Who is more respectful of Christmas celebrations? Iran and Syria, or Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Christmas is a time of goodwill to all men. Or at least it should be. But while the West’s Middle East ‘bad guys’ Iran and Syria, showed the Yuletide spirit (period of several days around and including Christmas day), its closest allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, failed to do so.
Iran is demonized by Western neocons and we’re meant to see the country as an evil, ‘monster‘ regime of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatics who hate everyone.

So it goes against the dominant narrative somewhat that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a Christmas message and wished ‘peace and joy to all in 2019’, on Christmas Eve.

From Javad Zarif:

The angels said, "Mary, God gives you good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. (QURAN 2:45)
May the blessings of the birth of Jesus usher peace and joy to all in 2019.

It also goes against the narrative, that Zarif, back in September, wished Jews, in Iran and across the world, “a very Happy New Year filled with peace and harmony.”

He also wished well to all Jews worldwide:

Iran's Zarif wishes 'happy Rosh Hashana' to Jews worldwide http://dlvr.it/QkLdKd 

We’re told repeatedly that the Iranian ‘regime’ is ‘anti-Semitic’, but do ‘anti-Semites’ wish Jews a happy ‘Rosh Hashanah’? If so, it's a rather strange definition.

The Iranian Foreign Minister also tweeted on December 26 a message of goodwill to Iran’s Zoroastrian community.

In fact, despite the large number of Christians from other countries who work in the country, including many Britons, the holding of any Christmas-related services or commemorations in Saudi Arabia is strictly banned. “The Christmas season – often a season where Christians around the world are most visible – is a tense time for Christians in Saudi Arabia, who have to celebrate the holiday in secret, risking arrest and deportation,” said Jeff King, President of the International Christian Concern, in 2016.

Imagine being a Christian and not being able to openly celebrate the birth of Christ. It happens in Saudi Arabia, yet Western leaders, so keen to lecture others about ‘human rights’ and ‘religious freedom’ stay silent, preferring to pick on Iran – where Christmas can be openly celebrated.

Syria is another country ‘monstered’ by the endless war lobby but where, against all the odds, the Christmas spirit is still maintained. Big seasonal celebrations were held this year in Aleppo and Damascus. Remember Aleppo?

It was recaptured by the Syrian Arab Army from Islamist ‘rebels’ two years ago this month, and the neocon/’liberal interventionist’ commentariat, and most of the political class portrayed it as a most terrible thing. Ian Austin MP said that people in Aleppo faced ‘slaughter’.

John Woodcock MP called the Morning Star newspaper ‘traitorous scum’ for referring to the recapture of Aleppo by Syrian forces of their own territory, as a ‘liberation’. But if you look at the pictures of Christians celebrating Christmas there once again, which they were forbidden to do under the western-backed head-chopping ’rebels’ you can see that the ‘L’ word was indeed appropriate.

Author: Neil Clark
Reference:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447671-christmas-iran-syria-israel-saudis/

Is Iran becoming a nuclear power?

After the US president Donald Trump decided to withdraw from the nuclear Iran Treaty and imposed draconian sanctions to Irán that have affected the economy and life of the country, the Persian (Iranian) leaders are moving fast into becoming a nuclear power. It may happen in a couple of years.

It is not a good development for the main regional iranian enemies: Israel and Saudi Arabia. If this process is not stopped we might be closer than ever to a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East.

5/11/19 news from Al Jazeera

“Under the nuclear deal signed in 2015 by Iran, the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, these centrifuges are supposed to spin without gas injection. Tehran has gradually reduced commitments made under the accord - including uranium stockpile and enrichment limits - since being hit with renewed US sanctions last year. 

Russia said on Tuesday it was concerned by Iran's latest move, adding it would like the deal to remain in place.

"We are monitoring the development of the situation with concern," President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "We support the preservation of this deal."

A spokeswoman for the European Commission expressed similar concern, adding that "it is increasingly difficult to preserve" the deal.

Iran has two vast enrichment sites, at Natanz and Fordow. Much of Natanz is deep underground and Fordow is buried inside a mountain, which is widely believed to protect them from aerial bombardment. Before the deal, Iran used Fordow to enrich uranium to 20 percent fissile purity.

"This announcement will be taken very seriously by the European Union, Russia and China, because of the sensitivity of Fordow and what it entails,"Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, a fellow at Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera. "So we will have to see if Iran went too far in trying to push the remaining parties or if the JCPOA stays alive or not," she added, referring to the deal's formal title.

