Federico Bordonaro

Analisi per il P.I.N.R. sul significato della visita a sorpresa di Dick Cheney in Pakistan.

As the U.S.-Taliban clash intensifies in the spring, expect Musharraf to be called to make dramatic decisions. The Pakistani president will probably be forced to accept many of Washington’s strategic requests, but his political strength domestically may be dealt a serious blow.

Pakistan will remain critical in the current year’s geopolitical developments. If the Musharraf government fails to ensure a pro-Western course to remain in place in Islamabad, enormous consequences for South Asia, the U.S.-Islamist struggle, and the U.S.-China balance of power will ensue.

Per il celebre commentatore americano Michael T. Klare, l’Amministrazione Bush avrebbe già deciso di attaccare militarmente l’Iran.

The Bush administration has already decided on a military attack on Iran, though the world will have to wait through several months of soap opera at the United Nations and world capitals before this happens. A clear indication of Bush’s intention is found in his recent public statements, which amount to a three-point list of justifications for going to war.

Secondo Klare, nei suoi recenti discorsi pubblici Bush avrebbe più o meno volontariamente rivelato le tre motivazioni per l’attacco. In sintesi, l’aumento delle truppe in Iraq (seppure di 21.500 unità) e l’ammonizione a Teheran contro il sostegno a gruppi armati iracheni che attaccano le truppe USA sono due indizi forti delle intenzioni di Washington.

“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces … And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Consider this Item 1 in his casus belli: because Iran is aiding and abetting the United States’ enemies in Iraq, the US is justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.

Il 29 gennaio scorso Bush annunciava alla radio:

“If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly … It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people - and the Iraqi government - that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm.”

La prima motivazione sarebbe quindi la “auto-difesa” contro le azioni belliche iraniane in Iraq.
La seconda è legata al programma nucleare iraniano, che è funzionale al tentativo di Teheran di “dominare il Medio Oriente”.

In his January 10 address, Bush went on to fill in a second item in any future casus belli: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of the United States’ friends in the region - a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.

Per Klare, tuttavia, Bush avrebbe svelato anche una terza motivazione: la necessità di fermare l’ascesa del cosiddetto “Arco Sciita” promosso dall’Iran, un arco a vocazione radicale che mette scompiglio nei piani USA di Grande Medio Oriente:

Bush added a third item to the casus belli in his State of the Union address on January 23. After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to US interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shi’ite branch of Islam led by Iran.

Aside from al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, he explained, “It has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shi’ite extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.” Many of these extremists, he noted, “are known to take direction from the regime in Iran”, including the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

Al momento, le preferenze dell’Amministrazione Bush sembrano chiare: la diplomazia si è rivelata incapace di contenere l’ascesa geopolitica iraniana in Medio Oriente; occorre quindi usare la forza, perché Washington non accetterà un Iran dotato di bomba nucleare e ostile ai propri interessi.
Resta però da vedere cosa accadrà in Iran. Teheran potrebbe tentare un’apertura per ottenere rassicurazioni e sfere d’influenza prima che la situazione precipiti?

l governo britannico teme che l’amministrazione Usa voglia risolvere la questione nucleare iraniana «con mezzi militari» il prossimo anno, prima della fine del secondo mandato del Presidente George W. Bush. «Non vorrà lasciare la questione in sospeso al suo successore», ha detto un alto funzionario governativo al Times.

Peraltro, dal suo viaggio in Australia dove ha incontrato il premier John Howard, il vicepresidente USA Dick Cheney ha confermato che per gli Stati Uniti “un Iran armato di bomba nucleare è uno scenario peggiore di quello, pur fosco, di un conflitto militare con Teheran”.

Se fra il 2001 e il 2004 l’Uzbekistan sembrava avviato a stringere maggiori legami con gli USA, dopo i fatti di Andijan del maggio 2005 i rapporti fra Tashkent e l’Occidente si sono raffreddati.
La Russia segue con attenzione l’evolvere della situazione nel paese centrasiatico. Nuovi programmi in materia di politica energetica, voluti dal presidente uzbeko Islam Karimov, sono in gestazione con il forte interessamento — e coinvolgimento — di Mosca. Analisi di Sergei Blagov per Eurasianet:

Russia is moving aggressively to help Uzbekistan fulfill ambitious energy development plans. Since the start of 2007, one Russian state-run energy entity has signed a new production sharing agreement with an Uzbek concern, and other Kremlin-controlled firms have moved forward on an array of separate deals.

