Great Game for Supremacy in the New World Order?


Richard Moore


The analysis below is interesting & rather thorough.

I think however he doesn't really get the big picture. The New World Order is 
essentially an Anglo-American vision, a kind of unipolar world, and China & 
Russia are uniting in defense of multi-polarity. The 'New Cold War', accurately 
identified below, has been intentionally provoked by the Anglo-Americans, which 
isn't clear from Marshall's presentation & 'sequence of events'.

Also missing is the strategic consideration that China is becoming the new 
capitalist 'center of accumulation', and will clearly eclipse the US role of 
global hegemon, if things 'go on as usual'. The only effective Anglo-American 
counter-move would be a successful first-strike against China, and most likely 
Russia as well.

The US is engaged in extensive weapon-system upgrades in the area of space-based
weapons, lasers, anti-satellite weapons, electronic 'control of theater', etc. 
These programs, of such scale, could only have China & Russia on their 
'potential use' list. In this context, an attack on Iran can be seen as practice
for a future nuclear war, a field-test of current first-strike concepts, 
systems, and PR approaches.


Original source URL:

Global Research, October 31, 2007

New Cold War: Great Game for Supremacy in the New World Order?
by Andrew G. Marshall

Imperial Playground:

The Story of Iran in Recent History


There has been much talk in recent months of a return to the Cold War, as 
increasingly there is growing disparities and tensing relations between the 
West, namely the Anglo-Americans, and the Russian Federation, the former Soviet 
Union, as well as China. ‘Is the Cold War Back?¹ as the headline of a Reuters 
article asked, stating, ³Russia has revived its Soviet-era practice of 
continuous long-range bomber patrols, sending 14 aircraft on such missions in 
the latest in a series of moves apparently designed to show off Russia¹s 
new-found assertiveness,² and that ³Russia¹s military is now receiving a major 
injection of cash to modernise ageing equipment ‹ including new planes ‹ after 
years of under-funding and neglect since the Soviet Union ceased to 
Recent plans made public that the United States is building missile shields in 
Eastern European countries has sparked equal controversy over a revival of a 
Cold War. As the Austrian Defense Minister Norbert Darabos stated in late August
of 2007, ³That the United States are installing a defense shield in eastern 
Europe is a provocation in my view,² and that, ³The U.S. has chosen the wrong 
path in my opinion. There is no point in building up a missile defense shield in
Europe. That only unnecessarily rekindles old Cold War 
The article continued in saying, ³The United States plans to deploy elements of 
its shield -- designed to intercept and destroy missiles from ‘rogue states¹ 
like Iran and North Korea -- in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia sees the 
initiative near its borders as a threat to its own security. On Tuesday Russia's
military chief told the Czech Republic that hosting the shield would be a ‘big 
mistake¹. Darabos said he saw no danger from Iranian long range missiles and the
United States should try for a different solution.²

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is largely controlled by the
Anglo-American establishment, has also been stepping up Cold War actions. NATO 
was created as a treaty during the early years of the Cold War as a method of 
forming an alliance against the Communist powers of the world, which had a 
parallel treaty organization, known as the Warsaw Pact. So if the near entire 
life span of this organization was in containing communist countries, namely the
Soviet Union, it does not seem unlikely that it would return to what it does 
best. As the Sunday Telegraph reported in late August of 2007, ³NATO vessels are
closely monitoring the sea trials of Russia's latest submarine, following 
Moscow's increasingly provocative tests of Western airspace. In the latest twist
to worsening East-West relations, Nato submarines and surface ships, which may 
include Royal Navy vessels, are trying to gather information on the new Amur 
class boat being tested in the Baltic,² and that, ³The greater-than-normal 
scrutiny is, in part, a response to Russia's decision to resume long-range 
bomber flights close to Nato airspace which has revived memories of Cold War 
confrontation between the two blocs,² and it further mentioned that, ³Twice this
summer, Russian Tu-95 nuclear bombers have been spotted heading towards British 
airspace off Scotland, prompting the RAF [Royal Air Force] to send intercepting 
aircraft to warn them off. On another occasion, Russian planes came within 
striking distance of the US Pacific airbase of 

The article continues in explaining, ³Apart from the threat it [the Russian 
submarine] poses as part of the Russian navy, Moscow is believed to have won 
contracts to export it to other states such as Venezuela, which is challenging 
the United States' influence in Latin America. Russia also exports weapons to 
Iran and Sudan, although there is no sign yet that either country plans to buy 
an Amur class submarine. The fact that President Vladimir Putin's regime is 
testing a powerful new addition to the Russian navy - after its fleet went 
through years of decline - shows a new military build-up is underway.² The 
article further stated, ³Russia's neighbour Georgia claimed yesterday that it, 
too, was being intimidated by Moscow. Russian jets, the government said, had 
twice entered its airspace this week. Earlier this month, a Russian warplane had
fired a missile at a village on its territory. But Russia protested its 
innocence yesterday, accusing Georgia of inventing the charge to stir up 
tensions. Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations said that 
the bomb fragments produced as evidence were of foreign origin.²

On this growing issue between Russia and Georgia, Press TV reported that, 
³Georgia's aim to accelerate its joining the NATO by playing risky power games 
with Russia can stretch Moscow's patience too far, observers say. ‘There is a 
threat¹ that rising tensions between the two former Soviet republics could 
provoke a confrontation, said Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent Russian defense 
analyst,² and that, ³During the 2006 winter, Russian gas supplies to Georgia 
were cut off for prolonged repairs on a pipeline. A few months later, Russia 
banned the import of wine and mineral water from Georgia. Then, in September 
2006, Georgia arrested four Russian officers charged for spying. This prompted 
Russia to suspend all direct transport and postal links, as well as to deport 
hundreds of Georgian immigrants from Russia. Russia has also given political and
economic backing to two Georgian separatist 

It was also reported that, ³The Russian ambassador to the Court of St James's 
rejects US statements over the controversial Missile Defense project to be 
exclusively against Iran. ‘There is no convincing explanation for the 
installation of the US Missile Defense in eastern Asia,¹ said Yuri Viktorovich 
Fedotov in an interview with BBC Radio. ‘Despite what US calls a missile defense
shield against Iran, the project is a threat for Russia and other countries,¹ 
Fedotov added,² and that ³The statements are made as recent diplomatic conflict 
between Britain and Russia over the missile defense project and the verbal war 
for the extradition of a Russian agent accused of being involved in the murder 
of Alexander [Litvinenko] in London has 

In early September of 2007, it was reported by the BBC that, ³The UK's Royal Air
Force has launched fighter jets to intercept eight Russian military planes 
flying in airspace patrolled by Nato, UK officials say. Four RAF F3 Tornado 
aircraft were scrambled in response to the Russian action, the UK's defence 
ministry said. The Russian planes - long-range bombers - had earlier been 
followed by Norwegian F16 
Also in early September it was reported by the Financial Times that, ³The 
Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network in June in the most 
successful cyber attack on the US defence department, say American –officials. 
The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the 
office of Robert Gates, defence secretary, but declined to say who it believed 
was behind the attack. Current and former officials have told the Financial 
Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the 
People¹s Liberation Army [of 

As well as this, it was reported that, ³Taiwan's cabinet agreed Wednesday to 
hike military spending by nearly 15 percent in next year's budget in an apparent
signal of its resolve against rival China. Under a draft budget, which has to be
confirmed by parliament, the defence ministry is setting aside 345.9 billion 
Taiwan dollars (10.5 billion US), up 44.6 billion Taiwan dollars, the cabinet 
said in a statement,² and that, ³The rise in spending is mainly aimed at 
financing procurement of military equipment, including US-made P-3C 
submarine-hunting aircraft. Washington, the island's leading arms supplier 
despite not having formal diplomatic ties, has repeatedly asked Taipei to 
display its determination to defend itself by boosting military spending. The 
Chinese government had in May announced the biggest increase in its military 
budget in recent years, saying its spending in 2007 would rise 17.8 percent from
last year to 350.9 billion yuan (about 45 billion dollars),² and the article 
continued in stating, ³Reunification with Taiwan is one of China's long-term 
strategic objectives, and analysts have said Beijing is beefing up its military 
partly to enable it to take the island back by force if necessary. China and 
Taiwan have been separated since the end of a civil war in 1949, but Beijing 
still considers the island part of its territory. Taiwan has been led since the 
turn of the century by independence-leaning President Chen Shui-bian, 
exacerbating fears in Beijing that the island could break away for 

The above mentioned issue is extremely important, as it was reported back in 
2005 by the Financial Times that, ³China is prepared to use nuclear weapons 
against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over 
Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday. ‘If the Americans draw their 
missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's 
territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,¹ said General 
Zhu Chenghu. Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists 
organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition 
of its territory included warships and aircraft,² and the General continued in 
saying, ³If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be 
determined to respond,² as well as stating, ³We . . . will prepare ourselves for
the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will 
have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the 
The article further mentioned, ³Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged ‘hawk¹ who has 
warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat 
to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a 
senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.² So, essentially what this is 
suggesting is that in the case that China attempts to take back Taiwan, which it
consistently threatens to do, even if it requires military force, and the US 
responds militarily I any way, which they have said they would in such an event,
even if the act is firing on a Chinese ship, then the response of China would be
to engage in nuclear war with the United States.

In early September of 2007, it was reported by the BBC that, ³Britain has 
privately complained to Beijing that Chinese-made weapons are being used by the 
Taleban to attack British troops in Afghanistan. The BBC has been told that on 
several occasions Chinese arms have been recovered after attacks on British and 
American troops by Afghan 

Russia has extremely close ties with Iran, as it was reported back in 2005 that,
³Russia has agreed to sell more than $1 billion worth of missiles and other 
defense systems to Iran,² and that, ³The Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies 
cited unidentified sources in the Russian military-industrial complex as saying 
that Russian and Iranian officials had signed contracts in November that would 
send up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems to Iran over the next two 
In January of 2007, the Jerusalem Post reported that, ³Voicing extreme concern 
over Russia's recent sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, senior 
diplomatic and defense officials warned Moscow Tuesday that the deal could have 
serious security implications that would even ‘get back to Russia.¹ Senior 
officials in Jerusalem said they ‘were not pleased¹ with the sale of the 
anti-aircraft missiles, but that Russia was a sovereign country and they could 
not intervene. They did, however, issue a warning: ‘We hope they understand that
this is a threat that could come back to them as well.¹ Earlier Tuesday, Russian
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Moscow had sent air defense missiles to 
Teheran, the first high-level confirmation that their delivery took place 
despite US complaints. Ivanov did not specify how many missile systems had been 

On top of military agreements, Russia and Iran also have close ties economically
and politically, and Russia is even helping Iran build a nuclear power plant. It
was reported in September of 2007 that, ³The Bushehr nuclear power plant that 
Russia is building in Iran will be commissioned no earlier than the fall of 
2008, a source in the Russian nuclear sector said. The date for commissioning 
the $1 billion project in the south of the country, the Islamic Republic's first
NPP built by Russia, was postponed due to delays in Iranian payments to the 
So, clearly, Russia has vested interests inside Iran, and has even gone so far 
as to help in building a nuclear power plant inside Iran, in a sign of a growing
relationship between the two countries, and a very apparent signal that Russia 
is supporting Iran¹s efforts to nuclear power, thusly, taking a position in 
opposition to the Anglo-American Alliance, and even the Franco-German Entente.

This is evident in as much as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, back in 
2006 had advised ³to act without delay to prevent Iran from developing nuclear 
weapons, saying that Iran had ‘blatantly crossed the line¹,² and that ³The 
chancellor compared Iran's nuclear policy to the Nazi party's rise to power in 
Germany, warning that in the past the nations of the world refused to take a 
stance against concrete threats, enabling some of history's greatest 
The newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in August of 2007, 
that, ³a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear 
program was the only alternative to ‘an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran¹,² 
and that, ³In his first major foreign policy speech, Sarkozy emphasized his 
existing foreign policy priorities, such as opposing Turkish membership of the 
European Union and pushing for a new Mediterranean Union that he hopes will 
include Ankara,² and the article went on to report that, ³Sarkozy said a 
nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and that major powers should continue 
their policy of incrementally increasing sanctions against Tehran while being 
open to talks if Iran suspended nuclear activities.² The article then quoted 
Sarkozy as saying, ³This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape
an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of 
Iran,² and he continued, ³Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by 
using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality,² of which the 
article continued, ³Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus
and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow's reliability as a gas 
exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its 
gas demands. Sarkozy had warm words for the United States, saying friendship 
between the two countries was important. But he said he felt free to disagree 
with American policies, highlighting what he called a lack of leadership on the 
I find it comical that Sarkozy talks of Russia saying that, ³When one is a great
power, one should not be brutal,² yet he had ‘warm words¹ for the US, of which I
know no other country that is so brutal as a great power.

