[lit-ideas] Re: Bullying Iran - New York Times

  • From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:49:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

Good points John.  I read on the BBC Russian site that Putin is entertaining, although downplaying and simply calling the idea interesting, as if he's not interested, of forming an OPEC style alliance with Iran over natural gas.  I doubt the NYT has covered that story. 



 
-----Original Message-----
From: John McCreery
Sent: Feb 2, 2007 9:42 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bullying Iran - New York Times



On 2/2/07, Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For Irene.  Right-wing Fox News filtered agitprop, brought to you by the NYT.  Darn Bush lovers:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/opinion/01thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


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/
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2007