Chavez, Ahmadinejad and the Next “Missile Crisis”
By Alejandro Pena Esclusa | March 1, 2009
On January 6, 2009, Hugo Chávez expelled the Israeli ambassador in Venezuela. Immediately after, the terrorist group Hamas publicly congratulated the “courageous step taken by the Venezuelan president.” Three weeks later, after repeated anti-Semitic speeches by Venezuelan officials, the Tiferet Israel synagogue in Caracas was brutally desecrated. The perpetrators were later caught by the police, but they were undoubtedly encouraged by the official discourse.
These facts are not coincidental. They are the natural result of the many political and economic agreements signed between Chávez and the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who promised to “wipe Israel off the face of Earth“. One might ask: Why this strange alliance between a Venezuelan Marxist lieutenant colonel and a Iranian fundamentalist leader?
Despite the myth of Chávez’s allegedly popular support, the truth is that he remains in power due to electoral fraud, the buying of consciences, the repression against his opponents, and generalized fear. Chavez knows very well that, due to the collapse of oil prices, he will soon face a very difficult situation, characterized by inflation, unemployment and hunger.
In the middle of the economic crisis, Venezuelans will demand tangible results that Chavez won’t be able to provide. In addition, they will blame him -having managed the largest budget in Venezuelan history- for not having taken the appropriate steps to protect Venezuela from the crisis; and for wasting billions of dollars in his continental revolution. So he will resort to illegal repression, to prevent the population from participating in massive justified protests.
However, the Venezuelan militaries are not willing to kill innocent people and to commit crimes against humanity just to protect Chávez. The official paramilitary forces are not sufficiently prepared. And the Colombian narco-terrorist groups (FARC) are unable to defend their friend Chavez because they are being dismantled by the Uribe government. Therefore, Chávez needs an additional strike force capable of containing popular discontent and secure him in power.
In 1962, Fidel Castro experienced a similar situation. Despite having defeated his opponents in the Bay of Pigs, Castro was weakened and worried. The solution he found to his dilemma was to provide the Cuban territory for the placement of Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at the United States. As a result of the “Missile Crisis,” an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev which, among other things, allowed Castro to remain in power until today.
Fidel Castro’s apprentice Hugo Chávez learned the lesson well. He just replaced the twentieth century Soviet threat for the twenty-first century modern menace: Islamic fundamentalism. Chavez is providing the Venezuelan territory to Middle Eastern terrorist groups, not only to help him defend his revolution inside the country, but as a powerful deterrent against his international adversaries.
Chavez has exported his evil strategy, opening the doors for his “brother” Ahmadinejad in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, where the governments have also signed economic and political agreements with Iran. If this madness is not soon stopped, there will be another “Missile Crisis,” but this time involving the whole continent.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
11 comments
Indeed it is happening again at both the north and south ends of the continent!
Just last week when President Obama was visiting in Ottawa it was announced that Russian “Bear” bombers were skirting the north edge of Canadian arctic airspace -as they did for 30 or so years on our east and west coasts during the “Cold War”.
They were, of course, met by Canadian F18s, as they would have been by American F15s had they been in or near Alaskan airspace.
They are really no problem or immediate threat -except that they demonstrate that Russia is “at it again.”
Iran has no common cause with Venezuala -as Russia in truth has no common cause with either Venezuala or Iran -but Russia will continue to “stir the pot”. Russia has a vested interested in worldwide political disturbance. “Twas ever thus!”
Look for the same sort of thing in Gaza.
Jock Williams
Russia will always be jockeying around for “influence” and, by its nature, will, as someone else said here, always be “stirring the pot” just to see if something might result that it might benefit from.
But – what never seems to make much sense: How does a country like Iran (or, Venezuela, or even North Korea, for that matter) rationalize that it might use some form of nuclear armament against the U.S. (or against a significant American ally) – - without suffering an immediate retaliation by the U.S. that could wipe IT completely off the map ???
These countries (or their leaders) never look that far ahead. That pretty much explains why they are “third world countries”. First (and probably second) world world countries have the imagination to realize that the US could vapourize them if it felt so inclined.
Failure to draw this conclusion usually (but not always) results from religious fanaticism -or illiteracy. Venezuela has only the latter whereas Iran suffers from both. Russia just doesn’t “get it” -and hasn’t for about 60 years. Too bad! They would make magnificent allies and friends.
As a professional soldier during the “Cold War” I was just delighted that the Germans were finally on our side. My family had fought them for 2 generations -and barely won! They were good war makers -as are the Russians. Let us try to avoid testing their mettle!
I also respected the Russians -and their ability to outgun us by a factor of (usually) 3 to 1 or worse.
For those not professional soldiers reading this -I will point out that 3 to 1 is exactly the ratio required to pretty much guarantee success in the attack.
