Iran: A week that shook the world rkm http://cyberjournal.org Permit me to offer a humble analogy, comparing earthquakes to geopolitics. With an earthquake, the fault line is the focus of the event, but it's what happen on the two sides of the fault line -- extending for many miles -- that is of real concern. The fault line is merely a catalyst, facilitating the rapid adjustment of tectonic forces. It is the adjustment that knocks down buildings. Iran has become a geopolitical 'fault line' - a catalyst facilitating the rapid adjustment of great-power forces. While Iran is the focus of developments, it is what happens in global geopolitics -- extending thousands of miles from Iran - that is of real concern. It is those power adjustments, not events in Iran per se, that will 'knock down buildings' as regards the next phase of human history. As background for this analysis, I recommend this recent posting from William Engdahl, in case you haven't already seen it: 10 May -- Engdahl: USA's "geopolitical nightmare" http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1138&lists=newslog Engdahl makes a very strong case that the neocon regime has totally botched it, as regards the balance of power in the big game: US-UK axis vs. China-Russia alliance. To begin with, there IS now a China-Russia alliance -- a development that has been greatly accelerated by the neocon's aggressive pursuit of their PNAC agenda. Rather than securing US dominance, the neocons have undermined US power and US prestige. As a consequence of this poor performance, Engdahl argues, the old guard Establishment -- the 'realists' -- are in the process of leashing in the neocons and arranging a shift in US (and lapdog UK) policy.. As regards the China-Russia alliance, note this article: 31 May -- China-Russia relations at "record high" - Chinese President http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1215&lists=newslog [excerpt, EMPHASIS added]..."Through mutual effort, our relations have risen to a record-high level, and their STRATEGIC component is expanding dramatically," Hu Jintao said in an interview with official government paper Rossiskaya Gazeta. The Chinese leader said the two countries had been able to sustain high growth rates in trade for seven consecutive years and had made substantial progress in ENERGY and INVESTMENT cooperation. As regards Iran directly, we know very well why the two sides have an interest there. Russia and China are seeking to expand their future oil sources, in the face of peak oil, and have have made deals with Iran to achieve that. The US-UK axis wants to gain the upper hand in Iran in order to continue their traditional strategy of oil-based dominance. They want Iran's oil to be brokered through Anglo-American oil companies and banks, rather than by direct exchanges between Iran and its customers. As they did after invading Iraq, they want to cancel existing contracts and write their own new ones. Wherever possible, they want their hand on the global oil tap. This scenario is well understood by both sides, despite the fact that US-UK mainstream media fail to report on it. US concerns about nuclear proliferation, in the case of Iran, are utter nonsense. For one thing, Iran is in complete compliance with international treaties, and has shown no signs of seeking nuclear weapons. For another, the US is one of the main causes of nuclear proliferation globally. In this regard the following articles are of interest: 02 Jun -- U.N. watchdog: Iran not an immediate nuclear threat http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1231&batch=16&lists=newslog 03 Jun -- Blix: U.S. Impedes Efforts to Curb A-Arms http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1233&lists=newslog We can see a new confidence emerging in Russian and Chinese leaders, as they respond to the US-created crisis in Iran. A lot has changed since the invasion of Iraq. In that case Russia and China stood by while the Coalition of Willing Imperialists seized Iraq's oil. Not so this time. Russia has been openly arming Iran; the US is complaining, and the Russians are ignoring the complaints: 29 May -- US urges Russia to reconsider missile export to Iran http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1198&lists=newslog This increased confidence does not arise because Iran is more important than Iraq, but because of the increased relative power -- thanks to the neocons -- of China-Russia compared to US-UK. The 'realists' understand that further confrontation will only accelerate this momentous power shift. In this next series of articles we can see the neocons being pressured into abandoning their unilateral invasion plans, and entering into the game of diplomacy. This is consistent with Engdahl's thesis, as regards the 'realists' tightening the leash on the neocon project... 28 May -- GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1194&lists=newslog 27 May -- U.S. Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1192&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- US offers direct talks with Iran...sort of http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1220&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1221&lists=newslog As with an earthquake, we are seeing major shifts unfolding very rapidly. On 27 May I saw the first public reports of the US considering talks, and on 2 Jun we already see a negotiation proposal ready for presentation to Iran: 02 Jun -- Powers agree Iran nuclear package http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1228&lists=newslog 02 Jun -- Expected Security Council Actions http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1225&lists=newslog We don't yet have a text of this proposal, but we can learn much from the comments of the various parties. According to Russia, there is nothing in the proposal that authorizes the use of force, regardless of how Iran might respond to the proposal. I would be inclined to take this article at face value, because it is consistent Russia's long-standing position regarding the crisis, and because the reports I have seen coming out of Russia generally have been remarkably free of propaganda spin: 02 Jun -- Russia: Iran proposal 'excludes use of force' http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1229&lists=newslog What we don't know is whether or not the proposal imposes any preconditions on Iran: are they being asked to suspend enrichment while negotiations proceed? We do know that the neocons are publicly demanding such a precondition, and that the Iranians are adamant about refusing any preconditions: 02 Jun -- Guardian: absurd to demand Tehran make concessions http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1230&lists=newslog 03 Jun -- Iran unmoved by nuclear pressure http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1235&lists=newslog My money says that preconditions are NOT part of the agreed proposal. If the Russians and Chinese had agreed to preconditions, they would have been shooting themselves in the foot. They know Iran would refuse, and that would put the US in a favorable position to continue its confrontational stance. Russia and China have become too shrewd and confident to fall into such an obvious trap. Instead, it is the neocons who have shot themselves in the foot, by committing themselves to multilateral negotiations. They've been squeezed from inside and outside -- by the 'realists' and the China-Russia alliance -- and these negotiations may mark the end of the PNAC agenda, at least in its overtly aggressive form. Here's why I say the neocons have shot themselves in the foot: They seem to think they can make their unilateral demand for preconditions stick, but I suggest they are wrong. If the proposal does not require preconditions, then Russia and China will support Iran in not submitting to US demands. Meanwhile the same 'realist' elements that pushed the neocons into accepting negotiations can be expected to undermine domestic support for precondition demands (note the Guardian article above). Rather than Iran being isolated by the 'international community', it is the neocons who will be isolated, both internationally and domestically. In the end I think they'll be forced to negotiate without preconditions, and from that position they won't be able to re-create an excuse for armed intervention. An alternative possibility is that Iran will agree to preconditions, either because a time-limit has been set on enrichment suspensions, or because Russia and China have assured Iran that she would not be left hanging in limbo. In this alternative scenario, the neocons would save more face, but they would still have shot themselves in the foot. They will enter into talks, but they won't be able to dictate the outcome, and their attempts at conquest will continue to be stymied. However the neocons do still have one card up their sleeve - the false-flag-incident card: 03 Jun -- Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June or July http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1238&lists=newslog Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July. The neocons may think they can play this card, but they will find that the walls have ears. "Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it" --President Woodrow Wilson Wilson is speaking here of the financial elites behind the scenes, those who decide whether to make or break neocons or realists (or the League of Nations), depending on circumstances. The neocons have their covert resources, but there are overseers of the overseers. Consider the recent gunshot incident at the US Capital: 31 May -- US Capitol sealed off after 'gunshots' heard http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1211&lists=newslog 31 May -- Gunfight at Capital Hill Corral?? http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1214&lists=newslog One never knows whether to believe Tom Flocco. His stuff makes sense, and claims to be authoritative, but I can seldom find independent corroborations for his more radical claims. I can't find reliable contradictions to those claims either, so they are worthy of some consideration. In the 'Gunfight' article above he claims that the neocons were planning on "disrupting northeast rail traffic via a fake terrorist attack." British and French intelligence agents, according to Flocco, had obtained damning evidence of this plot, and were killed in a shootout in the Capitol garage. This story may or may not be true, but it is the kind of thing I would expect if the neocons try to play the false-flag card. They will find that there are spooks following their spooks. We cannot expect to have this full story played out in the media. It's too embarrassing for all parties concerned. The details will be kept within 'the family', as with all gangster activities. If the neocons are being put on a shorter leash, then their close collaborator -- Israel -- will need to have its leash tightened as well. Consider these articles: 26 May -- Bush: U.S. would aid Israel if attacked http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1183&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- shift in US-Israel relations??...Israeli view http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1217&lists=newslog ...Bush's statement seemingly is a step in the direction of the defense alliance, even if it is a verbal promise that is not enough to send a military force.... In the absence of a definitive interpretation, one can understand the Bush statement in a different way - as shackles on Israeli freedom of operations. If America is ready to defend Israel, why give it billions a year in military aid? And why does Israel need an independent nuclear capability if it is under the American umbrella? And if Israel is attacked, should it wait for approval from Washington before it responds, or act according to its own best judgment? Why indeed is this 'aid' being offered, unless to rein in Israel's unilateral options? Everyone already knew that the US would come to the aid of Israel, if the US wanted to; no need for Bush to announce that. --- All of these developments have unfolded into the public view in the space of one week, from 27 May to 3 June. If I am understanding them correctly, these developments mark a major historical shift in the world balance of power. Heretofore Washington and London have gotten by with claiming to be the voice of the 'international community'. China and Russia have now emerged from the background, and are with confidence making their own voices heard -- as befits their status as world powers. The tectonic forces have been building for some time. With Iran as the catalyst fault line, we have seen a geopolitical earthquake take place over the past week. What had seemed to be a uni-polar world has now clearly become a multi-polar world. The 'realists' knew this had become inevitable, and are now engaged in damage control. The neocons will take the fall; they will serve as the sacrificial lamb, carrying all the blame for the excesses of their regime (as did Nixon before them). The elites behind the scenes will as usual remain behind the scenes, their primary role in the whole episode going unreported. rkm http://cyberjournal.org
