Tweet
IN SEARCH OF SECOND ISRAEL
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28050
Comments - Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 13:13
It would be right to entitle this article "In Search of Another
Israel", but hardly a "second" Israel has been established in the
Greater Middle East.
"Israel" or the model of Israel is undoubtedly a British model. But the
melting forces of the British Empire at the time were not allowed to
implement this model in accordance with the scheme of multiplicative
control region. In fact, the U.S. has not been able to take full
advantage of this model because the American public could not accept
the sacrifice of Israel in regard to the regional strategy.
Anyway, Israel has become a banal user of elementary security from
the provider of successful strategy. The U.S. cannot live with
the monstrous vacuum in the region which occurred in the result of
re-division and change of the balance of forces.
There are a lot of signs that the U.S. needs and has already launched
the plans relating to the creation of "small sites", relying on which
it would further be possible to conduct a regional and a larger-scale
policy. However, there are also signs that the question "what is a
"small site"? what options the country should have to render it
possible to form a "small area" will become topical.
It is clear that this "network" of geopolitical points is not enough
to exercise control on the Near East. It is not necessary to have
at least one republic which is able to fulfill the role of a "small
site" but one which is suitable for the role of the "second Israel",
at least in the region of the "Fertile Crescent". At the same time,
such a republic as Lebanon with its model of "Venice" is not suitable
for these plans at all.
Syria is the country for which tough geopolitical fight between world
and regional force centers has been underway. Syria, a modernized
society of the postmodern era, is to become a fully independent
partner to influence the entire region, constraining the expansion
of Turkey and Iran, acting in tandem with Iraq towards the same goals
and objectives, and at the same time fending off claims by Saudi and
its satellites of the Persian Gulf.
It is possible that a strong "knot" of three or four countries,
Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, will be formed as these are the
most pro-western and secular countries with significant Christian
communities, as well as different Islamic or sub-Islamic sects. In
this construction, Syria is naturally intended to play the role of
"cornerstone", connecting the parts of the construction. At the same
time, Syria is assigned an important transit function for Iraqi oil
transportation and not only, bypassing the vulnerable routes, that
is Turkey, the Straits of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb, as well as the
Suez Canal (by the way, this is in Iran's interests).
The scenario staged in Syria is still mysterious, it does not match
the declaratory policy of the Western community. The Syrian scenario
seems to be the copy of the "Le Havre" model. As is known, during
the Second World War, Winston Churchill launched a landing operation
in Havre to prove that it is possible to land in Normandy. Is the
political and military operation in Syria an attempt to demonstrate
that the large-scale actions in the Middle East are meaningless?
Syria has a huge experience and potential in terms of military,
foreign policy and public administration, including the policy of
coexistence of different ethnic and religious communities. Why is it
necessary to ruin the experience and that country, it is only about
its modernization.
In addition, as Egypt's and Syria's partners, the "Muslim Brothers",
the West's most loyal and adequate public political groups in the Arab
world, have been chosen. While in captivity of modern propaganda,
people sometimes forget that the "Muslim Brothers" was formed
in the early 20th century under the influence and with the direct
participation of the prominent European traditionalists. At present,
the position and policy of "Muslim Brothers" mostly remains unknown
and incomprehensible, and, most importantly, the public political
sphere is not privy to what the connections and relationships of the
"Muslim Brothers" with European and American political clubs are.
What's interesting is that some Islamic politicians very wary of
trends for the "nationalization" of the individual branches of the
"Muslim Brothers". "Brothers" are in power in Egypt, and what has
changed in the policies of the leading countries in the Arab world?
Along with this line, it is good to understand the essence of the
mutual claims of the West and Iran? It may happen so that the events
in Syria will answer this question.
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28050
Comments - Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 13:13
It would be right to entitle this article "In Search of Another
Israel", but hardly a "second" Israel has been established in the
Greater Middle East.
"Israel" or the model of Israel is undoubtedly a British model. But the
melting forces of the British Empire at the time were not allowed to
implement this model in accordance with the scheme of multiplicative
control region. In fact, the U.S. has not been able to take full
advantage of this model because the American public could not accept
the sacrifice of Israel in regard to the regional strategy.
Anyway, Israel has become a banal user of elementary security from
the provider of successful strategy. The U.S. cannot live with
the monstrous vacuum in the region which occurred in the result of
re-division and change of the balance of forces.
There are a lot of signs that the U.S. needs and has already launched
the plans relating to the creation of "small sites", relying on which
it would further be possible to conduct a regional and a larger-scale
policy. However, there are also signs that the question "what is a
"small site"? what options the country should have to render it
possible to form a "small area" will become topical.
It is clear that this "network" of geopolitical points is not enough
to exercise control on the Near East. It is not necessary to have
at least one republic which is able to fulfill the role of a "small
site" but one which is suitable for the role of the "second Israel",
at least in the region of the "Fertile Crescent". At the same time,
such a republic as Lebanon with its model of "Venice" is not suitable
for these plans at all.
Syria is the country for which tough geopolitical fight between world
and regional force centers has been underway. Syria, a modernized
society of the postmodern era, is to become a fully independent
partner to influence the entire region, constraining the expansion
of Turkey and Iran, acting in tandem with Iraq towards the same goals
and objectives, and at the same time fending off claims by Saudi and
its satellites of the Persian Gulf.
It is possible that a strong "knot" of three or four countries,
Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, will be formed as these are the
most pro-western and secular countries with significant Christian
communities, as well as different Islamic or sub-Islamic sects. In
this construction, Syria is naturally intended to play the role of
"cornerstone", connecting the parts of the construction. At the same
time, Syria is assigned an important transit function for Iraqi oil
transportation and not only, bypassing the vulnerable routes, that
is Turkey, the Straits of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb, as well as the
Suez Canal (by the way, this is in Iran's interests).
The scenario staged in Syria is still mysterious, it does not match
the declaratory policy of the Western community. The Syrian scenario
seems to be the copy of the "Le Havre" model. As is known, during
the Second World War, Winston Churchill launched a landing operation
in Havre to prove that it is possible to land in Normandy. Is the
political and military operation in Syria an attempt to demonstrate
that the large-scale actions in the Middle East are meaningless?
Syria has a huge experience and potential in terms of military,
foreign policy and public administration, including the policy of
coexistence of different ethnic and religious communities. Why is it
necessary to ruin the experience and that country, it is only about
its modernization.
In addition, as Egypt's and Syria's partners, the "Muslim Brothers",
the West's most loyal and adequate public political groups in the Arab
world, have been chosen. While in captivity of modern propaganda,
people sometimes forget that the "Muslim Brothers" was formed
in the early 20th century under the influence and with the direct
participation of the prominent European traditionalists. At present,
the position and policy of "Muslim Brothers" mostly remains unknown
and incomprehensible, and, most importantly, the public political
sphere is not privy to what the connections and relationships of the
"Muslim Brothers" with European and American political clubs are.
What's interesting is that some Islamic politicians very wary of
trends for the "nationalization" of the individual branches of the
"Muslim Brothers". "Brothers" are in power in Egypt, and what has
changed in the policies of the leading countries in the Arab world?
Along with this line, it is good to understand the essence of the
mutual claims of the West and Iran? It may happen so that the events
in Syria will answer this question.
From: Baghdasarian