'Possible to reverse'

Rouhani, in his address, said all of the steps Iran has taken so far are reversible and Tehran will uphold all of its commitments under the deal when the remaining signatories do the same. 

"We know their sensitivity with regard to Fordow. With regard to these centrifuges, we know. But at the same time when they uphold their commitments we will cut off the gas again ... So it is possible to reverse this step," the Iranian president said.

"We can't unilaterally accept that we completely fulfil our commitments and they don't follow up on their commitments."

Reference:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/iran-rouhani-announces-step-2015-nuclear-deal-191105074912547.html

Geopolitical consequences of isolationist policies of Donald Trump against Iran

The isolation of Iran generated by the aggressive policies of the United States leads to the creation of new commercial transport agreements between several Eurasian powers. Within that framework, Iran, Russia and India plan to put into operation a trade and transport corridor that would be a cheaper and shorter alternative route than the Suez Canal.

Representatives of Russia, Iran and India will meet at the end of this month to discuss the operation of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) of 7200 km, which if realized, would not only shorten It would also reduce the transport of goods in comparison to the traditional route through the Suez Canal, which links Asia and Europe.

As reported on Wednesday by the Iranian PressTV network, the 7200 km route is a network of sea and rail routes, which once in operation, would allow to send the products from the port of India Jawaharlal Nehru, near Mumbai (Bombay) also known Nhava Sheva to the port of

Bandar Abás located on the shore of the Persian Gulf. From Bandar Abas the loads would be transported by train or road to Bandar Anzali, which is an Iranian coastal port on the Caspian Sea. From Bandar Anzali the products could be shipped in the Caspian Sea to the city of Astrakán (which is a Russian port on the Volga River, near its mouth) and from Astrakán the loads would continue by train to Europe.

According to estimates, the report adds, the route would reduce the time and cost of delivery of goods between 30 and 40 percent. Compared to the Suez Canal - a navigation channel located in Egypt that links the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea - the corridor would reduce transport time between the Indian city of Bombay and the Russian city, Moscow, by approximately 20 days.

The estimated capacity of the corridor that would connect Asia with Europe will be 20 to 30 million tons of goods per year, PressTV said.

According to a statement from the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry cited by the Indian media, the trilateral meeting on the aforementioned corridor is scheduled for November 23, where interested parties will talk to make this route operational as soon as possible. , PressTV reported.

"The INSTC is the shortest multi-purpose transport route that links the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf through Iran to Russia and northern Europe," the ministerial note said

Is the US media beating the drums of war on Iran?

How inflammatory headlines, unnamed sources and decades of misinformation in the US media over Iran play their part.

Hyped-up headlines, "anonymous" sources and unspecified threats -  Iran is back in the news in the United States.

It wouldn't be the first time the US media, wittingly or unwittingly, have made the case for war on the basis of vague, anonymously sourced intelligence. In 2003, it was Iraq. In 2019, it's Iran. Much of American news reporting on US-Iran relations glosses over President Donald Trump's role, how his policies have led to this standoff.

There's even less space given to reflect on the history of the US aggression against Iran. Which is not to say the Islamic Republic, ruled by authoritarians and involved in wars in Syria and Yemen, is an innocent player. However, inflammatory headlines, unnamed sources and decades of misinformation in the US media over Iran - don't help.

"All of a sudden, you have a news headline that takes over the world which comes from a rather dubious and questionable sourcing," explains Ali Vaez, the director of Iran Project at International Crisis Group. "But by the time that people start asking questions, it's already too late because the narrative has been framed."

The 2003 Iraq war is considered the greatest collective failure in the history of American journalism. And it's far too soon to see those kinds of practices in use, once again.

"The US media was not critical at all of the George W Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war," points out Narges Bajoghli, an assistant professor of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "And in this instance, we are seeing the same sorts of attributions begin again when in US media they're talking a lot about threats from Iran and yet they're not providing much intel about that."

In the news business, context matters. And it's largely missing in the US-Iran coverage.

For most Americans, this conflict goes back to the 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent hostage-taking of 52 Americans in Tehran that were held captive in their embassy for 444 days.

That is what led to the 1979 hostage crisis that Iranians remember.

In 1953, the US-aided coup brought down the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstalled the Shah of Iran, who would rule his people for a quarter century.

