An Analysis of Tacit British Involvement in the Bahraini Crackdown

( The BBC reports British troops training Saudi forces to crush the Bahraini uprising) 

As the Middle East goes deeper into the flames of resentment and civil disobedience, it has also witnessed the existing ruling elites of countries from Libya to Bahrain being ever more determined to remain in power. To make things darker, Middle Eastern strongmen have been cooperating with each other to put down domestic uprisings such as Syria flying Libyan jets to bomb protesters or Iran providing assistance to the Syrian regime on crowd control tactics while the West acts like a peacemaker. However the real truth is that the West has been playing a very dangerous double game of supporting uprisings in non friendly states like Libya while covertly assisting the repression of public sentiment in pro western countries. And no country plagued by this wave of revolutionary unrest could prove a better example than Bahrain. As the protest movement in Bahrain slowly withers away reports show that the British military did provide weapons and training to the Saudi National Elite guards that were deployed to crush the Bahraini revolt. Meanwhile Britain did continue its training and advising of top Bahraini military officers as the crackdown intensified.  

(Saudi forces enter Bahrain to quash the insurrection) 

After all, apart from Sunni Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf, the UK and the US stand to lose the most from a successful Bahraini uprising. Firstly a successful Bahraini uprising could seriously threaten the presence of the US Fifth Fleet and British Royal Navy in Bahrain which happens to be the ultimate bulwark against Iranian military superiority in Persian Gulf. The combined US and British presence there also guarantees Saudi energy and airspace security against Iranian missiles and planes thus weakening Iran’s ability to intimidate the Saudis into accepting Iranian designs for the Middle East. Secondly was to prevent a spill over of the Bahraini insurrection into the heavily Shia populated Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia which is the location of much of Saudi energy reserves. This is to prevent the Saudis from being too distracted with domestic unrest that it takes its eye of Al-Qaeda whose presence has been growing in Yemen and blocks it from filling up the emerging geopolitical vacuum in Iraq as the US leaves and competing with Iran for influence throughout the region. Meanwhile growing unrest in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province could also send world oil prices higher, hurting the oil dependent economies of the US and the UK while boosting political and economic instability in highly volatile and anti western countries with Western allied governments like Pakistan and Yemen. Higher oil prices could also mean a financially stronger Russia, Iran and Venezuela thus giving them more room to ease domestic pressure at home while boosting their regional influence to the detriment of the US and the UK. US and British strategists also fear that the overthrow of the Bahraini monarchy could undermine the so called invincibility of Sunni Arab monarchies in the region thus weakening the legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy. The British could have also provided the continued training as part of their long term plan to maintain and expand their influence in the Persian Gulf. For the Saudis getting British military assistance is a vital step towards diversifying their dependence on foreign security thus preserving its sovereignty and freedom of action. 

  

(US naval forces conduct an exercise in the Persian Gulf.)

However like all major covert operations they are accompanied by huge risks that prove to be very damaging if properly manipulated by hostile powers. Among those risks is that it would show that so called Western support for the Arab spring is highly duplicitous in which repressive pro Western regimes are backed while unfriendly regimes in Syria, Libya and Iran are bashed up. This in turn could damage the West’s improved image earned by its handling of the Libya and Egypt crises, while paving the way for greater anti Western sentiment in the region. Anti Americanism could also grow as Britain is one of the strongest US allies and viewed by many Middle Easterners as an accomplice of the US. These sentiments are highly undesirable as Western governments struggle to accommodate with new and existing Middle Eastern regimes that are highly susceptible to domestic public pressures.  

The second risk posed by the British involvement in the Bahraini crackdown is a possible increase of distrust and anger among Bahrainis towards foreign powers. After all the Shia Bahrainis being so angered by the deployment of Saudi and UAE troops to crush their revolt could also become equally angry about the British role in assisting those forces with weapons and training. As a consequence Shia Bahrainis’ distrust of foreigners will grow, intensifying anger against not just the UK but also the US as Britain is viewed as America’s accomplice and that it had approved of the British decision at some point privately as it had a web of interests at stake. Ultimately this could play into Iran’s hands if popular opinion wants the US and British military personnel out of their territory as it would make it the dominant power in the region.

The tacit British support for the Bahraini crackdown could also foment greater distrust and anger towards Britain and possibly America among the Shia populations of Iraq and Lebanon and Iran. The Shias of those countries did in fact come out in the thousands to protest against the Saudi led military intervention in Bahrain and could possibly do the same against Britain and the US. This is especially serious in Iraq where the US is trying to secure an extended time frame for the US troop presence there to counter Iran’s increasing power in Iraq. It could also weaken the ability of British and American companies to obtain valuable Iraqi oil contracts in the future leaving other rivals like China, Russia Iran enjoy the profits. Meanwhile greater anger against the Britain and America could be used by Iran to silence dissent at home. Tehran’s usual tactics of accusing its opponents of cooperating with the UK and the US would become more effective as they capitalize on a stronger anti Western sentiment. Tehran could also use this anger against Britain to consolidate anti British and anti American sentiment to justify its repressive police state while diverting attention away from its growing economic troubles thus enabling Tehran to weather the current political storm in the Middle East. The rulers of Iran could exploit the British aided crackdown in Bahrain to solidify their original response to the Bahraini crackdown in which it blamed the US. Iran could say that the US would have given the green light to Britain to assist in the crackdown as Britain is the strongest of the US allies and shares many interests in Bahrain.  The result could well be greater anti Americanism in the Middle East and a resurrection of Iran’s credentials as the strongest defender of the Muslim world against US and UK aggression, helping it to gain support while deflecting attention away from its repressive domestic actions. 

