Two years ago, when the entire world wondered whether or not there would be war in Iraq, the former chief of the First department of the KGB of the USSR, Leonid Shebarshin, said in private: “The war is inevitable, but Iraq won’t be the last. The next will be against Iran.” His estimates and predictions have shown themselves to be extremely accurate in the past. It was not in the upholstered offices of Moscow that this general studied the Middle East. For many years, he learned on the ground as a resident of many countries, notably Iran at the beginning of the Islamic revolution, one of the most complex periods in the history of that country.

Bakhtiar Akhmedkhanov, journalist with RIA Novosti, asked Leonid Shebarshin several questions.

Question: Do you still think that Iran will be the next target of the United States?

Leonid Shebarshin: In January, the head of the Central Command of the United States, John Abizaid, said that Iran could not profit from the difficulties of the American troops in Iraq. It should be clear to everyone on earth that there is no military force more powerful than that of the US and that for this reason, in spite of their engagement in Iraq, American troops could very well attack another country at the same time, for example Iran, declared the general with military rectitude. I think that this statement is an answer to your question and at the same time a confirmation of my point of view.

Using a special terminology, which in this case seems to me the most appropriate, I say that the Americans are engaged in a formidable work of undermining Teheran. First there are their attempts to forge a real opposition in Iran to the current anti-American regime, to bring together and use to their ends Iranian immigrants spread out in different countries, as well as the internal contradictions in the country, notably interethnic strife.

This is a characteristic trait of US tactics. Decisive action (the beginning of the military coup d’état or future invasion of whatever country) is preceded by a massive propaganda campaign, the demonisation of the subject who is accused of every form of evil. Remember: it is the same scenario they used for the Taliban and for Iraq. Of course, the accusations are often gratuitous, but does that worry anyone?

We didn’t find bin Laden in Afghanistan, however the government there was replaced and the country was generously sprinkled with missiles. Iraq was accused of building weapons of mass destruction and of maintaining links with international terrorism. We discovered neither arms nor links. But, here too, the government was replaced, and we have arrived at the point where Iraq has ceased to exist as a State and has been transformed into a battleground of all against all.

Could not the Iran nuclear programme lead to the creation of weapons of mass destruction?

Leonid Shebarshin: It is difficult for me to contest the opinion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which declared in a resolution concerning the Iran electronuclear programmes that they saw no danger. Of course, we can’t exclude that Iranian leaders since the Shah and, I think, up to the actual leaders, have the ambition to possess nuclear arms. This would be only to feel secure in the face of this same United States and not for the purposes of aggression, which I don’t see in Iran. The idea of exporting the Islamic revolution was ephemeral as it was evident that it would bring neither Iran, nor other Muslim countries, anything good. Iran is led today by people who are very rational and pragmatic, who wish to be independent and not beholden to foreign interests.

At the end of last year, in order to ease the atmosphere that surrounded the country, the secretary of the Iranian security council declared that Teheran was disposed to stop momentarily its nuclear programmes so that European experts could write a report on the subject. The US president, who was in Canada at the time, reacted immediately stating that there was no question of a momentary stop, it was their unconditional cessation that was necessary. Does this not remind you of the situation prior to the war in Iraq, when Washington did not hide that it was looking for any pretext for its invasion?

How would a military operation against Iran affect Russia?

Leonid Shebarshin: To admit that it would be nefarious is to say nothing at all. The fallout would be much more serious than that of the war in Iraq. It would be catastrophic… Iran is a country bordering Russia, of which the border is also delimited by the Caspian Sea, a sea whose statute has not been defined. The Caspian is not only oil and gas, it is also a strategic transportation corridor for Iran and Russia, linking the countries of Northern and Eastern Europe to the Near East and India. It isn’t an accident that president Vladimir Putin has emphasised many times the necessity of using the North-South passage to the fullest extent. This point of view is equally shared by the Iranian leaders.

According to the press, shipping freight by this itinerary saves about 20% and takes two weeks less than shipping via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. In 2003, the Russian Minister of Transportation announced the creation of a Russo-German-Iranian consortium to exploit the North-South corridor. Russia has a unique chance to assure itself an important part of world merchandise traffic, but in the case of war it would have to abandon this idea temporarily, that is to say, definitively.

Another negative aspect: narcotics. In Afghanistan, the production of drugs had briskly diminished under the rule of the Taliban. However, now the “white death” reaches Russia by Piandj from a country occupied by the United States. While Afghanistan is relatively far away, Iran is very close and the production of narcotics there is prospering. Presently, the Iranian authorities combat this scourge, but what would happen in a war?

Now look at the ethnic factor. Approximately one-third of the Iranian population is composed of Azerbaijanians. Do you imagine what would happen if this contingent of refugees crossed the border, penetrating into Azerbaijan and then into Russia to the Northern Caucasus where the situation is already instable?

I am not speaking for the moment of the ecological aspects of a military operation. Iran is a large country, vaster than Iraq, and operations of war on its territory would inevitably aggravate the situation in the south of Russia.

Is there a link between the situation around Iraq and the war waged against international terrorism?

Leonid Shebarshin: There is none. Even the term “international terrorism” is nothing more than a subtle invention of US propaganda. And I must say that it would be difficult to do better than that. “International terrorism” has declared war upon us, says the US, and because of this, we can attack everywhere we find its adherents. From now on, under the banner of the world war against bin Laden, we can attack sovereign States, overthrow undesirable governments and replace them by quislings. How convenient.

But what is behind this war against the Bad Boy? Oil?

Leonid Shebarshin: Yes. The war for energy resources has already started. The deposits on the planet are drying up, the growth of new reserves is ten times less than what we extract and since 1999 it doesn’t make up for what we consume. The depletion is fast. According to certain researchers, an energy crisis will hit in 2033, but the historic peak of oil extraction has already passed; now the regression can only continue. The same thing will happen a little later with gas. US oil companies, used to strategic thinking, have already gone on the offensive. The day after the invasion of Iraq, a hawk, in this case, Under-Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said that the project had as its origin oil interests. Others blabber on about democracy, the danger facing civilisation and the Islamic factor. Wolfowitz for his part does not mince words. The question of oil occupies a growing place in US world policy. Iraq is an example among many others. If the US succeeds in turning Iran into a dependent, partner State, that would mean that they had gotten their hands on the largest oil deposits in the world. And they’ll dictate the rules in matters of oil policy and oil pricing.

However, there is no oil in Afghanistan?

Leonid Shebarshin: A different role was given to this country. That of the head of a strategic bridge through which the US can in the near future put pressure through economic, political, and military levers on the Caspian region – another storehouse of hydrocarbons. Today it is still in some way a strategic reserve; extraction there is still modest. However, in ten to fifteen years the deposits in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan will be intensively exploited and the transport of these energy products must be controlled. The Afghan campaign permitted the United States to implant military bases in Uzbekistan and in Kirghizistan and now the “military-political adding of value” of Georgia and Azerbaijan is going full force. The Caspian region is being watched. It is a new hot spot on the planet. Is it necessary to say what a danger that represents for Russia?

What is going on in the region is nothing other than the creation of the appropriate conditions for an American offensive in the Caspian region, a new stage in the confrontation with China, and the preparation of the US for an inevitable clash with this country. Beijing depends completely on importations of energy products. Certainly, the Chinese are prospecting and doing the best they can with their own deposits, but it is clearly insufficient. Given that, the Chinese are posting a strong rate of economic, financial, and military growth. It is becoming the main competitor of the United States. Sooner or later, the United States will be head to head with China. Tell me, why does the United States need a military base in Kirghizistan? For flights in Afghanistan? No way. Moreover, the manpower deployed there clearly surpasses that needed to assure the control of flights, and it continues to grow. The US is starting to surround China with military bases, and it is not without reason that they are negotiating with Vietnam to return to their base in Cam Ranh.

The Caspian region can thus be considered as a giant warehouse of oil reserves. Therefore, sooner or later, the conflict in Chechnya will be useless. Will it end?

Leonid Shebarshin: It is very probable that things will happen that way. What is happening today in Central Asia and in the Northern Caucasians is not only due to internal factors. That which blows in from the outside has a notable, if not determining, importance. They will prevent us from normalising the situation in the Northern Caucasians as long as our international partners don’t need this stabilisation. There are many who do not wish to see a strong Russia.

Today the United States and Russia are partners, but we are still not accepted as an ally. Who can say what will happen in five years? In fifteen? In politics, there are no permanent friends and enemies, there are only interests. We say that presently we have no obvious enemies. But history is fertile with unexpected changes. Take for example Iran and the United States who for decades were close partners. There were in Iran some 300,000 US advisors and specialists of all sorts, and nothing appeared to threaten this cosy relationship. Then abruptly there was the Islamic revolution… The United States was thrown out of Iran; Teheran and Washington became enemies. And us with China? The great friendship, “Russians and Chinese, brothers forever” and finally the Daman peninsula. Thank God, it’s already in the past.

Coming back to the North Caucuses. If I well understood, what is happening is due in large part to internal factors? And the “hand of Al Qaeda”?

Leonid Shebarshin: This mysterious organisation al Qaeda… It is a fact that in the Caucuses, we are mostly responsible for our problems. Who brought Doudayev to Chechnya, who armed him, who told him and the others: “Take as much sovereignty as you can swallow”? All that harms us in the Northern Caucuses has as it backdrop the lowest standard of living in Russia, an unstoppable corruption, and arbitrary bureaucracy. The sooner we stop filling our heads with “international terrorism” in order to take care of the people and eliminate the phenomena that engender terrorism, the better it will be.

What awaits Russia in regards to the beginning of the war for resources?

Leonid Shebarshin: For the moment we can only evoke the reinforcement of the rivalry between those who control the resources. What form could it take? It would be good if it were peaceful and economic. However, the events surrounding Iraq show that in the name of its interests – present and future – the most powerful country does not hesitate to look to strong-arm methods even with its closet allies.

In its current state, Russia is particularly vulnerable to an unexpected external danger, born from a change in the world conjuncture. Today our nuclear shield is the only guarantee of our independence. We must preserve it, pamper it. As long as it exists, no one will seriously risk attacking Russia. Without doubt, our partners will try to weaken it as much as they can. It is a strategic objective that they will not abandon. For us, it is vital to take energetic and thoughtful measures to create an economy that doesn’t yet exist. As long as the country doesn’t have an operating economy, as long as it remains dependent upon the conjuncture of the world oil market, anything we say will be nothing but words.

Bakhtiar Akhmedkhanov
Journalist with RIA Novosti

English version: Signs of the Times