Will Trump really start *two* wars instead of “just” one?
May 20, 2020
Amidst the worldwide pandemic induced scare most of
we have probably lost track of all the other potential dangers which still
threaten international peace and stability. Allow me to list just a few
headlines which, I strongly believe, deserve much more attention than what they
got so far. Here we go:
Notice that Military Times speaks of “US pressure
tactics”, Time of “tensions” and FoxNews of “efforts to undermine the US
sanctions”?
I don’t think that this is a coincidence.
Folks in the US military are much more in touch with reality than the
flag-waving prostitutes which some people call “reporters” or “journalists”.
Furthermore, the USA has embarked on a new policy
to justify its acts of piracy on the high seas with something called Visit,
Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS) all under
the pretext of the war on drugs. To get a better understanding of the
context of these developments I asked a specialist of Maritime issues of our
community, NatSouth, who replied the following: (stress added).
If a ship does not comply with the request to be
boarded, it is usual that the pursuing authorities must gain the permission of
the ‘flag’ state prior to boarding, on the high seas and the
pursuit has to have started in the coastal state’s jurisdictional waters. The caveat here is that in the Caribbean – Caribbean
Regional Maritime Agreement (CRA) – (long name: Agreement Concerning
Co-operation in Suppressing Illicit Maritime and Air Trafficking in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the Caribbean Area). So, there is an
agreement with participating coastal states on boardings and pursuits in EEZs
and the like. You can find more on the legal aspects of boardings at sea
here: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2344&context=hlr and more info on so-called “consensual
boardings” here: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-legal-implications-of-consensual-boarding-international-law-essay.php
The anti-drug/ counterterrorism angle allows the U.S.
Navy and the USCG to carry out interdictions on the high seas. An important point
to note whether this approach will be taken to interdict the tankers, given
that Venezuela is a declared narco-State. The absurdity is that Venezuela isn’t
the primary transit point in the region, Colombia holds that honor. https://orinocotribune.com/narco-state-the-report-that-leaves-venezuela-on-the-sidelines-of-the-cocaine-route/
If I could add at this point, the origins are that
Venezuela didn’t wish to play ball with Washington anymore, specifically with
the DEA back in 2005, squaring the circle of sorts, (or should that be a
vicious circle cunningly used by Washington, because who is going to argue with
that narrative, aka the war on terror). March: SOUTHCOM’s Adm. Faller: “There
will be an increase in US military presence in the hemisphere later this year.
This will include an enhanced presence of ships, aircraft, & security
forces to reassure our partners… & counter a range of threats to include
illicit narco-terrorism.” At the same time, the State dept released this https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1260988270302777350 so the US could effectively carry out boardings
under the guise of counterterrorism as well.
While the Iranian tankers were in the Mediterranean,
Washington released a (delayed) “Global Maritime Sanctions Advisory”, to the maritime industry, setting out guidelines to shipowners and insurers to enable
them to avoid the risks of sanctions penalties related to North Korea, Syria, and Iran. This also concerns oil exports from Iran, (but doesn’t apply to
Iranian flagged ships). This came after the State Dept gave warning
notice to oil companies to stop operations, including Rosneft (Russia),
Reliance (India) and Repsol (Spain).
Pretty clear, isn’t it?
What the USA is doing is substituting itself for
the United Nations and it is now openly claiming the right to board any vessel
under whatever kind of pious pretext like, say, narco-trafficking, nuclear
proliferation, sanctions against so-called “rogue states”, etc.
Clearly, the AngloZionists expect everybody to roll over and take it.
How likely is that?
Let’s look at a few Iranian headlines, all from
PressTV:
·
PressTV, May 17th: “US
aware Iran will respond ‘very strongly’ if Venezuela-bound ships attacked:
Analyst“
·
PressTV, May 18th: “Iran: The US bears responsibility for any foolish act against tankers heading to
Venezuela“
Three days in a row. I think that it is fair
to assume that the Iranians are trying very hard to convince Uncle Shmuel not
to mess with these tankers. Does anybody seriously believe that the Iranians
are bluffing?
Before we look at some of the aspects of this
potential crisis, let’s just mention a few things here.
First, the US is acting in total and
official illegality. Just like the bombing of Syria, the threats to
Iran or the US murderous sanctions Uncle Shmuel imposes left and right – the
blockade of Venezuela is a) totally illegal and b) an act of war under
international law.
Second, if USN commanders think they can
operate with impunity only because the Caribbean is far away from Iran, they
are kidding themselves. Yes, Iranian forces cannot defend these
tankers so far away from home, nor can they take any action against the USN in
the Atlantic-Caribbean theater of naval operations. But what they can and
will do is retaliate against any AngloZionist target in the Middle-East,
including any oil/gas tanker.
Third, while Venezuela’s military is tiny and weak
compared to the immensely expensive and bloated US military, being immensely
expensive and bloated is no guarantee of success. In fact, and depending
on how the Venezuelan leadership perceives its options, there could be
some very real risk for the USA in any attempt to interfere with the free
passage of these ships.
What do I mean by that?
Did you know that Venezuela had four squadrons of Su-30MKV for a
total of 22 aircraft? Did you know that Venezuela also had an unknown
number of Kh-31A supersonic anti-shipping missiles? And
did you know that Venezuela had a number of S-300VM and 9K317M2 Buk-M2E long-range and medium-range SAMs?
