Amidst the endless stream of commentary regarding Iran’s nuclear program, it is important not to forget Iran’s importance in the great game for global energy.
M K Bhadrakumar, writing in the Asia Times, explains the inadequacy of the United States’ (and Europe’s) energy policy in the Caspian Basin and particularly with regard to Turkemnistan’s natural gas supplies. (The fourth largest supplies in the world.)
Last week’s inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to northern Iran is just the latest manifestation of the West’s strategic naivete when it comes to energy policy in Eurasia.
While the West’s struggle to secure energy supplies is a mutli-faceted problem, one of the key obstacles to success is the self-inflicted decision to try to “isolate” Iran in this game – as if that were possible.
Iran not only possesses the second largest natural gas reserves in the world, it is also a key geographical bridge from Turkmenistan to Turkey (and on to Europe). Isolating Iran is not an option when the strategic logic of cooperation is so compelling for countries like Turkmenistan, Russia, and China.
Bhadrakumar’s article can be read here.
– Ben Katcher
hHufjR ukvymhymyika, [url=http://ivhejzcupjep.com/]ivhejzcupjep[/url], [link=http://akelffvzunax.com/]akelffvzunax[/link], http://wbrwfqipnamk.com/
Mud is brown, not gray. But your last formulation is rather more rigorous — or should I say contains fewer broad brushstrokes? It’s not a question of focusing exclusively on gray areas, which probably is no better than sticking to black and white, but rather recognizing that grey areas exist.
By the way, should I take it from your spelling of “grey” that you are a native of the British Isles? I’m not, but for some reason I often use the English spelling, especially when I’m writing quickly. On the other hand, your writing seems quite American otherwise.
Focusing exclusively on the grey avoids having to identify the crux of problems or understanding how they might be addressed–everything is too complicated. I think I’m pretty aware of the broad set of factors that contributed to the invasion of Iraq as well as the primary factor or two. The same is true for the situations in Afghanistan and Colombia. There are some common patterns at work here–the importance of imported oil to major economies, and the the massive concentration of power in the hands of the military and its contractors. Dick Cheney merged the two and called it “energy security.”
Those who embrace a muddied world view might not have noticed…
You’re entitled to your opinion, J.H., obviously. I don’t feel any desire or need to explain anything to you. I would only say again that many people need to fix on one particular thing or aspect of a problem in order to make reality explicable, palatable to themselves. The world is grey, not black and white. The rest is for you to discover.
Jon Harrison–As I said, I’d like your explanation of the US’ major foreign policy initiatives–Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia. All are evidence of an overly militarized foreign policy. Sure, there were lots of other reasons to do something. But the particular solution in all cases demonstrates an inordinate reliance on military approaches without real consideration of other solutions. IMHO Bush and Cheney seemed to think that there was a military solution for most every problem, and that it was the preferred solution. Diplomacy was largely abandoned, and, when it was attempted, the Bushies proved themselves singularly inept at it.
I am by no means an isolationist. The US needs to be engaged commercially and diplomatically abroad and cognizant of the interests of others. Military action, overt or covert, must be restricted to use only in cases of a direct threat to the territory of the US. And then any action must be strictly monitored and controlled. It’s all too easy for the “militant” elements of any society to gain ascendancy over those seeking reasonable solutions.
I’ve read “JFK and the Unspeakable.” Interesting book. Doesn’t change anything I had to say above. You might try reading my review of “Brothers” in the Nov. 2007 Liberty (www.libertyunbound.com). You’ll see that my views and yours on JFK and the situation in the early sixties largely coincide. Again, that doesn’t change anything I said above.
Jon Harrison: I recommend that you read “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James Douglas. Regardless of whether you agree with Douglas’ conclusions or not, the text clearly documents the military’s aggressiveness in pushing for war as the solution to whatever ails the US abroad. Meanwhile the CIA did not have to aggressively push for widespread covert action. They just did whatever they wanted and covered their actions with legally sanctioned “plausible deniability.” Granted that the sway of the military and the CIA was blunted after they pushed too hard and got the Vietnam fiasco. However, their influence returned fully after 911 under Bush and Cheney. IMHO it is no exaggeration to say that militants dominate US foreign policy today, like Goldman Sachs dominates financial policy. It takes a politician of rare courage to resist their demands. When you read Douglas’ well documented book, you will see exactly how it is done. Obama’s decision in Afghanistan is a perfect example of a politician who could not stand up to the militants and acquiesced, though reluctantly. Unless Obama makes a breakthrough on Iran, the militants will set a trap for him, and he will be forced to attack, regardless of how Pyrrhic the outcome.
John H,
The United States like all countries has competing interests vying for power. There are those both in uniform and out that tend to seek military solutions to problems (real or perceived). That does not mean that “militarists” run the U.S., even though the U.S. does sometimes choose military means to achieve its goals. It is very comforting, psychologically, to pin blame for policies we oppose on a particular group. Just to give a name (like “militarists”) to a problem allows us to more easily build a framework for our thinking. This must be guarded against, assuming we want to be sophisticated and not adolescent in our thought processes.
Another Iranian,
The United States is still the number one power in the world, with economic and political interests all over the globe. It has the world’s largest economy and, as such, has a “legitimate” interest in the Persian Gulf, home to vast energy resources. Don’t flatter yourself, the entire region from the Mediterranean coast to the Iranian plateau is of interest to Americans only because of the oil and gas there. For thousands of years this region was, culturally, the most important on earth, but for 500 or more years it’s been a backwater. Nor does it appear likely that it will emerge anytime soon from its current “Dark Age.”
The United States, in its history as a great power, has committed many bad acts. Americans in general tend to turn a blind eye to this. But they are no different than any other people in this regard. Persia was for a time the world’s “sole supewrpower,” and in Roman times was one of the two great powers in the world. It too interfered in its neighbors affairs — indeed, its expansion was only stopped by force, at Marathon and Salamis. So please don’t tell me that the U.S. doesn’t have a right to “interests” around the globe. To the extent that the U.S. has deviated from the sorry record of human civilization, it has been on the positive side. No other nation has given so much of itself, freely, to others as the U.S. has — and I am referring to things that have benefited others around the world. The United States is no angel. But I defy you to tell me what other nation, given the same power, would have behaved better.
Let me say to both of you that I personally am almost an isolationist. I don’t believe in getting involved for good or ill in other people’s internal affairs. Only a direct threat to the United States would cause me to support military action abroad. But unfortunately the U.S. IS involved around the world. I have to deal with that fact, unless I want to retreat into childish formulations that accomplish nothing. In life we have a choice between the better or the worse. The perfect does not come into play.
@Jon Harrison:
what do you define as “legitimate U.S interests”? and how should those interests be achieved? are wars of aggressions, direct interference in other nations’ affairs, illegally using U.N to pressure other nations (e.g Iran)…. part of the legitimate methods! to maximize those “legitimate interests”? why should America consider everything in the world as her interests? why should it be that expansionist?
If the militarists are not in charge, how do you explain Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Honduras and the ongoing, massive increases in “defense” spending? Bush pretty much did whatever the generals wanted, and in fact said so many times (“Listen to the generals.”) These folks have not disappeared into the woodwork just because Obama got elected. Only by reigning in the militarists can we ever hope to have a sane ME policy. IMHO this is the primary challenge Obama is facing, though the challenge of reigning in Goldman Sachs may be equally daunting.
This piece is spot on. Several years ago I wrote about the importance of oil and gas in central Asia and the need for U.S.-Iranian cooperation in that regard.
I think it’s an exaggeration to say that “militarists” are in charge of U.S. policy. This sort of hyperbole does not further the cause we are all (or most of us) fighting for, viz., a sane U.S. Middle East policy that puts legitimate U.S. interests first.
As Elias Sajjad has said
by Bavafa on Mon Jan 11, 2010 02:21 PM PST
As Elias Sajjad has said in her blog here, there are many wolves around that would like to discredit this movement. The enemies of this revolution are not just IRI, be aware of the enemies outside of Iran as well. Neocons/AIPAC are working hard to derail this revolution by the people. They know they can contorl one or two clown in charge, but not the whole nation.
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/elias-sajjad/neo-wolf-green-s-clothing
Bhadrakumar lays bare what is mostly likely the US’ energy strategy in Central Asia. Interesting that the corporate media never bothers to speculate about such matters.
If Bhadrakumar is correct, the US has suffered a major defeat in Central Asia. Energy suppliers and consumers have managed to work deals out amongst themselves without “indispensable” US military “protection.”
The need for US military protection in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific is also diminished. Simply put, the US will no longer be able control the flow of energy to China, since large amounts will come from Russia and Central Asia.
The “indispensable” party is also suffering reverses in Europe as Northern Europe does deals with Russia for pipelines, not maritime import of gas.
The huge missing piece are for India to deal directly with Iran for import of southern Iranian gas and for Japan to deal directly with Russia for import of Siberian gas.
Once those deals are done and gas begins to supplant oil, what role will the US military have to play? This is the question that spooks the militarists in charge of US policy.