Do not discount the newly awakended Russia. They are a real threat -or as I said an excellent potential ally. Let us not choose the wrong option!
Jock Williams
Re: Post 4;
I, too, believe Russia could have been (could still be?) one of our best (if not ‘the’ best) allies possible – and I really believe the Clinton and Bush II administrations blew it by not trying to cement a real solid working relationship with Russia.
Personally, I feel Russia has almost limitless natural resources that we could use – - and we have the manufacturing and production expertise and capability that they could use. Furthermore – I do believe Russia is capable of being everyone’s ‘worst nightmare’ – so, better an ally than an enemy!
There is no doubt that Russians make magnificent soldiers. It would not be in our nor their interest to fight each other. But Russia is very unlikely to pose the threat in future that it has in the past. The main reason is demographics.
In 1941, just prior to the German invasion, the USSR controlled about 180 million people (not all Russians, of course). At that time, the US population numbered about 130 million. Today, the US has a population of about 310 million, Russia has a population of about 145 million. By 2050, the US will probably be at about 400 million, while Russia will have declined to some 100 million. What happened?
First of all, with the break-up of the USSR, the population under Russian rule fell significantly. More specifically, the 60 million or so Belarussians and Ukrainians both gained independence. That subtracted from Russian control about 30% of the Soviet Union’s Slavic population. In addition, the former Soviet satellites and even former members of the USSR have joined the EU and NATO. That has subtracted the Baltic Republics, Poland, E. Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania from the Russian sphere and added them to the West. Similar moves by Albania, the former Yugoslav republics, Ukraine, Georgia and Mongolia have brought those states into or close to the West. This has cost the Russians another 100 million or so allies.
But even more important, Russian public health was already deteriorating and it has gotten even worse since. Alcoholism and chain smoking is rampant in Russia. This leads to deadly heart and artery diseases. The average male doesn’t even reach the age of 60. This is an even lower life expectancy than that of Pakistanti or Bangladeshi men.
Abortion remains the usual form of birth control, due to ignorance and lack of access to (and habitual refusal to use) birth control pills or condoms. After several abortions, many young Russian women are no longer able to conceive.
The serious shortage of housing makes it difficult for young couples to find homes of their own. Many live with paretns and in-laws in very crowded quarters. That discourages pregnancies.
Drunkeness, lack of safety measures, bad policing and poorly maintained roads and vehicles leads to a very high rate of deadly industrial and driving accidents. Poor sanitation, including polluted water encourages infections and disease. Bad medical care, inadequate hospitals and out-of-date medical equipment cause many Russians to die who would not under far better conditions in the West.
The economy, briefly buoyed by high oil prices, is collapsing. That also discourages births and increases the prevalence of the bad living conditions listed above.
The Russians would still make formidable opponents. But the recent poor showing of their forces in the Caucasus and the outmoded equipment they fielded gives strong evidence that they are much weaker militarily than they were previously.
Doesn’t anyone understand that Russia does not have to be close bye or have more people, more land or a better armed forces than we do. To cause real problems for us they can join forces with an Arab League of Nations take over most of the worlds oil out put and surround and try to attack our closest friends in the middle east Israel. Actually they or already in with Iran warning the U.S. not to attack Iran and its nuclear sites. The stage is set for the biggest military action the world has ever seen, believe it it is coming.
Re: Post 7;
Generally, I would agree with much of Sullivan’s “demographic profile” of the Russians – - and I would also agree with his statement … “The Russians would still make formidable opponents” – - and I would tend to agree with your description of how they might successfully “oppose” us. On a bad day, I think they could very well align themselves with other oil-producing nations and various Arab interests to make life difficult for the U.S.
As I said, I feel Clinton and Bush II blew it by not developing a closer and more successful/effective relationship with Russia.
So as I see it _ most if not all of you believe that it would behoove us (all of us!) to become better friends of the Russkis!
What a revelation!
It would also have been better in about 1945/1946 -but when we really blew it was then!
Not that we are in any way natural friends -communism and captitalism are natural enemies -but if we could just have co -operated -we could each have saved ourselves gazillions of dollars ( is that even more than trillions?) -and the world would be at least as good today as it is -and I personally believe -BETTER!
We just have to open our minds.
As a professional soldier (airman too!) from 1960 -1996 I got to meet many of the former enemies/now friends -and found them all worthy allies.
If our political masters would do so too -in a spirit of openness -we would all be a lot better off!
Jock Williams
Dear Mr. Alberti,
My guess is that if you believe what you have written in your #7, you’ve never been to Russia nor the Middle East, know very little about the state of Russian armaments and know little or no history of Russian-Arab relations.
