by Mike Whitney
Why is that a problem?
It’s a problem because–according to Dr. Lehmann–”Together with the Russian gas… the EU would be able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.” As the primary suppliers of critical resources to Europe, Moscow and Tehran would grow stronger both economically and politically which would significantly undermine the influence of the US and its allies in the region, particularly Qatar and Israel. This is why opponents of the pipeline developed a plan to sabotage the project by fomenting a civil war in Syria. Here’s Lehmann again:
“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.
This is the crux of the issue. The United States is not going to allow any state or combination of states to challenge its dominance. Washington doesn’t want rivals. It wants to be the undisputed, global superpower, which is the point that Paul Wolfowitz articulated in an early draft of the US National Defense Strategy:
Complete story at - My Money's on Putin | The Smirking Chimp
“History shows that the United States has benefited politically and economically from wars in Europe. The huge outflow of capital from Europe following the First and Second World Wars, transformed the U.S. into a superpower … Today, faced with economic decline, the US is trying to precipitate another European war to achieve the same objective.”The United States failed operation in Syria, has led to an intensification of Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine. What the Obama administration hoped to achieve in Syria through its support of so called “moderate” Islamic militants was to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad, replace him with a US-backed puppet, and prevent the construction of the critical Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. That plan hasn’t succeeded nor will it in the near future, which means that the plan for the prospective pipeline will eventually go forward.
— Sergey Glazyev, Russian politician and economist
“The discovery of the world’s largest, known gas reserves in the Persian Gulf, shared by Qatar and Iran, and new assessments which found 70 percent more gas in the Levantine in 2007, are key to understanding the dynamics of the conflicts we see today. After a completion of the PARS pipeline, from Iran, through Iraq and Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean coast, the European Union would receive more than an estimated 45 percent of the gas it consumes over the next 100 – 120 years from Russian and Iranian sources. Under non-conflict circumstances, this would warrant an increased integration of the European, Russian and Iranian energy sectors and national economies.”
— Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine
Why is that a problem?
It’s a problem because–according to Dr. Lehmann–”Together with the Russian gas… the EU would be able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.” As the primary suppliers of critical resources to Europe, Moscow and Tehran would grow stronger both economically and politically which would significantly undermine the influence of the US and its allies in the region, particularly Qatar and Israel. This is why opponents of the pipeline developed a plan to sabotage the project by fomenting a civil war in Syria. Here’s Lehmann again:
“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.
This is the crux of the issue. The United States is not going to allow any state or combination of states to challenge its dominance. Washington doesn’t want rivals. It wants to be the undisputed, global superpower, which is the point that Paul Wolfowitz articulated in an early draft of the US National Defense Strategy:
Complete story at - My Money's on Putin | The Smirking Chimp
I suggest, Mike, that the outcomes under consideration – by those behind these events – are on a much bigger canvas than you describe. From a geopolitical perspective, our current situation is parallel to the situation pre-World War 1. A long-time hegemon is being challenged by the economic rise of upstart powers.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, the hegemon (Britain) chose war, aimed at curbing the upstarts and maintaining its status-quo supremacy. The outcome however was quite different: the US became the proto-hegemon, and Britain was reduced to second-rate economic status. The outcome was a redefinition of the world order.
Similarly after World War 2 there was another redefinition, as the proto-hegemon became the overt hegemon. This outcome was not in the minds of the Germans, the Japanese, or the Brits, when they went to war. It was however in the minds of certain people, if you know what I mean.
As in 1914, the current geopolitical framework is unstable. Hegemon vs upstarts. The strategic concerns of those in control are not about things like controlling pipelines. They are about the next redefinition of the world order. If that is to come via World War 3, it will not be because we stumbled into it. It will be because that was the chosen strategy.
I think there is a good chance, however, that war may not be the chosen strategy. Not war, but the threat of war, could become the path to the desired redefinition – a one world government. If people perceive themselves to be on the brink of nuclear destruction (ala Cuban Missile Crisis) what a small price it will seem to be – the loss of sovereignty.