Preface

With the coming to power of Hitler, Germany in the region foreign policy set as its goal the preparation and unleashing of a war for world domination. Although the direct military threat primarily loomed over Soviet Union and Western countries, the Middle East was also in danger of being drawn into war. Iran, the largest state in this region, whose territory was larger than France and the British Isles combined, began to receive serious attention in Berlin.
There were several reasons for this. Germany experienced an acute shortage of strategic raw materials and, not without reason, hoped to use Iran as a source of supplies for its military industry. In addition, the establishment of close economic cooperation with Iran allowed Hitler to hope that he would become a reliable ally in a future war.
A huge map of Iran, hanging in the Reich Chancellery, excited the Fuhrer’s fantasies. Iran has an advantageous geopolitical position, Hitler reasoned, not only does it represent a convenient springboard for the invasion of Iraq and British India, but it also borders the USSR, which creates prospects for using its territory as a base for organizing subversive actions against Soviet Central Asia and Transcaucasia. "In the east we must extend our dominance... to Iran", - the German leader confessed in the circle of his entourage.
Many years have passed since then. But the Middle East is still a hot spot on the planet, where the interests of many states collide. Russia also has its own interests in this region, which needs to strengthen its own positions in the Middle East and, first of all, establish stable relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran is of interest to Russia as a partner with significant economic potential. Interest in expanding cooperation is reflected in the development of joint projects, investment activities and the growth of trade volumes between the two countries. Iranian leaders are also conducting a consistent fight against the spread of drugs. Iran, like Russia, is interested in pacifying the source of conflict in the Caucasus.
Of course, the solution to this important task is impossible without a thorough study of the foreign policy experience of other states, and first of all, Hitler’s Germany, which managed to achieve serious successes in Iran. Consequently, a thorough study of the place and role of Iran in the policies of Hitler’s Germany acquired not only important scientific, but also political significance.

