Home > Uncategorized > Analyst: In Attacking Iran, U.S. Attacks Russia

Analyst: In Attacking Iran, U.S. Attacks Russia

Vestnik Kavkaza
February 15, 2012

Sergey Mikheev: “Attacking Iran, the US attacks Russia”
The head of the Political Situation Center, the head of the Caspian Cooperation Institute, Sergey Mikheev, comments on the situation around Iran

====

If Republicans come to power after the elections, a wide-scaled war could break out in a year or two. The war would explode the situation in several regions, including Russia: the Caspian region, the South Caucasus and the North Caucasus. Americans would try to involve Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia and probably Armenia into the war.

I would say it would be worse not only in Dagestan, but also in Chechnya and Ingushetia. And in all ethnic republics of the North Caucasus. A war against Iran wouldn’t be a present for Central Asian states, as it would lead to exaggeration of internal conflicts.

A strike on Iran is not only a way of solving the problem of a disobedient regime for Americans, but also the problem of the region in general: pressure on Beijing and the crash of its economic ties with Tehran; pressure on Turkmenistan, which is turned to the West today. As a result Russia gets an unstable Caspian region and geopolitical competitors in the region.

====

- The Middle East cannot be called a stable region. It is obvious that if the USA or Israel starts a military campaign against Iran, the political vector of many neighboring countries will change; latent conflicts might turn to regional wars. What should we be prepared for?

- Today the situation is not catastrophic. Americans are not ready for a major military operation against Iran. Barack Obama won’t risk his position ahead of the presidential elections. Washington will attack Iran only if it has absolute guarantees of a quick and successful victory. Another limit for the West is the problem of Syria. The West won’t deal with Iran seriously until it deals with the Syrian situation. Can the US “solve the problem” using others? It is possible. The main counteragent is Tel-Aviv in this case. The West won’t start a full-scaled military operation, but it might launch several air-attacks on the nuclear facilities of Iran. As for the Arab allies of Americans – Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – they have no military potential for conducting successful military operations against Iran.

The political consequences of air-attacks will be serious: escalation of instability will start in the region. Air-strikes might damage Tehran’s nuclear program, but they won’t destroy the parent of evil. Bombing could be the first step to escalation of the conflict, which could lead to a military campaign. 

- Probably the side, considered by Washington as a target, is ready for these steps. However, military potentials are not equal. Does Iran have any trump?

- First of all, the reaction of Iran to air-strikes is predictable: a consolidation of supporters of strict and radical foreign policy would take place in the country. Terrorist groups, which would support Tehran, would intensify their activity abroad.

It suits the possible American plan on destabilization of the situation in the region. At first – a strike on Iran, after which Tehran would start to act through international terrorist nets. Washington would launch propaganda and move to greater threats, acting as a victim. Then the West coalition would be formed, as the US couldn’t do it alone.

If Republicans come to power after the elections, a wide-scaled war could break out in a year or two. The war would explode the situation in several regions, including Russia: the Caspian region, the South Caucasus and the North Caucasus. Americans would try to involve Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia and probably Armenia into the war. Washington would demand loyalty to the operation from Russia.

- So all these former Soviet republics would agree to provide the US with territories for American military detachments, wouldn’t they?

- It is difficult to say. Washington would do its best to make them agree. At the same time, Azerbaijan rejected the US initiative on establishing the military group in the Caspian Sea, the Caspian Guard, for protection of non-existing pipelines several years ago. You see the project Caspian Guard was relied not on the current reality, but on the future strategy: it was a plan of providing the military presence of Washington in the region. In case of a military campaign against Iran, existing contradictions would sharpen in the region.

- Do you mean the Karabakh conflict?

- Precisely. On the sly Azerbaijan would probably decide to settle the problem by military measures, especially if Americans would hint to Baku that they would support it morally. Azerbaijan might be suggested a deal: it provides an opportunity for American bases on its territory, and the US promises to help in settlement of the Karabakh problem.

- Would it be political or military support?

- It doesn’t matter. Anyway the conflict in Karabakh would start again. The situation in the region would be exploded, as well as in Azerbaijan itself, where the political situation is not as simple as it seems. The situation in the North Caucasus would be very difficult, as a military operation in the region stimulates instability, terrorism and separatism.

- We often read news from Dagestan, where militants kill representatives of power. What would be then?

- It is difficult to predict details. I would say it would be worse not only in Dagestan, but also in Chechnya and Ingushetia. And in all ethnic republics of the North Caucasus. A war against Iran wouldn’t be a present for Central Asian states, as it would lead to exaggeration of internal conflicts.

- China and Japan are interested in the status quo in the region, as they depend on oil exports from Iran. After the American occupation of Iraq many oil wells were burned in the country. A military operation against Iran could cause oil prices to boom. Oil revenues would fall into Russia and cause inflation. What we got to do?

- I wouldn’t predict our economy. On the one hand – inflation, on the other – money inflow to the budget. But instability in our southern regions would cost much more. If a pro-American regime comes to power in Tehran and the situation in Central Asia is unstable, Russia would lose so much that high oil prices couldn’t compensate it.

A strike on Iran is not only a way of solving the problem of a disobedient regime for Americans, but also the problem of the region in general: pressure on Beijing and the crash of its economic ties with Tehran; pressure on Turkmenistan, which is turned to the West today. As a result Russia gets an unstable Caspian region and geopolitical competitors in the region.

- In case of a military attack at Iran, Russia would have a speech in the Security Council. But what could be our practical steps?

- Moscow could fulfill the contract and provide Tehran with C-300 air defense complexes. We could also state our position clearly, developing effective and beneficial cooperation with Tehran. It is difficult to talk to Iranians, but today it is obvious that Iran is our partner rather than our rival. The pro-American lobby is strong in Russia, and relations with Iran pale into insignificance.

History shows that the West has to accept the situation, in which we clearly define our position, for example, South Ossetia.

Interview by Viktor Gribachev. Exclusively to VK

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 440 other followers

%d bloggers like this: