A bipolar World is emerging with ideological diversities?
By Azhar Masood
Are we heading towards a bipolar world without Ideological Diversity but only clash of economic interests
I think after cold war and dismemberment of the Soviet Union in late 80s a realization is surfacing at important capitals ,”No More Unipolar World”. This realizations though still lacks sufficient international diplomatic support but after seeing the only Super Power -The United States, being bleeding both in Afghanistan and Iraq and growing burden over American tax payers before a new resident of the White House settles in, nations like Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China , Iran, Cuba, or may be at some stage India would either revive the Non Align Movement because there are no more official alliance to counter NATO, ANZUZ and RIO Pact.
It would remain a great game of yet another type —The Search and Control of World’s biggest oil reserves in the Central Asian Republics. For the United States a search for pipeline from CARS to the warm waters of Gawadar is almost becoming a pipe dream. The cost for Central Asian great game is getting higher and higher if not for the Pentagon but the US treasury itself.
Against this back drop when the US shakes hands with Russia or China is receive the hand without any warmth. Only United Kingdom would remain a US ally. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and even the Netherlands after losing their market in Iraq and some other parts have started rethinking about the next role of the European Union. It was French Total and Chinese Catic oil companies which held control over Iraq’s oil. After Second Iraq war no matter democracy came to the oil-rich Arab state Total and Catic were replaced by Helliberton of Dick Chenny.
Iran was an anti-Israel Arab and Muslim state so it was to be whipped thoroughly and now its the turn of Iran. But it would be very very difficult for the successive US administration to go for a conventional war or for a surgical strike in view of regional turmoil. Early this week when the foreign ministers of Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany met in London to discuss a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear problem. Sergei Kislyak, a Russian deputy foreign minister who has attended all the meetings on ballistic missile defense and Iran’s nuclear problem, said before the meeting they expect progress from each such meeting.
The United States is developing a missile defense system in Europe to counter the Iranian missile threat, and therefore progress on Iran may also help solve the anti-ballistic missile problem, the main obstacle hindering Russian-American relations. What the sides need is a coordinated policy regarding Iran’s strategic missiles. But Moscow and Washington have diametrically opposite views of Iran’s current and future ballistic missile threat.
Before the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Bucharest, Romania, last month, U.S. President George W. Bush urged the development of the ballistic missile system in Europe because “Iran could test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe.” But Russia does not regard Iran’s missiles as a serious threat. Kislyak said there is no threat from Iran. The Russian military, notably Armed Forces Chief of Staff Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, view the Iranian missile threat as hypothetical, unlike the very tangible U.S. interceptor missiles to be deployed in Poland and the early warning radar planned for the Czech Republic.
Russia would be glad if the United States could be convinced to postpone the deployment of its ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland after the international community develops a common stance on Iran’s missile threat. Russia keeps on trying to encourage Americans to work together on the issue. However, Acting Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Daniel Fried and Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Rood said on March 27 that the Bush administration was not ready to postpone anti-ballistic missile deployment in Poland until both Russia and the United States agree that Iran is a threat.
Iran has approximately 40 launchers for short- and intermediate-range missiles, such as the Shahab-3, which, with a range of 1,120-1,240 miles, can reach southern Russia. According to Western intelligence sources, Iran can produce up to 20 missiles a year. On Nov. 20, 2007, Tehran tested the Ashura ballistic missile, with a range of 1,240 miles, which, according to Israeli and U.S. intelligence, can carry multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicles missiles. On Feb. 4, 2008, Iran tested the Kaveshgyar-1 — Explorer — missile and unveiled its first satellite, Omid — Hope — which is to be launched later this year.
On the face of it, this may be cause for concern. But a missile without a nuclear payload is not very dangerous, and no intelligence service in the world can say without a doubt that Iran has nuclear bombs or that it will create one soon. On the other hand, it is no secret that Iran is pursuing a very active nuclear policy, although so far in the civilian sector.
