Chavez and the Iranian connection

In the aftermath of the Chavez electoral victory on December 3, 2006 , the Venezuelan President proceeded to deepen the Bolivarian revolution he initiated in 1998. Most recently, he announced the nationalization of the phone and the electric companies as well as deciding not to renew broadcasting rights to a TV station critical of his regime.

Moreover, Chavez has turned himself into the regional leader of "revolutionary populism". As such he has formed coalitions with newly elected populist leaders including Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador . Both have looked to Chavez as a source of inspiration and as an ally regarding specific policies. Nothing epitomizes more this spirit than the speech delivered by Rafael Correa in his inauguration ceremony. In a well written, somewhat academic speech Correa lays out these policies including the reformulation of the state constitution and the creation of a Constituent assembly. While rejecting traditional parties and institutions, President Correa supports the development of regional alliances and South American integration, which include the development of an economy independent of foreign investment. It is also clear he wishes to form a political alliance against US influence.

While these countries face numerous social problems, it is also very important to stress the fact that these new regimes include dimensions that go well beyond the legitimate desire to solve the problems of poverty and social integration. Their leaders, particularly Hugo Chavez, have made the United States the target of an obsessive and hostile ideology that is often translated in real attempts to undermine American power not only in the region but in other parts of the world as well. Chavez has an ambitious international agenda that goes well beyond a socialist revolution.

One of the most common mistakes made by analysts of Chavez is to see him as a young version of Fidel Castro. Some have even asserted that Chavez is nothing but a Castro stooge. The reality is that Castro, even before his recent illness, was already a weak leader. Cuba has been in very poor shape since the Soviet Union ceased to "subsidize" the country. In addition, the ongoing US boycott and the insufficiency of natural resources, made Cuba into a feeble entity. In recent years, Castro has been busy trying to survive and most likely has been comforted by the rise of Chavez who he sees as a partner in supporting Marxist guerilla movements across Latin America . Even though Castro has provided help to Chavez in education and medicine and provided proscriptions for indoctrination and political control, the Cuban leader remained primarily a symbol of anti-imperialism and an inspiration for Chavez.

Since Venezuela has been a member of OPEC for a long time, Chavez knows perfectly well the value of oil as a means of increasing his power inside the country and abroad. Hence, nothing served as a better "role model", in Chavez’s own words, than the Arab and Middle Eastern tyrannies whose multi-billion dollar revenue enabled them to create welfare dictatorships on the one hand, and, on the other hand conferred them tremendous international leverage. Thus, Chavez chose to strengthen relations with Middle Eastern countries. He reinforced his ties with Iran and with its arch-enemy, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq . Lybia’s Gaddafi was another one. Chavez was fascinated from the outset by these petro-tyrannies, their tightly controlled populations, and the fact that the world’s dependence on oil enabled them "to get away with murder".

However, there was also an ideological dimension. Anti-Americanism generates solidarity with other regions of the world that share the same antipathy towards America and their sense that they are victims of western arrogance.   The Arab world and Iran seemed to be natural allies for Chavez and his partners of the Latin American radical left. The group that gathers this radical left is the "Foro de Sao Paulo". "Foro", as it is commonly known, is an inter-American organization founded in 1990 by the then leader of the Brazilian Workers party and now President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva. "Foro" was founded with the aid of Cuban leader, Fidel Castro and promised to provide an alternative against the Washington consensus and The Organization of American States as well as to the Third Way policies of the European left. "Foro" was built as a Latin American network of solidarity between socialist, communists, and groups, including some guerillas, to strengthen themselves in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet empire. "Foro", originally included Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader and current President of Nicaragua,   as well as leaders from guerilla movements such as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) and others. The "Foro" holds an ardent anti-globalization and anti-American posture and also speaks for the rights of indigenous populations and promotes Indian separatism from the (Latin American) national states. Anti-Americanism is a fervently used slogan by the indigenous rebellious movements in Bolivia and Ecuador . These groups have never been properly represented before and now have been politically mobilized and radicalized by these new regimes.

Even though Latin American leaders in power today have been rather pragmatic, most notably Brazilian President Lula Da Silva, there is no question that the "Foro" has helped consolidate an anti-American sentiment and solidarity that greatly benefits Chavez in the international arena. For example, the declaration of the XI annual conference of the "Foro" condemns not only the war in Iraq but also the economic boycott carried in the twelve previous years. It accuses the United States of going to war only to secure control over energy resources. The declaration also attacks American allies, notably Israel , which is accused of carrying out genocide in Palestine . The "Foro" spirit seeks international allies in its revolution. The Middle Eastern countries are almost a natural choice for them.   

Most Middle Eastern leaders, like the "Foro" which defines oppression in a one-sided way, views democracy as being secondary, and ignore the rule of law. The Middle Easterners reject western colonialism and western influence, making the State of Israel their main scapegoat. They tend to ignore their own oppression of human beings (e.g. the Sudanese-sponsored genocide in Darfur ) and define justice in terms of de-colonization only.  The Latin American radical left, on the other hand, values socialist dictatorship over capitalistic democracies and social justice above the rule of law. Both groups share a relativistic concept of terrorism, as the US and Israeli military operations are considered to be on equal grounds with Islamic terrorism. Both groups also share the colonialist legacy of resentment that tends to overstate the culpability of the developed world for their own miseries. Identity based on resentment sets the ideological tone that strengthens the ties of solidarity between the two groups. The influence of the spirit of "Foro" will dramatically increase in Latin America as leaders such as Morales and Correa continue to win elections.

In practical terms Chavez has been the leader in forging an alliance with Middle Eastern rogue states and with Iran , in particular, and is now trying to draw new populist leaders into such an alliance. The visit of Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador as well as his meeting with Evo Morales reflects not just a mere Iranian initiative to break its international isolation. It is very much encouraged by Hugo Chavez’s affinity with the Islamic Republic’s tyranny.

In March 2005, Venezuela and Iran signed an agreement of commercial and technological cooperation during the visit of Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to Caracas .  On that occasion, Chavez defended Iran ‘s right to produce atomic energy and continue research in the area of nuclear development. Chavez spoke about his aspirations to develop nuclear weapons "for peaceful purposes" and his intention to seek cooperation with Latin American countries and Iran in this regard.

An additional deal was signed between Venezuela and Iran in March 2006. The two countries established a $200 million development fund and signed bilateral deals to build homes and exploit petroleum. The Venezuelan opposition raised the possibility that the deal could involve the transfer of Venezuelan uranium to Iran . This seems to be corroborated by a report published by a Venezuelan paper in which the Israeli Mossad provided exact locations of sources of uranium production in Venezuela . A Venezuelan nuclear expert confirmed that the Israeli report is credible and that in Venezuela there are important quantities of nuclear fuel.  It has also been reported that Iranian and Cuban geologists are working with a team of Chavez loyalists in the exploration for uranium deposits. Moreover, Venezuela voted in the United Nations against reporting Teheran to the U.N. Security Council for its uranium –enrichment program confirming the complicity and mutual sympathy of both regimes.

All this takes place amid reports on Chavez’s alleged relation with radical Islamic groups including the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and allegations of government anti-Semitism in Venezuela , following a typical Iranian pattern. Since 2003 there have been reports on the presence of Islamic terrorist groups in Margarita Island . The US Southern Command stated that Isla Margarita is one of the most important centers of terrorist gathering and money laundering activities for Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Chavez regime is giving out Venezuelan passports to foreigners from countries such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon . The Miami Herald reported in November 2004 that the agency in charge of issuing these passports is called "Onidex" and the people in charge of the agency include an ardent supporter of Saddam Hussein and the son of the representative of the Iraqi Baath party in Venezuela.

Venezuelan state radio accused Venezuelan Jews of trying to influence the US Administration in opposing Hugo Chavez. Jewish schools and institutions were victims of a raid after a Chavista prosecutor was found murdered.  The reason for such a raid follows the logic of the elders of Zion in Czarist Russia and now its Islamist followers: The Israeli Mossad was supposedly one of the crime’s suspects, not based on any evidence, but on an unfounded anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. These charges were mostly made by Venezuelan state radio and TV.  Of course the raid did not advance the investigation. However, it unmasked a regime, which like Iran , is hostile to the Jewish minority. Most recently an Argentinean federal prosecutor found the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and Hezbollah operatives in Latin America mainly responsible for the attacks against the Jewish community headquarters in 1994. 

Chavez has spoken publicly about adoption of methods such as suicide bombers in case a war is forced upon Venezuela by the US . This is what he calls an "asymmetric war", the kind of war Iran has promoted via its terrorist proxies and protégées in the Middle East. This doctrine calls for a long-term "asymmetric war" in which Chavez loyalists and foreign individuals (such as from the Middle East ) would wage a "war of the people" on all fronts against the invading U.S. military forces. This doctrine, whose intellectual author is Jorge Verstrynge, a Spanish radical, is a technical treatise on terrorism, and praises Islamic terrorism as a most effective warfare method since it involves fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to kill the enemy. This was Iran’s basic philosophy in its eight year old war with Iraq .

Now that Ahmadinejad has visited these Latin American countries, reports talk about expanding economic relations between Venezuela and Iran , and a common fund to help developing countries. They also talked about energy issues and their goal to de-value the American dollar.  With Nicaragua , the discussion is about re-opening the embassies in Teheran and Managua as well as signing a number of agreements on matters related to energy, technology, and commerce. The meetings with President Correa were not reported. It is not clear why.

There are many things that make Iran a threat: Iran could encourage terrorism in the region via a Hezbollah-FARC partnership, which could de-stabilize Colombia and beyond. Correa and Chavez are friendly to the FARC and ideologically close. Iran ‘s presence could also spread Radical Islam in the area that could have the same threatening effects it has today in Europe . Like Venezuela these countries may provide citizenship to potential terrorists willing to perpetrate attacks in the US . Nothing is evident but everything is possible. Even while the crisis in the Middle East continues it is crucial for American decision makers to think about strategies to contain the Iranian influence in our hemisphere as well as Hugo Chavez, himself.  

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington Dc. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University .