Originally Posted by spence
There certainly is a mega shift in global power but I wouldn't have faith that a BRIC alliance is going to mean a dramatic reduction in US power. It's mostly economic and dependent on global consumption.
This is what I mean by not paying serious attention to the shifts in global alliances. The shift is occurring not just because of BRICS. The SOC is as or even more influential in the shift. For instance, from Wikipedia:
Iranian writer, Hamid Golpira, had this to say on the topic: "According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass....Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski's theory, since they formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SOC] in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia".
But the counterbalancing involves more than Central Asia. It includes the Middle East, and altogether what Russian theorists call Eurasia. Turkey will probably become a member of SOC, and Iran will, when the lifting of sanctions allows it.
And BRICS is a channel for SOC nations, especially Russia and China, to create a counterbalance outside of Eurasia by incorporating "developing nations" outside the Eurasian zone, including South America and Africa.
An aim of both SOC And BRICS is to replace the dollar as the reserve currency in global trade finance. BRICS ministers supported Putin against any Western notion of banning Russia from the G20 because of the invasion and annexation of Crimea. BRICS and SOC establish a system of swaps allowing transfers of resources between member nations. These alliances will form a counterbalance to NATO and other strictly Western alliances, and as their membership increases, the probability that they can achieve dominance increases.
Consider, as well, that most of the SOC and BRICS members are members of the UN, and Russia and China are permanent members of the security council. So their influence goes well beyond SOC and BRICS. It is worldwide, including socialist minded fellow travelers inside Western countries.
There also doesn't seem to be agreement on what Iran really is doing. The former head of Mossad called Bibi's claims before Congress to be b*llsh*t. Even our own intel agencies haven't consistently said there's an active program to develop a bomb going on.
With aggressive inspection I'd say we're better prepared to know what's real even with attempts to deceive. Saddam 2.0.
Talk about b*llsh*t, if there is no active program to develop a bomb, what is the reason, or even the right, to impose anything on Iran. If we need aggressive inspection merely to know what appears to be the case, no active program, what is the probable cause for the agression?
With no deal they have no respite from sanctions, the natural response will be escalate and provoke to get the deal. This leads to a bomb.
Well then, Bibi's suposed b*llsh*t isn't so sh*tty. Without a deal, you say it leads to a bomb. I suppose it's the nature of the deal that concerns Bibi.
No, it simply follows the clear logic set forth above.
No, your logic is too loaded with contingencies and so more muddy than clear: "If the Senators don't want the deal and no deal is more likely to get them a bomb, then that could be a possible conclusion." And the extremely remote possibility is extremely improbable, and suggesting that the Senators want Iran to get the bomb is absurd on its face.
In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.
Actually it's a reasonable proposition, not a conclusion--"getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions." Once it becomes a member of the alliance, it will have the backing of the members against foreign intrusions into its business, just as NATO is supposed to back its members.
Given the short-sighted behavior -- now being regretted by their own party -- I wonder why they would do such a silly thing. That it comes on the heels of Bibi's surreal appearance is even more strange.
|