Hague fears Iran could start 'new Cold War'

[amoy]

Iran to increase oil export to China to 500,000 bpd in 2012 - Oil & Gas - Zawya

Iran's deputy oil minister headed a delegation to China this week to negotiate a new crude supply contract and other joint projects in oil, gas and petrochemicals with Beijing.

The new agreement comes following those negotiations and is expected to increase Iran's oil shipments to China to above 500,000 barrels a day in 2012.

During a briefing in Washington on February 14, China's Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai dismissed US-led sanctions on Iran to force the Islamic Republic into freezing its peaceful nuclear program, stressing that Beijing intends to pursue its "legitimate economic interests" with Tehran.

 

[amoy]

Is Hague's fear of 'new cold war' a self fulfilled prophecy ? :thumb:

Iran navy: Syria-bound warships carry a message of peace - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Iranian warships have already been berthed at Tartous where Russian A/C visited earlier.

The Iranian warships that had passed into the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal were harbingers of peace to the world, the chief of Iran's naval forces was quoted as saying by Israel Radio on Thursday.

The report came as Israeli intelligence services said Tuesday they were "closely monitoring" the progress of two Iranian ships which sailed through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea, en route to the joint exercise with Syria.

 

[Virendra]

Can't say about Iran doing the heavy weight lifting alone. But the newly formed gang of Russia-China-Iran certainly makes enough to clash with US-Europe for a global cold war. This time for economic hegemony.
Russia and China are seeking to fire off the Iranian shoulders, I believe Iran is the stage level catalyst here. It is interesting to see that despite the Oil based competition Russia stands firmly behind Iran. Iran's allies are matching the west move by move and will surely pay back in the same coin if west moves against Iran militarily.
Although I find it less likely to happen. More imminent is the Iran-Israel conflict.
Now that is where it becomes a bit messy, because if the West militarly keeps out of such a conflict - China and Russia aren't absolute nemesis to Israel. There will be a lot more moderation and calculation before the actual move, whatever it comes to be.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[amoy]

An interesting read <<< << The 4th Media � Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China: Eurasian "Triple Alliance"

Excerpts

Both Russia and Iran are both major energy exporters, they have deeply seated interests in the South Caucasus. They are both firmly opposed to NATO's missile shield, with a view to preventing the U.S. and E.U. from controlling the energy corridors around the Caspian Sea Basin.

Moscow and Tehran's bilateral ties are also part of a broader and overlapping alliance involving Armenia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Syria, and Venezuela. Yet, above all things, both republics are also two of Washington's main geo-strategic targets.

If Iran were to "change camps" and enter the U.S. sphere of influence, China's economy and national security would also be held hostage on two counts. Chinese energy security would be threatened directly because Iranian energy reserves would no longer be secure and would be subject to U.S. geo-political interests. Additionally, Central Asia could also re-orient its orbit should Washington open a direct and enforced conduit from the open seas via Iran.

Thus, both Russia and China want a strategic alliance with Iran as a means of screening them from the geo-political encroachment of the United States. "Fortress Eurasia" would be left exposed without Iran. This is why neither Russia nor China could ever accept a war against Iran. Should Washington transform Iran into a client then Russia and China would be under threat.

Iran is a target of U.S. hostility not just for its vast energy reserves and natural resources, but because of major geo-strategic considerations that make it a strategic springboard against Russia and China. The roads to Moscow and Beijing also go through Tehran, just as the road to Tehran goes through Damascus, Baghdad, and Beirut. Nor does the U.S. want to merely control Iranian oil and natural gas for consumption or economic reasons. Washington wants to put a muzzle around China by controlling Chinese energy security and wants Iranian energy exports to be traded in U.S. dollars to insure the continued use of the U.S. dollar in international transactions.

Moreover, Iran has been making agreements with several trade partners, including China and India, whereby business transactions will not be conducted in euros or U.S. dollars. In January 2012, both Russia and Iran replaced the U.S. dollar with their national currencies, respectively the Russian rouble and the Iranian rial, in their bilateral trade. This was an economic and financial blow to the United States.

Aside from its naval ports in Syria, Russia does not want to see Syria used to re-route the energy corridors in the Caspian Basin and the Mediterranean Basin. If Syria were to fall, these routes would be re-synchronized to reflect a new geo-political reality. At the expense of Iran, energy from the Persian Gulf could also be re-routed to the Mediterranean through both Lebanon and Syria.

