Part 3 opened with the Greater Israel aims of men like Itamar Ben-Gvr and Bezalel Smotrich. While their messianic vision does not directly encroach on Iran’s territorial integrity …
… its eastern borders would push it towards the Islamic Republic and place it on the Persian Gulf to pose a mortal threat over and above Tehran’s loss of allies in Lebanon and Syria, and their weakening in Iraq.
Israeli leaders, given to serpent metaphors, routinely refer to Iran as “the head of the snake” whose decapitation would leave the region sullen but impotent, to the settler state’s enduring gain. But, as also noted in part 3:
when it comes to taming Iran the bible-ordained expansionism of Itamar Ben-Gvr, Bezalel Smotrich and Benjamin Netanyahu dovetails perfectly with the geostrategic aims of an empire looking to set the Middle East ablaze in the name of ‘bringing democracy’, and in the ashes build a regional order answerable to Washington.
And more specifically:
… the stakes for the US ruling class, in dealing once and for all with an Iran it lost in 1979 with the fall of the Shah, could not be higher. While liberals are yet again co-opted as useful idiots for Uncle Sam over human rights in a country they know nothing about, Iran stays pivotal to Washington regaining the initiative in Central Asia following its ignominious defeat in Afghanistan and the failed Kazakhstan coup. The better to threaten Russia, disrupt Belt and Road and, most ominous of all for Beijing, put a choke on China’s oil supply via the Hormuz Strait.
Having established the synergy of interests between the religious fanatics at the helm in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and the “indispensable nation” zealots only slightly less dominant in Washington, Part 3 closed with these words:
For [the US and Israel both] war on Iran holds the bold promise of a route out of [their] considerable difficulties, the perils attendant on such a war notwithstanding. But in gauging more precisely the nature and extent of those perils, we must consider the last factor of the equation I began with. How high are the stakes for an Axis of Resistance comprising not just Iran but, united precisely by US efforts to avert that very thing, China and Russia?
That question being the subject of this the fourth and final post of my series on US Neocons & Israel’s far Right. Any answer to it must place at centre-stage the formulation I just made:
Iran is pivotal to Washington regaining the initiative … in Central Asia. The better to threaten Russia, disrupt Belt and Road and, most ominous of all for Beijing, put a choke on China’s oil supply [50% of which comes through] the Hormuz Strait.
In fact we can go further. Drilled down to bare essentials, US goals are the answer to why it is existential for Russia and China to defend Iran. In saying why regime change in Tehran would be so glittering a prize for Washington, we in the same breath say why that outcome is to be prevented at all costs by Beijing and Moscow.
Which is why the Israel-Iran stand-off is so alarming. Uncertain too. To what extent, if any, can we attribute Israel’s uncharacteristically delayed response to Iran’s strike of October 1 to a deal with Washington, saving Biden-Harris from the fall-out should oil prices soar on the eve of US elections? And to what extent to the fact that October 1st showed not only Iran’s power but the limits to a war-averse patience too long misconstrued in Tel Aviv as weakness? Time will tell.
There’s much more to say, and I’ll be returning as and when to implications and developments. But let me close with an eleven minute video by an outfit not previously featured on this site. Its YouTube channel blurb offers this:
Fastepo, the nexus where finance meets the future! Our channel is a treasure trove of insights, designed for those who have a keen eye on the pulse of the global economy. Here, we dissect the complexities of international markets, unravel the intricacies of trade dynamics, and offer a clear lens to view the ever-changing landscape of global finance.
Though it parrots empire talking points – calling the West’s dirty war in Syria a “civil war” and uncritically recycling the Skripals-in-Salisbury nonsense being cases in point – it’s rich in hard and highly pertinent information. Divided more or less equally between Russia-Iran and China-Iran relations while noting the geostrategic ambiguity of Turkey – to which we could add that of India – it’s an easy but edifying watch.
* * *