Van 2018 naar 2019: de belangrijkste geopolitieke trends (4)

Bij de overgang van 2018 naar 2019 past een overzicht van de belangrijkste geopolitieke trends in de wereld. In een reeks van vijf artikelen die we in kort tijdsbestek onder deze headline publiceren geven we per issue een beknopt overzicht van de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen, inclusief hoe we die dit jaar zien ontwikkelen. Vandaag het vierde deel:

Deel 4: Europa, migratie, en het Verdeelde Koninkrijk

 May Has to Go party and demonstration at London's Parliament Square, 10 June 2017

Photo: Garry Knight from London, England (Wikimedia Commons)

Europese Unie

Sinds de financiële crisis van 2008 kruipt de Europese Unie uit de recessie. De aanpak waarmee elk land probeert de recessie te bestrijden is griezelig uniform: falende banken worden gered met publieke middelen, op openbare diensten bezuinigd, in gezondheidszorg, huisvesting, uitkeringen en pensioenen gesneden, de overheidsschuld mag oplopen door het injecteren van geleend geld in het stervende kapitalistische systeem. Met concepten als 'de actieve welvaartsstaat' werden werklozen desnoods met harde hand richting een baan geduwd.

Een analyse van de Duitse samenleving toont wat er mis is met Europa. De flexibilisering van de arbeidsmarkt en aanslag op de sociale verworvenheden hebben een kaalslag teweeggebracht. Nieuwkomers (migranten, vrouwen, jongeren) verdienen veel minder en dat tegen slechtere voorwaarden. De sociale mobiliteit is volledig tot stilstand gekomen. De economische groei komt ten goede van een steeds kleinere groep. De politieke elite heeft de bestrijding van werkloosheid (‘werk, werk, werk’) misbruikt en stuurt aan op een neoliberaal Europa.

De toename van onzeker, tijdelijk en slechtbetaald flexwerk zorgde er ook in andere Europese landen voor dat steeds meer werkende mensen geen bestaanszekerheid meer hebben. Zelfs mensen die goed hun brood verdienen zijn bang. De gele hesjes zijn veelal mensen uit de middenklasse die bang zijn voor de toekomst. Dat is kenmerkend voor een samenleving waarin de levenskansen van mensen afhankelijk zijn van de volatiliteit van financiële markten en regeringen niet langer functioneren als instellingen die mensen daadwerkelijk tegen die volatiliteit beschermen.

Landen als Italië, Hongarije en Polen kennen sterke anti-EU gevoelens. De instabiliteit in Frankrijk neemt toe. Of aan de onderliggende bekommernissen van de gele hesjes zal worden tegemoetgekomen is de vraag. De onrust kan leiden tot de val van de regering-Macron. Tezamen met het nakende aftreden van Merkel in Duitsland dreigt de motor van de EU serieus te gaan sputteren en de EU te verbrokkelen op het moment dat ze het meest nodig is.

In Griekenland is een op de vijf mensen werkloos. De Griekse economie staat in essentie onder Duitse controle. Het land is totaal afhankelijk geworden van grievende noodleningen van de rest van de wereld. Spanje worstelt met de ergste crisis sinds het in 1978 een 'democratie' is geworden. De Catalaanse bourgeoisie, die aanvankelijk de door de regering in Madrid opgelegde bezuinigingen afwentelde op de “gewone” Catalanen, verschuilt zich nu achter Catalaans nationalisme en speelt slachtoffer na de weigering van de Spaanse machthebbers om de uitkomst van het onafhankelijkheidsreferendum te aanvaarden.

Besluit de Nazi-junta in Kiev dit jaar tot een aanval op de Donbass of Rusland, dan leidt de daarmee gepaard gaande chaos tot een omvangrijke nieuwe vluchtelingenstroom richting Europa. Onder de vluchtelingen treft men dan zonder twijfel ook heel wat ongure en gevaarlijke types aan, lieden waarvan we er in de Tweede Wereldoorlog teveel gezien hebben.

Een Europees leger?

