Bollyn on the missile defense shield

[Large Sarge]

Made in Israel: Obama Decision on Missile Shield


U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama II announces the end of the proposed anti-Iranian missile defense system on September 17,  2009.  Obama's decision to abort the missile shield was evidently made in Israel and offered as a quid pro quo by Israeli leaders during their impromptu summits in Russia in the wake of the mysterious hijacking of the Arctic Sea.  The U.S. government is also controlled by a gang of Zionist pirates and their agent in the White House - Rahm Emanuel - the son of an Irgun terrorist.

September 19, 2009

The sudden decision by the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II, to abandon the proposed U.S. "missile shield" to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, was actually made by Israeli military and political leaders - primarily President Shimon Peres and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak.  The decision to abort the proposed anti-Iranian missile defense system is the most obvious quid pro quo given by Israeli leaders to their Russian counterparts during impromptu summits in Russia in the aftermath of the Arctic Sea intrigue.  In exchange for Moscow's support to keep Iran from obtaining an anti-aircraft missile system and assistance to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, the Israeli leaders promised to use their influence in Washington to abort the proposed U.S. missile shield which was seen as a threat to Russia, although such a system is not ready to be deployed and was probably just a bluff meant to antagonize the Kremlin.

THE ARCTIC SEA INTRIGUE

The hijacking of the Arctic Sea in July and August apparently played a key role in the Obama administration's "decision" to abort the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.  Sources in Tel Aviv and Moscow told the Sunday Times that the Arctic Sea had been loaded with S-300 missiles, Russia's most advanced anti-aircraft weapon, while supposedly undergoing repairs in the Russian port of Kaliningrad. The missiles had reportedly been sold to Iran by former military officers linked to the underworld, according to the Times.

The Arctic Sea was then hijacked in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Sweden.  The alleged hijackers, four Estonians, two Russians, and two Latvians, reportedly boarded the ship claiming their inflatable craft was in trouble and then took over the ship at gunpoint. The ship was officially carrying a cargo of timber and disappeared en route to Algeria on July 24. It was finally recovered off west Africa on August 17 when eight alleged hijackers were arrested.  This was a very bizarre case of a vessel being hijacked in the Baltic Sea.  The Arctic Sea incident is reminiscent of the Israeli hijacking of the Scheersberg A in 1968, a ship that left Antwerp with 200 tons of uranium but never arrived at its destination, and the Estonia catastrophe of 1994.  Shimon Peres, the head of Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program, was involved in these incidents as well.  The uranium was taken to Israel for its illegal nuclear weapons program.  Estonia, a passenger ferry, is known to have been carrying contraband Soviet military technology bound for Israel - with the connivance of Swedish authorities - via Arlanda Airport in Stockholm.

Sources in Moscow told the Sunday Times that Mossad played a part in the alleged hijacking of the Arctic Sea by setting up a criminal gang, who did not know anything about the secret cargo. "The best way for the Israelis to block the cargo from reaching Iran would have been to create a lot of noise around the ship," said a former army officer.

The Russian-born Shimon Peres, 86, visited Russia the day after the ship was recovered and held talks with his counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on August 18.  Peres then announced that he had secured a promise from Medvedev that Russia would review its decision to sell the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.  

"Clearly the Israelis played a role in the whole Arctic Sea saga," a Russian military source told the Sunday Times. "Peres used the incident as a bargaining chip over the issue of arms sales to Arab states, while Israel allowed the Kremlin a way out with its claims to have successfully foiled a piracy incident."

But what did Peres really offer in return for Russian cooperation on Iran?  There must have been something much more substantial to warrant secret Israeli summits in Russia.  It certainly looks like the proposed U.S. "missile shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic was the key element of the Israeli deal although the missile system was far from being realized and appears to have been more of a bluff.

Russia reportedly agreed to sell Iran the anti-aircraft missiles several years ago, but Israel fiercely opposed the deal that would greatly enhance Tehran's ability to protect itself against an Israeli air strike.  In the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations the S-300 missiles would increase Israeli casualties by 50 percent, an Israeli air force source told the Times.

Eight suspects from an Estonia-based gang of criminals have been accused of hijacking the Arctic Sea and are now awaiting trial in Moscow on piracy and kidnapping charges.

