Introduction
In 1904 in a speech before the Royal Geographical Society in London British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder, a firm advocate of the British Empire, presented what is arguably one of the most influential documents in world foreign policy of the past two hundred years since the Battle of Waterloo. His short speech was titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.”
Russia and Eurasian Pivot
Mackinder divided the world into two primary geographical powers: Sea power versus Land power. On the dominant side was what he termed the “ring of bases” linking sea powers Britain, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and Japan in domination of the world seas and of commerce power. This ring of dominant sea-powers was inaccessible to any threat from land powers of Eurasia or Euro-Asia as he termed the vast continent. Mackinder further noted that were the Russian Empire able to expand over the lands of Euro-Asia and gain access to the vast resources there to build a naval fleet, “the empire of the world might then be in sight.” Mackinder added, “This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia.”
What the world has experienced since that prophetic 1904 London speech of Mackinder is two world wars, primarily aimed at breaking the German nation and its geopolitical threat to Anglo-American global domination, and to destroy the prospect of a peaceful emergence of a German-Russian Eurasia that, as Mackinder and British geopolitical strategists saw it, would put the “empire of the world” in sight. Those two world wars in effect sabotaged the “covering of all Eurasia with railways.” Until, that is, in 2013 when China first proposed covering all Eurasia with a network of high-speed railways and infrastructure including energy pipelines and deep-water ports and Russia agreed to join the effort.
The Washington-orchestrated coup d’état in Ukraine in February, 2014 was explicitly aimed at driving a bloody and deep wedge between Russia and Germany. At the time, Ukraine was the prime energy pipeline link feeding the German industry with Russian gas. German exports of everything from machine tools to cars to high-speed locomotives to build the rapidly-recovering Russian economy was transforming the geopolitical balance of power in favor of an emerging German-Russian-centered Eurasia to the detriment of Washington. Stratfor founder George Friedman, a student of Mackinder, stated, “…the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.”
The current war in Ukraine is about a fundamental geopolitical contest to the end over who will dominate Eurasia—it’s legitimate inhabitants, centered around China, Russia, and Iran, or an imperial Anglo-American axis that has been behind two world wars in the past century. Because Washington mismanaged the Russian “Reset” (in 2012 between Obama and Medvedev) that was meant to draw Russia into the NATO web, Washington today is forced to wage a war on two or three fronts simultaneously.
The late renowned US geopolitical thinker Zbigniew Brzezinski made an insightful and exclusive analysis of geopolitical patterns in his famous book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.
“[…] a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.” ― Zbigniew Brzeziński, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
Many of his judgments still have vitality today. Brzezinski pointed out in his book that “Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.” His warnings against US diplomacy have once again garnered much attention in recent days.
Whereas US relations with China, Russia and Iran have, to varying degrees, fallen into tensions, the latter three countries have made new progresses in developing relations among them. In fact, what he really wanted to convey by issuing such a warning is that the US shouldn’t make enemies everywhere and bring ruin upon itself.
Brzezinski wrote, Eurasia is the “chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,” where there are many “geostrategic players” and “geopolitical pivots.” He added, “How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia’s key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America’s global primacy.” In the view of Brzezinski, China and Russia are classified into geostrategic players, while Iran is one of the geopolitical pivots. This can illustrate the importance of the three countries.
Faced with the development of friendly, non-aligned interstate relations between China, Russia and Iran, the US, once again, went back to its old ways of looking for enemies and trying to tie the entire West to its chariot against non-Western countries. Regardless, Washington should realize that the time when the US could confront several countries at the same time has long passed. This Cold War mentality no longer meets the current reality. As Brzezinski argued, in the long run, global politics is destined to become increasingly incompatible with a situation in which one country has exclusive hegemonic power. Thus, the US is not only the first and only truly global superpower. But it may well be the last as well.
If we step back from the specific details of each country and Washington actions against each, we see that the three Eurasian powers—Russia, China, Iran—are being systematically targeted and so far with varying degrees of success.
Ironically, the simultaneous opening of a de facto three-front war, even if on the level of economic warfare at present, creates a strategic imperative for the three powers to work even more closely. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil. Russia provides military equipment and is negotiating far more. Each of the triad—China, Iran, Russia—for reasons of self-survival –have no better option than to collaborate as never before, whatever mistrust or differences, in face of Washington’s geopolitical three-front war.
At the same time as Washington escalates pressure on Russia over Ukraine, they launch the early stage of what will clearly be a devastating economic war with China using trade as the initial lever. Washington is aiming to force China to dismantle its strategy to bring China’s economy over the next decade into leading status of hi tech producer. The strategy is called China 2025 and is the heart of the Xi Jinping strategic agenda and of his Belt Road Initiative or economic Silk Road project.
Both the Rockefeller and Rothschild empires will target Iran, a key link to the Eurasian Belt Road Initiative, the new Economic Silk Road of China and the economic cooperation with Russia. If that succeeds, we can be sure that further targeting of Russia as well as of China is next in line. If those key strategic Eurasian powers fail to strengthen their mutual cooperation on economic, political and military levels, it could be like shooting fish in a barrel for Washington to knock out the rivals to its undisputed sole superpower hegemony. That would not be at all good for world peace prospects.
US Target Iran
Our article deals with the relation between Iran and its main geopolitical opponents and allies- Iraq, Russia, China, Israel and the US. We are not going to do an in-depth history of Iran. Rather, we will start at the end of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. For more details on this, please read our 3-part article called “The Iran File”, https://behindthenews.co.za/iran-a-case-study-part-1/, in addition, a full story and history of the geopolitics of Iran is still more than a year away. For now, we will explain Iran in the current time period.
After this, New York and London embroiled Iran and Iraq in an 8-year war. The only beneficiaries of this were the 2 families. This war ended in 1988. From 1982 until now, the US and Israel have been trying their best to destabilize and regime-change the clerical government in Teheran. This conflict encompassed Beirut, South America, the Iran-Contra issue, Hezbollah, terrorism, Syria, Yemen and Iran’s nuclear program. Also, for a brief period between 2010 and 2015, there was the covert alliance between Washington and Iran AGAINST Israel! For more details on this, please read the 2-part article, called “The Break-Up “, https://behindthenews.co.za/the-break-up-part-1-of-a-2-part-series/
The American campaign has stalled due to Iran’s successful counterattacks and deterrents, but anticipates possible escalation into new battlegrounds despite the American side’s failure to make any progress toward achieving its objectives. The apparent failure of the Israeli-inspired US hybrid war on Iran comes at the worst possible time for the US empire, which faces impending military catastrophe in Ukraine. The biggest mistake, from a US geo-strategic perspective, is making an enemy of Iran. But since it occupies a critically-important strategic location at the crossroads of the Eurasia-Africa world island, and has historically suffered from Russia’s southward expansion, Iran and the US have every reason to maintain friendly relations and make win-win deals. The problem, from Iran’s perspective, is that the US seems incapable of making win-win deals (and sticking to them) while respecting the sovereignty of its partners. Here, we will list some of the methods the US used, without much success, except sanctions on Iran’s banks, currency and energy.
Instigating riots/ color revolutions
The CIA instigated riots in Iran, the recent one being the latest. The CIA and its allies regular try to overthrow governments they don’t like by fomenting riots and trying to escalate them into bloody civil wars. The trick is to find a way to get a crowd into the street to protest against the targeted government. It is easy enough to create such a crowd of “protestors” using paid agents (rent-a-mobs) while trolling for dupes on social media.
The real-life CIA riot campaign in Iran has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The largest crowd of “protestors” anywhere in Iran numbered only around 600, while vastly larger marches have supported the government. Iran’s government has neutralized the CIA color.
Cyber wars
The US and Israel, not necessarily in that order, have launched “vast cyber-attacks” on Iran’s infrastructure. Meanwhile Israel routinely launches anti-Iran cyber-attacks, but Iran’s ability to retaliate in kind, and its increasing reliance of nearly-unhackable homegrown software, has limited the effectiveness of anti-Iran cyber-warfare.
Financial warfare
The Rockefeller Empire, with its control of American finance, are past masters at attacking a nation’s currency, and sanctioning its financial and banking sectors.
In 2012 the Obama Administration Treasury Department pressured the European Union countries which then ordered Belgium-based SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, to cut all interbank credit lines for Iranian banks including the central bank, dealing a crippling blow to her ability to earn dollars for Iranian oil and other exports. It was unprecedented, and lasted four years until SWIFT links were reestablished following the 2016 Nuclear Agreement. Then, in 2020, Iran was again cut off from SWIFT.
And in late 2022, the CIA instigated more protests in Iran. Those protests gradually died down. Now what is taking place, however, is far more dangerous to the stability of Iran. It’s a not-so-subtle form of financial warfare from Washington. At this stage it takes the form of currency war, inducing panic among Iranians that leads them to dump Riyals in a desperate bid to get dollars as the Riyal sinks to its lowest since the 1979 Khomeini Revolution.
The clear aim is to use the devastating new weapons of US Treasury pin-point sanctions to plunge Iran’s fragile economy into crisis. In recent weeks its currency has been dropping like a stone, provoking panic buying of dollars on the black markets and aggravating a growing domestic crisis
Assassinations
A significant number of Iranian scientists and government officials have been assassinated, chiefly by Israel’s Mossad, but also by the US, as in the case of General Soleimani. Iran’s policy is normally tit-for-tat payback. For example, in response to the murder of Iran’s top physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Israeli rocket scientist Aby Har-Even, the founder and head of Israel’s rocketry and space programs, “succumbed to wounds sustained when rioters torched Efendi Hotel (owned by Israel’s aerospace agency). Note that such presumed Iranian tit-for-tat assassinations are deniable and have not been publicized by either side.
In the case of General Soleimani, Iran is exacting multipronged revenge, consisting of the well-known rocket attack on the US base at Ain al-Assad, Iraq; threatened assassinations of every major US official involved in the murder, with bounties on all their heads (including a one million dollar bounty on Trump); and the eventual termination of the Zionist entity occupying Palestine, and expulsion of the US from the region.
Sabotage
After Israel’s second attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, Iran retaliated and the center of Israel’s ballistic missile program mysteriously blew up! The mushroom cloud was visible for miles around. An Israeli leader of the program was cited in the media begging “please stop, we’re losing more than the Iranians.” That media story was in fact a covert message asking Iran for a truce.
Shipping war
The US and especially Israel are bent on disrupting Iran’s oil exports and have attacked and seized various Iranian ships, and even non-Iranian ships allegedly containing oil sourced to Iran. Iran has responded, as usual, tit-for-tat retaliation. For instance, after one such ship was seized off the coast of Greece last spring, Iran seized two Greek ships, which were held until the Iranian ship was released. Iran’s ability to retaliate has led to a change in tactics: Now captains are being offered bribes to renege on their delivery agreements. But few if any are doing so, perhaps because making Iran a lifelong enemy is just not worth it.
Sanctions/Economic pressure
Iran is buried beneath layers upon layers of sanctions and has responded by learning how to evade them. During the past year, virtually the whole world, with the exception of a handful of ultra-compliant US vassals, is joining the sanctions-evading game, thanks to the counterproductive sanctions on Russia. Many are asking Iran for advice. Though sanctions have negatively affected the Iranian economy, they have not even come close to damaging it badly enough to make a difference.
Abraham accords
The US has attempted to ramp up pressure on Iran by weaponizing the Arab signatories of the so-called Abraham Accords, a phony Palestine-Israel peace plan that is despised by virtually the entire population of the region. Not only is the Arab public strongly pro-Palestine, as this year’s World Cup in Doha showed, but even the supposedly pro-Zionist Arab leadership is giving the Americans the cold shoulder.
Failure of the Hybrid War
The Israeli-American hybrid war on Iran has stalled, as Iran fights the aggressors to a stalemate on each battleground. Iran has successfully sent the message: “For each wound you inflict, we will retaliate with an equivalent or worse.” As a result, the US is in no position to force Iran into the kind of agreement the Americans want.
The real underlying issue is Iran’s commitment to the liberation of Palestine. As long as Iran stands by the Palestinians, the US, dominated by Zionist oligarchs, will do everything it can to hobble Iran and ultimately subjugate and enslave it.
Now that the hybrid war on Iran has stalled, just as the war on Russia through Ukraine is poised to collapse, the Empire may be tempted to escalate. The problem is that Iran, like Russia, can match any feasible escalation. Just as the Russians have rough nuclear parity with the Americans, Iran has a formidable non-nuclear “nuclear option”: shutting down oil traffic from the Persian Gulf. With its highly maneuverable navy, a mountainous shoreline bristling with formidable anti-ship missiles, and the ability to easily (and deniably or non-deniably) take out the docks at Ras Tanoura, Saudi Arabia’s only deep-water port, Iran can blow up the world economy any time it wants to. Short of that non-nuclear nuclear option, Iran has every US military installation in the region in its crosshairs, and can lay waste to Israel with its rockets, in response to enemy escalations. The upshot is that Atlantic Magazine’s expert simulation of a US-Iran war showing that Iran would win is even more relevant today than it was in 2004.
Iran & Israel
A likely front is the Levant, where preparations are being made to confront Israel and end its continued violations of Syria’s sovereignty and bombardment of hundreds of targets in Syria throughout the years of the war. This particular issue may bring the Middle East into an all-out war; one mistake could turn fatal and drag the region into an all-out clash in which Syria will not be alone.
It is well known that Israel possesses enormous firepower and strong armed forces for land, sea, and air combat, and is better equipped than any other army in the Middle East. It is also known that Israel’s main enemy and nightmare, the Lebanese Hezbollah, possesses sophisticated weapons, armed drones, and land attack long-range all-weather subsonic cruise missiles. Hezbollah also has long-range strategic anti-ship missiles, anti-tank laser-guided missiles, anti-air low and medium altitude missiles, and precision missiles. These are pointed at precise targets over all the Palestinian geography controlled by Israel, including ports, airports, military barracks, infrastructure, ships, oil-rigs and flying helicopters or jets at medium altitude. Israel has never ceased acquiring the most modern military hardware but it has failed to develop its fighting spirit. It has no newly acquired military experience on the battlefield, because the last battle it fought dates back to 2006, which was considered the second war on Lebanon (after the first invasion of 1982) which resulted in failure on many levels. Meanwhile Israel’s enemy, Hezbollah, developed and strengthened its fighting spirit following its participation for many continuous years in a very wide geographical military theatre estimated to be almost 12 times bigger than Lebanon and 60 times wider than the area of combat in which it confronted Israel in the south of Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
Hezbollah fought alongside classic (Syrian, Russian, and Iraqi) armies, gaining battlefield experience against armed groups trained and armed by the CIA and other terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda and ISIS and possessing highly developed combat skills (combined with classical and guerrilla skills) and high spiritual motivation, far more motivated than the Israeli soldiers. These men fought against the American army throughout its occupation of Iraq and Syria, and completed their journey fighting alongside the Iraqi and Syrian armies against various terror groups, which gave them significant combat experience, an aspiration for martyrdom and advanced guerrilla fighting tactics.However, the Western-controlled terrorists defeat by Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies dashed Israel’s hopes. Israel attacked Syrian planes, artillery and intelligence capabilities in support of the terrorists. However, Israel was not satisfied with these attacks. Israeli jets went on to strike Syria in depth in Damascus, Homs, Hama, Al-Qaim, the desert of the Badia, and any area where there are military warehouses and missiles that Iran supplied to Syria and Hezbollah. Israel was able to hit and destroy a large number of these stores. This prompted Iran to change its armament storage policy for the Syrian army. Syria has built strategic warehouses in the mountains and underground in silos, waiting for the appropriate moment to impose a balance of deterrence – in response to hundreds of Israeli raids – a moment that has not yet come. The Syrian priority is still liberation of its still occupied territories, mainly in Afrin, Idlib and surroundings, without excluding the US-occupied oil and gas fields in the north-east of Syria.
Russia has strategic interests with all belligerents and is not a party to the “axis of resistance”.
Israel is walking through a strategic minefield. The danger for Israel lies in any potential error that might kill Hezbollah members in Syria. Such an outcome would lead to an escalation that may take the Middle Eastern region into a larger and more comprehensive war. The timing will not be to the advantage of Israel.
Hezbollah’s new rules of engagement, its advanced armaments and outstanding military experience amount to a significant deterrent. Nevertheless, wars can start by mistake.
Using Kurds as expendable assets
World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was a major turning point in the minds of Kurdish nationalists. As the political map of the Middle East changed drastically and several Arab states were formed in the region, Kurdish desire for an independent Kurdistan gained momentum. A number of Kurdish rebellions that emerged especially in Iraq, Iran and Turkey are clear examples of the manifestation of such desire.
As for Israel – one should only mention the covert ties Israel maintained with the Kurds in Iraq from 1965 to now. In those years, the goal was to break out of regional isolation. Another main objective was to weaken Iraq and prevent it from possibly joining a war against Israel.
The drama which is unfolding in northern Syria, Iraq, Iran and southern Turkey is truly an almost ideal case to fully assess how weak and totally dysfunctional the Rockefeller Empire has really become. Let’s begin with a quick reminder.
The US-Israeli goals in Syria were really very simple. As I have already mentioned in a past article, the initial Anglo-American, or the 2 families plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:
*Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services.
* Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north.
* Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the terrorists against Hezbollah.
* Let the terrorists and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon.
* Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
* Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
* Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
* Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
* Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
* Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
With the joint Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria, this plan completely collapsed. For a while, the USA tried to break up Syria under various scenarios, but the way the Russian forces hammered all the “good terrorists”, eventually convinced the 2 families that this would not work.
The single biggest problem for the Empire is that while it has plenty of firepower in the region (and worldwide), it cannot deploy any “boots on the ground”. Being the Empire’s boots on the ground was, in fact, the role the 2 families had assigned to the terrorists, but that plan failed. The only US allies left in the region are Israel. The problem with them is that, just like the USA themselves, these countries do not have ground forces capable of actually deploying inside Syria and taking on not only the Syrian military, but the much more capable Iranian and Hezbollah forces. Murdering civilians is really the only thing the Israelis are expert in, at least on the ground (in the skies the Israeli Air Force is a very good one). Enter the Kurds. The 2 families wanted to use the Kurds just like NATO had used the KLA in Kosovo: as a ground force which could be supported by US/NATO and maybe even Israeli airpower. Unlike the Israelis , the Kurds are a relatively competent ground force.
The folks at the Pentagon had already tried something similar six years ago when they attempted to create a sovereign Kurdistan in Iraq by means of a referendum. The Iraqis, with some likely help from Iran, immediately put an end to this nonsense and the entire exercise was a pathetic “flop”.
The British have a diabolical plan to ensure that they have a “lever” to achieve geopolitical aims-sometimes in the future. An example is Kashmir in India. Under British direction, a DELIBERATE problem was created here by not finalizing the status of Kashmir.
The same plan took place when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved by the Rothschilds in 1923. The present Kurdish region is spread out over four states- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. This was intended to act as a future lever against these four states, as and when needed, for whatever geopolitical games that the Rothschilds (Britain and Israel) and the Rockefellers (Washington) have in mind. Both the US and Israel have infiltrated and infested the Kurdish areas, to bribe, intimidate and cause problems for the four states.
The funny thing is that the Kurds have not learnt that their foreign sponsors have, time and time again, let them down. An example is the Kurds in northern Syria that developed a back bone under American military protection. Turkey has warned these Kurds not to rely on America. But no, the Kurds chose to believe in the hot air coming from Washington and when the Turks attacked that is all the Kurds got from Washington: hot air. All four of these states will not allow any form of Kurdish independent. If they do agree, then within a few years, their state will cease to exist. Syria, Iran and Turkey now realize a simple thing: only Russia stands between the crazy US-Israeli plans for the region and them. Absent Russia, there is nothing stopping the 2 families from re-igniting the “good terrorists” and the Kurds and use them against every one of them.
Russia has neither the desire nor the means to constantly deal with violent flare-ups in the Middle-East. If the Empire desperately needs wars to survive, Russia desperately needs peace. In practical terms this means that the Russians must work with the Iranians, the Turks, and the Syrians to secure a regional security framework which would be guaranteed and, if needed, enforced by all parties.
Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s “strategy” (I am being very kind here) is to stir up as many conflicts in as many places of our planet as possible. The Empire thrives only on chaos and violence. The Russian response is the exact opposite: to try as best can be to stop wars, defuse conflicts and create, if not peace, at least a situation of non-violence. Simply put: peace anywhere is the biggest danger to the 2 Empires whose entire structure is predicated on eternal wars. The total and abject failure of all US plans for Syria (depending on how you count we are at “plan C” or even “plan D”) is a strong indicator of how weak and totally dysfunctional the Rockefeller Empire has become. But ‘weak’ is a relative term while ‘dysfunctional’ does not imply ‘harmless’. The current lack of brains at the top, while very good in some ways, is also potentially very dangerous So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand that. May God help them.
The Kurdish narrative, one that has been hyped by the media to portray a people, fighting against impossible odds in one of the most “repressive regions” against the most “radical and violent” regimes in the world, has been almost universally accepted in the West. Project Kurdistan is the final chapter of the Rockefeller-Zionist plan to change the map of the Middle East. The US actions are polarizing the Middle East beyond anything previously seen during our lifetime. The Kurds are one of the world’s largest ethnic groups without a nation-state. Instead they are spread across four Middle Eastern countries, being a significant minority in each one. This has left them vulnerable to the centralising efforts of each government. Subsequently, Kurds across the region have complained about a lack of ability to express their cultural rights and autonomy. Not to mention, there have been several episodes of harsh repression against them. As a result, Kurdish resistance movements have cropped up throughout the last century; aiming to defend themselves and their cultural identity. The aims of these resistance movements have vacillated from outright independence to gaining greater autonomy.
The latest color revolution overdrive in Iran overlaps with the manipulation of Kurds in both Syria and Iraq. From the imperial perspective, the proxy war in Syria, this is far from over, not only works as an additional front in the fight against Russia but also allows the instrumentalization of highly dependent Kurds against both Iran and Turkey.
Iran is currently being attacked according to a perverse variation of the scheme applied to Syria in 2011. A sort of “permanent protest” situation has been imposed across vast swathes of northwestern Iran.
What changed in mid-November is that armed gangs started to apply terrorist tactics in several towns close to the Iraqi border, and were even believed to be weaponized enough to take control of some of the towns. Tehran inevitably had to send IRGC troops to contain the situation and beef up border security. This military intervention was effective. But in a few areas, terror gangs continue to attack government infrastructure and even civilian property. The really critical issue is not the protests per se: it’s the transfer of weapons by the Kurds from Iraq to Kurds in Iran to bolster the color revolution scenario. Tehran has issued a de facto ultimatum to Baghdad: get your act together with the Kurds, and make them understand the red lines. As it stands, Iran is massively employing Fateh ballistic missiles and Shahed-131 and Shahed-136 kamikaze drones against selected Kurdish terrorist bases in northern Iraq.
It’s debatable whether that will be enough to control the situation. What is clear is that the “Kurdish card”, if not tamed, could be easily played by the usual suspects in other Iranian provinces, considering the solid financial, military and informational support offered by Iraqi Kurds to Iranian Kurds.
Turkey is facing a relatively similar problem with the Syrian Kurds instrumentalized by the US. In northern Syria, they are mostly armed gangs posing as “Kurds”. So it’s quite possible that these Kurdish armed gangs, essentially played by Washington as useful idiots, may end up being decimated, simultaneously, in the short to medium term, by both Ankara and Tehran. A geopolitical game-changer which was unthinkable until recently may soon be on the cards: a high-level meeting between Turkish President Recep Erdogan and his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad , in Russia, with mediation by none other than Russian president Vladimir Putin.
What would it take for Kurds to understand no state – be it Iran, Syria or Turkey – will offer them land for their own nation? Parameters could eventually change in case Iraqis in Baghdad finally manage to expel the US.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the US goal of partitioning Syria and Iraq is to push back Russian and most importantly Iranian influence in the region and tearing up the century old Sykes-Picot agreement in favour of a sectarian and ethnically divided Middle East is a perfect way to do it. Establishing a Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq would also open the path for further partitioning along sectarian lines – namely a Sunni Iraq and a Shia Iraq. This would leave both Syria and Iraq as severely weakened rump states and the Syria-Iraq-Iran-Hezbollah alliance in danger, but above all, it would guarantee the survival of Washington’s most precious gem in the region – Israel.
This is the end of Part 1. The story continues in Part 2 – – –
