, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America obligates America’s top energy sources, Canada and Mexico, to supply the U.S. with oil and gas. Worldwide the securing of energy resources has become an issue of force and involuntary compulsion.

Map: Missing link between giant sources (in bcm) and potential markets
Note: The missing link implied is the Nabucco Pipeline, giant sources are the Middle East and former Soviet Union, and potential markets are the western and central members of the European Union.
© Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, 2007.



Oceania versus Eurasia in the Mediterranean Littoral

“…we might weld together the West and the East, and permanently penetrate the Heartland with oceanic freedom.”

-Sir Halford J. Mackinder (Democratic Ideals and Reality, 1919); In regards to “oceanic freedom” refer to George Orwell’s definition or warning in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It was also in the Mediterranean Sea that the geo-strategic paradigm of sea-power versus land-power that was observed by Halford Mackinder first came into play. [13] Mackinder put forward the concept, which one is tempted to almost label as organic, that rival powers or entities, as they expand, would compete for dominance in a certain area and as they reached maritime areas this competition would eventually be taken to the seas as both powers would try and turn the maritime area into a lake under their own total control. This is what the Romans did to the Mediterranean Sea. It was only once a victor emerged from these competitions that the emphasis on naval power would decline in the maritime areas.

According to Mackinder, the First World War was “a war between Islanders [e.g., Britain, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and Japan] and Continentals [Eurasians; e.g., Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire], there can be no doubt about that.” [14] Also, according to Mackinder it was dominant sea-power that won the First World War.

Naval power has clearly had a cutting edge over land-power in establishing empires. Western European nations like Britain, Portugal, and Spain are all examples of nations that became thalassocracies, empires at sea. Through the control of the seas an island nation with no land borders with a rival can invade and eventually expand into a rival’s territory.

The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a modern embodiment of Halford J. Makinder’s oceanic power versus land power paradigm. [15] The Anglo-American alliance and their allies represent oceanic-power, while the Eurasian-based counter-alliance, based around the nucleus of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, represents land-power.

It can also be observed that historically Eurasian economies did not require far-reaching trade and could exist within a smaller geographic trading area, while the economies of the oceanic powers such as Britain and the U.S., also called “trade-dependent maritime realms” by some academics, have depended on maritime and international trade for economic survival. If the Eurasians were to exclude the U.S. and Britain from the trade and economic system of the Eurasian mainland, there would be grave economic consequences for these “trade-dependent maritime realms.” This was what Napoléon Bonaparte was trying to impose through his Continental System in Europe against Britain and this is also one of the reasons for the survival of the Iranian economy under American sanctions.

Two blocs are starting to manifest themselves in similarity to the geographic boundaries of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four and Mackinder’s Islander versus Continental scheme; a Eurasian-based bloc and a naval-based, oceanic bloc based on the fringes of Eurasia as well as North America and Australasia. The latter bloc is NATO and its network of regional military alliances, while the former is the reactionary counter-alliance formed by the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as its nucleus.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Sino-Russian Coalition: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), August 26, 2007.

[2] Iran, Oman to develop joint oilfields, Press TV (Iran), August 25, 2007.


[3] Iran to lay Caspian-Oman seas oil pipelines, Mehr News Agency (MNA), August 27, 2007.

[4] Azerbaijan interested in ties with SCO – official, Interfax, August 25, 2007.

[5] Leila Saralayeva, Russia, China, Iran Warn U.S. at Summit, Associated Press, August 16, 2007.

[6] Putin heads for Austria, energy high on agenda, Reuters, May 21, 2007.

[7] Russia, Austria to open gas storage facility – Putin, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), May 23, 2007.

[8] Outrage at ‘old Europe’ remarks, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), January 23, 2003.

[9] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.204.


[10] Roman Kupchinsky, Turkey: Ankara Seeks Role As East-West ‘Energy Bridge,’ Radio Free Europe (RFE), August 27, 2007.

[11] These figures are based on calculations that are built on mid-2006 statistical figures from British Petroleum (BP). They are based on imports and exclude each E.U. member state’s domestic or indigenous production.


British Petroleum (BP), Quantifying Energy: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2006 (London, U.K.: Beacon Press, June 2006), p.22.


bcm = billion cubic metres

1 bcm = 263.96 billion gallons


Total amount of natural gas imports projected for European energy markets: 139, 960 bcm.

139, 960 bcm = 100% of natural gas imports


Total amount of natural gas imports projected from Algeria: 4, 580 bcm.

4, 580 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ≈ 0.037 bcm

0.037 bcm X 100 = 3.27% ≈ 3.3%

Therefore: 4, 580 bcm ≈ 3.3% of natural gas imports


Total amount projected from the Middle East, Caspian Sea, and Central Asia sources: 83, 140 bcm.

83, 140 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ≈ 0.594 bcm

0.594 bcm X 100 ≈ 59.4%

Therefore: 83, 140 bcm ≈ 59.4% of natural gas imports

* Calculations include Egyptian natural gas reserves.


Total amount projected from Russia, Caspian Sea, and Central Asian sources: 47, 820 bcm.

47, 820 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ≈ 0.3416 bcm

0.3416 bcm X 100 = 34.16% ≈ 34.2%

Therefore: 4, 580 bcm ≈ 34.2% of natural gas imports


[12] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), May 17, 2007.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in North America between Canada, the United States, and Mexico is also related to this parallel drive in Eurasia and the Mediterranean littoral to ensure access to energy resources. Under the framework of the SPP both Mexico and Canada are obligated, without choice, to supply the United States with its energy needs, even at the expense of Mexican and Canadian national, economic, demographic, and environmental interests. The matter of energy supplies has been transformed into a security issue. There is a strong link between NATO, E.U., and North American energy initiatives in this regard.

[13] Halford John Mackinder, Chap. 3 (The Seaman’s Point of View), in Democratic Ideals and Reality (London, U.K.: Constables and Company Ltd., 1919), pp.38-92.

[14] Ibid., p.88.

“The Heartland, for the purposes of strategical thinking, includes the Baltic Sea, the navigable Middle and Lower Danube, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, Armenia, Persia [Iran], Tibet, and Mongolia. Within it, therefore, were Brandenburg-Prussia and Austria-Hungary, as well as Russia a vast triple base of man-power, which was lacking to the horse-riders of history [a reference to the people’s of the Eurasian steppes that invaded Europe and the Middle East, such as the Iranic Scythians, the Magyars, and various Turkic tribes]. The Heartland is the region to which, under modern conditions, sea-power can be refused access, though the western part of it lies without the region of the Arctic and Continental [Eurasian] drainage. There is one striking physcial circumstance which knits it graphically together; the whole of it [the Heartland], even to the brink of the Persian Mountains [the older English name for the Zagros Mountains] overlooking torrid Mesopotamia [Iraq], lies under snow in the winter time (Chap. 4, p.141).”

[15] Supra. note 12.

“Aside from the global naval force being created by the U.S. and NATO, a strategy has been devised to control international trade, international movement, and international waters. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under the mask of stopping the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components or technology and the systems for their delivery (missile technology or components), sets out to control the flow of resources and to control international trade. The policy was drafted by John Bolton, while serving in the U.S. State Department as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (Nazemroaya, NATO Expansion).”

Mackinder also argued for a super-navy under the control of the League of Nations that would control Germany and Russia: “None the less the League of Nations should have the right under International Law of sending War fleets into the Black and Baltic Seas (Chap. 6, p.215).” This is part of Mackinder’s solution to securing the Eurasian Heartland through what he called an “internationalisation” process in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.


[1] Jan Horst Keppler: Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) Energy Program of the Université Paris Dauphine, France (International Relations and Security of Energy Supply: Risks to Continuity and Geopolitical Risks).

[2] Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH.

[3] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

[4] Der Standard, Austria.

[5] Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH.


NIC has full and exclusive property rights (e.g., ownership, industrial property rights, copyrights) regarding the map material provided. The publication of this material can not be construed as the granting of a license or of any other right. The material made available are for private use and information only and must not be commercially reproduced, presented, distributed, or used in any other form unless prior written consent by NIC has been obtained.


America’s “Long War”: The Legacy of the Iraq-Iran and Soviet-Afghan Wars by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

War and the “New World Order” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or “Calm before the Storm?” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” by Nazemroaya

Nabucco Gas Pipeline Project: Gas Bridge between Caspian Region/ Middle East/ Egypt and Europe (pdf)

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

Vigilant Shield 2008: Terrorism, Air Defences, and the Domestic Deployment of the US Military by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 6, 2007

Vigilant Shield 2008

US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 2008. The series of exercises is mandated by the US government to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises that would call for the use of the military inside the United States.

Terrorism, Air Defences, and the Deployment of the U.S. Military in American Streets

Vigilant Shield 2008 builds a scenario of a domestic disaster in the US (terrorist attack or natural disaster). It posits the domestic use of the US military including a special role for the US Air Force.

Hypothetically, a terrorist event could trigger the massive deployment of the US military as part of a national emergency. If a terrorist incident were to occur and Iran were to be blamed for the attacks, the military could also be used to shunt anti-war opposition within the US.

A precedent for the domestic use of the US military within US cities was established in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Vigilant Shield 2008 is said to be designed to deal with a terrorist or natural disaster scenario in the United States. Yet, the deployment of the US forces in the upcoming US military-security exercise, organised by Homeland Security and the Pentagon, resembles a war-time air scenario over North America and the Pacific rather than an anti-terrorist drill. Canadian territory is also involved through NORAD and so is Guam in the Pacific Ocean.

The Iran Link: Air War Scenario?

The involvement of a Pacific front suggests a scenario of confrontation with Russia or China. The Pacific Ocean, along with an arctic route across Canada are the most likely routes for hypothetical Chinese and Russian aerial attacks in response to a broader global war resulting from attacks on Iran. These assumptions were actually built into last year’s Vigilant Shield exercise (Vigilant Shield ’07).


United States Northern Command

Exercise Vigilant Shield ’08 slated for October

Click to download the VS-08 Fact Sheet

August 30, 2007

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. – North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command along with U.S. Pacific Command, the Department of Homeland Security as well as local, state and other federal responders will exercise their response abilities against a variety of potential threats during Exercise Vigilant Shield ‘08, a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-designated, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)-sponsored, and U.S. Joint Forces Command-supported Department of Defense exercise for homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions.

VS-08 will be conducted concurrent with Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4), the nation’s premier exercise of terrorism preparedness sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security, and several other linked exercises as part of the National Level Exercise 1-08. These linked exercises will take place October 15-20 and are being conducted throughout the United States and in conjunction with several partner nations including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, as well as the Territory of Guam.

VS-08 and National Level Exercise 1-08 will provide local, state, tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland defense the opportunity to participate in a full range of exercise scenarios that will better prepare participants to prevent and respond to national crises. The participating organizations will conduct a multi-layered, civilian-led response to a national crisis.

USNORTHCOM’s primary exercise venues for VS-08 include locations in Oregon, Arizona and a cooperative venue with USPACOM in the Territory of Guam. NORAD’s aerospace detection and defense events will take place across all the exercise venues, to exercise the ability to mobilize resources for aerospace defense, aerospace control, maritime warning, and coordination of air operations in a disaster area.

Emphasis Added


United States Northern Command

USNORTHCOM prepared for hurricane response

Aug. 29, 2007

By Petty Officer 1st Class Joaquin Juatai
NORAD and USNORTHCOM Public Affairs

August 29 marks the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s devastating landfall on the Gulf Coast. Local, state, federal and military responders rushed to New Orleans, one of the most devastated areas, to offer rescue, aid and clean up in the aftermath of the storm.

U.S. Northern Command is responsible for the Department of Defense’s role in response to a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. In that role, USNORTHCOM coordinates movement of equipment and personnel in support of the primary responding agency, whether that is the Federal Emergency Response Management Agency, the National Guard or another primary responding agency.

“Hurricane Katrina’s impact on this country was unprecedented. There are still many of our fellow Americans whose lives still haven’t returned to normal,” said Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and USNORTHCOM. “It will take many years for the Gulf Coast to fully recover.

“The United States military was deeply involved in the response to the hurricane and subsequent flooding,” Renuart said. “While our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines helped thousands of people, we also learned many lessons.”

According to Renuart, USNORTHCOM has been using the lessons learned from Katrina to modify plans to respond to both natural disasters and potential terrorist actions.

“We have been conducting exercises and working with our federal partners to be better prepared for a future catastrophe,” Renuart said.

Since Katrina, USNORTHCOM has pursued a robust planning and training program, developing and testing concepts of operation and response to a disaster such as a hurricane.

Personnel at the command have identified many of the resources that may be needed during a disaster and established a process to move them quicker.

The command has continued to work with other federal agencies to improve the overall federal response.

In May, USNORTHCOM and its subordinate commands participated with FEMA Region 1 in a National Hurricane Preparedness Exercise, which enabled further refining of processes and procedures in disaster response.

USNORTHCOM is ready to help federal, state and local officials to be prepared for a major hurricane and to be successful at conducting response operations, if necessary and requested by the primary responding agency. Some of the ways these objectives are being achieved are:

  • Through State Engagement programs, USNORHTCOM provides planning support to help states prepare for emergencies.
  • USNORTHCOM and its subordinates, as well as local, state and federal partners conduct major disaster exercises to refine processes and apply lessons learned.
  • Working with FEMA, USNORTHCOM has prepared pre-scripted mission assignments to accelerate the disaster response process.
  • USNORTHCOM conducted a major exercise with the National Guard in May to refine the interface between the National Guard and DoD.

The mission of USNORTHCOM is homeland defense and civil support. The command conducts operations to deter, prevent, defeat and mitigate threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories and interests within the assigned area of responsibility and, as directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provides military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations.

Emphasis Added

Related Global Research Articles

The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games: Scenario opposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The “Use of the Armed Forces” in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (Iran)

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Cold War Shivers: Two Russian strategic bombers fly along Alaska, Canada coasts

Cold War Shivers: British Jets Shadow a Russian Bomber

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

A Culture of Violence by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, September 26, 2007

A country that glorifies wars and violence in the name of peace

What do you call a country that glorifies wars and violence in the name of peace. One that’s been at war every year in its history against one or more adversaries. It has the highest homicide rate of all western nations and a passion for owning guns, yet the two seem oddly unconnected. Violent films are some of its most popular, and similar video games crowd out the simpler, more innocent street play of generations earlier. Prescription and illicit drug use is out of control as well when tobacco, alcohol and other legal ones are included.

Continue reading

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, September 23, 2007
– 2007-08-26

“But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia].”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics.

America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.

Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”

-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

What American leaders and officials called the “New World Order” is what the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.” This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.

China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the “New World Order.” The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.

Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government and its partners.

The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.

Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]

The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear disarmament.” [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States.


© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

America’s “Long War”: The Legacy of the Iraq-Iran and Soviet-Afghan Wars by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

War and the “New World Order” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

America’s “Long War”: The Legacy of the Iraq-Iran and Soviet-Afghan Wars by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, September 16, 2007

– 2007-07-05

Yesterday’s events influence the direction of tomorrow. The question is: are future developments, as a result of past events, foreseen or unforeseen?

Are the results of past events mostly unintended consequences or serendipity?

This is an age old subject that has been pondered on by logicians, mathematicians, philosophers, social scientists, and historians. In the case of geo-politics and geo-strategy it may be argued that yes there has been a series of calculated steps taken to establish intended developments. Given this case, how far does this drive to achieve expected outcomes go back? It can be argued that, since the dawn of civilization, humanity has always striven to control its prospects.

Return to the Cold War?


On the eve of the 2007 anniversary of the defeat of Germany in the Second World War, President Vladimir Putin stated that the foreign policy of the U.S. government resembled that of the war march of the German Third Reich that sparked the Second World War. The Russian President warned Russians that the threat of another global war was very much alive in reference to increasing U.S. antagonism across the globe. [1] Just months before, in February of 2007, the Russian President told a gathering of international leaders in Bavaria that the U.S. was dangerously trying to impose itself as the centre of global power and decision making. [2] He bluntly said that Russia was determined to stay an independent nation and when answering a question he confidentially said that he was certain “the historians of the future will not describe our conference [at Munich] as one in which the Second Cold War was declared.” [3]


In 1998, Hubert Védrine, a former French foreign minister, started describing America as a “hyperpower.” This was a reference to the increasingly aggressive conduct of the U.S. government in global affairs.

The statements of Russia, China, and various other nation-states are an alarming indicator of the deteriorating situation in international relations, but this is a direction that American policy makers have been directing the United States towards for decades. Vladimir Putin is correct in the sense that the “Second Cold War” did not begin in 2007; it started years earlier, at the end of the first Cold War, during the decline of the Soviet Union. Or at least the preparations for it were being made during the decline of the Soviet Union.


On close inspection, a series of unfolding international events have been anticipated and systematically engineered since the end of the Cold War.  The “long war” that is absorbing the globe did not start in 2001, but at the end of the Cold War through a continuum of wars and international events. A global war may have been initiated years before the declaration of the “Global War on Terror” and much of the globe may not have been aware of it.


Future historians may end up categorizing several wars going back to the Kosovo War of 1999 as different stages in one singular and “long war.” Several fixtures of geo-strategic chess have been unfolding globally, in which the Middle East is one of the most important stages. As simple as it may sound, the endgame of this match of deadly chess is economic control and supremacy.


Continuous Reagan-Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. War Strategy: Laying the Groundwork for the “Long War”


“As in chess, American global planners must think several moves ahead, anticipating possible countermoves. A sustainable geostrategy must therefore distinguish between the short-run perspective (the next five years), the middle term (up to twenty or so years), and the long run (beyond twenty years). Moreover these phases must be viewed not as watertight compartments but as part of a continuum. The first phase must gradually and consistently lead into the second — indeed, be deliberately pointed toward it — and the second must then lead subsequently into the third.”


-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)


U.S. foreign policy and the wars in the Middle East cut across U.S. political party lines and presidential administrations. There exists no bipartisanship in American foreign policy. The pinnacles of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically worked hand-in-hand in regards to U.S. foreign policy objectives.


The White House and the Pentagon were basically given a carte blanche to execute longstanding war plans made under previous presidential administrations after the dire events of September 11, 2001. The war march has been part of a continuum and, in a historical perspective, almost a seamless process. Upon careful examination, it is apparent one presidential administration after another has laid the foundations for the foreign wars of their beneficiaries in the White House.


George H. Bush Sr. went to war with Baghdad, arranged the groundwork to dismantle Yugoslavia, and produced the economic sanctions regime that weakened Iraq. William (Bill) J. Clinton weakened Iraq further through a bombing regime, expanded NATO, pressed U.S. bases eastward, helped dismantle Yugoslavia, and laid the footing for invading Afghanistan and lunching the “Global War on Terror.” Finally George W. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq and publicly resurrected the Cold War projects of America. Under the Bush Jr. Administration a vital NATO military presence was also established in Afghanistan. Afghanistan can serve as a bridgehead in the Eurasian landmass and is amidst the borders of China, Iran, the former Soviet Union, and the Indian sub-continent.


The Carter Doctrine: The Link between the Soviet-Afghan and Iraq-Iran Wars


Looking back, in retrospect the grounds for weakening Iraq and Iran simultaneously were established under both the presidential administrations of James (Jimmy) E. Carter, and Ronald W. Reagan. United States Central Command (CENTCOM) was also established in 1983, during the Iraq-Iran War. The establishment of CENTCOM is an important step in the continuous projection of American power into the Middle East and Eurasia.


The U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was the antecedent of CENTCOM, which was designed to challenge Soviet intervention in Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf. U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was a large-scale contingent of the U.S. military that was constantly on standby for massive theatre-level war anywhere on the globe. The force also gave special priority to the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The force was essentially the largest standby military contingent of the U.S. and had a special mandate in regards to the geo-strategically important Persian Gulf, an energy breadbasket.


The Carter Doctrine was consequently declared after the U.S.S.R. intervened militarily in Afghanistan. On January 23, 1980, Jimmy Carter stated that the U.S. government would use military force within the Persian Gulf region to defend U.S. economic interests. [4] The doctrine was deliberately portrayed as a response to Soviet actions, but nothing could be further from the truth. Eight months later, in September of 1980, the Iraq-Iran War broke out.  The Carter Doctrine was a clear message that the Soviet Union should not get involved in the Iraq-Iran War. Afghanistan was also conveniently keeping the Soviets busy while America had an open hand in the Persian Gulf. This was deliberately arranged as part of a cunning American project.


According to Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, the Soviet Union was baited into invading Afghanistan in 1979 by the Carter Administration and the CIA. [5] High ranking officials within the Carter Administration also contributed to triggering the Iraq-Iran War, after failing to manipulate the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The involvement of the Soviets in Afghanistan prevented them from intervening in a significant way in Iran. With the Soviets busy in Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration was free to fully push Iraq and Iran, the major military powers of the Middle East, against one another.

Machiavellian Geo-Strategy: Playing Iraq against Iran in the “Northern Tier”


Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were in an area called the “Northern Tier” by American strategists. This area was believed to be the region from which the Soviet Union could breakout of Eurasia by reaching the Persian Gulf. It was also considered to be the area bordering the Soviet Union’s most sensitive area. It was from here that a game of expansion, containment, and penetration was being carried out. A balance of power was very important in this regard.


One country above all others was vital for the balance of power and that was Iran. If the Soviets overran Iran, they would have direct access to the Persian Gulf and if American or British troops were in Iran they would be directly on the southern and sensitive borders of the Soviet Union.  The status quo had been, since the time of the so-called “Great Game” between Britain and Czarist Russia, that Iran would be a military buffer zone. While Iran was an ally of the U.S. and NATO before 1979, there were also restrictions on it in the context a longstanding bilateral relationship with the Soviet Union.

Iran severed its military alliance with the United States after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This was seen as a geo-strategic victory by the Soviet Union. Although the Soviets were concerned about the ideology of the new government in Iran, they were relieved that Iran was no longer colluding with the U.S. and its partners. Nonetheless, there was still a state of mistrust between Moscow and Tehran. The Americans could not intervene militarily in Iran with a view to gaining control over Iran’s oil fields.  A bilateral treaty between Iran and the Soviets had allowed the Soviet Union to intervene in Iran if forces of a third party operating within Iran were perceived as a menace to Soviet security. Naturally, Moscow would perceive any American invasion of Iran, on the direct borders of the U.S.S.R., as a threat and invoke the bilateral treaty.


This is where Iraq, a Soviet ally, became useful against Iran. Before the Iraq-Iran War there existed no diplomatic relations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments. Iraq had gravitated outside of the Anglo-American orbit in 1958, after a revolution ousted the Iraqi branch of the Hashemite Dynasty and in 1967 Baghdad cut its ties with America. In 1972 the Soviets and Iraqis had also signed a Friendship Treaty that resulted in large Soviet weapon deliveries to the most independent-minded Arab country in the Arab World, which became a real threat to U.S. and Israeli interests. [6]


A real match of geo-strategic chess was being played. According to Henry Kissinger, Iraq was the single most radical Arab country that posed the greatest danger to U.S. interests during the Nixon era. Furthermore, the U.S. was afraid that if Iraq was not neutralized that the Soviets would take the geo-strategic initiative of penetrating into the Middle East and overwhelming Iran. If one remembers Afghanistan also had a pro-Soviet government too. In Henry Kissinger’s words, “The Soviet Union would try to squeeze Iran between [a pro-Soviet] Afghanistan and its Iraqi client.” [7]

Under these circumstances, it was to keep their socialist allies in power in Kabul and to prevent the destabilization of Soviet Central Asia via Afghanistan that Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, in context with the 1978 Soviet-Afghan Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighbourliness.

