In the Middle East, “the aggressiveness of the ‘Axis of Aggressors’ is increasingly becoming aggressive”, the Hudson Institute points out adding that China is replacing the United States in the Middle East with the help of Iran.
The recent edition of the Rising Axis newsletter1 titled “China-Iran Relations in the Rising Axis” (Hudson Institute, October 9, 2024)2 strongly advocates the notion that unless the United States alters its course promptly, the gap widened by Xi utilizing the Iranian threat will persist, bolstering China and sidelining America.
“… American options are diminishing by the day. In the Middle East, the United States cannot outcompete China economically. As a great power patron, the only thing that distinguishes the U.S. from China is its military might. But the Biden team refuses to check Iran militarily. If that is the case, however, then what good is Washington to Saudi Arabia? Why wouldn’t Riyadh turn eastward? In contrast to Washington, Beijing at least wields influence in Tehran. It is eager to export drones and missiles, it won’t hesitate to provide assistance with a civilian nuclear program, and it won’t deliver sermons on human rights. Best of all, Xi’s grand economic strategy compels him to woo Riyadh”3.
The modification in “America’s course” is seen as follows:
Unless the United States commits to militarily restraining Iran or furnishing a credible alternative to Beijing’s commitments, the influence of the axis of aggressors will persist in growing in the Middle East. “America’s refusal to build an anti-Iran bloc is delivering the Middle East to China.”3 and “The United States can further raise the cost of sanctions evasion for both Tehran and Beijing by targeting the so-called ghost fleet of oil tankers that that Iran, Russia, and Venezuela rely upon to export oil to China. … It is firmly in America’s national security interests to be prepared to step in with emergency military assistance when its democratic allies and partners are attacked—just as it did in Ukraine, is doing now for Israel, and may have to do for Taiwan”4.
The pivotal question remains: when will the US deem something an “attack”?
Biden shows a clear reluctance to engage with Iran before the US presidential election on November 5 as Iran’s potential response could have detrimental effects on Kamala Harris’s career. However, the UK appears to be inclined towards such action presently and is entangled in a dispute with the US on this matter.
According to insider sources, British actors are resolute in applying pressure on Iran at this time. As an illustration, their stakeholders are employing intimidation tactics5 by insinuating that Iran is on the brink of receiving a nuclear weapon, and thus it is imperative to strike beforehand. In the US, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence confidently say – on the same day! – that there is no such threat6.
The reality is that time is favoring Iran since the BRICS partnership bolsters its position, as well as strengthens Russia, China, and India. Accordingly, the longer Iran avoids a war with Israel-US, the more influential it becomes in the Middle and Central Asia, consequently, more firmly curbing Turkey’s expansion into the Great Turan.
In fact, Turkey has been covertly and occasionally overtly backed by the military-political core of the UK at least since the 18th century (e.g., the Crimean War against Russia). This is a component of the Big Game, the struggle for the Eurasian heartland, for pushing back Russia and for control of the One Belt – One Road routes.
In its Turkestan project, Turkey is a “gauntlet” on the “fist” of Britain. The establishment of Turkestan aims to shift regional control towards the UK, therefore it needs to succeed with the mutual destruction of Iran and Israel, before the window of opportunity diminishes.
In any scenario, the endeavor to counter the ‘Axis of Aggressors’ through “swift and resolute containment” represents a futile – bordering on catastrophic (as we have already shown more than once, such as here)7 – attempt to sustain the “US-led international order”. The security and prosperity of the United States and its alliances can be safeguarded by relinquishing the “leadership of the world order” and transitioning from a policy of suppression to one of collaboration, particularly with the “Axis of Aggressors”.
1: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/great-power-competition-rising-axis
2: https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/china-iran-relations-rising-axis
3: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/biden-delivering-middle-east-china
5: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/10/iran-nuclear-weapon-warhead-missile-how-soon/
7: https://vandeman.org/ru/ssha-perehod-k-bystromu-i-reshitelnomu-sderzhivaniju/