Armenia: Eye in the Storm
Team Keghart Editorial, 28 February 2010
`Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland [Eurasia]
Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island [Eastern Hemisphere]
Who rules the World Island commands the World.’ — Sir Halford
Mackinder, geopolitician, 1904
When the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union
political pundits pontificated that the world was entering an era of
long-lasting international peace. These premature optimists forgot or
disregarded that ideology wasn’t the only reason for the rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union. The two political,
military and economic giants competed also for good-old fashioned
national dominance.
Thus the much-ballyhooed peace dividend never materialized as the U.S.
increased its military budget rather than reduce it. After undergoing
an economic earthquake due to the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia
recovered sufficiently to boost its military arsenal but Moscow’s
investment in military hardware significantly lagged behind that of
Pentagon’s. Taking advantage of Russia’s perceived military and
strategic decline, the U.S and NATO intensified their encroachments on
the Soviet Union’s former turf in Eastern Europe, in the Caucasus and
in the Middle East. Washington strategists remained avid students of
Sir Mackinder.
In January the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick, said that
Washington is entering into negotiations with Bulgaria to station
interceptor missile facilities, probably in one of the three military
bases the Pentagon has established there. A week earlier the Romanian
President Traian Basescu had announced that his country – where the U.S.
has four bases – would host land-based U.S. interceptor missiles. About
the same time Poland revealed that a U.S. Patriot Advanced
Capability-3 anti-ballistic missile battery will be stationed 35 mile
from the Russian border. Meanwhile the Czech Republic has stated that
it will provide sites for a new-generation U.S. radar.
Georgia is also expected to offer bases for new U.S. missiles. Already
U.S. airmen have been stationed at the hugely expanded and modernized
Krtsanisi National Training Centre in Georgia. U.S. Marines are
training Georgian soldiers and have held at least one war game not far
from the Russian border. America’s number one ally in the Middle
East – Israel – is providing aerial drones to Tbilisi and is delivering
large amount of arms and ammunition to Georgia.
Azerbaijan, Armenia’s neighbor, is clamoring to join NATO. America
sees that country as an ideal launching pad for an attack on Iran.
Since as many as a quarter of Iran’s population is believed to be
ethnic Azeri, Baku may also be deployed by the Americans to
destabilize Iran. Further south, America is building land- and
sea-based interceptor missile capabilities in the Persian Gulf.
The Washington claim that the missiles in Eastern Europe are intended
to defend against Iranian and Korean missile threats is so patently a
falsehood that it doesn’t deserve to be contradicted.
In the past few years we have heard the almost daily threats of
U.S./Israeli attacks on Iran. While Iran is in itself an important
country to have in the Western camp, it’s also important to Washington
as the last link in the encirclement of Russia.
One doesn’t have to check the map to realize that Armenia is in the
centre of this strategic and military chess game. We are, in fact, the
eye of the storm.
Georgia in our north in embroiled in conflict with our long-time
friend Russia. Iran, our southern neighbor, is facing regular threats
from the world’s mightiest nation. The Baku regime in the east is
trying to persuade Washington that it’s a reliable ally which would
provide the West with oil and gas at reasonable prices. The price of
that courtship is, of course, Western pressure on Armenia to hand
Artsakh to Azerbaijan. And let’s not forget the heavily-armed
genocide-denying neighbor which occupies most of historic Armenia.
So far Yerevan has managed to stay out of the American strategy to
constrict Russia. We have remained friends with Moscow, Washington,
and Tehran. This might seem like a miraculous tightrope walk. It
isn’t.
While Yerevan has played its cards well, Moscow, Washington and Tehran
understand that tiny Armenia – caught between a rock, a hard place, and
another harder place – has to stay friendly with the three major
parties. Like the Armenian community during the Lebanese Civil War,
Armenia has wisely chosen the path of positive neutrality.
But to remain in Washington’s good books in the long term, Yerevan
needs the concentrated support of American-Armenians. If someday the
push comes to shove and militarists in the Pentagon tell Armenia
`you’re with us or against us’, Armenia will need deft lobbying from
the American-Armenian community. Rather than chase fires as they blaze
here and there, our lobbyist should have in hand a robust and
clearly-enunciated argument to convince Washington that it is not in
its interest to push tiny Armenia.
Whether it sides with Moscow or Washington, in case of conflagration,
Armenia would evaporate faster than one can say `Ayp, Pen, Kim’. Some
Lebanese Arabs – on both sides of the warring factions – initially
expressed their disapproval, if not hostility, when Armenians decided
to opt for positive neutrality during that country’s Civil War. But
eventually, the warring sides honored the Armenian position. We hope
Washington and Moscow demonstrate similar wisdom and sophistication
and not try to drag Armenia into their dangerous war games.