The Washington Post reported in early September of 2007, that, ³U.S. plans to 
site parts of a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic are 
‘politically dangerous,¹ former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on 
Saturday. ‘From my point of view the missile defense system is politically 
dangerous. It is perceived as an attempt to isolate Russia, which is not in 
Europe's political interests,¹ said Schroeder, who is a personal friend of 
President Vladimir Putin,² and that, ³The United States wants to base 
interceptor missiles and a radar system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying
it needs protection against missile attacks from what it terms ‘rogue states¹ 
like Iran and North Korea. Russia has reacted furiously, saying the plan will 
upset a delicate strategic balance between major powers and poses a threat to 
its own security. Schroeder said the plan was not in the European Union's 
interests either.² The article continued, ³Although trade and investment are 
booming, diplomatic relations between Russia and the European Union have 
deteriorated sharply over the past year. This is partly because of Russia's 
squabbles with the Union's new members such as Poland, which were once part of 
the Soviet bloc and are now wary of Moscow's rising 

Remember Zbigniew Brzezinski? The Trilateral Commission founder, architect of 
the Afghan-Soviet War and ‘Arc of Crisis¹ Strategy, who wrote the geo-strategic 
blueprint for American global hegemony, The Grand Chessboard, in which he 
stated, ³Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of 
China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic¹ coalition united not by 
ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and 
scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet 
Well, within ten years of writing his book, Brzezinski¹s predictions became 
quite true, as an alternative strategic bloc to the NATO countries has been set 
up, called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]. It was officially 
founded in 2001 [after initial agreements in 1996] by Russia, China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In 2006, it was reported that, ³Six 
member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Wednesday agreed
to stage a joint anti-terror military exercise in 2007 in Russia, according to a
joint communiqué,² and that, ³Except Uzbekistan, other five countries of the SCO
held their first-ever joint anti-terror exercise within the framework of the SCO
in August 2003, with the first phase in Kazakhstan and the second in China. As 
new threats and challenges, such as terrorism, separatism, extremism and 
cross-border crimes, are becoming increasingly prominent, the regional and 
international cooperation are 

In 2003, it was reported that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), 
³signed a multilateral economic cooperation Framework Agreement in Beijing on 23
September to 'deepen' their mutual economic connections and ‘improve the 
investment environment¹. At the meeting, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao made three 
proposals. He wanted members to set as a long-term objective the establishment 
of a free trade area within the SCO; elaborate a series of more immediate 
measures such as improving the flow of goods across the member-states and 
reducing non-tariff barriers such as customs, quarantine, standards and 
transport services; and create large projects on economic and technological 
cooperation, giving priority to those in transportation, energy, 
telecommunication, agriculture, home appliances, light industry and 

Apart from the main members of the SCO, there are also countries which are 
permitted Observer Status, meaning they won¹t take part in the war games, but 
will be official observers of them and still develop closer ties with the SCO. 
As the Guardian reported in 2006, ³At the one day annual summit of the 
six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on June 15, more limelight 
fell on the leader of an observer country than on any of the main participants 
That figure happened to be the controversial president of Iran, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad. Despite the lowly observer status accorded to his country, 
Ahmadinejad went on to publicly invite the SCO members to a meeting in Tehran to
discuss energy exploration and development in the region. And the Russian 
president, Vladimir Putin, proposed that the SCO should form an ‘energy club¹. 
While making a plea that his country should be accorded full membership of the 
SCO, the Pakistani president, Parvez Musharraf, highlighted the geo-strategic 
position of his country as an energy and trade corridor for SCO members. 
‘Pakistan provides a natural link between the SCO states to connect the Eurasian
heartland with the Arabian Sea and South Asia,¹ he said,² and the article 
continued, ³Founded in 1996 primarily to settle frontier problems between China 
and its post-Soviet neighbors - Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan -
the SCO expanded three years later to include Uzbekistan, which does not share 
common borders with China or Russia, the two countries at the core of the SCO. 
Since then SCO has developed as an organization concerned with regional 
security, thus focusing on counter-terrorism, defense, and energy cooperation. 
Energy-hungry China has its eyes fixed on the large oil and gas reserves that 
Russia and Kazakhstan possess, and even the modest gas reserves of Uzbekistan.² 
The article further mentioned that, ³Iran applied for full membership; as did 
India,² as well as the fact that, ³Last year [2005] when the SCO accorded 
observer status to four countries, it rejected a similar request from the United
States,² and it continued, ³The rising importance and coherence of the SCO 
worries Washington - as well as its closest Asian ally, Japan. ‘The SCO is 
becoming a rival block to the US alliance,¹ said a senior Japanese official 
recently. ‘It does not share our values. We are watching it very 

Further, it was reported in April of 2006 by the Asia Times that, ³The Shanghai 
Cooperation Organization (SCO), which maintained it had no plans for expansion, 
is now changing course. Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan, which previously had
observer status, will become full members. SCO's decision to welcome Iran into 
its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed 
to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 
15,² and that, ³Visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi 
told Itar-TASS in Moscow that the membership expansion ‘could make the world 
more fair¹. And he spoke of building an Iran-Russia ‘gas-and-oil arc¹ by 
coordinating their activities as energy producing countries. Mohammadi also 
touched on Iran's intention to raise the issue of his country's nuclear program 
and its expectations of securing SCO 
Although, to this day, Iran¹s membership has not been made official, making it a
de-facto member of the SCO, much in the same sense that Israel is a de-facto 
member of 

In August of 2007, it was reported that, ³Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 
has said the proposed US missile defense shield in central Europe would pose a 
threat to Asia. At a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 
Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, Ahmadinejad said such a plan goes beyond 
threatening one country and it is a source of concern for most of the continent 
Washington is planning to station a radar station in the Czech Republic and 
interceptor missiles in Poland. Ahmadinejad added the six SCO member states, 
including China, are among those countries who are threatened by the US plan. He
also criticized the US military attack on Iraq, which has destabilized the 
entire region. Iran has observer status in the SCO, which groups China, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and 

As for the relationship between China and Iran, it was reported in 2006 that, 
³Chinese President Hu Jintao called Friday for closer ties with Iran as he met 
his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the first time, while the United
States followed events in Shanghai warily,² and that, ³China and Iran have long 
had close economic ties, especially in the oil and gas fields, and are in 
negotiations over an energy deal that was tentatively inked in 2004 and could be
worth more than 100 billion dollars. As part of the initial memorandum of 
understanding, Sinopec, China's largest refiner, would buy 250 million tons of 
liquefied natural gas over 25 years, which alone could be worth more than 100 
billion dollars. However, despite a series of Chinese delegations going to 
Tehran, the deal has yet to be finalized. Ahmadinejad arrived in China on 
Wednesday to participate in the leaders' summit of the Shanghai Cooperation 
Organization (SCO), a regional forum that is increasingly being seen as a 
counterweight to US influence in Central 

As we can see, this is not simply a strategy of Anglo-American interests at play
in the region, as it is always necessary to take a look at the broader 
geopolitical implications of this region, especially in relation to the European
Union, dominated by the Franco-German Entente, and most notably Russia and 
China. A competition for control of the region is very much underway, as 
whomever, or whichever powers control Central Eurasia (the Middle East and 
Central Asia); those same powers will then have control over the world¹s primary
oil and gas reserves and transportation, and thusly, will exert hegemonic 
influence over the entire world. With Russia, increasingly gaining strength and 
influence like never before since the fall of the Soviet Union, China, a rising 
world power whose thirst and demand for oil is the fastest growing in the world 
and whose future as a great power depends upon getting its hands on such 
resources, and with the European Union, a close ally of the Anglo-American 
Alliance, yet still has its own interests at heart so it, too, is increasingly 
attempting a relationship with Russia, which has massive natural gas reserves 
itself. The EU hopes to balance its relationships, so as to always remain on the
winning end, however, as time goes forward, it may have to choose sides. 
Relations between the West, especially the Anglo-Americans, and the former 
Soviet Union grow tense, the EU may be caught in the middle and China forced to 
make strategic alliances.

It is clear that future military operations in Central Asia and the Middle East 
will not be like the previous occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, whereas 
Afghanistan remains under NATO control (the Anglo-American Alliance in 
collaboration with the Franco-German entente), and Iraq under Anglo-American 
occupation, but with little more than rhetorical opposition from observing 
countries around the world. The world accepted the occupation of Afghanistan 
under the guise of retribution for the 9/11 attacks, and the world stood by as 
Iraq was put under imperial control. But now the pieces have been set, the world
sees the strategy, even though the general public may not, and other great 
powers have their fates vested in the region, such as Russia, China, the EU and 
most of the world at large, so to stand idly by now and do nothing as 
Anglo-American imperial expansion envelopes the entire region would be suicidal.
It is in the interest of survival for Russia, China and the EU to maintain 
influence and control in the region. To do this, each will have to make 
strategic alliances, as is currently being done.

These activities have caused recent exclamations of a return to the Cold War 
era, however, I see it as something much more sinister and dangerous. Remember, 
the Cold War was referred to as ³Cold² because it involved no actual fighting 
between the two main enemies, the United States and the USSR, or the NATO 
countries against the Warsaw Pact countries. In actuality, I would argue that 
what we are seeing take place is in fact a return not to the Cold War, but to 
the Great Game, which was the competition between the British Empire and the 
Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia from the early 1800s arguably up 
until the end of World War 2, when the Cold War began. One of the major theaters
of war between Britain and Russia during the Great Game was Afghanistan, where 
the first Anglo-Afghan War began in 1838, the Second Anglo-Afghan War in 1878, a
brief alliance occurred between Russia and Britain in the early 20th Century, 
then the Third Anglo-Afghan War occurred in 1919, otherwise known as the second 
phase of the Great Game. During the Cold War, or the third phase of the Great 
Game, Afghanistan was the major theater of operations between the United States 
(Anglo-Americans) and Russia (Soviet Union) from the late 1970s to the late 
1980s, ultimately leading to a collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the 
‘Cold War¹. Now, after another brief alliance between the Anglo-American 
Alliance and Russia, just as occurred in the early years of the previous century
starting in 1907, leading up to World War 1, it seems that now, in 2007, the 
fourth phase of this 200-year long Great Game for dominance over Central Asia 
has begun. Now made all the more dangerous with other great power interests such
as the European Union and rising China, not to mention the existence and 
discussion of the use of nuclear weapons.

Rising Tensions and Quiet Mentions of War

Lately, there has been a significant increase in tensions between the West, 
predominantly the Anglo-Americans and Iran, and its respective allies, namely, 
Syria. These escalations in tension and conflict suggest a rapid strategy of 
progression to an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran, and possibly a 
wider array of countries in the region, leading to a full region-wide war.

In late August of 2007, the Sunday Telegraph reported that, ³The White House's 
plans to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation
are intended to give the Bush administration cover if it launches military 
strikes on the Islamic republic, according to a prominent former CIA officer 
Robert Baer, who was a high-ranking operative in the Middle East, said last week
that senior government officials had told him the administration was preparing 
for air strikes on the guards' bases and probably also on Iran's nuclear 
facilities within the next six months,² and the article continues, ³But among 
President George W Bush's closest advisers, there is a fierce debate about 
whether to take unilateral military action independently of any UN security 
council moves. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is set on diplomacy, 
Vice-President Dick Cheney is understood to favour air strikes. The 
justification for any attack, according to Mr Baer, would be claims - denied by 
Iran - that the guards are responsible for the sophisticated armour-penetrating 
improvised explosive devices that are exacting a heavy toll on US forces in 

On September 2, 2007, the Sunday Times reported that, ³The Pentagon has drawn up
plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to 
annihilate the Iranians¹ military capability in three days, according to a 
national security expert. Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national 
security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not 
preparing for ‘pinprick strikes¹ against Iran¹s nuclear facilities. ‘They¹re 
about taking out the entire Iranian military¹,² and it continued, ³President 
George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of 
putting the Middle East ‘under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust¹. He warned 
that the US and its allies would confront Iran ‘before it is too 