Henry Kissinger has written in regards to the danger from Iraq, “Though not strictly speaking a Soviet satellite, once fully armed with Soviet weapons Iraq would serve Soviet purposes by intimating pro-Western government, such as Saudi Arabia; simultaneously, it would exert pressure on Jordon and even Syria, which while leaning to the radical side was far from being a Soviet puppet.” [8] The Americans and their British allies were intent on neutralizing an independent Iraq and an Iran steaming with revolutionary fervor. Also, the other goal of the U.S. and Britain was to regain the lost oil fields of both Middle Eastern countries. The Iraq-Iran War was America’s chance to recover the lost oil fields of Iraq and Iran.


The Red Factor in Iran: The Soviet Union’s Treaty Right to Intervene

Close to the start of the Iraq-Iran War, the Soviet government, after talks with the revolutionary government in Tehran, was notified that Iran was terminating Moscow’s right to militarily intervene in Iran, and by extension in the Persian Gulf, under the 1921 Treaty of Friendship signed between the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (S.F.S.R.) and Iran. [9] The reason the agreement was made between the Russian S.F.S.R., instead of the U.S.S.R., and Iran was because the U.S.S.R. was in the process of forming and all its constituent republics had not integrated at the time, in 1921.

It was the Treaty of Friendship that was invoked during the Second World War by the Soviets in an attempt to legitimize the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Under Article 5 and Article 6 of the 1921 Treaty of Friendship, the Soviet military was legally permitted to intervene in Iran if preparations were being made for an armed attack on the U.S.S.R. by a foreign power (e.g., the U.S.). [10] The Soviets objected to Tehran’s decision, but were reluctant and bogged down in Afghanistan. Eventually and with time they tacitly accepted the Iranian decision.

It was this agreement between the Soviets that kept the U.S. from invading Iran. It is also because of this agreement that the British did not try to invade Iran, but created an internationally illegal military blockade that prevented Iranian trade and the export of oil when the government of Dr. Mossadegh, the prime minister of Iran, nationalized Iranian oil in 1951. It is obvious that international laws are only useful to the leaders of America and Britain, who misuse their nation’s foreign policies, only when it benefits them. [11]


This Soviet treaty right was also one of the rationales for the existence of U.S. Rapid Deployment Force and its special mandate for the Persian Gulf. The U.S. feared that the Soviets could use Iran’s military ties to the U.S. as a pretext into invading Iran and establishing control over the Persian Gulf. The Soviets eventually and essentially relinquished this treaty right after the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the unilateral annulment by Tehran. This was only because Iran was no longer an American ally.


By instigating war between Iraq, a Soviet ally, and Iran the U.S. also effectively obstructed any warming of Soviet-Iranian relations that would have greatly endangered Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and caused a geo-strategic nightmare for the White House. They also neutralized the Soviet’s Iraqi allies. When Iranian communist leaders were arrested the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Pravda, declared that the U.S. had instigated the situation to create animosity between Moscow and Tehran. This was in light of the fact that Iranian communists had helped oust Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s last shah or king.


Geo-Strategic Chess: Destabilizing Areas of Concern for Future Operations


“The southern rim of Asia — Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan — is a region of the world that may seem remote and strange to Americans, and yet it is a pivot of the world’s security. Within a few years of my 1973 journey, it became an area of upheaval. From the Iranian revolution to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the Iran-Iraq war, events dramatized the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf — the lifeline of the West’s oil supply. The vital importance of that region had been one of the themes of the shrewd strategic analysts I was to visit next: Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai.”


-Henry Kissinger (Years of Upheaval, 1982)


The Soviet Union, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, lastly in 1979, Iran were independent-minded states in regards to America. By 1980 America had systematically created an arc of volatility and instability from the borders of Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan running through Iran and Iraq to the Persian Gulf; in the process four nations (the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq) on the doorstep or gateway into the core of Eurasia were weakened. America was also using all four nations to destabilize one another. In retrospect it can be argued that the ground was being prepared for future operations in these areas.


During the bloody Iraq-Iran War, both sides were used to weaken one another. The intention was, quoting Henry Kissinger, to “let them [meaning Iraq and Iran] kill each other.” Thus, the U.S. tried to keep either side from winning and always in a military deadlock. According to a May 20, 1984 issue of Newsday, an American newspaper, the U.S. feared an Iranian victory and developed a contingency plan to militarily intervene on the side of Iraq by using the U.S. Air Force against Iran in a bombing campaign if the Iranians should advance towards Baghdad. [12]


The Iraq-Iran War and Market Manipulation: Destabilizing Eurasian Economies


The U.S. had realized from the time of the 1968 Arab Oil Embargo that it had a powerful economic weapon on its hands. Even during the 1968 Arab Oil Embargo the Saudi government was sustaining the U.S. by reinvesting large amounts of capital into the American economy. Henry Kissinger confirmed in his 1982 memoirs that the U.S. was able to strengthen its economic influence over the European and Japanese economies because of the price increase in the oil market, which was linked to the U.S. dollar. [13] The rise in petroleum prices was also used to weaken (or more properly to globally integrate) the economies of the Eastern Bloc and the Communist World. The Iraq-Iran War further tightened the American grip on the global economy.


The work of the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein puts forward the notion that there is essentially only a singular, but fragmented, “world-system” that is connected and interrelated through a network of economic relationships. This thesis is useful in part for explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.

One could argue that the Iraq-Iran War was a key aspect in the collapse of the Soviet Union, because of the position of the U.S.S.R. within the singularity of the “world-system.” The Soviet Union was a true “energy superpower” in all aspects of the term. It should be noted that Soviet hydrocarbon resources were the sum of all the energy resources of Russia, Central Asia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. So why didn’t the Soviet Union with the combined energy resources of Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus profit from the Iraq-Iran War?


The price of Soviet petroleum also increased because of the Iraq-Iran War, but to no real benefit to the Soviets. The Soviet economy was affected largely because of the war in Afghanistan, a U.S. snare that ensured that the Soviet economy would not benefit from the rise in petroleum prices. The rise in petroleum prices during the Iraq-Iran War also created a state of economic shock in Eastern Europe. The economic disturbances in Eastern Europe also had a negative toll on the Soviet economy. The Eastern Bloc also opened the door to Western Banks for financial aid to cope with the economic shock that was created by the rise in petroleum prices. This would be a lethal mistake. Moreover, while the manipulation of oil prices benefited France and West Germany to some extent; it also benefited the Anglo-American alliance by spoiling any economic rapprochement between Paris, Bonn, and Moscow.


It should be noted that the Soviet Union disengaged itself from Afghanistan in 1988, the same year that the Iraq-Iran War ended. In 1988, the Soviet effort to stabilize the Soviet economy was also underway. After the Iraq-Iran War ended in 1988, the U.S. tried to sabotage and to further destroy the devastated economies of Iraq, Iran, and the Soviet Union by deliberately getting Saudi Arabia and the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf to lower the price of oil.  The Soviets, the Iraqis, and the Iranians were planning on making the most of their vast energy resources, but their programs were stopped or obstructed in their tracks by the deliberate manipulation of petroleum markets. Washington D.C. was cleverly “killing several birds with one stone,” so to speak.


Military Upsurge in the Persian Gulf and the Wars against Iraq


“…America possesses not only overwhelming strategic power— constantly enhanced by technological innovation— but also an unmatched capability to project its conventional forces to distant areas.”


-Zbigniew Brzezenski (Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century, 1993)


In one of his books, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century, Zbigniew Brzezenski writes, “For the world at large, one of the most impressive aspects of the U.S. military performance in the Gulf War of 1991 was the manner in which the United States was able to deploy, and logistically sustain, a force of several hundred thousand men in the distant Arabian peninsula [sic].” [14] The truth is that President George H. Bush Sr. would never have been able to deploy forces to the Middle East with such ease without the work of his presidential predecessors. The groundwork was prepared for him by the Reagan, the Carter, and the Ford Administrations.

The existence of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force, which later became CENTCOM, was an extremely important step for U.S. operations in the Middle East. The deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 was part of an operational continuum. It should be noted that U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was created by the Carter Administration on August 24, 1977 through a presidential directive based on the work of President Gerald Ford and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. was able to bolster its plans to dominate the Persian Gulf.

The Persian Gulf was militarized over a long period of time through three successive wars: the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988), the Persian Gulf War (1991), and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq (2003). After the British left the Persian Gulf, the area was militarized by the U.S. through the arguable necessitation of foreign ships being present to protect oil shipments and maritime traffic. This position was further endorsed during the Iraq-Iran War when the U.S. Navy flagged Kuwait oil tankers and fought against the Iranian Navy.


The invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent American-led war with Iraq allowed the U.S. to establish bases in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf in a second phase of militarization. A third phase of militarization started in 2003. This third phase involved the transfer of American and British assets into Iraq and the establishment of permanent super-bases starting in 2003/2004. NATO has also signed agreements with Arab states in the Persian Gulf littoral as the Franco-German entente becomes more involved in the management of the Middle East.


The U.S. Wants to Stay “Permanently” in the Persian Gulf: Baghdad’s 1990 Warnings


“The country that exerts the greatest amount of influence on the region, on the [Persian] Gulf and its oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower. This proves that if the population of the [Persian] Gulf — and of the entire Arab World — is not vigilant, this area will be ruled according to the wishes of the United States.”


-Saddam Hussein, 5th President of Iraq: Speech to the Arab Cooperation Council in Amman (February 24, 1990)


The British attempted to control the Persian Gulf in the past and the U.S. government has inherited this task. The interests of the same Anglo-American elites are still at play, but America is the new vessel or agent of execution. American foreign policy in the Middle East is a continuation of British foreign policy in the area.

After the Iraq-Iran War the understanding between Iraq and Washington D.C. faded. Iraq was no longer needed; Iraq had crippled its own economy in the process of confronting Iran militarily. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein warned the Arab World that the U.S. was seeking to establish itself permanently in the Middle East and to take control of the region and its resources. Little did Saddam Hussein know that he would be baited into a disastrous war about a year later, a war which provided the U.S. with the pretext for the permanent U.S. deployment in the Middle East that he forewarned against. Iraq would become a victim of the Carter Doctrine.


In 2007, the White House and the Pentagon clarified that U.S. troops would be deployed in permanent bases in Iraq, described as the “post-occupation” phase of the U.S. deployment in Iraq. [15] The American presence in Iraq was contrasted with that of the American presence in the Korean Peninsula since the end of the bloody Korean War. U.S. officials, including Vice-President Cheney, have also threatened both allies and foes alike; cautioning that the U.S. does not intend on leaving the Persian Gulf. [16]


In the later half of the 1990s, Iraq, which needed heavy financial help to fight Iran, was headed towards even greater levels of external debt because of the deliberate economic manipulation of oil prices. Oil prices were pushed downwards through excess production. At the time, Iraqi debts to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were in the tens of billions of dollars.  The late Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government were angry and at odds with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Bahrain, and Qatar for what they saw as a betrayal. Iraq accused their governments, especially Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia, of conspiring to destabilize the Iraqi economy and impoverishing its people. The manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. and the Arab Sheikdoms was seen by Baghdad as economic warfare. This was all after Iraq, once liberally termed “the superpower of the Arab World,” had shattered its economy, military strength, and resources fighting Iran and all for naught.


The Arab Conspiracy against Iraq

“The year 1991 saw the definitive end of the Cold War and the bipolar era.”


-U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, (Forward of the 1991 Yearbook of the United Nations)


When Lebanon was attacked by Israel in July of 2006 the Lebanese stated that there was an “Arab conspiracy” against Lebanon. The Arab dictators and regimes had been co-opted to support Israel against them they said, but before there was an Arab conspiracy against Lebanon in 2006 there was one against the Iraqi people dating back to the end of the Iraq-Iran War. Although it should be noted that Palestine suffered betrayal from Arab leaders before both Lebanon and Iraq.


Tariq Aziz is quoted as saying during an Arab summit, in Tunisia in 1990, “We [meaning Iraq] are sure some Arab states are involved in a conspiracy against us. We want you to know that our country [Iraq] will not kneel, our women will not become prostitutes, our children will not be deprived of food.” [17] A conspiracy against Iraq by fellow Arab governments was economical and Iraq had caught on. Baghdad perceived the U.S. to be the main architect of the scheme.  In fact Iraq would also catch on and try to fight back economically, almost ten years later, by selling its oil in other foreign currencies besides the American dollar in November of 2000.


In February 1990, Saddam Hussein asked Saudi Arabia to honour the limits on oil production rates or quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Arab countries like Kuwait and the U.A.E. were deliberately breaching the quotas set by OPEC in coordination with the White House. The Iranians also sided with Iraq and in addition blamed the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf of conspiring with the U.S. against Iran too.  Oddly, the U.S.S.R. appears to have kept silent. In May of 1990, Saddam Hussein finally gave a summit of Arab leaders in Baghdad a warning that the continued violation of OPEC production rates by fellow Arab nations represented a de facto declaration of war against Iraq, but Kuwait and the U.A.E., encouraged by the U.S., continued to violate their OPEC quotas. [18]


Choreographing Iraq into invading Kuwait: Planting the Seeds of 2003


“[The Gulf War] is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a ‘New World Order’…”


-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (January 16, 1991)

Finally Iraq was entrapped into invading Kuwait in August of 1990 with what Baghdad believed was an okay from President George H. Bush Sr. and the White House through April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. [19] The transcripts of the discussion between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein confirm that Iraq was ensnared by the Bush Sr. Administration. [20] U.S. officials in Washington D.C. also made it appear that the U.S. believed that the invasion of Kuwait was an “Arab-Arab issue.” The Iraqis also claimed that they invaded Kuwait to stop Kuwait from permanently damaging the Iraqi economy by flooding the global market with more oil.


John Kelly, The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to the U.S. Congress that the “United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq,” on July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi Army marched into Kuwait. [21] Margaret Tutweiler, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman, also told the international press on July 26, 1990 that the U.S. government had no objections or diplomatic message to Iraq about the mobilization of 30, 000 Iraqi troops that appeared to be planning an invasion of Kuwait. [22] The U.S. was aware that the Iraqis would be monitoring Washington D.C.’s responses to Iraqi mobilization and Baghdad’s plans to invade Kuwait. Iraq was clearly led on by the U.S. government.


Aside from Iraq’s global importance as an energy supplier, Iraq’s geographic location is also central to the whole Middle East. With a central footing in Iraq the U.S. could spread out or control the rest of the Middle East and the head of the Persian Gulf. The Middle East, in addition to the Indian sub-continent, is also sandwiched between America’s Eurasian bridgeheads, Europe, and the Far East. Additionally, Iraq serves as a gateway of entry into Iran and as a natural barrier between Iran and the rest of the Arab World and debatably even the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, Iran serves as a geographic gateway into the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, and Central Asia. Establishing a footing in Iraq is a logical step in containing the spread of Iranian influence in the Arab World and pushing inwards into Central Asia. Therefore the invasion of Iraq would be vital in a drive towards Central Asia, through securing Iran, and ultimately encircling Russia and China.


1997-1999: The Preparation Years for the “Long War”


“Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.”


-Zbigniew Brzezinski, (A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997)


A lot of work and planning goes into preparing military campaigns, especially ones of great magnitude such as the “Global War on Terror.” In 1997 the Clinton Administration began taking the necessary steps and planning for NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet vacuum. This was not done under the Clinton Administration’s individual initiative, but as part of a long-term American agenda. By this time, the Soviet Union, the dinosaur of Eurasia, had finally collapsed. Containment had just redefined itself as penetration. On October 9, 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of America’s most prominent geo-strategists, told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that NATO’s enlargement was crucial to the future of the U.S. and American foreign objectives on a global scale.


The European Union, under France and Germany, and America were also portrayed as partners, working through NATO, in leading the global post-Cold World order. Brzezinski testified that NATO enlargement and expansion was “central to the step-by-step construction of a secure international system in which the Euro-Atlantic alliance [meaning NATO] plays the major role in ensuring that a peaceful and democratic Europe is America’s principle partner.” [23]


On October 10, 1997, on day after Zbigniew Brzezinski’s testimony the U.S. helped create an alliance of ex-Soviet republics that were predisposed towards entering the orbit of NATO. The Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, better known as the GUAM Group was created as a political, economic and strategic alliance between Georgia, Ukraine, the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan), and Moldavia. GUAM, the organization’s alternative name was an acronym for the names of these countries. The leaders of all four were vying for greater independence from the orbit of Moscow. NATO was critical for offering support to the four ex-Soviet republics. GUAM was designed to be NATO’s stepping stone into the former Soviet Union. All four nations were slatted by Washington D.C. and Brussels to ultimately join NATO.


Two years later, in 1999, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and Uzbekistan left the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to join the GUAM Group, which became renamed as the GUUAM Group. In 1998, NATO troops were already holding joint exercises in Uzbekistan with Uzbek troops and Uzbekistan was getting large amounts of aid from the U.S. and NATO.  In the same year that Uzbekistan left CSTO and NATO expanded, 1999, the groundwork on establishing a joint missile shield with Japan also began in Asia. This was in line with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s demands that a single policy be developed for Europe and Asia.

America was starting to take a Eurasian approach to its policies in Europe and Asia. 1999 was also the year that NATO declared war on Yugoslavia under the ironic pretext of a “humanitarian mission” in Kosovo. NATO and U.S. bases were also pushed eastwards in Europe.


None of these events are coincidental; they are all carefully planned steps of a “military roadmap.”  It was the subsequent bases that were established in the Balkans after the 1999 NATO war on Yugoslavia that allowed the logistical groundwork for an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 to take place. These are different battles of the same war.


Additionally, a month before speaking to the U.S. Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on NATO expansion, in September of 1997, Brzezinski had also indicated to the Council on Foreign Relations that the U.S. must control Eurasia through a presentation on U.S. geo-strategy that appeared in Foreign Affairs, an influential international relations journal run by the Council on Foreign Relations. [24] The Council on Foreign Relations was also told that the U.S. must harmonize its European and Asian polices. This explains the push to drive Asia and Europe towards a single military alliance and the coordination between the missile shield projects in Asia and Europe. It is clear America had started the process of encircling Russia, China, and their allies. Zbigniew Brzezinski even put forward the scheme that Russia should be portioned into a loose confederation consisting of a “European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic.” [25]


Breaking Yugoslavia: Eastward Prerequisite for Targeting Russia and the Middle East?


“Yugoslavia, consisting of Serbia and Montenegro, fits into the geopolitical plans of the U.S., and to a lesser degree NATO countries, because it’s there, strategically located, and this has to be addressed.”


-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)


Bill Clinton said “If we’re going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key…That’s what this Kosovo thing [meaning the war with Yugoslavia] is all about,” during the NATO bombing campaign over Serbia and Montenegro. The wars in Yugoslavia were a case where the Franco-German entente, France and Germany, and the Anglo-American alliance, the U.S. and Britain, were working hand-in-hand to extend their spheres of influences. Future developments were being foreshadowed from the Franco-German and Anglo-American collusion.


In the wake of the Dayton agreement of 1995 and the NATO invasion of Kosovo in 1999, U.S. and NATO military bases, formally and informally, mushroomed in the Balkans with no treaty limitations. One of the largest U.S. military facilities in the Balkans is the Bondsteel military base. Bondsteel is situated in the Serbian province of Kosovo, inhabited predominately by ethnic Albanians. From Kosovo, the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was also destabilized and engaged into the orbit of NATO powers.


The 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are functionally related to the wars in the Balkans and the dismantling of Yugoslavia. These series of wars are part of a broader post-Cold War military roadmap in Eurasia. The destabilization and subsequent bombardment of Yugoslavia should be considered as a distinct stage in the “Eurasian roadmap,” which was beneficial to the establishment of U.S. bases and an extended U.S. sphere of military influence in Southeastern Europe. Britain, France, and Germany were America’s partners in this endeavour.


The stage was being set for the long march east towards the heart of Eurasia. These bases in the Balkans subsequently also had no limitations stipulated by international treaty with Russia and its allies on the number of forces the U.S. is allowed to post in Europe. The bases set up in the Balkans were also not under the scrutiny of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE-1989) or the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE-1999).


Preparing for the “Long War:” Drafting the “Bush Doctrine” and the “Global War on Terror”


“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”


-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)


The Washington Post reported in 2002 that the Bush Jr. Administration inherited its counter-terrorism strategies used in the “Global War on Terror” from the Clinton Administration. [26] The fight against Al-Qaeda was not initiated by the Bush Jr. Administration, but was initiated and drafted by the Clinton Administration. It should also be noted that it is also under the term of the Clinton Administration that Al-Qaeda was revealed to be an American product being used in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Balkans. This is an important fact to remember.


The Clinton Administration had also crafted the invasion plans for Iraq. In fact it was the economic sanctions and the Anglo-American bombing campaigns under the Clinton Administration that softened Iraq for a ground invasion under the Bush Jr. Administration. Iraqi air defences were also seriously eroded by the time Iraq was invaded in 2003. The no-fly zones over pre-2003 Iraq, that were declared by the U.S., British, and French government were also not internationally recognized or de jure (legal).


The bombardment of Iraq and Iraqi defensive facilities was carried on for years under the Clinton Administration, but were acts that were hardly noticed by the North American and British press. Under the Clinton Administration a dual containment policy in regards to Iraq and Iran had also been drafted, or upgraded. This was in addition to an ambitious dual-phased invasion plan for conquering both Iraq and Iran. [27] In Afghanistan the U.S. and British governments sponsored radical elements of the Afghan Mujahedin and helped nurture what became the repressive Taliban via Pakistan and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The division of Iraq and the restructuring of the Middle East has become an Anglo-American and Israeli ground operation. The religious, sectarian, and ethnic tensions being fueled in Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Lebanon are a part of this process. In hindsight it is worth quoting a translation of the Yinon Plan drafted by Oded Yinon in 1982: “[Iraq’s] dissolution is even more important for [Israel] than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against [Israel]. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shiite [Muslim Arab] areas in the south will separate from the Sunni [Muslim Arab] and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.” [28]

These 1982 Israeli policy statements forecast the strangulation of the Iraqi nation through the geo-strategic manipulation of Iraq and Iran against one another. However, this was not an idiosyncratic Israeli strategy, but an element of a far broader joint Anglo-American and Israeli strategy in the Middle East and Eurasia. Many years have passed since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the bloody Iraq-Iran War. Both wars were instigated by the White House and 10 Downing Street as part of a calculated and long-term global strategy. It is through these wars and both the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Kosovo War that the seeds of the wars of the Twenty-First Century have been planted. Just as the First World War led to the Second World War, these wars have led to further conflicts and wars. There is no doubt, these wars are elements of a “long war” that is part of the effort to establish what Professor Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama calls an “end to history” through a singular global polity or what George H. Bush Sr. called a “New World Order” during the period of the Gulf War. This is the history and the ultimate objective of the bloody march to war.



[1] Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Speech at the Military Parade Celebrating the 62nd  Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, (Commemoration Speech, Red Square, Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2007).


Note: The Great Patriotic War is the name used in Russia and the former U.S.S.R. to designate the Second World War.


[2] Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy (Address, Munich Conference on Security Policy, Munich, Bavaria, February 10, 2007).

[3] Ibid.


[4] James Earl Carter, Third State of the Union Address, (State of the Union Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, January 23, 1980).


[5] Zbigniew Brezinski, “Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes…,” Le Nouvel Observateur, January 15-21 Issue, 1998, p.76.

Note: The term Russians (“Russes” in French) is improperly used instead of Soviets, the proper national label.


[6] Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company, 1982), p.669.


[7] Ibid., p.675.


[8] Ibid.


[9] William M Reisman, Termination of the U.S.S.R.’s Treaty of Right of Intervention in Iran, American Journal of International Law, vol. 74, no. 1 (January 1980): p.144-154.


[10] Treaty of Friendship between Iran and the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, signed and entered into force February 26, 1921, Russian S.F.S.R.-Kingdom of Iran, articles 5-6, League of Nations Treaty Series (L.N.T.S.) 9:403


Note: Outside of Iran the treaty title used the name “Persia,” the title used in reference to Iran outside of the Middle East until 1935, to refer to Iran. It was in 1935 that the government of Reza Pahlavi asked those nations referring to Iran as Persia to use the proper title (Iran), which was used by Iranians themselves to refer to their country. Reza Pahlavi also did this as a result of British attempts to divide Iran, like the Ottoman Empire, during the First World War. A comparison to this would be if Greece requests the international community use the name Hellas instead of Greece or if Finland asked the international community to refer to it by the name Suomi instead of Finland or if Germany asked to be called Deutschland.

