Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Tag: Iran Page 2 of 3

Khameini’s Three Directives for Iran

By

On July 22, 2019

Comments

From the useful Elija Mangnier,

1 – Adherence to Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and everything related to this science at all costs. Nuclear enrichment is a sword Iran can hold in the face of the West, which wants to take it from Tehran. It is Iran’s card to obstruct any US intention of “obliterating” Iran.

2 – Continue to develop Iran’s missile capability and ballistic programs. This is Iran’s deterrent weapon that prevents its enemies from waging war against it. Sayyed Ali Khamenei considers the missile program a balancing power to prevent harm against Iran.

3 – Support Iran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and never abandon them, because they are essential to Iran’s national security.

Now, basically, this is an extended riff on the sad joke that Hussein’s Iraq and Gaddafi’s Libya were destroyed after they were disarmed. Libya’s case is particularly sad: Gaddafi disarmed in exchange for safety and inclusion, and instead was attacked.

Everyone with sense knows this: You can’t disarm in the face of the US or its core Western allies, France and England. All three nations are rabid dogs who believe that, though they have the right to invade or fuck up other nations (the psychology behind this is beyond messy), no one has the right to harm them.

(And yeah, France is bad. Almost certainly worse than Britain at this point in its constant interference, especially anywhere they had colonial interests. The French know they are special and civilized, and that other nations need their bayonets.)

Other nations which completely can’t be trusted include Israel and Saudi Arabia, both key American allies.

All these countries, having been sheltered under the superpower’s skirts since the end of the Cold War, feel entitled to fuck up nations which are out of favor with the big bully, the US.

The dynamic, while messy, isn’t very complicated.

As for the Iranian situation, with the seizure of tankers, and the “maximal” sanctions, and with Europe doing basically nothing to help rescue the nuclear deal, I have to say the prospects for this spiralling out of control are high.

I don’t think that Trump wants war. He wants Iran to disarm, then another President will take them out (or their local enemies).

But Iran isn’t going to do that, and the sanctions are so harmful that they amount to war by other means. And as Trump’s administration ratchets up the pressure, and Iran responds, it won’t take much for it turn to hot war. All it will take is one mistake, one miscalculation and Trump deciding he needs to act tough.

The entire situation is very tiring and very stupid. This mess in the Middle East isn’t the US’s problem, everyone is willing to sell them oil (and the US is the world’s largest producer now anyway, thanks to Obama), and they have very few actual strategic interests which are served by meddling.

Even the argument that they must be there to keep the oil flowing is obvious BS, since their meddling is increasing the probability of a huge disruption, and over the past 30 years sanctions and war have tended to reduce oil supplies rather than increase them. (Some will argue that’s been the point. But reducing oil supplies is not in the US’s national interest even if some Americans want it.)

Go home, Yankee. You aren’t needed in the Middle East.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Why Would Iran Attack Tankers?

By

On June 19, 2019

Comments

Well, if it did.

Let me tell a story, possibly apocryphal. Back in the 1970s, the Russian (USSR) ambassador supposedly had a talk with the Pakistani leader of the day. This is what he is reputed to have said.

” I do not know who will be in charge in Moscow in ten, twenty, or even 50 years. But what I do know is that whoever is there will want the same things then, that we do today. You can trust us, not because we pretend we are your friends, but because we are consistent.

Anyway, remember, that we’ll come back to it.

In the meantime, on June 13th there were reports that two tankers had been sunk in the Gulf. Claims were made they were sunk by Iran.

I shrugged. Important people want war between Iran and the United States, and in such a situation it’s hard to know what’s true and what’s not. I moved on with my day.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)

But yesterday I discovered an interesting fact. Before the two tankers were sunk, something else happened:

On June 5, 2019, a huge fire consumed a storage facility for oil products at the Shahid Rajaee port in the southern Hormozgan Province. Located west of Bandar Abbas, the Shahid Rajaee port is Iran’s largest container shipping port. Reportedly, a vehicle used for transporting shipping containers exploded and caught fire. Since there were oil products near the site of the explosion, the blaze spread quickly to several tanks and storage sites and caused heavy damage to the port. The spreading fire set off huge explosions which shot fireballs and heavy smoke high into the air.

On June 7, 2019, six Iranian merchant ships were set ablaze almost simultaneously in two Persian Gulf ports.

First, five ships “caught fire” in the port of Nakhl Taghi in the Asaluyeh region of the Bushehr Province. Three of these ships were completely burned and the two others suffered major damage. Several port workers and sailors were injured. As well, at least one cargo ship burst into flames and burned completely at the port of Bualhir, near Delvar. The fire was attributed to “incendiary devices” of “unknown origin.” The local authorities in the Bushehr Province called the fires a “suspicious event” and went no further.

Oh hey.

So, assuming the Iranians did attack the ships, they were retaliating.

Iran has long said that if they can’t get their oil to customers, no one will get oil to customers through the Gulf.

Yeah.

But this has bigger consequences. The real problem is simpler: The US made a deal with the Iranians, under Obama, then repudiated it when the President changed.

The US has arrogated to itself the right to impose sanctions on anyone it wants, for any reason, with no recourse by the victim. It is using this “right” in an attempt to remove Iran’s government.

The US cannot be trusted. Every few years, it changes. You can’t make a deal and be sure it will be honored for any length of time, let alone 10, 20, or 50 years.

Americans who squeal about Trump being an aberration both miss the point (your system allowed him) and are wrong: Bush attacked Iraq based on lies, and everyone knows it. Hilary Clinton promised the Russians that Qaddafi would not be removed, then removed him and gloated about him being killed after being raped by a knife.

The US can’t be trusted.

So the larger consequence is that a coalition of countries, including multiple oil producers, China and Russia are moving to sell and buy oil in a bundle of currencies which does not include the US dollar, and where no payments go through the payment system which the US can control (systems like SWIFT, to slightly oversimplify).

Dollar hegemony is one of the main supports of American hegemony. Misuse of dollar hegemony to attack other countries has brought us to this point.

I’ve been a bit of a broken record on this issue, but that’s because it’s been the obvious consequence of the US Treasury’s misuse of its powers.

Other great powers and their allies can put up with a cruel, even an evil, hegemon. What they will not put up with is a capricious one whom they cannot predict.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

Who Do You Want to Win an Iranian/American War?

By

On May 9, 2019

Comments

Yeah, so let’s say it does happen. Who do you want to win?

I’ll lay my cards on the table. I don’t like the Iranian government. Their policies, generally speaking, are abominable to me. I believe in full equality between the sexes, don’t believe in religious states, and so on. Ideologically, these people are my enemies.

But the fact of the matter here is that it’s the US that has far more responsibility for starting a war here. Iran has not attacked the US. There is no legitimate case for war. The US tolerates far worse regimes if they are its allies (Hello Saudi Arabia!), so they aren’t doing it because they care about the Iranian population.

Even if the US did care, well, any war they wage will make the population far worse off, as it did in Iraq and Libya.

The US is by far and away the bad actor here. So, yeah, I hope it loses any war it starts. That’s unlikely, of course, but the next best outcome, that it further overstrains the US, and leads to its continued economic and political weakening, eventually leading to an outright collapse, is not.

The US is the world’s foremost rogue state. Russia doesn’t come close, despite all the squealing. The US attacks other countries all the time, constantly assassinates people, and imposes massive crippling sanctions for bogus reasons, which kill millions.

The US is evil.

So long as it is evil, it needs to either stop being evil, or lose its power.

Sooner rather than later.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Coming War with Iran?

By

On May 7, 2019

Comments

Image by Yuan2003

It may turn out that the worst thing Donald Trump ever did was hire John Bolton as his National Security Advisor.

Trump was already deranged on the subject of Iran, possibly because Jared Kushner is his son-in-law, and Jared is having a (presumably) platonic love affair with Saudi Crown Prince (and de facto ruler) Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud. Saudi Royals both hate and fear Shia Islam, in part because the regions of Saudi Arabia with the oil are Shia.

So Trump unilaterally left the nuclear weapons treaty with Iran, and the Treasury department has made it illegal for any country to buy oil from Iran. Since almost all finance in the world goes through US banks, the Treasury can do this. Only firms which don’t use the SWIFT system can avoid the Treasury’s grasp.

These sanctions are having a terrible effect on Iran, and one which will grow even greater as the final waivers expire. There will be smuggling, but even so, Iran will be starved of foreign currency.

The US has also declared the Iranian military to be a terrorist organization, the first time part of a foreign government has ever received that designation.

And a carrier task group has been sent to the region, specifically as a warning to Iran.

It is well known that the NeoCons, of which Bolton is a prominent member, want a war with Iran, to remake the Middle East. (This is part of the same project which saw Iraq destroyed, and which fuel US-led regime change aspirations in Syria. A little further afield, Libya, while not in the Middle East, was similarly dealt with.)

The issue, as Escobar points out, is that a new alliance is rising. Its key members are China and Russia, but Iran is part of it as well. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is meant to create routes to Europe and a Chinese-led trade zone. It is meant to bypass the straits of Malacca (which the US can shut down at any time to strangle China), and the land parts will be a lot faster (though not cheaper) than sea transport.

Iran is a key part of this system.

Because other countries aren’t cooperating with the US when it tries to stop the B&R system (indeed, Italy just signed on), the US needs to actually destroy part of it.

Thus Iran.

This isn’t the only reason, needless to say, the NeoCons have wanted to destroy Iran for far longer than the B&R system has existed, but it is now an important consideration.

But what if Iran survives the sanctions? No one except the US is happy about the sanctions. Others may submit, but they don’t like it. The Chinese will do a huge end-run, as with the Russians. Even the Europeans are angry, and have created a “special vehicle” to avoid sanctions. (Consensus seems to be that it doesn’t do a good job and that if they’re serious they need to improve it.)

Because no one is happy, there’s going to be a lot of oil still sold. It may be enough to keep the Iranian government in power.

Then what?

Well, war, maybe.

The problem with that is that Iranians can shut down the Strait of Hormuz. There is no situation, short of nuclear glassing, in which the US can keep it open. That spikes the price of oil to hundreds of dollars a barrel, because, at that point, a quarter of the world’s oil cannot get to the market at all.

And that causes an economic and financial crisis, likely even larger than 2008, because it involves economic fundamentals.

So the question is whether or not Bolton, who is a true believer, can talk Trump into it.

And the answer is… I don’t know. Just don’t know.

But that’s a serious precipice on which we’re walking.

Even without war, this is a serious situation. The US’s continued abuse of its privileged position in the world payments system to sanction countries like Iran and Venezuela, even when other great powers disagree, means that the loss of that privileged position through the creation of alternatives is inevitable. It is already happening and only a matter of time before they become viable enough that major countries will simply be able to ignore the Treasury’s sanctions.

This is also true because other markets are large enough that access to the American market is no longer required. Especially if the EU comes onside with this, the ability to sanction is basically finished if the other great powers (and especially China), don’t agree.

This is, for the US, a late Imperial period. Don’t mistake it as anything else. And remember, very few countries manage to regain their pre-eminence or Empire. Britain lost one Empire and gained another, but it is an exception, and driven by a specific situation (first mover in the Industrial revolution) which has no modern parallel (no, the information revolution is not even a rounding error on the industrial revolution.)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Banal Hypocrisy of the Western Coverage of Israel

By

On May 10, 2018

Comments

So, I see the usual suspects, in response to a large attack by Israel on Iranian targets in Syria, are saying the usual, “I support Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Really what they mean, of course, is “I’m scared of the Israeli lobby in my country, and of being called an anti-Semite if I dare say the truth.”

The truth is that Israel attacks other countries far more than other countries attack Israel.

The truth is that the Iranian missile attack the to which the Israelis were responding was actually in response to routine Israeli attacks on Syria.

The truth is that Iran is an invited guest in Syria and Israel is not.

Modern Iran has not attacked multiple neighbours over the course of its history. Israel has, and taken territory from them to boot.

The Golan Heights was taken from Syria, by Israel.

And, of course, Iran has no nukes, and Israel, which claims Iran wants them, does have nukes.

Our entire “conversation” about Israel and the region around it is based on hypocrisy, fear and guilt over the holocaust, as if because Germany killed millions of Jews, it’s ok for Israel to treat Palestinians and everyone else in the neighbourhood monstrously.

Israel should remember that “the powerful do as they will, the weak suffer what they must” was replied to “what you do to us, will one day be done to you, because seeing how you treat us, no one will trust you or have mercy on you.”

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Pulls Out of the Iran Deal

By

On May 8, 2018

Comments

Yeah, so, it was a good deal and one of the very few real accomplishments of Obama’s foreign policy, possible only after Clinton was no longer Secretary of State.

The fear here is that this is part of a march to war against Iran, something many in the Republican party want, and something pushed hard by Israel and Saudi Arabia.

This was the danger of Republican win: Clinton was deranged about Syria, Trump is deranged about Iran. Both are allies of Russia, and Russia will not want to allow Iran to be destroyed by an American coalition. While the risk of a confrontation between the US and Russia is not as severe over Iran as it was over Syria, it is still very real.

Plus, of course, the Iranians don’t have nuclear weapons and just making enriched uranium didn’t mean they wanted nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, the Europeans are pushing back hard against this, and are willing to just cut their own deal. That may help somewhat.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Saudi Arabian Crown Consolidates Control as War Looms

By

On November 5, 2017

Comments

Right, so there is a purge in Saudi Arabia, with princes arrested for “corruption” (they’re surely corrupt, but in Saudi Arabia that’s like saying they drink water), but more importantly, the National Guard commander was arrested and replaced with the Crown Prince, and the navy commander was also replaced.

A new anti-corruption committee led by the Crown Prince will continue the purge.

This has shades of what’s been going on in China, where Xi Jinping is called the “Chairman of Everything,” because he’s in charge of every important committee. In Saudi Arabia, his counterpart is the Crown Prince.

Power is being consolidated. It is true that Saudi Arabia has unavoidable problems and larger challenges coming down the pike. The most important should be the price of oil, which can be expected to continue its relative decline over the next couple decades as electric cars and so on come online.

But they’ve also chosen many of their problems: The war in Yemen is a self-inflicted wound, as is the (related) confrontation with Iran.

The latter confrontation is barrelling ahead, and it is likely to be the next significant war, not North Korea. The resignation of Lebanese PM Saad Hariri (who lives part time in Saudi Arabia) is part of the clearing of decks for the next phase, which will be another attempt to take out Hezbollah.

We can expect the US to impose significant sanctions on Lebanon as part of this, justified by Lebanon supposedly being insufficiently democratic (it was Hariri’s job to make this plausible).

Lebanon not being Venezuela, this will likely not be sufficient and military action will be required.

Note that, in this effort, Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia can be expected to act in cooperation.

This can and may well easily escalate into an actual war with Iran. As in Iraq before, the Saudis will want the US to do the actual dirty work, and Trump is eager to do it.

Iran is increasingly a Russian ally, and, as for Hezbollah, they appear to expect Syria to support them in any war with Israel, which is not unreasonable: Without Hezbollah support, Syria would have lost its war. Additionally, the usual reason for not fighting Israel doesn’t particularly apply any more: Syria is a smoking ruin already, though I’m sure Israel will try to demolish the capital. However, one suspects it will be heavily defended by Russian air defenses, however.

The entire mess is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Absolute stupidity: Israel would be better off leaving Hezbollah alone (they have a lot more missiles than last time and are even more battle hardened); Iran is not an existential threat to Saudi Arabia, and; the US would have to be crazy to start another major war in the Middle East or even become involved in another one as it has done in Yemen (which should be none of the US’s business).

A lot of countries are acting directly against their own self interest. The only thing Saudi Arabia should be concerned with right now is handling the end of oil, and the prestige they might gain from defeating Iran will not be sufficient to save them from the consequences of a complete economic meltdown.

So this entire mess is, again, worth keeping an eye on.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Iranian Concerns About the Nuclear Deal Are Reasonable

By

On April 9, 2015

Comments

Picture of Ali Khamenei

Picture of Ali Khamenei

We have, today, the news that Khamenei is dubious about the nuclear deal.  His two main complaints are:

  • He wants sanctions ended immediately;
  • He does not want military facilities inspected under the guise of enforcing the deal.

These are more reasonable than they seem at first blush. The current deal calls for an end to sanctions when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concludes that Iran has met its part of the deal.  Seems fair enough, but, as Gareth Porter writes:

Iranian negotiators have pointed out to Western diplomats that the IAEA could take up to 15 years to arrive at a final judgment, as it did in the case of South Africa, the source said.

A senior Iranian official told the International Crisis Group last November that IAEA officials, responding to Iran’s question about the time required, had refused to rule out the possibility that it would take more than ten years to complete its assessment of Iran’s case.

And, as Porter points out, much of what Iran is agreeing to do is effectively irreversible.

As for the close inspection of military facilities, remember that such inspections were done in Iraq before the invasion of that country and the results were used to help draw up the bombing targets in the war. The IAEA teams will certainly include people who will share the information with America and Israel, after all.

I want to put this entire mess in perspective:

First, Iran having nukes would change nothing except making it impossible to invade Iran. That’s what we’re really talking about. If Iran were to use its nukes pre-emptively, Iran would become a glass parking lot.

Second,  China and Russia messed up by allowing UN sanctions on Iran. Royally screwed up. The West has been picking off, or attempting to pick off states in order to isolate them, from Libya and Iraq to the Ukraine, with massive pressure on Venezuela. It simply is not in either Russia or China’s interest to allow such states to be destroyed.

Third, Libya gave up its weapon program. Iraq had no weapons program. Giving up your weapons program (ie, giving up your sprint capacity) is really dangerous. As commenter MFI noted, Qaddafi wound up getting sodomized by a knife because he made a deal with the West to give up his program.

The sanctions are absolutely crippling and I understand why many Iranians are absolutely desperate to make a deal. But some deterrent must be maintained. If it isn’t, well, the record of what happens to such countries is simply not good.  This is one reason why Khamenei is leery–he knows his neck is on the line, and his death could be very unpleasant.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 2 of 3

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén