Home
RSS Feed
Categories: Analysis and Proposal
Tags: Iran
As HMS Argyle and the French vessel La Motte-Picquet helped to escort US carrier Abraham Lincoln through the Straits at the weekend one can easily see a conflict developing in the Gulf, almost by accident, brinkmanship can sometimes go too far, but the question is, would a conflict in the Gulf be of strategic importance to the UK?
The obvious answer is yes of course it, would with the reason being energy, oil and gas.
To put this in context it worth looking at the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s annual statutory report on Supply Security because it shows a number of trends and figures that might disprove, prove or more likely, be ambiguous about the degree of strategic UK interest in the Middle East, at least from an energy perspective.
Contents
One might think the demand for electricity is only going to increase but this is not the case. As heavy industry declines and transport becomes ever efficient they have a large impact on demand. Although car use is increasing, the efficiency per vehicle is also increasing. Both these factors point to a demand reality that might not conform the expectation of many although one would imagine the demand for diesel and aviation fuel will increase.
The National Grid estimate the UK has a steady state demand for 60 Giga Watts per year with a generating capacity of 90.2 Giga Watts (the difference being due to seasonal variations) but with the CO2 reduction legislation and impending closure of many nuclear plants there could be a reduction of in excess of 19 GW by the end of 2020.
New generating plant is scheduled to fill the gap using both gas and renewables.
Europe is also increasingly becoming connected for large volumes of electricity transfer. The latest example of this is the electricity interconnect between the UK and the Netherlands called BRITNED. This 1000MW capacity system allows electricity to be passed both ways. Increasing connectivity is not all good news because it has the ability to put everyone in the same boat.
One of the traditional problems with electricity is that one cannot store it cheaply so demand at peak always has to be closely matched to generating capacity.
This again is where international ‘connectivity’ is making the whole system much more resilient. Norway has a huge pumped storage hydro-electric generating capacity and is starting to be used a what in effect is a huge battery, charged with intermittent power from wind and used to even out the variability.
LNG is still a major part of the UK energy mix and will remain so.
Since 2005 the UK has been a net importer of oil as yields from the North Sea decline.
Imports come from a diverse range of countries, mostly Norway. Imports from OPEC countries only account for 15% and of course, no all OPEC countries are in the Middle East or directly affected by the Straits of Hormuz.
Although aggregate demand for oil products has fallen the mix has changed, less petrol and more diesel and aviation fuel. UK refining capacity has not matched this trend so we export petrol and import diesel and aviation fuel.
Aviation fuel is sourced from a wide number of countries but taking those in the Gulf region, it is over 50%. Very little diesel is imported from beyond the shores of Europe.
Emergency oil stocks are EU and IEA obligations, 67.5 days of consumption for the EU and 90 days of net imports for the IEA. At the end of 2010 the UK held stocks equivalent to about 84 days final consumption.
The North Sea may be seen as a washed out resource but there may be surprises yet, the recent discovery of the Aldous Major South field in the Norwegian area is the largest ever discovered (in the North Sea)
The Security of Supply Report suggests that market diversity and an increasing capacity in infrastructure is not vulnerable to most disruption scenarios, including one must assume, a closure of the Straits of Hormuz for a short period.
Currently, gas for power generation contributes to both base load and peak loads. Gas is sourced from dwindling North Sea fields, pipeline delivered gas from continental Europe (Norway and Russia) and ship delivered Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from the USA and Middle East (mostly Qatar)
In 2006 Qatar overtook Indonesia as the world’s largest exporter of LNG and its North Fieldreserve is the largest in the world with an equivalent capacity of 150 years UK peak demand. The Qatargas II supply chain is a quite staggering project, the South Hook LNG terminal in Milford Haven, 14 new LNG tankers, 30 wells, 2 onshore processing facilities and the supporting infrastructure. It is the largest LNG terminal in Europe and can satisfy 20% of the UK’s demand alone.
The agreement with Qatargas is for a 20 year, non divertable supply. Within the terms of the agreement, supply cannot be diverted elsewhere if they pay more. Nearby is the Dragon LNG terminal, similar to South Hook although smaller, there are other large terminals on Teesside and the Isle of Grain.
In addition to Qatar, the UK imports LNG from, Kuwait, Algeria and Trinidad although the UK is the largest export destination for Qatar LNG.
Major gas pipelines include the Langeled and Vesterled routes from Norway, the IUK pipeline to Belgium and BBL pipeline to the Netherlands. These pipelines link the UK to the wider European gas infrastructure and at the height of the Russian supply crisis even allowed the UK to export gas into Europe.