But there is even more to US-Iran history. Such as the role the US played in the Iran-Iraq war, in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration helped Saddam Hussein's forces and his army used chemical weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians were casualties of that.

Despite that troubled backstory, in 2015, Iran came to an agreement with the US, the European Union and five other countries in which it agreed to limit its national nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

The Iranians stuck to their end of the deal. The Trump administration did not, pulling out of the pact last year, unilaterally.

But US news outlets, that are usually not shy with their criticism of President Trump, provide him with much more leeway on foreign policy than on domestic issues.

"Iran's policies in the region are often described as "malign", "nefarious", "destabilising" as if everybody else's actions in the region are benign and stabilising," says Vaez. "I think this kind of demonising and portraying Iran as the source of all evil in the region is by definition a hype and by definition results in misguided policies that could produce another tragedy like the Iraq war."

Reproduced from Aljazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2019/05/media-beating-drums-war-iran-190525122419621.html

Who is more respectful of Christmas celebrations? Iran and Syria, or Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Christmas is a time of goodwill to all men. Or at least it should be. But while the West’s Middle East ‘bad guys’ Iran and Syria, showed the Yuletide spirit (period of several days around and including Christmas day), its closest allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, failed to do so.
Iran is demonized by Western neocons and we’re meant to see the country as an evil, ‘monster‘ regime of foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatics who hate everyone.

So it goes against the dominant narrative somewhat that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a Christmas message and wished ‘peace and joy to all in 2019’, on Christmas Eve.

From Javad Zarif:

The angels said, "Mary, God gives you good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. (QURAN 2:45)
May the blessings of the birth of Jesus usher peace and joy to all in 2019.

It also goes against the narrative, that Zarif, back in September, wished Jews, in Iran and across the world, “a very Happy New Year filled with peace and harmony.”

He also wished well to all Jews worldwide:

Iran's Zarif wishes 'happy Rosh Hashana' to Jews worldwide http://dlvr.it/QkLdKd 

We’re told repeatedly that the Iranian ‘regime’ is ‘anti-Semitic’, but do ‘anti-Semites’ wish Jews a happy ‘Rosh Hashanah’? If so, it's a rather strange definition.

The Iranian Foreign Minister also tweeted on December 26 a message of goodwill to Iran’s Zoroastrian community.

In fact, despite the large number of Christians from other countries who work in the country, including many Britons, the holding of any Christmas-related services or commemorations in Saudi Arabia is strictly banned. “The Christmas season – often a season where Christians around the world are most visible – is a tense time for Christians in Saudi Arabia, who have to celebrate the holiday in secret, risking arrest and deportation,” said Jeff King, President of the International Christian Concern, in 2016.

Imagine being a Christian and not being able to openly celebrate the birth of Christ. It happens in Saudi Arabia, yet Western leaders, so keen to lecture others about ‘human rights’ and ‘religious freedom’ stay silent, preferring to pick on Iran – where Christmas can be openly celebrated.

Syria is another country ‘monstered’ by the endless war lobby but where, against all the odds, the Christmas spirit is still maintained. Big seasonal celebrations were held this year in Aleppo and Damascus. Remember Aleppo?

It was recaptured by the Syrian Arab Army from Islamist ‘rebels’ two years ago this month, and the neocon/’liberal interventionist’ commentariat, and most of the political class portrayed it as a most terrible thing. Ian Austin MP said that people in Aleppo faced ‘slaughter’.

John Woodcock MP called the Morning Star newspaper ‘traitorous scum’ for referring to the recapture of Aleppo by Syrian forces of their own territory, as a ‘liberation’. But if you look at the pictures of Christians celebrating Christmas there once again, which they were forbidden to do under the western-backed head-chopping ’rebels’ you can see that the ‘L’ word was indeed appropriate.

Author: Neil Clark
Reference:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/447671-christmas-iran-syria-israel-saudis/

Iran wary of Trump’s plans in Iraqi Kurdistan

Fazel Hawramy

From Al-Monitor

October 12, 2017

More than two weeks after the Sept. 25 independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran has yet to take any meaningful action against the Kurdish region despite its rhetoric, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s labeling of the plebiscite as treason and a threat to the region in his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Oct. 4. “The perspective of the American and European states is completely different from the Turkish and Iranian perspective,” Khamenei told his guest, emphasizing that Israel and the United States are the main beneficiaries of an independent Kurdistan. “America is interested in having a pressure card at its disposal against Iran and Turkey; therefore, there can be no trust in the Americans and Europeans and their positions.”

