【中文題目】對伊朗戰爭已箭在弦上
【來 源】加拿大《全球研究》 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28929
【發表日期】2012年1月29日
【原文作者】Leonid Slavin
【譯 者】彼岸
【校 對】立哥
【聲 明】譯文為原創，轉載務必注明譯者及出處“獨家網dooo.cc”。
【摘 要】美國為何會針對伊朗？真實目的是讓全世界接受華盛頓的游戲規則。從越南戰爭到海灣戰爭到對伊拉克和阿富汗的戰爭，都是如此。而美國對伊朗動怒的目的是推動伊朗政權更迭，遵循顏色革命的遺跡。不論是批評伊朗核問題，或是霍爾木茲海峽升級的對峙，抑或是指責伊朗支持國際恐怖主義，這些都是為發動戰爭而準備的借口。當然，美國在目前的狀況下，想打贏這場戰爭也不是那么容易的。
【譯 文】
如果與伊朗的沖突采取的形式是：曠日持久的轟炸行動以及接下來的對伊朗的占領，那么美國就需要強化在其臨近地區的地位，就是說華盛頓接來下就該努力把高加索共和國（格魯吉亞，阿塞拜疆）和那些中亞地區劃到其政策的勢力范圍內，從而加緊對俄羅斯的包圍圈計劃。
從中、俄、印三國對軍事計劃的反對可以看出，他們似乎堅守住了——為抗衡美國來勢洶洶的霸權主義和猖獗的單邊主義——而形成的同盟關系。
道義上所謂的人道主義干涉和反恐戰爭的概念也僅僅被美國利用，為其對南斯拉夫、伊拉克和阿富汗赤裸裸的侵略行徑正名。
而外交關系協會的馬修•克勒尼希最近竟然警告說，伊朗將來可能將其核技術傳播給委內瑞拉。他一定是試圖借此警告堵住所有批評美國外交政策的悠悠之口。
可能出現的是，石油禁運計劃的部分后果將導致西方面臨石油供應問題，并開始興建橫跨沙特阿拉伯-巴林-阿曼-也門-卡塔爾-伊拉克的輸油管道，作為到達阿拉伯、紅海和地中海海岸的替代路線。
由于美國新的軍事策略暗示將重點關注兩個地區—大中東地區和東南亞，霍爾木茲海峽的問題似乎牽連到馬六甲海峽。馬六甲海峽是從印度洋運輸石油到中國、日本、韓國以及其他東南亞國家的最短航道。
最近歐盟的石油禁運計劃給伊朗當頭一棒，美國和其他西方國家的威脅聲明提出要進一步針對伊朗進行制裁，這些促使觀察家得出結論：伊朗與西方國家的武裝沖突如箭在弦，一觸即發。
就上文所述背景下，第一個潛在情形是目前的僵局最終將逐步升級為戰爭。美國目前駐扎在海灣地區的作戰部隊人數已達到40000人，加上在阿富汗——伊朗的東邊——的90000名士兵，以及在亞洲國家部署的數千士兵的支持部隊?？偟乃闫饋磉@是股相當大的軍事潛力，然而一旦武裝敵對行動爆發，要保證勝券在握，各種部署仍顯不足。
例如，科林H卡爾，在最近《外交事務》的一篇文章中提出，雖然“毫無疑問，從操作層面上來講，華盛頓必贏無疑”，但美國仍將不得不針對相關問題做出縝密的部署。
目前，維持現狀不符合美國的利益，Stratfor公司——美國一私營全球情報分析機構稱：“如果阿爾阿薩德幸存，如果伊拉克局勢按照它目前的情況繼續發展下去，那么伊朗正在創建一個確定該地區界線的現實。美國沒有廣泛而有效的聯盟，如果發生戰爭，一呼百應的情況肯定不會出現。它只有以色列……”
如果與伊朗的沖突以曠日持久的轟炸行動作為拉開占領該國的序幕，美國將需要強化在其臨近地區的地位，這意味著華盛頓將試圖把高加索共和國（格魯吉亞，阿塞拜疆）和那些中亞地區劃到其政策的勢力范圍，從而加緊對俄羅斯的包圍圈計劃。
另一種情形同樣值得關注。歐盟對伊朗的制裁肯定會殃及許多歐洲經濟體——特別是希臘、意大利和西班牙。事實上，西班牙外交行政部長若澤·曼努埃爾·加西亞直言不諱地指出，制裁決定是個虧本買賣。