Despite the noise about Hormuz and Qatar, the single largest import source for gas used in the UK is Norway but LNG has rapidly increased in importance. LNG imported using ships accounts for about 40% of imported gas (about 20% of total consumption), the vast majority being from Qatar.
Advancing technology with both liquefaction and regasification have enabled the distance that LNG can be transported economically viable has increased. This increases resilience because it allows a greater range of sources to be used.
What strikes me more about events of the last few weeks is the evidence that Iran has once again tried to play in the big leagues with threats about closing the Straits of Hormuz but this time has found that the rules have changed, the opposing teams, grounds and even the home fans have changed a great deal since the last time.
Those changes have culminated in a very harsh lesson in energy politics being meted out to Iran, a lesson she would do well to heed. That lesson has nothing at all to do with how many carriers are in the area, whether a submarine or speedboat will be effective or even the aftermath of such an action.
I have always said the principle victims of disruption in the Straits of Hormuz would be Iran, China, Japan and India.
Iran, as incredible as it might seem, is wholly reliant on imports of refined oil products, its creaky infrastructure, restrictive business environment and basket case economy would be dealt a severe blow by a shooting war, one which it might not recover from for a long time. Those in charge might hold a grip over the population now but a wholesale reduction in electricity generation, fuel for vehicles and other products would no doubt see yet more internal strife that may be successful this time.
It has even got to the point where the government is urging people to drive less, ride the train and convert cars to LNG. A recent parliamentary bill paves the way for a raft of measures that taken together will reduce imports of oil products. Iran for many years has heavily subsidised petrol prices which has encouraged inefficiency and encouraged smuggling to neighbouring countries. Fill up your car, drive it over the border and double your money on an industrial scale. It is hard to pull back from this.
Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world but its poor management of this resource means its economy remains weak and vulnerable, exports, whilst large, are small in comparison with other countries.
Iran actually has a relatively weak military capability, despite all the flashy ostentatious parade ground displays, formation speedboat manoeuvres and photoshopped images of rockets being launched there is not a great deal of depth, certainly not against punitive strikes from her much better equipped neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf States have been on a prolonged weapons shopping spree and if their prosperity is threatened or an attack is launched against the oil and gas production facilities things would very quickly resolve themselves.
A prolonged period of disruption is not likely when income is threatened.
China has in the last few weeks been very visibly making supply agreements with Saudi Arabia which sends a strong message to the Iranian leadership; patience is beginning to get threadbare. Carry on your nonsense and we will shop elsewhere. This might be a simplistic view, China has a very complex and deep rooted relationship with Iran, but the signs of impatience are there.
Speaking a couple of days ago after a visit to the region the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said;
China has normal trading relations with Iran, but will not bargain away its principles. We support the UN resolutions related to the Iranian nuclear issue. Iran would not have wanted China to make this statement, but Iran must understand that if it comes down to a choice China will not alienate itself from the rest of the world for the sake of single country
Whilst Iran may be all bluff and bluster, as they edge closer to being a global ‘billy no mates’ sense does seem to be prevailing with signs of a gradual stepping away from the hard lines.
Many interpret the recent softer tones coming from Iran as a direct response to the US carrier but I find this unconvincing, China and the realities of energy economics seem to have a much greater impact, although let’s not dismiss completely the sobering thought of a US carrier battle group and attendant UK/French naval vessels in the area.
Oil and gas are global commodities and whatever local arrangements are in place a global price increase would affect everyone.
Except would it?
The UK’s commercial gas contracts for example, are a mix of divertible and non-divertible at agreed prices. There are people who think disruption in the Gulf would increase oil and gas prices beyond the short term but others point to the global economic downturn and EU problems depressing the market, keeping prices down and supply outstrips demand.
A sustained price increase as a result of disruption in the Gulf is certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Normally, price increases would be in the interests of Iran but as they run out of customers they might find that an increase in prices is not offset by a reduction in sales volume.
Predicting energy prices is difficult at the best of times and there are very few certainties.
The very simple long term option is to relegate the whole area to a backwater of strategic irrelevance.
Take the heat out of the situation, remove the tension and avoid the problem.
The only way the West can do this is to remove its dependence on Middle East oil and gas.
So that was Monday, what would we do on Tuesday!
It doesn’t need saying that is easier said than done and if there is one positive to come from the whole climate change debate it is a renewed vigour on the quest for alternative and renewable energy.