In een dubbelinterview tussen Europees parlementslid Guy Verhofstadt en journalist Joris Luyendijk stond ook het idee van een Europees leger op de agenda. Verhofstadt bagatelliseerde het vraagstuk op ergerlijke wijze. Aan een Europees leger kleven grote dilemma’s, dat vergt een breed maatschappelijk debat, aldus Luyendijk. 70-80% van de Europeanen mag dan voorstander zijn, maar vraag eens door bij “de Europeanen”. Moeten de Franse kernwapens in Europees beheer komen met Commissievoorzitter Jean-Claude Juncker aan de knoppen? Moeten we onze zonen en dochters opofferen om Estland te bevrijden als Rusland daar binnenvalt?

Professor internationale politiek David Criekemans ziet in de verwatering van de alliantie met de VS een keerpunt. Als men Criekemans goed leest vindt hij het NAVO-lidmaatschap van de EU-lidstaten eigenlijk overbodig. De veiligheidsgarantie van art. 42 in de “Europese grondwet” is veel sterker dan die van de NAVO, want voorziet in automatische bijstand, aldus Criekemans. Tegelijk wijst hij op de noodzaak van een ééngemaakt buitenlands beleid. Dat dit in essentie de overdracht van de nationale soevereiniteit aan de EU met zich meebrengt zegt de professor niet expliciet, wel dat de uitbouw van een Europese “strategische cultuur” wellicht een generatie in beslag zal nemen.

Navraag bij professor Criekemans over zijn visie op een Europees leger levert op dat hij een uitstap niet voor morgen ziet. De EU-veiligheidsgarantie is daar niet klaar voor, kan b.v. niet zonder logistieke zaken als air-to-air refueling, aldus Criekemans. En het is de vraag of landen als Nederland of Denemarken meewillen, nog afgezien van het manco aan een Europese strategische cultuur.

Migratie

Volgens een brochure van 11.11.11 zijn wereldwijd 65 miljoen mensen op de vlucht. In het debat komt de vraag waarom die mensen vluchten nauwelijks aan bod. De politiek heeft niet de moed om de vinger op de wonde te leggen. Vrijwel alle volksvertegenwoordigers waren akkoord met militair ingrijpen zoals dat in Afghanistan, Irak, Syrië en Libië. Het mede in onze naam gepleegde oorlogsgeweld, dát is de reden waarom mensen huis en haard verlaten. En dus moeten wij onze verantwoordelijkheid nemen, vluchtelingen opvangen en voortaan drie maal nadenken voor we steun verlenen aan miltair ingrijpen.

In Europa was er veel te doen over het VN global compact on migration. In België viel zelfs de regering over dit issue. De N-VA kwam met valse of weinig ter zake doende argumenten. Zo zou het VN-pact meer migranten richting Europa lokken. Landen zouden arbeidsmigratie moeten faciliteren en migranten begeleiden. Er zou onvoldoende onderscheid zijn tussen legale en illegale migranten.

In de communicatie is het vaak om “eigen volk” te doen. Diezelfde N-VA heeft wel gestemd voor het pensioen op 67 jaar, de indexsprong en de verhoging van btw en accijnzen. Het echte motief om de regering te laten vallen lijkt dus om de afbouw van de sociale zekerheid te verdoezelen en de gele-vestjes-woede af te wentelen op de migranten.

Maar verzet tegen migratie is contraproductief. Europa heeft migranten hard nodig. De vergrijzing bedreigt onze welvaartsstaat. Hongarije voert ijskoud de “slavenwet” in, Oostenrijk doet iets dergelijks (12 uur/dag of 6 uur/week zonder loontoeslag), en Italië schuift een pakket sociale maatregelen op de lange baan.

Uit onderzoek blijkt dat migratie niet de oorzaak, maar wel katalysator is van het populisme in Europa. Migratie heeft wel sluimerende conflicten in Europa naar boven laten komen. Zie het hoofdstuk Europese Unie.

Brexit

Dinsdag leed de Britse premier Theresa May in het Brexit-debat een verpletterende nederlaag. De grote boosdoener was de backstop die moet garanderen dat de Noord-Ierse grens met Ierland open blijft. De Brexitdeal voorziet in een overgangsperiode tot 31 december 2020. Tot dan blijft er vrij verkeer van personen en goederen, en kunnen de EU en Londen een handelsakkoord uitwerken. Lukt dat in die periode niet, dan treedt de backstop in werking en blijft het VK in een douane-unie met de EU zodat de grens Noord-Ierland/Ierland open kan blijven. Noord-Ierland zou dan de EU-regels blijven volgen, de rest van het VK niet.

Normaal betekent zo’n nederlaag het aftreden van de regeringsleider. Maar gisteren overleefde May de vertrouwensstemming die Labourleider Jeremy Corbin had ingediend met 325 tegen 306 stemmen. Een meerderheid had dan wel genoeg van May, maar vond het scenario van een Labour-regering onder Jeremy Corbin blijkbaar een nog grotere ramp. In alle nuchterheid, een Labour-regering was geen avance. Labour weet immers ook niet hoe het moet. Bij het referendum in 2016 kreeg de bevolking een eenvoudige vraag voorgelegd: blijven of vertrekken. Blijkbaar is het niet zo simpel.

De grote vraag is natuurlijk: wat nu? May blijft stug doorgaan. Het voor maandag aangekondigde nieuwe voorstel lijkt een mission impossible. Een nieuwe Conservatieve premier is al evenmin het antwoord. Niemand weet hoe het dan wél moet. Intussen zou een Conservatief parlementslid een voorstel voor een tweede referendum hebben ingediend. Zo’n initiatief lijkt gerechtvaardigd. De kiezer is in de aanloop naar het referendum in 2016 een pak leugens verkocht. En als de politiek er zelf niet uitkomt moet de kiezer de knoop maar doorhakken. Nu de nadelen en risico’s bekend zijn lijkt de stemming richting Remain te gaan.

De oplossing die May voor ogen staat zal wel een verlenging van de overgangsperiode met één jaar zijn. Het VK blijft dan tot eind 2021 in de interne markt, blijft de EU-regels volgen, en blijft betalen voor zijn toegang tot de Europese markt. Raakt de in die zin aangepaste deal niet door het parlement, dan blijft de optie no-Brexit over, al of niet op grond van een tweede referendum. Een no-deal, een harde Brexit op 29 maart zonder akkoord, is geen optie: slecht voor de EU, maar rampzalig voor het VK. Ian Blackford, de leider van de Scottish National Party, zei daarvan: “Het VK is op weg naar zelfvernietiging”. En in een no-deal scenario zou de grens met Ierland dicht moeten, met alle risico’s van een hervatting van The Troubles van dien.

Theoretisch is er een eenvoudige oplossing: Ierse hereniging. De grens met de EU ligt dan in de Ierse Zee en Noordzee. Maar het “verlies” van Noord-Ierland betekent niet enkel het einde van het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De Schotten, die zich van meet af aan tegen Brexit hebben verzet, zullen zich dan eveneens willen afscheiden, en ook een meerderheid in Wales ziet niets in Brexit. In zo’n scenario ligt het einde van Great Britain in het verschiet, het land dat maar niet over zijn glorieus verleden als Empire heenkomt.

NATO, at war with itself, rearms for war with the world

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Photo: Imago/Eibner Europa

By Andre Damon

Media coverage of this week’s NATO summit was dominated by the deepening tensions between US President Donald Trump and Washington’s military allies, in particular Germany, amid a mounting international trade war launched by the White House last month.

Despite the displays of division, capped by Trump’s mafioso-like demands for greater military spending by his “delinquent” NATO allies, all members of the alliance reaffirmed their commitment to massive military rearmament, to be paid for with sweeping cuts to public infrastructure and attacks on the social position of the working class.

Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, declared at the end of the summit that “after years of decline, when Allies were cutting billions, now they are adding billions.” He boasted that over the past year and a half, “European Allies and Canada have added an additional 41 billion dollars to their defense spending.”

The most immediate and tangible outcome of the summit was a NATO plan to expand the number of high-readiness military forces ready to attack Russia, or any other country, at a moment’s notice. The summit resolution declared that “Allies will offer an additional 30 major naval combatants, 30 heavy or medium manoeuvre battalions, and 30 kinetic air squadrons, with enabling forces, at 30 days’ readiness or less.”