* * *

The value of any historical research lies, first of all, in its source base. Nothing can convey the atmosphere of an era as accurately and vividly as the document itself. Therefore, reader, do not be surprised. This book is rich in references to archival materials, and quotations from primary sources are in italics for ease of reading. During for long years The author worked in archives, and it is quite clear that unpublished archival materials became the foundation of his research.
Gaining access to documents from Russian archives has proven extremely difficult. The “blessed” 1990s have sunk into history, when the reading room of the Foreign Policy Archive Russian Federation(WUA RF) was overflowing with researchers from different countries. The author was lucky to collect unique research material within its walls during these years. Since 2001–2002 files with reports from Soviet ambassadors in Tehran were no longer made available to researchers. And here it is impossible not to say words of deep gratitude to the archivists who understood the scientist and provided the opportunity to work with the documents of the WUA of the Russian Federation. The book used reports, dispatches, political letters and certificates compiled by Soviet diplomats in Iran; official instructions to employees of the USSR Embassy in Tehran; recordings of their conversations with Iranian officials and German diplomats; notes from the Iranian embassy in Moscow and the Soviet embassy in Tehran; diplomatic pouch reviews received by the Foreign Ministry's Middle East Division from Iran; reviews of the Iranian press.
These documents gave a lot important information about the political and economic expansion of Nazi Germany in Iran, the activities of German agents in this country. They helped to reveal the reasons for the Germans gaining strong positions in Iran and to show the activities of German diplomats. The documents convincingly prove that Hitler planned to use Iran not only as a springboard for further penetration into British India, but also as a base for carrying out acts of sabotage against the USSR. Based on the official instructions of the Soviet leadership and reports from the USSR ambassadors in Tehran, one can judge how the Soviet government reacted to the events taking place in Iran and countered Hitler’s expansion.
A gift of fate awaited the author in the Archive of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (ASVRR). The materials placed at his disposal, collected in one green folder, became the second most important sources in the proposed book. The diary of the main organizer of the pro-fascist underground in Iran Franz Mayer, reports of Abwehr member Bruno Schulze-Holthus, interrogation protocols of the leader of the Iranian nationalist organization Hezbe Kabut (Blue Party) Habibullah Novbakht, reports of Soviet intelligence officers, some captured materials and other unique archival documents, classified “top secret” and characterizing the methods and techniques of the Abwehr and SD, confirmed the existence of a powerful pro-fascist movement in Iran. They provided an opportunity to highlight the little-studied problem of cooperation between Soviet and British intelligence officers to suppress the activities of German intelligence services in this country.
An important source was the materials of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense (TsAMO). Gaining access to them was also difficult. Strict rules that existed before recently in the archive, instructions on yellowed paper dating back to the 1970s, requirements to provide notebooks with extracts to the archive staff set up a special mode of working with these documents. But here, too, the researcher was lucky. The documents he studied allowed him to create a vivid picture of the events of August 1941, when Soviet and British troops were brought into Iran in order to eliminate Hitler's agents. Reports on the combat operations of units of the 44th and 47th armies of the Transcaucasian Front, the 53rd Separate Central Asian Army, individual intelligence reports and cipher telegrams stored in the funds of this archive show how strong the German positions were in Iran, tell about the activities in the pro-fascist country “fifth column” demonstrate how German military advisers, who settled in the Iranian army, tried to organize resistance to the advancing troops of England and the USSR.
An extensive layer of captured documents was discovered in the Center for the Storage of Historical and Documentary Collections (TSHIDK). Fund 1458 of this archive, containing materials from the German Ministry of Economics and characterized by great factual richness, introduces us to the nuances of Germany’s economic expansion into Iran.
Information about Germany's participation in the modernization of the Iranian armed forces, certificates, reports and reports from Soviet intelligence officers about the political and economic situation in Iran, materials about the activities of German intelligence in the Middle East on the eve and during the first period of World War II are contained in the funds of the Russian State Military Archive (RGVA) ).
Valuable information was obtained from the funds of the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations (AMFER) and the Russian State Archive of Economics (RGEA). The materials discovered in them provided information about the activities of German firms and the participation of German specialists in the industrialization of Iran, the penetration of German capital into the economy of this country, and made it possible to reveal the reasons for the successful development of German-Iranian trade.
Hitler's plans to gain a foothold in Iran, seize the most important communications, gain access to strategic raw materials, and occupy leadership positions in government agencies are revealed in the materials of the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI). In the funds of this archive we were able to find analytical reports and reports from Comintern employees devoted to the analysis of Germany’s participation in the construction of the Trans-Iranian railway, Berlin-Kabul airlines and other grandiose projects.
Along with those mentioned, declassified materials from the fund of the 89th Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (RGANI) were studied, containing information about the measures taken by I. Stalin against emigrant organizations that carried out subversive work against the Soviet Central Asian republics from the territory of the Middle Eastern states.
Materials about the subversive activities of German intelligence on the Soviet-Iranian border were found in the documentary fund and positive photo fund of the Central Museum of the Federal Border Service (CMFPS). The documentary funds of the Central Museum of the Armed Forces (CMAF) contain valuable factual material about the events of August 1941.
In addition to archival materials, the author studied numerous published documents. Close attention was paid to the multi-volume edition of German foreign policy documents, in which telegrams, memos and memos compiled by various diplomats of the Third Reich were arranged in chronological order: from Foreign Minister I. Ribbentrop to the German envoy in Tehran E. Ettel. The memoirs of German diplomats and intelligence officers who served as conductors of the Fuhrer’s Iranian policy aroused undoubted interest. Some information was obtained from German newspapers on the eve and period of World War II, as well as from Iranian newspapers. Translations of individual materials from “Ettelaat”, “Iran”, “Kushesh”, “Setare”, “Egdam” and other Iranian publications were found in Russian archives.
The author pays tribute to predecessors who studied Hitler's policies in Iran. The list of books we read for this purpose alone would fill a whole chapter, which, perhaps, would be very instructive, but hardly entertaining for our readers. Therefore, we simply thank all the scientists whose works were used during the work on the book. And we are talking about historians from Germany, Iran, England, the USA and other countries. Without an analysis of the achievements of Russian and foreign historiography, there could be no talk of any objective historical research.
Like any writer, the author of this book is not infallible. It is possible that in the coming years new documents will appear that will allow us to take a different look at the events described here. Perhaps we will learn the names of new heroes of the secret war in Iran. But now we are faced with a difficult task - continuing the search for truth, to describe Hitler’s policy towards Iran in a balanced manner, without myth-making, and to reveal the motives for the cooperation of Iranian nationalists with Hitler’s Germany. How we managed to solve this problem is for the readers to judge.

Iranian Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari

Oil fields of Iran

Photo: ITAR-TASS, Reuters
Illustrations: Anastasia Ukhina

Gazprom Neft is developing the Middle East region, “closed” to Western companies.

Text: Evgeny Tretyakov, Zoya Razinskaya

DAY OF WRATH

“The Shah is no more!” In January 1979, there was jubilation on the streets of Tehran - the hated ruler had left the country. Islamists led by Khomeini came to power, the Islamic Republic was proclaimed in April, and on November 4, Iranian “students” seized the American embassy. Since then, Iran, which has gigantic oil and gas reserves, has been one of the main enemies of the Western world.

In the struggle for black gold, Western national governments, as well as American and European oil and gas companies, have experienced many bitter defeats, but they have hardly ever experienced such shame as in Iran. Moreover, the first time they were expelled from the country was much earlier than 1979.

At the end of September 1951, Ayatollah Kashani declared a national holiday - the Day of Wrath against the British Government. A few days earlier, the government gave all British employees in Iran a week to get ready. The anger of the Iranian people was directed primarily at the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which, according to the Iranian authorities, distributed income unfairly. Earlier, in the spring of 1951, a law was passed on the nationalization of AINK. Mohammed Mossadegh, known for his anti-British position, became prime minister at the same time. On his instructions, the ruler of the Khuzestan province sacrificed a ram at the entrance to the office of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and then announced that the concession had been canceled and all the company’s property and all the oil belonged to the people.

A few months later, the last British oil workers left Iran, a country whose oil industry had been built from scratch. In response to the nationalization, Britain and the United States imposed economic sanctions against Iran. The reign of Mohammed Mossadegh, who actually removed the Shah from power, lasted two years and ended with a coup organized by the American intelligence services. The United States and its allies feared that Iran would fall under the influence of the USSR and they would forever lose access to the country's oil reserves. True, at first Operation Ajax, which was led in 1953 by Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, practically failed. Shah Mohammad Reza fled the country, but then pro-Shah forces managed to rebel, and the crowd sided with the disgraced monarch. Before the events of 1979, he managed to return Western oil workers to Iran. However, the Shah, despite all his loyalty, caused a lot of problems for the West. Iran became one of the most active participants in OPEC and played a major role in the 1973 energy crisis.

UNTOUCHED WEALTH

The Americans and British completely lost the battle for Iran to the Islamists. As historians write, at that time in Washington they simply did not know how to react to the rapidly changing balance of power in the country. Khomeini gained power with virtually no resistance. However, the Americans are unlikely to give up their desire to overthrow the hated regime, especially since the struggle is not only for prestige, but also for huge hydrocarbon resources.

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Iran's proven oil reserves at the end of 2008 amounted to 137.6 billion barrels - this is approximately 11% of all world oil reserves. For comparison, Russia’s reserves, according to the same source, are more than one and a half times smaller - 79 billion barrels. At the same time, Russia produces about 480-490 million tons per year, and Iran only 210 million tons.

Even more impressive are Iran's gas reserves, which are comparable to Gazprom's reserves. According to the company, the Gazprom Group's gas reserves in categories A+B+C1 as of December 31, 2008 amounted to 33.1 trillion cubic meters. BP Statistical Review of World Energy estimates Iran's proven reserves at the end of last year at 29.61 trillion cubic meters (approximately 16% of world reserves). But if in Russia, according to BP, about 602 billion cubic meters were produced in 2008, then in Iran only about 116 billion. Iranian gas practically does not enter foreign markets (a small volume is supplied to Turkey) and is used domestically. It is Iranian gas that could become the main source for the European Nabucco gas pipeline. EU countries have been trying to bring this project to life for many years, but so far to no avail. Azerbaijani gas is not enough to fill a pipeline designed to pump 30 billion cubic meters per year. Turkmenistan has an existing contract for the supply of almost all of its gas with Gazprom and recently built a gas pipeline to China. In addition, to connect Turkmenistan to Nabucco, a gas pipeline through the Caspian Sea still needs to be built.

UNDER THE PRESS OF SANCTIONS

Iran would be an ideal gas supplier, but none of the Western companies dare to work in this country. The reason for this is the current US economic sanctions. They include, in particular, a complete ban on US citizens and companies doing business in Iran, participating in joint ventures and trading with Iranian companies. In addition, the United States applies special sanctions against any companies from third countries that have invested more than $20 million in the Iranian energy sector. On November 13, 2009, President Barack Obama signed a decree extending the “state of emergency” in relations with Iran and sanctions against this country .

Tehran's main partner today is China, which buys oil from it and invests in projects. Foreigners can work in Iran only on the basis of compensation agreements, i.e. Without being license holders and without receiving concessions, foreigners are paid with a portion of the oil or gas produced. In general, working in Iran is difficult, but the game is worth the trouble. Oil in this country is light; export, thanks to sea ports, is possible anywhere in the world.

Russia has never supported radicalism towards Iran. Moscow has not joined the sanctions against the Islamic Republic, which makes it possible to expand economic cooperation. One of its main elements was the completion Russian specialists Nuclear power plant in Bushehr, as well as establishing relations in the oil and gas sector. On November 11, 2009, Gazprom Neft signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

SERVICE APPROACH

The Middle East has been in the sphere of interests of Gazprom Neft for quite some time. After exploring potential opportunities to enter the region, several attempts were made to begin work in oil and gas projects in Iran and Iraq. In 2008, the company participated in negotiations to obtain a contract to develop the Iranian North Azadegan field, but the contract was transferred to China. In the same year, Gazprom Neft took part in the first tender round for the development of oil and gas fields in Iraq, but the terms of the tender for Russian oil companies turned out to be unacceptable. Now a positive result has been achieved. “We are interested in cooperation with NIOC and consider the agreements reached with our Iranian colleagues to be promising,” Alexander Dyukov, Chairman of the Board of Gazprom Neft, assessed the signing of the memorandum.

According to a memorandum signed by Gazprom Neft Deputy General Director for Exploration and Production Boris Zilbermints and Managing Director of NIOC Mr. Seifollah Jashnsaz, the Iranian company intends to develop the Azar oil field. In addition, it is planned to evaluate the Shangule oil field, and then begin its development. Gazprom Neft will become a “qualified and competent company”, which also has the necessary financial capabilities, with the participation of which the project will be implemented.

The Azar and Shangule fields are part of the Anaran block and are considered one of the most promising structures in western Iran. According to the drilling results, data provided by the Iranian side, the geological reserves of oil in these areas exceed 5–6 billion barrels. Together with the signing of the memorandum of understanding, NIOC and Gazprom Neft also entered into a confidentiality agreement, under which the Iranian side provided Russian company all necessary data to begin the feasibility study of the project. Now specialists from the exploration and production block of Gazprom Neft are preparing a Master development plan - a Master Plan for field development, which includes, in particular, development schemes, an analysis of the expected production level, the projected amount of investment, and a work schedule. After agreeing on the document with the Iranian side, a service contract for development will be concluded. The work is planned to be carried out on “buy back” terms, i.e. the company acts as a contractor that reimburses the investment from the oil produced at the fields. The contractor, using its technological capabilities, brings the deposits to the agreed level and transfers the deposit to the customer for further development, receiving compensation for the costs incurred. In principle, such contracts are not interesting enough both for the contractor (due to the impossibility of putting oil reserves on the balance sheet and reflecting current production in their reports) and for the customer himself, but for Iran this is so far the only option. However, according to Gazprom representatives, the Iranian side is currently considering the possibility of moving to more interesting and profitable forms of cooperation, based on the practice of PSA contracts.

Of course, when working in Iran, Gazprom Neft will also have to face “standard” difficulties arising from the economic sanctions in force against this country. This includes the limitation of investments in the energy sector at $20 million per year, and problems due to the embargo on the supply of technological equipment, parts and spare parts. However, the country’s energy market also has serious advantages: low cost of oil production, lack of competition with European and American companies. This opens up good development prospects for Gazprom Neft and the opportunity to seriously strengthen its position in the Middle East.

