The Middle East situation is fast reaching criticality and an eruption of conflict is on the cards. This is the sum and substance of the interviews given by Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council (and former head of the FSB, the successor organization to the KGB) to the Russian media.
Patrushev is doubtless a key figure in Russia’s foreign and security policy establishment and there can be no two opinions that he spoke with the considered intent to voice the Kremlin’s deep anxiety that a massive, unprecedented regional conflagration in the Middle East might erupt with unforeseen consequences to regional and international security and indeed world politics.
Patrushev, of course, has access to top-grade intelligence and he would have spoken on the basis of data pouring in from satellites and spies and diplomats. The Kremlin is ringing an alarm bell.
Since the interviews have been in Russian, I may quote passages out of them. Patrushev said: “There is information that NATO members and some Arab states of the Persian Gulf, acting in line with the scenario seen in Libya, intend to turn the current interference with Syrian affairs into a direct military intervention.”
He was specific. “The main strike forces will be supplied not by France, Britain and Italy, but possibly by neighboring Turkey.” He said that the first step will be to create a no-fly zone over Syria in order to create a sanctuary on Syrian soil close to the Turkish border for mercenaries who can be labelled as Syrian rebels. In sum, it is a “Libya”-type western intervention charioted by Turkey.
Patrushev said military escalation is also likely over Iran and there is “real danger” of a US strike, pointing out that tensions over Syria are actually related to the Iran question. “They want to punish Damascus not to much for the repression of the opposition but rather for its refusal to break off relations with Tehran.”
Patrushev on Iran situation: “There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is pushing the Americans toward it. There is a real danger of a US military strike on Iran. At present, the US sees Iran as its main problem. They are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current regime by whatever means.”
What will be the likely Iranian response? Patrushev assesses: “It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them.”
Patrushev also spoke about US policies toward Russia, China and India.
He said US is “persistently seeking to sustain its economic, political and military domination in the world.” He put the US’s ABM deployments in Europe in this light. ”Today it [ABM deployments] may not pose a serious threat to Russia, but its long-term objective is to reduce our strategic potential. As far as I know, the plans for a global American missile defence are assessed negatively in Beijing as well.”
“Despite the radical changes in the global alignment of forces as a result of modernization, the US is persistently seeking to sustain its economic, political and military domination in the world. At present, it is important for the US to eliminate threats to such domination, threats that primarily come from China, as the US believes.”
This is where India figured in Patrushev’s interview. “The American administration has designated the Asia-Pacific as a foreign policy priority. The Americans are trying to use India as the main counterweight to the growing might of China, and for this purpose they are hyping the idea of especially closely strategic cooperation with Delhi.” [Emphasis added.]
Alas, as a “time-tested friend” of India, Patrushev, of course, wouldn’t be drawn into dilating on the Indian approach and attitudes to Uncle Sam’s wooing. Instead, he turned to India’s “extended neighborhood” : “Simultaneously, the US would like to gain direct access to the resources and transportation facilities of the vast area of the Caucasus, the Caspian and Central Asia. There are well-known statements of American politicians about the need to put the energy, water and other resources of Russia under US control.”
Nonetheless, Patrushev didn’t leave out the importance attached by Moscow to Russia-US relations, because the “US leads the western world and it is in Washington that the NATO strategies are shaped”.
Besides, “Our countries [Russia and US] have serious coinciding interests as regards security. For example, we are combatting terrorism jointly with the US, among other things, by making the northern route available to meet the needs of the US forces in Afghanistan, we are fighting organized crime and illegal trade in weapons, narcotics and psychotropic substances, and we cooperate in trying to maintain information security”, Patrushev concluded with a dash of Russian humor summing up the profound character of contemporary Russia-US “partnership”.
My question is:
what concretely will Russia _do_ if the US/Israel actually attack Iran/Syria?