|
from
Journal-NEO Website
Strategic geopolitical policies of the Trump Administration are a response, not of the President himself, but rather of the powers that be, the permanent establishment who actually control what is sometimes called the Deep State.
The geopolitics of that
policy determines to a large degree who they allow to be President.
The Soviet Union had collapsed and Bush triumphantly declared America as Sole Superpower. Cheney's deputy secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was responsible for developing a Defense Planning Guidance, 1994-1999.
It was blunt, and later described by Senator Ted Kennedy as imperialist.
In part the unedited Wolfowitz Doctrine declared:
Under
George W. Bush the Wolfowitz
Doctrine re-emerged as the Bush Doctrine after 2002 in
the run-up to the Iraq war, declaring unilateralism and use of
preventative war as central to U.S. policy.
It is nothing less than
application of the Brzezinski geopolitical challenge and the
preventive war notion of the Bush-Wolfowitz doctrine in context of
today's emerging resistance to an American sole superpower
domination.
He further declared,
When we add to this the recent Pentagon National Defense Strategy document that defines Russia and China as the greatest potential threat to American hegemony, then combine this with the growing ties between Russia, China and Iran since lifting of sanctions in 2015, especially in Syria, it becomes clear what Washington is doing.
They are in an all-out effort to break what I call the Eurasian Challenge to the sole hegemon:
As Brzezinski pointed out, for American purposes of continued domination, it matters not that there are ethnic, religious and other differences between Russia, China and Iran.
U.S. foreign policy
since September
2001 has increasingly forced those three to cooperate, despite
those differences, for what they see as defense of their national
sovereignty.
Washington stood behind the UK in the bogus Skripal poisoning affair that was blamed, with no proof, on Russia.
A fake chemical attack outside Damascus then was used as pretext for the illegal U.S. bombing raid, ignoring all precepts of the United Nations Charter and international law.
That, in retrospect, was
more of a test of possible Russian reaction. Whether or not U.S.
Tomahawk and other missiles hit or not, the precedent was set for
Israel and other U.S. allies to escalate attacks on Iran in Syria.
They state as reason that the Russian government is involved in,
The new sanctions punish any Western banks or investors holding shares in sanctioned Russian companies even if they were bought before the new sanctions.
It is the U.S. Treasury's new form of financial war, every bit as deadly as shooting wars, if not more so.
It developed in the wake
of 911 and has since been refined to a devastating weapon of warfare
using the fact that under economic globalization, the world is still
dependent on the U.S. dollar for trade and for central bank currency
reserves to an overwhelming degree.
Non-Russian investors who invested billions in select Russian companies in recent years have been forced to panic liquidate or face secondary sanctions for holding Russian assets.
But who will buy?
Already the two major EU securities clearing companies, Clearstream and Euroclear have been forced to refuse clearing sanctioned Russian securities.
They also face sanctions to hold the Russian shares.
If, say, a Chinese state bank is borrowing from dollar markets, they are now de facto prohibited from doing business with sanctioned Russian companies.
Washington, as I pointed out in a previous article, is aiming to force China to dismantle its strategy to bring China's economy over the next decade into leading status of hi tech producer.
The strategy is called
China 2025 and is the heart of the Xi Jinping strategic
agenda and of his
Belt Road Initiative or economic
Silk Road project.
ZTE was sanctioned in April by Washington for allegedly selling telecommunications equipment to Iran. U.S. suppliers have been banned from supplying essential components to the China tech group.
The company has
temporarily shut operations as it tries to win a reprieve from the
U.S..
The aim is clearly to
re-impose crippling sanctions again
on Iran, disrupt the feeble
progress that was begun since 2015. The fact that the EU refuses to
break its treaty agreement with Iran will be ultimately of little
consequence as U.S. sanctions on Iran also threaten with sanctions
EU companies doing business in Iran.
European companies like Airbus that have multi-billion aircraft purchase orders from Iran will be forced to cancel.
On 6 August, the purchase of U.S. dollars, trade in gold and certain other metals, as well as aviation and the car industry will be sanctioned.
After 4 November U.S.
sanctions will target Iran's financial and oil institutions and
sanctions reinstated against individuals previously on the U.S.
Treasury sanctions list.
At the same time reports are that NSC Adviser John Bolton is advocating reinvigorating the Iranian Mujahedeen Khalq, or MEK terrorist organization to launch a new try at a Color Revolution.
MEK was removed from the
U.S. State Department terror list by Secretary of State
Clinton in 2012.
There, in addition to listing Russia and especially her involvement in Syria and China and both its new Belt Road Initiative and its military bases in Djibouti and elsewhere, Votel cites the ties of both to Iran.
Votel states that,
Ironically, the simultaneous opening of a de facto three-front war, even if on the level of economic warfare at present, creates a strategic imperative for the three powers to work even more closely.
China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil. Russia provides military equipment and is negotiating far more.
Each of the triad -
China, Iran, Russia - for reasons of self-survival - have no better
option than to collaborate as never before, whatever mistrust or
differences, in face of Washington's geopolitical three-front war...
|