至于伊朗，石油封鎖會造成其財政預算減少150-200億美元，這應該是無關痛癢的，但是由于伊朗議會選舉和2013年總統大選的臨近以及西方國家積極扶持其國內的反對派，伊朗國內很有可能將爆發騷亂。德黑蘭已經明確表示，會努力為其尋找其他石油買家。
中國和印度分別是伊朗的頭號客戶和第三大客戶，他們很快就對以美國為首的制裁活動做出應對。日本承諾支持華盛頓對伊的行動，但卻沒有發表任何計劃減少從伊朗進口石油的聲明。順便說一下，在1973年由華爾街引發的那場石油危機中，由于美國并未遵守最初保證石油供應的承諾，日本經濟遭到重創。【譯注：第一次石油危機（1973年）：1973年10月第四次中東戰爭爆發，為打擊以色列及其支持者，石油輸出國組織的阿拉伯成員國當年12月宣布收回石油標價權，并將其積陳原油價格從每桶3.011美元提高到10.651美元，使油價猛然上漲了兩倍多，從而觸發了第二次世界大戰之后最嚴重的全球經濟危機。持續三年的石油危機對發達國家的經濟造成了嚴重的沖擊。在這場危機中，美國的工業生產下降了14%，日本的工業生產下降了20%以上，所有的工業化國家的經濟增長都明顯放慢?！?BR>
因此，可以預計東京是極為謹慎的同意華盛頓的制裁建議，并要求美國白宮將無法提供的明確保證。眼下美國正有目的地拉攏韓國，試圖勸說其不再從伊朗進口石油。
由中國，俄羅斯和印度提出的軍事設想方面計劃的反對派似乎要保持國家間結盟的承諾以尋求抗衡美國來勢洶洶的霸權主義以及單邊主義的肆虐。Stratfor公司分析師認為，考慮到金磚國家可能會通過在阿拉伯海、波斯灣等發動聯合反恐以及反海盜軍事演習，來影響潛在沖突區的局勢，美國做出決策刻不容緩。
華盛頓的最終目的是誘導伊朗的政權更迭，不過仍需要一個借口。長期以來美國一直對伊朗各派虎視眈眈，妄圖利用這個國家國內存在的競爭，同時推行已被證實行之有效的顏色革命——例如支持綠色運動或在伊朗設立虛擬使館。
理查德•桑德斯——一位直言不諱的美國外交政策評論家——指出，至少自19世紀末期入侵墨西哥以來，美國就一直依賴著為戰爭尋找借口的機制為其軍事干預行為開罪。美國保守主義者帕特里克布坎南就在其標題為“羅斯福挑起了珍珠港戰爭？”一文中表述了一個廣為人知的觀點:美國金融界明知煽動偷襲珍珠港會把美國拖入戰爭的泥沼而故意為之,為的是實現美元的全球主導地位這一深遠目標。
從越南戰爭也就是北部灣事件﹝美國馬德克斯號駛進越南領海并向其軍船開火﹞的歷史中我們可以吸取這樣的教訓，最初的矛盾同樣是由美國情報局挑起，而結果卻是美國國會授權約翰遜與越南作戰。﹝順便一提，1967年6月，以色列襲擊美國情報船自由號造成34死172傷之后，并沒有受到隨之而來的任何懲罰措施。﹞道義上所謂的人道主義干涉和反恐戰爭的概念也僅僅被美國利用，為其對南斯拉夫、伊拉克和阿富汗赤裸裸的侵略行徑正名。
談及目前嚴峻的波斯灣形勢，華盛頓可以選擇的戰爭借口至少包含三個，即(1)伊朗核問題；(2)霍爾木茲海峽不斷升級的對峙形勢；(3)對伊朗支持國際恐怖主義的指控。
美國對伊朗核計劃施壓的真正目的——是讓全世界的人都接受華盛頓的游戲規則，這一點早就昭然若揭了。制造大量危言聳聽的言論的目的在于轉移公眾的注意力，使公眾忘記這一簡單的事實——即僅僅依靠民用核技術的幫助是絕對不可能建造一個核軍火庫的。但是，外交關系協會的馬修•克勒尼希最近竟然警告說伊朗未來會向委內瑞拉傳播其核技術。其動機一定是試圖堵住所有批評美國外交政策的悠悠之口。
