Iran has made some bold statements to the effect that if sanctions against that nation continue, action may be taken; they particularly emphasize the possibility of closing the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz by force. Iranian naval commander Habibollah Hayyari brags that closing the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, thereby disrupting the flow of Middle East oil to world markets, would be as difficult as drinking a glass of water.
Iran is seen by the world as a nuclear threat, combining missile technology with nuclear payload on their Shahab 3 missiles. The United States and world body law enforcers have already imposed strict sanctions, and are in the process of going further, even to the extent of targeting the Iranian central bank. Congress has approved such sanctions, and implementation awaits President Obama’s signature. Concurrently, European officials are considering a ban on import of Iranian oil. That ban would reduce the Iranian supply of oil to the world by about one third.
Iran's vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, repeated the threat that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed if sanctions persist. New reports hasten to add that no further military threats have been made.
Businessweek, through Ali Nader of RAND Corp, points out that closing the strategic waterway might hurt Iran more than any other nation. Iran is more reliant than any other country on the Strait of Hormuz.
In March of 2011, Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Army Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess said to Congress that Iran was expanding naval bases in the Persian Gulf, and expressed a belief that they would be able to close the shipping lanes at least temporarily. A Center for Strategic and International Studies expert, Anthony Cordsman, predicted that closing the strait would be the beginning of a five to ten year period of rising tension in the gulf. Cordsman said that such moves by Iran would call for a United States change in military posture, and for increased attention in the Pacific.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - sharon a
I agree that closing the Strait of Hormuz will hurt Iran the most since Saudi Arabia has the East West pipeline to Yanbu..
Further, I don't see how Iran could sustain a long period with the Straits closed. since they are currently importing gasoline for lack of refinery capacity and the Iranians are on gas rationing.
My concern is that if Iran is attacked, they will in turn bomb Abqaiq which is the home of the Gahwar fields and a terminal for oil coming out of Shabah.
Seems to me that the whole world is being held hostage by the fear that Iran might get a nuclear weapon and might arbitrarily attack Israel.
2 - John Lake
The world has great concern over the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power, with nuclear tipped missiles.
3 - GetReal
So many words written about Iranian nuclear weapons, well where are these clandestine enrichment and weapon fabrication plants? Neither US nor any other country has been able to back up their allegations after all the surveillance or espionage work? Well if it you can't find it, it is because it is not there. So who is all this war war talk benefitting; answer: $30bn arms contract for Boeing. Stop blowing smoke up our backsides and end this belligerent facade.
4 - John Lake
Governments tell their people what they want them to believe. When I wrote about the Japanese Tsunami, a man in Japan argued that most of what all Americans were reading and seeing wasn't true. That surprised me.
I imagine I could be wrong. Maybe the American government is fabricating the Iranian Nuclear threat. Maybe Ahmadinejad didn't threaten to blow Israel off the face of the globe. But I have written that America is lucky to have a media in which we can believe. So, I believe that Iran is combining missiles with nuclear warheads, in violation of morality, and international law.
5 - Igor
John, I'm curious about what your Japanese correspondent had to say, since it became obvious quickly that the japanese government was lying to their citizens. In what particular way was the US government lying? By minimizing, as in Japan?
6 - John Lake
The article I referred to was a controversial piece I wrote in March of 2011 about the damage to the nuclear plants, and the potential for some low level explosions that would release radioactive clouds that could spread and do vast damage. The paragraph in question was:
The world is well aware that on March 11, 2011, Japan was shaken to its foundations by an earthquake of 9.0 magnitude. Following the earthquake, a tsunami battered the island. The loss of life has been beyond comprehension. Japan is home to several nuclear power generating plants; these plants were so damaged by the quake as to be irreparable. Even today workers are laboring to prevent further damage to the island and beyond, that may be caused by deadly radiation pouring from the ruins of the nuclear plants. The efforts to contain the hazardous clouds of smoke and gasses are hampered by radiation already omnipresent. The workers may be forced to give up the effort, because of the threat to their lives. Now, another concern has arisen. …
A reader who used the name “staying alive” wrote a skeptical reply. I surmised that he might be a resident of the Island, or have friends or relatives there. He wrote:
5 - staying alive
Mar 19, 2011 at 3:16 am
“these plants were so damaged by the quake as to be irreparable”
once i got to this line, i stopped reading any further.
I suppose the author isn’t a nuclear expert / physicist / seismologist.
Sorry, FUD is not needed at times like this. thank you.
7 - John Lake
NB:
FUD fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
8 - Igor
Thanks, John. I was hoping there was something more illuminating.
In fact, of course, your original article was correct, the reactors were damaged beyond repair.
9 - Irene Athena
John, you write: "...America is lucky to have a media in which we can believe. So, I believe that Iran is combining missiles with nuclear warheads, in violation of morality, and international law."
No disrespect meant, John, but you may need to consider replacing the word "lucky" with the phrase "sufficiently gullible."
This from "Chain Reaction: How the media has misread the IEAE's report on Iran",
published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
"When, earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report on Iran's nuclear program, several media agencies and politicians walked away with two messages: that the Vienna-based agency now refutes past estimates of the US intelligence community, and that Iran is now making a break for the bomb. Both representations are false. Yet these assertions have been repeated often enough to give them traction with the public and Congress...
...Washington talks a lot, but does not read very much. That is the simplest way to explain why commentators overlook the consistency between the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program...
...Pundits and politicians who use the latest IAEA report to attack the 2007 NIE are distorting the information, at best -- and, at worst, are playing politics with national security."
10 - Irene Athena
Another profitable exercise would be to replace the "n" in Iran with a "q", and find some interesting parallels in recent history. An embargo whose murderous effect on half a million children went almost completely unreported in the US press. Check. Reports of reports of reports of weapons of mass destruction. Check. Which were considered by many to be sufficient grounds for a preemptive strike. Check.
11 - roger nowosielski
No disrespect intended either, but since Irene made that comment, I may as well piggyback.
It's just a thought that according to some, it serves US interests to maintain a hostile stance vis-a-vis Iran, especially that we've been expelled from Iraq and our Afghanistan engagement is nearly over.
12 - Irene Athena
Hi Roger. Well I hope John's not feeling "piled-on upon" in this comments section. I harbor no ill feelings toward John, and your friendly exchanges with him recently show you don't either.
13 - roger nowosielski
Never have, Irene. John is a veteran media person and a big boy besides, He's never been ornery with me, and I'm not about to change the pattern.
Hope you enjoyed your Christmas.
14 - roger nowosielski
Since you're here, I may as well post the following -- short and snappy and a good read. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Phillipa Foot on Goodness.
15 - John Lake
We all remember the claims about Iraq, the inspectors on the ground, the Valerie Plame incident. Only GWB found sufficient cause to attack, and he was the worst of the worst in America's history.
If there was confusion there, I must have missed it.
16 - John Lake
Phillipa Foot (my gad!!) is going nowhere.
17 - roger nowosielski
The Democrats have gone along with it though, ain't it the case? All share the blame.
As to #16, would you care to explain (although it was a comment on the margin, for Irene's benefit),.
18 - Irene Athena
No sir, John, YOU weren't one to be confused about Iraq. Why are you buying the hype about Iran?
19 - Irene Athena
Natural goodness! I thought at first it was all about granola, Roger.
Well, I'm all for finding common ground. I'm impressed that an atheist is willing to initiate a search for it in Summa Theologica.
20 - roger nowosielski
Have I ever said I was an atheist? I hope you're referring to the article's author.
But seriously now, you should give it at least a cursory read. I was somewhat disturbed by your conception of morality as amounting to not much more than decency. This provides the necessary corrective.
Lest you didn't know, but you do of course, even pagans like Socrates were thick and thin into it, and they knew nothing of Christianity. How that's possible is a question for another time and place, the fact of it is significant.
21 - Irene Athena
Yes, I was referring to the author, and yes I intend to say more about Philippa's article, but on the OWS thread, not here, where hopefully somebody else will have something to say about Iran.
22 - roger nowosielski
I'm glad we're having this conversation, and I certainly hope it'll make an impact on some of our liberal-minded friend.
For your info, this is the full comment I made on Ms Foot's article on my own thread. I may give you some idea as to where I'm coming from.
comment #125.
I realize I'm barging in here with what some may regard as extraneous matters, but to my thinking, this is most germane.
As to Iran, it's just an example of human hubris. Examples are useful for didactic purposes, but their usefulness quickly approaches the law of diminishing marginal returns once one is aware of the underlying principle.
23 - John Lake
I was simply saying the particular foot link was non-functioning.
Atheists declare certainty that there is no overriding order. But odd as it seems, there seems to be.
As to specific religions, organized religions, developed religions with all their trappings, I find them hard to accept.
24 - roger nowosielski
Gotcha, John. The link has apparently been fixed.
Yes, I definitely agree with you as to institutionalized religions; suffer from the same trappings as any other institution.
As to certainty, let me suggest an example of Wittgensteinian logic: to be certain of, or to know, something must allow for the possibility of doubt. Which is why W regarded our first-person sensation statements -- e.g., "I know I am in pain" -- as a kind of linguist nonsense, i.e., as not saying anything,
25 - Christopher Rose
"Atheists declare certainty that there is no overriding order"
They do?
News to me!