In Memory of Bondlady

WELCOME TO BONDLADYS CORNER...WE CARRY ON HER CUSTOM OF MAKING THIS SITE YOUR 24 HOUR A DAY IRAQ NEWS ARTICLE SOURCE


You are not connected. Please login or register

Kissinger and the specter of chaos in the Middle East

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Rocky


MEMBER
MEMBER

Kissinger and the specter of chaos in the Middle East




16-11-2015



In a major article published in the newspaper «Wall Street Journal» on 16 October (October) the past, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the nuclear deal 5 +1 with Iran caused the collapse of the geopolitical balance in the region and ended the «US role in the Middle East to achieve stability that emerged from the Arab - Israeli war in 1973. » However, what was not mentioned by Kissinger in his article that - perhaps to protect his friends in the Republican Party - is the disastrous impact of the invasion of George W. Bush's administration of Iraq in 2003, which was the biggest event that causes instability regional system, which resulted directly from the devastating effects of which are still the region suffers of them today.
US The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent dismantling of the Iraqi state led to the absence of a major Arab country. As it was this state historically play the role of the barrier that stands in the face of Iran and counterbalanced. The invasion, of course, to enable Iran and the expansion of its influence. At the same time, Iran's announcement was a member of the «axis of evil». The Bush administration message «Baghdad today, tomorrow Damascus and Tehran». And it led enable Iran policy, and its threat to the heart of its system at the same time, the worst results, and pushed Iran to step up its interventions in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the intensification of its nuclear program. And we see the results of all this today in the Iranian domination of the four Arab capitals, and proxy wars across the region, and the absence of full stability. This destructive chaos is the result of the invasion of Iraq and not the nuclear deal with Iran.
Was for the invasion of Iraq also shock effect on the component of the Sunni in Iraq, due to historical abstraction of the Sunnis in Iraq of influence, disbanding of the army, and leave them at the mercy of the new government in Baghdad with a Shiite majority and under Iranian influence. The invasion has strengthened Iran's influence, also Vzra seeds of extremism when the Sunni component in Iraq. By enabling Iran of more authoritarianism in the Arab world, it led a year later to increase the area general sense of threat and siege, which helped to expand the circle of extremism to neighboring Syria, but also on a wider scale in the Arab world. It was not for the organization «Qaeda» and for «Daash» definitely a presence in Iraq and the Levant before 2003. Today, it has a solution «Daash» replace the states of Iraq and Syria in large parts of the Arab East.
Kissinger believes that stability is achieved through the traditional balance between states. The meeting shall held recently in Vienna and who gather at the negotiating foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran table, as well as Egypt, Turkey and other countries, it indicates that the new form of regional stability may be possible through negotiations and diplomacy. But as Kissinger himself refers, Iran must decide whether it wants to be a state or a revolution. And whether they want to protect and promote its interests as a state by adhering to the laws of international relations, or if they want to protect those interests by supporting armed groups fighting by proxy. It seems that this debate is going on inside Iran today between President Rowhani, who sees Iran a bright future if turned into an international player reliable official, and between the Supreme Leader and «Revolutionary Guards», which considered that the protection of the interests of Iran can only be achieved within the framework of agendas and sectarian policies of confrontation.
The agreement nuclear himself a fundamental change in the regional system did not happen. Iran had expanded its influence in the years before that, and the proxy wars have already destroyed several Arab countries. But the nuclear deal with it provided an opportunity exploited by Russian President Putin intelligently. While the agreement is going on, there was fear of a regional that this deal will be followed by an Iranian-American cooperation and collusion between them on other issues in the Middle East. In fact, Russia is the chance that seized the nuclear deal and proceeded to announce its partnership with Tehran was.
This was to some extent due to the fear of a Moscow already cooperation between Iran and the United States after the agreement, and the exclusion of Moscow. But this also reverse Russia's attention to the seriousness of the deteriorating situation of the Assad regime in Syria, in addition to the ambition to rebuild Russia's presence in the former Middle East. Today, Russia has strong ties with Iran and a presence in Syria militarily significant, as well as growing ties with Baghdad and close ties with President al-Sisi in Egypt. In a short period of time, Putin has rebuilt the existence of a parallel Moscow-wide or wider than it was in the Soviet Union time. But Russia, with it a major international player, but it is no longer a global superpower. This position is still reserved to the United States, and China in the future.
It is important to also note that the nuclear deal has been suspended Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and this is an important achievement for the sake of the security and stability of the region. International Sanctions imposed on Iran have made ​​the economy falling to rock bottom already forced Iran to choose between saving the economy from collapse or nuclear program. And practically forced to choose first. This choice not only applies to the next 10-15 years, as some argue. The Iranian leaders are well aware that the Russian and Chinese position Almmana to Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon is in the ferocity of the US position and the European - either today or at any time in the future. They also know that the Russian policy toward Iran historically based on two pillars, namely: keep Iran weak, and held away from any Western alliance. And realize that any attempt by Iran to resume work towards a nuclear weapon in the future, will face the same coalition of interests and attitudes between the United States and Europe, Russia and China.
Also showed the nuclear deal that politics and diplomacy can Tkona powerful instruments, but more powerful often and more the effectiveness of the blind use of military force. It also appears that the diplomatic avenue and negotiation between adversaries bitter - who describe each other as «the axis of evil member» or «Great Satan» - the two is possible.
In this context, the Vienna meeting refers to possible ways to make progress toward building stability. The launch of peace processes may be often more difficult than waging wars between nations or proxy wars, but the results can be more positive. There is no doubt that what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran did not start at least in the conversion of some of the politics of confrontation to negotiation, the region will not see stability.
Not required to conclude the Sykes - New Pico where regional powers agree on spheres of influence and control, but the Conversely need to find a process in line through which regional players core to reduce interventions by proxy and commitment together an inventory of their forces within their borders, and to work towards building a regional system that guarantees their interests in security and prosperity, rather than through conflict and spheres of influence, but through the creation of a regional system in which enjoys all the countries actual sovereignty over the region also respect the sovereignty and security of others.
The road to reach this target will be long and hard. But Europe, for example, was before the seventy-five-year-old more destruction and division of the Middle East today. But was able to choose a stable and prosperous future alternative. But the transformation can not be achieved as soon rally around the negotiating table. It requires leadership and vision, courage and perseverance. In the dark rubble in Europe, envisioned inspired the likes of Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet luminous alternative vision. It is they who Sbiion our way today?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum