The New Great Game

Russia and America are destined two giants among nations; America should learn to acknowledge this.
America should try as much as possible to stay away from militarising the Eastern European countries that are botrdering Russia, this will be seen as a big threat to Russia and may be very catastrophic.

It cannot be stressed enough that these ''tensions''between Russia and Iran are diminishing. A huge oversight on Dickeys portion,who acts as though the Khatemi-Putin summit which brought about Russian technological assistance in constructing the new Iranian Basheur nuclear plant never existed, Furthermore,as evidenced by Russia watchers at PARAMETERS and the Wilson Center,other economic ties between Russia and Iran appear to be strengthening. Russian made arms including diesel submarines,T-72 tanks,and anti-air missle platforms continue to flow from Russia into Iran. Automotive engines and parts from Iran into Russia. Further complicating the hopes of the Dickeysian ''realists''is the presence of what will become a Russian-Iranian ''pre''and ''post''Georgian era of cooperation which as I earlier observed,introduces a foreboding element into the consequences such a relationship can have on both Europe and the Middle East,gambling on the Rise of the Strongmen over that of the Weak Democracies. I will agree that the playing of one of the few ace-sleeve cards remaining to the West is that of the economic,which could either force Russia back to the table,or backfire,as it did in moving Japan further along the road to Imperialism in 1940-41.
It would do well to closely keep an eye on any new Russian pacts with the Iranians that would tie an oil transfer system between the two countries. Oil for the Rus,guns and tech assistance for the Iranians. An uncomfortable situation all the way around.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. We have a three way power play, and Iran is the smallest of the three by far. The country most dependent on Iranian oil is Iran, and the same for Russia. Both have far more fragile economies than the US. War is expensive. This is going to be interesting. The one point we need to look at is that neither Iran nor Russia can afford to slow the flow of oil. Why did Hitler go after the Jews? The real Jewish problem is that the Jews had money and Hitler needed it to run his war. If the German Jews didn't have money would Hitler have gone after them? Russia and Iran will need to keep the flow of oil and gas at maximum to fund their military buildup if the Georgia issue continues. We might be wise to sit this one out.

The cold war, after we reached MAD, was an economic war. Russia could make guns or butter, the US could make guns AND butter. The tension between Russia and Iran could be an energy boon to those on the sidelines.

The argument that the US should accept a nuclear armed Iran because Iran could be an ally against a resurgent Russia reminds me of the thirties one of the reasons the Western powers justified their appeasement of NAZI Germany was that Germany would ultimately join the West against the USSR.


We We all know how that turned out

You go Holly! Your arguments are compelling, accurate, and on target.

To Braes: so we had one military advisor with no authority to release weapons. Whoopee. We probably had him there to report back to us on the situation. If we did not send that advisor how would we know what was happening? We have sent provisions for chemical precursors for possible use as a biological weapon. Wow. Arrest every local farmer. Arrest everone who buys a tank of gas. They have the precursors for the Oklahoma City bomb. It's called fertilizer. There is a huge difference between provisions for precursors, which may have legitimate uses, and the actual chemical weapon. Saddam Hussein is the one who turned those provisions for precursors into the final WMD. Getting from provisions for precursors to the final product is not something you cook up in chemistry class. And, as your article points out, it was NOT the US government that sent the provisions for precursors, but private, international companies. No one at all sent actual chemical weapons or agents to Iraq. The Soviet Union, not the US, created and produces the biggest cause of military deaths in history, the AK-47. I notice that you don't go complaining about that. Is that because you find killing with an AK-47 is OK with you? You get your information from your experience in the US military, I get some of mine from my friends who were members of the Iranian, Ukranian, Russian, etc. military. If you wish anyone to believe that you are against violence then you should be aware by now that you need to speak out against violence wherever it is happening. but you won't do that because you want to actively support that violence. If you have been on active duty then you should have seen the violence that exists in these countries before we arrive. That tells me that you are fully aware of not only how others view us, but you also know that the violence you see is a part of something that exists whether the US is there or not. I am sure the military is happy that you are no longer on active duty.

I am sure you are aware that the US was allied with Stalin in WW II. That means you are aware that the US doesn't always get to pick who our allies are, and don't get to choose how that ally's government is run. You should also know that allies are often a matter of convenience, and conveniences change. We supported Saddam when we found it convenient, then Saddam made sure we found that situation to be no longer convenient. Such is the nature of war. But you know that. You just want us to pretend those thing don't happen.

Comment: AsSalamu Alaykum:
Let me tell you the facts. This whole stupid thing of allying with Iran in order to control Russia, and allying with Russia to control Iran does nothing to help the people of the nations. It does marvels for you, but the peoples of those nations shall continue to suffer. When you sanction Iran and cut off business ties to them, the Government does not suffer. It is the people that are made to suffer, they are the ones that starve. They do not care about Democracy or Freedom, they will pander to you in order to get money to provide for the people they need to provide for. They want money, and you are starving the Iranians! You might be wanting for the Iranians to rise up out of hunger and overthrow the Government, if they do, they will have little money to work with and will turn to you, you then "own them." They are simple people who want money to survive and these stupid sanctions are starving them. Sanctions are a weapon, they starve the people!
Allah guide us all to what is righteous. Ameen

Pushing a conflict with Iran was never in our (ie, America's) real interests. For a lot of geopolitical reasons, Iran should be a US ally... OUR actions in Iran, back in 1953 and thereafter (the CIA-backed coup, the Shah's autocratic rule, with our protection and assistance), poisoned the well for American-Persian cooperation after 1979, and our petulance over Iran's 1979 reaction TO our previous misbehavior just seems to have locked in very counter-productive American attitudes toward Iran. Iran is no threat to the United States, and never was, but there ARE real threats to our nation out there, and a more grown-up attitude toward Iran would be very useful in helping us deal with those real threats. Time for us to grow up.

