"The shift from a unipolar US world to a multipolar world is overstated"
AbuKhalil: I think this shift from a unipolar US world to a multipolar world is overstated - just this morning I read that the Russian government has succumbed to pressure from the US to cancel delivery to Iran of a missile defense system. At the end of the day, Russia can only operate in a way that is going to be permitted by the US government. When it comes to a clash between the two parties' vital interests the US still has the means and power to prevail. There is no indication of a change in the rules of the game, in the Middle East, as far as the roles of the big powers go.
The US still is able to impose its will on issues dealing with Israel, and on economic issues, the US is still able - with the help of the oil producers - to decide on matters of production and such. Israel still on behalf of the US can do what it wants. What's true is this, for electoral reasons, the US is currently so preoccupied by Afghanistan first, and secondly, by Iraq, that is willing to allow certain manoeuvres by its enemies. However, that is not going to allow for any changing of the rules according to which, Israel rules supreme in the Middle East region, while Arab dictatorships continue to act on behalf of the US empire.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I could never understand the "angry" thing about ABK. I have seen him interviewed many times on TV and always found him cool, collected and very rational but never angry. It's true that he never smiles and probably no one has ever seen his teeth but his comments are most interesting and as the interviewer said, he spares no one.
ReplyDeleteAlong what ABK is saying it remains to be seen if the US will try to convince Russia to cancel its sale of cruise missiles to Syria. If this isn't talked about, it would be because the missiles have already been delivered and most probably some are already located in Lebanon. Maybe this is what's behind Israel's decision to locate its first Iron Dome batteries in the north and Nasrallah's latest threat to hit at ships heading to or leaving Israel should Beirut be attacked by Israel. Suddenly and out of the blue, Israel has decided to re-open talks with Syria.
I think he was being ironic when he chose the angryarab sobriquet.
ReplyDeleteI doubt it vza. I see As'ad's anger as his state of mind, a reaction or a response to a certain reality in the Arab world. It doesn't mean that he has to react angirly every time he opens his mouth or writes an article it just means a cer6tain unhappiness about the situation..
ReplyDelete<span>I doubt it vza. I see As'ad's anger as a state of mind, a reaction or a response to a certain reality in the Arab world. It doesn't mean that he has to react angirly every time someone talks to him or every time he opens his mouth or writes an article, it just reflects a certain unhappiness about the situation..</span>
ReplyDelete<span><span>Possible but I doubt it vza. I see As'ad's anger as a state of mind, a reaction or a response to a certain reality in the Arab world. It doesn't mean that he has to react angirly every time someone talks to him or every time he opens his mouth or writes an article, it just reflects a certain unhappiness or frustration about the situation..</span></span>
ReplyDelete