Part I: Can the U.S. Avoid Forfeiture in Iraq, Avoiding a Middle East Power Vacuum for Iran to Fill?

As a result of its own actions in invading Iraq, the U.S. finds itself locked in a struggle with Iran over which side will be the resident superpower of the Persian Gulf. Washington wants the regional center of power to be located in Baghdad, remade in its own desired image and bristling with American military power with which it can control the region at large, in the interests of advancing its own energy security. Iran wants a significant shift to Teheran of the regional center of power. From that center, Iran hopes to realize its own long-held dream of domination of the Persian Gulf by extending its influence outward across the region. Washington is fighting upstream against an array of powerful forces in an attempt to realize its goals, and its "progress" to-date is mostly in the reverse direction. Teheran and its sponsors and allies may soon realize an immensely important opportunity to exploit the current situation so as to realize its own goals. Both sides sense that the endgame is nearing. May 13, 2004

Part II: Iran in the Target Zone for Military Action

While Iran has recently removed the U.N. seals from its halted centrifuge projects and stubbornly vowed to continue nuclear development which could assist it to produce nuclear weapons, Israel has vowed it will never permit its rival Iran to become a nuclear-armed threat. Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations is warning the Bush administration to do whatever it takes to restrain Israel from launching pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which it says will result in pointedly negative regional consequences for the U.S. itself. What is behind Iran's recent pugnacious verbal threats and its strident actions in reviving its nuclear projects, which even appear designed as a dare to the U.S. and/or Israel to try to prevent its nuclear progress? Are we witnessing growing Iranian impatience and foolhardiness, or increased Iranian self-confidence and its well-thought-out strategic moves in the pursuit of its regional geopolitical goals? If the latter, upon what might such increased self-confidence and self-assurance be based? Are pre-emptive attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in the offing? What might Iran do to either head off such attacks, or to mount effective and painful retaliation for them in the event they do occur? Is Iran in a position of weakness, or is it rather the U.S. and Israel which would stand to become the biggest strategic losers in a scenario of pre-emptive attacks and Iranian retaliation? Aug. 2, 2004

Part III: “Evil Axis” Member Iran: The Latest Nexus of “East”-West Rivalry

A new multi-polar configuration for our global order keeps knocking ever more loudly, now pounding its fist at the door.

Russia’s rise in the economic, political, military and geopolitical spheres continues, with mounting control over strategic energy resources playing a key role. Russia’s ever closer strategic partner, China, is also rising like a meteor in the same spheres. Apparently, nothing of this earth can put a halt to the rise of Russia-China, the rising pole of the “East”. Its mounting gravitational pull already is attracting, and even capturing into its orbit oil-rich Central Asia, oil-rich Canada and Latin America, resource-rich African states, oil-rich Middle Eastern states and [somewhat unwillingly] Europe.

Simultaneously, US power and prestige, in all the same spheres as those mentioned above, has suffered a sharp decline primarily since the Iraq crisis of March, 2003. US influence is noticeably contracting in Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa and even in the Americas, in its own back yard with the rise of leftist oil-rich regimes aligned with Russia and China.

By now, even a “blind” person should be able to see the path along which global developments are inexorably proceeding – toward geopolitical equilibrium is where the world order is heading. That word “equilibrium” implies the change to a more even distribution of power among several poles, rather than an inordinate concentration of power in just one pole. The simultaneous arising of new poles, most notably Russia-China in the East, and the dilution of power formerly concentrated within the US pole, bespeaks a global move toward equilibrium. That move translates into a reconfiguration of the global order from unipolar to multi-polar. That reconfiguration is occurring much more rapidly than most analysts believed possible. It has already progressed to an advanced stage in only 34 months counting from March 2003 when the US invaded Iraq.

But why does the title of this analysis imply the return to a bipolar cold war style “East”-West rivalry? As the new multi-polar world order keeps pounding its fist ever more loudly on the door, why should we expect a global realignment into two de facto camps, “East” and West, again? And where does Iran fit into the picture described above of a global move toward equilibrium? Jan. 13, 2006

Part IV: Iran, the US and the 'Satanic Verses'

That title would indicate that one or the other, or perhaps both of the two main parties in the US-Iran crisis are letting religious ideology unduly affect its policies and actions. The frightening fact is that no matter how relevant (or irrelevant) the reader might imagine religious ideology is in the current crisis, such ideology has in fact become so deeply intertwined with the politics and policies of both sides as to be inseparable from it.

Not surprisingly the current crisis has a strong component of psychological warfare as the two main rivals square off with each other and attempt to force each other by ever more vicious threat and counter-threat to back down. Washington calls this acutely abusive, dangerous and entirely short-sighted strategy "diplomacy", but it has twisted the definition of diplomacy to mean 'the effort to crush before resorting to actual bullets and bombs'. Tehran asserts it is merely standing up for its own "peaceful" rights and those of the rest of the Islamic world against the US aggressor, but its secretive, violent, threatening and subversive activities across the region belie its claims.

Notably, the fundamentalist religious ideology of the two plays an inordinate role, though perhaps not fully, consciously recognized by the two rivals themselves, in both the crafting of the respective psychological strategies and in their reaction to that of their opponent. That fact tends strongly to pull the two, along with all the lesser players, ever deeper into a real global crisis.

The other factors bearing on the situation are the geopolitical and domestic political calculations of all the players, those based upon economics, and those based upon energy security. Once that full array of calculations has been laid out for the reader to see, one inescapable conclusion presents itself: sooner rather than later this crisis will either explode (the most likely eventuality) or be resolved mostly on Iran's terms, with irreparable negative consequences for the West in particular, for the Middle East region and for the current global order itself. Iran has become the vortex of interaction between an array of competing regional / global forces that threaten to wreak upheaval of truly worldwide proportions. Fundamentalist religious ideology, as one of those forces, plays much more than a minor role, and its role is steadily increasing. April 30, 2006

Part V: Iran, US: On the Road to War with No Way Out?

Part I of the series showed how the intertwining of fundamentalist religious ideology with imperialist geopolitical goals and interests constitutes a poisonous and fanatical ideological brew, the 'Satanic Verses'. Both Iran's and America's leadership have concocted for themselves their own respective versions of such a poisonous ideological brew and are being psychologically self-manipulated as a result of imbibing it. Their thinking, policies and reactions have become measurably imprisoned to the toxic influence of the 'Satanic Verses'. This factor is one of no little influence in their unabated march toward war. Additionally, they find the 'Satanic Verses' to be of notable use in cynically marshalling and manipulating their respective domestic populations to support their march toward war.

Part II examines the regional and geo-strategic calculations of the two rivals to determine whether a confrontation is inevitable or not. Unless the fundamental ideology of at least one side in the crisis radically moderates, something which definitely appears to have virtually no chance of occurring, then a confrontation with colossal repercussions is inevitable. As you will see in this installment of the series, the regional and geo-strategic interests of the two rivals are mutually-exclusive, and their respective regional and wider global goals are entirely incompatible with each other. May 10, 2006

Part VI: What is the Bush Administration Strategy on Iran?

In the latest developments in the Iran crisis the US has unexpectedly agreed to sit down with its partners at the negotiating table with Iran. In a further unexpected development the US is reported to have offered Iran civilian nuclear technology and a lifting of certain economic sanctions if Iran stops its nuclear enrichment operations.

Security guarantees for Iran are apparently missing from the package, however, as the US still refuses to take military options off the table. Additionally, the package contains threats of UN security council-initiated sanctions if Iran refuses the offer, and it mandates a halt to uranium enrichment activities during talks. Bush administration statements over the past few days have strongly emphasized the word “verifiable” with respect to the proposed halt of uranium enrichment in Iran, thus portending a very intrusive inspection regime that would be an uncompromising part of Western demands. Finally, the US gave its support to a vague proposal to create a regional conference to discuss other areas of concern respecting Iran.

Is this a genuine turnabout in the heretofore militaristic Bush administration strategy, or is it merely an EU-US tactical ploy designed to marginalize and isolate the Iranian regime by portraying it as uninterested in serious negotiation so as to make harsh UN-sponsored sanctions, or even military operations, more justifiable? June 10, 2006

Part VII: Bush's "New Way Forward" Strategy Shoves Region Onto Fast-Track To Chaos

Massive US Attack on Iran the Great Equalizer?

Kuwaiti media reports in the Arab Times on January 14, 2007, written by the Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah and based on a reliable source, relay that the US/British naval buildup currently underway in and around the Persian Gulf is designed, not merely to 'send Iran a signal', but rather to put in place all assets necessary for a massive air strike on Iran, likely by April, 2007. The private revelations reveal that the Bush and Blair administrations "believe that attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and paving the way for their democratic project", according to reports from the Chinese news agency Xinhua that are reporting on the Kuwaiti analysis of the situation.

Obviously, the US and Britain wish to roll back Iran's regional advances and restore the rough balance of power that existed between Iran and the region's Sunni regimes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Jan. 14, 2007

Part VIII: Sunni Arab Backing for Bush Plan Lays Groundwork for US Strike on Iran

The oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf, traditional allies of the US and Britain, acutely and strategically fearful of the implications of the accelerated political, ideological, energy-based economic and militarized advancement of Iran and its potent proxies and allies across the region, are throwing their support behind the Bush plan for Iraq and the region -

After having been specifically and indomitably assured by the Bush administration that Iran's worrying regional advances will be rolled back by virtually unreserved force.

A US/British-led, region wide Sunni "axis of moderation" is emerging to directly confront, and mightily push back, the advancing Shiite "axis of radicalism" to bring a "new balance of power to the region". The "axis of moderation" is preparing and already utilizing potent levers in the spheres of naval, air and ground-based military forces, energy-based economic power and political/ideological influence to confront Iran and its proxies across the region.

This new strategy is not a slow-moving one that seeks eventual success by cautious gradualism, but rather it is one that seeks to brilliantly and swiftly cut across all the ropes of the Gordian knot ever more tightly constricting the shared strategic interests of the "moderate" oil-rich Sunni regimes and of the West in the all-important but deeply troubled region.

The new strategy fundamentally and gravely miscalculates the ability of the US and its allies to actually "bring a new balance of power" to the Middle East. Jan 19, 2007

Part IXa: What Is the Bush Administration's Strategy on Iraq?

What is the administration's strategy and how does Iran fit into the picture? What are the chances for success of the emerging grand strategy? What happens if the unfolding new policies backfire as the Iraq invasion has done? Dec. 1, 2006

Part IXb: The Direction of US Foreign Policy: Steadfast Undertow vs. Surface Ebb and Flow

The media is rife with ebb and flow "analysis" and speculation about a supposed impending change of direction in US policy in Iraq, the wider Middle East region and on the world stage itself. However, such speculation is based almost entirely on the surface ebb and flow of daily events rather than upon the steadfast and cohesive undertow of factors and forces, both domestic and foreign, that genuinely drives the direction of US foreign policy.

That undertow will permit no fundamental course change away from the previous six years characterized by hard line neo-conservative ascendancy in US foreign policy. In fact, that steadfast undertow is even gaining momentum as the US administration is increasingly faced with the stark choice between resignation to a dismal forfeiture on the one hand, or, on the other hand, an ardent, last-ditch stab at snatching success from the jaws of failure in a widening array of foreign policy crises, including Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and more. Dec. 6, 2006