While Iranian officials, including Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, have not hidden their anger and frustration at the way the Iraqi Kurdish leadership handled the referendum, they appear to be wary of a possible US plan to change the borders of the region in favor of the Kurds. Indeed, the line that Washington has a secret plan for the Middle East has been echoed by various former and also the current head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). “We believe that the creation of … a new state in the region is the wish of the system of domination headed by the Americans and the Zionists,” said former IRGC commander Yabya Rahim Sahim on Oct. 4. Safavi, who now serves as a senior military adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei — the commander in chief of the Islamic Republic — believes that the United States wants constant tension around Iran’s borders with Iraq and Turkey, and also Syria, as an excuse to keep a foothold in the vicinity. “Changes in the region’s geopolitical borders mean constant tension and a drawn-out war between the four countries with the supposed future [Kurdish] state that is intended to be established, and this insecurity and tension is what the Zionist regime and Americans want in order to have a permanent presence in the region.”

Despite these claims by Iranian officials, Washington has been clear about its policy of preferring a united, federal and democratic Iraq. But the situation is rendered further complex by the Donald Trump administration’s expected designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Tehran is furious about this, with some IRGC officials going as far as calling for the targeting of the US military across the region and the world. “If the news about the foolishness of the American state in designating the Sepah [IRGC] as a terrorist group is true, Sepah will also consider the American aims across the world and in particular in the Middle East as equal to Daesh [Islamic State, or IS],” said IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, referring to the terrorist group that the IRGC is fighting both in Iraq and Syria.

Such a scenario would further complicate the situation for Iraqi Kurdistan given the large presence of US forces within the region, with some as close as 60 kilometers (37 miles) to the Iranian border. While the official task of these forces is to fight IS, some in Tehran are concerned that Washington is there for the long haul tol keep a close eye on Iran.

In this vein, it should be noted that a new American military base is being constructed 50 kilometers (31 miles) northwest of Mosul, in an area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) peshmerga forces. The base is also 50 kilometers from the Syrian border, which is controlled by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a strong US ally currently fighting IS in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria. The United States is additionally building a sprawling consulate in Erbil that will cost sp,e 3600 millio. Meanwhile, Washington appears to have taken charge of the Haru base, also known as Bashur Airfield, 65 kilometers (40 miles) west of the Haji Omran border crossing with Iran. The US government used the base for the first time in March 2003 as part of its invasion of Iraq.

But some top Iranian officials believe that Tehran should tread carefully and see Trump as a dangerous president who should not be provoked. “The fact that we should not provoke Trump is an accurate statement,” former IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei said April 27 in response to a question about whether Trump is after war with Iran, adding, “But we also cannot give him space to come and play in our court either.” Rezaei, who now serves as secretary of the powerful Expediency Council, believes that the solution lies in the art of successful diplomacy and that Iran should avoid confrontation with the United States.

The task of diplomacy falls on the shoulders of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who addressed Iranian parliament members in a closed door meeting Oct. 11 to discuss three main issues: Trump’s policy toward the IRGC and the nuclear deal, the Syrian conflict and the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan. The message that came out of the meeting for the Kurds was that Iran is the “closest friend” of Iraqi Kurds and that they should work together.

As such, it appears that while Iran may not be happy with the way the Kurds decided to go ahead with the referendum, it has come around to living with the result so long as the Kurds do not take further steps toward independence. Iran wants to maintain its historical ties with Iraqi Kurds, and its current nonhostile approach — despite the bellicose rhetoric before the referendum — suggests that officials in Tehran have taken into account what are seen as Trump’s intentions in Iraqi Kurdistan be they real or imagined.

Thus, it is difficult to know how Iran might have reacted to the Kurdistan referendum had the Americans not returned to Iraq in the aftermath of the June 2014 IS blitzkrieg across northern Iraq. However, in the past — both in Iraq and Afghanistan — Iran has done everything possible to avoid a direct confrontation with the American forces. In the words Zarif, “No party or country need fear our missiles, or indeed any Iranian military capability, unless it intends to attack our territory or foment trouble through terrorist attacks on our soil.” 

Ref. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/10/iran-concern-trump-washington-plans-iraqi-kurdistan-region.html

Qatar blockade

Qatar is a very special emirate of the Persian Gulf coast.
One of its peculiarities is that, with 145,000 US dollars per person per year, it is the state with the highest per capita income in the world.
Another peculiarity is its small size, barely 11,580 km2 with 2,600,000 inhabitants of which only 300,000 are from Qatar, 2,300,000 are foreigners, usually migrant workers from Asian countries.
Its territory is extremely arid, with very high Summer temperatures (they can reach 50 degrees Celsius). There is practically no natural agricultural land, scarce production was limited to date palms, extensive rearing of camels and goats, fishing on its Gulf coasts, and diving for pearl oysters.

With these limited natural resources it is not surprising that the population was traditionally very scarce. In 1904 it amounted to only 27,000 inhabitants.
Nor was there too much interest in seizing the territory by the colonial powers. In spite of that, at the end of the XIX century, Qatar was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire and from 1916 on it was integrated into the British Empire with the status of "Protectorate".
In 1971 the Emirate gained its independence. At that time the population amounted to 112,000 inhabitants. Since 1940 oil had been discovered, production initially grew slowly, but in the last 25 years, after the discovery of large gas natural fields in Qatar Gulf waters. it has grown significantly, making Qatar one of the wealthiest countries of the world, reaching $ 145,000 per capita.

These large revenues enabled the country to invest its financial resources in many ways; public works, creation of a large global airline, purchase of professional sports teams, establishment of a news agency (Al Jazeera) and collaboration with other governments and organizations increasing its regional and global influence.
Enter "the Kingdom"
Recently Saudi Arabia has undergone some changes at the governmental level. The current king is Salman ibn Abdul Aziz but the effective government is carried out by his son Mohammed ibn Salman (although formally the prince of the crown and successor of the king is Muhammed bin Nayef who at the moment does not have any power having been left to the margin of the political decisions).
Following the seizure of power by Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia began to develop aggressive expansionist policies. This can be seen in the continuing bombings in Yemen (fighting the Shi'ite-based Houthi government) at the head of a Saudi-controlled coalition with strong US support.
Donald Trump's clumsy visit to Saudi Arabia took place recently, irresponsibly accepting Saudi suggestions of Qatar's role in promoting terrorism.
With the approval of the US, Saudi Arabia has decided a general offensive against Qatar, including breaking relations, expulsion of diplomats and Qatari citizens, banning overflight of airspace by Qatar Airways, closure of Al Jazeera offices in Arabia , etc. The Saudi decision was accompanied by the Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Maldives and several pro-Saudi movements in the Middle East.
                    Prince Mohammed bin Salman  
The blockade of Qatar leaves the emirate partially isolated with a single aerial and maritime exit through the territory and inland waters of Iran. At the same time, Erdogan, the president of Turkey decided to take the opportunity to intervene "supporting" the Qatari government by establishing a base in Qatari territory and sending troops.

In short, unexpectedly, Qatar is gaining support from Iran and Turkey. 
If the situation gets more tense, indirect support from Russia may appear.
If that were the case, an unusual geopolitical situation would occur. 
The hyper-enemies of all history: Iran (Persia), Turkey (Ottoman Empire) and Russia (Tsarist Empire), who have almost always been militarily and politically opposed, could ally themselves by supporting Qatar.

                                                 Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of Qatar
On the other side we may find Saudi Arabia (and its economically dependent countries, including Egypt and Bahrain), the United Arab Emirates and, unusually, the United States.
The US would enter into a regional conflict in a position of great clumsiness and high vulnerability. Perhaps Trump reverses his decision, but probably it does not. At that moment a situation of great uncertainty for the future of the region and the world may be generated. ..

Who benefits from the battle of Mosul

Reflections on the ever-worsening violent battle of Mosul.
Danilo Anton

"Liberating"  Mosul control from the hands of the cruel and sadistic ISIL (Islamic Army of Iraq and Levant).
In this offensive, nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to miss the possible territorial and political rewards that can be obtained after the capture of the city.  In short, those who hope to benefit are:
1) The government of Iraq, predominantly Shiite, trying to regain control of Iraqi territory. This government is very weak because of what is left after the clumsy and bloody invasion of the US and its closest allies (UK, Aznar's Spain, and the oil kingdoms).