A September 3 article in the Sunday Telegraph stated, ³In a nondescript room, 
two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration 
staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced 
this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran. The United States, no 
longer prepared to tolerate the risk that Iranian nuclear weapons will be used 
against Israel, or passed to terrorists, has already launched a bombing campaign
to destroy known Iranian nuclear sites, air bases and air defence sites. Iran 
has retaliated by cutting off oil to America and its allies, blockading the 
Straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck, and sanctioned an uprising by 
Shia militias in southern Iraq that has shut down 60 per cent of Iraq's oil 
exports. The job of the officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and 
the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, who have gathered in an office 
just off Massachusetts Avenue, behind the rail terminus, Union Station, is to 
prevent a spike in oil prices that will pitch the world's economy into a 
catastrophic spin.² The article then said, ³The good news is that this was a war
game; for those who fear war with Iran, the less happy news is that the 
officials were real. The simulation, which took four months, was run by the 
Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with close links to the White 
House. Its conclusions, drawn up last month and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, 
have been passed on to military and civilian planners charged with drawing up 
plans for confronting Iran. News that elements of the American government are 
working in earnest on how to deal with the fallout of an attack on Iran come at 
a tense 

A report in the Sunday Telegraph stated that, ³Senior American intelligence and 
defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are 
taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph
has learnt. Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing 
targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic 
efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail. Pentagon 
and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully 
calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with 
Iran,² and that, ³Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of 
state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her
differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action. In a 
chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned 
that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training 
militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb 
factories. A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence 
agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are 
manufactured.² The article continued, ³US action would provoke a major Iranian 
response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a
trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed 
forces. Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not 
want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of 
developing a nuclear 

The New Yorker Magazine reported in late August of 2007 that, ³If there were a 
threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to 
orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York 
University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has 
connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington,² which 
revealed that, ³They [the source¹s institution] have ‘instructions¹ (yes, that 
was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President [Dick Cheney] to roll 
out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be 
coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the
Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy 
sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a 
position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don¹t think they¹ll 
ever get majority support for this‹they want something like 35-40 percent 
support, which in their book is ‘plenty¹,² and it continued stating, ³It follows
the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led 
to the Iraq war. The President¹s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of 
bellicose lately, warning of ‘the shadow of a nuclear 

On September 10, Reuters reported that, ³The Pentagon is preparing to build a 
military base near the Iraq-Iran border to try to curtail the flow of advanced 
Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq, the Wall Street Journal 
reported on Monday in its online edition. Quoting Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the 
commander of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, the Journal said the Pentagon 
also plans to build fortified checkpoints on major highways leading from the 
Iranian border to Baghdad, and install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting 
sensors at the only formal border crossing between the two 
On the same day, the Sunday Telegraph reported that, ³Iran has established a 
sophisticated spying operation at the head of the Arabian Gulf in a move which 
has significantly heightened tensions in its standoff with the United States. 
The operation, masterminded by the country¹s elite Revolutionary Guard, includes
the construction of a high-tech spying post close to the point where Iranian 
forces kidnapped 15 British naval personnel in March. The move has forced 
British and American commanders to divert resources away from protecting oil 
platforms in the Gulf from terrorist attack and into countering the new Iranian 
threat,² and it continued, ³The US military says that the spying post, built on 
the foundations of a crane platform sunk during the Iran-Iraq war, is equipped 
with radar, cameras and forward facing infra-red devices to track the movement 
of coalition naval forces and commercial shipping in the northern Arabian Gulf. 
Commanders fear that one of the main purposes of the Iranian operation is to 
enable the Revolutionary Guard to intercept more coalition vessels moving 
through the disputed waters near the mouth of the Shatt al Arab waterway south 
of the Iraqi city of 

Incidentally, two days later, Raw Story ran an article stating, ³As tensions 
between the United States and Iran increases, military action along the 
Iran-Iraq border intensifies. The latest moves come from America's primary ally 
in its invasion of Iraq: Britain. Ostensibly to guard against importation of 
Iranian weapons and fighters targeting Western troops in Iraq, the UK is sending
up to 350 troops to the Iranian border instead of bringing them home, The 
Independent of London reports Wednesday.² This follows much discussion recently 
that the UK, under the new unelected Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was preparing
to withdraw from Iraq, leaving the US alone. In fact, the announcement had been 
made that British troops were to be returning home from Basra, the 
British-controlled Iraqi city, and as Raw Story pointed out, ³The troop move was
requested by US commanders, the paper says, and it will delay -- perhaps 
indefinitely -- the homecoming of 250 British troops who were told just days ago
that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq,²
and that ³Prime Minister Gordon Brown initiated the drawdown, and about 500 
British troops completed their withdrawal from Basra Palace, their last 
remaining base in the city, to an airport on the city's outskirts. The move was 
expected to be the final stage in Britain's complete extraction from Iraq. 
Wednesday's report follows on the heels of news that US troops would be 
establishing a base on the border to guard against Iranian-imported weapons.

Tensions between the US and Iran have gone from bad to dismal in recent years, 
with some fearing all-out war will erupt between the two countries, and the top 
US commander in Iraq has refused to rule out that possibility. US Army Gen. 
David Petraeus demurred Tuesday when he was asked by Sen. Joseph Lieberman 
whether the war should be expanded ‘in Iranian territory.¹ And Petraeus 
‘strongly implied¹ that action against Iran would be necessary soon, The 
Independent reported.² On top of this, it was further pointed out that, ³Along 
with British and US troops, Georgia recently sent about 1,200 extra troops to 
Iraq to patrol the border with 

Further, Press TV reported that, ³Britain is planning to increase its naval 
presence in the Persian Gulf by next year, a top British naval commander in the 
area has revealed. Deputy Combined Force Commander Royal Navy Commodore Keith 
Winstanley said Monday that Britain has a range of capabilities deployed at 
various times in the region ranging between submarines, frigates, and 
destroyers, and that it plans to increase its naval presence by 2008,² and that,
³Winstanley, speaking onboard the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard, 
added that strategic and economic interests had brought about a policy of 
engagement by Britain in the region,² and the article said at the end, ³The last
time there were active mine counter-measures in the region was in March of 
which, coincidentally, was the same month that the war in Iraq began.