Perhaps this is a better argument for renewables than CO2 reduction and man-made climate change, certainly less divisive and a lot more clear cut.
If one follows the energy technology news there is activity every single day, new technologies, new applications, means of reducing demand and a whole load of creative thinking. I am more optimistic for the long time than many, if the human race has shown anything it is a knack for adapting and overcoming big challenges.
Long term there is no alternative, although hydrocarbons will be continually extracted in one form or another for some time to come, and again, we seem to be able to tackle the increasing difficulty in extraction, the future clearly is wind, wave, hydrothermal, shale gas, underground coal gasification, hydrogen, various forms of nuclear and solar.
The UK is well blessed for some of these, particularly wave and tidal but there is a long way to go before we can stop sucking on the teat of Middle East oil and gas, particularly gas.
This is not an overnight option and therefore the issue of Iran has to be addressed.
The best option for Iran is for Iran to stop being an arsehole and reconnect with the world.
Economic prosperity, with its attendant power are easily within the reach of Iran and her people.
By stopping the pursuit of nuclear weapons, sanctions would soon disappear.
This would then put Iran on normal trading relations with the rest of the world and if it could then reform its poor economic management and business environment inward investment into its shockingly poor refining and exploration infrastructure would follow.
Net result, buyer meets seller and everyone concentrates on making money, talk of sanctions and air strikes become a thing of the past, Gucci handbags and internet access all round.
We should therefore be investing time, energy, creativity and resources in five areas;
Remind Iran of the Consequences of Continued Shenanigans
This does not need overt brinkmanship, cruising around the Gulf in carrier battle groups edging closer to the inevitable, but it does need a concerted and determined effort to remind Iran that whilst we wish to de-escalate and avoid confrontation if it wants a fight it is going to be the loser. Appearing weak and divided is the very last thing we should be doing but let’s not be throwing petrol on the fire either.
The Gulf States need to get off the fence as well; it is their region and their economies that would be disrupted. We should be clear that we are committed to supporting them but they need to be equally committed, no sitting on the side lines, no conditional access. If we are to be engaged so must they, if they cannot find justification for regional conflict then why should we?
To support his, any mission must be focussed laser like on maintaining the free flow of goods through the area, nothing more, nothing less. However, the tactics to ensure this free flow must be flexible enough to be effective.
Having made the point, Western forces should rapidly wind down their major naval presence in the area i.e. carriers should not be in the Gulf beyond the next few weeks.
Reduce Vulnerability to Supply Disruption
As the report referred to above shows, the UK has an extremely flexible and diverse gas and oil supply infrastructure and equally flexible trade and regulation environments but with a few hot spots, with over 50% of imported aviation fuel and over 20% (and rising) of imported natural gas coming from the region. We must understand, despite these relatively high figures, they represent yearly figures, would not be overly vulnerable to short term disruption and could be replaced with other sources.
This may be optimistic so security of supply regulation should examine means of reducing vulnerability to medium term disruption by investing in greater refining capability, especially for aviation fuel, and LNG storage, an area in which, despite recent improvements, we lag far behind other nations with lower gas dependence.
Vulnerability to supply disruption applies both home and away.
There is no reason why the extensive pipeline network in the Middle East cannot be expanded with inward investment from the UK to the region. Investment in pipelines based on the simple premise of increasing infrastructure resilience and diversity whilst reducing vulnerability to single points of risk concentration I.e. the Straits of Hormuz would not be a bad use of public money.
There are already extensive gas storage facilities with three more under construction in Cheshire and more awaiting planning consent. Gas storage is a strategic issue and planning processes should be streamlined/barged through depending on your view. These storage facilities allow us to build extensive reserves which compensate for supply disruption and increasing winter demand. Import rates continue at a steady pace with more than is needed during the summer and less than is needed during winter, with the storage taking up the slack.
An overall increase in storage is another wise investment for the UK to compensate for supply side disruption to availability and subsequent price fluctuations.
Who would pay for this increasing infrastructure diversity is an easy question to answer, everyone, but then that is the price to pay for resilience.
Help Regional Partners with Their Security
We already do this superbly well, the MCM task force in the Gulf, as supplemented by survey, RFA and a small number of frigates or destroyers do a magnificent job with little public acknowledgement or resource. Building relations, developing regional capabilities and demonstrating a publicly visible commitment do more for regional security and the security of the UK than wading in all guns blazing.
The other two services also have a role, although necessarily different.
It is ‘forward presence’ personified and quite simply we should do more.
