Having shipped about 1.5 million barrels of gasoline to Venezuela last month, Iran reportedly plans to keep its trailblazing shipment of fuel to the sanctions-hit country with regular gasoline sales despite US threats to punish any facilitation of the cargoes.
Oil industry data provider TankerTrackers.com says an Iranian-flagged cargo ship is currently making its way toward Venezuela to help the fuel-starved country restart its mostly idled 1.3 million bpd refining network.
Moreover, Mixico has followed Iran's track expressing readiness to supply Venezuela with fuel upon demand.
Such bold moves against US’ unipolar policies, along with some other countries’ – including allies – being fed up with Washington's interference in the international order, could signal the acceleration of a move away from its longstanding hegemony.
To shed light on the matter, we have reached out to Bangkok- based geopolitical researcher Anthony Cartalucci.
Here is the full text of his interview:
What message can such moves against the US' hawkishness send to the world in this critical era and amid Washington's interference in world energy affairs?
The US is essentially a modern-day empire built on controlling money, military might, and resources around the globe. Any effort at all to undermine this unwarranted extraterritorial influence sends the message that the world prefers multipolar predicated on national sovereignty rather than America's "international order" and how it feels all nations should fit in underneath it.
There is also a factor of growing cooperation between nations against American interference, even by nations previously subservient to US demands. This sends a message that times are changing and that if the US wants to remain relevant it needs to change with them.
Can Iran's — and subsequently Mexico's — move along with some European countries' willingness for independence to initiate what it takes to disarm the US of its sanctions weapon in the long run? especially after France's recent call on Europe to reduce dependence on US and China, and Germany's criticism over Washington's Nord Stream 2 ban?
Iran, Mexico, and Germany are all engaged in efforts to stake out independence from US interference. It is another step in a continuous and long process of rolling back US hegemony and replacing it with a system based on mutual benefit amid a more equitable balance of power.
France calling for less dependence on both the US and China is also part of creating a better balance of global power. When nations are more evenly matched, they are less likely to fall prey to hegemonic policies like those practiced for half a century by Washington. It is important that as America declines, it isn't simply replaced by another abusive hegemon. The balance of power between nations is key.
Since Iran and Venezuela are not under international sanctions and regarding Tehran's previous response to US' military actions, is there any possibility for any hostile move by Washington?
Nothing can or should be ruled out when discussing Washington's regular use of violence against targeted nations. It's likely that daily conversations take place in Washington regarding the use of force against nations like Venezuela and Iran - and even against nations like Russia and China. As each day, month, and a year goes by, the US finds itself in a weaker position than before regarding its ability to use violence in order to maintain global hegemony.
The window is always closing and there is always the possibility that desperation will get the upper hand in US decision-making. However, the US must balance the small prospect and profit of success versus the immense costs of failure. Were the US to succeed in using military force against Iran or Venezuela in this case, it would simply be an immense empire bullying smaller nations to achieve a small victory. If it failed however - it would be an immense empire being defeated by smaller nations and cementing in the minds of many that America is in terminal decline.
What repercussions can the potential move bring on for the US?
The US is being backed into several corners all at once. Iran and Venezuela are challenging US regime change attempts against both nations as well as the clout of US sanctions against both nations. The US also faces similar problems in Europe where even its own "allies" are no longer cooperating, especially in regards to Nord Stream 2. And of course, China continues to displace US influence in the Asia Pacific in ways the US can no longer respond to.
It is important for nations like Iran, Venezuela, or even Russia and China for that matter to continue moving forward, showing the world that there are alternatives to American hegemony and that these alternatives are better for everyone from big businesses and governments to ordinary people around the globe. As long as this continues, US attempts to reverse it through belligerence will only work in multipolarism's favor - proving America's "order" is not only obsolete but a danger to global peace and prosperity.
How can the recent developments disrupt the US struggles for dominating world energy?
The US has attempted to dominate energy by promoting its "shale oil" industry. However, this form of energy is more expensive to extract, and then more expensive to export than other existing forms of hydrocarbons like Russian natural gas.
In order for US shale to be competitive, the US - instead of turning to innovation - has instead sabotaged global energy markets through sanctions, engineered conflicts like in Ukraine where Russian gas had transited, regime-change operations, and other forms of highly disruptive behavior in the hopes that - globally - prices would be so high that finally, US shale's high price would be competitive.
Of course, this is not sustainable even if it were successful and despite the vast resources committed to this campaign, it has fallen short of its desired outcome. Worse still for the US is that nations are finding ways around these disruptions by creating permanent solutions that will make this trick impossible to duplicate in the future. Thus not only does this essentially end America's desire to dominate world energy, but it is also another setback for the concept of American hegemony in general.
Interview by: Payman Yazdani & Morteza Rahmani