Teherán no sale de su asombro. El espejismo de la “asociación estratégica” entre Rusia e Irán se desvanece y Moscú pone fin a su corta luna de miel con Teherán: Alexander Lavrentev, el representante especial de Rusia para Siria, ha pedido a Irán e Hizbolá, y otros países que han “ocupado” Siria abandonar el país, al iniciarse el proceso de paz.

Unsurprisingly, Putin criticized the US’ rejection of the Iran nuclear deal as a unilateralist move which would have negative consequences. But then, Putin also expressed understanding for President Donald Trump’s domestic compulsion in taking such a decisión. Hinting at growing resentment within the Sunni majority in Syria against Iran’s activities, the commentary contextualized Putin’s recent call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syrian soil. It openly rapped the Iranians on the knuckle: “Iran’s operations in Syria go far beyond fighting terrorists and are hardly welcomed by anyone within the region and beyond. This heightens tensions in Israel’s relations with its bitter rivals … Serving as a platform for fighting the ‘Zionist’ enemy is something Syria needs the least.”

The US President Donald Trump’s decision on pullout from the 2015 Iran nuclear pact significantly impacts the tectonic plates of world politics. At the most profound level, the weakening of the US’ trans-Atlantic leadership that has been under way may have become irreversible. Without doubt, the European capitals are in turn angry and disappointed. The support for the 2015 pact runs deep in Europe and the disillusionment with the Trump presidency is widespread in the European opinion. In principle, a “regime change” in Washington in the 2020 poll may somewhat improve matters but then, two years is a long time in politics during which the divide between the US and Europe may further deepen and a new alchemy may radically transform Euro-Atlanticism as such with the growing perception of the US as an unreliable and increasingly malevolent partner.

Incidentally, the escalation and exchange of missile fire across the Israeli border on Wednesday and Thursday morning, was not Iranian in origin (there are no IRGC near the Golan). Nor was the exchange initiated by Iran, but rather by Israel, striking Syrian targets as it has done regularly over recent weeks. On this occasion, however, Israel intended to cast Iran as ‘the accused’ (the pre-announced opening of the shelters in occupied Golan by Israel was something of a ‘give-away’ to a coming false flag event), to further the pressures on Tehran. Trump’s ‘step beyond’ Art of the Deal strategies, to regime change (in Iran) does not bode well for China’s North Korea strategy. If Trump expects capitulation from Jong Un – and doesn’t get it, then China will have little option but to get involved in order to deter Trump from any ‘bloody-nose’ exercise, or from attempted regime change. China does not want Jong Un’s capitulation or removal — It has no desire to have an US proxy – or its missiles – on its border.

On April 26, the UN’s special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, warned in his interview with the BBC Radio 4 news program Today that May is a dangerous month. He claims that the potential conflict between Israel and Iran, plus the expected US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, will exacerbate the existing situation and doom the efforts to offer a new lease on life to the management of the crisis in Syria, an effort that is now practically defunct. This UN official believes that the Astana process has reached its limits, especially after the attempt to arrive at a deal on a new Syrian constitution failed. Mr. de Mistura believes the Astana talks should be replaced by other venues with broader representation, in order to prevent what he called “Balkanization.”

El viraje político regional y las presiones de EEUU explican en gran medida la decisión de seis países de abandonar la Unasur, colocando así un punto final a la más importante experiencia de integración. Deberá pasar un buen tiempo y profundas crisis, antes de que vuelvan a existir condiciones para lanzar nuevas iniciativas en esa dirección. Una integración regional como la que promovía Unasur, integral, multifacética y multisectorial, debe ser una cuestión de Estado, no sólo de Gobiernos ni, menos aún, de ideologías. Para ello debe ser aceptada y consensuada por toda la sociedad, para que los procesos de integración sigan adelante más allá de los vaivenes políticos. Así fue como se construyó la Unión Europea fundada en 1993 y la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái creada en 1996, por mencionar organismos que sobrepasan las coyunturas.

All of these events point to an easing away from the US/UK/EU yoke that has choked Germany; to the zone of influence of Russia and China which is full of promise. It is a sensible move for Germany, but one fraught with great risk. Look what happened to Hitler when he dumped the Banks and rebuilt Germany – they started a war with him. Hitler knew Germany’s future lay to the East but unfortunately he tried to get it by military might – like Napoleon before him. Germany needs to walk a tightrope here, one false move, a slip and there is no safety net

Eurasia earlier played a unifying role in the Old World. Modern Russia, absorbing this tradition, must resolutely and irrevocably abandon violence and war, the old methods of unification belonging to gone and overcome epochs. In the modern period, the cause is one of cultural creativity, inspiration, insight, and cooperation. This is what the Eurasianists say. Despite all their temporary forms of ties, the peoples of Europe and Asia are still largely sitting in their own cubicles, living according to the interests of their own bell towers. Eurasian “place-development” will give impulse to this common cause in ways very much its own. The purpose of the Eurasian peoples is to, by their example, carry the other peoples of the world down this path.

Putin’s ominous presentation — aimed as much at a Russian electorate bereft of positive economic news as at Western audiences — brings to mind the late Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev’s boasts at the height of the Cold War that ICBMs were rolling off Soviet assembly lines “like sausages” and that his country would swallow U.S. forces in West Berlin in one gulp. All of this as Khrushchev’s own general staff and senior advisers knew that the feared missile gap between the United States and the Soviet Union was a myth, that the Soviets had fallen behind in the nuclear arms race, and that their leader’s bellicose rhetoric was hot air — bombast to compensate for Potemkin missiles.

As I discussed on CGTN America, the easy answer is found in Trump’s ego: The president simply cannot not let an immediate rebuttal go unchallenged and, indeed, the staA more complex explanation is found in the underlying tension between two competing positions and visions of economic development. The United States is an advanced industrialized economy that relies upon liberal, free market principles to spur innovation and grow the economy. In contrast, China seeks to occupy a similar position in global commerce, but though a managed economy led by national champions, often state-owned enterprises, and a top-down industrial policy. While there are missing nuances in this characterization, this fundamental difference should be the starting point for any level-headed approach to addressing the dispute.kes must be raised instantly and substantially. However, as I noted, there is more to the dynamic than Trump’s fire and fury.