The resolution reaffirmed NATO’s moves to deploy “four multinational combat-ready battalion-sized battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,” including “over 4,500 troops from across the Alliance, able to operate alongside national home defence forces,” all within hundreds of miles of Russia’s second-largest city, St. Petersburg.

The summit further agreed to create two new command headquarters: one in Norfolk, Virginia, “to focus on protecting the transatlantic lines of communication,” and a new command center in Germany to “ensure freedom of operation and sustainment in the rear area in support of the rapid movement of troops and equipment into, across, and from Europe.”

The summit resolution reaffirms the expansion of NATO’s nuclear arsenal, declaring, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. The strategic forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States, are the supreme guarantee of the security of Allies.”

It further vowed to continue NATO’s eastward expansion, reiterating NATO’s plans to invite Macedonia, Ukraine and Georgia to join the anti-Russian alliance.

The massive military build-up throughout Europe will be paid for with stepped-up attacks on the working class, through the dismantling of social safety nets and, as pioneered by the government of French President Emanuel Macron, wage and benefit cuts for state workers and the privatization of state assets.

Trump made clear that his demand for greater European military spending is inseparable from his mercantilist economic policies aimed at improving the US balance of trade with Germany, the world’s third-ranking exporter after China and the United States.

His denunciations of Germany for its purchase of natural gas from Russia became a focal point of the summit. In Trump’s view, Germany, which exports twice as much to the United States as it imports, must buy US natural gas at premium prices if it is to receive “protection” from the US military.

In pursuit of his trade conflict with Germany, Trump has consciously sought, as with his statement in support of a “hard” Brexit Thursday, to destabilize the European Union. He has promoted far-right, Eurosceptic political movements, whose denunciations of the “Brussels bureaucracy” are little more than a cover for national antagonisms with Germany, the dominant power within the EU.

But this is a dangerous game. Stratfor, in an analysis of the NATO summit, warned that Europe is a “continent riven with rivalry.”

“The U.S. strategy to deal with Russia will remain inextricably linked to how it manages a balance of power on the European continent,” it continues. “The United Kingdom is too consumed with its divorce from the bloc to assume its traditional balancing role for the Continent. That knocks out the third leg of the triad of great European powers, leaving an uneasy pair in France and Germany to prevent the Continent from descending into an all-too-familiar pattern of conflict.”

Stratfor adds, “But it is one thing for the U.S. president to recognize and operate within the limits of an uncomfortable reality without losing sight of its core imperative: maintaining a balance of power in Europe is still essential to the United States’ ability to manage growing competition with Russia and China and any peripheral distractions that may emerge. It is another thing to actively stoke nationalist embers on the Continent and encourage the unraveling of an imperfect bloc through trade assaults and transactional security threats. The latter is playing with fire.”

But “playing with fire” is exactly Trump’s strategy in both domestic and international politics. Trump, expressing the instincts of a semi-criminal real estate speculator, is intent on calling everyone’s bluff – allies and enemies alike.

Edward Luce, commenting Thursday in the Financial Times, noted that “Trump knows more than his critics give him credit for” because “he instinctively grasps other people’s bottom lines.” He adds, “The most lethal demagogue is one who grasps an underlying reality. Mr. Trump knows that Europe needs America more than America needs Europe.”

While “wrecking” alliances “reduces Washington’s global clout,” the “bigger loser is Europe. Its survival depends on America’s guarantee.”

In other words, Trump’s actions, “unconventional” as they are, reflect something objective in the US position in the world geopolitical and economic order. Recognizing the United States’ role as the reactionary keystone of global imperialism, Trump is demanding “protection” money from its “allies,” no matter the cost to the stability of the geopolitical order.

The American president, in the whirlwind of the past month, in which he scuttled the G7 summit, launched a trade war against Europe and China, held a summit with North Korea hoping to turn it against China, and is on the verge of a summit with Vladimir Putin aiming to turn Russia against Iran, has thrown all international alliances up in the air, aiming to extract maximum trade, economic and military concessions from “ally” and “enemy” alike.

This turbulent and chaotic world order recalls nothing so much as the geopolitics of the 1930s, with an endless parade of alliances created one day and overturned the next. In that period, each alliance created, no less than each alliance broken, was the prelude to the eruption of world war.

And in the 1930s, as now, every country was re-arming to the teeth amid the eruption of trade war and the rise and promotion of fascist movements throughout Europe.

The outcome of the NATO summit, with is peculiar combination of massive rearmament and explosive divisions, substantially heightens the risk of world war. Who will be the combatants in such a conflict, over what nominal cause, cannot be foretold. But all those who claimed that, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO would be converted into a “peaceful” and “democratic” alliance have been exposed as charlatans.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 12 July 2018, and was republished with permission.

The Iran nuclear pact and US imperialism’s drive for global hegemony

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sits across from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Vienna, Austria, on July 13, 2014,

before they begin a bilateral meeting focused on Iran's nuclear program. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

By Keith Jones

After 20 months of negotiations, the Obama administration last week reached agreement with Iran, China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany on a 15-year accord to “normalize” Iran’s civil nuclear program. Should this agreement survive the opposition of sections of the US ruling elite, it will constitute a significant tactical shift on the part of US imperialism, one with potentially far-reaching implications.

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution toppled the Shah’s bloody US-backed dictatorship, implacable opposition to Iran has been a constant in US foreign policy. During the past 12 years, Washington dramatically intensified its campaign of bullying and threats. Having ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively Iran’s eastern and western neighbors, George W. Bush twice came close to launching war against Iran.

In 2009, the Obama administration sought to bring about regime-change in Tehran via a “Green Revolution” fomented through unsubstantiated claims of a stolen election. Two years later, Washington cajoled its European allies to join the US in imposing the most punishing economic sanctions ever deployed outside a war.

Now, in exchange for sweeping concessions from Iran, Washington has agreed to suspend the economic sanctions and provide Tehran a 15-year path to “normalize” its civil nuclear program.

Obama has stipulated that last week’s agreement with Tehran is limited to the constraints on its civil nuclear program. Yet Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other leading US officials have also made clear that they view the agreement as exploratory, a means to test Iran’s intentions. Their policy of “engagement” with Iran is a strategic bet that through a combination of continuing pressure and inducements, including an influx of Western investment, US imperialism will be able to harness Tehran to its predatory agenda.

The Republican Party leadership, the Wall Street Journal and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are publicly opposing this shift. They are demanding that Obama extract iron-clad guarantees of Tehran’s submission and warning against sidelining the US’s traditional Mideast client states, above all Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The public bluster of the Republicans, however, is not necessarily an indication of the real intentions of the main decision-makers in the Republican Party. To some extent, the Republicans’ opposition can prove useful to Obama in prying further concessions from Tehran. That said, it is far from certain the Iran nuclear accord will be implemented, let alone endure.

The nuclear accord and the fractious ruling class debate over it are a reflection of the mounting problems that US imperialism faces as it seeks through aggression and war to offset the erosion of its relative economic power and to confront multiplying challenges to its global hegemony.

There is deep dissatisfaction within the US ruling class over the outcome of the three major wars the US has waged in the broader Middle East over the past decade-and-a-half. In Ukraine, Washington has thus far been stymied, with the sanctions imposed on Russia failing to produce the desired results. To the Obama administration’s dismay, many of its closest allies, led by Britain, defied the US and signed up as founding members of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Development Bank earlier this year.

All of this has left the Obama administration and the US ruling class groping for an effective, integrated plan of attack.

Certain things can be said concerning the trajectory of US imperialism, the strategic calculations that underlie the proposed shift in US relations with Iran, and the implications of this shift:

* Obama and the entire US ruling elite are determined to maintain US global hegemony through military force.

There is something decidedly ominous about the president’s repeated proclamations over the past week that the failure of his diplomatic turn to Iran would result in war. These comments underscore that Washington is far from renouncing violence and point to the explosive character of global relations.

* Central to American imperialism’s global strategy is dominance over Eurasia, the vast land mass that is home to almost two-thirds of the world’s population.

In pursuit of this aim, Washington has long viewed Iran as an especially significant prize. The country stands at the intersection of three continents (Europe, Asia and Africa), commands the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world’s exported oil flows, straddles two of the world’s most energy-rich regions (Central Asia and the Middle East), and itself possesses the world’s second largest natural gas and fourth largest oil reserves.

* Washington’s trumped-up conflict with Iran over its nuclear program was never just about Iranian-US relations. Nor was it solely about control of the Middle East. It always involved the broader question of US relations with the world’s major powers.

Even as US dependence on Mideast oil has declined, Washington has stepped up its efforts to maintain control over the Middle East so as to ensure domination over a region that supplies many of its principal competitors in Europe and Asia, including China and Japan, with much of their oil.

* When Obama claims, as he has repeatedly done, that for US imperialism war is the only alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran that realizes many but not all of Washington’s objectives, he is, for once, not lying.

Had the sanctions regime started to unravel, Washington would have faced a demonstrable challenge to its pretensions to world leadership, one that it could not walk away from without suffering a major geo-political defeat. In response, it would have been obliged to extend the sanctions--in other words, retaliate against the “sanctions-busters” by freezing their overseas assets and denying Iran access to the US-European controlled world banking system. Or, in order to avoid such action, which could quickly spiral into a military confrontation with China or Russia, the US would have been compelled to render the issue moot by abandoning the sanctions in favor of all-out war.

The Pentagon has long been planning and gaming such a war. And while the American people know nothing of these plans, in various think tank reports it is openly admitted that a war with Iran—a country four times the size of Iraq and with nearly three times the population, and which has significant state and foreign militia allies—would quickly envelop the entire Middle East. It would further inflame the US-stoked Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict and, at the very least, tie down much of the US military for a protracted period. Last, but not least, such a war would incite rising popular opposition in the US, where class tensions are already fraught after decades of social reaction.

Obama is arguing that US imperialism has a cheaper, more prudent alternative. One, moreover, that, as Defence Secretary Ashton Carter boasted Sunday, “does nothing to prevent the military option” in the future.

* The agreement with Iran has been designed to give the US the maximum leverage over Iran and the maximum strategic flexibility. Should Tehran prove insufficiently pliant or should circumstances change, the US can initiate procedures to automatically “snap back” the sanctions and pivot back to confrontation with Iran.

Moreover, all of Obama’s arguments in favor of the nuclear accord—his assertion that it is better to “test” Iran’s intentions than immediately embark on a war that could prove hugely damaging to US imperialism’s strategic interests—are predicated on Washington’s supposed right to wage pre-emptive war against Iran.

* The Obama administration sees Western engagement with Iran as a means of preventing Tehran from being drawn into closer partnership with China and Russia. China is already Iran’s biggest trading partner and Russia its most important military-strategic partner.

A further US priority is to see if it can enlist Iranian support in stabilizing the Middle East under Washington’s leadership. The US and Iran are already at least tacitly allied in supporting the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish militia in opposing ISIS in Iraq.

The Obama administration has also served notice that it intends to use the nuclear agreement to pressure Iran to assist it in reaching a political agreement in Syria that would see Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime replaced by one more amenable to US interests. Reversing previous US policy, Obama announced last week that Tehran should “be part of the conversation” in resolving the Syrian conflict.

* Longer term, the supporters of Obama’s Iran gambit aim to “turn” Iran, transforming it into an advance post of US imperialism in the Middle East and all Eurasia. That means to return the country to the type of neo-colonial subjugation that existed under the Shah’s regime.

Toward this end, Washington plans to probe and exploit the deep fissures within Iran’s bourgeois-clerical regime. It is keenly aware that the reins of Iran’s government are now in the hands of a faction (led by ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani and his protégé, the current president, Hassan Rouhani) that has argued since at least 1989 for a rapprochement with Washington and has longstanding close ties to European capital.

* The Iran nuclear accord only intensifies the contradictions in US foreign policy, laying the basis for future shocks.

While exploring engagement with Iran, Washington is seeking to placate its traditional regional allies by showering them with offers of new weapons systems and increased military and intelligence cooperation. These actions threaten Tehran, which—notwithstanding the relentless US media campaign aimed at depicting it as an aggressor—already faces a massive military technology gap, not just with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

Nor can the US afford to stand idly by as the European powers scramble to get back into Iran. On Sunday, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel arrived in Iran at the head of a German business delegation. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has said he will soon follow.

To secure support from the US ruling elite, Obama is stressing that he has only agreed to lift the latest round of US sanctions on Iran. Other sanctions imposed in the name of opposing terrorism remain, meaning US corporations continue to be effectively barred from doing business in Iran.

If the US is not to lose out in the race to secure Iranian assets, it must either move forward with rapprochement—over the strenuous opposition of Washington’s current Mideast allies--or revert back to confrontation and demand the Europeans and others follow suit.

* Other strategic calculations, many of a pragmatic and short-term character, also appear to be bound up with the Obama administration’s decision to consummate a deal with Iran now. One cannot make firm judgments about these calculations, as events are moving rapidly and Washington’s policies are fraught with contradictions.

However, it was striking that in the lengthy interview Obama gave to the New York Times last week, the US president praised President Vladimir Putin, saying the agreement with Tehran could not have been reached without Russia’s strong support. He added that he had been “encouraged” by a recent phone call Putin made to talk about Syria. “That,” declared Obama, “offers us an opportunity to have a serious conversation with them.”

Is it possible that Obama is considering responding positively to Putin’s pleas for a ratcheting down of tensions over Ukraine in exchange for Moscow’s abandonment of Syria’s Assad? Could this be bound up not just with the crisis of US policy in the Middle East, but also with growing tensions between Washington and Berlin? Could this be intended as a shot-across-the-bow to Germany?

The US ruling elite has reacted with dismay to Germany’s cavalier role in the recent negotiations between the EU and Greece—not out of any concern for the Greek masses, but because of Berlin’s bald assertion of its new role as Europe’s disciplinarian.

Should the US ruling elite ultimately opt to move forward with the Iran deal, it will be from the standpoint of better positioning itself to withstand challenges to its dominance, including through military means, from its more formidable opponents, not only Russia and China, but also Germany, Japan and the other imperialist powers.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 21 July 2015, and was republished with permission.

US officials consider nuclear strikes against Russia

U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, talks at a press conference July 31, 2014, Gaziantep, Turkey.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Nicole Sikorski/Released)

By Niles Williamson

US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is meeting today at the headquarters of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany with two dozen US military commanders and European diplomats to discuss how to escalate their economic and military campaign against Russia. They will assess the impact of current economic sanctions, as well as NATO’s strategy of exploiting the crisis in eastern Ukraine to deploy ever-greater numbers of troops and military equipment to Eastern Europe, threatening Russia with war.

A US defense official told Reuters that the main purpose of the meeting was to “assess and strategize on how the United States and key allies should think about heightened tensions with Russia over the past year.” The official also said Carter was open to providing the Ukrainian regime with lethal weapons, a proposal which had been put forward earlier in the year.

Most provocatively, a report published by the Associated Press yesterday reports that the Pentagon has been actively considering the use of nuclear missiles against military targets inside Russia, in response to what it alleges are violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Russia denies US claims that it has violated the INF by flight-testing ground-launched cruise missiles with a prohibited range.

Three options being considered by the Pentagon are the placement of anti-missile defenses in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles out of the sky; a “counterforce” option that would involve pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes on Russia military sites; and finally, “countervailing strike capabilities,” involving the pre-emptive deployment of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia.

The AP states: “The options go so far as one implied—but not stated explicitly—that would improve the ability of US nuclear weapons to destroy military targets on Russian territory.” In other words, the US is actively preparing nuclear war against Russia.

Robert Scher, one of Carter’s nuclear policy aides, told Congress in April that the deployment of “counterforce” measures would mean “we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia.”

According to other Pentagon officials, this option would entail the deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles throughout Europe.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joe Skewers told AP, “All the options under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no significant military advantage from their violation.”