Invest in Diplomacy and Intelligence
The current belligerent stance simply makes no sense for Iran, the challenge for Western and regional diplomats are to make them realise it. At every opportunity we should be talking, showing their people and leaders alike how they can prosper with a more engaged approach with world affairs. To do this we need to develop a much greater understanding of their issues and this can only come from overt and covert intelligence gathering and engagement.
China, India, Russia and Japan need to play a greater role and the West needs to put efforts into finding common ground and common approaches with them.
Reduce demand for Middle East Oil and Gas
It’s a bit of a no brainer this one and should go hand in hand with whatever policy direction we take in the CO2 reduction space. I tend to find myself increasingly unconvinced by the argument for manmade global warming but a increasingly convinced by the need for the UK to take energy security more seriously than it does.
Our increasing reliance on imported gas can only lead to strategic vulnerability
Take you pick from a cast of many technologies, until we find the most promising, investment diversity makes sense. We have intelligent and enterprising engineers and scientists, lots of natural resources and it is about time the government got to grips with coordinating this effort at a national level.
So we can see that although there are hot spots, the UK is not wholly vulnerable to disruption in the area and it would be a folly to think otherwise or use it as an excuse to push one agenda or another.
Finally, we must ask the basic question, is Iran a threat and if so, why?
Maybe the answers to those questions might be a little uncomfortable for those marching us to war.
Another question to ponder is, would a nuclear armed Iran necessarily be a bad thing, would it temper Israel’s power and maybe bring about a maturing of relationships and attitudes?
Don’t know!
38 Responses
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
TD said “would a nuclear armed Iran necessarily be a bad thing”
They are the one state I wouldn’t trust with a bomb. Yes even less than Pakistan. I sincerely believe that there are some in the many factions that make up the Iranian government actually believe some of their own rhetoric.
TD said ” it would temper Israel’s power ”
Really? Is it the official position of this site that Israel is a problem?
An interesting article TD. Will read again and probably comment tomorrow.
I’m with x on the nuclear option, it’s not simply their security problem, there is also a massive villification of western powers in Iran, almost to the point were it’s permissable for atrocities as long as the enemy is “white”. Brainwashing maybe, but the consequences may be suicide bomber writ large, suicide country using nuke. Not really a good idea.
A truely frightening subject.
The only way to extract the West from Middle Eastern politics is to remove our depenance on the regions oil and gas.
Pending real alternative energy, and ways to store it, we are however stuck, and stuck more so every day as the West’s domestic production declines.
Iran clearly sees having nuclear weapons as a guarantee of its independance and freedom of action. You only have to look at Pakistan’s charmed life to understand why they think that.
The US is probably the worse people to use force against Iran because of the baggage of US support for the Shar’s regime. Direct military action lead by the US would risk solidifing much (not all, but much) of the population behind the regime. You only have to look at Iran’s losses in the war against Iraq to appreciate what Iran may be prepared to endure to ensure its independance.
If Iran chose to close the straits of Hormuz at the moment could we force it. Of course we could, but what would be the ongoing economic cost of low level attacks on gulf infrastructure, on merchant shipping, (sabotage, suicide boats, artillary, mines) lasting days, weeks, months………..) All too possible if you don’t sterilise parts of the Iranian coast line. A job which would likely involve troops on the ground, raids at best a permanent presence at worst.
The West face’s a choice, a nuclear Iran versus the ongoing cost of stopping them. In that situation Europe had better know what it is doing. Europe’s embargo may simply excellerate Iran’s efforts to produce a bomb, what prospect of forcing Hormuz then?
That is certainly what I would do in their place.
I agree, the only way to neutralise the problem is to make it someone else’s, and by removing our dependence it becomes an Eastern problem not a Western one. However, that cannot happen overnight and a disruption to the energy flow from Hormuz would have a significant short-term impact upon our, and most of Europe’s economies which we may struggle to recover from. Iran knows this and I suspect is using it to play the long game in order to buy time to complete it’s nuclear weapons programme.
A nuclear Iran would never use the bomb, I believe, but it would fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East. I see the whole ‘Arab Spring’ effect (a loathesome term but the popular one nonetheless) as a desire for greater equality within existing nations and NOT a desire to become models of Western democracy and values. It is about moving away from the West not towards it, but Iran clearly feels that there is too high a risk of Western dominance in the outcome and needs to influence the region lest it too become a capitalist, Western-minded puppet. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to dominate Middle Eastern politics and has the potential to derail the entire liberal movement. Formerly liberal leaders and governments would shift to national security and we would see a furious round of defensive posturing to try and counter the Iranian threat. Curiously that could also accelerate things in Iran’s favour, by winning other nations to its cause and trumpeting anti-Western rhetoric, whilst also forcing others to side with the West if we continue to exert such significant influence, both economic and military, in the Middle Eastern region.
