<Michael Klare: Tough Oil on TapThe Oil DrumPeak Phosphorus>
<DrumBeat: August 16, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: August 18, 2007>

286 comments on DrumBeat: August 17, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Cid Yama on August 17, 2007 - 8:15am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Headlines:

Iranian forces shell Iraq's Kurdistan region

Russia, China and Iran warn U.S. to stay out of Central Asia

Russia to Build AK-47 and Ammo Factories in Venezuela

Russian Military Returns to Soviet Bluster

Syria Drops Peg to U.S Dollar

The Post Peak Oil Historian

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GLT149 on August 17, 2007 - 9:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Russia is taking steps in the face of US policies that Russia considers threatening. It appears that Russia is anticipating decreased US influence in the Middle East after apparent defeat in Iraq. They are positioned to reopen a permanent military base in Syria and assert a naval presence in the area. The blowback from US Administration decisions over the passed 6 years is becoming more and more apparent.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_tisdall/2007/08/putins_power_p...

The bottom line is that Russia is manoeuvring to profit from what it sees as an irresistible window of opportunity - the power shift that would follow a US defeat in Iraq, Mr Baev said. "In the envisaged no-holds-barred power play, Russia would not have any allies but could enjoy perfect freedom of manoeuvre and exploit the advantage of not being afraid of any oil crisis."

"Declaring its adherence to pragmatism, Moscow is in fact increasingly adopting anti-Americanism as its guiding political idea." Toying with military bases in Syria was just part of a bigger, bolder bid to challenge US regional and global leadership.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
River on August 17, 2007 - 9:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

U.S. Marches Closer To War With Iran'

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH18Ak04.html

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

'The Bush administration has leaped toward war with Iran by, in essence, declaring war with the main branch of Iran's military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which it plans to brand as a terrorist organization.

A logical evolution of US President George W Bush's ill-defined, boundless "war on terror", the White House's move is dangerous to the core, opening the way for open confrontation with Iran. This

may begin in Iraq, where the IRGC is reportedly most active and, ironically, where the US and Iran have their largest common denominators.

A New York Times editorial has dismissed this move as "amateurish" and a mere "theatric" on the part of the lame-duck president, while at the same time admitting that it represents a concession to "conflict-obsessed administration hawks who are lobbying for military strikes". The political analysts who argue that the main impact of this initiative is "political" are plain wrong. It is a giant step toward war with Iran, irrespective of how well, or poorly, it is thought of, particularly in terms of its immediate and long-term implications, let alone the timing of it.'...snip...

'The US has "unfettered" itself for a strike on Iran by targeting the IRGC, and that translates into heightened security concerns. "The United States never branded the KGB [Russian secret service] or the Soviet army as terrorist, and that shows the limits of the Cold War comparison," the Tehran political scientist said. His only optimism: there are "two US governments" speaking with divergent voices, ie, "deterrence diplomacy and preemptive action", and "that usually, historically speaking, spells policy paralysis"...snip...

'No matter, the stage is now set for direct physical clashes between Iran and the US, which has blamed the death of hundreds of its soldiers on Iranian-made roadside bombs. One plausible scenario is the United States' "hot pursuit" of the IRGC inside Iranian territory, initially through "hit and run" commando operations, soliciting an Iranian response, direct or indirect, potentially spiraling out of control.

The hallucination of a protracted "small warfare with Iran" that would somehow insulate both sides from an unwanted big "clash of titans" is just that, a fantasy born and bred in the minds of war-obsessed hawks in Washington and Israel.'...snip...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SacredCowTipper on August 17, 2007 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There is a whole lot of hallucination behind the Bush administration's foreign policy. I keep hoping for adult supervision from that new Democratic majority but there is something holding them back. I think a nice shot of impeachment might clean things up a bit, but I fear Bush would totally act out if called to account.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on August 17, 2007 - 11:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So wait, you're saying that our innovative policy of Preemptive War and the PNAC's (Project for a New American Censure) desire to create an 'uncontestable US military' is going to have the perverse consequence of both Defining the terms of 'the conversation', as well as practically guaranteeing that someone will emerge with the 'equal and opposite reaction' that even simple physics would seem to predict?

Absurd!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on August 18, 2007 - 5:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Russia's foreign policy has almost as strong an element of unreality as does the United States foreign policy. Look at Russia. It has a horrible demographic problem and it is going to peak soon in oil production. Where does Putin get off thinking he can elevate the Russian position toward the rest of the world?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.