domingo, 9 de junho de 2019

The Warlike Adventures of the Bubble Gum Empire


The greed of multinationals always finds support in US governments and their propensity for war. Today in Venezuela, yesterday in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...

The latest US military interventions abroad, in the last decades, are almost always associated with fossil fuels. This is certainly not a coincidence. 

The list of US interventions and wars within the American continent is quite long, from the wars against Mexico and the absorption of Texas in the nineteenth century, and the many coups d’état, especially through military enticed or bribed for this purpose, under the scope of the Monroe doctrine according to which America belongs to the Americans... although there are some who self-ascribe the right to intervene and decide what is convenient for others: and in addition to, of course, the crushing of the Indian nations, whose members were only formally no longer considered foreigners (!) in the twentieth century

2019 - Venezuela, an appetizing lode 

Regarding the current situation in Venezuela, Trump's animosity is clearly related to oil:

·        The Orinoco oil basin covers an area of ​​600x70 km in the middle course of the river closest to its mouth.

·        In 2009 the USGS – US Geological Service estimated the reserves of the Orinoco basin at 1 400 000 000 000 barrels, against the 1 300 000 000 000 calculated by PDVSA (the Venezuelan state oil company); and at a depth between 150 and 1500 metres.

·        The same North American source estimates between 380/652 000 000 000 barrels the technically recoverable portion in the Orinoco, which places it as one of the main sources of recoverable oil in the world. This is without considering the use of the SAGT (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) technology, as we will see next.

·        Taking into account SAGT and other very dense oil extraction technologies would raise that estimate to 70% of the calculated reserves; that is, to 980 000 000 000 barrels. However, these calculations do not contemplate the use of new technologies such as DHSG (Downhole Steam Generation) – which require huge energy expenditure with nuclear reactors producing smoke at a temperature of  900o; or the Solvent Assisted SAGD which consists in the injection of vapour impregnated with chemical compounds.

·        Assuming a global consumption stabilized around 35 000 000 000 barrels per year, the Orinoco could meet the current world’s needs for about 30 years. Considering the current (relatively low) price of $ 55 / barrel, the revenues of those who exploit the lode can be valued at $ 1 925 000 000 000 per year... roughly eight times the Portuguese public debt...

·        Alberta’s bituminous sands, in Canada, have long been considered an oil reserve to be used where other sources with easier extraction would become either reduced, or insufficient or inaccessible for political reasons. SAGT technology is used to extract 80% of the Alberta production (2.7 M barrels per day).

·        The oil extracted in Alberta is only feasible at market prices in excess of $ 35 / barrel, but it must be taken into account that its oil basin is smaller than that of the Orinoco; that Venezuelan oil is not as heavy as the Canadian one; that the Venezuelan climate is warmer; and that the coast, for export purposes, is close, unlike what happens in Alberta.

Thus, with the importance of Venezuelan oil to the global economy summarily described, the table below shows, on the one hand, the bitter struggle between the US and its European subalterns; and, on the other hand, China and the other countries of the SCO – Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The Euro-Americans are in strategic decline and the latter are in ascension and challenging an US accustomed, since about a century ago, to a situation of hegemonic power; and which, in desperation, makes Trump to enact sanctions against Russia, China, Iran and to promote a business boycott with Venezuela.

                            Oil – In % of world total                                       2017

Reserves
Production
Consumption
USA
2.9
14.1
20.2
Venezuela
17.9
2,3
0.5
Canada
10.0
5.2
2.5
United Arab Emirates
5.8
4.2
1.0
Saudi Arabia
15.7
12.9
4.0
Iran
9.3
5.4
1.8
Iraq
8.8
4.9
0.8
Kuwait
6.0
3.3
0.5
Russia
6.3
12.2
3.3
China
1.5
4.2
13.0
Europe
0.8
3.8
15.3
                                                      Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy

In this context of major imbalances between the location of reserves and their consumption, it is possible to understand the reasons for the inclusion of Central Asia in the Sino-Russian universe, US support for the Gulf monarchies, an essential supply region for India, China, Japan, and South Korea, duly overseen by the US military establishment. As well as the ostracism and the animosity of the United States for not being able to take possession over Iran’s great oil reserves can be understood; and, of course, US’s preference for getting supplies from the west coast of Africa, and especially from Venezuela, closer to the US than the Gulf and Russia or Central Asia’s oil fields, linked to Europe by oil pipelines. Recall NATO's uneasiness about the submarine conduct in the Baltic, connecting Russia to Germany, aiming to bypass Poland, with its close ties to the USA and bad memories about Germany and Russia. 