A nuclear Iran could also engender greater ties with Eastern nations – I’m not entirely sure about this but a posture of strength and an ability to manipulate the West might (repeat, might!) bee seen by China and others as desirable, a nation they can be equals with. I am sure that Iran sees the bomb as a symbol of equality in world politics, though I’m not so sure about my Oriental psychoanalysis!
So, is Iran a threat? Yes – but not only to our immediate energy concerns but to wider regional stability and development.
A nuclear armed Iran would greatly unbalance its relationships with the other Gulf states. US military support to Egypt over the years has been used to balance the subsidized Israeli conventional forces; and there is no indication that Israel has any desire to operate its forces outside of its immediate neighbourhood – other than to eliminate potential nuclear threats. Israel has no other policy that directly threatens Iran or any legitimate Iranian interest.
Iran’s poor relations with its neighbours is largely down to Iran’s own belligerant rhetoric and its active policy of exporting Revolution, ie terrorism. Rather than tempering Israel, a nuclear armed Iran destabilizes the whole region and invites confrontation with the Arab states.
History repeats itself. The Persians always made the Romans very nervous.
Can’t wait for the oil to run out.
Iran is no direct threat to the UK today.
However, indirectly, and in the medium to long term, directly, it could be.
I question your confidence in “none divertable gas” not being diverted. There are of course problems for our suppliers, no one else has the capacity we do to import so much, but anywhere that can go elsewhere for a higher price will, what are we going to do? Send Baelifs round?
Renewables, beyond Hydro, are another red herring, wind only works because of its massive subsidy, if we went all wind / pumped storage, you would be paying 40p a kwh, not 10p.
Wind has uses, but grid electric isnt one of them.
I dispute that a nuclear Iran will lead to a “reasonable” Israel, on grounds that Israel *IS* reasonable.
Its not going to tear down the barrier fence, because before the fence, twice a week, fedayeen crossed the border, broke into a home and murdered the occupants, now its twice a year.
Argueing Israel should be reasonable and “tear down this wall” is argueing Israel should tolerate the murder of 100 families a year.
Its not going to “give back” land, because the last tranche of land it gave back is currently used to fire rockets deeper into Israel.
Argueing it should “give back land” is argueing it should tolerate every home being under endemic rocket fire.
Its not going to give back lots of land because the last time Israel was half a dozen enclaves, it suffered horrendous losses trying to move food and medical supplies between those besieged towns.
Argueing Israel “be reasonable” is argueing it allows more of its people to be killed.
You cannot terror bomb a nation into accepting its own annihilation and genocide, no amount of UN resolutions of US threats will change that.
At best, a nuclear Iran would accomplish its wish of “wiping Israel off the map” (which WAS the translation used by the Iranian state broadcaster in its English language service).
At worst, it would do so before the jews could flee again.
Our problem?
Not really.
But long before any of that comes to pass, Israel will nuke Tehran and tell the US get bent.
They’ll go to a total war economy and exist as fortress Israel first.
Not my words, but those a politicaly well connected American friend.
But, lets ignore Israel for a moment, Iran has other priorities, a conquest of Iraq, half complete, makes a further conquest of Arabia fairly simple, a unified Iran/Iraq/Saudi/Emirates controls a vast stockpile of the worlds oil, giving them ferocious wealth and a proven desire to expand militarily.
The two traditional counter points to persian expansion have been Pakistan and Turkey, Pakistan is falling apart before our eyes under Indian pressure and Turkey is a none nuclear power thats losing the culture war to Iran.
The US is trying to form a NATO like organisation amongst the Arabs, to check Irans expansion, but such an organisation would be a serious threat to EUrope as well, didnt Jed post a thought experiment on just such a threat?
Imagine instead of Kenya they threw their weight around in Kosovo and Cyprus?
What would a demilitarised poverty stricken EU do?
For all his tough talk, Vague Hagues Sanctions dont actualy properly kick in until July, and will certainly be repealed long before then.
There have already been demands for certain historic mosques in Spain to be taken under Islamic juris.
How long until Bradford demands autonomy, under oil santion?
The Muslim World has no shortage of deluded fantasists who believe they are destined to unite it, but it was also created by a deluded fantasist, no one took him seriously either.
