-Caveat Lector-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/15/140338.shtml
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
Moscow Warns Washington Against Attacks on Iraq
Dr. Alexandr Nemets and Dr. Thomas Torda
Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2002
1. Moscow Shows Washington the Possible Consequences of Strikes on Iraq
On Dec. 27, 2001, Nezavisimaya gazeta, an influential Moscow newspaper with
close ties to the Kremlin, published an article by political observer
Alexandr Kuranov under the heading "Iraq Under the Gunsight: Russian
Leadership Probably Will Need to Swallow One More Bitter Pill; Anti-Iraq
Action Could Become the Last Straw Which Would Provoke the Extremists into a
New Strike at America."
This article basically states that Russia's leadership is again faced with a
choice: (a) stay within the Washington-forged international coalition against
terrorism or (b) stubbornly defend its old partner and ally Iraq against any
U.S. attacks. This is because, according to the U.S. media, Iraq would become
the new object in the international war on terrorism.
This would be a very difficult choice for Russia, and not because of Russian
interests in Iraq per se. Moscow's direct support or tacit approval of
Washington's strikes on Iraq would demonstrate to other Russian allies –
mainly India and China – Moscow's extreme unreliability.
This could eventually result in great tension between Moscow and Beijing, as
well as between Moscow and New Delhi.
Three variants of a U.S. military campaign against Iraq are possible.
The first, or "soft," variant is that American forces, just as in 1991, would
limit their actions to massive bombing of Iraq. That nation's military and
industrial infrastructure would once again be destroyed, but the hated Saddam
Hussein would escape untouched.
In this case, the weakened dictator would be of no serious danger to his
neighbors, primarily Israel. Still, Saddam would be capable of preparing new
terrorist actions against the U.S. and elsewhere.
This soft variant of America's punishment of Iraq would be quite acceptable
for most of the anti-terrorist coalition members and, most of all, for
Russia. In the case of soft strikes on Iraq, Russian moves would be limited
to mild protests and diplomatic maneuvers.
However, it is doubtful that Washington at present will limit itself to half
measures. Doubtless, President Bush and his team are eager to extend the
victory in Afghanistan to Iraq and build on America's geopolitical successes
in Central Asia.
In short, President Bush, as inheritor of his father's cause, wants to finish
with Saddam, to transfer power in Iraq to forces and persons willing to work
with Washington, and to acquire unlimited access to Iraqi oil and gas. This
is the second variant of the U.S. war against Iraq.
Kuranov quotes Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of Russia's influential
Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada (a formal scientific institute
providing reports to the Kremlin and Russian Foreign Ministry), as saying
that the probability of U.S. strikes on Iraq is high, and that a new victory
would give the U.S. unopposed dominance in the Middle East, but would also
consolidate the positions of Islamic fundamentalists and move Arabs to
retaliate against Americans.
Kremenyuk adds that there are many al-Qaeda-like anti-Western groups in the
Arab world. He holds that there are many "sleeper agents" of these groups in
the West, including the U.S. Anti-Iraq actions could be the last straw needed
to provoke the Islamic extremists into new strikes against America.
He adds that it is impossible to predict how many sleeper agents would
participate in these strikes and what weapons they would use.
Kuranov says that the third and most terrible variant of a new war against
Iraq is the dissection of the country into several parts, i.e., (a) the
Kurdish North; (b) the Shiite South; (c) the center, populated by Sunni Arabs
and Christians. This would create great problems, especially the question of
a Kurdish state for the Kurds in Iran and Turkey.
If Saddam is dethroned, it would be difficult for the U.S. to avoid this
dangerous third variant, because uncontrolled nationalistic forces would then
be unleashed. Also, a war between the U.S. and Iraq could easily involve
Israel, and this would provoke very tough responses (i.e., military strikes)
from some Arab countries against Israel.
It cannot be ruled out that Saddam, at a desperate point, would use weapons
of mass destruction (WMD), which he supposedly has, though in small
quantities.
In addition, Saddam could move his troops to Jordan, as close to Israel's
border as possible, in order to transform Iraq and the entire region into a
"flaming torch."
It also cannot be ruled out that a U.S. war on Iraq would trigger another
war(s), including heavy Israeli strikes against Palestinians and an
Indian-Pakistani conflict in Kashmir.
