'On Russia, his remarks were especially welcome after the hysteria of many European politicians and pundits who talk of a new cold war and warn of Russian "energy blackmail". By contrast, Biden deplored the "dangerous drift" in east-west relations in recent years. Going on to repudiate "the zero sum mentality", he threw out the central calculus of the old struggle between Russia and the west – the notion of implacable enemies with no common interests.
He said "Russia's strength" did not mean "Nato's weakness". Although he also said no country could have a sphere of influence, his calm and unworried reference to a strong Russia was the more significant point at a time when some see a threat in the fact that Russia has regained its confidence after the shock of losing its empire almost overnight and the economic chaos of the 1990s'.
Yet the idea that the offer of a new new diplomatic reapprochementwith Russia is somehow disconnected with Iran is misleading. Steele writes,
'Where Saturday's speech and, by implication, the current state of thinking within the new administration are disappointing is on the Middle East and Iran......It is one thing to criticise Tehran's "illicit nuclear programme". But to condemn Iran's "support for terrorism" is a false mantra from the Bush years. If Biden means Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, he is out of sync with the views of most Arabs, let alone Iranians, who see them as legitimate resistance organisations'.
Remember that Biden said in Munich,
"We will continue to develop missile defences to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective."
That is not really a departure from the Bush administration, though it might be bluff as the real aim of the Obama presidency in foreign policy is to control Iran on the pretext that it might be developing nuclear weapons.
The reason for insisting the missile shield programme will continue is to increase pressure upon Iran and Russia for the aim of Obama's diplomacy is to drive a wedge between Iran and other major regional powers.
Namely Russia and China, as Iran is according to Obama's 'brain' Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the 'five geopolitical pivots' essential for the USA to control if it is to control Eurasia, the World Island', and hence the globe.
Brzezinski outlined all this back in 1997 in his The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitics Imperatives. That is to prevent collusion between Iran, Russia and China.
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
Whilst the diplomacy of Obama and Biden is intended to reduce tensions with Russia in the short term, the ultimate aim is still the same as under the previous Democratic administration of Bill Clinton.
The key difference is the way that the USA's inexorable destiny as global hegemon is to be brought about. The goal is, after all, substantial control over Central Asia, especially in the post-Soviet republics or 'the stans'.
For Brezinski invading Iraq in 2003 was a catastrophic mistake as it is Iran that should have been first on the diplomatic agenda. Invading Iraq has only emboldened Iran which is why its now on the list of global terrorists.
"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold."
By controlling or 'containing Iran', the projection of NATO power into Eurasia can proceed, Russia can be reduced to an impotent backwater or 'Black Hole' and China dealt with on stronger power political terms.
Yet proxy conflicts over control of the oil with Orwellian style shifting alliances in Central Asia will just funnel lots of weapons to regimes that will vacillate between tyranny, anarchy and Islamist insurgencies.
Though the major strategic powers have every interest in co-operating in some cases, it would only take a major geostrategic earthquake in the Middle East to initiate a conflagration and to draw the West into potentially global conflicts.
That was seen in August 2008 with the pro-US client Saakashvili initiating a war with Russia in order to upgrade his ailing power base and to procure the aid needed to keep him and his cronies in power.
Brzezinski was one of the main supporters of that strategy of installing pro-US clients in order to advance US power into Eurasia whilst ignoring the 'reality on the ground'.
There are all kinds of problems associated with this messianic strategy.
Indeed of Brzezinski's five geopolitical pivots only Turkey and South Korea have been erstwhile US allies and the Iraq War. The others are Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
However, the refusal of the Turkish government to allow US aircraft to use NATO bases there and it's criticism of the Israeli actions in Gaza show tensions emerging even here.
Brzezinski pins his hopes on Ukraine, a potential EU and NATO candidate, is a 'Democratic Bridgehead' into Eurasia. Brzezinski called its independence the third most significant event of twentieth century history.
Control over Ukraine is the most urgent imperative for the USA after Iran as it is the unifying link connecting Poland to Turkey, from the Baltic down to the Black Sea.
This axis contains Georgia and Azerbaijan as well, the latter of which shares a northern border with Iran. Control of that axis would block off Russia and China from exerting influence upon the Middle East.
Yet 70% of Ukrainians are hostile to NATO expansion there, Yushchenko the pro-US 'Orange Revolutionary' gets only 3.7% of the vote from nationalist Western Ukraine and pushing this agenda threatens to promote ethnic tensions.
So the issue of Iran cannot be seperated from that of Russia nor Ukraine nor Central Asia. It has all been interconnected since the Soviet Union, the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution back in 1979.