But didn’t I show in the post that the short term impact would be relatively minor and even medium term disruption to supply would be not as bad as the doom mongers would have us believe?
There are hotspots, aviation fuel and LNG for the UK but these could be compensated for by sourcing through our diverse and resilient energy market.
Long term, we need to kick the habit and let them crack on with killing each other
@TD, I think you are thinking along the lines that Iran is a merely geopolitical player, with national interests, the way that China is these days for example.
There’s no evidence of this.
Iran has spent the last 30+ years aggressively trying to export it’s brand of Shia fundamentalism worldwide, leavened with support of Sunni groups where circumstances warrant. It’s a country where it’s government’s founder declared that he didn’t care if Iran itself was wiped out, and sent hundreds of thousands of children to clear mines the hard way.
Assuming we can exist in a MAD environment is foolish, and even if we can for a time, the Arab world certainly can’t. Some Pakistani generals will become very rich, and suddenly we will have several new nuclear powers, doubtless with poor security.
The only way we can delay this now is to strike at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The only way to remove the threat for the next generation is regime change in Iran.
Luckily, the Arab “Spring”, while not terribly effective at producing democratic nations, has rolled back Iran’s reach. Hamas prefers Egypt, and Hezbollah is queering it’s pitch in both Syria and Lebanon. Iran has a whole series of internal issues as well. However, this probably will not be enough, and without time for these to work through inside Iran, we’re going to have a new set of problems.
Buy THAAD now
TD
“But didn’t I show in the post that the short term impact would be relatively minor and even medium term disruption to supply would be not as bad as the doom mongers would have us believe?”
From just Iran shutting the strait, then yes, minor, and short term.
But it doesnt stop there.
If it expands to control Saudi and the Emirates, it can legaly stop production of much more than 20% of our imports, and from Saudi can close the Suez Canal too.
Not to mention, a none violent conquest gives them a huge high tech airforce.
Its not so much their clout now, its what that clout could be in a few years.
Fair point Dom
You mustn’t forget that the Iranian “government” is like 20s Chicago meets the Borgias. They are too busy fighting amongst themselves and making money to get their act together. That’s why the bomb is so dangerous; they don’t have to organise and re-equip an “army” to threaten.
This is a question I don’t know the answer to is stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons a mandate of the in security council permanent members.
Hms Westminster sailed for the gulf yesterday to
The biggest Iranian problem is that if they push the price of oil too high it will become economical to source energy in other ways which means we become less reliant on them and in the medium term they become more and more irrelevant. They know that in the big game they can completely undermine their position. Nuclear weapons is one way to remain relevant after the oil has all gone or we need it less. Yes all this could take 30 years but Iran fancies being around much longer than that. Short term it can all be very nasty and painful, but ultimately the rest of the world doesn’t need Persia for anything. And I say Persia to emphasise these geezers aint Arabs they just share a religion with them, much as we did France in 1808 for example where we nonetheless were implacable enemies.
The Iranian regime’s reason to exist is revolution. Having come to power in Iran and emersed the people in the idea of revolution over decades, it needs to continue the perpetual revolution abroad or it ceases to have a purpose. Revolutions are cyclical, as the name suggests; if the revolution ever ends, then the current regime itself becomes that much more susceptible to further revolution.
As Rupert mentioned, Iran is sticking it’s fingers into other people’s pies all over the world. The Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is operational in Africa and South America and is a threat across the world, not just to it’s immediate neighbours. A nuclear Iran would be a major risk for proliferation of weapons and technology, and threatens peace in many regions across the globe.
We now hear that the operation of the Coryton oil refinery in Essex is under threat due to the decreased demand for petrol – which could conversely cause petrol shortages.
Many of the component parts of our oil network are not, or are no longer, in the hands of the big oil names. This raises a question as to whether smaller companies within the oil or gas networks will be able to withstand what should otherwise be manageable disruption to UK energy supplies in future. We might be able to secure alternative energy suppliers while individual links in the supply chain succumb to financial pressures.
sort of off thread, but after a quick glance of TD this popped up in my RSS, spooky!!
http://www.gizmag.com/dearman-zero-emissions-engine/21201/
The oil refineries etc have had odd ownership for some time. Buncefield for example had several companies involved.
I am flabbergasted that an oil refinery that supplies enormous amounts of a substance that is at record prices is going bust. I bet some poor management decisions have been taken and they’re covering their arses so they can get slapped on the back on the Golf course and walk into another post.