On February 5, The Uzbek state-owned oil and gas monopoly Uzbekneftegaz announced the signing of a new production sharing agreement (PSA) with Soyuzneftegaz Vostok Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Russia’s Soyuzneftegaz. The agreement involves a 5-year joint exploration period and a 36-year joint development program concerning the Central Ustyurt and South-Western Guissar hydrocarbon deposits. Uzbek President Islam Karimov issued a special decree to validate the deal, under which Soyuzneftegaz Vostok is committed to investing $466 million, including $370 million over the first three years of the contract. The agreement replaces a 2001 PSA between Uzbekneftegaz and British-registered UzPEC. In 2004, Soyuzneftegaz, headed by Russia’s former energy minister Yuri Shafranik, took over UzPEC.

Come riporta l’agenzia Xinhua, il Ministro degli Esteri russo Sergei Lavrov ha avvertito che, per Mosca, “l’indipendenza nazionale del Kosovo avrebbe nefaste conseguenze per la regione, e per l’Europa tutta”.

Giova forse ricordare che già il mese scorso la Russia aveva fatto capire che, se l’Europa avesse favorito l’indipendenza del Kosovo, avrebbe dato ulteriore impulso alla proliferazione di stati-nazione — e che a quel punto, la secessione di Abkhazia dalla Georgia o il definitivo riconoscimento dell’indipendenza della Transnistria dalla Moldova non avrebbero dovuto avere un “trattamento” diverso…

Il monito di Mosca sembra tradursi come segue: la creazione di una Kleinstaaterei nei Balcani per indebolire la Serbia (che ha forti legami con la Russia) non può accompagnarsi alla condanna di un simile fenomeno in aree dove il Cremlino cerca di favorire l’autonomia di attori a lui vicini…

In un clima politico tra Russia e Occidente che — se non certo da “Guerra fredda” — è attraversato da forti e ricorrenti tensioni, tali dichiarazioni appaiono significative. Soprattutto in un momento in cui Mosca non fa mistero della propria volontà di riarmarsi in modo ancor più massiccio che negli ultimi anni.

Indeed, spending on the rearmament of the army and the navy has grown by 250% times since 2001; the 2007 budget allocates more than 300 billion rubles ($11.44 billion), or 20% more than in 2006.

Analisi d’approfondimento scritta per ISN-Security Watch.

Years of poor trans-Atlantic strategic dialogue on BMD have produced a complicated context. Many Europeans have begun to fear the ballistic offensive capabilities of states like Iran or Syria, but in general they are still cautious about the implementation of an integrated Euro-American missile defense system.

Since the EU and NATO enlargements, however, continental Europe is probably soon going to have US-only BMD facilities installed on its territory.

Political and strategic reconsiderations of the Euro-Atlantic relations will thus be central in next years’ European debate.

Chin-Huat Wong riporta su AsiaTimes Online di oggi:

A giant global Chinese-language media conglomerate could emerge as early as next year, with 5,000 media-related staff putting out five daily newspapers and 30 magazine titles. Its editorial vision is to unite socially China’s far-flung diaspora and promote Chinese culture and civilization around the world.

La potenza passa anche per una strategia d’influenza culturale adatta ai tempi. Pechino lo ha capito. E le “potenze” europee?

La capacità di difesa iraniana è aumentata recentemente in seguito alla fornitura di sistemi Tor-M1 da parte russa.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched a two-day air-defence exercise on 7 February, which included firing its recently delivered Tor-M1 (SA-15 ‘Gauntlet’) road-mobile shelter-mounted low- to medium-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems.

Deliveries of some 29 Tor-M1 systems from Russia were finalised in January. The estimated USD700 million contract also included a number of battery-level Ranzhir command posts, transporters and loading vehicles, maintenance equipment, trainers, 9M330/9M331 SAMs, spare parts, accessories and other hardware.

Fonti russe riportate dal Jane’s Information Group hanno dichiarato che

The new systems will be deployed for “the protection of vital military and civilian assets, firstly in Isfahan and then Bushehr, Tehran and in the east of the country”

“To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.”

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

“Nonostante le smentite del Pentagono”, scrive il Guardian del 9 Febbraio, “i preparativi per un possibile attacco ai siti nucleari iraniani nella prossima primavera sono a un livello di preparazione avanzato”.

Le manovre militari USA sono dirette a “far pressione sull’Iran, affinché acconsenta a concessioni diplomatiche”, ufficialmente. Ma Ewen MacAskill, corrispondente del Guardian a Washington, non ne è convinto. In realtà, sembrerebbe esservi disaccordo tra i decisori statunitensi quanto al modo di affrontare Teheran.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

In ogni caso, la posta in gioco è più che mai la supremazia regionale nell’area compresa tra il Golfo Persico e il Mediterraneo (e tra il Caspio e il Corno d’Africa), cioè nell’ “Oriente energetico” che, qualora sfuggisse alla preponderanza anglo-americana, potrebbe finire, a breve-medio termine, sotto l’influenza di Russia, Cina e ovviamente Iran. Uno scenario da incubo per Washington, ma anche per Tel Aviv, per Bruxelles, e ovviamente per Ryad.

Il tempo stringe: GW Bush non sarà più presidente dal 1° Gennaio 2009. Non può lasciare l’Iran quale superpotenza regionale in Medio Oriente dopo aver speso un’enormità di risorse materiali e umane nella Guerra d’Iraq.

Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military.

Vi è anche un altro aspetto da considerare: secondo quanto riporta oggi il New York Times, l’Iran sarebbe stato individuato come il fornitore degli esplosivi più micidiali a beneficio delle milizie sciite irachene:

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

Il messaggio è chiaro: l’Iran ha da tempo attivato i propri “proxies” in Iraq (e in Libano) ed è dunque, praticamente, in stato di guerra con gli USA e con i loro alleati nel Medio Oriente.

The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.

The information includes interrogation reports from the raids indicating that money and weapons components are being brought into Iraq from across the Iranian border in vehicles that travel at night. One of the detainees has identified an Iranian operative as having supplied two of the bombs. The border crossing at Mehran is identified as a major crossing point for the smuggling of money and weapons for Shiite militants, according to the intelligence.

According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb, and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq. In addition, some components of the bombs have been found with Iranian factory markings from 2006.

Brief scritta per il Power and Interest News Report:

Because of the succession of E.U. presidencies and legislative elections in France, the United Kingdom, and Germany during the next three years, political timing seems favorable for such an attempt to revive the constitution, at least from a technical point of view. The first half of the year has Germany as the holder of the E.U. rotating presidency. Merkel has stated that 2009 must be seen as the new deadline to approve the constitution. The first half of this year, however, will also witness the French presidential elections. As a consequence, Merkel does not know who will be the leader of her main E.U. partner, France, until May.

Therefore, two possible solutions have been advanced, according to the preferences of France’s main presidential runners: Nicolas Sarkozy’s “mini-treaty” and Ségolène Royal’s newly negotiated full constitution (that would require a new E.U.-wide referendum). A compromise will likely be found before Germany vacates the E.U. presidency on June 30.

Shawn W Crispin, editorialista di Asia Times Online, scrive oggi:

Despite official disapproval from Washington, Thailand’s coup has served US regional interests well and US officials are leveraging their military contacts now in government in a bid to counterbalance China’s regional influence. As for ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra, sniping at the Bangkok junta from abroad, in US eyes he’s no longer a “political factor”.
[…]Noted one longtime Thai observer: “The US is saying to itself: they may be generals, but they’re our generals.”

Il conflitto per l’influenza nel sud-est asiatico tra Washington e Pechino appare in pieno svolgimento.

Mentre si avvicinano le elezioni presidenziali francesi, torna d’attualità il dibattito sul patriottismo economico. Per Bernard Carayon, deputato UMP, “occorre costruire una politica di potenza” in linea con i tempi che permetta di “essere liberi da tutele esterne” e far rispettare i valori culturali nazionali.

Pascal Salin, professore di economia a Parigi, non è dello stesso avviso. Per Salin, “l’unico interesse nazionale è che le imprese siano gestite in modo efficiente“.

“Realismo repubblicano” contro liberalismo a vocazione “globalista”, dunque, come parte del dibattito sul futuro della Francia.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex consigliere di Jimmy Carter e noto studioso di geostrategia, ammonisce l’Amministrazione Bush:

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

E sull’eventualità di un conflitto militare con l’Iran:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran — though gaining in regional influence — is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.