Not only are the Anglo-Americans fully on board and preparing for a possible 
attack on Iran, but even the Franco-German Entente seems to be steadily leaning 
that direction. French President Nicholas Sarkozy made headlines recently when 
he ³called Iran¹s nuclear ambition the world¹s most dangerous problem,² and 
further, ³raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it 
persisted in building an atomic weapon,² as reported by the Sunday Times. The 
article continued, ³The biggest challenge to the world was the avoidance of 
conflict between Islam and the West, President Sarkozy told the annual gathering
of French ambassadors. Iran was the crossroads of the Middle East¹s troubles and
its nuclear aims ‘are without doubt the most serious crisis that weighs today on
the international scene,² and that, ³A nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable 
and the world must continue to tighten sanctions while offering incentives to 
Tehran to halt weapons development, he said. ‘This initiative is the only one 
that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the 
Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran,¹ he said. He did not say who would carry 
out such an attack, which has been suggested by policy experts in Israel and the
Further, it was reported that, ³French Defence Minister Herve Morin warned on 
Sunday that Iran's nuclear programme posed a ‘major risk¹ to the stability of 
the Gulf region. ‘It is necessary to make Iran understand that the nuclear risk 
creates a major risk of destabilising the region,¹ Morin told journalists as he 
wrapped up a visit to the Gulf state of 

On September 14, it was reported that, ³Germany denied on Friday that it wanted 
to hold off on sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. The government
dismissed a report on the US TV channel Fox that it had broken ranks with the 
five permanent members of the UN Security Council and wanted to delay any 
sanctions to allow a deal struck between Iran and the International Atomic 
Energy Agency on August 21 to take effect,² and it continued, quoting the German
foreign ministry spokesman, ³Germany is prepared to take the necessary steps 
against Iran, if necessary,² and that, ³The five permanent Security Council 
members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany 
are due to meet to discuss a new draft UN resolution on sanctions against Iran 
on September 21 in Washington. Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is 
aimed at generating electricity but the United States accuses Tehran of covertly
developing atomic 

Another conflict, which is directly related to the growing Iranian conflict, has
been accumulating significance in the region, as it was reported that, ³Syria 
accused Israel of bombing its territory on Thursday [September 6] and said it 
could respond to the Jewish state's ‘aggression and treachery¹,² and further, 
³Israel declined to comment on the charge by Syria, which said no casualties or 
damage were caused. The Syrian accusation was partly responsible for triggering 
a rise in world oil prices of more than $1.40 a 
Another report stated that, ³Syria is mulling a ‘series of responses¹ after 
Israeli warplanes violated its airspace this week, Vice President Faruq al-Shara
said in an interview with an Italian newspaper published Saturday. ‘I can say 
now that in Damascus a series of responses is being examined at the highest 
political and military levels. The results will not take long in 

Press TV reported that, ³Syria says Israel is planning to wage another war in 
the region after the Israeli army staged military exercises on the Golan 
Heights. The state-run Syrian daily al-Thawra said on Sunday that a recent war 
game by the Israeli military on the occupied Golan Heights has sent a clear 
message reflecting Israel's intention for waging a new war in the 
Another report states that, ³Tehran has announced its readiness to assist 
Damascus by all means to counter the violation of Syrian airspace by Israeli 
warplanes. Iran's ambassador to Syria, Mohammad-Hassan Akhtari said the Zionist 
Regime's provocative moves had prompted Tehran to offer help to the Syrian 
government. Earlier Thursday, Syria's official News Agency reported that several
Israeli fighter jets had bombed Syrian territories However, the Syrian army 
successfully forced the Israeli warplanes out of the Syrian 

A September 12 report stated that, ³Israel recently carried out reconnaissance 
flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that 
Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North 
Korea, The New York Times reported Thursday. A US administration official said 
Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its 
nuclear material on Syria, the Times reported,² and it quoted an unnamed 
official, stating, ³The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria 
what little they have left,² and the article further said, ³A US defense 
official confirmed Tuesday that Israel carried out an air strike well inside 
Syria last week, apparently to send Damascus a message not to rearm Hezbollah in
Lebanon. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, did not know the 
target of the strike, which was conducted Thursday, but said the US military 
believed it was to send a message to the 

The Sunday Times later reported that, ³It was just after midnight when the 69th 
Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria¹s 
formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles
from the Iraqi border was under way,² and that, ³Ten days after the jets reached
home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid 
claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from 
North Korea,² and it continued, ³The Syrians were also keeping mum. ‘I cannot 
reveal the details,¹ said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. ‘All I can say 
is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as 
we speak. Results are forthcoming¹ The official story that the target comprised 
weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi¹ite group, 
appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have 
obtained nuclear equipment from ‘secret suppliers¹, and added that there were a 
‘number of foreign technicians¹ in the country. Asked if they could be North 
Korean, he replied: ‘There are North Korean people there. There¹s no question 
about that¹,² and further, ³According to Israeli sources, preparations for the 
attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad,
presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device 
from North 

It was then reported that, ³An official Syrian daily warned on Sunday that US 
‘lies¹ over nuclear cooperation with North Korea could serve as a pretext for an
attack on Syria following an Israeli violation of its airspace,² and that, 
³Syria has said its air defences fired on Israeli warplanes which dropped 
munitions deep inside its territory in the early hours of September 6, 
triggering intense media speculation about the action. Israel has not confirmed 
the incident and kept up a policy of official silence, with the only details on 
the mysterious attack coming from foreign media reports citing anonymous 

Call It What You Want, It¹s All Just a Game

As the prospect of a US-led war on Iran increases by the day, it is vital to 
understand the history of such actions. This was my intent in writing this 
essay, as to understand current crises and conflicts evolving in the region, it 
is important to examine the historical context of such crises over the past 200 
years. Dating from the Great Game between the British and Russian empires for 
control of Central Eurasia, namely fighting for control in Afghanistan and Iran,
the reasons behind the Great Game were simply stated as for maintaining 
hegemonic control. With brief alliances generating between Britain and Russia, 
formed for strategic conveniences, namely to counter rising German influence in 
the region in the lead up to World War 1 and during World War 2, the Great Game 
continued after the Second World War under a different name, the Cold War. For a
new century, it was necessary to give a hundred year old strategy a new name, as
especially after World War 2, the concepts of hegemony and expansion of control,
imperialism in general, were not well received, considering the world just came 
out of Hitler¹s attempt at such a strategy. In 1947, India gained independence 
from the British Empire, instigating the collapse of its imperial hegemony 
across the globe.

It was at this time, however, that the United States was now in the most pivotal
position to exert its hegemony across the globe. With its extensive ties to 
Great Britain, the British latched onto the Americans in the Anglo-American 
Alliance, allowing not only for the US to protect US hegemony and interests 
abroad, but also British. To do this, however, there needed to be an excuse, as 
the world would not accept another global hegemon for the sake of hegemony. 
Thus, the Cold War came into being. Under the guise of deterring the spread of 
Communism under the auspices of the ‘Domino Theory¹, the US managed to expand 
and protect Anglo-American hegemony around the globe. The Cold War was simply 
the third phase of the Great Game, as it applied the same strategies used for 
the previous hundred years, just under a new name and justified under a new 

After the fall of the Soviet Union, bringing an end to the Cold War, a New World
Order began to form, the birth pangs of which were felt in the Middle East. This
New World Order of creating a new global structure, of a more integrated global 
society, still has many conflicts arising out of it. After World War 1, the 
League of Nations was created in the hopes of securing a more integrated global 
community, which ultimately failed with the start of World War 2, after which 
the United Nations was created to serve the same purpose. Out of each world war,
we see the move to create a more global society. Now, after the Cold War ended, 
we have a new conflict arising between the West and the East. This new conflict 
is about gaining supremacy in the New World Order, as many great powers seek to 
sway the balance away from a US-dominated New World Order, and towards a Russian
or Chinese New World Order.

In the year 2000, then Chinese President, ³Jiang Zemin called for joint efforts 
of the people of all countries to establish a fair and equitable new 
international political and economic order,² and he further stated, ³With the 
collapse of the centuries-long colonialist system and the end of half-a-century 
Cold War, it has become increasingly difficult for hegemonism and power politics
to go on and for the very few big powers or blocs of big powers to monopolize 
international affairs and control the fate of other 
In 2005, both China and Russia ³issued a joint statement on a new world order in
the 21st century, setting forth their common stand on major international 
issues, such as UN reforms, globalization, North-South cooperation, and world 
economy and trade. The statement was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin 
and visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao after their talks. During their talks, 
the two leaders discussed ways to further enhance the strategic and cooperative 
partnership between China and Russia, and exchanged views on major regional and 
international issues,² and that ³The joint statement said the two countries are 
determined to strengthen their strategic coordination in international 
More recently, in 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin called ³for a radical 
overhaul of the world¹s financial and trade institutions to reflect the growing 
economic power of emerging market countries – including Russia. Mr Putin said 
the world needed to create a new international financial architecture to replace
an existing model,² and as the Financial Times further reported, Putin¹s 
³apparent challenge to western dominance of the world economic order came at a 
forum in St Petersburg designed to showcase the country¹s economic recovery. 
Among 6,000 delegates at the biggest business forum ever held in post-Soviet 
Russia were scores of international chief executives including heads of Deutsche
Bank, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Nestlé, Chevron, Siemens and Coca-Cola. Business 
deals worth more than $4bn were signed at the conference – including an order by
Aeroflot for Boeing jets – as executives said they were continuing to invest in 
Russia despite deteriorating relations with the west. Mr Putin¹s hosting of the 
forum capped a week in which he dominated the international stage. He warned 
last Monday that Russia might target nuclear missiles at Europe if the US built 
a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic,² and Putin¹s ³speech on 
financial institutions suggested that, along with an aggressive recent campaign 
against US ‘unilateralism¹ in foreign policy, he was also seeking to challenge 
western dominance of the world economic 

So clearly, from this last statement especially, we can see that both China and 
Russia are not opposed to forming a New World Order, which would be largely 
based on international institutions and integration, both economically and 
politically, but they are opposed to the West¹s dominance of such a world order,
and instead, seek to challenge that dominance with their own. Ultimately, the 
goals are similar, but the methods of getting there is where the West and the 
East differ. As the above Financial Times article mentioned, large global 
corporations are still investing in Russia, despite recent setbacks in certain 
areas, which shows the support for the process of globalization, which has 
thusly shaped the current world order. International corporations have no 
allegiance to people or national identities, but rather seek to exert their 
control across the entire globe, and will support any nations with great 
influence, so that with the battle for control in shaping the New World Order, 
the corporations will always be on the winning side. As the multinational 
corporations seek a more integrated global society, they must first gain control
of the world markets, integrating the economies first. With economic 
integration, political and cultural will follow. The challenge for the great 
powers of the world is which ones will be dominant in this process, and thusly, 
which ones will have dominant control over the New World Order.

Out of conflict, comes societal reorganization. We seem to rapidly be heading 
toward another World War, which would have its starting point with an attack on 
Iran. Talk of a ‘new Cold War¹ is misleading, as if any conflict occurs with 
Iran, if the US attacks the Islamic Republic, there will be nothing Cold about 
it. This new conflict, the fourth phase of the Great Game, will give rise to 
competition between the great powers for control over the Middle East and 
Central Eurasia in order to achieve hegemony in the New World Order. It is 
likely that a New Great Game will lead to a New World War, out of which will 
rise the New World Order. Which ever great powers come out of the next war as 
the victors, if indeed there are any, it is likely that it will be that power 
which will lead the New World Order.

As I have mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski much in this essay, as his relevance to 
American hegemonic strategy is almost unparalleled, apart from other figures 
like Henry Kissinger, I feel it is relevant to end with a discussion on 
testimony that Brzezinski recently gave to the US Senate. In February of 2007, 
Brzezinski, ³the national security adviser in the Carter administration, 
delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush 
administration¹s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with 
incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and 
internationally,² and Brzezinski was quoted as saying about the Iraq war, 
³Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America¹s global 
legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are 
tarnishing America¹s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and 
imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability,² and he continued, 
describing what he termed a ³plausible scenario for a military collision with 
Iran², of which he said would involve, ³Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, 
followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some 
provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in 
a ‘defensive¹ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into
a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan.² [Emphasis 

Brzezinski¹s startling warning should not be taken for granted. Even though many
factions of the ruling class are divided, for example someone like Brzezinski, 
who is very much opposed to the neo-conservatives, they are all still playing 
the same game. The game is hegemony and empire, the only difference is that some
people and some countries have different methods of playing. In previous 
centuries, the battle for control of Central Eurasia was called what it was, the
Great Game, a game for control, a game for power. The difference between two 
hundred years ago and today, is that we are in a much more globalized, 
integrated society, which has turned this Great game into, as Brzezinski aptly 
named his blueprint for American hegemony, the Grand Chessboard. It¹s no longer 
simply just a great game, but is now simply a board game for the global ruling 
class. Sacrificing pawns, a simple act for them, can be seen in the eyes of the 
moral society as the destruction of entire nations and peoples.

There¹s only so many players in this game, and they all have the same aim, just 
different methods of getting there. The unfortunate aspect of this, is that the 
people of the world are being tossed around like pawns in a chess game. The 
world is meant for all people, not just a select few, to inhabit and have a say 
in So, if these people want to play games, let¹s put them back in the 
playground, because their mentality has yet to surpass that of children during 

Mahatma Gandhi, the man who led India to independence from the British Empire, 
once said, ³Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has 
always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem 
invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.²


1 Castle, Time. ³Is The Cold War Back?²

      Reuters: August 22, 2007.


2 Reuters. ³U.S. missile shield is provocation: Austrian minister.²

August 23, 2007:

3 Harding, Thomas and David Blair. ³NATO steps up monitoring of Russia.²

      The Telegraph: August 24, 2007.;jsessionid=MARSVKHOE


4 AFP. ³Russia-Georgia conflict nerve-racking.²

      Press TV: August 26, 2007

5 AFP. ³'Missile Defense not just against Iran'.²

      Press TV: August 27, 2007.

6 BBC. ³UK jets shadow Russian bombers.²

BBC News: September 6, 2007: 

7 Sevastopulo, Demetri. ³Chinese military hacked into Pentagon²

      Financial Times: September 3, 2007.


8 AFP. ³Taiwan, wary of China, to hike military spending.²

      Sino Daily: August 22, 2007.


9 Harney, Alexandra. ³Top Chinese general warns US over attack²

      Financial Times: July 14, 2005.


10 Danahar, Paul. ³Taleban 'getting Chinese weapons'.²

BBC News: September 3, 2007.

11 AP. ³Russia Agrees to $1 Billion Arms Deal with Iran.²

      FOX News: December 2, 2005.,2933,177566,00.html

12 Katz, Yaakov and Herb Keinon. ³Israel warns Russia on Iran arms sale.²

      The Jerusalem Post: January 16, 2007.


13 RIA Novosti. ³Nuclear source says Bushehr NPP to be completed in fall 2008.²

      September 7, 2007:

14 AP. ³Merkel: Iran nuke policy like Nazism.²

      The Jerusalem Post: February 4, 2006.



15 Reuters. ³France's Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes.²

      YNet News: August 27, 2007.,7340,L-3442638,00.html

16 Bryanski, Gleb. ³Schroeder calls U.S. missile plan "dangerous".²

      The Washington Post: September 8, 2007.


17 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, op cit, Page 55.

18 Lei, Yang. ³SCO to stage joint anti-terror military exercise in 2007.²

      China View: April 26, 2006.



      Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest: October 1, 2003.


20 Hiro, Dilip. ³Shanghai surprise.²

      The Guardian: June 16, 2006.


21 Bhadrakumar, M. K. ³China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold.²

      Asia Times: April 18, 2006.


22 BBC. ³Nato-Israel partnership boosted.²

      BBC News: February 24, 2005.


23 Press TV. ³Iran: US missile plan threatens Asia.²

      Press TV: August 16, 2007.

24 AFP. ³China's Hu meets Iran's Ahmadinejad, calls for closer ties.²

      Agence France-Presse: June 16, 2006.


25 Sherwell, Philip. ³Terror label 'paves way for air strikes'²

      The Sunday Telegraph: August 26, 2007.;jsessionid=5LIBTVAWZ


26 Baxter, Sarah. ³Pentagon ‘three-day blitz¹ plan for Iran.²

      The Sunday Times: September 2, 2007.

27 Shipman, Tim. ³Will President Bush bomb Iran?²

      The Sunday Telegraph: September 3, 2007.;jsessionid



28 Sherwell, Philip. ³Bush setting America up for war with Iran.²

      The Sunday Telegraph: September 16, 2007.;jsessionid=U3ZYA1OQ114Z


29 Packer, George. ³Test Marketing.²

      The New Yorker Magazine: August 31, 2007.



30 Krauskopf, Lewis. ³Pentagon plans base near Iraq-Iran border: report.²

      Reuters: September 10, 2007.

31 Chamberlain, Gethin. ³Iran spy post heightens Gulf tension with US.²

      The Sunday Telegraph: September 10, 2007.



32 Juliano, Nick. ³Instead of going home, British troops headed to Iranian 
border:  Report.²

      Raw Story: September 12, 2007.


33 DPA. ³UK to boost Persian Gulf naval presence.²

      Press TV: August 28, 2007.


34 Bremner, Charles. ³Sarkozy talks of bombing if Iran gets nuclear arms.²

      The Sunday Times: August 28, 2007.


35 AFP. ³Iran's nuclear ambitions 'major risk': French defence chief.²

      Agence France-Presse: September 9, 2007.

36 AFP. ³Germany prepared to support new sanctions against Iran.²

      Agence France-Presse: September 14, 2007.


37 Oweis, Khaled Yacoub. ³Syria accuses Israel of bombing its territory.²

      Reuters: September 6, 2007.

38 AFP. ³Syria mulling 'responses' to Israeli airspace violation.² September 8, 2007.


39 Press TV. ³Syria: Israel waging another war.²

      Press TV: September 11, 2007.


40 Press TV. ³Iran backs Syria against Israel.²

      Press TV: September 6, 2007.


41 AFP. ³Israel believes N. Korea selling nuke material to Syria: report.²

      Agence France-Presse: September 12, 2007.


42 Baxter, Sarah, et al. ³Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache¹.²

      The Sunday Telegraph: September 16, 2007.


43 AFP. ³Syria warns of US 'lies' over Israel air violation.²

      Agence France-Presse: September 16, 2007.


44 People¹s Daily Online. ³Jiang Zemin Calls for Fair New World Order.²

      People¹s Daily Online: April 13, 2000.

45 Xinhua. ³China, Russia issue joint statement on new world order.²

      People¹s Daily Online: July 4, 2005.


46 Buckley, Neil and Catherine Belton. ³Putin calls for new financial world 

      Financial Times: June 10, 2007.


47 Grey, Barry. ³A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski.²

      World Socialist Web Site: February 2, 2007.


Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.

Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: <mailto:•••@••.•••>•••@••.•••

contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically 
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our 
readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better 
understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this 
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use 
copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request 
permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: <mailto:•••@••.•••>•••@••.•••

© Copyright Andrew G. Marshall, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: 

© Copyright 2005-2007

Web site engine by 
Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007



This email was sent to •••@••.•••, by 

Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with 
| <>Privacy Policy.

<>Email Marketing by

<> | v | montreal | Canada

Posting archives:

Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)