Round table on the situation in the Middle Easttook place in the capital of Turkish Republic Ankara last week, it gathered international structure of participants. Among those speaking in public were also our authors – political scientists Ruslan Saidov and Anton Surikov.
Ruslan Saidov devoted his report to the current situation in Lebanon, Syriaand Iran. In his opinion, Israeland the USA, having begun armed aggression against Lebanon, underestimated "Hizhallah" therefore military operation deadlocked. It’s obvious today that "Hizballah" is not going to disarm, Iranand Syriacontinue to support it and the Israelis, appeared to be unable to gain military victory, sustain human losses and cause an amplifying fire of criticism from the Europeand Moslem countries.
In the situation aroused the USAand Israelas a matter of fact have no output comprehensible to them from the Lebanese bog. Creation in the south of the country of a buffer zone and introduction of international forces there even if "Hizballah" agree with it on a certain stage, not only does not solve a problem, but, on the contrary, aggravates it. In fact such international forces will feel in hostile Shia environment extremely vulnerable and at any moment when they will find it worthwhile in Teheran, they can turn to be an object of attack and practically hostages of military Lebanese Shiites conducted by Iran.
In point of fact, as a result of an obvious failure of the Israeli aggression, Lebanon has turned to one more crisis point on the map of the Middle East, having risen in one number with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan where during the last months on the advice of certain forces in army and investigation of Pakistan, the guerrilla actions of talibs directed against armies of the USA, NATO and Hamida Karsay’s regime has been made sharply active.
Thus, R. Saidov concluded, the most serious crisis of policy of administration of Bush the Middle Eastregion is evident. At that an output comprehensible to the USAfrom this crisis is not seen.
At the same time, it is possible that, having been appeared to be bailed up, radical forces in Bush's administration headed by vice-president Richard Cheyni and Minister of Defense Donald Ramsfeld having pushed aside from decision-making considered "moderated" state secretary Kondoliza Rajs and national director of investigation John Negroponte, will try to split "Gordian knot" at one stroke by involving the USA in new military adventure, this time against Iran.
In this connection, R.Saidov considers impartial analysis of a parity of forces of Americaand Iranbefore possible conflict is necessary. So, Iranhas an obvious advantage, consisting in impossibility for the USAto carry out scale army operation in its territory with application of overland forces now. Actually, in case of war, Pentagon should be limited to drawing of air impacts on the Iranian territory (under Yugoslavian scenario) and operations of special troops of local character.
Besides there are such key points in the Iranian arsenal such as stoppage of oil export, long-term blocking of Strait of Hormuzby its mining and wide application against tanker fleet of rocket-torpedo arms as well as organization of the anti-American popular uprising in Shia areas in the south of Iraq.
At the same time, R.Saidov noted, efficiency of the listed measures is not obvious up to the end and has likelihood character. Thus, stoppage of export of the Iranian oil will strike not to the interests of the USAwhich do not buy it but more likely to Chinaand India. However, blocking of tanker navigation through Strait of Hormuz, if realized, will strike be the strongest blow on all world economics. However, it is not clear, whether Irancan realize this measure from the military point of view. In fact it is not enough for this purpose to have corresponding systems of arms (they are available in Iran) in the arsenal, but it is necessary to apply them competently. Whether Iranian military command is capable of this, whether it has enough professionalism and determination to carry out the mission set, is absolutely not clearly.
At last, it remains not clear, to what extend efforts of Iranon the organization of general anti-American revolt of Iraqi Shiites will be successful. It does not cause doubts that there are in Iraqarmed groupings directly operated from Teheran and capable at any moment to undertake diversionary actions against occupational armies of the USAat getting certain order.
However, diversion is one thing and general armed popular uprising is absolutely another one. Here it is essentially important to understand, how the religious-political top of Iraqi Shiites led by аятоллойAyatollah Ali as-Sistani will behave in critical situation. Today Iraqi Shia top conducts its own game unsuccessfully, actively bargaining as with Washingtonwhich has been visited by Prime-Minister al-Maliki as with Teheran. Thus it is not excluded that leaders of Shiites of Iraq can be against getting involved in the conflict and will try to beat out from the Americans new concessions and additional help necessary for civil war with Moslems-Sunni. At last, it’s not so impossible that Washingtonwill propose to as-Sistani in exchange to a neutrality to transfer to Iraqthe Iranian province Huzestan rich with oil occupied by ethnic Arabs.
By the way, R.Saidov considers, the strategy directed on a territorial partition of Iran, can be taken by the Americans as the basic one within the limits of an approaching conflict. In fact Iranis a multinational country where Persians being state-constituent people - makes only half of population. Historically Iranalways existed as empire, firstly headed by Shahs and clerical, operated by Shia clergy now.
