A U.S.-Russia-China Alliance Offers Iran and Israel a Way Out (Izvestia, Russia)
"The U.S., Russia and China could act as guarantors of
Iranian security if it meets the terms of the Geneva agreement. All of their authority, both political and military, should be deployed to defend the Islamic Republic against possible outside aggression. Of course, such a guarantee should also be extended to Israel ... Realists in
Jerusalem cannot fail to understand that despite the superiority of the Israeli
war machine, because of the size and resources of Iran, Israel will not achieve
victory through blitzkrieg. ... Such a union, no matter how strange and unusual
it may seem at first glance, could serve as the basis of a new global security
architecture."
Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu presses the Putin flesh in an attempt to alter the Kremlin's position on Iran, Nov. 20: Is there any form of arrangement Netanyahu would accept, guaranteeing both Israel's and Iran's security?
Political
Analyst KirilBenediktov on
who might act as guarantors of the security of Iran and Israel
U.S.
media recently apprised readers of a letter
written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Snowcroft to Harry Reid, leader of the U.S. Senate's
Democratic majority. In it, the two gurus of American foreign
policy urge the senator to make every effort to reach an agreement with Iran,
which would “serve to strengthen security in the U.S., Israel, and other
regional partners.” If the U.S. allows this historic opportunity to pass,
Brzezinski and Snowcroft warn, it risks encouraging
the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, and losing the support of
its friends and allies, and raising the probability of war significantly.
The
letter came to light the day before the second round of talks in Geneva
commenced last weekend between Iran and the “Big Six” (U.S., Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany) on the future of Iran's nuclear program. As we
found out last Sunday [Nov. 24], the talks resulted in a historic agreement.
Before
the second round of talks began, Israel considerably raised the pressure on the
“Six.” In a brief visit to Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
sought to talk Vladimir Putin out of his hard-line stance on talks with Iran.
Truth be told, even in Jerusalem, few had high hopes for the visit.
Israel
reacted extremely nervously to the signing of the agreement in Geneva.
Netanyahu called the agreement with Iran a “historic mistake,” and Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman said it was a “victory for
Iranian diplomacy.” Despite the fact that according to the terms of the
agreement, Iran must rid itself of its enriched uranium stockpile, Israeli
experts are scared: if sanctions are lifted, nuclear weapons could appear in
Tehran in a matter of months. How ironic it is, that the very success of
Western diplomacy could make the threat of war in the Middle East much more
real.
Netanyahu
has said more than once that Israel is ready to strike Iran’s nuclear
facilities without U.S. support. Over time people have gradually become
accustomed to these threats and no longer pay attention. But how wrong they
are, because right now, the Israeli premier feels deceived by his closest
allies, in particular the United States.
“A
bad agreement with Iran will lead to war,” Netanyahu says.
Nevertheless,
a “bad agreement” has been signed, and as it is before any round of poker, the
stakes are rising. This will decide the fate not only of Iran, but of the
struggle for the entire Middle East.
A
few days ago, the British Sunday Times published a sensational report that says
Saudi Arabia and Israel are secretly working jointly on a plan to attack Iran.
Riyadh has agreed to allow Jerusalem to use its airspace. Although Riyadh
has officially denied this, there's no smoke without fire. For the Saudis, good
relations between Washington and Tehran are like a knife to the heart, and they
are prepared to do anything, even form an alliance with Israel, to prevent such
developments. That means the specter of a new war is growing stronger.
In
this situation, the fate of sanctions or questions about Iran's enriched uranium
stockpile are rather secondary. Of utmost importance is preventing
further bloodshed in a region that has already been ravaged by endless
conflict.
The
example of Libya, which in 2003 retired its program to create weapons of mass
destruction, reveals the likely fate of any country that puts its faith in the
international community. Doubtless, Tehran has taken account of Qaddafi’s
mistakes, and would prefer not to repeat them.
To
ensure the stability of the peace process in the Middle East, we must find new
ways and use new tools. Such tools could function as security guarantees with
legal status that would protect states taking the path of disarmament from
possible aggression by stronger and hostile powers.
This
autumn, the U.S. and Russia already showed the world an example of effective
cooperation. Moscow’s proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under
international control prevented military intervention by the West, and helped
avoid a repetition of the Libyan scenario in that country. Such cooperation
should continue and expand.
Consider
that three of the “Big Six” heavyweights - the U.S., Russia and China - could
act as guarantors of Iranian security if it meets the terms of the Geneva
agreement. All of their authority, both political and military, should be
deployed to defend the Islamic Republic against possible outside aggression. Of
course, such a guarantee should also be extended to Israel.
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
Obviously,
“hawks” in the Israeli government will meet an initiative like this with
bayonets. It will inevitably confront fierce resistance from America'spro-Israel lobby and bring sharp criticism
from that segment of Congress that considers Obama’s new course in the Middle
East a strategic mistake. And it is comprised not only of Republicans,
Democrats like Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, who is close to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
However,
there are certainly influential supporters for such a proposal. Take Snowcroft and Brzezinski for instance, who are now trying
to convince Washington of the necessity of concluding an agreement with Tehran.
It is hard to imagine a confirmed Russophobe like Zbigniew
Brzezinski willingly entering into an alliance with Russia in order to
guarantee a deal with Tehran. But the stakes in this game are too high, and it
is clear that the Obama Administration wants to normalize relations with Iran -
even at the expense of a cooling of relations with Israel. In his quest, the
U.S. president depends on influential think tanks associated with the
Rockefeller financial empire.
For example, Leslie Gelb,
president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the agreement
with Iran could become “the Mideast equivalent of ending the Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The deal could reduce, even sharply, the biggest threat to
regional peace, an Iranian nuclear bomb, and open paths to taming dangerous
conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”
Of course,
the power most interested in a peaceful disentanglement of the Iran-Israel
problem is Israel itself. Realists in Jerusalem cannot fail to understand that
despite the superiority of the Israeli war machine, because of the size and
resources of Iran, Israel will not achieve victory through blitzkrieg. And in a
protracted conflict, Iran could not only withstand, but inflict such a blow to
Israel, that future generations of Israelis would curse the "hawks"
who drew their government into such a disastrous confrontation.
An initiative
to guarantee peace for Iran and Israel could meet the approval of Israeli
politician Shimon Perez. Perez is respected by the international community (not
least for his certainty that Israel should play a peacemaking role in the
Middle East), and in contrast to Netanyahu, is on excellent terms with U.S.
President Barack Obama.
And of
course, joint action to provide security guarantees to Iran and Israel by the
U.S., Russia, and China would doubtless be a way out of the stalled peace
process and double-standard politics, when unacceptable behavior on the part of
a country is blessed by its powerful patrons. But even more importantly, such a
union, no matter how strange and unusual it may seem at first glance, could
serve as the basis of a new global security architecture - not only in the
Middle East, but around the world.