2) The Kurds, stateless people, who already have an oil-rich territory based in Erbil and they are looking to extend their enclave. With its powerful army of Peshmerga, including women, they have become a difficult power to challenge. They already control Kirkuk (where Kurds are not the majority) and aspire to extend their territory to the banks of the Tigris River (where the city of Mosul is located).
3) Iran, which has great influence on the Iraq government itself in shiite Iraq and controls various Shiite paramilitary groups involved in the battle.

4) US and its allies that bombard with little precision but want to maintain their influence. The US and its allies support the Kurds and Iraqi government and have a limited presence on the ground. Its main benefit is to sell weapons.

5) Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies who financed Al Qaeda and ISIL and are now funding the "rebel" jihadists in Syria. They are present trying to avoid the growing influence of Iran and the Shiites.
6) Turkey, which is between a rock and a hard place. It started participating in the battles but risks that the strengthening of the Kurds may affect their control of their own Kurdish provinces in the southeast of the country.

7) Russia, which is embarking on the war in Syria, defending the Assad government and its port facilities in Tartus. Russia has a strategic alliance with Iran, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and considers this battle an opportunity to eliminate jihadism in Syria and in their own territory (p. Ej..en Chechnya). 

8) The interests of corporations producing weapons in the US who can sell their products.
9) Israel, which covertly tried to help promote jihadism in Syria (against the Assad government) observes with satisfaction as the Arab states weaken each other by fighting.
10) Al Qaeda and other Sunni jihadist organizations that will benefit from the defeat of their opponent within Islamic fundamentalism. Many fighters will end up moving to these groups already present in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other Arab and/or Muslim countries.
The main losers in this battle, as in other wars that develop in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, are civilians who are the victims. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries, destruction, incalculable and irreparable economic losses. Despite the blood, the war continues.
More info on the book "Land of little rain and plenty of blood," D.Antón, Piriguazú Editions, claim indantonster@gmail.com

The control of Persian Gulf petroleum resources

What it is at stake in Yemen

D.Anton

The Persian (Arabian) Gulf produces about half of the oil sold in the petroleum international markets.

The Strait of Hormuz, is the only exit point of these oil and gas exports. The daily flow is about 17-20 million bbl/d, 35% of all seaborne traded oil and almost 20% of oil traded worldwide.

More than 85% of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets (Japan, India, South Korea, and China). The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, even temporarily, could lead to serious economic consequences.

Although there are some pipelines that could bypass Hormuz they can only replace palrtially the Hormuz flow (the unused capacity of the Saudi Arabia and UAE pipelines is only 1 million bbl/day that could eventually be increased to 4 million bbl/day.

Still, in the near future most of the exported petroleum in the world will continue travelling through Hormuz.

The Hormuz strait is quite narrow. At its narrowest point it is 54 km wide. For this reason it has an enormous strategic importance.  

The Hormuz coastal countries are Iran, UAE and Oman. Potentially, Iran could easily block the strait. The likelihood of this blockade happening is extremely low but it still exists.

On the other hand, an important part of the petroleum exports going to Western Europe passes through the Red Sea and the Suez canal.

In order to get into the Red Sea ships must go through the strait of Bab el Mandeb. The Bab el Mandeb coastal countries are Yemen on its Asian side and Djibouti and Eritrea on the African coast.

Bab-el-Mandeb is a strategic link between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean sea. An estimated 3.5-4 million barrels of oil pass through the strait each day, which is 10% of all petroleum moved by tankers.

The width of the strait is about 30 km from Ras Menheli in Yemen to Ras Siyyan in Djibouti.

As in Hormuz, the Bab el Mandeb strait is vulnerable because of its narrowness, and eventually could be threatened from coastal countries actions, particularly from Yemen which has shown high political instability.

Presently the Yemen government is controlled by the Houthis, a shia nationalistic organization, which is closely related to shia Iran.

Therefore, Iran, with the Houthy alliance, might be, if necessary,  in a position to threaten both the Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb straits, and therefore threaten the circulation of most petroleum exports of the world.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United States or the United Kingdom would allow this situation to prosper, and as a result Saudi Arabia, a sunni muslim state (enemy of the shia Irán), has been bombing Yemeni cities and killing people for almost two years (with the help fo the U.S. and the U.K.).

As it can be seen, the war in Yemen is also a result of the struggle for control of the Middle East petroleum resources. It does not seem to cease in the near future.

Again,the greed of petro-capitalism will continue killing innocent people in Yemen and elsewhere.