In a context of a great struggle for fossil fuel reserves, and taking into account Venezuela’s energy potential, the Brazilian reserves (0.8% of the world total) appear to be negligible; but not as much as the supply of energy to a country with more than 200 M people, headed by a former thuggish soldier and the financier Paulo Guedes, willing to privatize Petrobras and sell the Pre-Sal. 

Thus, difficulties are piling up in Venezuela, created by the United States, anxious for a change of regime that favors the acquisition of that country’s energy reserves by the multinationals, in addition to the inability of Maduro and the shouts of that Guaidó person who has already demonstrated — by defending a US military intervention in his country — his role as a Trump puppet. This Guaidó role has already been denounced, even by Henrique Capriles, a historical adversary of Chavez and, later, Maduro.

In the absence of any predictable hostile UN attitude toward Venezuela, including embargoes, it is the United States that takes the lead, following a long-standing hostility, coming from Chavez's time; but that has not prevented the US from being the main destination for Venezuelan exports (41% of the total, essentially oil, crude or refined) or Venezuela's largest external supplier (38% of the total in 2017). What will not give the US any comfort is to see that China is now absorbing 23% of Venezuelan exports, since 2017, compared to 11% in 2010, when China's foreign trade role in Venezuela began; on the other hand, China filled 18% of Venezuelan imports in 2017 (3.6% in 2005) and made substantial loans to the South American country. This rapid rise in Sino-Venezuelan trade relations — squarely in the middle of Uncle Sam's "backyard" — does not please the US establishment at all. 

EU’s subordinate position or, rather, that from less than half of its members[1] is completely misplaced. In 2017, the main European exporter to Venezuela was Spain, with 2.1% of the total imports by that country and also as a destination of 1.4% of Venezuelan exports to Europe. This means that, from a commercial point of view, Venezuela is irrelevant to the EU, even in terms of oil supply. So there does not seem to be any great reason for a European platoon to stand to attention before Trump; it would have been more intelligent to support the efforts of the United Nations, Mexico, and Uruguay to seek peaceful solutions without taking sides in internal differences, as is the norm for relations between states. Or, to observe the support of the African Union to the Venezuelan government, while distancing itself from the North American aggressiveness.

Any idea, by the EU side, about defending​​ democracy in Venezuela or anywhere else is ridiculous. Firstly because, increasingly, in Europe, national regimes and global institutions are closed, reactionary, oligarchic, in an osmotic relationship with xenophobic and nationalist political forces; then, because if democracy is (still) a value in Europe, it turns a blind eye to the regimes of the Gulf monarchies, as in the case of the war of Saudi Arabia and its peers in Yemen; a Europe that regards as respectable the racist and genocidal Zionist regime, while seemingly having forgotten the agreements for the creation of a Palestinian state, even in such a  backwards form that admits something as aberrant as the Zionist entity. 

In following the US warlike objectives in Venezuela, the former’s supporters endanger the numerous communities of Europeans (mainly Portuguese, Spanish and Italian) and their descendants; they open the way to risky situations such as life-threatening ones or the loss of assets, as well as of disorderly flight to neighboring countries or in the form of aerial bridges.

Other US interventions worldwide (in chronological order)

a)      1980 - Saddam receives power of attorney to attack Iran

Banned from Iran after the fall of their beloved Reza Palehvi, the US encouraged Saddam's Iraq to invade that country and seize the Iranian Kuzistan’s reserves, as a reward for the overthrow or domestication of the new Iranian regime. Saddam failed that objective and, in order to recover the costs of several years of war (1980/1988), in an emergency situation, he invaded Kuwait, also rich in oil, in order to seize the emir's safe box; 