The British involvement in the Bahraini crackdown could also play into Al Qaeda and other hardline Saudi Islamists especially when Saudi Arabia falls victim to revolutionary unrest as it gives them solid evidence regarding British backed repression in their country. Al Qaeda would also use it to demonstrate Saudi cooperation with infidel Westerners primarily the US and the UK in repressing the will of the Saudis, giving it more room to expand the appeal of its violent ideology. 

However the potential fallout of British involvement in the Bahraini crackdown can largely be contained if the British and the Americans are successful distracting the Arab public and if Iran decides not to respond. And the current situation shows that, that is just happening. The escalating violence in Yemen, reports of torture in Syria, a possible ceasefire in Libya and growing power tussle in Iran have all added to the complex of distractions that have made the official admission of British involvement in the Bahraini crackdown surprisingly quiet. Nevertheless an absolutely silent aftermath cannot be ruled out as Iran mentioned earlier stands to profit the most from its revelation to the Arab public. Among Iran’s options to divert Arab attention to British support for the crackdown would be to issue a severe official condemnation of British involvement. Any official condemnation has to be made either by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran or President Ahamadinejad. Iran could also get highly popular pro Iran politicians in Iraq and Lebanon such as Moqtada al Sadr and Hassan Nasrallah respectively to condemn British actions. Iran could also covertly organize and fund various NGOs and political parties across Iraq, Pakistan and Lebanon into holding demonstrations against Britain and possibly America. These tactics are very useful to divert attention towards a particular issue as it was seen though out the Middle East when Saudi led forces entered Bahrain to quash the revolt. Protests attracting thousands were seen in Iraq Pakistan, Lebanon and even among the Saudi Arabian and Indian Shia communities even though global attention was initially fixed on Libya thus elevating the Bahraini uprising to the centre of attention while seriously damaging Saudi Arabia’s reputation. Iran could also try another tactic which is to send violent thugs or mobs to intimidate workers at the British embassies of Tehran, Baghdad and Beirut which is another successful tried and tested tactic to grab attention. In fact Iran had actually employed that move against Saudi Arabia as a form of retaliation when it sent troops to quash the Bahraini rebellion. 

  

(Iranian students hurl firebombs at the Saudi embassy in Tehran to protest Saudi actions in Bahrain.) 

Nevertheless it is not a losing situation for the UK and to a lesser extent the US as there are some severe obstacles to Iran’s ability to carry out those operations. Among those obstacles are the intensifying power struggle between the Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad. The unsually public spat between the two leaders has engulfed the Iranian national security and intelligence apparatus forcing many Iranian politicians to rethink their alliances and shore up domestic support. This in turn acts as a highly useful political distraction that limits Iran’s ability to influence events outside as its leaders are too preoccupied with domestic power politics. Secondly Iranian leaders are also stuck with other serious economic and financial complications as the EU prepares to impose another round of economic sanctions against Iranian banks. After all growing economic pressure on its banking system would undermine the financial strength of Iranian leaders while sowing greater unrest at home. Iran is also preoccupied with more serious regional geopolitical developments such as the possible relocation of Hamas’ headquarters from Syria to Qatar which could see Iran’s influence over Hamas, the Levant region and the Arab Israeli conflict decline. Iranian leaders are also struggling to cope with the Syrian Uprising whose success must be halted to prevent a greater loss of Iranian influence in the region and to curtail greater unrest in Iran. Besides, Iran might also be choosing not to condemn the UK due to its involvement in Syria, as possible Western and Arab diplomatic retaliation could thrust Iranian covert support to Al Assads back into the spotlight. The stakes are higher for Iran now ever since the reports of the torture and murder of a 13 year Syrian boy at the hands of Syrian security forces. Finally all of those developments have significantly diverted Iranian attention thus blocking it from exploiting British involvement in Bahrain for now at least.

 

  

                                         

Why Iran Wants The Syrian Uprising Crushed

With two Arab dictators toppled and other Arab regimes shaking, the initial analysis of the simmering protests in Syria was that is was not very serious. In fact analysts speculated that the protests would be confined to the agricultural town of Deraa whose residents have been financially hit by a drought. However massive repression by security forces along with the failure of the Baathist regime headed by President Bashar Al-Assad to deliver concessions such as lifting the country’s 48 year emergency law quickly caused the protests to spread. Now with a serious possibility of the Baathist regime’s hold on Syria being severely weakened if not toppled, its closest ally Iran, has taken the decision to shore up the regime. The US government has alleged that Iran has been providing Syrian security forces with anti riot gear, advanced crowd control technology and street control tactics to discourage protests which Iran had developed by itself during the aftermath of the disputed 2009 Iranian Presidential Election. Iran is not helping the Syrian regime out of love but out of necessity. If regime change were to occur, Iran would be in a nightmare scenario as too many of its interests coincide with the Al-Assads. These interests can be divided into economic, political strategic and security interests. 

Among Iran’s economic interests in Syria are billions of dollars in investments in the Syrian economy. Over the years Iran has invested in Syria’s automobile, cement, energy and power generation industries. Those investments represent billions of dollars and more importantly provide vast profits for Iran’s privileged elite. Iran already the third largest foreign investor in Syria plans more investments in a bid to consolidate its economic presence there. It has proposed a joint Iranian-Syrian bank that could be used to ease some of the economic pressure on Iran and expand Iran’s influence over cash flows from and within Syria. Besides that Iran also has growing trade ties with Syria. For example Iran has just signed a free trade agreement with Syria and hopes to boost annual trade to US$ 5 billion. The reason behind this is to allow Iranian products to gain greater access to markets thus easing its domestic economic problems and its international economic isolation. Secondly is to compete with gulf Arab states for economic influence in Syria which it desperately lacks. However Iran’s current trade and economic interests, along with its future economic plans with Syria could be undermined if regime change takes place. This is because not everyone in Syria wants to open their country to more Iranian influence. After all, Syria is overwhelmingly Sunni and a significant portion of the Sunni Syrian community subscribe to the highly conservative Salafist movement which has been growing steadily over the years in Syria. This Salafist Islamist view at its extreme considers the Shias as heretics and is therefore hostile towards Iran which is heavily Shia. This hostility has been compounded by Iran’s meddling in Syrian politics which include backing the repressive Syrian security apparatus and frequent attempts by wealthy Iranians to convert Sunni Syrians to Shia Islam.

 

Iran also has many strategic interests in sustaining the Al-Assad family in power. Among them is Iran’s desire to maintain its influence in the Levant and over the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran has done so in the past by funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine with hundreds of millions of dollars annually and supplying it with military supplies, training and advice. So far, due to the current Israeli, Jordanian and Egyptian policies toward these groups, the only secure and stable supply line from Iran to those groups is through Syria. Therefore if the Al-Assads are replaced by Sunni rulers, there could be a strong possibility of those supply lines being shut down. This is due to hostility to Iran in Syria as well as the possibility of the new rulers of Syria being more aligned to Saudi Arabia than Iran. Saudi Arabia is deeply suspicious and hostile to those groups. For example the new rulers of Syria, in coordination with the Sunni Syrian business elite, could offer to end the supply lines in order to gain financial and economic benefits, a lever that Iran cannot provide Syria due to its own economic problems. Syria’s economy is in a very weak condition and has suffered further blows during this wave of unrest, and this situation has started to hurt even the Sunni business elite in Syria who have traditionally enjoyed good relations with the Al-Assad regime. The issue of supply lines is something that Iran cannot afford because it would weaken its influence over those militant groups especially Hezbollah as Iran’s main leverage with Hezbollah comes from military supplies, and training. As a consequence, Iran’s influence in the Levant and over the Arab-Israeli conflict would be seriously weakened, which also happen to be the pillars of the Iranian strategy to become the dominant power in the region. Iran has consistently manipulated Arab-Israeli relations in order to ratchet up hatred against the West and to undermine the credibility of Arab leaders, while propping up their image as the defender of the Arabs thus giving it more sway in the Arab streets. This in turn strengthens Iran’s bargaining position with not just Western powers but also powerful Sunni Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran has also used groups like Hezbollah as a trump card in times of emergency and tension for either getting concessions from the West or diverting attention. For example Iran has been accused in the past by the US of encouraging the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war in order to divert attention from stalled nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers.

  

            Secondly, Iran could be skilfully using the crisis in Syria to its advantage by expanding its influence in Syria while blocking other Arab states mainly Saudi Arabia from expanding their influence there. The consensus among the Middle East heavyweights such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia is that Bashar Al-Assad should remain in power for their own interests. Iran sees this as a possibility of other regimes especially the Saudis to expand their influence in Syria at the expense of Iran. Iran worries that this new found influence could be used to undermine the Iran Syria alliance, weakening Iran’s position further in the Middle East. The Iranians also want to end the crisis in Syria as soon as possible to prevent Syria’s weak economy from hurting further. Iran fears that a prolonged crisis in Syria could hurt the Sunni business elite very badly, making the Al-Assads more vulnerable to pressure to accept large capital flows from Saudi Arabia to ease the pain. Saudi Arabia in turn could make Syria more independent from Iran and could amass enough leverage to force the Al-Assads to choke off weapons supplies to Hezbollah and other militant groups. However by aiding Syria this problem could be contained and Iran could ultimately end up having more influence over Syria as the Al-Assads become more dependent on Iranian regime survival. For example Iran could use its training of Syrian security forces to expand its contacts and penetration inside Syria’s security and intelligence apparatus. Meanwhile with Syria in need of Iranian help and being busy in ensuring regime survival, Iran could also expand its influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah and other groups.