OBAMA'S "DECISION"

Steven Hurst of the Associated Press analyzed the decision to abandon the missile shield in the context of the Zionist effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear energy:

In what could shape a major geopolitical realignment, the White House is scrapping a key irritant in the soured U.S.-Russian relationship — the Bush-era plan for a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

So far, only the U.S. has showed its hand, but the timing of the announcement, just days before Obama is to meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, points to the prospect of deep bargaining to entice Moscow's help on Iran.

But who did the "deep bargaining" with Russia that resulted in Obama's announcement?  Henry Kissinger hasn't been to Russia lately, nor has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The most recent summits were between the Israeli leaders, close friends of Rahm Emanuel's family, and the Russian leadership.  Following the impromptu Israeli-Russian summits, senior Russian officials announced that they do not support a nuclear-armed Iran.  This was followed by the sudden decision to abort the missile defense system announced by President Barack Hussein Obama II.  Seeing that Obama is controlled by the Zionist agent Rahm Emanuel, the Israeli connection could hardly be more obvious.

It certainly appears that the orders were given by Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff at the Obama White House, to instruct Obama to announce that the Bush-era "missile defense" plan had been scrapped.  Whether Americans realize it or not, this is clearly the way decisions are being made in the Oval Office in 2009.  Welcome to the new America.  Nothing has really changed at all.  The Zionists have near total control.



Most Americans are unaware of the fact that the real decisions in the Obama White House are made by Rahm Emanuel, the foul-mouthed Israeli-American chief of staff from Chicago who lost his finger in a meat slicer.  Rahm was named after a Zionist terrorist by his father Benjamin, himself an Israeli terrorist who allegedly participated in the murder of the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte.  Bernadotte was serving as the UN envoy to Palestine following the disastrous partition plan of 1947 which cut the Holy Land into pieces for the Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinian population.  This was the devilish UN scheme that gave Russian Zionists a foothold in Palestine.  The Palestinians, who under the British Mandate had been forced to accept large numbers of atheist communist Jews to settle in the Holy Land, then lost everything during the Zionist ethnic cleaning in 1948 in which some 400 Palestinian villages and towns were erased from the map.  As the Yiddish (Eastern European) saying goes:  Give a pig a finger - it'll take your whole hand.

Finis


Recommended Reading and Sources:

Bollyn, Christopher, "The Illusion of Democracy & The Great Zionist Rip-Off," April 6, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/news-comments

Bollyn, "Obama and the Jews," April 21, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/obama-and-the-jews

Bollyn, "Obama's Deception: Afghanistan, 9-11 & Dresden," June 5, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/obama-and-the-deception-of-9-11

Bollyn, "Who Runs the Obama White House?", Chapter 10 of Solving 9-11:  The Deception that Changed the World, August 20, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/11305

Bollyn, "Is Henry Kissinger Setting Obama's Foreign Policy?", March 27, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/is-henry-kissinge ... ign-policy

"HIGH SEAS: Uranium: The Israeli Connection", Time, May 30, 1977
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 52,00.html

Hurst, Steven R., "Analysis: Shelving missile shield entices Moscow," Associated Press, September 17, 2009
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/ ... s_091709w/

"Missing channel pirate ship carried Russian arms for Iran," The Sunday Times (London), September 6, 2009
by Mark Franchetti (Moscow) and Uzi Mahnaimi (Tel Aviv)  
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 823300.ece

Ravid, Barak, "PM's secret Moscow visit was part of campaign against missile sales to Iran," Ha'aretz, September 11, 2009
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113570.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

This is probably what the little semi-"Secret" Israeli P.M. trip to Russia was all about a few weeks ago.  Jews b*llSh*tting Goyim writ at large across the world.

ziObama better start thinking for himself instead of just reading the teleprompter... or else the USA is headed for Zio-Jew showdown in the streets.

[Large Sarge]

This is probably what the little semi-"Secret" Israeli P.M. trip to Russia was all about a few weeks ago.  Jews b*llSh*tting Goyim writ at large across the world.

yes I think so

I wonder if they are gearing up for an attack on Iran?

U.S. troops are already in pakistan, moving towards the nukes there (press tv)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=10 ... =351020401

if you were going to attack iran, and anger the entire muslim world, you would want all nukes accounted for

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

"Nukes accounted for"

And the Homefront accounted for as well... The ZioCollective Government may have appointed all of these ZioCzars to be in place just to manage the US economy in the face of a full scale attack which compounds the financial problems. They could try and squeeze everything out of the US at this point to protect Israel --half of the scams on Wallstreet since 2008 are probably for getting funds ready for a showdown off the books.  The scams may be connected to Strategic purposes with Iran and Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia). The real economy is barely breathing but Obama is the ticket for them attempting a full blown take over in the case of a Pakistan-Iran show down. Reminds me of Turkey 1913 or Hungary 1920s.  Jew fingers are all over these financial scams and intelligence operations.

[§N9sh2bj]

I got about half-way or less. I still can't read articles that talk about corporations, dead pieces of paper, making decisions or taking actions.
Give names, names!
 :?:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The invasion of Georgia is also related to the creating a "Base" upon which to launch a Northern Front on Iran. It is obvious why the USZios and Israeli idiots wanted to invade last year.

--------

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/205908

Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows


by Rick Rozoff

.
Global Research, September 16, 2009
Stop NATO


Tensions are mounting in the Black Sea with the threat of another conflict between U.S. and NATO client state Georgia and Russia as Washington is manifesting plans for possible military strikes against Iran in both word and deed.

Referring to Georgia having recently impounded several vessels off the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia, reportedly 23 in total this year, the New York Times wrote on September 9 that "Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war."

Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh ordered his nation's navy to respond to Georgia's forceful seizure of civilian ships in neutral waters, calling such actions what they are - piracy - by confronting and if need be sinking Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. The Georgian and navy and coast guard are trained by the United States and NATO.

The spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry addressed the dangers inherent in Georgia's latest provocations by warning "They risk aggravating the military and political situation in the region and could result in serious armed incidents."

On September 15 Russia announced that its "border guards will detain all vessels that violate Abkhazia's maritime border...."

Russia would be not only entitled but obligated to provide such assistance to neighboring Abkhazia as "Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November, Russia pledged to help Abkhazia and South Ossetia protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories."

In attempting to enforce a naval blockade - the International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war this year - against Abkhazia, the current Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili is fully aware that Russia is compelled by treaty and national interests alike to respond. Having been roundly defeated in its last skirmish with Russia, the five-day war in August of last year, Tbilisi would never risk actions like its current ones without a guarantee of backing from the U.S. and NATO.

Days after last year's war ended then U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden flew into the Georgian capital to pledge $1 billion in assistance to the nation, making Georgia the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Egypt and Israel.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Related but good. Is the dropping of the Missles for Russia the price for an Israeli Greenlight on Iran? These are troubling times:

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/206070

Sep 19, 2009



Obama drops a missile bombshell
By M K Bhadrakumar

With his eight-month presidency seemingly weakening, United States President Barack Obama struck. A familiar pattern in his political career is repeating. His decision on Thursday to scrap the plans of his predecessor George W Bush to build a land-based anti-missile shield in the heart of Europe overlooking Russia's western borders may appear justifiable, but is nonetheless a stunning national security reversal.

It was to be a missile defense system of unproven technology, paid for with money that America could ill-afford to waste, and conceived against a threat that probably doesn't exist. Still, missile defense is a Republican obsession that goes back to Ronald Reagan and the "Star Wars" system. The Republicans shall not flag or fail and they shall go on to the end. They shall fight on the seas and oceans, in the air, on the beaches and landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills, and they shall not surrender. They shall attack Obama for blinking in the face of Russian blackmail.

Obama has opened another front just when his healthcare plan is on the frying pan and he is barely coping with the war in Afghanistan. Maybe he can make financial and diplomatic capital out of dropping the missile defense plan. The anti-missile shield needed to be developed at enormous cost and he can use the savings elsewhere. The plan was a bone of contention with Russia and he can now advance nuclear arms-reduction talks with Moscow and even count on the Kremlin not to cast a veto in the United Nations Security Council on a new round of sanctions against Iran.

Not only Central Europe and Ukraine and Georgia but also Iran will huddle in heightened anxiety to ponder the implications of what Obama has done. His decision rests on the argument that the threat posed by Iran is currently in the nature of short- and intermediate-range missiles that is best countered through a reconfigured system of smaller SM-3 missiles based on proven and cost-effective technologies that can be deployed using the sea-based Aegis system as early as 2011.

The revised approach envisages that as technologies evolve, the future threats can be met in a phased manner, while the US currently counters any threat much sooner than the previous program.

Significantly, Obama concluded with an offer to Moscow. "Now this approach is also consistent with NATO's North Atlantic Treaty Organization's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward," he said. The announcement comes hardly a week before Obama's scheduled "private" meeting with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session.

Equally, on the eve of Obama's announcement, new NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen called for an "open-minded and unprecedented dialogue" with Russia to reduce security tensions in Europe and to confront common threats. He revealed that NATO officials would travel to Moscow to hear the Kremlin's views on how NATO should develop strategically in the long term.

"We should engage Russia and listen to Russian positions," he said. He underscored the need for an "open and frank conversation with Moscow that creates a new atmosphere" that would lead to a "true strategic partnership" in which the alliance and Russia collaborated on issues such as Afghanistan, terrorism and piracy.

Rasmussen concluded, "Russia should realize that NATO is here and that NATO is a framework for our trans-Atlantic relationship. But we should also take into account that Russia has legitimate security concerns." He offered that NATO was prepared to discuss Medvedev's proposal for a new security architecture in Europe. Rasmussen had just visited Washington.

The Russian Foreign Ministry lost no time in responding to Obama's announcement on missile defense. "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States," a spokesman said. He subsequently refuted suggestions of any quid pro quo behind the US decision. He said any sort of grand bargain with the US was "not consistent with our Russian policy nor our approach to solving problems with any nations, no matter how sensitive or complex they are".

However, the fact remains that Obama's decision, while significantly boosting US relations with Russia, also puts pressure on the Kremlin. The "Iran Six" process 1 over Iran's nuclear program enters a new phase on October 1. The big question is whether Moscow would actually veto a UN Security Council resolution if push came to shove. The crunch comes just a week after the Obama-Medvedev meet when the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns comes face-to-face with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

True, the last exposition of the Russian position given by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a week ago was unequivocal. He made it clear Moscow wouldn't block any new rounds of tough sanctions against Iran and he dismissed a US timetable for securing progress from Iran as regards ending its uranium-enrichment program.

Lavrov said, "I do not think these sanctions will be approved by the United Nations Security Council ... They Iran need an equal place in this regional dialogue. Iran is a partner that has never harmed Russia in any way." Lavrov added that even an expected US move to drop plans to station a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe wouldn't be seen as a concession to Russia, as, according to him, such a move would merely correct a previous US mistake.

But then, a week is a long time in politics. Four days after Lavrov spoke - and two days before Obama spoke - Medvedev said. "Sanctions are not very effective on the whole, but sometimes you have to embark on sanctions and it is the right thing to do." The West's Russia hands promptly perceived a "subtle shift" in the Kremlin's position, whereas the US-Russia differences over Iran are far too deep and fundamental to be easily sidestepped.

Obama's decision will stimulate thinking in the multipolar world within the Kremlin. As a top scholar on NATO at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, Vladimir Shtol, pointed out gently, any US rethink of the missile defense system would probably be the result of economic pressures connected with the global crisis, and not a political deal with Russia. "I don't believe the US would ever fully back out of the missile shield, because it is in their long-term interests and closely connected with their strategy in Europe," Shtol said.

The realists in Moscow will note that even as Obama spoke in Washington, Dennis Blair, America's intelligence boss, was releasing the latest National Intelligence Strategy report of the US, which is compiled every four years. The report specifically warned that Russia "may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence that complicates US interests".

On Tuesday, Russia signed defense agreements with Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, allowing Moscow to maintain military bases there for the next half-century. The Russian military headquarters in Abkhazia will be in the Black Sea port of Gudauta, which ensures that even if the pro-US regime in Kiev forces the closure of Sevastopol, Moscow will thwart US attempts to turn the Black Sea into a "NATO lake".

Put in perspective, therefore, Moscow will carefully weigh Obama's "overture". The litmus test will be the US's willingness to abandon NATO expansion. The eastern European countries' integration into Western Euro-Atlantic structures was contrary to the understanding held out to former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Russia is not the Soviet Union, but cold warriors cannot grasp this. Moscow's concept of national sovereignty and its claims of special interests in the post-Soviet space provoke negative feelings in the West.

Moscow sees no reason to settle for the role of a junior partner when it estimates that the US is a declining power and the locus of world politics is shifting eastward. Besides, Washington pursues a policy of "selective engagement, selective containment". Over Afghanistan or Iran, Washington needs Russian support, while the problem of the post-Soviet space remains acute and Russia feels excluded from the Euro-Atlantic security arrangements pending, while a "demilitarization" of relations between Russia and the West remains elusive.

The smart thing for Obama will be to cast his decision on missile defense within a working format of "resetting" ties with Russia rather than as a move that deserves a quid pro quo over Iran. Moscow will only assess Obama's decision as a pragmatic step necessitated by the US's economic crisis. Meanwhile, Russia will cooperate on fresh START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) talks or help out the US in Afghanistan, which is in its interests too.

Notes:
1. The "Iran Six" nations are the permanent members of the UN Security Council - the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China - plus Germany.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KI19Ag01.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

09/10/09    Bookmark and Share
National Interests of Iran in the Caspian Sea

Bahman Aghai Diba,
PhD International Law of the Sea

The Caspian Sea littoral states have failed to reach a general compromise on the legal regime of the Caspian Sea. Since the collapse of the USSR, these states have convened many conferences in all levels, including the first summit in 2002 in Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) and second summit in Tehran, 16th of October 2007, to solve this problem and they have not succeeded. This issue has the potential to turn into a point of confrontation and even conflict, especially with discovery of oil and gas resources and the new importance of the Caspian oil as an alternative to the Persian Gulf oil (at least to some extent).




It seems that under the present conditions, the best policy for the Islamic Republic of Iran is refraining from entering into any kind of treaty for the legal regime of the Caspian Sea, because the conditions are set to impose the worst situation upon Iran. Iran has no reason to hurry about the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.

What are those positions?

Although the USSR is dead and the Russian Federation is not a super power as it was once, the Russian leaders are always dreaming of restoring the Russian hegemony in the area that once used to be the Russian domain. As far as the Caspian Sea is concerned, they want to use the whole Caspian Sea for their military and civilian fleet. They are following these policies:

         1. Division of the Caspian Sea bed (only) on the basis of a modified median line (MML). It means the more coastal area you have, the more area of the Caspian Sea you get. According to the MML, Russia, and Azerbaijan get almost twenty percent (each of them), Kazakhstan gets 30 percent, Turkmenistan gets almost 17 percent and Iran gets almost 13 percent of the Caspian Sea-bed. The MML formula leaves the waters of the Caspian Sea for common use of the littoral states.


         2. Putting pressure on all Caspian states, especially Iran, to accept the MML for division of the Caspian Seabed. The Russians have succeeded to convince Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in this field. Iran, along with the on and off support of Turkmenistan, has not agreed with it.


         3. Excluding all non-littoral states from having military or civilian presence in the Caspian Sea. The Russians have stationed one of their most important naval concentrations in the Caspian Sea. The civilian fleet of the Russians in the Caspian Sea handles ninety percent of the maritime transportations in the Caspian Sea. The Fishing fleet of the Russians has no rival in the region. They want to exclude the non-littoral states to have no rival. The other littoral states have nothing considerable in the Caspian Sea, except than some old dated boats and the fishermen who work in the way the ancient tribes.


         4. Creating difficulties for the usage of Volga-Don and Volga-Baltic channel for the other littoral and non-littoral states, for keeping the advantages of the Russian fleet, ports and facilities.  The Russians have been insisting that the Volga channel is completely an internal waterway. (While the new conditions of the Caspian Sea requires some kind of reconsideration in this regard and make it an international waterway or a waterway under a special regime, such as the Bosporus and Dardanelle.)


         5. Refraining from providing the other littoral states with larger ships for expansion their military or civilian fleet. For example by refraining from selling ships, or helping them to build naval facilities. The littoral states of the Caspian Sea, except than the Russian Federation, do not have any military of civilian fleet (Iran's share from the shipping in the Caspian Sea is less than 4 percent.) and the Russians want to keep them that way.


