INTRODUCTIONUSA will undertake a more sophisticated political technology in relation to Iran. The issue is what would be Ideology. The United States of America is keen to create a sort of political and economic universal order in the World, as required for prerequisites of its further successful and predictable development. Financial crisis and economic downfalls shaking the world are not only attributable to imperfection of management method, and not only to absence of economic freedom, but are rather to the opposite – the lack of adequate restrictions, which can be ensured only through orderly application of monopolistic and oligarchic methods to the world scale. The consumption society has reached the conceivable limit of its development and requires regulation of consumption. The consumption society as is has become an object of conscious but moreover unconscious aggression relevant not only to radical groups of the “Third World”, but also to many other groups within the consumption society itself. Efforts to use various universal processes called globalization, which became possible as a result of information technology development, demonstrated that these tendencies are rather unpredictable for the US economy, since they assume it to be largely open and consequently vulnerable. The thesis of stranding the monetary mass from actual economy has long become a banality; however, it has not yet depleted its significance and veracity. At the change of ages Western society and first of all the USA, encountered the long prognosticated and well expected crisis of resource supply, firstly in the field of energy. During the recent decades the structure of energy consumption did undergo dynamics, but such dynamics rather tending towards vulnerability and detriment in terms of life support and survival. Sharp, absolute and substantial reduction of energy consumption in Eastern Europe and Eurasia after the collapse of the Soviet system was only a temporary obstacle to worldwide crisis occurrences in the field of energy. The change of ages was marked with a problem of widening the spheres of applying capitals and development of new markets. Vast regions of Africa, Latin America and Asia demonstrate little capacity for intensive as well as extensive development. Many of those regions show obvious and latent economic downfall after decades of independent political existence of these states. It appears that this problem will remain for decades. These processes stumbled upon by economically developed states interrelate with such an occurrence as transformation of post-industrial society into post-economic, and this assumes fundamental alteration of the whole values and political-economic paradigm. American society probably lives through a rather dramatic period of its history. America did not become the true melting pot, in which should have had melted various ethnos and cultures. This has been caused by development of telecommunication and information technology and excessive openness of American society. Not only liberal tendencies increased in the society, but also left-liberal, which turned into an alternative to the socialist idea. In the mean time, we are not speaking of the conservative-liberal economic idea, but of left-liberal tendencies in all “niches” of American society. Bill Clinton reforms resulted in leadership of the USA among the economically developed social states of the West. Tremendous, completely inadequate social programs turned into an unbearable burden for the US economy. Those programs not only give birth to dependency atmosphere, but also create a social conflict in the society. This, yet a fairly unexposed social conflict is also connected to strengthening of ethnic, cultural and religious disintegration of American society. Bill Clinton only had to recognize the fact of the necessity to “develop unity in variety”. American society, just like any other highly industrial society has encountered a problem of unprecedented stranding from production means and contract labor, which of course can not be resolved by left-liberal politics. Concurrent with application of rather banal methods of resolving social problems, left-liberal political ideology has bolstered the decay of American values system, which was created and based on American traditionalism and possibly American neo-nationalism that are impossible without appealing to religion and rightist views. In the circumstances of comparatively well-off economic situation during the 2000 presidential campaign, the success of Jorge Bush was in large conditioned by desire of Americans to preserve rightist values, tradition and national pride in the World. There is an idea, often encountered in American and European political science, of shifting of political spectrums in the USA towards center. However, while analyzing political processes in the USA, the emphasis is mainly placed either on economic policy or foreign policy, and as a result, there is an indication of similarity of the positions of the two leading parties of that country. In reality, in internal policy and social life there is building up of the struggle of the Democratic party for introduction of the same left-liberal ideas, while in foreign policy Democrats are becoming accustomed to political technologies and political style of the Republican party. The United States of America that demonstrates an unmatched military-political and economic power on the change of ages have encountered development of uncontrollability of countries and regions, which occupy increasingly favorable positions in economic development, economic and political integration, achieving serious success in acquiring and advancing high technologies. International circumstances emerging from formation of new geopolitical and geo-economic situation bring forward the necessity to reconsider rules and