Handmade carpets differ from each other not only in their ornamentation. One of the important differences is the manufacturing technology, namely, the types of knots that make up any carpet.

There are 4 types of knots in carpet weaving:

• asymmetrical (Persian);
• symmetrical (Turkish);
• jofti (a variety of Persian and Turkish);
• Tibetan.

What is each of them?

Asymmetrical knot

The Persian knot is woven using two warp threads. A loop is created on the first thread of the warp yarn, and under the second vertical string the thread lies freely. After each completed row of knots, one or more weft threads are left.

This type of knot allows you to weave carpets with a high knot density and a fine pattern. This knot is found in handmade carpets from Iran, India, Turkey, China, Egypt, etc.

Symmetrical (Turkish) knot

The symmetrical knot was originally used in Turkish carpets, hence its second name. To create this knot, weavers wrap the yarn around the warp threads in such a way as to create two symmetrical loops, that is, a loop on each string. Rows of symmetrical knots are separated by one or more weft threads.

A symmetrical knot is used in cases where the thickness of the carpet is important. It is found primarily in Turkish carpets, but also in carpets woven in the Caucasus, Turkey, Europe, and in products of Kurdish tribes.

Jofti knot

Jofti (jufti) is a type of symmetrical and asymmetrical knots. The only difference between the jofti knot is that the yarn is tied into a knot not on one, but on two warp threads at once. In symmetrical weaving, two identical loops are created around each pair of warp threads; in the case of asymmetrical weaving, one loop is created.

The advantage of this method of weaving knots is that it saves time. Carpets are woven twice as fast. But by using the Jofti knot, the weaver sacrifices the quality of the carpet and its density. The number of knots is several times less than when using a Turkish or Persian knot. The finished carpet seems slightly “shaggy” and, of course, costs less. The jofti knot is found in carpets from Iran.

Tibetan knot

The Tibetan knot is completely different from other types of knots in its structure and weaving technology. It is performed using an auxiliary tool - a rod. The rod is located perpendicular to the warp threads on the front side of the carpet. To create a knot, a long yarn is wrapped around two warp strands, then around a shank, and so on. When the row is completely completed, the weaver cuts the loops on the rod and begins the next row. Making Tibetan carpets is considered one of the most difficult.

You can see the type of knot by examining the underside of the carpet with a magnifying glass.

Photo source: Carpetencyclopedia.com.

IN last days The most talked about Middle Eastern news was the Syrian issue. The US attempt to pass a resolution on Syria through the UN Security Council, similar to the Libyan one, failed. It was blocked by the Russian Federation and China, which caused extreme dissatisfaction among the Americans. In response, Russian diplomacy made active efforts to prevent a Libyan scenario in Syria.

Iranian Ambassador to the Russian Federation Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi expressed his readiness to support his Syrian brothers and not sit idly by while reactionary circles are plotting around him, including some Arab countries in cahoots with Israel. He also hopes for cooperation with Russia, especially in the military-technical sector. The Russian Federation previously concluded an agreement to supply Iran with S-300 anti-missile systems. But due to sanctions from the Security Council, the UN did not fulfill its obligations, for which it paid a penalty. Although Iran needs weapons, not money, which, by the will of the global ruler, has become the hottest spot in the Middle East.

Iranian knot began to drag on intensively after the United States demanded that Tehran close its nuclear program. But they were refused. “Our program is exclusively peaceful,” Ahmadinejad said. The Americans threatened to tighten sanctions. The European Union, bowing to the will of the United States, promised to stop purchasing Iranian oil from July of this year. Iran, whose budget consists of 80% of oil revenues, responded that it would block and perhaps even mine the Strait of Hormuz. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made it clear that he will not allow navigation on this vital transport artery to be impeded.

In the Arabian Sea, closer to the Hormuz main “neck” 54 kilometers wide and 195 kilometers long, through which 40% of Arab oil for the West passes through, the United States sent an armada of its navy, and is pulling up aircraft carrier groups led by the Carl Vinson. and the USS Enterprise of the US Fifth Fleet. Iran is not silent. It demonstrates its readiness to protect its interests and conducts military exercises. The Iranian Navy includes: 14 diesel submarines, an anti-ship cruise missile, short-range missiles "Nasr" and "Nur", 20 missile boats, radar installations, self-produced complexes "Mersad", two destroyers "Jamaran" - 1, 2, four small frigate and three corvettes. Iran has six naval bases in the Persian Gulf, the most strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz in Bandar Abbas. Iran is conducting its second military exercise to test the combat readiness of its forces. Will they be able to protect the independence of their country?

Or maybe it will still be possible to avoid another military conflict in the Middle East? Is the Iranian nuclear program really that dangerous for the world? It's not about the program, says the architect of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger. Iran upsets the balance in US Middle East policy. The Americans already control seven oil-rich states in the Middle East. Iran will be next, it will become “the last nail in the coffin of China and Russia,” the Regnum agency quotes Kissinger with reference to the Daily Squib. The dissonance in the US leadership in the oil-bearing region was the rejection of the Syrian resolution. Russia, a nuclear power, took a hard line. Will this be a deterrent for Western hawks?

(Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally in Tehran )

The situation is analyzed in an interview with Galina Platova by the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Ivanovich KALASHNIKOV (CPRF):

Should not be given great importance dispute over the Syrian resolution. Its meaning boiled down to criticism of the leadership of Bashar al-Assad. Russia did not agree with the one-sided accusation of the Syrian authorities. The Russian Federation believes that the opposition, which is supported by the United States, is equally responsible for destabilizing the situation in this country. According to objective data, the majority of those killed in Syria are military personnel trying to maintain law and order. They are shot, killed from around the corner.

- The resolution was rejected. What might the West do?

The West will take advantage of the introduction of economic, political, and military sanctions. This happened with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Apparently they want to do the same with Syria. The current discussion on the Syrian resolution, which has not resolved anything, only adds a certain political shade to the position of the Russian leadership. Putin, running for president, wants to look patriotic, to give himself the appearance of a strong-arm politician. But it seems to me that the elections will take place and the Russian Federation will surrender both Syria and Iran.

- Will Iran be able to defend itself?

First of all, we must say that the initiators of the threats are the United States and the West. They want to organize a second Libya in Iran. There were even attempts to introduce the idea of ​​extending humanitarian intervention to other countries through the UN. The US is allegedly concerned about non-proliferation nuclear weapons. But it is not the fate of humanity that worries Americans, but the desire to dictate their will to countries, to punish the disobedient, and so that they cannot fight back. Many countries, from Korea to the Middle East and the African region, have realized that nuclear weapons are becoming a guarantee of security and protection from attack by the United States and NATO.

At one time, Gaddafi was one step away from possessing nuclear technology. They could have been given to him by the famous father of Pakistani nuclear bomb Abdul Kadir Khan. But the Libyan leader refused the offer, succumbing to the friendly rhetoric of the West. Then, of course, he bit his elbows. And we saw how he severely paid for his shortsightedness... He went to the production of nuclear weapons North Korea and protected itself from military intervention. Now the United States is only conducting a dialogue with Pyongyang; in extreme cases, it can apply sanctions.

But Iran has not crossed the technological threshold in the production of defensive weapons. Therefore, there is another game going on around him. The US threatens him with bombing so-called nuclear facilities. Iran is ready to host observers from the IAEA. But he warned: if you dictate terms beyond those accepted in the IAEA system, we, like any sovereign state, will not agree with this. Then the Americans switched from economic sanctions to force. When Israel wanted to strike Iran, the United States harshly reprimanded Netanyahu. And now they themselves do not deny the possibility of such attacks. It's no coincidence that Persian Gulf US naval vessels are assembled. All this suggests that the threat of using force against Iran is growing. And she is very real.

- Why is Iran important for China?

A tenth of Iranian oil supplies come from China. Maintaining these supplies is vital for China. Moreover, the opportunity to receive hydrocarbons from Libya and North Africa was knocked out of him, and the Chinese invested significant funds in its raw materials sector. Without energy resources, China's economy will not be able to develop.

Following Kissinger, Obama announced that the United States intends to extend its military strategy to the Asia-Pacific region. America is no longer in words, but in deeds, interfering in conflicts occurring in the Asia-Pacific region, for example, between China and Taiwan, between China and Vietnam - over the oil-bearing Paracel Islands.

- Why are American military actions against Iran dangerous for Russia?

Iran is the underbelly of Central Asia, and this is the zone of our natural interests. Our diplomats speak rather sheepishly about American expansion. They refer to the assurances of the Americans that they have only temporarily placed their bases there. But the temporary has already become permanent. Moreover, the United States plans to redeploy its military bases towards Asia upon leaving Afghanistan...

A parallel arises: when we were withdrawing our troops from the GDR, we were assured that NATO would not expand to the East. However, we now have military bases around Russia and 17 new NATO members. As we see, words are worthless. And Kissinger is already extremely frank. The planned scenarios, he says, will be implemented, and all of them are aimed at weakening Russia.

One of the scenarios has almost already been realized. During the so-called actions to “democratize” the regimes, the Libyan events, seven states of the Middle East became controlled by America. The turn of Syria and Iran has come. And after that, the United States will remain the only global player in the world and will dictate its will to everyone. To achieve this goal, the Iranian knot is tied.

- Does this mean that Russia can also become a military training ground?

For now, the United States is pursuing the tactics of using “soft power,” that is, surrounding Russia with bases and hotbeds of military conflicts. This tactic brings tangible results. We become accommodating. And then the “partners” will dictate their terms to us.

Our government has a completely unclear position. Or rather, for me it is clear. If representatives of the authorities and their oligarchic entourage keep their capital THERE, then they will always be guided by the interests of their clan and their capital. We are seeing how the authorities of other states are taking drastic measures to stop American power. The Pakistanis, after the Americans allegedly bombed their checkpoint by mistake (there were many casualties there), closed this checkpoint and have not opened it until now. Although this is the main transit route from Afghanistan through Pakistan for the US and NATO.

And in response to the missile defense threat, we cannot afford to withdraw from the START treaty. Our government is afraid to take even one radical step in defense of its state, and not to please its “partners.” If we had not closed the radar station in Lourdes, Cuba, the United States would not have come close to our borders with its missile defense system.

- The ruling elite does not want to risk its interests?

In fact of the matter. Money - THERE, apartments, houses - THERE...

- And in Russia there are still fears that the communist Zyuganov may win the presidential elections...

That's it. After which politics in Russia will be reoriented towards state interests, rather than clan ones. This is well understood in the West as well. They don't need us to have public policy. Therefore, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has no allies there. Western strategists can only support Putin, no matter how much they criticize him.

For the United States, it is extremely important to fragment Russia, plunge it into chaos, into the capitalist mode of production, and prevent the revival of socialist forces. There is another pole: China with its communist party, there are the Vietnamese with their Communist Party who are making impressive progress. It is precisely what the socialist system provides - economic growth, the social orientation of the state - that is a restraining counterweight for the United States and the West.

Our salvation lies in the socialist path of development and in unity with other peoples former USSR. Imagine that Zyuganov won. He says that we have no other path other than the socialist one. We will unite our peoples in a renewed Union and build relationships with other countries, in particular with China, on a friendly basis. Then our enemies will not risk talking to us from a position of strength. This is salvation for Russia.

* * *

Last Saturday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised that this week Iran will tell the world about its great achievements in the field of nuclear development. “Allah willing, in a few days the world will see great achievements in the nuclear field,” said the Iranian President, speaking at a rally of thousands in Tehran on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

In a speech broadcast on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad did not specify the details, but stressed that the country would not stop the uranium enrichment program. According to him, Iran will never bend to the West and will not be afraid of the “language of force and insults.”

Last week, Barack Obama said the United States would work closely with Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The US President is attacking the international order. Does Europe have anything to answer and will it respond?

Already on next week The US will announce new, “incredible sanctions” against Iran. As White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said, these measures are intended to “put maximum pressure on Tehran,” since, from Trump’s point of view, the restrictions introduced before the conclusion of the nuclear deal did not bring a tangible effect.

Although the outlines of future sanctions are already visible, the American administration has not announced their key detail. As a diplomatic source in Brussels explained to RIA Novosti, if Washington uses so-called extraterritorial restrictive measures against Tehran, this will mean that European companies will have to make a choice between exporting to Iran and exporting to the United States. And the European Union will have to make the most difficult decision for it, whether to take retaliatory action against American business if The White house will restrict the rights of Old World producers who continue to work with Tehran. Such a scenario would lead to a full-scale trade war with Washington, which European officials would like to avoid at all costs.

However, even if the sanctions imposed against the Iranians at this stage do not directly threaten European companies, a psychological effect will inevitably take place, which Pascal Delcominet, a representative of the Belgian Walloon export agency, called “the Sword of Damocles for business.” Fear of the various consequences that disobedience to Washington could entail will force most EU manufacturers to curtail cooperation with Tehran, even if formally nothing threatens them today.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif expects to soon hold meetings with colleagues from France and Britain regarding the prospects for the Joint Plan of Action, signed in 2015. Until now, the position of united Europe regarding the nuclear deal with Iran has looked encouraging in words. Almost all influential leaders of the Old World expressed regret over Washington’s withdrawal from the agreement and announced their readiness to continue to comply with its terms. However, such promises do not provide Tehran with absolute guarantees that it will be able to continue to benefit from the economic benefits it received by freezing its uranium enrichment program. In addition, having made such promises in words, the leadership of the European Union is not able to influence the policy of private business if it withdraws from joint projects with Iran in order to maintain partnerships with the United States.

Agence France-Presse reported that the leaders of France and Iran had agreed to urgently set up “working groups” to provide assurances that European companies would continue to work with Iran. But these framework plans, agreed upon in a telephone conversation at the highest level, in practice do not mean that such guarantees will be prepared and, most importantly, implemented. The position of the Elysee Palace, as well as other European signatories of the 2015 Iran Agreement, appears ambivalent. On the one hand, the countries of the Old World do not want the collapse of the Joint Action Plan with Tehran. On the other hand, the same French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly stated the need to improve the previously concluded agreement so that it covers “Iran’s missile activities in the region.” It can be assumed that European leaders will link the economic guarantees that Iranian leaders insist on to the “broader framework of the nuclear agreement.” But it is also obvious that official Tehran will not take this step - President Hassan Rouhani is already harshly criticized within the country for making too many concessions to the West. As General Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said on Thursday, for Iran “not diplomacy, but resistance is the only way to counter enemies.” So the Joint Action Plan of 2015 after the US withdrawal from the treaty looks doomed to gradual oblivion with all the ensuing consequences.

“The United States’ European allies will accept that their efforts to preserve the Iran deal will come to nothing,” Robert Joseph, former US Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control, told The Washington Times. It seems that most media in the Old World do not believe that the agreement with Tehran, despite all the encouraging words said on this matter at the highest European level, will be preserved. As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung cynically wrote, “the deal with Iran will not cost a penny,” no matter how much the Europeans try to continue to hold on to the agreement. But the consequences for the world order caused by Trump’s decision to terminate the treaty look, from the point of view of the European press, catastrophic.

The French Le Monde gives at least three explanations for this. First, the actions of the White House could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a particularly explosive zone of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia already announced its desire to acquire a “non-peaceful atom” on Thursday. Secondly, Trump has pulverized the basic principle international law, which goes like this: “Treaties must be respected.” And finally, thirdly, with his unilateral decisions, contrary to the opinions of his allies, Trump called into question the existence of the transatlantic community.

Most Western commentators are convinced that the collapse of the agreement will return Iran to its previous plans to enrich uranium. In this regard, the explanation of the reasons why the White House withdrew from the nuclear deal given by Trump's national security adviser John Bolton looks very interesting. He, in an article published by The Washington Post, argued: “The US President studied the Iran deal for more than a year and, having concluded that it undermined the security of the American people, ended US participation in it.” Bolton did not even mention the security of the European people, who view the agreement with Iran differently than the White House...