【中文题目】对伊朗战争已箭在弦上
【来 源】加拿大《全球研究》 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28929
【发表日期】2012年1月29日
【原文】Leonid Slavin
【译 者】彼岸
【校 对】立哥
【声 明】译文为原创，转载务必注明译者及出处“独家网dooo.cc”。
【摘 要】美国为何会针对伊朗？真实目的是让全世界接受华盛顿的游戏规则。从越南战争到海湾战争到对伊拉克和阿富汗的战争，都是如此。而美国对伊朗动怒的目的是推动伊朗政权更迭，遵循颜色革命的遗迹。不论是批评伊朗核问题，或是霍尔木兹海峡升级的对峙，抑或是指责伊朗支持国际恐怖主义，这些都是为发动战争而准备的借口。当然，美国在目前的状况下，想打赢这场战争也不是那么容易的。
【译 文】
如果与伊朗的冲突采取的形式是：旷日持久的轰炸行动以及接下来的对伊朗的占领，那么美国就需要强化在其临近地区的地位，就是说华盛顿接来下就该努力把高加索共和国（格鲁吉亚，阿塞拜疆）和那些中亚地区划到其政策的势力范围内，从而加紧对俄罗斯的包围圈计划。
从中、俄、印三国对军事计划的反对可以看出，他们似乎坚守住了——为抗衡美国来势汹汹的霸权主义和猖獗的单边主义——而形成的同盟关系。
道义上所谓的人道主义干涉和反恐战争的概念也仅仅被美国利用，为其对南斯拉夫、伊拉克和阿富汗赤裸裸的侵略行径正名。
而外交关系协会的马修•克勒尼希最近竟然警告说，伊朗将来可能将其核技术传播给委内瑞拉。他一定是试图借此警告堵住所有批评美国外交政策的悠悠之口。
可能出现的是，石油禁运计划的部分后果将导致西方面临石油供应问题，并开始兴建横跨沙特阿拉伯-巴林-阿曼-也门-卡塔尔-伊拉克的输油管道，作为到达阿拉伯、红海和地中海海岸的替代路线。
由于美国新的军事策略暗示将重点关注两个地区—大中东地区和东南亚，霍尔木兹海峡的问题似乎牵连到马六甲海峡。马六甲海峡是从印度洋运输石油到中国、日本、韩国以及其他东南亚国家的最短航道。
最近欧盟的石油禁运计划给伊朗当头一棒，美国和其他西方国家的威胁声明提出要进一步针对伊朗进行制裁，这些促使观察家得出结论：伊朗与西方国家的武装冲突如箭在弦，一触即发。
就上文所述背景下，第一个潜在情形是目前的僵局最终将逐步升级为战争。美国目前驻扎在海湾地区的作战部队人数已达到40000人，加上在阿富汗——伊朗的东边——的90000名士兵，以及在亚洲国家部署的数千士兵的支持部队。总的算起来这是股相当大的军事潜力，然而一旦武装敌对行动爆发，要保证胜券在握，各种部署仍显不足。
例如，科林H卡尔，在最近《外交事务》的一篇文章中提出，虽然“毫无疑问，从操作层面上来讲，华盛顿必赢无疑”，但美国仍将不得不针对相关问题做出缜密的部署。
目前，维持现状不符合美国的利益，Stratfor公司——美国一私营全球情报分析机构称：“如果阿尔阿萨德幸存，如果伊拉克局势按照它目前的情况继续发展下去，那么伊朗正在创建一个确定该地区界线的现实。美国没有广泛而有效的联盟，如果发生战争，一呼百应的情况肯定不会出现。它只有以色列……”
如果与伊朗的冲突以旷日持久的轰炸行动作为拉开占领该国的序幕，美国将需要强化在其临近地区的地位，这意味着华盛顿将试图把高加索共和国（格鲁吉亚，阿塞拜疆）和那些中亚地区划到其政策的势力范围，从而加紧对俄罗斯的包围圈计划。
另一种情形同样值得关注。欧盟对伊朗的制裁肯定会殃及许多欧洲经济体——特别是希腊、意大利和西班牙。事实上，西班牙外交行政部长若泽·曼努埃尔·加西亚直言不讳地指出，制裁决定是个亏本买卖。
至于伊朗，石油封锁会造成其财政预算减少150-200亿美元，这应该是无关痛痒的，但是由于伊朗议会选举和2013年总统大选的临近以及西方国家积极扶持其国内的反对派，伊朗国内很有可能将爆发骚乱。德黑兰已经明确表示，会努力为其寻找其他石油买家。