The subject is also compounded by the fact that labeling Iranians as Persians and Iran as Persia is incorrect and is similar to labeling all Britons as Englishmen and Britain as England. Englishmen, Scots, and Welshmen are all Britons or British. England is only just one of the component countries of Britain or formally the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In similarity Persians, like Kurds, are just one Iranian sub-group and Persia or Pars/Fars is historically a province within Iran. The ancient Achaemenids, such as Cyrus II and Xerxes I, the Arsacids, such as Mithridates I, and Sassanids all referred to their empires as Iran or different variances of Iran.


The following are important extracts from the Treaty of Friendship between Iran and the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic; it should also be noted that the “Allies of Russia” are the other constituent Soviet Socialist Republics of the U.S.S.R., which essentially means the rest of the Soviet Union;




The two High Contracting Parties undertake:


(1) To prohibit the formation or presence within their respective territories, of any organization or groups of persons, irrespective of the name by which they are known, whose object is to engage in acts of hostility against Persia or Russia, or against the Allies of Russia. They will likewise prohibit the formation of troops or armies within their respective territories with the aforementioned object.


(2) Not to allow a third party or organization, whatever it be called, which is hostile to the other Contracting Party, to import or to convey in transit across their countries material which can be used against the other party.


(3) To prevent by all means in their power the presence within their territories or within the territories of their Allies of all armies or forces of a third party in cases in which the presence of such forces would be regarded as a menace to the frontiers, interests or safety of the other Contracting Party.




If a third party should attempt to carry out a policy of usurpation by means of armed intervention in Persia, or if such Power should desire to use Persian territory as a base of operations against Russia, or if a Foreign Power should threaten the frontiers of Federal Russia or those of its Allies, and if the Persian Government should not be able to put a stop to such menace after having been once called upon to do so by Russia, Russia shall have the right to advance her troops into the Persian interior for the purpose of carrying out the military operations necessary for its defence. Russia undertakes, however, to withdraw her troops from Persian territory as soon as the danger has been removed.


[11] Those who sit in the halls of power have an intimate link to private enterprise or large corporations. They use their nations’ foreign policies and state revenues to advance the needs of these enterprises. For example, most directors of the CIA come from Wall Street and go back to Wall Street once they leave the CIA or many generals in the Pentagon end up sitting on the boards of huge corporations. For example General Shelton, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until September 30, 2001, upon his retirement obtained several lucrative corporate positions. Hence, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s statement in his farewell 1960 speech: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The following is taken from Chapter 7 (David Simon: The Transformer) of The New Global Leaders: Richard Branson, Percy Barnevik, David Simon and the Remaking of International Business to further illustrate this point; “Twenty-four hours after the Labour party’s landslide victory in the British general election in May 1997, the Financial Times mentioned almost as a by-the-way comment that Sir David Simon, chairman of British Petroleum, was to be offered the position of minister of Europe and a seat in the House of Lords. The rumor was pounced on by the pro-Tory press, clearly eager to exploit what looked like an early breach in Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet…”

[12] Joseph Stark and Martha Wenger, U.S. Ready to Intervene in the Gulf War, Middle East Research and Information Projects (MERIP) Reports, no. 125/126 (July-September, 1984): p.47-48.


Note: The term Persian Gulf War was originally used to describe the Iraq-Iran War. Because of the animosity of Iraq and the Arab Sheikdoms towards Iran a modern naming dispute over the body of water came about. Iraq and the Arab Sheikhdoms started calling the Persian Gulf the “Arab Gulf” or simply the “Gulf.” The name Arab Gulf or Arabian Gulf has been the alternative historical name of the Red Sea, but is used as ammunition in the socio-political dimensions of disputes with Iran, first under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and then under Ayatollah Khomeini. The disputed name of the body of water between Iran and the Arab Sheikdoms to its south has deliberately been used to fuel ethnic and national tensions between Arabs and Iranians.


[13] Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, Op. cit., p.863.


[14] Zbigniew Brezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.88.


[15] Thomas E. Ricks, Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq, The Washington Post, June 10, 2007, p. A01.


[16] Cheney warns Iran, assures allies on Gulf visit, Reuters, May 11, 2007.


[17] John Edward Wilz, The Making of Mr. Bush’s War: A Failure to Learn from History?, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Summer 1996.


[18] Ibid.


[19] Russell Watson et al., Was Ambassador Glaspie Too Gentle with Saddam?, Newsweek, April 1, 1991, p.17.


[20] Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with US Envoy, The New York Times, September 22, 1990, p.19.


Note: ABC News provided the Iraqi Foreign Ministry transcripts from the July 25, 1990 meeting between Saddam Hussein and April Catherine Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.


[21] Kaleem Omar, Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?, Jang, December 25, 2005.


[22] Ibid.


[23] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Introductory Statement on NATO Enlargement, (Testimony, United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, District of Columbia, October 9, 2007).


[24] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.


Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from it are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.


[25] Ibid.


[26] Barton Gellman, A Strategy’s Cautious Evolution: Before Sept. 11, the Bush Anti-Terror Effort Was Mostly Ambition, The Washington Post, January 20, 2002, p.A01.


[27] The dual-containment policy used in regards to both Iraq and Iran was designed for two reasons. The first reason was to prepare the framework for U.S. control of both nations, and the second was to prevent Iran from establishing a large sphere of hegemonic control. The U.S. clearly recognized Iran as their adversary in the Middle East, whereas Iraq was identified as an objective. The Iraq-Iran War and the Gulf War, along with U.N. economic sanctions, had broken Iraq.

[28] Oded Yinon, A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, trans. Israel Shahak, Zionist Plan for the Middle East, ed. Israel Shahak (Belmont, Massachusetts: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, 1982), p.12.



[1] The Indo-Arabian Region [map]. Scale not given. In: Michael MccGwire. Military Objectives in Soviet Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1987, p.184.

[2] Kenneth Velasquez. The Sino-Soviet Bloc and Three Central Strategic Fronts [map]. Scale not given. In: Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives. NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997, p.7.

[3] Kenneth Velasquez. Global Zone of Percolating Violence [map]. Scale not given. In: Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives. NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997, p.53.

[4] Eric Waddell. Middle East Theatre of War [map]. approx. 1:60, 000, 000. In: Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism.” Pincourt, Québec: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), 2003, p.2.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an indepedent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: Stage of a Broader Middle East Military Road-map by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, September 10, 2007

It is apparent after careful examination, that there has been longstanding intent to attack Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Alleged reasons or pretexts are merely a form of justification to implement otherwise unjustifiable intentions and actions. These intentions (mens rea) and the subsequent actions (actus reus), meaning aggression and war, against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are criminal acts.

There is enough direct and circumstantial evidence, including the Winograd Commission in Tel Aviv, Israeli activities prior to the 2006 attacks on Lebanon, White House statements, and NATO operations, to demonstrate the premeditated nature of the war against Lebanon as part of a broader war campaign.

Longstanding War Plans against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran out in the open from 2000 and 2001

In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would take action against the Lebanese in 2001. The White House made these threats to Lebanon at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., approximately eight months before the events of September 11, 2001. According to Daniel Sobelman, quoting Al-Hayat, a Saudi-owned newspaper in London, the White House sent a message to Lebanon that the U.S. government regarded Hezbollah next on their list for elimination after Al-Qaeda. This was before Al-Qaeda became a household name. By the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr. the Clinton Administration had established the blue prints for the so-called global war against Al-Qaeda.

Wesley Clark, a former Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe, also said that in 2001 that the U.S. government had already decided to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, amongst several other states. The retired American general’s statements complement various other assertions that Iran is the last objective of the first stage of the “long war.” This includes a correlation with war plans drawn during the Clinton Administration that indicated Iraq would be invaded, followed by attacks against Iran, sometime later.

While being interviewed in New York City, Wesley Clark stated candidly that he was told on September 20, 2001 that the U.S. would attack Iraq, aside from Afghanistan. He went on to say that only a few days later in the Pentagon he was told that “we’re [meaning the U.S.] going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” [1] It should be noted that, in 2003, Syria was immediately accused of having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and Damascus was also threatened with invasion after the fall of Baghdad by the U.S. government. [2]

Richard Perle’s 2002 Hints: U.S. Preparing to Attack Lebanon, Syria, and Iran

In 2002, Alexander Meigs Haig Jr., another former Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe with close ties to the White House, alleged that Syria should be the next nation to be attacked after Afghanistan. [3] Haig was also heavily involved in playing Iraq and Iran against one another during the Iraq-Iran War and was aware of the long-term strategy of the U.S. and Britain in the Middle East. Also in late-2002, Richard Perle, the top advisor on the Pentagon’s policy board, stated that the U.S. was also prepared to attack Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Richard Perle made the forecast to Steven Paikan and a panel of Canadian international affairs experts in an appearance on Diplomatic Immunity, a program on TV Ontario. [4]

Eric Margolis, one of Canada’s most respected writers on international affairs, was also present when Richard Perle talked about future American-led wars against Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Consequently, Eric Margolis wrote about the hawkish assertions of future wars by Richard Perle in a November 8, 2002 editorial, Next Target: Iran. In his syndicated column Eric Margolis notified his readers that Richard Perle asserted that the Pentagon was planning on attacking Lebanon, Syria, and Iran after an invasion of Iraq. In 2002, before Iraq was even invaded Eric Margolis predicted that Iran would be a future target of hostilities after the subjugation of Iraq because of his encounter with Richard Perle.

Iran, Syria, and Lebanon Expected Hostilities in 2003

The Washington Post reported that in 2003, during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that the Pentagon had also prepared war planes in regards to attacking Iran. [5] The Iranians were not startled by U.S. war plans, but believed that the U.S. would go after the Syrians and the Lebanese. After the fall of Baghdad, Lebanon was the weakest of the last three Middle Eastern nations outside of the orbit of the Anglo-American alliance. The Washington Post and Tehran’s predictions were also substantiated by Seymour Hersh in 2006.

Seymour Hersh reported that the U.S. and Israeli militaries jointly collaborated on the bombing of Lebanon before the 2006 war occurred as part of a larger campaign that would ultimately target Tehran. [6] As Seymour Hersh quotes one U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel in regards to the attacks on Lebanon, “It would be a demo for Iran.” [7] While holding talks with Israel, Condoleezza Rice triumphantly declared that the bombardment of Lebanon was the “birth pangs of a new Middle East,” which would be shaped by the interest of America, Britain, and Israel.

In 2006, the Syrian military immediately went on standby when the Israeli campaign against Lebanon started based on the well-established assumption by Damascus that Syria could also be attacked. Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese leaders publicly expected some form of “New Crisis” to take shape in Lebanon and Syria since 2003. [8] The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) also reported in 2003 that the Syrian, the Iranians, and the Lebanese understood that the Levant would be targeted in some form or another by the U.S. government and its allies. [9]

In fact on October 8, 2003, months after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. tanks, Israel launched air raids into Syria. [10] The Syrians restrained themselves and refused to be baited into a war by the Israelis on behalf of the Americans, especially while the Anglo-American momentum for war was strong. Damascus knew that the White House wanted to extend the war from Iraq into Syria. The Syrian President gave a rare and direct televised public response in regards to the Israeli air raids inside Syria. Syria accused Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government of trying to drag Syria and the entire region into a “new war,” following the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [11] It would also be under Ariel Sharon that the blue prints for the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon would be drawn after careful consultations with the White House.