The criminality and recklessness of the foreign policy of Washington and its NATO allies is staggering. A pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russian forces, many of them near populated areas, could claim millions of lives in seconds and lead to a nuclear war that would obliterate humanity. Even assuming that the US officials threatening Russia do not actually want such an outcome, however, and that they are only trying to intimidate Moscow, there is a sinister objective logic to such threats.

Nuclear warmongering by US officials immensely heightens the danger of all-out war erupting accidentally, amid escalating military tensions and strategic uncertainty. NATO forces are deploying for military exercises all around Russia, from the Arctic and Baltic Seas to Eastern Europe and the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Regional militaries are all on hair-trigger alerts.

US officials threatening Russia cannot know how the Kremlin will react to such threats. With Moscow concerned about the danger of a sudden NATO strike, Russia is ever more likely to respond to perceived signs of NATO military action by launching its missiles, fearing that otherwise the missiles will be destroyed on the ground. The danger of miscalculations and miscommunications leading to all-out war is immensely heightened.

The statements of Scher and Carter confirm warnings made last year by the WSWS, that NATO’s decision to back a fascist-led putsch in Kiev in February, and to blame Russia without any evidence for shooting down flight MH17, posed the risk of war. “Are you ready for war—including possibly nuclear war—between the United States, Europe, and Russia? That is the question that everyone should be asking him- or herself in light of the developments since the destruction of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17,” the WSWS wrote .

In March, Putin stated that he had placed Russian forces, including its nuclear forces, on alert in the aftermath of the Kiev putsch, fearing a NATO attack on Russia. Now the threat of war arising from US policy has been confirmed directly by statements of the US military.

These threats have developed largely behind the backs of the world working class. Workers in the United States, Europe and worldwide have time and again shown their hostility to US wars in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Yet nearly 15 years after these wars began, the world stands on the brink of an even bloodier and more devastating conflict, and the media and ruling elites the world over are hiding the risk of nuclear war.

US President Barack Obama is expected to escalate pressure on Russia at the G7 summit this weekend, pressing European leaders to maintain economic sanctions put in place in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year. The latest outbreak in violence in Ukraine this week, which the US blames on Russia, is to serve as a pretext for continuing the sanctions.

Speaking to Parliament on Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko warned of a “colossal threat of the resumption of large-scale hostilities by Russian and terrorist forces.” He claimed without proof that 9,000 Russian soldiers are deployed in rebel-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, in eastern Ukraine.

“Ukraine’s military should be ready for a new offensive by the enemy, as well as a full-scale invasion along the entire border with the Russian Federation,” Poroshenko said. “We must be really prepared for this.” He said the Ukrainian army had at least 50,000 soldiers stationed in the east, prepared to defend the country.

Poroshenko’s remarks came a day after renewed fighting in eastern Ukraine between Kiev forces and Russian-backed separatists resulted in dozens of casualties. This week’s fighting marked the largest breach to date of the cease-fire signed in February.

Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday that Russia believed the previous day’s hostilities had been provoked by Kiev to influence upcoming discussions at the G7 summit this weekend and the EU summit in Brussels at the end of the month. “These provocative actions are organized by Ukraine’s military forces, and we are concerned with that,” he stated.

Each side blamed the other for initiating fighting in Marinka, approximately nine miles west of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk. Yuriy Biryukov, an adviser to Poroshenko, reported on Thursday that five Ukrainian soldiers had been killed in the fighting, and another 39 wounded. Eduard Basurin, deputy defense minister and spokesman for the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), told Interfax that 16 rebel fighters and five civilians had been killed.

Ukrainian forces also fired artillery at the rebel-held city of Donetsk on Wednesday. Shells landed in the southwest districts of Kirovsky and Petrovsky, killing 6 people and wounding at least 90 others. The city’s Sokol market was severely damaged, with several rows of shops burned to the ground.

Responding to Wednesday’s developments, members of the fascistic Right Sector militia have been called to mobilize for battle. Andrey Stempitsky, commander of the militia’s paramilitary battalion, posted a message on Facebook calling on those who went home during the cease-fire to “return to their combat units.” He warned that the Right Sector would “wage war, ignoring the truce devotees.”

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 5 June 2015, and was republished with permission.