Meanwhile, at the skilful approach and active military help from the outside in a number of the Iranian provinces bloody interethnic conflicts and the armed performances of ethnic minority under nationalist and anticlerical slogans can be provoked.
First of all, certainly, it is a question of the Iranian Kurdistan with its Sunni population and its potential of full-scale support from Iraqi Kurdistan possessing actual independence. Even more painful for Teheran mutinies of Arabs in Huzestan and Azerbaijani in northwest of the country could become.
However, to organize mutinies there is incommensurably more complex than in Kurdistan. Thus, Saddam Hussein, as it is known, during the Iran-Iraq war could not raise the Iranian Arabs on revolt against the central authority. Numerous attempts of different forces to provoke interethnic collisions between Persians and Turki in southern (Iranian) Azerbaijanwere also not crowned with success. Though, R.Saidov has told, the precondition for the conflict at a household level are, undoubtedly, present there, he was repeatedly convinced personally of it visiting on a regular basis on business affairs (export of carpet products to the United Arab Emirates) the main city of the Iranian Azerbaijan Tabriz. In any case, R.Saidov considers, if war between the USAand Iranwill begin, its results and consequences are absolutely unpredictable.
After announcement of the report participants of a round table have asked R.Saidov questions, answering which he actively quoted Islamic scientists and rather emotionally expressed his own point of view on such important question how Muslim public should react to various forces involved in conflicts in the region, in particular, to Iran, Syria and "Hizballah".
Moslems, in R.Saidov's opinion, should proceed from the fact that Shiism and Alavism, undoubtedly, are religious deviations from Islam, contradicting Koran and Sunna of Prophet Muhammada. Moreover, Alavits’ sect, usurped the authority in Syriadoesn’t consist, as a matter of fact, of the Moslems. Nevertheless, some mistaking people call to support President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad as “Islamite leader” and Iran– as “Islamite state”. However, it is all wrong, as there is contradictory in its contain verdict of Islamic scientists "ahlus'sunna ua-l djama'a" about the Iranian theocratic state, its founders and leaders.
Despite of it mistaking people shut eyes to that official ideology of the Iranian regime is abuse of sahabs and mothers of the believers, that Shiites-Rafidahs call the first just Caliph Abu-Bakra "criminal". Extirpation and suppression of Muslim Sunni scientists is going on in Iran, that they do not allow to construct any Sunni mosque in Teheran, that they do not allow to give children names "Abu-Bakr" and "Аjsha".
That authoritative seminary student Ibn Dzhibrin handed down fatwa forbidding Moslems to support "Hizballah". That emir of the Iraqmojaheds sheikh Abu-Musab az-Zarkaui who became shahid by the will of Allah in his last public performance convincingly exposed ant Islamic essence of "Hizballah". That at last the statements of four Imams Ahli Sunna and fatwa of the outstanding Islamic scientists about disbelief of Rafidahs - advocates of the most dangerous heresy – Shiism were proclaimed.
As a whole, R.Saidov considers, the line of Iranhas no connections with the Islamic policy. Moreover, it always was double-faced. It is enough to recollect well-known scandal "Irangate" of the middle of 1980th years when damning Washingtonorally, leadership of Irannevertheless entered secret arrangement with the USAand Israel.
Earlier, in 1979-80 imam Khomeini having provoked crisis by capture as hostages employees of embassy of the USAin Teheran, meaningly assisted the defeat of Jimmy Carter on elections and Ronald Reagan's coming to power. At that imam Khomeini used situation with hostages in his own internal political purposes also, physically having smoothed out all forces oppositional to his regime: from the moderate liberals, up to communists.
"Where’s a guarantee, - R.Saidov asks a rhetorical question, - that now Mahmud Al Ahmadi-Nejad, Richard Cheyni and Donald Ramsfeld behind the backs of Moslems are not engaged together in the same that once was made by Imam Khomeini and the American republicans”?
Nevertheless, R.Saidov considers, to consider situation around Iranand activity of President Mahmud Al Ahmadi-Nejad is, probably, has sense in the general context of their opposition to Washington. Therefore Iranas the state, certainly, requires support of all Moslems, including deliveries of arms, but not as ostensibly "Islamic force" (it’s not it) but as national-liberation, anti-American force, like the president of Venezuela Ugo Chaves or the leader of Belarussia Alexander Lukashenko.
Precisely in the same way, R.Saidov said, Moslems, despite of Rafidah’s heresy of "Hizballah" and anti Islamic essence of Alavism, undoubtedly, it is necessary to support in every possible way Syriaand those Lebanese people who resist aggression of the USAand Israelwith weapons in their hands.
You can read about Anton Surikov’s public speech on round table in the next publication.
