I haven't been tracking this discussion closely. May I assume, Brian, that
you are drawing attention to the opening paragraphs of the NY Times story,
which read as follows?
"Given America's bitter experience in Iraq, one would think that President
Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren't a
substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Mr. Bush is at it again, this time
trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq.
"We have no doubt about Iran's malign intent, just as we have no doubt that
Mr. Bush's serial failures in Iraq have made it far easier for Tehran to sow
chaos there and spread its influence in the wider region. But more threats
and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down. If Mr. Bush isn't
careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if
Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country
along."
It is interesting, isn't it, that the NYT has no problem with (1) mentioning
Iran's "malign intent" and also (2) asserting that, "one would think that
President Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren't
a substitute for a reasoned strategy."
Who knows? Perhaps someone from the NYT read the Asia Time's story from
June 4, 2005, from which I extract the following paragraphs.
"The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's
unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's
geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the
formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia....
*" Beijing and Moscow warm to Tehran*.
" In March 2004, China's state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai Zhenrong
Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tons of liquefied
natural gas (LNG) from Iran. This was followed by a much larger deal between
another of China's state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran, signed in
October 2004. This deal, worth about $100 billion, allows China to import a
further 250 million tons of LNG from Iran's Yadavaran oilfield over a
25-year period. In addition to LNG, the Yadavaran deal provides China with
150,000 barrels per day of crude oil over the same period.
"This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in Iranian
energy exploration, drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and
natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward Iran's
energy sector could exceed a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end
of 2004, China became Iran's top oil export market. Apart from the oil and
natural gas delivery contracts, the massive investment being undertaken by
China's state-owned oil companies in Iran's energy sector contravenes the US
Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This law penalizes foreign companies for investing
more than $20 million in either Libya or Iran.
"Side-stepping US laws is nothing new for China. Beijing, as well as Moscow,
has supplied Tehran with advanced missiles and missile technology since the
mid-1980s. In addition to anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm, China has
sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, along with Russia,
assisted in the development of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. This
assistance included the development of Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4
missiles, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. Iran is also reportedly
developing missiles with ranges approaching 3,000 kilometers."
I take particular note of this story because my daughter served in the
Persian Gulf as a US Navy helicopter pilot in a squadron whose primary
military mission is antisubmarine warfare. She informs me that, unlike the
Iraqis, the Iranians do have submarines. They are, moreover, "good sub
drivers," who have won the respect of the US Navy personnel who might have
to fight with them some day. Add advanced anti-ship missiles, the latest
versions of those mentioned above, and plenty of fast small craft and people
willing to use them in suicide missions, and the odds are that, if the U.S.
goes to war with Iran, one or more large ships will be sunk in the Straits
of Hormuz, cutting off a large fraction of the world's oil supply. Any U.S.
vessels still in the Persian Gulf will, if this happens, be stuck there as
sitting ducks for further attacks.
My daughter is, as befits an Annapolis graduate, confident that the U.S.
will, at the end of the day, win the battle and destroy the Iranian subs. As
indicated above, however, the victory will be a Pyrrhic one and the
geopolitical consequences horrendous. We don't want to go there.
Cheers,
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
