|
How a United Iran, Russia and China are
Changing The World - For the Better
By Federico Pieraccini
The two previous articles have
focused on the various geopolitical
theories, their translations into modern
concepts, and practical actions that the United
States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global
dominance. This segment will describe how Iran,
China and Russia have over the years adopted a
variety of economic and military actions to repel
the continual assault on their sovereignty by the
West; in particular, how the American drive for
global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of
the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a
multipolar world.
January 02, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- "SCF"
-
From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the
United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the
goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of
the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly aspire to
planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of
competition and especially of any consequences. America
found herself the one and only global superpower, faced
with the prospect of extending cultural and economic
model around the planet, where necessary by military
means.
Over the past 25 years there have been
numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had
little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow
to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic
battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and
financial speculation, has literally destroyed sovereign
nations, further enriching the US and European financial
elite in the process.
Alliances to Resist
In the course of the last two decades,
the relationship between the three major powers of the
Heartland, the heart of the Earth, changed
radically.
Iran, Russia and China have fully
understood that union and cooperation are the only means
for mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common
problem, represented by a growing American influence in
domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow
to resolve their differences and embrace a unified
strategy in the common interest of defending their
sovereignty.
Events such as the war in Syria, the
bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic
order in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct
pressure applied to Beijing in the South China Sea, have
accelerated integration among nations that in the early
1990s had very little in common.
Economic Integration
Analyzing US economic power it is clear
that supranational organizations like the World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank guarantee Washington’s role as the economic leader.
The pillars that support the centrality of the United
States in the world economy can be attributed to the
monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the
dollar as a global reserve currency.
The Fed has unlimited ability to print
money to finance further economic power of the private
and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for
very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central role as
the global reserve currency as well as being used as
currency for trade. This virtually obliges each central
bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to
perpetuate the importance of Washington in the global
economic system.
The introduction of the yuan into the
international basket of the IMF, global agreements for
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and
Beijing’s protests against its treatment by the World
Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for
American strategists who see the role of the American
currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided
not to accumulate dollar reserves, favoring instead
foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese
yuan. The rating agencies - western financial-oligarchy
tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means
to manipulate markets to favor specific US interests.
Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are
further confirmation of Beijing and Moscow’s strategy to
undermine America’s role in western economics.
De-dollarization is occurring and
proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual
business interest. In what is becoming increasingly
routine, nations are dealing in commodities by
negotiating in currencies other than the dollar. The
benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the
dollar in their sovereign affairs, and an increase in
synergies between allied nations. Iran and India
exchanged oil in rupees, and China and Russia trade in
yuan.
Another advantage enjoyed by the United
States, intrinsically linked to the banking private
sector, is the political pressure that Americans can
apply through financial and banking institutions. The
most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran
from the SWIFT international system of payments, as well
as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of
Tehran's assets (about 150 billion US dollars) in
foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack
down on independent economic initiatives, nations like
Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies.
During the period of sanctions against Iran, the Russian
Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in
primary commodities. China has supported Iran with the
export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow
has proposed the creation of an alternative banking
system to the SWIFT system.
Private Banks, central banks, ratings
agencies and supranational organizations depend in large
part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The
first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of course to
make these international bodies less influential.
Economic multipolarity is the first as well as the most
incisive way to expand the free choice before each
nation to pursue its own interests, thereby retaining
its national sovereignty.
This fictitious and corrupt financial
system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to
accumulate wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining
a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause
havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with
the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis in the
Asian markets in the late 1990s.
The need for Russia, China and Iran to
find an alternative economic system is also necessary to
secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The
stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of the
ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on
Iran have played a profound role in concentrating the
minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the
problem borne of the centrality of the dollar would have
only increased the influence and role of Washington.
Finding points of convergence instead of being divided
was an absolute must and not an option.
A perfect example, explaining the failed
American economic approach, can be seen in recent years
with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the
economic trade supremacy of the US. The growing economic
alternatives proposed by the union of intent between
Russia, China and Iran has enabled smaller nations to
reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals
elsewhere. In this sense, the Free Trade Area of the
Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly
appreciated in Asia as an alternative to the TPP.
In the same way, the Eurasian Union
(EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
have always been key components for Moscow. The function
these institutions play was noticeably accelerated
following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for
Russia to turn east in search of new business partners.
Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of
land and sea transit, is a prime example of integration
between powers geographically distant but with great
intentions to integrate vital structures of commerce.
The Chinese model of development, called
Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global
hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach
full integration between the countries of the Heartland
and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land
power. With an investment of 1,000 billion US dollars
over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the
west, represented by Europe; the east, represented by
China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic
space; the south, with India; Southeast Asia; the
Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic
cooperation will lead to the resolution of discrepancies
and strategic differences between countries thanks to
trade agreements that are beneficiary to all sides.