Is the writer of this article just completely naive or foolish. There cannot be appeasement of people who want to see your country destroyed.

The bear is back in business. Combination of things instigated this aggression I think; nostalgia for the old Soviet Union and the desire to reclaim as much of that lost territory as possible; the fact that the U.S. is somewhat toothless at this point in time with troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and pouring billions of dollars of our national treasury into the Iraq debacle; our diminished support from the global community; being fed up with all the attention that China is getting including the Olympics (just a coincidence this all happened during the Olympics? ... I think not); and the fact that they know with their large oil supplies that no one will call their bluff. Another reason that we have to: 1) Reduce our dependence on oil 2) Learn to negotiate and build alliances rather than trying to bully the rest of the world and 3) Continue to maintain and improve the best military in the world

Only the more reason for the measured, sane mind of Barack Obama. With John Mac in office, we would probably be at war with Iran and Russia at the same time. Oops I forgot Venezuela and North Korea. Haven't we had enough of knee jerk military confrontationalism to last US a lifetime? It's time for cooler heads and intelligent diplomacy to prevail.

To Master_of_muppets, continued: Would the world be a better place if the problem was sorted to its root? Yes. How do you do that? You have no answer that will work, do you? Does the US have something better to do? Yes. do the suicide bombers, IED planters, Iranian nuclear workers, AlQaida leaders, Taliban, insurgents, Russian military, terrorists, etc, etc, etc have something better to do? You tell me. But again you are not one who truly wants to argue for peace. You only want peace if you get your way. That is why you asked only about Americans having something better to do and not everyone else who is causing this unwarranted violence. Until the cowards who slaughter civilains without any hesitation then hide behind their women's skirts because they know that the US doesn't shoot or bomb civilians stop their endless rivers of children's blood the US military doesn't have anything better to do. If the US doesn't stop them will YOU? ABSOLUTELY NOT, because you do not have the courage of the US to fight FOR the innocent victim. Your words will NOT support peace until you acknowledge the heartless cruelty of those not of the US who are far more violent in nature. Until you face, and acknowledge, the whole truth, that the US prescence almost always reduces or eliminates pre-existing violence when the US flexes its mililtary might then you are supporting the people of violence. If the US were to leave peace would NOT happen. The only thing that would happen is even more uncontrolled violence. The ones who want the US out are the people who support uncontrolled violence. They want this because in the end they expect to have personal power from the violence. Your statements, and what you don't say, put you in that category. Why? Because you have not once acknowledged that violence ALWAYS precedes any US intervention, and the intent of US intervention is ALWAYS to put a stop to that violence. That means you are claiming to support peace but are only supporting the leaders of violence. By asking for the US to withdraw its forces you are giving the really violent people what they need to to distribute their brutal, sickly hatred and destruction, but that is what you truly want, isn't it?

Reply to Master_of_muppets: We haven't bombed Iran. Do we have to bomb Iran to stop Iran's nuclear program? Only the Iranian President and mullahs can tell you that. We are trying to stop them without bombing them. So far that has worked in LIbya and North Korea. Do we have to fly all the way there to stop Saddam Hussein? YES!!!! His choice, not ours. We deliberately stopped at the Kuwait border during Gulf War 1 so that Saddam would have a chance to stop without us having to go back. He didn't listen. We'll stop killing those who create suicide bombers and IED makers as soon as they stop killing innocent civilians by design.

I will trust you as soon as you start telling the whole truth. Until then you do not deserve to be trusted, like anyone else who hides the whole truth. Direct your vitriol at the organizations that send women as suicide bombers into civilian marketplaces instead of the country that is trying to stop these pointless, vicious bloodbaths and I will start believing that you are interested in peace at a reasonable price. People who will sue for peace at the cost of freedom deserve neither peace nor freedom, a quote from US founding father Ben Franklin.

What anti-US wave? The US has been facing this kind of attitude for decades. The only thing that changes is the location of the anti-US wave. I notice that almost all of the anti-US protestors want us to leave, but please leave your money on the way out. These are also the people who want to take power for themselves when the US leaves, putting wherever they are back in the situation that caused the US to arrive in the first place. The anti-US protestors are not without substantial self-interest, and I am talking about themselves, not their country.

lol, seriously everybody hates the big boy on the block. you are all jealous of the U.S...... here we are safe from attacks and we are responsible with our nuclear weapons. we are not known for our religious zealots here, we are not known for hate speach against anyone in the world over here in the U.S.... we are importing our bussiness because you guys all want to eat kentucky fried chicken, taco bell, drink coka-cola, and smoke marlboro cigarettes.

get over your hate for america. we have room for you too over here. you see over here people make their own destiny. sure we have problems, but if you keep your nose clean, raise your kids to love their neighbor like jesus said, you too can live a great and glorious life that doesnt end by bomb vests and laughter.

Hello:
First of all, don't you give any care about the people?
Secondly, I read something from the US State department which claimed that the Russian military is large, poorly funded, and ill disciplined. Poorly funded, meaning it cannot sustain any involved conflicts. The same goes with Iran.

Pride is before a crash.