control methods, ensuring security and national sovereignty. Borderline between national and international security becomes more and more indistinguishable for the USA. The United States of America like Byzantine “loose” their foreign policy, viewing the whole world as a field of their own national interests identical to their territory. There is an impression that the USA is the only state capable of fighting world instability in various directions: geopolitical, economic, financial and resources. Many a layers of society, political, business and intellectual sectors in the USA are certain that their country is capable of solving problems of world instability practically by itself, while in parallel there is an increasing confidence that it will require creation of a new order of relationships in the world. Regulations and playing rules based on existence of such organizations ad UN, OSCE, NATO and other political organizations confine the US policy and hold the United States back from making effective and adequate decisions. Potsdam-Yalta peace is long as gone, but organizations born by that system continue to function. This causes an important controversy, which the USA is not yet capable of resolving. And such incapability is not only due to lack of arguments, but is also connected to absence of a comprehended alternative. Neither there is an alternative for reconsideration of economic system expressed in the structure of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organizations and others. However, the main problem is of course not an intellectual one. In order to “reform” world relationships, first of all, fundamental changes are required in the American society itself, creation of new economic relations and none the less than a change of social-political paradigm. Brutal processes connected to growth of political radicalism in the world only accelerated processes taking place in the American society. Conservative (more precisely - neoconservative) revolution that is taking place in the USA is related to presidency of George Bush Junior and his team, who represents not so much the right wing of the Republican Party, as much as large masses of population favoring rightist views and bases of American traditionalism and neo-nationalism. However, the nature of this neoconservative revolution is ideologically and politically limited and conformist in large. Political success of neoconservatives is far from being a result of increasing external threats, and is rather caused by frenzied left liberalism, more precisely liberal totalitarianism, which flooded America and becomes increasingly detested to traditionalist layers of American people. Opponents of neoconservative style in the USA insist that in reality there isn’t a conservative revolution, and it is simply an episode of social-political life, which will end as a result of another presidential election. George Bush’s team in fact has a number of problems in forming its politics ideologically; specifically this refers to foreign policy. George Bush’s team appears marginal on several social-political levels simultaneously: in relation to American society, in relation to American establishment, in relation to Republican Party and even in relation to the rightist-conservative wing of that Party. However, it is the marginal team, if it is really a tem, who is capable to implement a conservative revolution. Even if Democratic Party manages a quick comeback, crisis of left-liberal and liberal ideology will still grow deeper, and corresponding leaders and political groups will drown in their own populism. When in 2000 Republican Party came to power in Washington, American political sector and analytical society started to stress their attention on neoconservative ideology, including neoconservative views in US foreign policy. American neo-conservatism is different to an extent from that of Europe, mainly in the approach to religion, which is more significant in American traditionalism, it being the basis for performing a sort of missionary idea of fairness and freedom in foreign policy. In oppose to Europe, in the USA nationalist idea plays a lesser role and is not sufficiently formulated. There are also differences in certain concepts. For example, in the USA, the liberalism in economics means conservative rightist values of economic freedom. All in all, alike European philosophical, sociological and political tradition, neo-conservatism, and specifically right neo-conservatism in the USA assumes preservation of traditional values, such as religion and church, family, moral and morality, private property and freedom of entrepreneurship, patriotism, dominance of society’s and state interests over the individual ones. In the USA neoconservative ideas are closely tied to protestant cults and Catholic Church, as well as with various religious movements, which commonly in general are called Christian fundamentalism. According to some estimations, several dozens of millions of Americans are followers of that religious-ethical movement. (Will Hatton, the former editor of the Observer, wrote the book representing the United States as a country of the “extraordinary predominance of the Christian Fundamentalism”.) Special place in the system of beliefs of neoconservatives is given to views on foreign policy. Neoconservatives allow the toughest and most decisive actions, including military action, when there is a threat to national interests of the USA and partially to those of its allies, and also to generally accepted principles of freedom. In the American political tradition, there is certain extent of contradiction, since politics of the Republican Party, which was most consistent in reflecting the idea of neo-conservatism, stands out by some isolationism in foreign affairs. However, that tradition also emerges from views regarding priority