Looking into the Abyss: Syria’s Acquaintance with the Pentagon’s War Agenda

Even on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Syrian President warned the Arab World that the U.S. had initiated a roadmap to redraw the borders of the Middle East starting with Iraq. He stated that the U.S. would deliberately plunge Iraq into chaos so that it would become a “brainless” nation that could not think independently. While in chaos Iraq would be exploited for its energy resources. Since 2003, the Syrians have proven that they are fully aware of the neo-colonial project unfolding before them and opening the doors into the abyss, so to speak, from the Middle East. This is also one of the reasons the Syrians quickly left Lebanon after the Hariri Assassination. It should be noted that the Syrians also left at a time when there was intense Israeli and NATO military movements near Syria that signaled possible strikes in a scenario that could have been portrayed like the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq in 1991.

During the Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006 when Baalbek was being attacked by Israeli jets, 10 kilometres (approximately 6.21 miles) from the Syrian border, there was anticipation in Washington D.C., London, Paris, and Berlin that Syria would enter the war. There was also the hope that Iran would no get involved if Syria were to be dragged into the war by Israel. Dr. Sami Al-Khiyami, the Syrian ambassador to Britain, joined Anna Jones, a Sky News anchorwoman, for an interview in regards to Syria’s military provision during the war. What Dr. Al-Khiyami said during his interview with Sky News was dismissed by U.S., British, and Israeli officials, but is important.

The Syrian diplomat told Sky News in an overtly predisposed televised interview that “Syria is making preparations to defend itself; the idea is that Israel really wants to involve Syria [in the war].” [12] Dr. Al-Khiyami also added, “The American administration probably really wants Syria to be involved, but Syria is paying a lot of attention not to be drawn in to this type of conflict.” [13] When asked by Anna Jones why he believed the U.S. and Israeli governments were trying to drag Syria into the war, the Syrian diplomat austerely responded: “Because they want a ‘new Middle East,’ however not a Middle East of democracy and peace, as some of them say, but a Middle East of violence— and a Middle East that is torn apart.” [14] This was a connotation for new borders and the projection of weaker states in the region.

“The war has been prepared for a long time; Israel has been planning for this for a long time, and the capture of the soldier[s] was only used as a pretext,” Dr. Al-Khiyami told Ms. Jones who swiftly changed the direction of the conversation. [15] His statements revealed the existence of advanced Syrian knowledge of a military roadmap that has been drawn for controlling the Middle East. According to Damascus the capture of the two Israeli soldiers was merely used as a justification for the bombardment of Lebanon in 2006 or an Israeli “trump card” for a pre-planned war.

The Syrian statements have proven to be correct. Israeli reserve units had mobilized weeks before Israeli troops were captured and a justification was created for the Israeli military to start its attack on Lebanon. It just happened that the mobilized reserve units were necessary to the Israeli war effort and the thwarted Israeli invasion of South Lebanon. The impeccable timing of the mobilization of Israeli reservists was not a case of serendipity. The Jerusalem Post reported during the beginning of the campaign on July 12, 2006 that “weeks ago, an entire [Israeli] reserve division was drafted in order to train for an operation such as the [current] one.” [16] It would be months later that the Winograd Commission in Israel would finally reveal that the war was preplanned and involved “foreign powers.” [17]


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

War and the “New World Order” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, August 29, 2007

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?” -Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)

War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”

“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.” -Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)

On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, will emerge as one of the seminal presidents of …of this…of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer Kissinger paused again and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.

Briefly the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.

It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Adminstration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.

A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?

“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.” -Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

During his interview with Charlie Rose Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that the World in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.

The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.

An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.

Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap

“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.” -Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)

NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]

It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]

From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identfies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente

“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.” -George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) consitututes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer…” – Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Imaginings for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of the America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decade after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’[a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.” -Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.” -Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France was executed as a traitor.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not what the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests its self upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East and in Eurasia, the longer-term. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like the rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.


[1] Henry Kissinger, A conversation with Henry Kissinger, interview with Charles P. Rose Jr., Charlie Rose (show), January 18, 2005.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] The U.S. government was secretly arming Britain during the First World War and profiting off the war. In regards to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship, unknown to the public at the time the ship was also carrying military supplies from the U.S. to Britain.

In the case of Pearl Harbour, the U.S. government was aware of a Japanese plan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. American officials allowed the attack to take place to arouse public support for the entry of the U.S. in the Second World War. It should be noted that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the U.S. government had led a complete embargo of oil and materials to Japan and frozen all Japanese assets by July 25, 1941. Oil is needed to run economies and war and all strategists and military planners know this very well. Japan was baited into an inevitable war with the U.S. and decided to take the first shot. This benefited the U.S. government in mobilizing the American public to support the war effort in the Second World War just as the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 allowed the Bush Jr. Administration to launch the “Global War on Terror.” U.S. involvement in the Second World War was for economic purposes and had nothing to do with morality.

In the case of the RMS Lusitania the German embassy in Washington D.C. was trying to make clear to the Americans before it started sinking merchant ships helping Britain that it would engage in such activities. It should be noted that Britain was doing the same in both World Wars. U.S. officials are actually believed to have obstructed these attempts by the Germans in an attempt to involve the U.S. in the First World War.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.211.

[7] Gary Hart, Transcript. National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), September 14, 2001.

[8] Ibid.

[9] George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Gulf War Victory Speech, (Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, January 6, 1991) March 6, 1991.

[10] Bettina Berg, High readiness and global deployability, Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), November 30, 2006.

[11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.

Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NYC, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.950.

[14] Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Op. cit.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.30.

[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.200.

[21] Desmond Butler, E.U., U.S. Agree on Iran, Russia Disputes, Associated Press, April 30, 2007.,,-6597779,00.html

[22] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

[23] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.215.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002, p.13.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Toby Harnden, ‘Return to conscription should be considered,’ The Telegraph (U.K.), August 11, 2007.

[28] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.35-36.

[29] Refer to the polity and geographic boundaries of Winston Smith’s fictional world, in Orwell’s novel. In the fictional state of Oceania (which includes America, the British Isles, and Australia) there is absolute control exercised over all aspects of the lives of all citizens by one single entity, the Party, which has three political mottos: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:

Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, August 19, 2007

– 2007-07-26

(Check the original with lots of maps.)

Europe and America have been long-term partners as well as rivals. New spheres of influence between the European Union and the United States have unfolded. The Middle East and its peripheral geographic areas lie at the heart of this process.

In the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a unified stance has developed within both the E.U. and NATO in regards to this geopolitical re-division. This unified stance is a reflection of an unfolding political and strategic consensus between the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany.

While Iraq falls within the Anglo-American orbit, the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas resources have been set to fall into that of the Franco-German entente. In fact, the entire Mediterranean region, from Morocco and gas-rich Algeria to the Levant is coveted by Franco-German interests.

The Franco-German Entente and Anglo-American Alliance: Rivalry and Partnership

The Anglo-American alliance and Franco-German entente are economic, political, and military alliances that have been forged by historic and socio-cultural realities that gave rise to opportunities of great magnitude. The Franco-German entente is a continental European entity, whereas the Anglo-American alliance is the incarnation of maritime trade and the overseas legacy of Britain.

The Franco-German entente is based on the post-war partnership of France and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) after the Second World War. After the unification of West Germany and East Germany the Franco-German partnership evolved, strengthened, and spawned the European Economic Community (EEC). France and a unified Germany were the basis for the evolving structure of the European common market and later the European Union.

European nations such as Belgium and Luxembourg are members of the Franco-German entente. These European countries are economically integrated with France and Germany. This is why Belgium and France have been aligned together in an economic face-off against the Anglo-American alliance in the African continent. Countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, and Austria also sided with Paris and Berlin against the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. In February of 2003, Belgium even assisted France and Germany in obstructing Anglo-American plans involving the use of NATO in Iraq.

The Anglo-American alliance is formed from the remains of Britain’s overseas colonies and territories. Unlike the Franco-German entente, the base of the Anglo-American alliance is outside of Eurasia. This becomes apparent after one considers the island nature of Britain in addition to the geographic situation of America. This is additionally reflected in the naval strength of Britain and America.

Australia and Canada fall within the orbit of the Anglo-American alliance. English is also the official language of many of the nations within the alliance, which are also part of the Anglosphere (English-speaking World). This is a reflection of the historical roots of the Anglo-American alliance. The Anglo-American alliance also has an intimate relationship with Israel. Countries like the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and Guam that have been under the military control of America in the past also fall within the orbit of the Anglo-American alliance.

America: The European Union’s Fourth Power

The E.U. is the creation of France and Germany, but it has become a shared body for the four most powerful nations of the so-called Western World. Without giving recognition to the fact that the E.U. is a creature of France, Germany, Britain, and America, it is hard to conceptualize Anglo-American foreign policy objectives being implemented through Europe. It should also be remembered that the E.U. is not the sole representative of the European continent or European civilization.

The three major powers in the E.U., the so-called “European Union-Three,” are France, Germany, and Britain. Yet, these three European countries are not alone. America in reality is the European Union’s fourth power, which acts through, or more properly with, Britain. The alliance between Washington and London makes America a de facto power in the European Union. London is also America’s voice in Europe. Several other mechanisms including control of Eastern European E.U. members and NATO also allow America to exert itself in Europe.

When it is recognized that the E.U. is a creature of both the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, it can be recognized that American interests, like those of the British, are served through E.U. expansion. The expansion of the E.U. is an indirect expansion of America’s orbit and interests. This is why the E.U. is called a part of America’s bridgehead in Eurasia.

E.U. expansion also serves a second purpose for Anglo-American interests. The strength of the Franco-German entente can also be diluted or undermined as a result of E.U. expansion. However, this depends on the rate or velocity of E.U. expansion. A fast rate of E.U. expansion, but not exceedingly fast, serves Anglo-American interests by not allowing the Franco-German entente to consolidate its power within the E.U. and commandeer it. A steadier rate of E.U. expansion is in the best interests of the Franco-German entente. This is one of the reasons why tensions existed between Britain and France over E.U. expansion in Eastern Europe. This is also the reason why the U.S. openly called for the entry of several Eastern European countries such as Poland into the European Union.

Although the E.U. is a body of both the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, the European bloc is overtly managed by the Franco-German side. France and Germany, with their allies, are still the dominant forces within the European Union. When international analysts talk about rifts or arguments between the E.U. and America they really mean the disagreements are between the Franco-German entente and America (and by extension Britain).

Dividing the World between the Twin Pillars of NATO

When NATO acts it does not necessarily serve Anglo-American interests. Just as when one conceptualizes that the E.U. also serves the interests of America they must also recognize the Franco-German relationship in NATO. NATO is the iron rod that both alliances share within the broader trans-Atlantic framework which evolved after the Second World War. In parallel to the dichotomy of the E.U., NATO is also divided into two main branches: the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance. The stronger of the two is the Anglo-American side because of the military might of America.

NATO is both a Franco-German and Anglo-American tool and has been used to further the economic and geo-strategic interests of both. Yugoslavia is one case where Germany and America worked hand-in-hand, reducing the former Yugoslav states into military garrisons and economic territories.

However, just as the E.U. is dominated by the Franco-German entente it is the Anglo-American alliance that inversely dominates NATO. In other words within the framework of Europe the Franco-German entente have the political upper hand, while the Anglo-American alliance holds military sway. It is this political-military imbalance which creates an economic equilibrium for both sides and a power sharing scheme.

This division of military and political power between NATO and the E.U., which also forms a triad with economic power, has allowed America to cleverly insert itself into the E.U. via Britain. Furthermore, the military sway that the Anglo-American side holds has always been a point of contention, to the point where the French left NATO for a period of time. The creation of a Eurocentric defensive strategy for the E.U. has been part of the past Franco-German attempt to gain control over the European Union. This initiative was also resurrected during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq when France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg held a meeting on the issue. The subject was so corrosive that Britain said that it was a return to the splits of the Cold War in Europe in regards to its own Cold War allies.

Under Anglo-American geo-strategic planning, it was recognized at the end of the Cold War that the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance would eventually have to work together, if America wished to proceed with Britain in a quest for global primacy.

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, one America’s most influential geo-strategic experts, in 1997 foretold of the pivotal role that the Franco-German entente would play in extending American control of Eurasia. He maintained, like many of his colleagues at the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), that E.U. expansion was equivalent to covert American expansion. It would be America that would be in the shadows of an expanded European Union. However, it was maintained that without the cooperation of France and Germany the task would prove next to impossible and for the naïve. NATO could not be applied and the E.U. would not expand without Franco-German cooperation. This meant that the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente would have to arrive to a compromise based on broader power sharing or a system of consensus that would cut across the board.