霍爾木茲海峽是波斯灣的海上交通要道，被視為未來戰爭的爭奪中心點。包括伊拉克、科威特、卡塔爾、沙特阿拉伯和阿聯酋在內的多個國家的石油輸出都要經過這條水道，因此可能參與沖突的各方都在密切關注著它。根據美國能源部的統計，2011年霍爾木茲海峽的石油運輸總量達17億桶，粗略的估計占世界總量的20%。如果霍爾木茲海峽發生任何令人不安的事，預計石油的價格將上漲50%。
通過霍爾木茲海峽需要取道伊朗和阿曼的領海。根據聯合國海上貨物運輸條約，伊朗出于禮貌賦予了其他國家經過其領海的權利。
聯系華盛頓關于霍爾木茲海峽的反復陳述，我們必須要理解的是，在這一點上，美國和伊朗處于相同的法律地位——他們都簽署卻未通過該項條約；因此，從道義上講，美國沒有權利提及國際法。在咨詢了國內立法相關事項之后，伊朗政府近期強調，德黑蘭可能會修改相關法規，準許外國船只通過伊朗領海。
伊朗海軍可能也將開始遵守相關的國際法，尤其是那些定義其他國家的船只之間應保持的最小距離的法規。美國媒體上不斷涌現出伊朗的船只冒險接近美國船只的報道，但正如觀察者所述，破壞分子——如接受CIA資助的伊朗俾路支省的反zf武裝——在某些情況下應該脫下偽裝的小把戲。
可能出現的情形是，石油禁運計劃的部分后果將導致西方面臨石油供應問題，并開始興建橫跨沙特阿拉伯-巴林-阿曼-也門-卡塔爾-伊拉克的輸油管道，作為到達阿拉伯，紅海和地中海海岸的替代路線。一些這樣的項目，例如哈山-富查伊拉管道，目前已經處于籌建過程中。
如果是這樣的想法，華盛頓想說服其同盟國構建一個“更安全”的管道基礎設施的意圖就不難理解了。地緣政治正不可避免的成為一個現實問題，它必須被考慮在內，盡管這個地區的國家仍然困囿于各種各樣的沖突中，但是考慮到地理位置因素，即使新的輸油管道建立起來，德黑蘭依然會是一個關鍵爭奪點。
由于美國新的軍事策略暗示將重點關注兩個地區—大中東地區和東南亞，霍爾木茲海峽的問題似乎牽連到馬六甲海峽。馬六甲海峽是從印度洋運輸石油到中國，日本，韓國以及其他所有東南亞國家的最短航道。這隱性地迫使亞洲國家在做出與伊朗相關決策時，不得不將這一安排考慮在內。
先前所謂的“反恐戰爭”，不過是美國在一些似是而非的借口下對伊拉克和阿富汗的侵略，以成千上萬美國戰士的生命為代價，這些我們必須銘記于心。多年以前，白宮批準了一些對抗伊朗行政機關各個部門的顛覆性活動，其中包括針對伊斯蘭革命衛隊的。
前中央情報局特工Phillip Giraldi寫到美國和以色列的情報人員一直長期活躍于伊朗，并且是超級工廠病毒在伊朗的大肆傳播以及一系列暗殺伊朗核物理專家的幕后黑手。與伊朗國內反對派結成同盟的組織包括，伊朗人民圣戰組織，隸屬于俾路支解放軍的反zf武裝真主旅(其領導人阿卜杜勒•馬利克•里吉于2010年2月被伊朗安全部隊逮捕，并承認與美國中情局有合作)，以及庫爾德斯坦的自由生活黨。
事實上，一場針對伊朗的戰爭——目前為止仍未搬上臺面——即將爆發。有關各方都在試圖找到一個既能被各方普遍接受又不至引致沖突白熱化的解決方法。
【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.
相關文章
「 支持烏有之鄉！」
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！
注：配圖來自網絡無版權標志圖像，侵刪！
聲明：文章僅代表作者個人觀點，不代表本站觀點——烏有之鄉
責任編輯：執中
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號