of national interests. Together with that, neoconservative idea is far to be adequate to traditional foreign policy techniques of Republicans. Ideologists of this approach actively advocate projects of economic and military-political presence of the USA in various regions, including in Central Eurasia, based on concrete interests and tasks, and first of all those of geo-economic nature. Foreign political vivacity pf neoconservatives on George Bush’s team allows cohorts of Democratic Party to insist that there isn’t a principal difference between foreign policy of George Bush and Bill Clinton, except the fact that Republican administration is less prepared professionally and has a human resource problem. In the same time, reference to concrete examples demonstrates that possible war in Near East in its goals and objectives is fundamentally different from the Yugoslavia military operation. In Yugoslavia the United States did not even follow the goal of ensuring its own or European security. War in Yugoslavia was a geopolitical project accompanied by statements of M. Albright regarding “insulted moral principles”. The supposed military operation in Iraq is practically a geo-economic project, which in wide context ignores even the interests of US allies in the region, such allies including Israel. “Economization of geopolitics”. Foreign policy shows tendencies of “economization” of geopolitical and geo-strategic projecting. In essence, geopolitics has transformed into another form of “control over space”, i.e. into geo-economics. Geo-economics ceases to be an instrument or an “auxiliary resource” of geopolitics, and expresses and includes independent targets, priorities and methods of operations. Underway is the establishment of American geo-economics as an operational system or operational regional systems. Two centers of world economy – first Japan and then the European Union have chosen the way if not of political seclusion, then rather increasing distance holding from global and local conflicts, preferring to watch the politics of the USA and showing some resistance to it. Atlantic Alliance and Pacific block “links” have entered a stage of slow but consistent parting or deterioration, while demonstrating increase in strategic controversies. Political elite of the United States came to be unprepared for reconsideration of foreign political priorities and formation of new geopolitical blocks. Despite “revolutionary” statements and doctrines in the sphere of foreign policy, there is a trace of preference to traditional geopolitical orientations and thinking. The United States are trying to ignore previous problems related to global confrontation with Soviet Union and focus on the main opponent – China, which, though remaining economically poor, is capable of throwing the most unexpected challenges in the 21st century. However the USA does not succeed in that, since previous priority problems in Eastern Europe, Near East and South Asia are far from being resolved. In these circumstances, when they demonstrate their preparedness to take practically full responsibility for various conflicts and problems in the world, their main and other economic partners – competitors happen to be in more favorable position and take advantage of it. The United States of America, which “Americanized” world geopolitics, is now facing the task of “Americanizing” geo-economics to use it as a system of methods to contest its competitors. In a wider context this means finding sufficient justification to control not only the internal consumption, but also distribution of the most universal world resources. Meanwhile, distribution refers not only to scopes but also to price fixing. World’s oil business is now facing a close perspective of transferring from resource-price system of “interconnected vessels” to fundamental localization of oil mining, transporting and consumption. This will inevitably impact the conditions of shifting financial flows and efficiency of social production in general. (Having 5% of world population the USA is responsible for up to 28% of world energy resource consumption). Central Eurasia. After the collapse of the soviet system and creation of Newly Independent Sates in Eurasia and Balkans, the US analytical community started cherishing illusions in regard to simplification of, if not World, at least Eurasian geopolitics. Analysts of neoconservative, liberal and realistic stream were able to introduce ideas of likeliness of effective political and geo-economic intrusion into regions of Central Eurasia to political consciousness of American establishment. In the same time it was assumed that so called “Eurasian Balkans” will turn into a hearth of spreading world instability, which will require strong military and political presence of the United States. Central Asia actually became a scene for rather significant local conflicts, but in comparison with Near East, West Africa and South Asia, Central Eurasia appeared to be a fairly stable region considering that these states were in existence for less than 10 years. While the state-building experience in formerly colonial countries of Asia and Africa in most cases demonstrated complete incapability of these societies and elites to establish stable and effective states, in Central Eurasia people demonstrated their capability of state functioning. Possibly in the perspective Eurasia may undergo alterations of state borders or creation of new states, but that will not take place within a process of decay, but rather will be a result of creative construction. The USA discovered the strong desire of these states to be independent not only from Russia and neighboring Asian states, but also from the USA and Western community. In oppose to many states of the “Third World” and Central Europe, the USA were incapable to find any effective methods to influence countries of Central Eurasia, including such aspects as economic aid, participation in conflict resolution, human rights and freedoms. Sates of Central Eurasia integrate such factors as ancient cultures and religious traditions, ethnic and state nationalism, empire stereotype of behavior, as a heritage of soviet mentality and presence of geopolitical ambitions. It should be noted that while after breakdown of colonial systems former colonies oriented mainly to former metropolises, the Newly Independent States of Eastern Europe and Eurasia prefer a multi-directional orientation, including that to regional macro-powers, which are close to them culturally and historically. In parallel with strengthening of foreign political and social pragmatism of elites, these countries preserve the irrational behavior, which is connected not only to habits, but also a known stereotype of behavior. Throughout a short period of independent existence of these states, the United States have made two or three attempts to fundamentally establish its military presence in the Central Eurasia, however, all these attempts were soon reconsidered or strongly corrected. It appeared that military presence of the USA in these regions is rather a complicated, costly and politically and economically unjustified task. The USA did not render assistance to one of its most important ally Turkey in its penetration to Central Eurasia. Inline with that, virtually all states of the Central Eurasia view the partnership with the United States as one of their priorities in foreign policy and are practically open to cooperation, especially in the economic field. What refers to the field of defense and common security, the USA and Western Community still did not offer to this states any realistic security alternative. Only cooperative relations, without contractual and possible operative presence of the US armed forces can not be considered guarantees of security for practically all of these states. In 10 years, after ups and downs of geopolitical and geo-economic “importance of status” of the Caucasus-Caspian and Central Asian regions for the United States, after the “September 11” events, despite certain local military presence of the United States in those regions, their importance has significantly diminished. The United States of America have only one aim in these regions, and it is extraction and transport of energy resources, and the priority is the stability. These tasks, especially with due consideration of cooperation with Russia, are easily achieved without much concentration of efforts and political dramatization. It is to note that the strategic doctrine adopted by George Bush in September 2002 (in oppose to the 1999 doctrine) refers to these regions only in the context of energy issues. In this connection, threats arising out of intra-regional conflicts are not perceived as serious constraints in implementation of energy-communication projects. Significance of threats resulting from local conflicts fades off in the setting of Russian, Turkish and Iranian politics. Near East. Throughout three-four hundred years of the colonial period population of the majority of colonies all together did not exceed the population of metropolises. Colonies or dependent countries were either clan based or underdeveloped feudal societies, and, with certain exceptions, had populations with low passionarity and in those terms certainly conceded to such mighty ethos as Spanish, British, French, German and Russian. One military detachment or several battalions or a small squadron would suffice colonial superpowers to easily control vast territories. Many of the states of Near East, South Asia, Latin America and now in South-East Asia are regional macro-superpowers with armed forces comparable to regular armed forces of leading European states and Russia. In a hypothetical military conflict, it is hard to imagine military success of France, Great Britain, Germany and Russia over such countries as Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Pakistan. Existence of nuclear weapons in those states or the perspective to create it quickly turns any military-political expansion of European big countries completely impossible and unreasonable. European big countries would hardly be able to implement a more or less significant military operation outside the NATO responsibility zone, especially if it involves a wide use of infantry. That is why the only ways for European countries to influence states of Near East (“Big Near East”) may be economic and geo-economic in tandem with some political methods. In the same time Near East did not become a world geopolitical “pole” because it lacks a central geopolitical subject – a regional leader. Besides, Arab states tend to demonstrate lack of integrity and mutual hostility and there may not be a regional alliance. Extravagant attempt of Iran to unite the Arab world and become the “locomotive” of the regional alliance also failed. These two processes – establishment of regional macro-superpowers with significant ambitions and lack of integrity of Arab and Near East states in general are mutually interdependent processes and are an important condition for the US policy in the region. The USA will fail to overcome the upcoming system energy and economic crisis without ensuring a control over 10-15% of the world oil reserve. Another target is to break up OPEC. This, together with the previous aim will allow stopping the oil prices from raising. Disorganization of the world order for extraction, transport and use of oil, including price-fixing is an aim a lot like other attempts of the USA, such as overcoming the activity of UN, OSCE, NATO. The United States have practically brought down the UN to a state of an “advisory club”. OSCE will soon be in the same situation. Then it would be the turn of NATO, which