                                               Teheran, the tribute to the war dead

b)      1991 - The First Gulf War

Faced with such a huge policy miscalculation – the United States is a staunch supporter of the status quo in the Gulf – Iraq was forced, at gun point, to leave Kuwait in 1991 by the Bush-father troops and its many supporters; and to concede the sovereignty over the southern part of the country and Kurdistan... by coincidence the areas where the oil fields are. The United States did not overthrow Saddam; they just dedicated themselves to control his armament, by organizing a criminal embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially children.

c)      2001 - September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan

In the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, the Trump of that time, who was called George W. Bush, decided to look in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda's head (bin Laden) and his host, mullah Omar[2] the top leader of the Taliban, who had come to power. This mountainous country is populated by several tribes of hardy shepherds, little given to the acceptance of invaders, as the English in the nineteenth century and the Soviets in the late 1980s were able to verify. And it does not appear that US-led coalitions have had better luck, even after training an Afghan national army. 

However, the US, major promoters of entrepreneurship and value creation, has taken over the trafficking of heroin whose production has been centered in Afghanistan, in order to offset the expense. 

From the political point of view of a major power, the invasion of Afghanistan – a country without oil resources – was part of the "war against terror" decreed by G.W. Bush, humiliated by the US vulnerability to a suicide action well set up by al-Qaeda. Retaliation was needed to cover up the enormous failures of American security and to elevate the pride and morale of the Empire. And the target looked easy – one of the poorest countries in Asia, run by a strict Sunni group – the Taliban, the "students of theology." Today, 18 years after the invasion, the Taliban dominate much of the country, the Kabul government and the US embassy are stationed in a heavily guarded area of ​​the capital and cannot avoid the frequent and bloody attacks perpetrated by the insurgents. However, Trump-the-rough, at the beginning of his term, ordered "the mother of all bombs" to be tested in Afghanistan, in an area emptied of population for that purpose, and which... may have given a lift to the Taliban ... with the spectacle that can be seen above; meanwhile, Trump changed his mind and declared a total withdrawal

From a strategic point of view the US sought to fulfill several objectives. First, to establish a platform to control or condition the oil-rich Central Asian ex-Soviet republics (Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan); secondly, to positioned themselves in the "back" of Russia and China (to be destabilized, if convenient, having even had a military base in Kyrgyzstan, distant 40 km from another, Russian); and also because it would serve as a base for encircling Iran[3], use the Pakistani generals and, ultimately, to be a land reinforcement for the many military bases and fleets that the United States permanently maintain in the Gulf, in Turkey, in the Indian Ocean, and in the China seas. 

The US military presence in Afghanistan is ineffective at various levels. Firstly because the Kabul government depends on US support and it is not difficult to see that the Taliban, or a coalition with its presence, will once again dominate the country. Foreign capital invested in the country is Chinese and Indian, with a direct road link between China and Afghanistan being planned shortly, through the Wakhan corridor. 

d)      2001 – The establishment in Eurasia of a political, economic and military bloc

The US intervention in Afghanistan accelerated economic integration and political cooperation in Asia, which led to the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001, with subsequent enlargements, and to which China, Russia, India and Pakistan belong, among others. This integration favors the development of the roads, known as "One Road and One Belt Initiative" (or Silk Road) which also involve European capitals (including Portugal); but with the blatant absence of the US... as is understandable.
The Silk Road, in its several maritime and railroad incarnations, tends to integrate not only Eurasia but also Africa, reducing the United States’ scope for maneuver, who, faithful to the doctrine of Mackinder, Alfred Mahan or Saul Cohen, bet on a " sanitary cordon" of sea and air bases, and war fleets, in a domination strategy inherited from the British empire, capable of maintaining the "colonial order" in politically and economically dominated and unstructured areas; those, today are not, at all, the characteristics of the Asian countries. Europe, mainly the Eastern Europe for which the transactions with China have, already since some years, exceed those with the United States, become associated with that major project. Reticence comes from the European countries facing the Atlantic, more faithful followers of NATO, such as Norway, Great Britain, Holland, and... Portugal (on geopolitics involving see).



e)      2003 - The invasion of Iraq 

The invasion, occupation and dismemberment of Iraq in 2003 takes place under the auspices of a nebulous thing called the "international community" which, by chance, always happens to have an opinion, on any subject, coinciding with that of the United States... Of course the world was trembling before the threat of the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam presumably had, and even the children would quickly eat their soup when their parents spoke of those weapons... The following year, however, the Duelfer Report of the Iraq Research Group demonstrated that such weapons did not exist... although Bush had shown to Blair, Aznar and Durão[4] unmistakable proofs of their existence! Their non-existence, the war and the occupation should have make that quartet the culprit in process of crimes against humanity and the object of a trial, as happened to the Serbian generals, to Milosevich (who, meanwhile, died) and Karadjic, with few sympathies in the USA. The said quartet is still responsible for civilian casualties of 183000 to 205000 , in a latest poll dated last January. 

