LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

say is abetting Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb. The Russians have used their position on the UN Security Council to argue against a military strike on Iran or the imposition of harsh sanctions.¹² That stance seemed to soften in 2012, when both Russia and China voted in favor of UN sanctions against Iran. On the surface, it looked as if they had finally come around to seeing things the West’s way. In reality, the action was almost certainly motivated by a common desire on the part of Russia and China to keep Iran from ever aligning with the United States. Permanent enmity between the U.S. and Iran, in their thinking, is the best way to keep the Americans out of Central Asia.

      Under the terms of an “interim” six-month agreement reached in Geneva in November 2013, Iran pledged to freeze and even curb some nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions. The Obama administration trumpeted the accords as a major step forward, and they are—for Iran. As John Bolton, a former UN ambassador, wrote, the deal accomplished three major Iranian goals: First, it “bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover.” These include centrifuge manufacture, weaponization research, and the ballistic-missile program—hardly trivial areas. Second, Iran “gained legitimacy” by being welcomed back into the international community. And third, Tehran has escaped, perhaps forever, the crippling impact of U.S. economic sanctions; the more time passes, the more difficult it will be to reimpose them.¹³ The lessening of U.S. sanctions will wind up boosting the Iranian economy by at least $7 billion, and perhaps much more. In short, the agreement is woefully, dangerously inadequate. It fails to rein in the Iranians’ ability to enrich uranium; nor does it force them to get rid of their centrifuges or even to slow their heavy-water reactor. For all practical purposes, the Iranian program carries on.

      Time will tell whether opponents of the agreement in Washington can mend the damage done. A bipartisan majority in Congress wants tighter sanctions against Iran now, but President Obama opposes them. Polls show that the American public has deep reservations about the deal and overwhelmingly mistrusts the Iranian government as partners in any agreement.¹⁴ If something positive is to be salvaged from these dealings, the U.S. will have to rediscover its negotiating power. Certainly it cannot count on the Russians to halt their support of Iran’s nuclear program, despite Moscow’s role in the negotiations as a member of the P5+1.¹⁵

      China does business with Iran as well and singlehandedly props up a North Korean regime that seems to be ever more volatile and dangerous. The Chinese have refused to discourage Pyongyang from building up its stockpile of nuclear warheads or from developing even more sophisticated and deadly nuclear weapons that could hit Alaska or the U.S. West Coast.

      While China positions itself as a supporter of sanctions against North Korea, it does nothing to help enforce them. At heart, China doesn’t want the North Korean problem resolved. An intimidating, unpredictable North Korea keeps South Korea in check and the Americans off balance in the Far East, while terrifying such staunch American allies as Japan and the Philippines. This is all to the good, from the Chinese perspective. More recently, it is true, the North Koreans got too provocative even for China’s tastes, and the Chinese have been working behind the scenes to rein them in. But they do this to protect their strategic interests, not out of solidarity with the West.

      China’s facilitation is also essential to perhaps the most disturbing alliance of all: the long-running Iran–North Korea “axis of proliferation,” as Claudia Rosett calls it in Forbes. In this weapons trade, North Korea for the most part is the seller and Iran the buyer, though the two rogue nations also work together on developing missile technology.¹⁶

      All of these efforts are part of a broader Russian-Chinese goal: to build a counter-Western alliance of antidemocratic nations, what might be called a League of Autocracies—quite the opposite of the “League of Democracies” John McCain has called for.¹⁷ These autocratic nations include not only North Korea and Iran but also Syria, Venezuela, Sudan, and Myanmar (Burma), among others. Both Russia and China sell arms to state sponsors of terrorism and have strengthened the hand of such terrorist groups as Hamas, Hezbollah, and even al-Qaeda affiliates in hopes of weakening the United States and thwarting its strategic goals.

      In one of the deadliest places in the world—Syria—the Russians and the Chinese are, again, strongly aligned with each other and against the U.S. and Western powers. The Russians have a base in Syria and came under fire from the international community in 2013 for supplying weapons to the Bashar al-Assad government as it continued to suppress a rebellion, although Russia’s representatives defended their actions by claiming the U.S. was supporting the rebels. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Russians will do just about anything to discredit the American view. To this end, in an op-ed in the New York Times after Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, Putin pleaded for “caution” from the U.S. as he argued for delaying a military strike. He wrote: “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.”¹⁸ He went on to argue that it is dangerous for Americans to see themselves as exceptional.

      Putin’s presentation of Russia as an honest broker was starkly at odds with the facts. Indeed, during the March 2013 chemical-weapons attack in Aleppo, when the Americans called for a UN investigation into the claims of both the government and the rebels, the Russians supported only the claims of the Assad government.¹⁹ Further, the Russian envoy to the UN openly mocked U.S. concerns by reminding the Americans of their erroneous claims about chemical weapons in Iraq a decade earlier.

      Both Russia and China have vetoed proposed UN Security Council resolutions that sought to put pressure on Assad (and more recently, they helped block a Security Council resolution affirming the sovereignty and national borders of Ukraine). Russia has supplied $928 million in weapons to Syria since 1991.²⁰ China, for its part has repeatedly said that it opposes forceful foreign intervention in Syria and has called for a political solution.²¹ Both Axis nations have generally been wary of what they perceive as American attempts at regime change.

      Meanwhile, the Obama administration, still in “reset” mode, shows little sign that it understands the challenge the Axis poses or has any intention of addressing it. The U.S. is withdrawing from the Middle East and retreating from commitments it made to allies there and in Western and Eastern Europe. Our disengagement from the world couldn’t come at a worse time.

      CYBER WARFARE

      In the area of cyber warfare, America has done somewhat better. Here, at least, American officials show some recognition of the enormity of the challenge facing us. In fall 2012, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that the U.S. could someday face a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” Panetta also said, “It’s no secret that Russia and China have advanced cyber capabilities.” That was an understatement.

      In fact, Russia and China are the world’s leading practitioners of cyber warfare. They work overtime to sabotage and subvert military, economic, and infrastructure assets of nations they view as adversaries—and to loot their systems of military intelligence, diplomatic information, and corporate trade secrets. The Russians have brought down the technology infrastructure of Georgia and Estonia; Chinese hackers affiliated with the Army of the People’s Republic have infamously been identified as the culprits in massive attacks on U.S. banking, security, infrastructure, and even military systems.

      In his January 2012 unclassified Worldwide Threat Assessment before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper named Russia and China as the state actors most active in stealing secrets from the United States and attacking us through cyberspace.²² If Panetta’s dreaded cyber Pearl Harbor materializes, one or both of the Axis nations will almost certainly be behind it.

      In a political sense, a cyber Pearl Harbor has already happened. The leaking of national-security secrets in June 2013 by Edward Snowden, and the refuge he was given, first by the Chinese and then by the Russians, ought to remind skeptics of the potential costs and dangers we face in this area. Though both nations were careful to profess that they didn’t support Snowden’s actions, their protection of him should make clear, too, that Moscow and Beijing would

Скачать книгу