The role of Washington continues to be
that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of
playing the role of a global superpower that is
interested in business and trade with other nations, the
United States continues to consider any foreign decision
in matters of integration, finance, economy and
development to lie within its exclusive domain. The
primary purpose of the United States is simply to
exploit every economic and cultural instrument available
to prevent cohesion and coexistence between nations. The
military component is usually the trump card,
historically used to impose this vision on the rest of
the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization
and military integration, nations like Iran, Russia and
China are less subject to Washington's unilateral
decisions.
Military deterrence
Accompanying the important economic
integration is strong military-strategic cooperation,
which is much less publicized. Events such as the Middle
East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure exerted
in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and
Beijing to conclude that the United States represents an
existential threat.
In each of the above scenarios, China,
Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing
the pros and cons of an opposition to the American
model. The Ukraine coup d’état brought NATO to the
borders of the Russian Federation, representing an
existential threat to the Russia, threatening as it does
its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the
destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has obliged Tehran
to react against the alliance formed between Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and the United States. In China, the
constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious
problem in case of a trade blockade during a conflict.
In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created
existential threats. It is for this reason natural that
cooperation and technological development, even in the
military area, have received a major boost in recent
years.
In the event of an American attack on
Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what
weapon systems would be used and how the attacked
nations could respond.
Maritime Strategy and Deterrence
Certainly, US naval force place a serious
question mark over the defense capabilities of nations
like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on
transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example, Russia
and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only
for defense purposes but also being a quick passage for
transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has
received special attention from the United States due to
its strategic location. In any case, the responses have
been proportional to the threat.
Iran has significantly developed maritime
capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking
ships of the US Navy located in the area for the
purposes of deterrence. China's strategy has been even
more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds,
of fishing boats and ships of the Coast Guard to ensure
safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South
and East China Sea. This is all without forgetting the
maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a
regional naval power over the next few years. Similar
strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the
Russian Federation. In addition to having taken over
ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for the
development of ships that cost less but nevertheless
boast equivalent weapons systems to the Americans
carrier groups.
Iran, China and Russia make efficiency
and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing
aggressiveness of the Americans and the attendant cost
of such a military strategy.
The fundamental difference between the
naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of
the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval
power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran, Moscow and
Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive
purposes.
In this sense, among the greatest weapons
these three recalcitrant countries possess are
anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To
put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian
weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense
systems (the S-500 will be operational in 2017) are now
being adopted by China and Iran with variations
developed locally. Increasingly we are witnessing an
open transfer of technology to continue the work of
denying (A2/AD) physical and cyberspace freedom to the
United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups,
ICBMs and cruise missiles are experiencing a difficult
time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed
by the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians
and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an anti-ship
missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably
lower than the tens of billions of dollars needed to
build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and
efficiency is what has shaped the military spending of
China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United
States without being forced to close a huge military gap
is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible
benefits of deterrence and thereby block American
expansionist ambitions.
A clear example of where the Americans
have encountered military opposition at an advanced
level has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran
and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented
the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses
in the event of an attack on Damascus. The same also
holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American
politicians and Israeli leaders. The only reason why
Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of
the military cost that an invasion or bombing would have
brought to their invaders. This is the essence of
deterrence. Of course, this argument only takes into
partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has
extensively discussed in a previous
article.
The Union of the nations of the Heartland
and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant
The future for the most important area of
the planet is already sealed. The overall integration
of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary
antibodies to foreign aggression in military and
economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an
infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk Road 2.0
and the maritime trade route, offer important
opportunities for developing nations that occupy the
geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of
nations have all it takes to integrate for mutually
beneficial gains without having to worry too much about
American threats. The economic alternative offered from
Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting
American assaults in the same way that the military
umbrella offered by these three military powers, such as
with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the
necessary independence and strategic autonomy. More and
more nations are clearly rejecting American
interference, favoring instead a dialogue with Beijing,
Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just
the latest example of this trend.
The multipolar future has gradually
reduced the role of the United States in the world,
primarily in reaction to her aggression seeking to
achieve global domination. The constant quest for
planetary hegemony has pushed nations who were initially
western partners to reassess their role in the
international order, passing slowly but progressively
into the opposite camp to that of Washington.
The consequences of this process have
sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a
response to her quest for supremacy but also because of
her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global
superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the
Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent the
formation of a union between the nations of the
Heartland, who could then exclude the US from the most
important area of the globe. With the fall of the Iron
Curtain, sights were set on an improbable quest to
conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of
dominating the whole world. The consequences of this
miscalculation have led the United States to being
relegated to the role of mere observer, watching the
unions and integrations occurring that will
revolutionize the Eurasian zone and the planet over the
next 50 years. The desperate search to extend
Washington's unipolar moment has paradoxically
accelerated the rise of a multipolar world.
In the next and final article, I will
throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the
American approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the
first two articles that examined the approach by land
theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan,
we will try and outline how Trump intends to adopt a
containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage
to the US caused by a complete integration between
nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.
Federico
Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer
specialized in international affairs, conflicts,
politics and strategies.
The views
expressed in this article are the author's own and do
not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House
editorial policy. |