An understanding had been reached at some period during the eve of the “Global War on Terror” that the areas being encompassed within the geographic boundaries of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), along with vast geographic stretches, would be divided between the two pillars of NATO. In late-2001 preparations to essentially create the mechanisms for sending troops and naval power into the Eastern Mediterranean were made. Without these preoperational mechanisms the NATO naval contingent off Lebanon’s coast in 2006 would not have materialized as it did. The logistical mechanisms for the operation were prepared years beforehand. This is just one facet to add to the dossier that illustrates the preplanned nature of the 2006 Israeli attacks against Lebanon and NATO’s role. The confessions of the Israeli government at the Winograd Commission also are a direct verification of the calculated nature of the war against the Lebanese.

Bush Jr. Administration Deviates from Anglo-American Geo-Strategy

After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the White House had a change of heart. The Bush Jr. Administration believed that the Anglo-American alliance could discard forming a greater partnership with the Franco-German entente, therefore ruling out any division of the proceeds of war and conquest. This infuriated the Franco-German entente which, with the help of Russia, created a worldwide political firestorm for Britain and America.

The Franco-German entente had been cut out of the agreement by the Anglo-American alliance. It seemed for a time that the Bush Jr. Administration was going to ignore what Anglo-American planners said was a necessity in geo-strategic planning. However, it appears that the American ruling establishment and the realities of the “Global War on Terror” have forced the White House to return to the path originally charted by Anglo-American geo-strategists in both Washington D.C. and London.

The sector scheme is being utilized. It is also under this framework that the spoils of war and the Middle East are supposed to be divided into areas of management by the Franco-German entente and Anglo-American alliance. The word management is employed as a suitable term due to the nature of the arrangement. Like in the former Yugoslavia, both sides can share a territory and its spoils, but one is responsible for supervision operations and administrating in their area of responsibility. This is comparable to the arrangement in Bosnia-Herzegovina between the Franco-German entente and Anglo-American alliance.

It is this deviation by the Bush Jr. Administration from the original track (set years before), which demarcates the so-called “neo-conservatives” in relation to the so-called “liberals” in America and Europe. In Israel the case is also similar. Liberalism in mainstream politics, as represented in the U.S. by the Democratic Party, prefers to be more subtle in its approach and therein is where the difference lies, but there should be no mistake about the fact that liberals will not hesitate to resort to the outright war as an instrument of US foreign policy.

Exposing the Political Myth of Conservatism versus Liberalism

Both liberalism and conservatism in mainstream global politics have identical goals, but differ in discretion levels. Both conservatism and liberalism in the mainstream political environment are different sides of the same coin and serve the same interests. The difference between both is methodological and not about objectives. Their differences lack real substance.

Both Liberals and Conservatives complement one another and take turns at having power and being in office like a swinging pendulum. One side is labeled “Left” and the other side is tagged as “Right,” but the same source holds and controls the pendulum. The labels they use only serve the goal of presenting alternatives in monopolized political environments, controlling political platforms, and dividing populations. Why else would a supposed liberal like Prime Minister Blair of Britain, from the Labour Party, and a neo-conservative like President George W. Bush Jr. have worked on a single-track.

NATO’s Riga Summit seems to have been a deepening and a fine-tuning of the understanding between the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance. [1] It was an Anglo-American return to basics, so to speak. However, the process towards reconciliation was started shortly after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. France and Germany cancelled Iraqi debts after talks with Britain and America.

Despite the fact that new governments have taken office in Berlin and Paris, under Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, Franco-German objectives have not changed. French and German policies like American are part of a continuum. The administrations of Merkel and Sarkozy are continuations of their predecessors, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder (Schroeder).

At a summit between the U.S. and E.U. both sides stated that economics was the most important factor in their relationship and that politics was merely secondary. What appear to be radically pro-American governments in Europe are merely European administrations which reflect the merging of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. Gerhard Schröder, a German social-democrat, laid all the groundwork for Merkel’s conservative administration and for German rapproachment with America and Britain. It is also worth noting that Angela Merkel would be considered a Liberal by North American standards. This also further exposes the misleading and unreliable use of the terms conservative and liberal in modern politics.

The “Pivotal Area” Discovered: Defining Geo-Strategic Boundaries

The “pivotal area” was used in Sir Halford J. Mackinder’s “Heartland” to describe the area of Eurasia that formed the pivotally important core of the global geo-strategic and geo-political environment. We now find that through geo-political realities and necessity the area in question must be redefined. Halford Mackinder coined the term to define an area within the Eurasian landmass, but it is apparent that the “pivotal area” in the truest sense of the word and possibly the “Heartland” itself is a much broader and diverse area that not only lies in Eurasia, but extends into Africa. The global environment is not static. It seems that this area is anchored by geographic reality, but is shifting because of socio-economic, demographic, and political factors.

To define the pivotal area, we must look at the area(s) in which –in the course of the post-Cold War era– the U.S. military has been involved, from low spectrum to high spectrum warfare and operations. This also includes hostile economic actions and covert intelligence operations.

After pinpointing these areas one can set a conceptual boundary. This subject area is of vast geography, it includes the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa. These regions, arguably, together form the tectonic plate that holds the globe together in a geo-political sense. It is this geographic stretch that has been, and continues, to be a geo-strategic chessboard for competitions of expansion and repulsion. These areas are also some of the most important cultural bridges on the face of the earth. The cultures and knowledge of different civilizations have interacted here for thousands of years. Intense cultural diffusion has also taken place within this geographic stretch as a global cross-road.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has also stipulated that an area roughly corresponded in geographic boundaries to the area that has just been defined is pivotal to global power and Eurasian security. Henry Kissinger has also more or less made similar statements by explaining the importance of neutralizing Iraq and Afghanistan (before its pro-Soviet government was overthrown), both Soviet allies, and containing an Iran fresh with revolutionary fervor in 1979. This was according to Henry Kissinger because of the pivotal importance of the area. [2] Global security encompasses this vast and “pivotal” area as a singularity and it is the Middle East that is the focal point of this geographic stretch.

From “Pivotal Area” to “Arc of Instability”

An arc of uncertainty and instability has been generated by Britain, Israel, the U.S., and their partners, including their intelligence apparatus, from East Africa and the Balkans to the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

Decades of American-led military confrontations, low-intensity warfare, sanctions, economic manipulation, and intelligence operations have undermined the nation-states of the subject area. From the remains of the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, war-torn Somalia, and Anglo-American occupied Iraq to Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the South Federal District of the Russian Federation where Chechnya is located the U.S. has fomented instability. This area roughly corresponds to what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls the “Eurasian Balkans” an area that the U.S. must seek to manipulate and ultimately control should it continue to be a superpower. [3] The pivotal area has also synthetically been manufactured into a zone of instability that can be called the “Arc of Instability.”

In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that, “The tragedies of Lebanon of the 1980s, or of Kurdistan and the former Yugoslavia of the early 1990s are previews of things to come within the Eurasian oblong of maximum danger.” [4] What was implied by Brzezinski was Balkanization ranging from sectarianism to ethnic clashes. The situation in Iraq is part of this process, as are the tensions in Lebanon, Kosovo, Turkey, and Caucasia.

A classical “divide and conquer” strategy is at play. The underlying objective is to provoke ethnic clashes across the Middle East and Central Asia. This venture, which is linked to Bzezinski’s forecast, is part of an agenda which consists in literally redrawing the map of this broader region. Moreover, there have also been attempts at sparking sectarian and ethnic differences in Iran from adjoining areas in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan that implicate America and its allies.

United States Central Command (CENTCOM)

Tension has gradually been building up in the Middle East, which is the central focus of this vast geographic area called the “Arc of Instability.” This area also roughly corresponds to what the U.S. military identifies as US Central Command (CENTCOM or USCENTCOM).

The U.S. military, through the inheritance and legacy of British geo-strategic projects, is acquainted with the pivotal area and has identified it in roughly the same corresponding areas that have just been defined. CENTCOM is the active manifestation of this conceptual geographic area.

CENTCOM is one of five U.S. military regional active theatre-stage command zones. It is also no mere coincidence that the geographic area that CENTCOM encompasses is also the most active plain of U.S. military action on the face of the earth.

CENTCOM is composed of East Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Although the Balkans, Turkey, the Caucasus (Caucasia), and Russia are located within the operational boundaries of another U.S. military region, United States European Command (EUCOM or USEUCOM), they are also vital to CENTCOM operations and are integrated into the preparation and the planning of CENTOM by the Pentagon and NATO.

It should be noted that Israel is not within the boundaries of CENTCOM by the Pentagon. Syria and Lebanon were also recently, in 2004, re-categorized or redrawn into the borders of CENCTOM. Both Syria and Lebanon were previously included as part of EUCOM, like Israel and Turkey, prior to 2004. This is an important fact to keep in mind and it is linked to the interests of the E.U. in the Mediterranean area.

With the recognition of a strategic consensus within NATO, the Franco-German entente has allowed NATO and the E.U. to play a far stronger role in the outer periphery of the theatre of operations from Central Asia to the Mediterranean Sea and the coast of Somalia. This has allowed the Anglo-American alliance to concentrate its resources on the central area of the theatre of operations, which corresponds to both CENTCOM and the “Arc of Instability.”

Anglo-American occupied Iraq, Eastern Syria, the Persian Gulf, portions of Turkey, and Iran seem to be the centre of this strategic area. The outer peripheries are currently the following; (1) the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant, (2) NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan and Pakistan, (3) the ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia, (4) the Horn of Africa and East Africa, and (5) the Balkans.

CENTCOM and the Rimland: Encircling Russia, China, and Central Asia

CENTCOM more or less corresponds to what Brzezinski calls a “large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability” which runs from the Balkans through the Middle East and Central Asia to Kashmir and East Africa. [5] This “central zone of global instability” is also linked to the central area of Nicholas Spykman’s “Rimland.” It must be noted that, during the Cold War, Nicholas Spykman was also known as a master of containment theory.

The Rimland is the concept of a geographic area adjacent to “the Heartland” that is comprised of most of Europe, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, and the Far East. This area forms an enveloping geographic ring around Mackinder’s “Heartland.” In other words, the Rimland essentially surrounds the central, core region of Eurasia. CENTCOM lies in the axis or midpoint of Spykman’s Rimland.

This area, the Rimland, was central to Cold War containment theories in regards to the Soviet Union and China, the “Red Giants.” The concept of this area was also used in geo-strategic planning in regards to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is an important fact to remember, because it deeply influences American geo-strategy in regards to the Iraq-Iran War and the Soviet-Afghan War. The encirclement of the Eurasian core, which was where the Soviet Union was geographically placed, is still a U.S. objective after the end of the Cold War. Containment theory it appears may really have been more about “penetration.”

Penetration of the Eurasian core is underway. NATO is a bridgehead from Europe that is pushing towards Russia. An Asiatic sister-alliance of NATO is being forged against China.

The axis of the Rimland, which includes the Middle East and Afghanistan, is being militarily infiltrated and mobilized by NATO and its allies. CENTCOM indeed is an appropriate and suitable name for this mid-area that is crucial and “central” to connecting the Asiatic and European flanks of any trans-Eurasian military network surrounding Russia and China. Furthermore, this area can also be used for creating a wedge between the European portion of Russia, which is the nerve of Russia, and China. Additionally, if one also examines the geographic position of U.S. and NATO military bases they are concentrated in the Rimland.

NATO’s Extinct Sister-Alliances in the Middle East

Two defunct military alliances that were animated by the Anglo-American alliance, the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), also called the Baghdad Pact, and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) were also located in the axis of the Rimland, where CENTCOM is presently located. Both the dead military pacts were modeled after NATO. In regards to the later military alliance, CENTO, it should be noted that the phrase “central” is used which denotes the geographic centrality of this area in Anglo-American geo-strategies. There is a direct correlation between the strategic nomenclature (naming system) used to denote CENTO and CENTCOM. Simply put, this demonstrates that this geographic area has been viewed as a central area for a historic period of time in Anglo-American strategic circles.

