Reprinted from Greanville Post
"Modern Middle East Imperialist (MMEI) War III," you say? How are you counting (?) might be the first question.
Of course Western Imperialist Wars have been waged on the region at least since Alexander the Great marched through the region in the 4th Century, BCE. The modern (contemporary) set can be said to have begun when George H.W. Bush tricked Saddam Hussein into invading a Kuwait that, among other things, had been diagonal drilling across the Iraq/Kuwait boundary, stealing Iraqi oil.
'Justice' for the losers. Saddam may have been a criminal, but as mafiosi go, he was small change compared to the real deal in the Washington-London axis.
(Image by Vimeo) Permission Details DMCA
Militarily that war ended quickly. But through subsequent U.S. policy (e.g., the Bill Clinton "No Fly" zone) over the years it wreaked havoc on many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians (especially children). Then came Bush II's infamous War on Iraq which, by all logic it seems to be, was waged in order to establish a state of Permanent War for the U.S., if not one or more other Western Powers, and perhaps to create the "Permanent Republican Majority" (or at least Presidency) in the U.S. that was the dream of Karl Rove's Repubs. (and of course the nightmare for the rest of us).
The United States is now in the midst of MMEI No. III. This one is rather more complicated, and not easy to figure out, since there seem to be so many sides involved, with shifting alliances, sometimes from month-to-month. Certainly for me it has been confusing. But now, with several thoughtful, insightful columns that I have read recently, and with the shooting down of the Russian (I almost wrote "Soviet," the way "Russia" is referred to by many authorities in this country) plane by the Turks, I have come up with an hypothesis, which I am going to share with you. (I have collected the references in support of it below, rather than going the hyperlink route.) I now have come to the conclusion that this multi-pronged, multi-front battle has at its center Iran and the hatred of key Arab states and Turkey for it. The hatred and urgency to attempt to rein Iran in has only intensified with the signing of the "Nuclear Deal."
Iran is, as is well known (although perhaps not to all U.S. persons and perhaps not even to all Repub. Presidential candidates) one of the two major non-Arab Muslim powers in the Middle East (the other one being Turkey which, of course, both geographically and by treaty, has a foothold in Europe as well). Iran is Shia, but it is also modern in Middle Eastern terms, has a goodly supply of oil, has a going nuclear industry designed to provide power for it once the oil is gone, and of course sits on one side of the aptly named Persian Gulf and astride the Strait of Hormuz, which is the only exit from the Gulf (through which lots of oil from the aptly-named "Gulf States" must pass).
To the reactionary Sunni Muslim Arab oil states like Saudi Arabia, Iran is a menace. To Turkey, Iran is also a menace because a) it is a relatively modern Muslim country like Turkey (even though it is nominally religious, unlike Turkey), and b) Turkey is very concerned about the decades long indolent war with its Kurdish minority with aspirations for independence that Iran probably supports even though it has a Kurdish minority of its own with the same aspirations. But Iran has Arab friends, mainly the Alawite-controlled government of Baathist Assad in Syria and the Shia government of Iraq.
A somewhat strange alliance has been attempting, without success, to dislodge Syria's Assad. Besides Washington and the Saudis -- both covertly and overtly -- the principal fighter in this one at the moment, the 7th-century (by their own admission) Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), has received essential support from private elements in Saudi Arabia and several of the Gulf States (and from their governments too).
Russia is the major world power supporting Assad, certainly in part to maintain its Mediterranean bases at Latakia and Tartus, and also as a matter of principle mixed with pragmatism: Russia is a lynchpin of the multipolar alliance that includes China. The ISIL bombing of the Russian airliner, and the cold-blooded shooting down of a Russian fighter near the Turkish border have only deepened and probably broadened Russia's involvement in the fight against it. When they started bombing in Syria a month or so ago, the usual Western sources said that the Russians were focusing more on the anti-Assad forces than on ISIL -- as if they weren't one and the same.
That has been a pathetic propaganda line disseminated by Washington from the start, part of its information war on Russia, which has also included an all out demonization of Putin. The accusation shows no sign of being retired any time soon; just this morning, on CBS's Face the Nation, both the new host, John Dickerson, and his guests, the usual worthies du jour, were sanctimoniously complaining that if Russia were to be included in the US coalition fighting ISIL, Moscow would have to stop supporting Assad. The absurdity of thinking that Moscow would need to be accepted by Washington into some sort of fake coalition to fight these barbaric terrorists -- which anyone except those utterly bamboozled by the American media know quite well Washington itself created -- is the kind of audacious arrogance that typifies imperial "journalism."
(All these US celebrity journalists are witting prostitutes, albeit high-price prostitutes, but, as abettors of international war crimes, they remain subject to trial just like the Nazi defendants in Nuremberg at the close of WWII. In a world with a semblance of justice and genuine democracy, that's exactly what they would be facing, along with their equally corrupt masters, who strut around in high positions of power with impunity. -- Eds.)
ABOVE: Launch of an advanced design Russian nuclear sub, one of the strategic deterrents being rapidly implemented by Russia now that America's imperial aggressions continue to proliferate. Unfortunately, empires only understand force.
It is now clear that Russia is determined to jam up the sieve. To do that they need to remove the Turkish-supported anti-Assad rebel groups from along the Syria-Turkish border, substituting the Syrian Army of Assad for them. The latter then could effectively shut down the free flow of whatever element wishes to infiltrate Syria, in both directions, across the Turkish-Syrian border. That is the reason Russia is now supporting Assad's army in that sector with some very serious air power. Turkey shot down the Russian jet (apparently over a 5-mile-wide strip of land in Syria along the traditional Turkish-Syrian border that Turkey claims is part of Turkey but no one else recognizes as such) as a warning shot across the bow at the Russians, whose response has been immediate: "Are you kidding us?" And so, the Russians very quickly moved some very modern anti-aircraft firepower into the region; a clear message to Turkey. The game is now afoot.