It DOES matter if the Russians are much fewer, much poorer, less well-armed and far away. What are they going to threatnen us with, directly? Their nukes? Do you think the Russians would put their national survival at risk for the sake of any Arabs? Russians despise Arabs and Moslems – and the latter knows that well. Look into the history of Egyptian-Russian relations.
Furthermore, the Russians have virtually no seapower projection capabilities nor strategic lift assets. The days of the Soviet Mediterranean Fleet are long gone. Any Arab knows that if there were any type of clash with us in the Middle East, the Russians would leave their beloved Arab brethren on their own. Even in the glory days of the Soviets, look how they behaved during the 1973 Middle East War. And that marked the high water mark of their influence in the region.
As for the oil weapon, that could threaten Europe and Japan but hardly us. Do you realize how LITTLE oil the US imports from the Middle East? Look at the figures. We get the vast majority of our petroleum from our own fields, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Indonesia and, almost certainly in future, from the newly-discovered Brazilian offshore discoveries. (Despite widespread misunderstanding by the American public, beginning in the 1960s, the US government gradually began ending our reliance on Middle East oil, a process accelerated after the fall of the Shah in the late 1970s.
The Arabs (who, by the way: Syria, Libya, Algeria? Most Arab states are our allies) aren’t going to risk attacking Israel, given the latter’s nukes. And even if any Arab state did get nukes, how could that threaten Israel given the Middle East mini-equivalent of mutual assured destruction?
Finally, to jauntily dismiss the declining Russian population ignores the economic aspects. The Russian economy is almost certainly going to soon begin to contract in a radical manner, due to shortages of young male labor and, more recently, of capital. Yes, the Russians can import “guest workers.” But those available and willing to work for wretched Russian wages are Moslem Central Asians and Caucasians of various stripes. They are treated in a miserable, racist fashion by the Russians. They don’t have advanced skills. In many cases, these foreign workers lack the ability to read or write. Many don’t even speak Russian. There’s no way the Russians can survive as a major advanced post-industrial economy, due to demographics alone. When you add in the public health, drug and alcohol problems plaguing Russia, their prospects are even worse.
Finally, look at what’s happened to the Russian economy over the last six months. We certainly face major problems in the gloabal financial meltdown. But what has happened to the Russians is far worse and they have NO money to address their own banking, credit and financial catastrophes. They can’t even borrow. (Look at the fall of the ruble vis a vis the dollar since the autumn.)
There are plenty of potential foreign problems facing the US and more to come. But to worry about Russia – except as a failed state – is to remain fixated on a Soviet threat that disappeared 20 years ago.
Putin seems to have thought he could revive Russia as a great power, especially with oil revenues. He failed. He knows it. That’s why the Russians are now sounding so reasonable. Soon, they will be sounding desperate.
Brian R. Sullivan
[...] a March 1, 2009, column published by Accuracy in Media, Peña Esclusa had predicted that Chávez would end up in so much [...]
March 2 at 10:51 am | #1 | Link
There are few people I despise more than Hugo Chavez. He is a vulgar demogogue (“I am told that Condoleeza Rice dreams of me,” he once said. What a self-centered idiot! Besides, he doesn’t seem to know that Rice is a Lesbian). He’s also a habitual liar, a bully, a coward and an enemy of democracy. He has tried to export his nonsensical “Bolivarian Revolution” (what does that mean?) to the rest of Latin America. But to fear him as a threat to American national security is silly. To worry about Chavez creating an alliance of any value with Amedinejad is even more foolish.
Why? Because whatever influence the heads of the Venezuelan and Iranian governments have had is gone with the precipitous drop in the price of oil. And given the present global economic crisis and the resulting drop in demand, oil prices are going to remain low for the foreseeable future. Without money, those two jerks have lost their leverage.
To worry about a new missile crisis such as we faced in October 1962 is ridiculous. Just how could the missiles be transported and emplaced? How would such actions escape notice by our much improved (since 1962) global surveillance systems? Why would the Iraanians risk annihilation to give Venezuela nukes? After all, the crisis in October 1962 centered on the risk of nuclear war between the US and the USSR. But who would play the role of a rival super power in a hypothetical US vs. Iran and Venezuela confrontation? We have thousands of THERMOnuclear warheads. What would Iran have even in ten or twenty years? EVEN IF WE WERE TO LET THEM ACQUIRE SUCH WEAPONS – A VERY DUBIOUS PROPOSITION – Perhaps a few dozen atomic warheads. So, Iran would risk suicide to protect Venezuela? What protection would Tehran have from being hit with hundreds of American H-bombs? The Iranians would accept that danger to help the “Bolivarian Revolution”? No way, no how!
This is a prime example of ridiculous AIM paranoia. To spread such childish fairy tale fears is both irresponsible and stupid.