Let's talk geopolitics!
24/10/12 19:48![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
htpcl.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsGreetings, my dear horse and bayonet fixated election junkies knowledgeable guys who care so much about what's happening around the world (because it'll sooner or later come to bite you on the butt)! You know, there was this recent discussion around here of the "Syria is Iran's route to the sea!!11!" meme, which has brought Romney a lot of mockery. I'm not sure he even knew that he was implying something that made much more sense at a deeper level than he thought. Or I dunno, I could be wrong and he could be a genius in disguise, who actually knows where Ubeki-beki-beki-stanstan is!
The point is, the Mediterranean is a sea too, innit? It's actually Iran's shortest way to Europe, and all that oil in the Cyprus area.
The Straits of Hormuz could be sealed by a military blockade by the US and its allies*. Put a fleet of military vessels at its entrance and it's closed for commercial traffic. In this sense, Syria could be a safe reserve route to the sea for Iran, yes. Especially if you have an ally at those shores.
Of course, there's this tiny detail that Iraq lies between Iran and Syria. It sure does. That's why Iran's been pretty active in Iraq through proxies ever since Saddam's removal. I don't think that's because they just like Syria's sandy beaches, but I might be wrong. ;-)
The map above (click to enlarge) clearly shows that Iran's oil and gas ports are located exclusively on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Further, the Zagros mountains prohibit the construction of secondary pipelines that would go to ports at the Oman Sea coast. In case of emergency, Iran couldn't rely on access to the sea because sealing the Persian Gulf would be priority #1 for the US and its allies*. Same is valid for the Oman Sea btw.
The red lines here are the routes currently dominated by Iran and/or its allies, or at least those who aren't as opposed to its geopolitical agenda as the West is. The Iraq-Syria route looks the most viable access to the Mediterranean basin (both for its resources and for its access to world markets), since Israel is an obstacle and Jordan is part of the Arab alliance opposed to the Iranian interests. Afghanistan-Pakistan is another possible route, but it's far more complicated from both a technical/geographical and (geo)political standpoint.
In case of a Persian Gulf / Oman Sea blockade by the West, Iran would have to look for other options for access to world markets, because oil and gas revenues are what holds this regime together.
So yes, Syria is very important for Iran.
And if some of us still think Europe would suddenly stop needing Iran's oil and gas, maybe we should ask Putin what he thinks about providing alternative extra resources to Europe, and the cost he'd be willing to demand, respectively.
Case in point: Iran actively using its oil as a political leverage to blackmail Europe.
Of course, there's the issue that blocking the Straits of Hormuz would hurt the global oil trade enormously because the entire Gulf region depends on it. Given the fact that this would instantly cause the global oil prices to skyrocket, ultimately the big winner from this situation would be Russia, which is a fact few people are talking about. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia does have pipelines accessing the Red Sea, but they'd hardly be able to compensate for the disruption.
As for Iran, there's still no pipeline running across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. And there won't be any time soon. Because it's all about geopolitical interest. Pipelines only run where one's geopolitical interests are secured. And Iran's are far from secured in Iraq, let alone Syria.
That's the whole fight in Central and South Asia, including Afghanistan. The routes of the Kazakh, Uzbek and Turkmen gas and oil to the Indian Ocean. There was a recent post here about the scramble for Central Asia. That's the source of the resource. The port? It's supposed to be in Pakistan. Is that route secured geopolitically? Hell no, far from it. But that doesn't mean that the efforts won't continue.
The irony is that by starting the Iraq War, GWB has made it much easier for Iran to go into Iraq, which has emboldened them in Syria and elsewhere throughout the region as well. Where the Western-Arab alliance used to hold them largely in check before, Iran is now seen as a viable threat to the status quo (and Turkey's involvement as a major regional player doesn't help things get any simpler, either). As a consequence of all this, things have become immensely easier for Iran, and not just in Iraq. If we look the opposite direction, the Taliban are (temporarily?) out of Afghanistan. Perfect situation for Iran. Probably that's why the tide is now shifting and focusing onto them more directly. Obviously the US has shot itself in both its legs regarding Iran, now what's left is to try to do something about Iran itself, rather than trying to knock down its proxies. Because the latter has obviously been a huge failure, or as we Euros call it, "own goal".
All that said, it's clear that the various big players will be intensifying their fight over these regions as their hunger for resources gets more severe. Indeed, Syria may not appear to be as precious for the West as Suez is, but for Iran it's vital.
________________
* Or the Allies could just try this. How's that for a blockade!
[Error: unknown template video]
The point is, the Mediterranean is a sea too, innit? It's actually Iran's shortest way to Europe, and all that oil in the Cyprus area.
The Straits of Hormuz could be sealed by a military blockade by the US and its allies*. Put a fleet of military vessels at its entrance and it's closed for commercial traffic. In this sense, Syria could be a safe reserve route to the sea for Iran, yes. Especially if you have an ally at those shores.
Of course, there's this tiny detail that Iraq lies between Iran and Syria. It sure does. That's why Iran's been pretty active in Iraq through proxies ever since Saddam's removal. I don't think that's because they just like Syria's sandy beaches, but I might be wrong. ;-)
The map above (click to enlarge) clearly shows that Iran's oil and gas ports are located exclusively on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Further, the Zagros mountains prohibit the construction of secondary pipelines that would go to ports at the Oman Sea coast. In case of emergency, Iran couldn't rely on access to the sea because sealing the Persian Gulf would be priority #1 for the US and its allies*. Same is valid for the Oman Sea btw.
The red lines here are the routes currently dominated by Iran and/or its allies, or at least those who aren't as opposed to its geopolitical agenda as the West is. The Iraq-Syria route looks the most viable access to the Mediterranean basin (both for its resources and for its access to world markets), since Israel is an obstacle and Jordan is part of the Arab alliance opposed to the Iranian interests. Afghanistan-Pakistan is another possible route, but it's far more complicated from both a technical/geographical and (geo)political standpoint.
In case of a Persian Gulf / Oman Sea blockade by the West, Iran would have to look for other options for access to world markets, because oil and gas revenues are what holds this regime together.
So yes, Syria is very important for Iran.
And if some of us still think Europe would suddenly stop needing Iran's oil and gas, maybe we should ask Putin what he thinks about providing alternative extra resources to Europe, and the cost he'd be willing to demand, respectively.
Case in point: Iran actively using its oil as a political leverage to blackmail Europe.
Of course, there's the issue that blocking the Straits of Hormuz would hurt the global oil trade enormously because the entire Gulf region depends on it. Given the fact that this would instantly cause the global oil prices to skyrocket, ultimately the big winner from this situation would be Russia, which is a fact few people are talking about. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia does have pipelines accessing the Red Sea, but they'd hardly be able to compensate for the disruption.
As for Iran, there's still no pipeline running across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. And there won't be any time soon. Because it's all about geopolitical interest. Pipelines only run where one's geopolitical interests are secured. And Iran's are far from secured in Iraq, let alone Syria.
That's the whole fight in Central and South Asia, including Afghanistan. The routes of the Kazakh, Uzbek and Turkmen gas and oil to the Indian Ocean. There was a recent post here about the scramble for Central Asia. That's the source of the resource. The port? It's supposed to be in Pakistan. Is that route secured geopolitically? Hell no, far from it. But that doesn't mean that the efforts won't continue.
The irony is that by starting the Iraq War, GWB has made it much easier for Iran to go into Iraq, which has emboldened them in Syria and elsewhere throughout the region as well. Where the Western-Arab alliance used to hold them largely in check before, Iran is now seen as a viable threat to the status quo (and Turkey's involvement as a major regional player doesn't help things get any simpler, either). As a consequence of all this, things have become immensely easier for Iran, and not just in Iraq. If we look the opposite direction, the Taliban are (temporarily?) out of Afghanistan. Perfect situation for Iran. Probably that's why the tide is now shifting and focusing onto them more directly. Obviously the US has shot itself in both its legs regarding Iran, now what's left is to try to do something about Iran itself, rather than trying to knock down its proxies. Because the latter has obviously been a huge failure, or as we Euros call it, "own goal".
All that said, it's clear that the various big players will be intensifying their fight over these regions as their hunger for resources gets more severe. Indeed, Syria may not appear to be as precious for the West as Suez is, but for Iran it's vital.
________________
* Or the Allies could just try this. How's that for a blockade!
[Error: unknown template video]
(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 06:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 15:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 18:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 21:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 00:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 01:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 01:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 15:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 17:50 (UTC)Oh, that would be not a port but oasis otherwise.
PS.
"the Taliban are (temporarily?) out of Afghanistan."
Did someone bothered to tell them that, I wonder?
GPS could help.
(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 18:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/10/12 20:01 (UTC)Quite true, but since the U.S. has been responsible for keeping the Straits open to commercial traffic for years, that would be a sea change (no pun intended) in U.S. policy.
(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 00:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 03:16 (UTC)Yes, he's using awkward language and not being clear, but with a little thought you can get it. He's saying that Syria is important to Iran in
regards to the Mediterranean Sea. You can get this if you think about it, as the water that Iran borders is not a sea (except for the Caspian, which isn't an issue for anyone, so we can ignore that). The hard part to know is whether he means to refer to economic power (which is how we normally use that kind of terminology) or to military/political power (which is more likely in context).
(no subject)
Date: 25/10/12 17:21 (UTC)