Finally, Kuranov asks, what could be the reaction of an important player like
China? Prominent Russian sinologist Dr. Sergei Luzinyan gives his opinion:
"China's reaction towards possible action of the U.S. against Iraq will be
very negative or even very tough. China has old and close political ties with
Baghdad, and China never gives up on old friends and partners. Besides, China
is already upset over the U.S. invasion of Central Asia, considered by
Beijing to be in 'its own sphere of influence.'"
2. Other Articles From the Same Source
The same issue of Nezavisimaya gazeta published an article by political
commentator Alexei Pushkov – analyst for Moscow-based TV-channels, member of
the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, and board member
of the prestigious U.S.-based journal Foreign Policy – entitled "Russia and
the USA: the Limits of Rapprochement; Unilateral Actions of Washington Are
Dangerous for the New Relations Between the Two Countries."
This article lists the "sins and crimes" of Washington committed in regard to
Russia:
"Unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, meaning victory for the hawks in
the U.S. administration. Russia, after the 9-11 attacks, gave a helpful hand
to Washington, and Washington spit into this hand.
"Washington is preparing retaliatory actions against Russia's partners and
allies [i.e., Iraq].
"Washington is still pressing Russia to halt military operations against
Chechnya.
"Washington is not allowing Russia to enter NATO as a member with a decisive
voice.
"Washington intends to tie Russia's hands with a new unfair treaty on
strategic arms reductions.
"In short, Washington still considers Russia as a potential adversary and not
as an ally. Now it is time for Russia to demonstrate its firmness or even
toughness to America and the West."
Yet another article in the Dec. 27 issue of Nezavisimaya gazeta contains an
article by Armen Khanbabian describing the recent U.S.-Kazakhstani agreement
– signed by President Bush and Kazakhstani President Nursultan Nazarbayev –
to build an oil pipeline from Baku (capital of Azerbaijan) to Ceihan (on
Turkey's Mediterranean coast).
This article, like several of the authors' articles published in late
December, shows Moscow's irritation with U.S. geopolitical gains in
Kazakhstan and all of Central Asia.
3. Evident Conclusions and Some Recommendations
It would be proper to consider the above articles as "the voice of the
Kremlin." These articles were doubtless compiled and published in accordance
with direct orders from Russia's top leadership.
And never after Sept. 11 has this "voice of the Kremlin" been so harsh. The
Kremlin is very angry and openly threatens Washington with incalculable
problems America must deal with in the case of strikes against Iraq.
The following phrases of this warning – or ultimatum? – cannot be ignored:
"A U.S. war with Iraq would consolidate the positions of the Islamic
fundamentalists. It would also move Arabs to retaliate against Americans."
"There are many al-Qaeda-like anti-Western groups in the Arab world, and many
‘sleeper agents' of these groups in the West, including the U.S. Anti-Iraq
action could be the last straw needed to provoke the Islamic extremists into
new strikes on America. It is impossible to predict how many sleeper agents
would participate in these strikes and what weapons they would use."
The authors recently published at NewsMax several articles ("Iraq and Related
Matters," Part 1 and Part 2, and "KGB Incorporated," Part 1 and Part 2.) on
the underground network established by al-Qaeda, other Islamic extremist
groups, Cuba, and Russia's FSB/KGB in the territory of the U.S. and Canada.
The authors themselves didn't expect confirmation of their conclusions in so
weighty a form and so rapidly. Yes, this network exists and is planning new
strikes. The recent Tampa private plane suicide case (the skyscaper attack on
Jan. 4) can be considered as a testing of America's security system before
major new strikes.
What should be done? The answer is easy: Saddam should be finished. And some
additional forces should be concentrated in the Middle East and Central Asia,
to avoid the aforementioned geopolitical complications. The underground
network of "sleeper agents" and their collaborators – including, of course,
FSB/KGB operatives – should be exterminated swiftly and mercilessly.
Moscow should get what it deserves.
Dr. Alexandr V. Nemets is a consultant to the American Foreign Policy
Council. He is co-author of "Chinese-Russian Military Relations, Fate of
Taiwan and New Geopolitics."
*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists!
Write to same address to be off lists!
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