Lev Feoktistov, a respected Russian nuclear physicist, said in Vladimir Gubarev’s book “The Empire’s Nuclear Shield” that while it would be far from easy to catch up with the established nuclear powers in weapons design, it is very easy indeed to make a simple bomb whose only task is to explode. One only needs the correct reference and textbooks to create the simplest kind of bomb, such as the first American or Soviet bombs, which were based on simple physical principles formulated before World War II, the scientist writes.
In short, Russian and American specialists will have much to ponder and discuss at their London meeting. Nuclear shield or no nuclear shield it would not be possible for USA, Russia and China to have common views on Iranian designs.
Courtesy Arab News
Popularity: 1% [?]
Loading ...
This is an excellent analysis of what is, to me at least, a new idea. And now I am curious. Please do tell more–at your pleasure and convenience, thank you.
AMERICAN PROXY TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN IS TO INSTABLISE PAKISTAN TO GET RID OF PAKISTANS NUCKLEAR CAPABLITIES,AMERICAN AND ISRAELIS ARE SMART , NOT TO TO BE OPEN ABOUT SABOTAGE PAKISTAN BUT BEHIND TO ARRANGE TERRORISTS BY MEANS OF CURRUPTION AND REWARDS TO SUCIDAL TERRORISTS, TO EXICUTE PLANNED SUCIDAL BOMBING AT THE COMMAND OF INSIDERS IN WASHINGTON, WITHOUT EXOSING THEMSELVER, THAT BRINGS CAOUS IN PAKISTAN(PAGALISTAN)AND FURTHER MISSTRUST DISUNITY IN ABUSED PAKISTAN(PAGALISTAN)
PIRACY AT HIGH SEAS.
AS SUUPER POWER LIKE AMERICA KEEP ITS RIGHT TO STOP ANY SHIP IN HIGH SEAS OR IN MIDDLE EASTERN WATTERS,THEY CAN BOMB ANY SHIP, THEY CAN ANY SEARCH, EROPEAN SHIPS CAN FISH CLOSE TO WATTERS OF WEAKER COUNTRIES, TILL MASSESSTARVE IN POOR COASTAL COUNTRIES, AS LOCAL CANT FEED THEM SELVES BECAUSE ALL THE FISHES HAVE BEEN WIPED BY THE FISHING VESSELS OF EROPEANS ANE AMERICANS, BISIDE THAT AERICANS THE SUPER POWER KEEP THIER RIGHT TO BOMB COUNTRIES LIKE SOMALIA BY SEE BY AIR AND BY LAND AND COMPELLING THE ETHOPIA TO INVADE SOMALIA, AND EXPECTING NO BAD RESULTS DUE TO AMERICAN INTERVENTIONS IN SOMALIA TILL PEOPLE AREMADE SO DESPERATE THAT PEOPLE OF SOMALIA HAVE NO CHOICE LEFT TO SURVIVE BUT TAKE RISK TO BE PIRATE NOT BECAUSE OD CHOICE BUT BECAUSE OF DESPARITY.
HAD SOMALIA BEEN A PRO AMERICAN COUNTRY OR A JEWISH STATE OR A EROPEAN COUNTRY OR A NATO MEMBER, IN THAT CASE SOMALIA WOULD BE RIGHTFUL TO DO INTERVENTIONS AT HIGH SEAS OR PIRACY TO SERVE DIRT NEEDS OF AMERICA,JUST LIKE AS AMEICAN S WERE SERVED BY BINLADIN AN AFGHANISTAN AGAINST RUSSIANS, SADAM HUSSAIN AGAINST IRAN AND KURDS, AS ONLY PAMERICANS AND PRO AMERICAN COUNTRIES HAVE RIGHT TO PIRACY AT SEAS, SEARCHES OF VESSELS AT SEAS, OR BOMB THE SHIPS OF NATIONS AMERICANS DONT LIKE, TO SIMPLY TO SHOW THIER SATANIC POWER, TO DOMINATE THE POWERLESS,
IN MY OPINION SOMALIS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PIRACS FOR THIER SURVIVAL,NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT IT, BECAUSE AMERICAN HAVE PUSH THE SIMPLE HUMAN BEING THIS FAR, SOMALIS HAVE TO SURVIVE, AGAINST DIFFICULT ODDS THAT AMERICA AND WORLD COMUNITY HAS FORCED UPON SOMALIA,
IF SOMALIA WILL INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE IRAK ,AFGHANISTAN, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THAN THEY MUST BE CALL PIRATS BECAUSE WE HAVE WAY BETTER MORALS STANDARDS, BUT AS WESTERN WE PREACH THAT WE HAVE BETTER WAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE POWER OF DEVIL TO DISTROY THE WORLD AND PEOPLE WE ALMOST DISTROY WE CAL THEM PIRATES AND TERRORISTS, BECAUSE ONLY WE AS SUPER POWER HAVE RIGHT TI DO UGLIER PIRACIES AND WARS, BECAUSE WE CAN, AND WE CAN CAL ANYBODY OR A COUNTRY WE DONT LIKE AS TERRORISTS AND PIRATES.