            Another vital reason for Iran’s active backing of the Syrian regime is to safeguard its own appeal in the Arab world, its interests in Iraq and above all its own domestic situation which happens to be tied to the situation in Syria. Iran is nervous about the possible Sunni takeover of Syria because it could boost the Salafist movement in Syria. Although it enjoys widespread influence in Syrian society it is does not have institutions and a strong organizational structure due to official repression. However this could all change if the Sunnis come to power as many of them subscribe to its beliefs. Iran believes this could result in an explosion of anti Iran sentiment in Syria at a time of the great upheaval in the Middle East. These sentiments are due to Iranian interference in Syria, and the actions of wealthy Iranians who pay Sunni Syrians to convert to Shia Islam. The Salafist interpretation of Islam at its extreme considers Shias as apostates. On an overall basis, this situation could amplify distrust and suspicion towards Iran in the Middle East ultimately weakening its position further. Iran is also worried that a Sunni takeover of Syria could unleash a wave of sectarian bloodshed, as the Sunnis (the traditional power in Syria) exact revenge from the Baathist regime which had brutally repressed Sunni Muslim uprisings in Syria on many occasions, most notably the 1982 Hama massacre which killed 10000-40000 people and which had also subjected the Sunnis to massive repression. The majority of the regime’s leaders including the Al-Assads and security personnel are Allawis, an offshoot of Shia Islam. Iran wants to avoid this because this sectarianism could spread to Iraq both have sizable Sunni and Shia communities. This could happen because a Sunni takeover of Syria could inspire the Sunni Iraqis who have frequently complained about Shia based discrimination that it is still possible to challenge Baghdad. Besides that, the Syrian border with Iraq which has been sealed off to Sunni militants crossing the border to Iraq risks being reopened as a destabilized Syria sees its security forces diverted to quell uprisings in urban areas and not to police activities along the border areas. Regime change in Syria may even worsen this situation as cross border militant activity take place at greater ease due to either a security vacuum in Syria and/or a Sunni takeover of Syria which could see direct support for the insurgency from Syria. This fears Iran because it could weaken the already fragile Iraqi government reigniting greater Sunni Shia tensions. Iran does not want to see massive Sunni versus Shia bloodletting because it could create so much hostility and distrust between the groups to an extent in which their Shia dominated country suffers greater credibility blows and finds its ability to expand its influence being weakened. Iran also worries that the sectarian spill over from Syria to Iraq could mean a longer US presence in Iraq which is something that Iran resents. Iran has been waiting for those troops to leave because it believes that the main bulwark towards Iran’s expansion of its influence in Iraq would be removed.  Not only would the balance of power in Iraq tilt towards pro Iran militias and segments of the Iraqi armed forces, but also increase the government of Iraq’s dependence on security guarantees from Iran. Iran will also be in a better position to intimidate Iraq’s weak military thus holding a better negotiating position with Iraq in the future. Besides that Iran would be able to deter the US from harming its nuclear facilities from Iraq and finally strengthen its ability to build a buffer zone in Iraq to protect its western flank. Iran would also face fewer constraints when it conducts cross border crackdowns on Iranian dissident groups as Iraq neither has the intelligence or military capability to prevent such a possibility. Now with the crisis unfolding in Syria, the ability to execute those plans is under attack.

            A successful ouster of the Al-Assads from power in Syria could also have direct consequences on Iran’s own domestic security and stability. If the Sunnis were to take power in Syria from the Allawis, Iran’s own Sunni community who suffer from great poverty and massive repression could be inspired to challenge the Iranian regime at home. This means potentially greater unrest in the Iranian provinces of Baluchistan and Khuzestan. In Khuzestan greater unrest among the Sunni Ahwazi Arabs could lead to greater insecurity for Iran’s energy resources as most of Iran’s oil and gas is located in the province. What’s more disturbing for Iran is that these provinces are already experiencing low intensity conflicts and militant groups in both Khuzestan and Baluchistan, including al Qaeda affiliated Jundallah which receives funding from Saudi Arabia. An escalation of those conflicts would exacerbate Iran’s centrifugal forces, strengthen the Saudis bargaining position with Iran and divert Iranian attention towards quelling domestic uprisings thus giving it less room to expand its influence in the Middle East. Finally it could also focus global attention to the plight of Sunnis in Iran and thus undermine its reputation in the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab world.  

            Iran also knows that chaos spilling over from Syria into Iraq in an event of regime change could complicate the efforts of Iraqi leaders to crackdown on Iranian dissident groups operating in northern Iraq such as Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK)  and Party For A Free Life In Kurdistan (PEJAK) that want to overthrow the mullahs from power. The MEK organization has long been involved in a complex of bombings and assassinations in Iran and has also been involved in supplying valuable intelligence to the US regarding Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities. PEJAK too was responsible for a lot of damage, including inciting Iranian Kurds to rise up against the mullahs resulting in hundreds of Iranian military fatalities. Therefore Iran has pressured the Iraqi government for years to crackdown on those groups with little success until now due to US military protection. However if Iraq goes back into chaos, the US military could stay on and could allow Washington enough leverage to pressure the Iraqi government not to do so. For example Iraqi forces recently raided Camp Ashraf in Diyala province, the bastion of the MEK killing 34 people, but have refrained from destroying the camp as Iran’s leaders have demanded due to US pressure. Iran therefore wants the US out so that it can ensure swift action on both the MEK and PEJAK. Another reason is that with chaos spilling in from Syria, Iraqi forces’ resources could be diverted to tackling Sunni militants and would leave Iraq’s leaders with too many distractions to start cracking down on Iranian dissident groups thus giving them more breathing space in its existing safe haven, ultimately giving them a better chance to take advantage of a more unstable Iran.

            Chaos and regime change in Syria has the potential to create more instability in Iran’s Kurdistan province. This is due to the possibility of surging Kurdish nationalism in Syria along with their desire to use the instability there to assert their calls for a Kurdish state. These ideas could soon get attention in Turkey and Kurdish dominated areas in Syria might become a safe haven for Kurdish resistance in Turkey led by the Kurdistan Workers Party, the sister organization of PEJAK. This could ultimately boost Kurdish unrest in Turkey and in Iraq. Meanwhile greater Sunni-Shia tensions spilling over from Syria into Iraq could allow Kurdish leaders in Iraq to skilfully assert themselves, while Baghdad remains distracted. All these factors along with anti Iran groups being able to manoeuvre easily could inspire and embolden Kurdish resistance in Iran, while making it more complicated for Tehran to quash the unrest as Kurdish rebels have a breathing space in northern Iraq, ultimately making Iran’s leaders more vulnerable. 

             While all these factors above might be short term concerns, Iran also has some long term interests in helping to preserve the current political order in Syria. Many of these interests coincide with Iran’s long term security. Currently one of the prime long term concerns of Iran and coincidentally Syria is the possibility of a resurgent Iraq. As Iran has learnt bitterly in the past, a highly aggressive and assertive Iraq will limit it’s ability to expand its influence in the Middle East, prevent it from dominating the Persian Gulf militarily, and more importantly undermine stability in the highly strategic and resource rich province of Khuzestan where Arab nationalism can be a fiery card for Iraq. Worse still, a strong Iraq could also force Iran to adopt a defensive stance in its foreign policy thus making it vulnerable to foreign pressure, and outright invasion. After all Iraq has the world’s third largest oil reserves which means it still can propel itself back to power. Nevertheless, Iran has a lot of room to contain this possibility and a pro Iran regime in Syria is essential. Iran needs access to the Syrian airfields so that it can launch reconnaissance and offensive strike operations deep inside Iraq from its western flank. Furthermore, Iran will need a stable and militarily powerful Syria that is tilted to its interests to act as a counterweight to Iraq in the future, and which is willing to deploy a huge military presence to the Iraqi border to prevent Iraq from deploying the full force of its military might to the Iranian border. Finally it could also allow the destabilization campaigns to be launched from the west of Iraq at ease. After all, if not for those tactics being implemented during the Iran Iraq war, Tehran would have fallen to Saddam.

            Iran also has a deep desire to maintain its naval presence in Syria which it may not be able to do so if the Al-Assads are toppled and especially if Syria falls into the hands of the Sunnis who are hostile to Iran. The naval presence allows Iran to get a foothold in the Mediterranean and obtain sensitive intelligence on other countries in the region such as Israel. This naval base also facilitates greater naval cooperation between Syria and Iran thus allowing it to secure its position in Syria.

            Finally, since 2007 it has been acknowledged that Syria has been at the forefront of Iran’s strategy to acquire and preserve a nuclear weapons arsenal. Iran had actually encouraged Syria to acquire nuclear weapons and had reportedly paid US$2 billion to North Korea for a nuclear reactor for weapons in Syria. The reactor was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in 2007. This is all part of Iran’s desire to have a fall back option in case its nuclear assets in Iran come under attack and to consolidate its position in Syria. However Iran has not been willing to engage in such sophisticated cooperation with any other state so far and it would certainly not do so if the Al-Assads are thrown out as Syria would certainly become very unstable for a while with the strong possibility of a Sunni takeover that is suspicious and hostile to Iran. Therefore Iran’s nuclear weapons strategy could be dealt a big blow if regime change happens in Syria.

Consequences of a US-led War on Iran

Iran has always been an essential chess piece for expanding US influence in the Middle East and the world due to its extremely strategic location and its huge oil reserves which can be used to amass tremendous leverage against rising powers as well as maintaining the status of the dollar as the world’s preeminent currency. But since the backfiring of the US plan to support the Ayatollah, the prospect of invasion goes back to 1979. Under the Bush Administration tensions with Iran have been heightened greatly. Ever since 2003, the Bush Administration has been working hard on these war plans against Iran. These include the drawing of plans for a massive aerial assault against Iran and a massive invasion led by the US marines and the Army staged from the Persian Gulf and Azerbaijan and possibly Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason: Iran is a ‘rogue nation’ that is pursuing nuclear weapons, its President threatening Israel with its destruction and supporting terrorism ‘from Iraq to Chechnya’. Nevertheless the idea of war against Iran is now extremely foolish and will produce disastrous consequences for US soft and hard power projection in the world.

A US led war against Iran would produce unprecedented consequences for the global economy. Just recently President Ahmedinejad warned that Iran will launch a naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz if the US or Israel were to take any form of military action against the Islamic republic. Such a provoked move by Iran could result in the blocking of some 40% of the world’s oil supply from reaching markets. The result would be a huge shock for the entire commodities market and would have a significant impact on the US dollar’s strength. Oil prices might even pass the US$250 per barrel mark and the US dollar will also fall against most currencies driving up the price of oil and other commodities even further. This could possibly send the battered global economy into a long and severe recession marked by high inflation and low growth.

With oil above US$250 per barrel, due to Iranian retaliation to US strikes, oil exporters will become massive exporters of inflation. Food prices, especially rice, wheat, and corn, will also soar driving more and more people in poor countries into poverty. Meanwhile a falling dollar would mean that inflation in America would be higher. This is due to a falling dollar resulting in foreign goods being more expensive. Japan and China too will become the biggest exporters of inflation, apart from oil exporters, due to the rise of their exchange rates. Because the US is heavily dependent on both Asian imports and oil (60% of its oil is imported), the threat of stagflation might reemerge. Many countries facing the same problems as America, which are huge current account deficits and being a net importer of commodities could also face stagflation.

Trade surplus nations too will also be affected badly. As these nations, mainly China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cambodia and in some cases Malaysia, depend on world trade to keep their economies growing fast, they will also be affected when world demand slows significantly. So if the US strikes Iran militarily resulting in massive oil hikes and the appreciating value of the exchange rates of China, Vietnam and other major trade surplus countries, these nations will find that their goods will be less competitive. Not only that, but falling global demand for their goods due to massive rises in inflation will also hamper these economies from maintaining their usual growth rates. This will inevitably lead to a slow down of these economies and will also result in major hikes of unemployment rates of those economies too.

Strikes against Iran by the US, would also lead to a global food crisis. As oil prices and other commodities soar, so will food prices. War torn, war scarred nations, overpopulated nations and nations with existing food deficits will be the most badly affected. Countries like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Congo might experience the possibility of a major famine due to their over dependence on foreign food and rampant government corruption. Meanwhile the poor in fast developing but low income economies like India, China, Vietnam and elsewhere would see themselves in the tens of millions fall into poverty. This would produce major obstacles for these countries to perform in the global economy as well as before. Due to much higher poverty and unemployment levels in those nations, a new wave of social crises could emerge including food riots, protests and etc.

Besides that, a global energy crisis will take place if the US decides to attack Iran militarily. This is because Iran will block the flow of oil from the straits of Hormuz and will attack Saudi oil installations in retaliation to maximize damage inflicted on the world economy. The consequences of it will be massive inflationary pressures which have been mentioned above. The other would be crippling of economies that rely too much on oil based power plants. As countries like Pakistan rely too much on oil for electricity generation, an oil shock like the one mentioned above could cause Pakistan’s government (an important ally in the war in Afghanistan) to go bankrupt. Pakistan nearly went bankrupt in 2008 due to massive oil price hikes which approached US$150 but survived with IMF aid, but with oil at US$250 per barrel, Pakistan won’t survive. As a consequence many of these nations which are too dependent on oil will face punishing power cuts that may devastate their economies and cause a rise in capital flight from those nations. Other than that an energy crisis will also cause massive unemployment surges in the Middle East, China, and in many of the impoverished nations as factories and businesses go bankrupt on an enormous scale due to surging manufacturing costs. As consequence a shortage of goods could take place in developing nations and if it gets out of hand it could also affect Western consumers and this would also devastate the world economy . And rising unemployment could lead to more social unrest in Asian countries while severe shortages of supplies in African countries could also lead to more violence.

Now to an entirely different area, US military warfare against Iran will directly prop up the hawks and mullahs of Iran. Despite the horrendous human rights record of the Islamic regime in Iran, the Iranian people are still relatively loyal to the Islamic system that governs them. As a consequence any attack on Iran will be seen as an attack on Islam and the Iranian people will unite under one banner and put aside their ethnic and political differences. This will directly embolden the Iranian regime in Iran and in the Middle East making it more difficult for the West to defeat Iran. Besides that, US strikes against Iran would (as many experts believe) make an overt case for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran seeing airstrikes on its nuclear facilities might be compelled to build its first batch of nukes by working on a crash nuclear program that would produce a bomb in a period of 3-5 years. Such a fast acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran could probably trigger a nuclear war between Iran and Israel that could result in the destruction of much of the Middle East. It could also trigger a major conventional and nuclear arms race between Iran and Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia Egypt and Turkey. But an arms race with Saudi Arabia could only be possible if the Saudi regime survives Iran‘s massive retaliation due to a US led war on Iran.

Now on to the geopolitical consequences of a US led war with Iran will also be devastating. Any form of US military action against Iran triggering massive Iranian retaliation would embroil the entire Middle East and certain parts of Central Asia into a state of war and sectarian strife. This is because of the recent violent Sunni Shiite relations in many parts of the Middle East and Iran’s massive retaliation would target Sunni Arab states that support America’s hard-line approach to Iran currently. The Sunni Shiite civil war could break out from the Persian Gulf right up to Pakistan and beyond. Retaliation by Iran could well involve an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan with over 1 million Basij fighters each where US troops are conducting military operations to defend the weak and dysfunctional governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. The results could be a government collapse in both Afghanistan and Iraq where both US and Government forces are overwhelmed by the unprecedented waves of Iranian suicide attacks. In Iraq where Bush’s The New Way Forward project has brought significant change, things could take a U-turn. With an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Iran, the situation in both of those countries would disintegrate into brutal civil wars involving tribes, ethnic groups and religious sects as the Sunni populations of Iraq and Afghanistan would vow for revenge.

A wholly united Shiite population under the Supreme Leader of Iran would not stop in Iraq or Afghanistan but would try march into the Sunni Arab states of the Persian Gulf unless Iran is met with extreme military opposition from the US and the world. The results would be a protracted civil war in the Middle East of unprecedented proportions involving the different factions of Islam. The US could also loose its important ally which is Saudi Arabia in the process. And if the US loses the Saudi monarchy, America’s dollar status as the world’s reserve currency could also fade away as Arabia in a state of anarchy or under Iran would probably result in the pullout of more than 2 trillion dollars worth of US based assets and the halting oil of trade in US dollars. This will cause the entire dollar system to implode because the 2 trillion dollars worth of assets parked in the US that are owned by the Saudi government are equivalent to 7- 10% of the US economy and the US could fall into a violent depression if these assets are taken out of the US economy in a very short period of time . Anti Americanism would rise all over the world especially in the Middle East making it more difficult for the US and its allies to win the “war on terror”. In Afghanistan where US efforts to stabilize the country and strengthen its government could also fade away as civil war breaks out across Afghanistan due to a major Iranian incursion and increased anti Americanism. As a consequence military operations in Afghanistan could become unfeasible due to Iranian retaliation. Besides that a period of total anarchy in Afghanistan could also allow Al-Qaeda to regroup and increase its influence as well as resurrecting the Taliban into a powerful force that is stridently anti Shiite.

The situation in Pakistan which is the central front of the War on Terror will also be catastrophic in an event of a US led war on Iran. This is because a war with Iran would cause a Sunni Shiite conflict inside Pakistan. With Sunni Shiite strife spreading across the country, Pakistan’s civilian government would be under threat and the possibility of anarchy in Pakistan could become a reality. The Taliban in Pakistan which is fiercely anti Shiite and opposed to the US backed civilian government in Pakistan would be strengthened adding up to the turmoil. Besides that, Iran funded Shiite interests in Pakistan would also rise going mostly to the Shiites of Pakistan. With a huge increase of sectarian strife in Pakistan between Sunnis and Shiites, government power will wane and instead more power will be concentrated in the hands of tribal leaders, militant organizations, and religious leaders. Tribal and Sunni Shiite conflicts could break out in Baluchistan, and North West Pakistan and other parts of the country, pushing Pakistan further towards a civil war. As a consequence the number of terror pockets in Pakistan would soar and Al Qaeda will gain additional strength making it more difficult for the US to defeat terror and will worsen the situation in Afghanistan. Besides that, the threat of an Islamist takeover could also rise. Such a thing could result in Pakistan’s 40-50 nukes and launch systems to be in the hands of Islamic radicals, increasing the prospect of a nuclear war in South Asia to break out involving India and Pakistan and of the use of nuclear weapons against US troops and its allies. Both of which would require US intervention into Pakistan. And as Dr Brzezinski said the ‘US will be stuck in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan for 20 years’ and would produce tremendous losses for the US in both blood and treasure. Any planned withdrawal of US troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan will be very costly if Iran sends its fighters into these respective countries because tens of thousands of fighters will target US troops and military checkpoints. The only possible means of redeploying US troops from Iraq or Afghanistan would be by air. But even that would be costly and very risky as Iranian fighters are armed with very sophisticated anti aircraft missile technology.

On the other hand, a US led war on Iran will inflame tensions and the prospects of war in the Levant region. The possible peace talks, and plans for peace between Israel and the Arabs will disintegrate in an event of a US air campaign or war against Iran. This is because pro Iranian and Iranian financed Hezbollah will retaliate in the most devastating manner against Israel. Hamas leaders seeking to increase their standing in Palestine might decide to launch rocket attacks into southern Israel. And most of all Iran would also use its sophisticated ballistic missile technology to attack Israel. Israel in return will quickly launch a series of airstrikes and incursions into Gaza and possibly invade Lebanon. And if things get out of hand due to possible intervention of Iran’s stalwart ally which is Syria in the defense of Hezbollah the war could spill over into Syria creating another major Arab Israeli war that could cost thousands of lives, destabilize and weaken Israel, embolden Iran further and therefore weakening US influence in the Middle East.

The consequences of war with Iran stretches beyond the borders of Middle East as a war on Iran would increase anti American anger all over the world. As the entire Middle East and certain parts of South Asia explode into a state of anarchy, hundreds if not thousands of new terror pockets would emerge all around the Middle East with proper financial backing as Iran and Sunni Arab governments sponsor terrorist organizations to tear each other down. Terrorism would expand aggressively in this period of anarchy making it a more potent threat than ever which is tougher to defeat. As the economic effects of a war with Iran produce massive inflation, food crises, and social unrest, food riots will occur in poorer nations especially in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Political instability in countries around the world along with anarchy in the Middle East will produce dictators with hateful ideologies. The result will be more wars around the world, greater diplomatic tensions around the world and a worldwide economic slowdown.

However, out of the ashes of the war shall emerge its biggest winner and that is Russia. When oil prices soar to levels that have not come to pass, the Kremlin will have more money than ever to spend on its military. Besides that, with civil war going on in the Middle East and the devastation of Middle East oil infrastructure due to Iranian missile attacks on Arab oil fields, the world will be ever more dependant on Russia for oil and gas supplies. This will allow the Kremlin to attain a lot more leverage and control over weaker nations. The corrupt KGB apparatchik regime will also be further entrenched thus creating a more aggressive Russia that is tougher to contain and that will continue to bully its neighbors and use its oil and gas reserves to threaten Europe and manipulate world oil and gas prices.

A war with Iran will also be an environmental disaster. First of all any war with Iran will involve a massive aerial assault on Iran’s 12- 24 nuclear facilities that are either fully operational or in development process. As a consequence large amounts of radioactive dust from the bombed nuclear sites will spread to highly populated areas of the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. The intensity of the nuclear fallout due to airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce the worst nuclear disaster in history. According to an estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists any air campaign on Iran’s nuclear facilities for 3 weeks would result in an estimated 3 million deaths. Meanwhile the radioactive fallout from the bombing campaign will also last for 700 million years. Besides that, oil spills in the Persian Gulf could also take place if Iran decides to launch a naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz and lob missiles at oil tankers. As a consequence the water supplies of Arab states could be severely threatened as Sunni Arab states depend on the desalination of sea water to provide them with their water requirements. In an event of war with Iran, massive oil fires will take place which would result in a horrible haze in the Middle East if Iran decides to attack the oil fields of Iraq and Arabia. This is because the Iranians might want to inflict maximum damage on the US economy and Sunni Arab states. As a consequence the air quality of the Middle East will deteriorate and acid rains will pour over the Middle East and certain parts of South Asia damaging buildings and cars in the process.

So with the potential of such a devastating loss of human life, adverse effects for the global economy and the global geopolitical order, the US, Britain and especially Israel must avoid starting a war with Iran and continue to pursue tough diplomacy with Iran. This could be done by tightening sanctions on Iranian banks, freezing Iran’s overseas assets along with the assets of top members of Iran’s nuclear program, top government officials, and politicians. But the US and the international community should also directly negotiate with Iran and provide it with the opportunity to do business with the West as usual if it gives up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

( Though the threat of a US initiated war with Iran has been significantly downplayed, the threat still exists and will persist as Israel is now run by neo-fascists. And they would do anything to to get the US to fight Iran militarily.)

The Richest Man In Zimbabwe

       As Zimbabwe faces it's worst economic disaster in it's history due to decades of misrule by the country's only leader President Robert Mugabe, an elite group of businessmen are consolidating their power in the ruling Zanu PF. One of them is John Arnold Bredenkamp. He is the richest man in Zimbabwe and also the most powerful among the Zimbabwean business elite.

           Bredenkamp now aged 68 is a South African born white of Dutch ancestry. It has been reported that Bredenkamp holds South African, Zimbabwean and Dutch passports. His story goes back to the 1970s when he made his first big fortune. In 1976 he founded Casalee group which became the world's biggest tobacco firm outside the US. The company made huge profits selling Rhodesian tobacco abroad through the evasion of sanctions. Rhodesia at that time had been place under UN sanctions due to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) grip on power due to white minority rule. Despite the odds of international sanctions targeting the UDI regime in Rhodesia, Bredenkamp befriended Ian Smith, who was the Rhodesian PM at that time, to provide weapons and military supplies to the UDI regime which had been fighting the Rhodesian Bush war through a series of sanction busting schemes. However these actions by Bredenkamp which gained notoriety internationally was legal under the Rhodesian law. Bredenkamp brokered the export sales of Rhodesia, mostly tobacco, and used the proceeds to purchase weapons for the UDI regime. His sanction busting schemes often involved complex barter trades that helped the UDI regime to sustain itself for a longer period of time. 

               After Rhodesia's independence in 1980 which led to the birth of Zimbabwe and the rise of Robert Mugabe as it's president, Bredenkamp fled the country and moved his base of operations to Belgium. But in 1984 he made peace with the leaders of Zimbabwe and was allowed to return to Zimbabwe. Though President Robert Mugabe is claimed to be an anti white racist, Bredenkamp, of white descent, became Mugabe's biggest crony.

       In 1993, Casalee group of companies which had been involved in arms deals was sold by Bredenkamp to Universal Leaf Tobacco earning him over 70 million pounds. He then constructed a new group of companies called Breco. In 1998 he was involved in President Robert Mugabe's decision to send Zimbabwe's armed forces into neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo in the defence of Laurent Kabila's regime. At that time, Kabila, who successfully overthrew Mobutu Sese Seko from power in 1997, was at war with his former backers Rwanda and Uganda. That war which came to be known as Africa's deadliest left 7 million dead. However Zimbabwe's intervention was deeply rooted in the desire of the political and business elites of Zimbabwe to exploit Congo's natural resources, most notably diamonds. In return, the Kabila regime rewarded more than US$5 billion in mining concessions to businesses belonging to the closest advisers and family members of President Mugabe including Bredenkamp, according to a UN report on the looting of Congo's resources. Though he strongly denies war profiteering during the war, a lot of evidence shows that he is guilty. It has also been alleged that Bredenkamp purchased arms and supplies from Bulgaria for the Zimbabwean military during the height of the Second Congo war.

              

                  While he and the other members of Mugabe's inner circle lined their pockets from the war, huge financial burdens were created to fund the war. To pay for the war, Zimbabwe's central bank printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of Zimbabwe's currency and the hyperinflationary problems facing Zimbabwe today. To avoid prosecution, as many of his business dealings have been considered shady, he used Zimbabwe as his base of operations to do business with other countries in Africa and the Middle East. It has been revealed that Bredenkamp is now a force behind the scenes in the ruling Zanu PF belonging to Robert Mugabe. According to the latest revelations, John Bredenkamp was involved in plot to overthrow Mugabe and replace him with former security minister and Speaker of the Parliament Emmerson Mnangagwa. It has also been alleged that Bredenkamp paid out $7 billion to the Mnangagwa campaign to help Emmerson Mnangagwa to become the deputy of the ruling Zanu PF. 

                   Despite John Bredenkamp's rise as one of the most powerful  in Zimbabwe, he has not got everything he wanted. As Zimbabwe's economic situation draws coverage from around the world so does the exposure of his corrupt business dealings. Just recently the US Treasury, accused John Bredenkamp of being a "regime crony". The US Treasury also accused John Bredenkamp of being a "well-known Mugabe insider whose group of companies has financially propped up the Mugabe regime" and froze his US based assets as well as banned him and three other cronies of Mugabe from doing business with the US. The British Foreign Office has also been working with the EU to consider several options against Mugabe's cronies including Bredenkamp.  

Finally in late 2008 Mr Bredenkamp's South African properties had been raided due to allegations that British arms giant BAE Systems paid out more than 40 million pounds to companies linked to John Bredenkamp between 2003 and 2005 in exchange for help to promote a 1.6 billion pound warplane contract for South Africa when Jacob Zuma's ANC party comes to power. So with the world's eyes focused on Zimbabwe due to it's economic and humanitarian collapse and the impending investigations of John Bredenkamp's dealings, what will be his next series of moves?