Secretary Clinton is under pressure, because it is as if the Obama administration had lost control of the situation and Brazil and Turkey had gone on to lead the diplomatic scene.

By Raúl Zibecchi  29 May, 2010 Progreso-weekly.com

The reaction of the White House, as voiced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who scorned the Teheran accord and attempts to go ahead with a policy of sanctions, shows the United States' impotence as it finds itself pushed off the world's stage.

From the maze of statements made since [last week], it's worthwhile to untangle the threads that show a growing polarization between Brasília and Washington, which translates – in the South American region – into an inevitable escalation that, in due course, will reach alarming levels.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the important thing "is for us to be able to establish a relationship of trust. It is not possible to conduct politics without enjoying relationships of trust" (Folha de São Paulo, May 17, 2010).

In contrast, Clinton said that the accord is "an attempt to stop Security Council action without actually taking steps to address international concerns about its nuclear program" (The Guardian, May 17). She introduced mistrust, the opposite of Lula.

Flynt Leverett, director of the New America Foundation's Iran Project, former Middle East specialist in the U.S. National Security Council, and former CIA analyst, distanced himself from the White House when he said that "Secretary Clinton is under pressure, because it is as if the Obama administration had lost control of the situation and Brazil and Turkey had gone on to lead the diplomatic scene." (O Globo, May 19).

Leverett thinks that the insistence on sanctions "will turn against the government" of Obama, who "is betting on a very risky game." He goes farther when he says that the change in position by the U.S., which again floats the theory that Iran must abandon all uranium enrichment, is "dishonest" and "a sign of desperation."

We might ask ourselves, why the desperation in Obama's government? On one hand, he loses allies, such as Turkey and Brazil, in two zones that are strategic to his interests. On the other, he cannot refuse a diplomatic solution or appear as defeated, not after the U.S. has wielded a club at Iran for years. Perhaps the hardest thing to swallow is that in the former South American back yard, a power has emerged that could even cast a shadow on the White House in the Middle East.

An authentic novelty is the fact that, in Brazil, the press tends to close ranks around Lula's government without concealing that it is on a frontal conflict with the White House. Marco Aurelio García, the Brazilian President's special adviser on international affairs, referred to the Obama administration saying that "they're wounded. Down the road we traveled, the U.S. already had already traveled to discourage the initiative" of an accord with Iran. He said that, if the U.S. opts for sanctions, "they're going to suffer moral and political punishment." (Zero Hour, May 19.)

Brazil's prudent diplomacy does not conceal its indignation with the United States' attitude. The Foreign Ministry on May 19 sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council explaining that the Teheran accord contains the same terms the Western powers have been demanding for a long time and demands that the road of negotiations not be closed.

Because of that, Celso Amorim said, "to ignore the accord is to disregard the search for a peaceful and negotiated solution." (O Estado de São Paulo, May 19). To the foreign minister, who was the key player in the drafting of the accord, the pact is "a passport for a negotiated and peaceful solution."

But the confrontation between Brazil and the United States is hottest in South America and it includes the defense of Amazonia and the oil found in the South Atlantic. Brazil's military budget was increased by 45 percent since 2004, not including the accords with France for the purchase of five submarines, one of them nuclear, that will be assembled in Brazil, in addition to 50 combat helicopters.

The purchase of 36 latest-model fighter jets from the French company Dassault, rejecting the bid from the American company Boeing, is another major point of friction with Washington. The purchase will be made official in the next several weeks.

The fact that all the purchases of weapons include the transfer of technology shows that Brazil has decided on the creation of an autonomous military-industrial complex as a guarantee of its regional and global projection. Mention should also be made of its military accords with Russia, which include attack helicopters and air defense systems.

Most significant, however, is the Brazilian Army's deployment in Amazonia to confront the United States' new bases in Colombia. Around this time, we are witnessing "the greatest modification on the deployment of troops made since the generals assumed power in Brazil in 1964." (Zero Hour, April 18).

Army troops in Amazonia are being doubled; the number will go from 25,000 at this time to 49,000 in a few years. A new air force base is being built for Hercules transport planes, and the new brigades are being turned into independent combat modules, with some 3,000 soldiers each, trained in jungle fighting. The land army is growing by almost 30 percent, with 59,000 new troops.

Brazil is preparing for a scenario of military confrontation with the United States, whose epicenter will be Amazonia. If the collision is inevitable, we can understand why the National Defense Strategy, approved in 2008, advocates the need "to develop and dominate nuclear technology."

Raúl Zibecchi, a Uruguayan writer, is an important international analyst.