Moscow (GPA) – Geopolitics Alert contributor Damir Nazarov spoke with University of Sidney Professor and author Tim Anderson on issues ranging from the recent massacre in New Zealand, developments in Syria and Israel, Venezuela, and the near-future of US imperialism.
Damir Nazarov: The murderer of Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand issued a manifesto, which did not contain traditional “rightist” criticism of the Jews. Do you have an opinion about that?
Professor Anderson: a survey found It has been said the terrorist in Christchurch may have had an Israeli connection, but that is not yet clear. The stated motivation seems consistent with the general anti-Muslim, anti-Arab current in western culture, especially during the multiple Middle East wars of the past two decades. There have been repeated, inflammatory attacks on Arab and Muslim peoples in western media. For example, in just five newspapers of the Australia-based News Corp (Murdoch) group, over one year, ‘almost 3000 articles that referred to Islam or Muslims alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism or radical. That constant anti-Muslim agitation must infect many feeble minds with racial or religious hatred. It serves as the background for such horrific crimes.
DN: Israel has recently made Aleppo a target for airstrikes, what exactly Israel is trying to achieve with such antics?
PTA: The Israeli attacks on Aleppo seem to show a constant effort by the Netanyahu regime to create provocations, perhaps hoping to draw Israel’s western partners further into the Syrian arena, disrupting the emerging victory of the Syrian coalition. It also coincides with upcoming elections in Israel and corruption charges against Netanyahu. Disruption must be a key motive. A senior Lebanese observer recently pointed out that the military integration of Iran, Iraq, and Syria on the Zionists’ “eastern front” is the “biggest fear” of Israel.
DN: Remnants of ISIS are scattered around the province of Anbar and Eastern Syria, but the Pentagon does not allow the militia forces of Iraq to get rid of the terrorists in Iraq, and the same thing in Syria, where the Americans are blocking the Syrian army. Is it safe to assume that Americans are just looking for a reason to stay in the region to fight local independent countries?
PTA: The final stages of the US American occupation are focused on blocking the land connections between Syria, Iraq, and Iran; in practice between Syria and Iraq. Despite the failure of the proxy wars on Syria, there remains the Tel Aviv-Washington fear of what has been called an “Iranian land bridge” from Tehran to Beirut. That, of course, would be of great civilian and commercial as well as military value to those countries, but it is seen as a threat to the US project of dominance in the region. Strategically both Tel Aviv and Washington are trying to keep those independent Arab and Muslim countries divided.
DN: In your opinion, how likely it is that the States will launch a full-scale military intervention in Venezuela?
PTA: I do not consider it likely that the US will attempt an invasion of Venezuela, whatever the threats. It would be very costly for US forces, would not be resolved quickly, and threatens to draw in powerful allies. However, I do expect to see ongoing US-backed sabotage and attempts at terrorism. Combined with propaganda and threats, this is their classic contemporary hybrid warfare.
DN: It is known that the US is developing a new anti-missile defense strategy against hypersonic missiles, and there is also evidence that the United States has in their possession a so-called “kinetic strike from space” technology. In your opinion, could all these American military innovations be possibly used against Russia and China? Or is it more feasible that Washington is trying to organize an arms race to exhaust the economies of the mentioned powers?
PTA: The new arms race is underway. Russia made that fact open last year, by announcing their new generation of weapons systems, after the US withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. As for a strategy of trying to exhaust Russia and China, I am not sure of the coherence of any such process. The US state has shown internal fractures in recent times. Remember the US economy is in long term decline and they have mostly depended on their regional allies to fund the ‘New Middle East’ wars. Back in the 1980s – at the time of the ‘second cold war’ – the US trade and industrial decline, in relation to Eurasia, was not nearly so marked.