 

[asianobserve]

It's the rule that is golden. Have a wide range of suppliers so that you don't put all eggs in one basket.

Do remember that it's OPEC that dictates the price, and all these oil producers are members of that cartel.

 

[Yusuf]

Do remember that it's OPEC that dictates the price, and all these oil producers are members of that cartel.

And there are no country to country deals eh? US buys oil at market price is it?

 

[nrj]

Britain warns Israel over military action against Iran - The Times of India

LONDON: British foreign secretary William Hague said on Sunday that Israel would not be "wise" to attack Iran over its disputed nuclear programme, saying it should give the diplomatic route a chance to succeed.

Speaking in the wake of attacks on Israeli diplomats blamed on agents of Tehran, Hague said the Islamic republic "has increased its willingness to contemplate utterly illegal activities in other parts of the world".

But he told BBC television: "I don't think the wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran.

"I think Israel, like everybody else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach that we have adopted, of very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.

"And that's what we now have to make a success of."

In recent weeks, there has been feverish speculation that Israel was getting closer to mounting a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but Israel has denied reaching such a decision.

Hague said the Israelis had not shared any such plans with Britain, stressing: "We are not part of any planning to attack Iran.

"We don't take any options off the table ... But our approach is 100 percent diplomatically and economically focused to bring Iran successfully to the negotiating table."

Iran said this week it was ready to resume stalled talks on its nuclear drive, prompting a cautious welcome from the United States and the EU.

"They have indicated in the last few days a new readiness to negotiate. Whether that is going to be on any meaningful basis, one has to be sceptical," Hague said.

Tensions between Israel and Iran flared following bombings in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok last week, but Iran angrily rejected accusations that it was behind the "terrorist" acts.

Hague declined to attribute blame for the attacks, but said Iran had "clearly" been involved in illegal activities abroad, adding: "This is part of the danger that Iran is currently presenting to the rest of the world."

 

[thakur_ritesh]

Just the title didn't make me read the entire thing. Just fears being ratcheted up.

Hague should know the new cold war is already underway between US and China.

Israel already has nukes. Other Arab countries are under nuke umbrella of US. No one has any reason to start a cold war there. Mid East is known for only hot wars.

It's a pretty unbiased article. They have presented different views.

It is surprising to note that British aren't quite toeing a war rhetoric line, on the contrary the word is, Iran remains far from making a nuke weapon and they are no way rushing towards it. Brits for now are talking diplomacy.

This should show us how far away we remain from the actual military strikes. I remain convinced that the line taken by media is a well financed campaign being sold to us.

 

[ejazr]

You seem not to be able to see beyond the facade of false alliance. Believe me it's better that the US is engaging Pakistan than leaving it alone to China.

You know Indians would actually say the same thing about Iran. It would be better and much more worthwile having India engage Iran.

Pakistan already HAS nukes. It has the TTP controlling its western flank and militants shooting up its Governors. Army personnel are being caught in terrorist attacks against its institutions and the PA/ISI has been crazy enough to start a war in Kargil and launch terrorist attacks against India despite both being nuclear capable.

If you look at the ACTIONS of Pakistan vs Iran, from India, Pakistan is much more insane.

 

[ejazr]

not exactly his ass but we should should support USA, Israel, NATO kicked Iran ass than when they have pupppet govt than extend friendship

Y we lick Iran ass now, just for oil, Saudi has extended help for oil than yyyyyyyyyyy

Well Iran actually had a puppet govt from the 1950s till 1979 under the Shah of Iran. He was a close Israeli and US ally. And on top of that a Pakistani ally as well. In the 1965 and 1971 wars, no country helped Pakistan other than the US with its military equipment ofcourse before the war started. It was Iran that allowed Pakistan the use of its fighter jets in consultation with the US. This govt. was put in place after a CIA backed coup in 1953 that overthrew a democratically elected govt. in Iran that had no problem with the US but was anti-British because of its attempts at colonization and stealing of Iranian oil.

And that puppet govt. caused so much public outrage and backlash that we saw the anti-US Islamic revolution in 1979. In diplomatic parlance its called blowback. The era of puppet govt. and viceroys is over.

I would speculate that the MEA is taking a gamble that the war mongering will continue till Obama's re-election bid in 2013 and even if Republican wins, he will probably not take a military option on Iran either. But by India sticking out now, it will be able to curtail Chinese influence and increase its own leverage with Iran. Only time will tell if this gamble was smart and if it will pay off.

 

[asianobserve]

And there are no country to country deals eh? US buys oil at market price is it?

And an oil producer will sell you at much lower prices when all the rest are selling theirs at much higher prices (Iran is in an extraordinary situation now)? Forget it. What they can guarantee is the volume of their supply to you. For this benevolent oil producer it means its oil will run out first with very little revenue...

 

[asianobserve]

You know Indians would actually say the same thing about Iran. It would be better and much more worthwile having India engage Iran.

Pakistan already HAS nukes. It has the TTP controlling its western flank and militants shooting up its Governors. Army personnel are being caught in terrorist attacks against its institutions and the PA/ISI has been crazy enough to start a war in Kargil and launch terrorist attacks against India despite both being nuclear capable.

If you look at the ACTIONS of Pakistan vs Iran, from India, Pakistan is much more insane.

Nice try mate. But its like comparing the moon with the sun.

 

[pmaitra]

This is too simplistic a view. Iran is just equally happy to jack up their price. Right now they're dropping their prices because they don't have a choice.

And it would utterly stupid not to buy oil from Iran at this point.

 

[pmaitra]

Nice try mate. But its like comparing the moon with the sun.

So which one is the Moon or Sun?

Do you think Pakistan is more insane than Iran, or the other way around?

 

[asianobserve]

So which one is the Moon or Sun?

Do you think Pakistan is more insane than Iran, or the other way around?

They're both insane. But you could say that the biggest difference is that Pakistan already has the bomb and Iran is still marching to get it. Better stop Iran before it gets it while the World continue on containing Pakistan.

 

[asianobserve]

And it would utterly stupid not to buy oil from Iran at this point.

You can say that, for a short term perspective. But by giving Iran a life line you're also helping them create their nuke. The latter in the long term is what will hound us all (including India, just pray that the Mullahs that India is supporting last forever) especially when the whole of the Arab World arm themselves as well...

 

[ejazr]

@asianobserve

The Indian perspective is that Iran should not get the nuclear bomb. And ofcourse, its action from curtailing trade as well as oil imports including voting against Iran in IAEA are all steps in that direction. But at the same time, we can't let Iran be cut completely. We did a similar mistake with Myanmar which pushed them into China's arms and became a safe haven for insurgent groups in NE India.

The difference is that India does not agree that the US/Israel approach of complete isolationism would be the best approach to stop Iran from going on with a nuclear bomb program. Like I mentioned earlier, by threatening a country of war and attacks, you INCREASE the incentive of Iran to work towards a nuclear bomb, not reduce it.

 

[Yusuf]

If the Iranians are out to make te bomb, nothin can stop it including sanctions and isolation. Pakistan vowed to eat grass bu make te bomb. NoKo is more isolated and without natural resources that funds i but still made the bomb.

Ejaz is right and I too have been saying that boycotting and isolating Iran is not the way out. India has to play some kind of mediatory role.

 

[asianobserve]

@asianobserve

The Indian perspective is that Iran should not get the nuclear bomb. And ofcourse, its action from curtailing trade as well as oil imports including voting against Iran in IAEA are all steps in that direction. But at the same time, we can't let Iran be cut completely. We did a similar mistake with Myanmar which pushed them into China's arms and became a safe haven for insurgent groups in NE India.

China simply offered more than India.

The difference is that India does not agree that the US/Israel approach of complete isolationism would be the best approach to stop Iran from going on with a nuclear bomb program. Like I mentioned earlier, by threatening a country of war and attacks, you INCREASE the incentive of Iran to work towards a nuclear bomb, not reduce it.

No. India is just giving the Iranians more time to build their bomb. Believe me even if the whole Indian government, make it the whole Indian population, kneel before the Ayatollah begging him to stop his nuke development, Iran will not stop. The bomb is an existential question for them and in no small part India is helping this repressive regime survive practically forever.

 

[Yusuf]

China simply offered more than India.




No. India is just giving the Iranians more time to build their bomb. Believe me even if the whole Indian government, make it the whole Indian population, kneel before the Ayatollah begging him to stop his nuke development, Iran will not stop. The bomb is an existential question for them and in no small part India is helping this repressive regime survive practically forever.

Like I said UN my previous post, no matter how hard you try, sanctions, oil embargoes or whatever, I they have decided to make the bomb, they will.