[Peace-discuss] Why does the Obama administration continue to afflict the Iranians? It's not about nukes

[C. G. Estabrook]

Principally because the Iranians foolishly failed to follow orders in 1979 and accept the government we'd picked out for them a generation earlier. That's an affront the US can't forgive: it sets a bad example.

Secondly, there's always energy politics. The cornerstone of US foreign policy for more than two generations has been control of Mideast energy resources. Over 60 years ago, the State Department described the oil reserves of the Gulf as "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." 

Control, not just access, is what the US demands. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading US planner, pointed out that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region."

'...the Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline may well end up as IPC, "C" being an extension to Xinjiang in western China. Beijing also knows very well how the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline has been a key reason for the emphatic attack on Syria orchestrated by actors such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Beijing calculates that if Bashar al-Assad stays and the US$10 billion pipeline ever gets completed (certainly with Chinese and Russian financial help) the top client may end up being Beijing itself, and not Western Europe. 

'Considering its strategic relationship with Islamabad, Beijing is also very much aware of any US moves to stir up trouble in geo-strategically crucial Balochistan in Pakistan - with a possible overspill to neighboring Sistan-Balochistan province in Iran. In parallel, Beijing interprets US bluster and intransigence about Iran's nuclear program as a cover story to upset its solid energy security partnership with Tehran. 

'Regarding Afghanistan, the corridors at the Zhongnanhai in Beijing must be echoing with laughter as Washington backtracks no less than 16 years, to the second Bill Clinton administration - an eternity in politics - to talk to the Taliban in Doha essentially about one of the oldest Pipelinestan gambits. "We want a pipeline" (the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, TAPI), says Washington. "We want our cut", the Taliban reply. This is politics as Groundhog Day. 

'The problem is Washington has absolutely nothing to offer the Taliban. The Taliban, on the other hand, will keep their summer offensive schedule, knowing full well they will be free to do whatever they please after President Hamid Karzai slides into oblivion. As for the Washington notion that Islamabad will be able to keep the Afghan Taliban in check, even the goats in the Hindu Kush are laughing about it... 

'...Beijing is betting it will win in Pakistan, in Iran, in Syria (it's already winning in Iraq), in Pipelineistan [i.e. Afghanistan], not to mention in the South China Sea...' 

[Pepe Escobar; full article at <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-01-110713.html>.]