Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

April 13th, 2006

Tags

Comments

17 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Iran’s Allies

In the face of all the controversy over Iran’s nuclear problem, China and Russia must be getting a little tired with the Iranian President’s antagonistic approach. But, Foreign Policy magazine’s new blog reports that Ahmadinejad has possibly found a new power base overseas:

Ahmadinejad does have some friends in the West though: German neo-Nazis. According to Der Spiegel, they’re planning pro-Iran, anti-Semitic, white supremacist demonstrations for the Iran-Angola game at this summer’s World Cup.

Who was it that compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler?

Wot wot! to Grendel.

FP’s new blog has a lot of interesting little tidbits from the editors of the magazine. Check out Scowcroft on Iran and the International Love Fest. Too bad they haven’t enabled comments. [Are you listening FP!?] Oh well, more comments for us at Coming Anarchy I guess.

Comments to this entry

Jessica
April 14, 2006
12:37 am
You know, I have to say that I've been disappointed with the FP blog. I think that 'corporate' group blogs involve a delicate balance between neutral/objective information sharing and more critical, expert analysis and well-thought out argumentation. I feel that in its infancy, FP's blurs fact and commentary a bit too freely, particularly since the main contributors (the magazine's editors) do not necessarily specialize in all of the issues they address. That goes against one of the strengths of the magazine, which is to engage the experts themselves as authors. And finally, they post too much! I think that a good corporate blog should post between 2-5 times a day, depending on length - at 8-10 long pieces a day I just can't keep up!

Although it is a much narrower topic, I think that the World Bank's PSD Blog is one of the best examples out there of how organizations can effectively harness the blogosphere to inform the international policy community (although probably not as relevant to your interests here at Coming Anarchy).
Curzon
April 14, 2006
12:38 am
Two other allies you shouldn't ignore: South Korea and Japan. Both recieve significant portions of their oil imports from Iran and have good relations with Tehran. That's not suspect morals, but geopolitical reality -- if Iran's oil exports disappeared, both Japan and ROK would hurt. Very badly. "From the DOE:":http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

Japan averaged 4.2 million bbl/d of net oil imports from the Persian Gulf during 2003. Japan's dependence on the Persian Gulf for its oil supplies increased sharply since the low point of 57% in 1988 to a high of 78% in 2003. About 30% of Japan's Persian Gulf imports in 2003 came from Saudi Arabia, 29% from the United Arab Emirates, 17% from Iran, 12% from Kuwait, 11% from Qatar, and around 1% from Bahrain and Iraq combined. Japan's oil imports from the Persian Gulf as a percentage of demand continued to rise to new highs, reaching 78% in 2003.
412 Precondition Failed
April 14, 2006
5:51 am
[...] [...]
Outlandish Josh
April 14, 2006
5:52 am
Wot-wot?

Goodmin's Law, sucka. We gots to stop the hating
marquer
April 14, 2006
8:29 am

if Iran's oil exports disappeared, both Japan and ROK would hurt.


Are those purchase arrangements contractually specific to Iran, or treaty-based with Iran? That appears to be the definite implication.

(I am wondering about a scenario in which some of the prodigious expenditure which has been undertaken in recent years, in order to suppress the rise of the yen and protect the Japanese export industries, must instead be redirected to spot market purchases of diminished Gulf petroleum supplies. That would have complex second-order effects.)
Curzon
April 14, 2006
9:38 am
marquer: The Sale and Purchase Agreements are all structured as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as the producer contracting out exploration and development to purchasers. In the case of Japan, the Japanese regional energy monopolies or major trading companies (Inpex, Mitsubishi, etc) are the purchasers. As with any oil export agreement, major government involved is a vital factor on both sides. I'm not sure how that's relevant as opposed to treaty-based exports, which I have no heard of, but regardless of those details, Japan losing one of every five barrels of oil would be a major downer on the economy.
marquer
April 15, 2006
12:44 am
Thanks. With regard to treaty-based exports, I would think they are pretty rare these days. By way of example of same, I am given to understand that after the Soviets imploded, and promptly quit providing expensive oil to Cuba in exchange for cheap sugar, that Castro's government protested forcefully.

The economic exchanges in question, averred Havana, were not merely contractual business between parastatal companies, but part of an international treaty governing economic co-operation, from which unannounced and unscheduled withdrawal was prohibited. It was clear that they expected the commerce to resume promptly.

If memory serves, the Russian response was that they agreed in full with the legal reasoning, but that the state with which Cuba had treated was no longer in existence. The Cubans noted that the Russian Federation continued to observe other old Soviet treaties, to which the Russians said, "Da. But we still aren't going to sell you any oil that you don't pay for in advance at market rates. Go pound the sand."
R. Elgin
April 15, 2006
2:06 am
Iran may actually do the world some good by pushing American industry to develop a real alternative to gasoline-powered cars. It is obvious that, as this century goes on, oil is going to either enslave or empower and I am sure that, considering the chronic condition of countries like Iran, an alternative to Iranian oil will become more and more in demand.

I believe that if Mr. Bush wanted to leave a *real* legacy, he should focus on this problem.
StrategyUnit
April 15, 2006
5:03 am
Are we really surprised by an Aryan-Iran-Nazi connection?

I've heard (from 1-2 Iranians) that Persia changed its name in the 1930s to Iran partly to make nice to the Nazi's (due to the Iran-Aryan word connection).

Anyone know how true this is?
Kirk H. Sowell
April 23, 2006
1:06 am
Curzon: If Russia and China are upset about Ahmadinejad's antics, they aren't showing it. I'm sure they would have preferred Rafsanjani, but I don't see any genuine change in policy. We should note that Russia and China need Iran for different reasons: Russia needs the hard cash Iran is generating from the oil spike, while China needs the oil itself. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Iran recently overtook Saudi Arabia as China's main source of oil. I blogged about it here.

Jessica: I've added FP's blog to my daily blog reading list, and I think that it is pretty good, but I agree with your point. I've sensed a kind of 'corporate think' in the blog myself.

Elgin: I don't think that the government needs to do anything in this regard. Private industry is already developing hybrid cars which use less gas, and the increase in gas prices will naturally encourage this. People should stop complaining about the price of gasoline; the price is supposed to go up when demand goes up faster than supply. Moreover, even given a better alternative to gas-based cars, there are so many uses of oil that we will still need to defend out supply lines 50 years from now. It wouldn't change much geopologically.
MrJoshua
April 23, 2006
5:26 am
I believe that if Israel and/or the US declared war on Iran the only real ally they would have regardless of market situations, economical factors, etc...would be MAYBE Russia. The fact that China chose Iran as it's major oil supplier makes no difference. By standing aside while Iran is slowly beaten by the US, Israel and the UK they will provide themselves with a win-win situation. Russia could ally itself with Iran for purely economical reasons but I doubt very much if Putin believes they could stand against the rest of the superpowers. That's right- Russia allies with Iran equals WW3.
Kirk H. Sowell
April 23, 2006
6:17 am
To clarify: I don't mean to suggest that China or Russia would be military allies in the sense that they would intervene against the United States in war. That would not happen, any more than China would defend the Sudan militarily if we intervened. But as with the Sudan, this economic and diplomatic alliance protects Iran from any coordinated UN action. This matters because there are many in the U.S. and Britain who for some reason (ignorance? delusion?) believe that only action sanctioned by the UN is valid. That unfortunate fact puts Iran in stronger position, so China and Russia don't need to intervene militarily in order to be of assistance.
MrJoshua
April 23, 2006
6:31 pm
I think the Bush Administration proved in invading Iraq recently that they do not necessarily need UN approval to launch a massive military strike against a target. In Iraq's case the evidence of WMDs' was vague and actually turned out to be false and the US still attacked them; with help, I might add. Iran on the other hand is almost flouting it's disregard for the world's opinion, bullying it's way onto the nuclear stage and on top of all that that, the Iranian president is vowing he will exterminate all of Israel. My point is this...The US and Israel will launch a massive military offensive regardless of what the UN thinks. The US did it a few years ago in Iraq and the US will do it again to protect one of it's prized allies against a "terrorist" nation.
Kirk H. Sowell
April 24, 2006
4:20 am
Josh, I'm a bit skeptical as to whether we have the spine to go through with the attack you are predicting, which I'm not sure will solve the problem, but that is another discussion. The relevant point here is that if we strike Iran and there are difficulties, which there almost certainly will be, some people will argue that we should have worked more to get UN approval, and that this somehow would have made dealing with Iran more effective, just as it would have in Iraq, but this is a false argument, since Russia and China have contrary interests to the free world with regard to Iran. This is the problem with collective security; it only works if all relevant powers have the same interests - here they don't.
Jay
April 25, 2006
1:43 am
Has anyone here seen this news about Iran's (and others) admission into the Shangai Cooperation Organization (SCO)?

"China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold":http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html
By M K Bhadrakumar--Apr 18, 2006

[snip]
_...SCO's decision to welcome Iran into its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 15.
[...]
The timing of the SCO decision appears to be significant. By the end of April the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report to the United Nations Security Council in New York regarding Iran's compliance with the IAEA resolutions and the Security Council's presidential statement, which stresses the importance of Iran "reestablishing full, sustained suspension of uranium-enrichment activities".

The SCO membership is therefore a lifeline for Iran in political and economic terms. The SCO is not a military bloc but is nonetheless a security organization committed to countering terrorism, religious extremism and separatism. SCO membership would debunk the US propaganda about Iran being part of an "axis of evil".
[...]
By virtue of SCO membership, Iran can partake of the various SCO projects, which in turn means access to technology, increased investment and trade, infrastructure development such as banking, communication, etc. It would also have implications for global energy security._[...]
[snip]

And there's more. Got this story via this "blog post":http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/04/22.html#a1504
--which opines that the SCO "is quietly emerging as the Second Superpower," and apparently thinks it odd that the Western press has yet to take notice of this.

Should there be any reason for concern?
Younghusband
April 25, 2006
5:43 am
I don't think the SCO could be a superpower at all. It _is_ angling to be a regional hegemon, or at least a proxy hegemon lead by Russia and China, and does have a pretty scary lineup of toughs. The SCO is a security apparatus and not a political one.

As far as Iran joining, Iran has a lot of the same concerns as the other countries (eg narcotics trafficking) and membership has been on the table since they achieved observer status in 2005. I don't see it as a major danger sign, but wait and see if they accept Pakistan but turn India away...
sun bin
April 25, 2006
6:32 am
i dont' think SCO would likr Iran joining at this moment.

---
regarding iran's nuke or power plant. try to put yourself into iranian shoes.
if there is no consequence to india, pakistan, NK. why should it be different for iran?
esp. if what india got was encouragement, why should iran back off?
moreoever, what iran is doing today is far from making nuke, it is only just purifying U for power plant grade.

i am not saying this is right. but it is what they could argue.

the most practical solution, as i blogged a while ago, "is to supply them with these fuel rods and leave them with no such excuse":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-birds-with-one-stone-how-to-solve.html