ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors. Whenever news breaks, Hardblogger will break it down, so check in often.

Hardball with Chris Matthews airs weeknights on MSNBC.



Gulf Arabs draw a red line against Iran

Posted: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:07 AM by Hardball

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be heading to New York to address the United Nations in hopes of convincing the world that his country’s nuclear research program is for energy and not weapons.  He Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad smhas complemented that effort with rhetoric that a military strike on his country’s nuclear facilities will lead to dire consequences.

The Arab countries across the Gulf from Iran are watching this unfolding situation with great concern.  An expected consequence of a military strike on Iran is an Iranian attempt to the close the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Oman and Iran.  About 25 percent of the world’s oil supply moves through the straits – most of it from the Gulf Arabs.  For years, Iran has been developing military capabilities that will allow it to close the strategic waterway.

Disruption of the flow of oil through the straits is of concern to not just the Gulf Arabs, but the rest of the world as well.  Although the United States imports less than 20 percent of its oil from the Gulf, oil is a fungible commodity.  If that much oil was taken off the markets, the countries that normally buy this oil will compete with us for oil from our normal sources, driving prices up dramatically.

Threats to the straits are a “red line” for these countries.  At least one Gulf Arab country, Bahrain, has declared that the Gulf countries are ready to “respond with force” if Iran attempts to block the straits.

Bahrain -- a key U.S. ally in the Gulf -- is home to the American Fifth Fleet, whose ships patrol the Persian Gulf and adjacent waters.  The normal U.S. Navy presence in the Gulf has been reinforced recently to include two carrier strike groups.  As the Iranians have spent years and resources developing the ability to close the straits, the U.S. Navy likewise has developed the means to keep them open.

The Iranians have experience confronting the U.S. Navy.  In the 1980’s, during the Iran-Iraq war, American warships escorting Arab tankers often came under attack, including mine warfare.  In 1988, the Iranians challenged the Americans in a significant surface action, with disastrous results.  The Economist described Iran’s move as “how to waste a navy.”
The Gulf Arabs ability to respond with force against Iran is limited.  While most of the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates) have capable air forces, their naval capabilities are not sufficient to re-open the Straits of Hormuz.  If there is action in the Gulf against the Iranians, it will be by American forces.

The more important point here – the Gulf Arabs have made it clear to Tehran that they are willing to use force to keep the oil flowing through the straits.  Just as the world needs to buy the oil, they need to sell it.  Should the crisis erupt into an armed confrontation, they will be standing with the United States.  If we are concerned about base – naval and air – access in these countries for a coming confrontation with Iran, now is the time to ask.

Ahmadinejad is doing what the Americans have been unable to do – create a coalition against Iran.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I was more worried about ties with Hezbollah. I'd hate to see the dreams of Nazi Fascists come true because the arabic world kept its old hatreds alive into a nuclear age. What if the US responds to nuclear attacks? What if they decide to target the US? I dont see the idea of a terror campaign by George Bush as being so overstated in this climate. I really hope Mahmoud goes to the UN with strong convictions and makes the speeches for everyones benefit (except fanatical organisations). I think the whole dumb moron president thing was wrong. I'm glad the coalition is on hand to work in the middle east!
Its too bad the Arab countries lining up against Iran are not doing so out of a concern for the common good of their people, all people, and that Iran's attempts to gain nuclear capability are a threat to this common good rather than because they see Iran's actions as a threat to their capability of filling their pockets via their oil production.
Colonel, after four years of failed ground war you have finally realized that the navy is the essential element for any effective military operation ..... just like Theodore Roosevelt said in his lectures at the Naval War College in the mid-1880s. Congratulations. You imply that the regional economic importance of oil is why the U.S. opposes Iran's acquisition of nuclear power. Then why did we acquiesce to Pakistan's recent acquisition of nuclear power? When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan (1975-1978), and when his daughter Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister later (1986-89, 1993-96), they tried to establish the right to vote for women and for men who did not own land, and they also to "federalize" the economy by returning funds to the provincial governments in proportion to how much raw material and production they supplied the nation. THESE ARE THE THINGS THE U.S. IS NOW PROMOTING IN IRAQ. But the Bhuttos also wanted nuclear power for Pakistan. Thus, the Carter administration, then the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration turned their backs on them. When Benazir came here in 1995 to demand that the U.S. deliver the jets she had paid for in 1989, Hillary Clinton treated her to tea and sympathy ..... and that was all. Zuliqar Ali Bhutto was executed in 1979, for being a democrat and a reformer, and Benazir has been in exile since 1996. Meanwhile, after a military coup in Pakistan, it acquired nuclear power -- which all of a sudden was perfectly fine with the U.S. Because, I believe, the U.S. State Department trusts military governments more than it does popular ones. During the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations there were some productive policies toward the Middle East. But the Johnson, Nixon and Ford people became obsessed with the Far East. Some of the same people are still making bad decisions about the Middle East. When are ya'll gonna retire?
CA in Tuscaloosa is right, the Arab countries and the Persian sphere of influence are two sides of a counterfeit coin. They've been unfree places for over 1,500 years, and are still fighting each other. Now they are doing so by proxy, in Iraq, with the Sunni and Shi'a factions. So why has the U.S. sided with one over the other of these thugs? Our government acts like a prison punk, getting chummy with whoever's got the most cigarettes. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.
What puzzles me is why no one asks the Persians why they are willing to annhilate Isreal when it was their own King Cyrus whose edict rebuilt Jerusalem at one time ? Is this the same civilization of Persians or have they turned their backs on their own history ? As modern day Christians in the west we don't hate them as a people we believe they have been decieved by their own religious leaders beginning with Mohammed. They should only look at their own history of carnage on fellow Persions and Arabs to understand their misguided hatred .
Freedom isn't for everyone. If the people of the Persian gulf lack the will to rise up against their leaders, so be it. They can live in whatever kind of world they want. They want their lifestyle, they're welcome to it. The penultimate lesson of Iraq is that you cannot expect a logical response to freedom from a population unwilling to sacrifice on its own behalf. They don't value the freedoms the West enjoys, so they have neither meaning nor value. People tend to forget the most powerful democracies came about because of popular uprisings from within. Military in the case of the US, passive resistance and obstinance in the case of India (with a little violence here and there). No one came in riding on a white horse (well, except the French at Yorktown), the people themselves took action and resisted. Other nations supported the main effort, but the spark was lit from within. That said, if they're willing to live and let live, then they're doing us a favor and its in our enlightened self interest to support them.
Let's be honest. Wouldn't the world be better off if Ahmadinejad never made it out of the United States? He's the new Hitler and Hitler's don't deserve to live. What part of destroying both the United States and Israel does anyone not understand? 75% of the IRANIAN people want him gone! Why not get rid of one idiot and save the World a great deal of death and destruction. Think Hitler in 1933. Am I WRONG?
GULF ARABS are all dictatorships being protected and told what to do by the USA.If the USA left these dictators will be saddamised rope is cheap
Kevin, HOW DARE YOU SPEAK OF US LIKE THAT!!! you have no idea what you are talking about. We have FREEDOM, just not your slut on EVERY corner freedom. You have no right to be in our area of the world. If you left with your JEWISH buddies you would never hear from us again. We are not thugs, we are "freedom fighters" is that not what the JEWS called themseleves when they were fighting for something that is not there's!!!!! So what is go for the goose is good for the gander. OH I forget we are not human and are thugs right!!!! JERK
Iran never has, and cannot possibly be a military threat to our country, the U.S.A. .... The fact of the matter is that an armed Iran is mainly a threat to the Zionist occupiers in Falestinia (Palestine).... That's what this is all about. On this note, Israel is no different than all of these warring tribal factions in that region. Moreover, they are an illegitimate occupation. They won't mend their relations with their neighbors until the U.S. pulls the crutches. Our American government needs to do what is good for Americans....not waste our blood and treasure on foreigners and their designs.
George Bush went into Iraq with his good-guy white hat on, naively displaying all his cards so that allies and enemies alike understood that America had no personal ambitions in the area. Not for land, not for oil, not for anything except slowing down a snowballing escalation of Persian-based terrorism and propagated-hate against the West. While that snowball is still there, it doesn’t seem as menacing as it might have been. One thousand plus gave lives and limb to see that happen. Now, four years later, how do we get out? The situation seems hopeless. I suggest that the best “exit strategy” with some semblance of safety and human decency for those good Iraqi citizens left behind is to take off our white cowboy hat and put on a big wide black one. Give Iraq’s violence-expurgating neighbors six months to demonstrate that they have changed their ways or the United States will begin annexing quality land, possibly near the port of Umm Qasr, and begin building a prodigious and permanent military base paid for by and financed by oil extorted beneath Persian sand. My guess is that real fast, Iraq’s “good neighbors” will put down those explosives and 20mm guns they were loading into trucks and begin packing those same vehicles with food, water, shovels and brooms. “No need for you Americans to stay around here any longer,” they’ll tell us. “Go home now. We’ll help our brethren rebuild their country and live in peace!” Signed, Wayne Mattox
CA in Tuscaloosa It's not just a matter of filling their pockets via their oil production, without the profits of the oil for these countries it would hurt the common good of all. Profit is not a dirty word, only if you do not understand it, it is.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=93853


Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google