just like the first two, is not in compliance with the requirements of the United States in terms of quick and effective making of decisions to implement actions and operations to battle terrorism, aggression and other brutal occurrences. OPEC has stopped from being a controlled structure within a framework of the US geo-economic policy and that is why it should either be liquidated or reformed. It isn’t likely that OPEC members would be interested in preserving the organization if it has ceased to be the partner of the United States. Interests of the US in reorganizing world oil business involve creation of a new oil transport system, which would be called not only to secure oil delivery to North America and partners of the USA (first of all the Great Britain), but also to form oil prices. In this regard, thesis of the G. Bush administration about creation of a multi-vector system of oil and gas transport means creation of a controllable, stable and rather politicized communication system. For example that task involves a one-way transport of Iraq oil through the territory of Turkey as a basic solution, and further diversification of oil flows depending on loyalty of individual states to the USA. Thus, it is about creating constraints in world market economy, since the US economy can not develop successfully within the framework of further liberalization of world economy. Many of these problems are resolved by fulfilling the task of massive and radical absorption of Iraq, as a country, a state and a society. This means turning oil reserve of the country into the main balance to the processes within the world energy sector. According to some information, oil reserves in Iraq exceed reserves of Saudi Arabia and are estimated at 300 billion tones. Implementation of a similar project in regard to countries, which have comparable oil reserves – Saudi Arabia and Iran is problematic due to political reasons. Iraq is a country in isolation, and even in the framework of the Arab world is rather convenient to serve as a test field for a similar project. In Iraq, the USA combines two problems – ensuring security and resolving a global geo-economic task. In relation to Iraq, the team of neo-conservatives in the George Bush’s administration in Pentagon as well as in the Department of State applies large-scale political technology, directed towards forcing Iraq to accept the conditions of the United States, and avoiding military operation. This technology assumes that the political administration of Iraq and the world community are ascertained that the United States are ready to war and are capable to achieve their goals through implementation of a land operation. However, during last months of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 in Beirut, and probably also in London principle issues were discussed in American-Iraq negotiations. Meanwhile, the level and extent of representation in those negotiations was raising. At the end of 2002, leading officials of the Department of State, who were trying to avoid war to a greater extent that Pentagon officials, received new arguments in regard to the fact that Iraq can be forced to accept US requirements. These requirements came down to two main components: reforming of political structure in Iraq; establishment of the US and British control over extraction and transportation of oil. The United States were conceding certain things and were ready to recognize reserving of come positions with the Iraq political administration of S. Houssein, however, only within a coalition state organ. Widespread discussions around Iraq problem in the American society, Congress and in UN, as well as among the US partners were the elements of the applied political technology. From the point of view of regional and world stability this political technology may be recognized not only as “top gun” maneuvers, but also as generally aiming at avoiding war. On the example of Iraq George Bush was trying to demonstrate the dominance of his team over that of Bill Clinton, which was unable to avoid bombing of Yugoslavia. In the same time Bill Clinton’s goals in Yugoslavia were practically of missionary nature, and due to that fact it is virtually impossible to explain the logic of American policy in Yugoslavia, while George Bush is attempting at fully programmatic goals connected to priorities of security and economic wellbeing of the United States. This is the difference in views of Colin Powel, Richard Armitag, Richard Haas from views of Madlen Albright and accordingly Stroub Telbot and Tomas Pikkering. Probably high ranking “political technologists” in Pentagon, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Richard Perle ands Douglas Feith, who gained movie star popularity during the preparation period of the operation against Iraq, whose political style associates with principles of neo-conservatism in foreign policy, also have other deviant goals directed at creating a new geopolitical structure in Near East, but the administration and President undoubtedly reserved a functional balance in politics. Politics and political style of neo-conservative team of George Bush have lead to a significant alteration of the subject of the “social discussion” and priorities. In relation to Near East this has been most strongly exposed in regard to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Bill Clinton’s administration was aiming for final settlement of the Palestine problem based on overall regulation and creation of a wide spectrum if political and economic cooperation, administration of George Bush decisively and ultimately stepped back from these illusions. George Bush re-stated security guarantees to Israel, and this assumes its military-technical supremacy in the region and to the highest possible extent drew the Palestine problem and other problems of Arab states away from the main problem of the United States in Near East – Iraq. Hopes of moderate politicians in Israel and Arab states for continuation of the active role of the United States in Palestine events ended in vain. Neo-conservatives in Washington do not have illusions regarding the fact that settlement of Palestine problem means settlement of Arab-Israeli relations. They are not happy with Israel, which has lost its main geopolitical functions in the region. Israel is of interest to the USA as a militant country with active politics in a number of regions. It should be indicated that while these political technologies unfold, analytical community of the USA (and rather Great Britain as well) literally “capitulated” in front of the political phenomena of the neo-conservative team in the administration. Personal communication allowed the author to obtain assurance that the dominating part of American and British analysts did not have anything better that to link the resolution of the Iraq problem exclusively to implementation of military land operation. In this respect, analysts certainly conceded to political technologists and actual politicians. Analysts and projectors of realistic direction were especially excited. Essentially the difference between neo-conservatives and followers of “real politics” faded away and that turned to be rather typical for development of the American political thinking. Iran. Iran lives through significant political and social changes. Iran has adopted a defensive doctrine and tries to modernize the economy and integrate into world economic processes. Iran has established Islamic civil society and performs rather democratic and idea oriented parliamentary and presidential elections. The country suffers economic problems and avoids attempts to involve it into regional military and political conflicts. Out of all countries of “Big Near East” Iran is one of the most secure countries and first of all in relation to the US interests. In recent years Iran was practically of no problem to the United States in terms of security. Problem of American-Israeli relations is beyond rationale and is virtually fully dependent on the position of Israel and Jewish-Turkish lobby in the USA. Influence of that lobby can not be overridden by largest influential oil companies of Texas and other industrial companies of the USA, which loose their positions in the world due to continuing American-Iranian confrontation. The USA unsuccessfully expected significant concessions from M. Hatami, but rather quickly accepted that Iranian state and society are more stable than suggested, and has chosen the strategy of waiting for a collapse of state-political system in Iran. This is actively prognosticated by liberal analysts and experts, who have gained experience on observing canons of collapse of the Soviet system. Favorers of hard decisions from the camp of “realists” even suggest dividing Iran by ethnic groups, while offering no sufficient argumentation. Simultaneously, in relation to Iran, just like Iraq, neo-conservatives from the George Bush team suggest to apply technologies of pressing and “new” political-economic blockade to ensure the same goals: reforming the state-political system; establishing control over the reserves of oil and gas. The US administration on the verge of 2002-2003 was far from forming a scenario of pressing and moreover of “new” blockade in relation to Iran. However, Iran for the United States is a much more complicated problem. This is due to the size of the country and its armed forces, impossibility to organize an effective anti-Iranian coalition, absence in Iran of such hard-core governing methods and fundamental difference of Iranian regime from that of Iraq. This does not allow forming an opposition government, which would accept dependence of the country from the United States. American-Iranian relations are significantly more complicated and various, than American-Iraq ones. Iraq is in blockade and isolation and is practically incapable of making effective foreign policy. Iran is an active participant of political processes in all neighboring regions, is a partner of China, Russia and leading European states. That is why the the significance of Israel within the framework of process of realizing American neo-conservative politicians in realizing the US security and economic development plans. This work consists of four parts dedicated to the policy of administration of George Bush in relation to settlement of Arab-Israeli conflict, American-Iraq confrontation, interests of the United States in Caucasus-Caspian region and American-Iranian relations. Our task was to expose political principles and political style of George Bush Republican administration in 2001-2002, which activity is associated with views of American neo-conservatives and problems of geo-economics. However, this work is not about American neo-conservatism and not about geo-economic problems. We were interested in very concrete political actions of the United States in the region of “Big Near East” within hard confrontation and tension of the situation. We were interest how neo-conservative views and principles are applied in realizing strategic geo-economic plans, i.e. resolving of ultimately pragmatic, although global task. We attempted at demonstrating only episodes of politics of Bush administration in regions of “Bog Near East”, hoping to create a certain image and style of the team, which was rather unfalteringly named neo-conservative in the USA. The Work has predominantly used American and British analytical and research works, as well as expert assessments of analysts and researchers from the USA, Great Britain, Russia, Near East, Iran. The Author expresses his gratitude to employees of the following Institutes and research centers for assistance rendered in performing this work:
|