Unlike Thatcher, Kissingers appraisal of Putins Russia reflected a certain sympathy for Russias position, and evident approval of Russia as a vital element of European security, but his view is hopelessly myopic:
Is the wisest course to pressure Russia, and if necessary to punish it, until it accepts Western views of its internal and global order? Or is scope left for a political process that overcomes, or at least mitigates, the mutual alienation in pursuit of an agreed concept of world order?
Is the Russian border to be treated as a permanent zone of confrontation, or can it be shaped into a zone of potential cooperation, and what are the criteria for such a process? These are the questions of European order that need systematic consideration. Either concept requires a defence capability which removes temptation for Russian military pressure.
I guess he means aTHAADcapability and the agreed concept of World Order means Russia should submit to the US world order. The deployment of the US missile defence system in Poland and Romania has already destroyed the possibility of any such agreement with Russia, just as the current deployment in South Korea has pre-empted any honest agreement with China over North Korea.
It was however Kissingers presentation of the crisis over Syria and Iraq which is of most interest. In common with much of the US establishment as well as that of Israel and Saudi Arabia, Kissinger sees Irans hands all over the region, while being blind to those of the US and its allies. Iraq has not been destroyed as a result of Americas intervention, motivated by a ruthless quest for oil and strategic control; by removing Saddam Hussein, America inadvertently facilitated Iranian influence on Baghdad, which is now a puppet of Tehran.
Even the rise of ISIS can be blamed on Iran, as a reaction to the alleged sectarian policies of the Baghdad government, in the same way that President Assad has been blamed for allowing IS to take over part of Syria. Its necessary to point out that both assertions are egregious lies.
Into this fog of misinformation coming from the heart of Imperial power in London however, Kissinger inadvertently shone some light, exposing the workings of the North Atlantic deep state.
In a remark that might have been dismissed as the musings of a senescent Iranophobe still hoping to outlive the Islamic Republic, Kissinger claimed that the destruction of ISIS could lead to the emergence of a radical Iranian empire stretching from Tehran to Beirut. He framed it like this:
The outside worlds war with Isis can serve as an illustration. Most non-Isis powersincluding Shia Iran and the leading Sunni statesagree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran? The answer is elusive because Russia and the Nato countries support opposing factions. If the Isis territory is occupied by Irans Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire.
Leaving aside some details, such as his failure to mention that the territory to be inherited already belongs to Syria, so the answer to his disingenuous question is anything but elusive, we might notice that this is hardly a new idea. Not only has the threat of an Iranian empire been the excuse for Israeli belligerence and unprovoked aggression in Lebanon and Syria for decades, but there is convincing evidence that the creation of the Islamic State and the covert support for Daesh/IS forces was a conspiracy specifically aimed at Iran.
The DIAdocumentfrom 2012 that described this conspiracy, whose veracity was confirmed by former DIA chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has been quoted so often that it hardly needs repeating:
8.C. If the situation unravels (following the movement of AQI into Syria) there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Deir al Zour), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian Regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)
Some useful extra analysis on this conspiracy and what else could we call it? is provided by Nafeez Ahmedhere, and of course by Flynn himself in his August 2015 interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera.
Well now the situation IS unravelling for the US and its co-conspirators, as the forces that came in the Daesh Trojan Horse are nearly routed and Syrias Russian and Iranian allies decide how to deal with their increasingly desperate back-up crew. With Syrian forces advancing on Deir al Zour from the North and West, and Iraqi forces closing in from the East, the years of planning and billions invested in the American project to cut off Iran look set to be wasted.
Crying wolf on Tehrans radical empire just isnt going to work again!
# Tags