True, that is nowhere near the amount of weapons
systems Venezuela would need to withstand a determined US attack, but it is
more than enough to create some real headaches for US planners. Do you
remember what the Argentinian Air Force did to the British Navy during the
Malvinas war? Not only did the Argentinians sink two Type 42 guided
missile destroyers (the HMS Sheffield and the HMS Coventry) which were
providing long-range radar and medium-high altitude missile picket for the
British carriers, they also destroyed 2 frigates, 1 landing ship, 1 landing
craft, 1 container ship. Frankly, considering how poorly defended the
British carriers were, it is only luck which saved them from destruction (that,
and the lack of a sufficient number of Super Étendard strike aircraft and Exocet
missiles). I would add here that the British military, having been
defeated on many occasions, has learned the painful lessons of their past
defeats and does not suffer from the cocky-sure attitude of the US
military. As a result, they were very careful during the war against
Argentina and that caution were one of the factors which gave Britain
well-deserved the victory (I mean that in military terms only; in
moral terms, this was just another imperialist war with all the evil that
entails). Had the Argentinians had a modern air force and enough
anti-shipping missiles, the war could have taken a very different turn.
Returning to the topic of Venezuela, war is a much
more complex phenomenon than just a struggle of military forces. In fact,
I strongly believe that political factors will remain the single most important
determinant factor of most wars, even in the 21st century. And chances
are that the Venezuelans, being the militarily weaker side, will look to
political factors to prevail. Here is one possible scenario among many
other possible ones:
Caracas decides that the US seizing/attacking the
Iranian tankers constitute an existential threat to Venezuela because if that
action goes unchallenged, then the US will totally “strangle” Venezuela.
Of course, the Venezuelan military cannot take on the immense US military, but
what they could do is force a US intervention, say by attacking one/several USN
vessel(s). Such an attack, if even only partially successful, would force
the US to retaliate, bringing US forces closer not only to Venezuelan air
defenses but also closer to the Venezuelan people which will see any US
retaliation as an illegitimate counter-counter-attack following the fully legitimate
Venezuelan counter-attack.
Then there is the problem of defining
victory. In the US political “culture” winning is usually defined as
pressing a few buttons to fire off some standoff weapons, kill lots of
civilians, and then declare that the “indispensable nation” has “kicked the
other guy’s ass”. The problem with that is the following one: if they
other guy is very visibly weaker and has no chance for a military victory of
his own, then the best option for him is to declare that “surviving is winning”
– meaning that if Maduro stays in power, then Venezuela has won. How
would the USA cope with that kind of narrative? Keep in mind that Caracas
is a city of over two million people which even in peacetime is rather
dangerous (courtesy of both regular crime and potential guerilla
activities). Yet, for Maduro to “win” all he has to show is that he
controls Caracas. Keep in mind that even if the US forces succeed in
creating some kind of “zone of real democracy” somewhere near the Colombian border,
that will mean nothing to Maduro, especially considering the terrain between
the border and the capital city (please check out this very high resolution
map of Venezuela or this medium resolution one). As
for the notion of a USN landing on the shores of Venezuela, all we need to do
is to remember how the immense Hodgepodge of units which were tasked with
invading Grenada (including 2 Ranger Battalions, Navy Seals, most of an
Airborne Division, etc. for a total of over 7,000 soldiers(!)
against a tiny nation which never expected to be invaded (for details, and a good laugh, see here for a full list of
participating US forces!) was defeated by the waves of the Caribbean
and the few Cuban military engineers who resisted with small-arms fire
(eventually, most of the 82AB was calling in to fix this mess).
In other words, if Maduro remains in power
in Caracas then, in political terms, Venezuela wins even though it would loose
in purely military terms.
This phenomenon is hardly something new, as shown
by the following famous quote by Ho Chi Minh: “You can kill ten of my men
for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will
win.”
By the way, this is exactly the same problem the
Empire faces with Iran: as long as the Islamic Republic remains an Islamic
Republic it “wins” in any exchange of strikes with the USA and/or Israel.
Still, it is pretty obvious that the US can turn
much of Venezuela into a smoking heap of ruins. That is true (just like
what the USA did to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia, and Israel what did to
Lebanon in 2006). But that would hardly constitute a “victory” in any
imaginable sense of the word. Again, in theory, the US might be able to
secure a number of landing locations and then send in an intervention force
that could try to take key locations in Caracas. But what would happen
after that? Not only would the hardcore Chavistas trigger a guerilla
insurrection which would be impossible to crush (when is the last time the USA
prevailed in a counter-insurgency war?), but many Venezuelans would expect the
US to pay for reconstruction (and they would be right, according to the rules
of international law, “once you take it, you own it” meaning that the USA would
become responsible for the socio-economic situation of the country).
Finally, there is always the option of an anti-leadership “decapitating” strike
of some kind. I believe that in purely military terms, the US has the
know-how and resources to accomplish this. I do not believe that this
option would secure anything for the USA, instead – it would further
destabilize the situation and would trigger some kind of reaction by the
Venezuelan military both outside and inside Venezuela. If anything, the
repeated failures of the various coup attempts against Chavez and Maduro prove
that the bulk of the military remains firmly behind the Chavistas (and the
failed coup only served to unmask the traitors and replace them anyway!).
The bottom line is this: if Uncle Shmuel decides to
seize/attack the Iranian tankers, there is not only a quasi certitude of a war
between the US and Iran (or, at the very least, an exchange of strikes), but
there is also a non-trivial possibility that Maduro and his government might
actually decide to provoke the USA into a war they really can’t win.
Is Trump capable of starting a process which will
result in not one, but two wars?
You betcha he is! A guy who thinks in
categories like “my button are bigger than yours” or “super-duper weapons” obviously
understands exactly *nothing* about warfare, while the climate of messianic
narcissism prevailing among the US ruling classes gives them a sense of total
impunity.
Let’s hope that cooler heads, possibly in the
military, will prevail. The last thing the world needs today is another
needless war of choice, never mind two more.
The Saker
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario