Yuri Kramar exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
The terrorist attack in Boston will be in the focus of the international public agenda for a long time. Even though the number of the dead is relatively small, 3 people, but there are hundreds of injured people. Boston is the 21st most populous city in the USA; an emergency regime was launched there; however, even after its cancelation neither Boston residents nor other citizens of the USA can feel safe. The incident confirmed that special services cannot guarantee protection of common Americans.
Committers of the scandalous crime are thought to be ethnic Chechens Tsarnayev brothers. Separate observers try to prove that difference between residents of Kaluga and Chechnya is equal to difference between residents of California and Florida. They state Chechens are Russians for Americans, so Russia has to be responsible for the whole incident. It doesn’t mean some legal accusations, but slighting sympathy by Americans – Moscow cannot put everything in order in its country, and the problems spread all over the world.
However, the West knows perfectly the difference. The Western media dinned in its audience’s ears about “fighters for freedom” who couldn’t get independence from the mean imperial Krmelin. Now the same media focuses on the nationality of Boston terrorists, remembering the proverb on “cherishing a viper in bosom.”
It is not the first time “the fortress of democracy” faces such a situation. Washington supported Taliban militants during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, but they “thanked” their sponsors with the famous terrorist attack in New York on September, 11. There are other parallels to the tragedy of 2001. For example, the FBI didn’t pay attention to the warning from the Russian colleagues that the elder brother-terrorist could become a member of a gang after his trip to Dagestan in 2012.
Nevertheless, America got a big slap, and it demands an adequate tough response. After the terrorist attack in New York, the US responded by supporting the anti-Taliban coalition, launching troops to Afghanistan, and instant attacking Iraq. However, the current president Obama also has merits in this struggle, but his success fades away in comparison to achievements of his predecessor. And this difference will definitely influence prospects of holding the White House by Democrats.
In this context the Boston terrorist attack looks more beneficial for Washington than the New York attack. It gives an opportunity to choose further steps for a long-prospect. For example, it doesn’t demand immediate launching of a George-Bush-style wide-scale military operation. Chechnya is not Afghanistan; it is a Russian region, the USA cannot attack it.
Logic suggests that the USA should support efforts of the official Russian authorities and Chechnya on fighting against terrorists and their supporters. However, the Western mass media continues to call criminals “partisans” and “freedom fighters.” At the same time, impossibility of a direct military operation against Islamic radicals in the North Caucasus doesn’t mean that Washington cannot benefit from this. The USA, for example, can boost their military presence in the Caucasus countries, justifying this by improvement of struggling against terrorism. They can even organize military bases there.
However, the reason for theoretical improvement of American military presence will be not prevention of spreading Chechen terrorism, but Iran – ahead of a possible military operation against Iran because of its rejection canceling nuclear armament plans.
Boston terrorist attack can be a platform for a serious bargain between Washington and Moscow on changing Russia’s policy toward Iran. The Kremlin might be promised the ideological support in its activities in the North Caucasus and elimination of anti-Russian propaganda from the Western media; the support by American special services; economic sanctions against organizational structures of “freedom fighters”, which are situated in the West; changing of the migration policy, and so on.
For this Washington will demand a neutral position in case of a war against Iran from Moscow. The choice of this or that option will depend on results of unofficial talks with Moscow. We will soon find out prospects of influence on the American policy by the Boston blast.