         6. Forcing the littoral states to use Russian outlets for the export of their oil and gas. The landlocked states of the Caspian Sea need proper outlets for their exports and the Russians try to make them use the Russians facilities. One of the ways to do so is the rejection of building under water pipelines in the Caspian Sea under the pretext that it damages the environment. It is noteworthy that the Russians are responsible for ninety percent of the pollution in the Caspian Sea through thousands of the Russian factories that pour their industrial wastes in the Volga River and eventually the Caspian Sea.


         7. Formation of a kind of common military force for the Caspian Sea. This force will be almost completely a Russian instrument for patrolling all the Caspian Sea. Other littoral states have hardly enough boats to do low-level police activity in their shorelines.


         8. Using the opportunity gained by Iran's isolation to force Iran to accept the MML. Iran is under pressure and the Iranian regime is desperate for its survival.  The Russians are well aware that they cannot treat a thoroughly nationalist government in Iran, as they treat the Islamic regime of Iran.



2001 - Pipelines around Caspian Sea, source: http://www.globalsecurity.org

The Republic of Azerbaijan is happy to get twenty percent of the Caspian Sea by the MML.  However their policies are:

   1. Attracting the Western countries, especially the USA into the Caspian Sea. The inclination of Azerbaijan to the Western states, especially the USA, is not originating from an inherent love. This policy is based on the fact that the Azerbaijan Republic, as the second Shiite country in the world (after Iran), is feeling worried about the ideological provocations orchestrated by the Islamic Republic and other Islamic extremist elements. Also, the Azeris need to neutralize the Russian presence, as a force supporting Armenia (which has close relations with Iran and Russian Federation).


   2. Good relations with Israel as an indication of the inclination to the Western countries. The Azerbaijan Republic is aware that its relations with Israel can play an important role in convincing the West about its intentions.


   3. Presenting the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline as the best way for oil exports of the Caspian land-locked countries. The Baku-Jeyhan pipeline is now operational and despite the fact that it was not an economical project, the Western support has succeeded to create this pipeline.  The Baku-Jeyhan pipeline is the clear sign of the failure of Iran and Russia in the regional pipeline diplomacy. However, the Azeri oil is not enough for using the full capacity of the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline, and Azerbaijan needs to attract the cooperation of the regional countries, especially Kazakhstan to give this pipeline.


   4. Promoting the proposed Gas Pipeline called Nabucco, as an alternative route for carrying gas from the Caspian area, cutting the monopoly of the Russians in the regional business and creating a "gas" Baku-jeyhan.


   5. Getting into NATO and leaving the hand of NATO free in the Caspian Sea. Azerbaijan has already suggested the Americans and the NATO to use the Abshoran peninsula as their military bases. There are some news about establishment of the radar posts by the NATO in Azerbaijan and possible use of the Azeri territory for an attack against the Islamic regime of Iran.


   6. Getting the international support in the case of Nagorno Gharabagh with Armenia. This is the most important issue in the political agenda of the Azeri governments. Azerbaijan is ready to give concessions in the Caspian Sea to the forces that help it in the case of Nagorno Karabagh. The Republic of Azerbaijan has rejected the suggestions of Iran for meddling in this issue because they do not believe in impartiality of Tehran.


   7. Exploration and exploitation of the resource in the Caspian Sea with the capital and expertise of the Western countries. Azerbaijan has been exploring the oil resources of the Caspian Sea for the last two hundred years (more seriously in the last fifty years). They need new technology and investment in the oil and gas resources.Â


   8. The Azerbaijan Republic has already joined with the Russians in using the MML as the formula for division of the maritime borders with the Russian Federation, as far as the Caspian Seabed is concerned. However, they are interested to make this division wider and to include the waters too.

Kazakhstan is trying to make use of the opportunity created by the access of the country to most of the Caspian Sea. The MML leaves this country with 30% of the Caspian Sea-bed. The Kazakhstan's fields are actively developed by the Western companies, especially the Americans, interested in non-OPEC, non-Arab, Non-Iranian oil. Kazakhstan has already concluded treaties with the Russians and the Azerbaijan Republic for using the MML as the division criteria of the Caspian Seabed. Iran has proclaimed such treaties as null and void because the littoral states have originally agreed to make decision on the legal regime of the Caspian Sea unanimously.

The government of Turkmenistan is not satisfied with the MML, not because its share according to the MML formula is 17 percent, but due to the fact that the important oil fields claimed by Turkmenistan are given to Azerbaijan by the MML.  Turkmenistan once went to the brink of war with Azerbaijan over these oil fields (Kapaz or Sardar oil fields).  It was interested to be in the side of Iran against the MML, but it was not ready to tie its destiny to the Islamic regime of Iran.  Turkmenistan has already showed that it agrees with the MML and there are only some problems (such as the Kapaz oil fields) that should be hammered out.  Also Turkmenistan is waiting for the destiny of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline.

What is the position of Iran?

The position of Iran is to divide the Caspian Sea according to equity (20% for each). The Russian Federation is imposing its formula of MML for the division of the Caspian Sea-bed and leaving the superjacent waters for the common use. Iranian position about the possible division of the Caspian Sea is not limited to the "seabed" (unlike MML). Iran is asking for a complete division of the whole sea.  This kind of division will lead to:

   1. Restriction of the Russian forces from traveling freely all over the Caspian Sea.


   2. Stopping the industrialized fishing fleet of the Russians from using the national sections of the other countries.


   3. Disconnection the direct link of the Russians with Iran. The Russian Federation has no land border with Iran at the moment. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the land border of Iran and the Russians was removed. Division of the Caspian Sea into national sectors, as Iran is calling for, will result into removing the water borders with the Russians too.

However, at the moment no body is taking the positions of Iran in the Caspian Sea serious. Due to the troublesome nature of the Iran's Islamic regime, all countries in the region are pausing to see what is going to happen to the regime of Iran. After all, what is the use of entering into agreement with an unstable regime? The successors of this regime may decide to punish or take revenge from those who support it now. Iranian people think that the failure of the Islamic regime of Iran for protecting the Iranian rights in the Caspian sea (as an ancient country which has been living in the southern shores of the Caspian Sea and as a state that has shared this body of water with the Russians for a long time) is the result of the mismanagement of the international relations and the wrong decisions of the Islamic regime in the field of the foreign policy.

The best policy for the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a regime that has not succeeded to safeguard the national interests of Iran in the Caspian Sea, is refraining from entering into any kind of contractual arrangements or agreements that might jeopardize the national interests of Iran in the Caspian Sea in an irreversible way. These are the reasons for the preferred inaction policy:

   1. Iran does not need its oil and gas resources in the Caspian Sea immediately. There are many places (including the Persian Gulf) that Iran possesses large amounts of oil and gas reserves. These can be exploited much easier as compared to the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea. In fact, the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea is deep (the deepest point is almost a thousand meters deep) and it is difficult to explore and exploit oil and gas reserves here. Any economical activity in this section requires high technology and more investment. It must be noted that although the Caspian Sea is a lake, it has the features of the open sea in many regards like water currents and weather conditions. You to add to this picture the difficulties of getting the facilities to the required points in the face of the non-cooperation of the littoral states and isolation of Iran.


   2. The nuclear issue of Iran, along with other policies of Iran, has left Iran in a weak situation in front of the Russians. Iran needs the Russians for stopping the adoption and implementation of the UN sanctions. This makes the maneuverability of the already weak policy of Iran more limited.


   3. It is not a good idea to take the case of the Iranian interests in the Caspian Sea to the international tribunals (such as the UNSC, International Court of Justice, and international arbitrations). Iran has not the international prestige, the support of any country in the world and the case of the Caspian Sea the Russians are on the other side too. Referring the case of the Iranian rights to the international forums will not be a solution for Iran at the present conditions. In fact, Iran must try to avoid the efforts of the others to take the case to such forums. With all littoral states, Russia, the US and the EU on the other side, who is going to vote for the Iranian rights in the Caspian Sea?


   4. The establishment of the new legal regime will ease the way for the others to do what they want and Iran will be left back due to the lack of expertise and financial resources. The picture is bleaker for Iran if we consider that some of the most important oil and gas fields in the Caspian Sea are common among the littoral states in any kind of division.


   5. Iran has failed in the pipeline diplomacy so far. The important pipelines are already avoiding Iran.  The new legal regime will not change the situation of Iran in the pipeline diplomacy of the region.

Bahman Aghai Diba is the Senior Consultant to the World Resources Company and author of the “The Law and politics of the Caspian sea”

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/sep/1102.html