NOW THE ISLAMIST IN SOMALI VOLUNTEER THEMSELVES FREE TO SERVE AMERICAM , TO FIGHT THIER SOMALI PYRATE BROTHERN, SO THAT ISLAMIST CAN GET RECOGNITION BY AMERICANS BY KILLING THIER COUNTRY MEN WHO TRING TO SURVIVE AS PIRATES,AS IN ISLAMIC AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES THERE IMMERGS SOMTHING THAT PRETENDS MORE ISLAMIC OR HIGHER MORAL TO KILL BROTHERN PIRATS MASSES WHO TRY TO SEREVE SUDDEN AMERCAN DIRTY PLAN ,WHO ARE LATTER THOWN LIKE A DIRTY RAG LIKE SADAM OR BINLADIN, OR MUSHARAF,WHY MUSLIM BROTHER SERVE THE THE AMERICANS TO KILL THIER BROTHER, THAT IS WHAT BRING DOWN FALL OF ISLAM, AND ALL THE MUSLIMS NATIONS, BECAUSE THE LOVE TO SERVE AMERICAN AND WHITE WEST , AGANST THIER OWN BROTHERN.
Colonoal super powers (AMERICANS)should rewrite and redefine QURAN, and then definition about terrorism will be right, to send the terrorists to hell who defendS thier country against occupation, Not God Or Allah power to define but the person or nation like America hasright to invent the term or word Terrorism, because these VICTIM masses try to make difficult for ie Americans or Israelis to accupy a cirtain country who cant defend themselves,So Might is right, as powerful person or nation you can dowhat you want, and make masses believe something that is against natural laws, by brainwashing masses by all means of media and torture by American ways, and still complain about how Hitler tortured Jews,Hitler would have learned LESSONS from President Bush spaciallly what he did at torture camps at Gontanomo and in Abugarib,
Worse has happened where there was nO cameras or no media in recent days in Gaza and in History while English were capturing the Black slave s from africa and trancporting to North America and everywhere in world, and any black who objected the slavery was treated as terroristand got killed, when white man fron Eroupe was accupying North America, and any red Indian or native Americans(peacefull People) who try to defend thier county,were treated as terrorists, and were wipes fron American soil,were called as terrorists.
I wonder what is Terrorism,Native American who lost thier land,have experienced terrorism, by being victims of terrorism of white English countries, and the black Africa has been the victims of white English, French,spanish, portugies, and again by White man of west, and these colonial super powers are forgetting what missery and suffering victims nations of africa ,native of Americas and abogines have gone thu continuesly by these white raced colonial superpowers till today.this terrorism of accupation colnising of innocent nations(who simply wish to be left alone) have caused immence terror by super powers on defenceess peaceloveing countries .
If you suffer under accupation and if you cry or throw a stone on a patten tank, or if you house gets bombbarded by American or Israeli planes, you cry, and you will be stammped as terrorist when you have no power,if you dont give flowery to your accupier you are terrorist,Even God the ALLAH SIDES WITH STRONGER, STRONGER WILLL TAKE AGOD AS HOSTAGE, AND MAKE WISH COME TRUE, WHILE POOR AND WEAK AND UNORGANISED WILL DIE AND WILL BE HISTORY,
If there is no terrorism of accupation , there will be no word terror.