John Uskglass said:
China net imports 2.9 million barrels a day.
The US, EU and Japan collectively make up 51.5% of their export market.
Now, which might be more important, jeapordizing the international reputation of the PRC leading to a backlash against Chinese imports in over half their export market, or 150,000 out of 2.9 million barrels of oil a day?
That's just one contract, John. One contract with one company. 150,000 is but the beginning.
Funny you should mention Japan, though. Japan is the top importer of Iran's oil and LNG. China and India are both contending to take its place. Why?
Because they have no choice. Iran has world's second largest oil and natural gas reserves. It is also the only major oil-exporting country in the world capable of doubling its oil output in the next few years. Hence, it is the only country capable of fueling Chinese and Indian economic growth.
If you think a UN embargo would deter China or India from importing Iranian fuel, you are incredibly naive. In fact, you go out on a limb simply by assuming that members of the Security Council will concede on the issue.
But suppose they do. Would China violate the embargo? Most likely. I don't know if you noticed, but there already *is* an embargo in place, a one-sided one, imposed by the US. Does Iran-Libya Sanctions Act ring a bell? The act stipulates that any company, regardless of its country of origin, that invests more than $20 million in Iranian oil and gas sector is banned from doing any business in the US.
Yet that didn't stop a Sinopec (PRC) from signing a $100 billion contract with Iran in October 2004. Neither did it deter GAIL (India) from signing a similar contract with Iran, worth about $50 billion. Nor does it deter Pakistan, India and Iran from discussing construction of an LNG pipeline, worth $3 billion. This may come as a shock, but as an economic partner,
Iran is as important to those countries as America. Yet strangely, despite the bold, menacing rethoric of ILSA, the US hasn't, as far as I know, imposed any sanctions against Chinese or Indian companies. Brace yourself for another shock - as economic partners,
China and India are as important to America as America is to China and India.
Nobody wants to lose multi-billion dollar contracts over stupid political squabbles. Not China, not India, not the USA.
We have two client states that border Iran. As a matter of fact, are her two longest borders. That's not going to happen in 50 years.
American economic ties to the Middle East and its commitments to that region are more volatile than you seem to think.
Right now, there are two Middle-Eastern countries of utmost significance to the US - Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Saudi Arabia is America's foremost oil exporter and it will remain such for the next few years. However, Saudi oil production has peaked and it cannot continue increasing its output anymore to meet the ever-increasing US demand. That means its importance will inevitably diminish in the years to come. Furthermore, the rising dissatisfaction and looming political instability might bring down the House of Saud and see the establishment of an anti-American Islamist regime.
America also has a foothold in Iraq, but that country is about as stable as a can of spray paint on a burning stove. Its oil output has never been lower, its production infrastructure is in a terrible shape and it could errupt in civil war any day now. The fact that your current administration is planning to withdraw in just two years should be indicator enough that they are pretty much ready to give up on Iraq. You don't need to be exceptionally bright to see the prospects such developments entail. A few years from now a Shiite theocratic government with close ties to Iran might rise to power in Iraq, so you can pretty much kiss them and their oil goodbye.
Problem being that that tension will, eventually, break down, leaving the Authoritarian regime in Iran trying to defend it's existence in a nation with upset expectations (as oil prices fall, corruption becomes institutionalized and military spending becomes a greater part of GDP).
Oil prices will fall only if you go with the assumption that they are inflated to begin with, corruption becoming institutionalized won't lead to downfall of the regime (by that logic, PRC and the entire post-communist Europe should be rioting as we speak) and neither will disproportionate military spending (by that logic, your own country should be rioting as we speak).
Authoritarian regimes fuck themselves over Ratty. That's how they work, and that's why all of them will always fail in the face of Liberal Democracy. Iranian youth are anti-Theocratic and, as the Khatami election proved, want change. No way they can withstand their own youth for 20 years.
To think that the theocratic regime must inevitably fall because the youth is discontented is ludicrous. Iran is not a democracy, but a ruthless authoritarian state. With constant external threats (real or perceived) and steady economic growth, the public dissatisfaction will never become sufficiently strong to threaten the regime's grip on power. Furthermore, the government has all the leverages of oppression in its hands, which they can use to sustain themselves for a few more years if push comes to shove. They *can* remain in power for the next twenty or thirty years. Need I elaborate on the example of another country where youth thought they could bring about democratic changes and how much good that did, or is the mention of Tian'anmen Square explanatory enough on its own?
Sander said:
Oh, for fuck's sake, Ratty. I never mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. In the context of Turkey I only mentioned the cities, and yes, the cities *are* very tolerant. I did mention Egypt, which does have a western pop-culture, but hey, you're not touching that one.
If you want to scold me, do it for things I did say, not for things I didn't say, mkay?
I was "scolding" SuAside as well as you.
Anyway, I don't agree with John's claim that parts of Indonesia are the only Muslim societies characterized by religious or ethnic tolerance, simply because it's not true.