中国和印度分别是伊朗的头号客户和第三大客户，他们很快就对以美国为首的制裁活动做出应对。日本承诺支持华盛顿对伊的行动，但却没有发表任何计划减少从伊朗进口石油的声明。顺便说一下，在1973年由华尔街引发的那场石油危机中，由于美国并未遵守最初保证石油供应的承诺，日本经济遭到重创。【译注：第一次石油危机（1973年）：1973年10月第四次中东战争爆发，为打击以色列及其支持者，石油输出国组织的阿拉伯成员国当年12月宣布收回石油标价权，并将其积陈原油价格从每桶3.011美元提高到10.651美元，使油价猛然上涨了两倍多，从而触发了第二次世界大战之后最严重的全球经济危机。持续三年的石油危机对发达国家的经济造成了严重的冲击。在这场危机中，美国的工业生产下降了14%，日本的工业生产下降了20%以上，所有的工业化国家的经济增长都明显放慢。】
因此，可以预计东京是极为谨慎的同意华盛顿的制裁建议，并要求美国白宫将无法提供的明确保证。眼下美国正有目的地拉拢韩国，试图劝说其不再从伊朗进口石油。
由中国，俄罗斯和印度提出的军事设想方面计划的反对派似乎要保持国家间结盟的承诺以寻求抗衡美国来势汹汹的霸权主义以及单边主义的肆虐。Stratfor公司分析师认为，考虑到金砖国家可能会通过在阿拉伯海、波斯湾等发动联合反恐以及反海盗军事演习，来影响潜在冲突区的局势，美国做出决策刻不容缓。
华盛顿的最终目的是诱导伊朗的政权更迭，不过仍需要一个借口。长期以来美国一直对伊朗各派虎视眈眈，妄图利用这个国家国内存在的竞争，同时推行已被证实行之有效的颜色革命——例如支持绿色运动或在伊朗设立虚拟使馆。
理查德•桑德斯——一位直言不讳的美国外交政策评论家——指出，至少自19世纪末期入侵墨西哥以来，美国就一直依赖着为战争寻找借口的机制为其军事干预行为开罪。美国保守主义者帕特里克布坎南就在其标题为“罗斯福挑起了珍珠港战争？”一文中表述了一个广为人知的观点:美国金融界明知煽动偷袭珍珠港会把美国拖入战争的泥沼而故意为之,为的是实现美元的全球主导地位这一深远目标。
从越南战争也就是北部湾事件﹝美国马德克斯号驶进越南领海并向其军船开火﹞的历史中我们可以吸取这样的教训，最初的矛盾同样是由美国情报局挑起，而结果却是美国国会授权约翰逊与越南作战。﹝顺便一提，1967年6月，以色列袭击美国情报船自由号造成34死172伤之后，并没有受到随之而来的任何惩罚措施。﹞道义上所谓的人道主义干涉和反恐战争的概念也仅仅被美国利用，为其对南斯拉夫、伊拉克和阿富汗赤裸裸的侵略行径正名。
谈及目前严峻的波斯湾形势，华盛顿可以选择的战争借口至少包含三个，即(1)伊朗核问题；(2)霍尔木兹海峡不断升级的对峙形势；(3)对伊朗支持国际恐怖主义的指控。
美国对伊朗核计划施压的真正目的——是让全世界的人都接受华盛顿的游戏规则，这一点早就昭然若揭了。制造大量危言耸听的言论的目的在于转移公众的注意力，使公众忘记这一简单的事实——即仅仅依靠民用核技术的帮助是绝对不可能建造一个核军火库的。但是，外交关系协会的马修•克勒尼希最近竟然警告说伊朗未来会向委内瑞拉传播其核技术。其动机一定是试图堵住所有批评美国外交政策的悠悠之口。
霍尔木兹海峡是波斯湾的海上交通要道，被视为未来战争的争夺中心点。包括伊拉克、科威特、卡塔尔、沙特阿拉伯和阿联酋在内的多个国家的石油输出都要经过这条水道，因此可能参与冲突的各方都在密切关注着它。根据美国能源部的统计，2011年霍尔木兹海峡的石油运输总量达17亿桶，粗略的估计占世界总量的20%。如果霍尔木兹海峡发生任何令人不安的事，预计石油的价格将上涨50%。
通过霍尔木兹海峡需要取道伊朗和阿曼的领海。根据联合国海上货物运输条约，伊朗出于礼貌赋予了其他国家经过其领海的权利。
联系华盛顿关于霍尔木兹海峡的反复陈述，我们必须要理解的是，在这一点上，美国和伊朗处于相同的法律地位——他们都签署却未通过该项条约；因此，从道义上讲，美国没有权利提及国际法。在咨询了国内立法相关事项之后，伊朗政府近期强调，德黑兰可能会修改相关法规，准许外国船只通过伊朗领海。
伊朗海军可能也将开始遵守相关的国际法，尤其是那些定义其他国家的船只之间应保持的最小距离的法规。美国媒体上不断涌现出伊朗的船只冒险接近美国船只的报道，但正如观察者所述，破坏分子——如接受CIA资助的伊朗俾路支省的反zf武装——在某些情况下应该脱下伪装的小把戏。
可能出现的情形是，石油禁运计划的部分后果将导致西方面临石油供应问题，并开始兴建横跨沙特阿拉伯-巴林-阿曼-也门-卡塔尔-伊拉克的输油管道，作为到达阿拉伯，红海和地中海海岸的替代路线。一些这样的项目，例如哈山-富查伊拉管道，目前已经处于筹建过程中。
如果是这样的想法，华盛顿想说服其同盟国构建一个“更安全”的管道基础设施的意图就不难理解了。地缘政治正不可避免的成为一个现实问题，它必须被考虑在内，尽管这个地区的国家仍然困囿于各种各样的冲突中，但是考虑到地理位置因素，即使新的输油管道建立起来，德黑兰依然会是一个关键争夺点。
由于美国新的军事策略暗示将重点关注两个地区—大中东地区和东南亚，霍尔木兹海峡的问题似乎牵连到马六甲海峡。马六甲海峡是从印度洋运输石油到中国，日本，韩国以及其他所有东南亚国家的最短航道。这隐性地迫使亚洲国家在做出与伊朗相关决策时，不得不将这一安排考虑在内。
先前所谓的“反恐战争”，不过是美国在一些似是而非的借口下对伊拉克和阿富汗的侵略，以成千上万美国战士的生命为代价，这些我们必须铭记于心。多年以前，白宫批准了一些对抗伊朗行政机关各个部门的颠覆性活动，其中包括针对伊斯兰革命卫队的。
前中央情报局特工Phillip Giraldi写到美国和以色列的情报人员一直长期活跃于伊朗，并且是超级工厂病毒在伊朗的大肆传播以及一系列暗杀伊朗核物理专家的幕后黑手。与伊朗国内反对派结成同盟的组织包括，伊朗人民圣战组织，隶属于俾路支解放军的反zf武装真主旅(其领导人阿卜杜勒•马利克•里吉于2010年2月被伊朗安全部队逮捕，并承认与美国中情局有合作)，以及库尔德斯坦的自由生活党。
事实上，一场针对伊朗的战争——目前为止仍未搬上台面——即将爆发。有关各方都在试图找到一个既能被各方普遍接受又不至引致冲突白热化的解决方法。
【原 文】
If the conflict with Iran takes the shape of a protracted bombing campaign and comes as a prologue to the occupation of the country, the US will need to strengthen its positions in adjacent regions, meaning that Washington will be trying to draw the Caucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan) and those of Central Asia into the orbit of its policy and thus tightening the “Anaconda loop” around Russia.
The opposition mounted to the plans underlying the military scenario by China, Russia, and India seems to hold the promise of an alliance of countries seeking to tame US hegemony and raging unilateralism.
The morally charged concepts of humanitarian interventions and war on terror had just as well been invoked to legitimize downright aggressions against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Matthew H. Kroenig from the Council on Foreign Relations recently went so far as to warn that Iran would some day pass its nuclear technologies to Venezuela. The motivation must be to somehow bundle all critics of the US foreign policy.
Chances are that a part of the oil embargo plan is to make the West encounter oil supply problems and start constructing pipelines across Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and Iraq as alternative routes reaching the shores of the Arabian, Red, and Mediterranean Seas.
Since the new US military strategy implies focusing on two regions – the Greater Middle East and South East Asia – the issue of the Strait of Hormuz appears coupled to that of the Strait of Malacca which offers the shortest route for the oil supply from the Indian Ocean to China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of South East Asia.
The EU oil embargo recently slapped on Iran and the threats voiced by the US and other Western countries to come up with further sanctions against the country led watchers to conclude that an armed conflict between Iran and the West has finally became imminent.
The first potential scenario in this context is that the current standoff would eventually escalate into a war. The US forces in the Gulf area currently number 40,000, plus 90,000 are deployed in Afghanistan, just east of Iran, and several thousand support troops are deployed in various Asian countries. That adds up to a considerable military potential which may still fall short of what it takes to keep a lid on everything if armed hostilities break out.
For example, Colin H. Kahl argues in a recent paper in Foreign Affairs that, even though “there is no doubt that Washington will win in the narrow operational sense” (1), the US would have to take a vast array of pertinent problems into account.
At the moment, maintaining the status quo is not in US interests, holds Stratfor, a US-based global intelligence agency: “If al Assad survives and if the situation in Iraq proceeds as it has been proceeding, then Iran is creating a reality that will define the region. The United States does not have a broad and effective coalition, and certainly not one that would rally in the event of war. It has only Israel…” (2)
If the conflict with Iran takes the shape of a protracted bombing campaign and comes as a prologue to the occupation of the country, the US will need to strengthen its positions in adjacent regions, meaning that Washington will be trying to draw the Caucasian republics (Georgia, Azerbaijan) and those of Central Asia into the orbit of its policy and thus tightening the “Anaconda loop” around Russia.
An alternative scenario also deserves attention. EU sanctions would surely hurt many of the European economies – notably, those of Greece, Italy, and Spain – by ricochet. In fact, Spanish diplomatic chief José Manuel García-Margallo Y Marfil bluntly described the sanctions decision as a sacrifice (3).
As for Iran, the oil blockade can cause its annual budget to contract by $15-20 billion, which generally should not be critical but, as the country’s parliamentary elections and the 2013 presidential poll are drawing closer and the West actively props up its domestic opposition, outbreaks of unrest in Iran would quite possibly ensue. Tehran has already made it clear it would make a serious effort to find buyers for its oil export elsewhere.
China and India, Iran’s respective number one and number three clients, brushed off the idea of the US-led sanctions momentarily. Japan pledged support for Washington over the matter but did not post any specific plans to reduce the volume of oil it imports from Iran. Japan, by the way, was badly hit in 1973 when Wall Street provoked an oil crisis and US guarantees turned hollow.
Consequently, Tokyo can be expected to approach Washington’s sanction suggestions with the utmost caution and to ask the US for unequivocal guarantees that the White House will be unable to provide. Right now the US is courting South Korea with the aim of having it cut off the import of oil from Iran.
The opposition mounted to the plans underlying the military scenario by China, Russia, and India seems to hold the promise of an alliance of countries seeking to tame US hegemony and raging unilateralism. Stratfor analysts have a point saying that time is not on the US side, considering that the BRICs countries have some opportunities to influence the situation in the potential conflict zone by launching joint anti-terrorism and anti-piracy maneuvers in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, etc.
Inducing regime change in Iran, which is Washington’s end goal, still takes a pretext. The US has long been eying various factions in Iran in the hope of capitalizing on the country’s existing domestic rivalries parallel to the employment of tested color revolution techniques such as the support for the Green Movement or the establishment of a virtual embassy in Iran.
Richard Sanders, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, opined that, at least since the invasion of Mexico in the late XIX century, the US permanently relied on the mechanism of war pretext incidents to compile justifications for its military interventions (4). US arch-conservative Patrick J. Buchanan cited in his opinion piece titled “Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?” the fairly common view that US financial circles knowingly provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to drag the US into a war with the remote goal of ensuring the dollar empire’s global primacy (5).
The lesson to be learned from the history of the Vietnam War, namely the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which USS Maddox entered Vietnam’s territorial waters and opened fire on boats of its navy, is that the initial conflict was similarly ignited by the US intelligence community, the result being that the US Congress authorized LBJ to militarily engage Vietnam.
(By the way, no retribution followed in June 1967 when the Israelis attacked USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 172). The morally charged concepts of humanitarian interventions and war on terror had just as well been invoked to legitimize downright aggressions against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Speaking of the current developments around the Persian Gulf, Washington’s choice of pretexts for aggression comprises at least three options, namely (1) Iran’s nuclear dossier; (2) an engineered escalation in the Strait of Hormuz; (3) allegations that Iran supports international terrorism.
The US objective behind the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program – to make everybody in the world accept Washington’s rules of the game – has never been deeply hidden. The abundant alarmist talk is intended to deflect attention from the simple truth that building a nuclear arsenal with the help of civilian nuclear technologies is absolutely impossible, but Matthew H. Kroenig from the Council on Foreign Relations recently went so far as to warn that Iran would some day pass its nuclear technologies to Venezuela (6). The motivation must be to somehow bundle all critics of the US foreign policy.
The Strait of Hormuz, which is the maritime chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, is regarded as the epicenter of the coming new war. It serves as the avenue for oil supplies from Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, the Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and is therefore being closely monitored by all likely parties to the conflict. According to the US Department of Energy, 2011 oil transit via the Strait of Hormuz totaled 17 billion barrels, or roughly 20% of the world’s total (7). Oil prices are projected to increase by 50% if anything disquieting happens in the Strait of Hormuz (8).
Passing through the Strait of Hormuz takes navigation across the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Iran grants as a courtesy the right to sail across its waters based on the UN Treaty on Maritime Goods Transportation.
It must be understood in connection with Washington’s recurrent statements concerning the Strait of Hormuz that in this regard the US and Iran have the same legal status as countries which penned but did not ratify the treaty, and thus the US has no moral right to references to international law. Iran’s administration stressed recently after consultations on national legislation that Tehran would possibly subject to a revision the regulations under which foreign vessels are admitted to Iranian territorial waters (9).
Navies are also supposed to observe certain international laws, in particular those defining the minimal distance to be maintained by vessels of other countries. It constantly pops up in the US media that Iranian boats come riskily close to US vessels but, as watchers note, provocateurs like the CIA-sponsored separatists from Iran’s Baluchistan could in some cases be pulling off the tricks in disguise.
Chances are that a part of the oil embargo plan is to make the West encounter oil supply problems and start constructing pipelines across Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and Iraq as alternative routes reaching the shores of the Arabian, Red, and Mediterranean Seas. A few of these projects, the Hashan–Fujairah pipeline, for instance, are as of today in the process of being implemented.
If that is the idea, the explanation behind Washington’s tendency to convince its allies to create a “safer” pipeline infrastructure is straightforward. Geopolitics being an inescapable reality, it does have to be taken into account, though, that the region’s countries remain locked in a variety of conflicts and, due to geographic reasons, Tehran would be a key player even if the pipelines are launched.
Since the new US military strategy implies focusing on two regions – the Greater Middle East and South East Asia – the issue of the Strait of Hormuz appears coupled to that of the Strait of Malacca which offers the shortest route for the oil supply from the Indian Ocean to China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of South East Asia. The arrangement implicitly factors into the Asian countries’ decision-making related to Iran.
The precedent of “the war on terror” – a campaign during which the US occupied under dubious pretexts Iraq and Afghanistan at the costs of thousands of lives – must also be kept in mind. Ages ago, the White House sanctioned subversive activities against various parts of the the Iranian administration, including the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.
Former CIA operative Phillip Giraldi writes that US and Israeli agents have been active in Iran for quite some time and are responsible for the epidemic of the Stuxnet virus and the series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear physicists. The groups within Iran which aligned themselves with the country’s foes are the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, the Baluchistan-based separatist Jundallah, whose leader Abdolmajid Rigi was arrested in February, 2010 by Iranian security forces and admitted to cooperating with the CIA, and the Kurdish Free Life of Kurdistan (10).
In essence, a war against Iran – up to date a secret war – is underway. The problem the parties involved are trying to resolve is to find a way of prevailing without entering the “hot” phase of the conflict.
相关文章
「 支持！」
WYZXWK.COM
您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！
注：配图来自网络无版权标志图像，侵删！
声明：文章仅代表个人观点，不代表本站观点——
责任编辑：执中
欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号