Both METO and CENTO were Anglo-American constructs. Britain, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan were all full members of CENTO, whereas the U.S. was an associate member. CENTO was forged out of the remains of METO, which became non-operational in 1958 when Iraq withdrew. Iraqi withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact was a result of Baghdad’s wishes to follow an independent path after an Iraqi revolution overthrew the Anglo-American puppet Hashemite king.

Baghdad would eventually ally itself to the Soviet Union and cut its ties with America in 1967. Almost overnight Iraq became known in London and Washington as a radical Arab state that was a threat to Israel and to a monarchical Iran allied to America and Britain. Anglo-American geo-strategists would always make calculations in regards to Iraq based on two goals: neutralizing Iraq and regaining the lost Iraqi oil fields. It would be the Iraq-Iran War that leads to this objective.

The Geo-Strategic Importance of the Middle East in regards to Eurasia

The Middle East, formerly called the Near East, is an abstract geographic concept that has been shifting with geo-strategic, political, and socio-economic policy. For example, there was a time when academics, map makers, and geographers considered the Balkans as a part of the region. In the mind of many the Middle East is a synonym for Arab World or for Southwest Asia, but both terms are different. The Middle East includes non-Arab countries like Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus. The term Southwest Asia also excludes Egypt, the European portion of Turkey in Thrace and even Greece, depending if you categorize it as a part of the region. The Middle East is a region that embraces three continents (two if you look at Europe and Asia as Eurasia); Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is from here that Anglo-American geo-strategists believed they could establish global hegemony by controlling Eurasia.

Three important maritime passages and five important bodies of water also are located or embrace the area around the Middle East. The important maritime passages and straits can be used to manipulate, cut, and control global navigation, international trade, maritime traffic, and energy supplies. Theses strategic maritime passages are the Suez Canal of Egypt, the Bosphorus/Bosporus of Turkey, and the Gate of Tears (Bab al-Mandeb) located between Djibouti and Yemen at the southern tip of the Red Sea. The five important bodies of water in this area are the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. Control over these maritime passages would have grave ramifications for Russia, China, Iran, and any adversaries of NATO in regards to trade, naval movements, and energy supplies.

It is safe to say the post-Cold War objective of the United States in Eurasia is penetration. The different geographic regions of Europe and Asia are important, but they are not as pivotal in geo-strategic value as the Middle East and its geographic periphery (including Central Asia), which are also important energy hubs. If one scrutinizes a map of the earth or Eurasia they will notice that Indo-China or Japan or the Korean Peninsula cannot lead to any meaningful “penetration” of Eurasia. The Russian Federation also acts as a barrier to any drive from Eastern Europe that would be meaningless unless Ukraine fell into NATO’s orbit and Russia lost its Caucasian territories. Due to political realities India, the giant of the Indian sub-continent, can only be used as a counter-weight to China or to spoil the formation of a Eurasian alliance led by Russia, China, and Iran. Whatever value these geographic areas have in regards to containment theory is lost in regards to penetration, aside from India and Ukraine under the proper circumstances.

It is from the Middle East and the area that has been mandated to the U.S. military under CENTCOM that Eurasian penetration can commence. Thus, it is by way of instability and war in this region that the U.S. and NATO have a pretext and justification for their military presence. It is also this area that will be the linkage between the military flanks being created against Russia, China, and their allies on the outer edges of Eurasia.

The Outer Peripheries of the “Arc of Instability” are manned by NATO

The hub of the “Arc of Instability” is where Iraq, Iran, Eastern Syria, and portions of Anatolia are geographically situated. This area is the most dangerous and volatile section of the “Arc of Instability.” Should a crisis with Iran and Syria be lit then the whole “Arc of Instability” can be lit ablaze like a powder keg. Iraq and the Persian Gulf are currently active and tense military zones of operation. This hub within the “Arc of Instability” is distinctly Anglo-American in its characteristic. It is the Anglo-American alliance that manages and oversees this war zone.

Several European countries had initially posted their troops in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, but gradually reduced and removed their military contingents. Italy and Spain were amongst these countries. The European troop movements were publicly correlated to political changes in national governments within the respective capitals of these European countries. The aim of the troop movements was to portray the departures as acts of opposition to the war in Iraq. Angry European populations were misled into believing that a shift in foreign policy was underway, but this was an act of public deception. These nations compensated the broader war effort and agenda by deploying or re-shuffling their troops to Afghanistan or to Lebanon. Their actions were almost inconsequential to the broader war effort.

NATO members, such as Germany, are also involved and present in military operations in the Horn of Africa. The military activities of NATO and its members, including their almost perfectly coinciding military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea, discloses advanced insight about a larger war agenda.

The whole “Arc of Instability” is manned by NATO and close NATO allies, such as Australia and Israel. NATO as a whole is involved in the war project and American, British, Polish, Danish, Czech, and Romanian troops are present in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. Moreover, NATO is also responsible for certain aspects of military training inside Iraq. Additionally, there is a Franco-German presence in the Persian Gulf and NATO also has made security arrangements in the Persian Gulf with nations such as Kuwait.

However, what gives a particular NATO characteristic to the outer peripheries (tiers) of the “Arc of Instability” (in reality the area of military operations) is that greater numbers of NATO countries are involved in the military operations in these zones. Also NATO has an official mandate in these areas and has a role in the so-called “post-conflict” phase of operations in these areas. This phase in reality is the occupational and restructuring phase of the conflicts ensuing in the “Arc of Instability.” This form of “post-conflict” participation could also be linked to the low tolerance the populations of many of these NATO states would have in regards to casualties or supporting the war effort

The bulk of NATO troops have been positioned within the eastern and western outer peripheries of the military theatre of operations. Once again, the war zones almost precisely correspond to what is defined by the U.S. military as CENTCOM. It is only the former Yugoslavia that falls outside CENTCOM’s borders.

It is from the Balkans that academics get the geo-political term “balkanization,” meaning to divide. The Balkans constitutes the westernmost periphery of the “Arc of Instability.”

Yugoslavia was effectively divided by the “Big Four” of NATO as Henry Kissinger refers to America, Britain, France, and Germany. [6] In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), NATO operations wield great control over the country and its government. Germany and the U.S. both play major roles. Under the shadow of the E.U., NATO still plays a role in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Slovenia, the northernmost and smallest republic of the former Yugoslavia, has been absorbed into both NATO and the European Union. Nothing remains of the Yugoslav Federation. Serbia, the last and declining bastion of independence in the Balkans, is under siege and has been reduced to a landlocked and paralyzed status.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, NATO used to reside as the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the Stabilization Force (SFOR), before operations were handed over to the so-called European Union Forces (EUFOR). France, Britain, and the U.S. divided the Slavic country into three militarized sectors before the “Global War on Terror.” Despite the name change, nothing changed on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina in regards to the deployment of NATO troops. EUFOR was merely a facelift for Franco-German and Anglo-American operations.

While Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided between France, Britain, and the U.S., the German military was deployed to Croatia, where Germany had major interests. In fact, in regards to the former Yugoslavia, both Germany and the U.S. played the lead roles of dismantling the federation.

After the Kosovo War of 1999 between NATO and the remnants of the Yugoslav Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, the province of Kosovo was occupied and divided under a formal UN mandate into sectors. Kosovo Force (KFOR) was created by NATO to be in charge of Kosovo. Kosovo was divided into five zones by NATO. The U.S., France, Britain, Germany, and Italy all commanded one zone and the military forces of other NATO members in their respective zones of responsibility. However, Russian forces rushed into Kosovo to secure the area and their interests. Thus, the situation in Kosovo was complicated for NATO by the presence of Russia.

In all the conflicts in the western periphery of the “Arc of Instability” the Europeans are taking the political lead, independently from America. However, there subsists a unified stance and policy between America and these European countries, pertaining to the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and Syria.

After all, the whole project is a NATO project. However, there is a distinctly Franco-German characteristic in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the western outer periphery, in particular the Eastern Mediterranean, the Franco-German entente, working politically through the E.U. and militarily through NATO, is overseeing NATO operations.

The informal presence of NATO on the ground and off the shores of Lebanon is merely part of this manning process by NATO in the broader war agenda. The NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean is also part of the eastward expansion or thrust of NATO that is matched by a westward push in East Asia and a growing American-led military position in the Indian Ocean that is pushing northwards from posts such as Diego Garcia in British territory.

In Afghanistan NATO is deployed under the mantel of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Aside from Britain and the U.S., the French, the Germans, the Italians, and the Canadians play lead roles on the ground in Afghanistan. In addition to Afghanistan, NATO is also present and involved within the borders of Pakistan. NATO has also established bases near the borders of China and Iran, which have concerned Beijing and Tehran.

The Militarization of Japan and NATO Expansion

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), created in 1954 and dissolved in 1977, included the U.S., France, Pakistan, Britain, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand, and the Philippines. This military alliance was in reality a small trans-Eurasian military arrangement positioned in the Rimland. Its mandate was to contain both the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic of China.

It is the structural design of this bridging alliance, SEATO, which the U.S. is in the process of restoring. SEATO created a formal military link between the western and eastern ends of the Eurasian landmass.

America’s objective is to create an enduring trans-Eurasian military bloc in which Japan is slated to play a key role from both an economic and military standpoint.

The projected Japanese role in Asia falls along the lines of the Nixon Doctrine, which calls for the transformation of regional nations into the regional arms of America. Presently, Japan is in the process of transforming itself from a pacifist country to a military power that will be the engine of an “Asiatic NATO.” Japan is an economic power which has the capabilities of developing its military strength and challenging China.

However, the Japanese government does not have the political capital to transform Japan into a military power because of internal opinions within Japan and the external opinions and fears of the rest of Asia. Asian societies will fear and view Japanese rearmament as a return to Japanese militarism and imperial ambitions in Asia. This is where the demonization of North Korea, China, and Russia plays an important role. North Korea has armed itself because of the legitimate fears of an American attack. Chinese and Russian activities are also of a defensive nature. The demonization of these three countries in Asia is meant to legitimize the militarization of Japan and several other Asian countries.

The other step being taken to alleviate the concerns of Asian societies about the militarization of Japan is the formulation of an Asiatic military alliance. This is where Australia has played a key role, by creating a framework for an alliance with Japan. In the mantle of collective security, a militarily robust Japan will not be seen or feared as a threat. It will be China and China’s allies which will be portrayed as the threat to Asian security. Thus, Japan and Australia will lead a military front in Asia as American surrogates.

This is part of the project to create three strategic fronts against Russia and China. Pressure will be exerted from NATO in the western end of Eurasia, while in the Middle East there is a strong NATO presence and a “Coalition of the Moderate” is being formed and armed, which will eventually become a de facto extension of NATO. The arming of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf is directly linked to the inward penetration of Eurasia from the Middle East via Iran. While NATO exerts pressure from Europe and the Middle East, Japan and Australia will do the same from the eastern end of Eurasia. Russia, Iran, and China are all being addressed through three Eurasian fronts.


[1] Michel Chossudovsky, Debating “War and Peace” behind Closed Doors: NATO’s Riga Security Conference, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), November 26, 2007.

[2] Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston, Massachusetts:

Little Brown and Company, 1982), p.669-670, 675, 677.

[3] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East,” Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), November 18, 2007.

[4] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.164.

[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.123.

[6] Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, Op. cit., p.722.


[1] NATO Headquarters.
[2] Paul L. Knox and Sallie A. Maston (Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography); obtained from the Universitat Pompeau Fabra (UPF), Spain.
[3] Zdravko Batzarov (Geopolitical Systems).
[4] Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives).
[5] U.S. DoD.
[6] Nicholas John Spykman (The Geography of the Peace).
[7] U.S. DoD.
[8] U.S. DoD.
[9] CIA.
[10] U.K. MoD.
[11] U.S. DoD.
[12] Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives).
[Annex] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (Centre for Research on Globalization).


Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya


To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: