How the Arab Sting and the "Pivot to Asia" is directly relevant to the Iranian deal
Sons of Malcolm
26 Nov 2013
As usual stratfor's george friedman makes interesting analysis of the latest deal on Iranian nuclear program. He tries to argue that somehow the 'west' can tolerate and come to terms with a strong Iranian presence in the region, this is not the case as imperialism is going deep into further crisis and this crisis necessitates increasing pressure (military, economic and media) to protect the hegemony and monopolisation of power across the world, not least in areas with majority or large Muslim populations where Iran has or has the potential power to influence. The imperialists have only come to approach some negotiation based on Iran's legitimate claims due the imperialists strategical policy in the region being in tatters, a policy which is the Arab Sting.
In this regard the most important section of this article below is this one:
"Israel has outgrown its dependence on the United States. It is not clear that Israel is comfortable with its own maturation, but the United States has entered a new period where what America wants is a mature Israel that can pursue its interests without recourse to the United States. And if Israel finds it cannot have what it wants without American support, Israel may not get that support, unless Israel's survival is at stake.
"In the same sense, the perpetual Saudi inability to create an armed force capable of effectively defending itself has led the United States to send troops on occasion -- and contractors always -- to deal with the problem. Under the new strategy, the expectation is that Saudi soldiers will fight Saudi Arabia's wars -- with American assistance as needed, but not as an alternative force.
"With this opening to Iran, the United States will no longer be bound by its Israeli and Saudi relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the United States has broader interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The Saudis will have to exert themselves to balance the Iranians, and Israel will have to wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which Israeli or Saudi rigidity can sustain itself."
Two main points have to be made. One is that the Arab Sting was the rolling out of a strategy in the region which seeks to replace heavy reliance on the strategic alliances on the white settler zionist stater of israel and the Persian gulf monarchies, esp Saudi Arabia. The Arab Sting has to some extent been successful for the imperialist inasmuch that the Palestinian struggle has been effectively neutralised and is currently playing no leading anti-imperialist resistance role that it was hitherto doing, especially in the Second / Al-Aqsa Intifada which raged for several years after it started in September 2000.
Although I don't agree with much of what Norman Finkelstein says, he is nevertheless correct when he has said in his books and writings that once upon a time the state of israel was far from friends with imperialism, and there will come a time when once again it is not an ally of imperialism, that time has not come but the indicators are clear that imperialism no longer needs to be seen and act in a way which is the unconditional ally of israel now it has promoted its own imperialist interests in much more sophisticated and effective ways.
Similarly, saudi arabia is looking like its increasingly alienated from its usa ally, the Al-Qaeda insurgency of the mid 2000s likely had some considerable british and usa covert hands in it, and the recent hugging of Qatar by the imperialists which promotes the latter's military strategy in the Arab Sting and economic strategies in contributing majorly to keeping the imperialist financial system afloat has upset the Saudis. Then the Saudis have felt they were snubbed over no big military show of the imperialists on Syria and the Russians and others sabotaging a nato-style bombing campaign, which has led to the next great Suadi snub which has been the Iranian deal currently.
The second point is that much of the imperialist modus operandi for the foreseeable future can be understood through the anti-imperialist deconstruction of the yankee self-professed "pivot to Asia", which is the attempt by empire to contain and to smash Asia, especially but not only China, as a rising GlobalSouth/anti-imperialist pole in the world, which is the main and present threat to imperialist hegemony. Relatively, 'the middle east north African' ('mena') theatre is small cheese to that big prize and threat, hence the imperialists have to find a way to achieve their interests in mena without too much political fall out and economic and military efforts - this has, for imperialism, been marvelously achieved by the Arab Sting operation, the masses of the region are for the most going along with the song sheet provided by the imperialists with the Iranian led Resistance axis fighting it with some successes. The Arab Sting has given a massive boost strategically to imperialism across Africa and the 'near east' in mena. It has been and remains arguably to a greater extent the most clever thing imperialism has done for itself since 1991.
The 'west' are adjusting in this manner to mena so as to focus everything as much as possible on China/Asia. The Arab Sting has been a bit of an Arab Spring Clean to remove so much BRICS, especially Chinese influence from the countries impacted, and opened up the imperialist offensive against China in Africa. Going along with the pre-Arab Sting imperialist project in Africa and Asia, especially in the mena region just meant that the imperialists were literally pushing everyone in the GlobalSouth into the arms of the Russians and Chinese who would treat them with incomparably more respect than the west. Imperialism cannot afford to go on with that approach as it knows and plans better than anyone else that it has approximately two decades (at the most, and that time period seems to be shortening as we proceed through the months) to close the gap and destroy China, India, Russia, and the route in so doing is to 'divide and ruin' to develop a 'scorched earth' policy against all allies of Russia but especially China in the lead up to the attempt to directly smash China.
Will the imperialist strategy succeed? That is nearly all dependent on how the GlobalSouth, with Russia and China in the defacto leadership, can develop their mechanisms of Global unity and struggle in 'uniting the many against the few', to borrow Mao's phrase, ie., gather unity and importantly military strategic unity with the GlobalSouth against imperialism. We are seeing this all play out in front of us in our lives. Anti-imperialists, independence-minded peoples of the three continents of America, Africa and Asia have no other choice but to prioritise advocating and contributing in building such unity.
PS: I must add that although imperialism is playing it very crafty and quiet in relation to the rising 'left nationalist' movements of 'Latin' America, I think it is clear that imperialism is looking to destabilise and wipe out what our peoples in that region have achieved before moving on proper to China. I state this to ensure that people consider this region part and parcel of what imperialism is currently rolling out. Terribly and tragically, that region is going to see what the mena region has seen post 1990 (gulf war), and which the Latin American region itself experienced throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, the only reason it has not seen such things in the last two decades, is because the mena region has taken and absorbed the brunt of imperialist genocide and destruction in the time.
Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement
A deal between Iran and the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) was reached Saturday night. The Iranians agreed to certain limitations on their nuclear program while the P-5+1 agreed to remove certain economic sanctions. The next negotiation, scheduled for six months from now depending on both sides' adherence to the current agreement, will seek a more permanent resolution. The key players in this were the United States and Iran. The mere fact that the U.S. secretary of state would meet openly with the Iranian foreign minister would have been difficult to imagine a few months ago, and unthinkable at the beginning of the Islamic republic.
The U.S. goal is to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons before they are built, without the United States having to take military action to eliminate them. While it is commonly assumed that the United States could eliminate the Iranian nuclear program at will with airstrikes, as with most military actions, doing so would be more difficult and riskier than it might appear at first glance. The United States in effect has now traded a risky and unpredictable air campaign for some controls over the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iranians' primary goal is regime preservation. While Tehran managed the Green Revolution in 2009 because the protesters lacked broad public support, Western sanctions have dramatically increased the economic pressure on Iran and have affected a wide swath of the Iranian public. It isn't clear that public unhappiness has reached a breaking point, but were the public to be facing years of economic dysfunction, the future would be unpredictable. The election of President Hassan Rouhani to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the latter's two terms was a sign of unhappiness. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei clearly noted this, displaying a willingness to trade a nuclear program that had not yet produced a weapon for the elimination of some sanctions.
The logic here suggests a process leading to the elimination of all sanctions in exchange for the supervision of Iran's nuclear activities to prevent it from developing a weapon. Unless this is an Iranian trick to somehow buy time to complete a weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six months. An Iranian ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies. The Iranians would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky they might be and putting Iran back where it started economically. While this is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.
While the unfolding deal involves the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, two countries intensely oppose it: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Though not powers on the order of the P-5+1, they are still significant. There is a bit of irony in Israel and Saudi Arabia being allied on this issue, but only on the surface. Both have been intense enemies of Iran, and close allies of the United States; each sees this act as a betrayal of its relationship with Washington.
The View from Saudi Arabia
In a way, this marks a deeper shift in relations with Saudi Arabia than with Israel. Saudi Arabia has been under British and later American protection since its creation after World War I. Under the leadership of the Sauds, it became a critical player in the global system for a single reason: It was a massive producer of oil. It was also the protector of Mecca and Medina, two Muslim holy cities, giving the Saudis an added influence in the Islamic world on top of their extraordinary wealth.
It was in British and American interests to protect Saudi Arabia from its enemies, most of which were part of the Muslim world. The United States protected the Saudis from radical Arab socialists who threatened to overthrow the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. It later protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. But it also protected Saudi Arabia from Iran.
Absent the United States in the Persian Gulf, Iran would have been the most powerful regional military power. In addition, the Saudis have a substantial Shiite minority concentrated in the country's oil-rich east. The Iranians, also Shia, had a potential affinity with them, and thereby the power to cause unrest in Saudi Arabia.
Until this agreement with Iran, the United States had an unhedged commitment to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iranians. Given the recent deal, and potential follow-on deals, this commitment becomes increasingly hedged. The problem from the Saudi point of view is that while there was a wide ideological gulf between the United States and Iran, there was little in the way of substantial issues separating Washington from Tehran. The United States did not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians didn't want the United States hindering Iran's economic development. The fact was that getting a nuclear weapon was not a fundamental Iranian interest, and crippling Iran's economy was not a fundamental interest to the United States absent an Iranian nuclear program.
If the United States and Iran can agree on this quid pro quo, the basic issues are settled. And there is something drawing them together. The Iranians want investment in their oil sector and other parts of their economy. American oil companies would love to invest in Iran, as would other U.S. businesses. As the core issue separating the two countries dissolves, and economic relations open up -- a step that almost by definition will form part of a final agreement -- mutual interests will appear.
There are other significant political issues that can't be publicly addressed. The United States wants Iran to temper its support for Hezbollah's militancy, and guarantee it will not support terrorism. The Iranians want guarantees that Iraq will not develop an anti-Iranian government, and that the United States will work to prevent this. (Iran's memories of its war with Iraq run deep.) The Iranians will also want American guarantees that Washington will not support anti-Iranian forces based in Iraq.
From the Saudi point of view, Iranian demands regarding Iraq will be of greatest concern. Agreements or not, it does not want a pro-Iranian Shiite state on its northern border. Riyadh has been funding Sunni fighters throughout the region against Shiite fighters in a proxy war with Iran. Any agreement by the Americans to respect Iranian interests in Iraq would represent a threat to Saudi Arabia.
The View from Israel
From the Israeli point of view, there are two threats from Iran. One is the nuclear program. The other is Iranian support not only for Hezbollah but also for Hamas and other groups in the region. Iran is far from Israel and poses no conventional military threat. The Israelis would be delighted if Iran gave up its nuclear program in some verifiable way, simply because they themselves have no reliable means to destroy that program militarily. What the Israelis don't want to see is the United States and Iran making deals on their side issues, especially the political ones that really matter to Israel.
The Israelis have more room to maneuver than the Saudis do. Israel can live with a pro-Iranian Iraq. The Saudis can't; from their point of view, it is only a matter of time before Iranian power starts to encroach on their sphere of influence. The Saudis can't live with an Iranian-supported Hezbollah. The Israelis can and have, but don't want to; the issue is less fundamental to the Israelis than Iraq is to the Saudis.
But in the end, this is not the problem that the Saudis and Israelis have. Their problem is that both depend on the United States for their national security. Neither country can permanently exist in a region filled with dangers without the United States as a guarantor. Israel needs access to American military equipment that it can't build itself, like fighter aircraft. Saudi Arabia needs to have American troops available as the ultimate guarantor of their security, as they were in 1990. Israel and Saudi Arabia have been the two countries with the greatest influence in Washington. As this agreement shows, that is no longer the case. Both together weren't strong enough to block this agreement. What frightens them the most about this agreement is that fact. If the foundation of their national security is the American commitment to them, then the inability to influence Washington is a threat to their national security.
There are no other guarantors available. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Moscow, clearly trying to get the Russians to block the agreement. He failed. But even if he had succeeded, he would have alienated the United States, and would have gotten instead a patron incapable of supplying the type of equipment Israel might need when Israel might need it. The fact is that neither the Saudis nor the Israelis have a potential patron other than the United States.
U.S. Regional Policy
The United States is not abandoning either Israel or Saudi Arabia. A regional policy based solely on the Iranians would be irrational. What the United States wants to do is retain its relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, but on modified terms. The modification is that U.S. support will come in the context of a balance of power, particularly between Iran and Saudi Arabia. While the United States is prepared to support the Saudis in that context, it will not simply support them absolutely. The Saudis and Israelis will have to live with things that they have not had to live with before -- namely, an American concern for a reasonably strong and stable Iran regardless of its ideology.
The American strategy is built on experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington has learned that it has interests in the region, but that the direct use of American force cannot achieve those goals, partly because imposing solutions takes more force than the United States has and partly because the more force it uses, the more resistance it generates. Therefore, the United States needs a means of minimizing its interests, and pursuing those it has without direct force.
With its interests being limited, the United States' strategy is a balance of power. The most natural balance of power is Sunni versus Shia, the Arabs against the Iranians. The goal is not war, but sufficient force on each side to paralyze the other. In that sense, a stable Iran and a more self-reliant Saudi Arabia are needed. Saudi Arabia is not abandoned, but nor is it the sole interest of the United States.
In the same sense, the United States is committed to the survival of Israel. If Iranian nuclear weapons are prevented, the United States has fulfilled that commitment, since there are no current threats that could conceivably threaten Israeli survival. Israel's other interests, such as building settlements in the West Bank, do not require American support. If the United States determines that they do not serve American interests (for example, because they radicalize the region and threaten the survival of Jordan), then the United States will force Israel to abandon the settlements by threatening to change its relationship with Israel. If the settlements do not threaten American interests, then they are Israel's problem.
Israel has outgrown its dependence on the United States. It is not clear that Israel is comfortable with its own maturation, but the United States has entered a new period where what America wants is a mature Israel that can pursue its interests without recourse to the United States. And if Israel finds it cannot have what it wants without American support, Israel may not get that support, unless Israel's survival is at stake.
In the same sense, the perpetual Saudi inability to create an armed force capable of effectively defending itself has led the United States to send troops on occasion -- and contractors always -- to deal with the problem. Under the new strategy, the expectation is that Saudi soldiers will fight Saudi Arabia's wars -- with American assistance as needed, but not as an alternative force.
With this opening to Iran, the United States will no longer be bound by its Israeli and Saudi relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the United States has broader interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The Saudis will have to exert themselves to balance the Iranians, and Israel will have to wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which Israeli or Saudi rigidity can sustain itself.