In the occupation of Iraq, the brilliance of the US-appointed proconsul Bremer shone early on, and it was probably only when he boarded the plane to Baghdad that he saw on the map where that place was. He must have been very surprised when he discovered that the Sunni minority reigning with Saddam, once overthrown, opened space for a Shiite majority power and a path to revenge and violence between the two communities; this without mentioning the Kurds that, although being Sunnis, played on their own lane. In his stupidity, Bremer dismantled the Baath party, where state power was anchored, and the (Sunni-based) Iraqi army, sending into unemployment about 800,000 soldiers which were unable to get work. In a chaotic country, where weapons were widespread everywhere, with so many military unemployed and with a legitimate popular repudiation of the invaders, jihadism and a space for al-Qaeda and the emergence of Daesh develops. 

f)       2011/2019 – Syria

Syrian demonstrations against the Assad regime took place within the scope of the so-called Arab Spring. Between the violence of the government and that of the armed groups that arose simultaneously, a violent war with a great degree of destruction and populations in flight quickly developed. Alongside Assad and the Syrian armed forces took place, mainly, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran and Russia, with armament support from China, Iraq or North Korea. On the opposite side were the western powers, Turkey, Saudi Arabia (arms supplier), Qatar (the arms purchase financer), the Syrian Free Army, which was composed of opponents to the regime and army deserters, and Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, or Jaysh al Islam (Salafists), Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda), and ISIS or Daesh. Outside this essentially confessional framework are the Syrian Democratic Forces, militias of various ethnic or religious backgrounds, with particular emphasis for the Syrian Kurds who formed democratic and secular structures of self-government, popularized by the name of Rojava. 

The en force entry into Syria of the Daesh (2014), with enormous brutality and immense religious fanaticism, followed its conquests in Iraq, mainly Mosul, where they took possession of a lot of armament; recall the support that Daesh had obtained from former soldiers of Saddam's army. In this context, in the course of 2015, the US, other Western and Arab countries were involved in bombing in Syria, attacking the Daesh, supporting other Assad opposition groups, without ever supporting the latter, obviously. 

At the end of 2015 occurs the arrival of the Russian aviation in support of Assad, against Daesh and the other rebel groups, in a concerted action with Hezbollah and (not formally) with Iran. In February 2016 a cease-fire agreement, Russian - American, that began to collaborate in the fight against the Daesh. Shortly afterwards, Turkey entered the camp against Daesh (from which it had discreetly bought Syrian oil some months earlier) and the Kurdish militias of Rojava or Iraqui, in order to avoid a "secessionist contagion" of their large Kurdish minority. 

The war in Syria had strategic importance for the two camps fighting against the Daesh and even before the Daesh’s eruption. The seizure of power in Iraq by the Shiite majority, subsequent to the 2003 US invasion, opened up the country’s close relationship with Iran, something that may have surprised the US narrow view at the time of the Iraq’s invasion. On the other hand, Syria, with Assad and the Alawite community in power, would allow Iran a fluid connection with the Mediterranean, through Hezbollah, the main force in Lebanon, also Shiite. This reality that came to be established, created a "Shi'ite bow" from the eastern border of Iran, with Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Lebanese and Syrian ports[5] in the Mediterranean; one which would come to prevent the flow of oil by land between the Gulf monarchies and the Syrian-Lebanese coast, shortening the sales costs to Europe. This situation is also very unfavorable to the Zionist entity that sees in Iran its main rival, its relationship with Turkey also having deteriorated since the episode of the Mavi Marmara in 2010. 

The new geopolitical situation that isolated the Sunni monarchies led them to become involved in the civil war in Yemen in 2016, which developed following the popular movements of 2011. 

The reasons for this are several. One is of confessional character, as in 2015 the Houthis (Shiite) with Sunni allies took Sanaa, the capital, startling Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirs that saw in that move an influence of Iran in the strategic Bab el Mandeb. As this strait is vital for the global maritime traffic, the monarchies, with logistical and information support provided by the US, Britain and France, decided to invade Yemen still in 2015. 

What seemed easy became difficult. After four years and much destruction, the Arab monarchies failed to dominate their opponents and the war is chipping away at their finances; to Trump’s great satisfaction who, in 2018, met with Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) to close a fabulous arms sales contract. 

In parallel, in June 2017, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies and Egypt decided to block their economic and diplomatic relations with Qatar, on charges of it supporting terrorism, having good relations with Iran (since a long time, for historic reasons) as well as demanding the shutdown of the al-Jazeera station and threatening to build a moat that would make Qatar an island!
 
g)      2011 - The Arabian springs - Egypt

Egypt is the most populous Arab country and home to the Suez Canal, a vital route for maritime traffic between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, between Asia or East Africa and Europe and North Africa. Egypt was invaded by Napoleon who, from there, intended to attack India where the English dominated. French, Egyptian, and English later dominated the canal's exploration until, in 1956, Nasser nationalized it; France, Britain and the Zionist entity have tried to reverse the situation by the use of arms, but with the intervention of the UN they have been forced to give in. 

After the Six Day War, in 1967, the canal was closed after the occupation of its eastern shore by the Zionists. In 1973, in a new war, Egypt expelled the Zionists from the Sinai and recovered the canal which was reopened in 1975, causing, during its closure and after reopening, profound changes in industry and maritime trade. 

Sadat, Nasser's successor was assassinated in 1981, following a peace agreement signed between Egypt and the Zionist entity in 1978, sponsored by Carter, then US president; and which had the opposition of almost the entire Arab world. He was succeeded by another soldier, Mubarak, who during his long consulate received strong US military and financial support to ensure the security of the Suez and the border with the Zionist entity as far as the Palestinians were concerned. 

Mubarak, accused of corruption and murder during demonstrations in Tahrir Square in 2011, has been driven from power. Still in jail, in 2014 he expressed his support for al-Sissi to succeed him; which, in fact, came to happen after a brief period in which the presidency fell on Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood who had won the 2012 elections, in the sequence of electoral gains he had been accumulating since 2005. 

With al-Sissi, the US has become more tranquil about Egypt, as the Muslim Brotherhood is clearly the adversary of the Zionist entity and supporter of Palestinian Hamas. Hilary Clinton's reiterated support for the democratization of Egypt was greatly diminished when al-Sissi consolidated his power after the deposition of Morsi, thus ensuring Egypt's continuity as a US pawn in the region and benefiting from strong military and financial support. And so Trump has recently advanced with the symbolic gesture of recognizing Jerusalem as the Zionist capital, without great manifestations of dislike by the Arab states.

h)      2011 - The Arabian springs - Bahrain

In Bahrain, in 2011, the population demonstrated against the monarchy anchored in the al-Khalifa family and for democracy, for a parliamentary regime, in a struggle that lasted until the middle of 2012. The intervention of the military from the Gulf Cooperation Council, mostly Saudis, represented the emirs' solidarity with the Bahrain colleague; add to that a situation where the population is largely Shiite and without a big love for the reigning family, that is Sunni.

The United States, which have in Bahrain 1500 military personnel at its V Fleet naval base[6], which function is to control the traffic in the Gulf and participate in the siege curtain on Iran, could not allow instability to settle in there. However, they were able to promote the war in Libya at that time and criticize the brutality of Assad's repression in Syria, in face of an armed opposition. Two weights, two measures

i)       2011 - The Arabian springs - Tunisia

At the beginning of 2011, the Tunisians revolted following the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi and in protest against the crushing of the poor by the corrupt regime of Ben Ali and his family, supported by the police and the military, hated by the population that suffered its extortion and brutal behavior. Ben Ali fled to a safe location – Saudi Arabia – and the situation evolved into a typical market democracy. In this case, the US certainly followed the events but did not intervene; probably because... Tunisia is not an oil power

j)       2011 – The invasion of Libya

In 2012 Libya held the second place among African countries in the human development index (HDI), the tenth place in terms of oil reserves, and as in 2010 it had only 6.2 million people it became a desirable lode; furthermore, when a character such as Gaddafi had been more than 40 years in power, majestic and authoritative; but someone who knew how to enlist Western leaders, such as Sarkozy or Cameron. The latter had the misfortune to be confronted with the intervention of the US and his courtiers in Libya, which made unfeasible a large sale of English armament. 

In February  of 2011, the echoes of Tahrir and Tunis are felt in Libya and are seized by two jihadi-inspired parties –  Al-Watan (near to al-Qaeda) and Umma al-Wasat, as well as the Salafist al-Asala, among others; a National Transitional Council was formed which had its first external supporter in France. The insurgents are forced to retreat to Benghazi which is surrounded by Gaddafi's troops; and as the UN approves, in March, the establishment of a no-fly zone to protect civilians, the US and France begin the bombing. 

NATO’s support was instrumental in supporting rebels who arrive in Tripoli by August and, after Gadhafi's death, killed after being sexually abused, is followed by a long period of war, that is still going on, between rival factions. In the aftermath of the external aggression, oil and gas production was appropriated by multinationals such as Total (France), ENI (Italy), Repsol (Spain), Wintershall (Germany) and Occidental (USA), amongst others.

Following NATO's intervention, armed rivalries in Libya, with antagonistic local powers, continue today. Moreover, following the collapse of political unity in Libya, much weaponry was taken to the south, where the Tuareg populations live, as in Chad, Niger and Mali, which are not much sensitive to national borders. This gave rise to a vast area where Libyan weapons supply regional guerrilla movements.

The amazing performance of Minister Santos Silva 

The Portuguese government's prompt subservience to Trump is, by all accounts, stupid. Or, if you prefer, it reveals a parochial subservience within the European, NATO, Iberian and even the CPLP (The Community of Portuguese Language Countries) contexts.
 
·      Given that most EU countries did not stand side by side with Trump in recognizing a more than doubtful legitimacy of Guaidó, the Portuguese government was not obliged to do so.

·      Portugal has some hundreds of thousands of Portuguese people and their descendants in Venezuela and any worsening of the situation in that country – especially if accentuated by the government in Lisbon – is a huge irresponsibility. Is the minister's memory void of the reminiscence of the arrival of many thousands of returnees from the former colonies?

·      After the illegitimate and stupid intervention in Venezuela's internal affairs, with an even more disagreeable acceptance of Guaidó, who, in reality, only has the political notoriety created by Trump, Santos Silva sends eight policemen and armament to Venezuela, knowing that the legitimate and real power belongs to an entity he does not recognize. Hence, it occurs the immediate dispatch to origin of the Portuguese policemen and weapons. With such stupidity, Santos Silva should be demoted to a position of clerk in the Portuguese consulate in Punta Arenas.

This and other texts at:
http://grazia-tanta.blogspot.com/                              
http://www.slideshare.net/durgarrai/documents


[1] EU countries that did not interfere in Venezuela's internal affairs: Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Cyprus, Malta.
EU countries supporting Trump: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Spain.
[2] Bin Laden was shot down by US Special Forces in Pakistan, in 2011, and his body was laid to the sea in the Indian Ocean. The mullah Omar, died of tuberculosis in 2013, although his death was only revealed two years later.
[3]  The US quickly emplaced in Shindand, 100 km from the Iranian border, the largest military base in Afghanistan; despite the major logistical center being in Bagram, to the north.
[4] Durão Barroso, Portugal’s Prime Minister at the epoch. (TN)
[5]  These are the countries where the Russian military bases of Latakya (air force) and Tartus (navy) are located.
[6] In addition to Bahrain and to police the Persian Gulf, which is vital for supplies, especially in Asia and Iran to which the right bank belongs, the United States had a military apparatus composed of 32 bases in the Gulf region, where Seeb, Thumrait and Masirah in Oman, Al-Ubeid in Qatar, and Camp Arifjan or Camp Doha in Kuwait, stand out. Between 1991 and 2003, the United States had 5000 to 10000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia, which were withdrawn because the Saudis did not like to have foreign troops in the country where such holy places of Islam as Mecca and Medina, are located. This does not prevent them from quietly supporting the Saudi government in the Yemen war.