Israel isn’t a problem. They aren’t going to attack their neighbours without being them being a legitimate threat (as in the case of Osirak and the Syrian nuclear plant)or without being attacked first (Gaza, Lebanon etc).
We should just keep our nose out. They were completely vindicated on the Mavi mamara incident and Gaza and yet the British government couldn’t help themselves but condemn them. If they decide to act unilaterally on Iran that’s their business, they are the people most under threat.
The minute Iran started sponsoring the murder of British soldiers in Iraq it should have been met with force or at the very least sanctions much like these- 8 years ago!
Instead they were emboldened by our weak response and headed down a road that we are now scrambling to stop them from reaching the end.
A nuclear Iran will only be emboldened further. The risk is that they expand their sponsorship of terror to attacks on Europe where they already have cells.
There may even be a scenario in which they provide weapons and training to non-ideologically aligned groups like the IRA
They may become a more competent version of what Libya was in the 80′s and that is very much a threat to us. Isn’t it better that we stop them now before it gets to that stage?
I think its pretty obvious about the threat if/when Iran has ‘the bomb’ – more so in that it’ll tempt their neighbours to do the same… but not so much as a big threat to the UK – unless petrol goes up and up, which it will sooner or later, iran or no iran…
I doubt the Israeli’s would do another strike, not on their own/without some political clout backup from their ally.
I do think Israel is also a problem, surrounded by more problems, the whole region is a problem. I washed my hands of caring about that area after that shambles of a raid they did on that flotilla.
I know a few lads on Argyll, met them when at Gib, good bunch…I am sure if there’s a repeat of that RN ‘capture’, they’ll certainly make the Iranians regret it! But I am a lil concerned, its like a typical ‘cold war’ build-up, could snowball.
Then again, like some of those episodes, could just be a lot of posturing and not much else.
Like a lot of politics, a lot of noise, bells and whistles, but in the end, it stays the same.
I think Iran, like N.Korea, has a greater interest in keeping the status Quo, and having a nuke enables them to do that as it limits what other nations can do. I am pretty sure they know the result of them trying to obscure oil trade militarily.
Economically; any clash would be pretty damaging though.
Its not energy supply, it’s the nukes ! They get it, then Saudi and Gulf states want it – yay, loads of unstable theocracies with WMD !!
For all they throw invective at the Jews and infidels, how long do you think it would last before we get some Shia versus Sunni fracas that involves use of “instant sunshine” ??
Didn’t little mustache-guy Achmadinejad say specifically that he wants to erase Israel from the map, more than once…?
Not to be dramatic or anything, but there’s this funny resemblance with another mustache guy who once wrote a book in which he said he would invade Poland and do other very friendly things.
Of course, everyone save for Churchill assumed he was joking…
I’ll like it a hell of a lot more if they do not get nukes, no doubt on it. Just in case.
To be fair Mike, the “Freedom Flotilla” was pretty much a put up job designed to give Israel a PR black eye. If they were really serious about blockade running, they would have gone under the radar, not trumpet it to the papers and media. When that happened, it was pretty much a no win scenario for Israel, so can’t really blame them for bollocking it up, it was screwed from the start.
On energy and keeping the lights on
http://www.dimwatt.eu/
A very good blog
Israel cannot be sidelined in this issue, however, a couple of years ago they wiped a suspected Syrian nuclear facility off the map with very little public backlash and condemnation. In this sense, it may be better to let Israel take out the facility and issue the usual Foreign Office condemnation, whilst behind the scenes supplyign them with all the Intelligence info we can muster.
“Another question to ponder is, would a nuclear armed Iran necessarily be a bad thing, would it temper Israel’s power and maybe bring about a maturing of relationships and attitudes?”
Irrespective of israel, it may be a bad thing if only because it will persuade Sunni nations such as Saudi that they need their own deterrent.
Hi, Jedi. I expect that Iranian nuclear weapons would be used to underwrite a conventional military offensive in the Gulf region long before the Saudis could procure their own bomb. The fear of outside intervention resulting in nuclear escalation effectively giving Iran a free hand in the region.
Also, given Iran’s history of exporting weapon technology and training, and explosives and other hardware to insurgent groups, a nuclear armed Iran could quickly come to mean a nuclear armed terrorist.
The recurring theme here is ‘stopping Iran’. The question here is how you do it. The way you lot have structured the embargo is a 6 month slow burn possibly extended by negotiations.
You better be sure that Iran is several years away from a bomb and a limited strike can stop them.
The recent track record is not good in that The UK/US have conducted ‘limited operations’ in two muslim nations and in both cases released forces you could not control.
The way to impede Iran bomb ambitions is what has been happening, software worms, ‘accidents’ and car bombs, not ham fisted embargo’s or surgical strikes which would be anything but surgical given the spread of possible sites.
The difference Johno is that nuclear facilities can’t run, and research documents can be destroyed, so if there was a limitted raid, these goals CAN be accomplished. Destroy the equipment and the storage media. Don’t try anything fancy like “winning hearts and minds” of people who are so pissed off at you they don’t bother listening.
So yes, a limitted strike can work, though like you said, it’s best done “black”.
Observer, the problem is that their nuclear capacity is scattered over many sites, and unless intel has improved a lot we are not sure what is where or even if we know all the sites. The US and Israel are undoubtly trying hard but no one is really sure of the extent of the facilities. Leave it to Israel and let them get on with as much black art as they like.
Observer
Put-up job indded, but it was more the way the raid was handled and carried out, very unprofessional; I thought – with allies like us and the US’s SF units, they’d know how best to handle assaulting a ship, in int. waters when if they waited a lil more, int. law would be more of a reason to carry it out…instead, it was more like a ‘last minuet’ idea, when they had fair warning of it through the media/intel. I know they can do better, and hope they do, next time.
In the end, I just dont find it interesting anymore, both sides are acting like berks imo, as Aussie says; let them get on with their own business. But I think its a mistake to think Iran will happen just like Syria did re nuclear facility strikes.
Mike
If SEALs had gone in, there would have been a serious body count…
Would the SBS have held fire when one of its members was stabbed?
Maybe, but it wasn’t just the troops… why did they do it a few miles from isreali waters where they would of had more legal powers to protect them? Why did they use helicopters that were unsuitable for this task (chinooks are far better due to more men can absail down and therefore saturate/cover the area greater)? Where was the cover? Why were so few troops used? Why didn’t they have media/cameras on their persons so they can also show their side. When the troops came across the ‘international activists’ they hesitated, werent sure what to do – probably fearful (and been told as such) to avoid any serious actions. They should have been more riot-trained I suppose.
I do think SEALs/SBS would not have used deadly force, but make more use of non-deadly, tazer, plastic bullets, a good baton to the back of the knee or face…also stealth and speed and a greater degree of moveing on a ship to sieze it. I’m a crab, so the Navy lads have a greater idea. But I am dead certain the Isrealis can do much better than what they did.
Perhaps there would have been greater condemnation from media/politics if more ‘activists’ were wounded through a faster more heavy handed raid, but thats better than deaths. And Israel has a v.thick skin from outside criticisim.
I dunno, lol this is off thread…but I just thought they’d do better. I guess there was way more in it than I think, but to me, that was the end of my interest in the tit for tat berk engagements of that region from both sides. Nobody wins, it carries on.
Iran today announced a series of measures (still to be approved by the parliament) that would block Iranian oil from being sold to Europe, in response to the EU’s ban on importing Iranian oil. They’ll find a market for the oil in Asia, no doubt.
This is going to really b*gger up the Greek economy (that is, more than already). Iran is one of the few places willing to sell oil to Greece on tick. One of the Iranian commentators said that although it was not intentional, it could be seen as payback for the last time a Greek / Macedonian called Alexander came calling.
I’ve got a link but it’s in Farsi and was verbally translated by a colleague, so my paraphrasing. The same story is on Zero Hedge.
“Iran today announced a series of measures (still to be approved by the parliament) that would block Iranian oil from being sold to Europe, in response to the EU’s ban on importing Iranian oil.”
Wish they’d just bugger off and shut up and give us all a peaceful life.
Phil, that’s the thing with regimes, they placate and subjugate the population by their opposition to a perceived external threat. Jabbing a finger at their ‘enemy’ helps keep them in power. Good job we don’t do things like that in the democratic West……..hang on a minute?!?
Mike, don’t think absailing large numbers is viable with the Chook, it still only has one large rear bay door, and 2 narrow side ones, still 4 people max per rappel same as the Puma, so no improvement there. Overall, yes they might be able to do better, if they were clarivoyent, but won’t everyone be able to do better if they were clarivoyent too? Think they did “well enough”, there isn’t much more room for “better” without ESP.
As for Iran placating their population, it might be worse than that. You remember the cult of personality of our dear departed and not lamented outside of N.Korea friend Kim Jong Ill? If there is a core of people similarly brainwashed, they don’t need an external threat, they just need their daily fix of wisdom from their God, the great high poobah.