Fair Use Note

WARNING for European visitors: European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

8 January - Late Links

S-75 Dvina with V-750V 1D missile on a launche...Image via Wikipedia
English:Image via Wikipedia
Deutsch: Stra├če von Hormuz. Auf dem Originalbi...Image via Wikipedia
Craig Murray

Some clarification please, Mr. Mulcair.

 NDP leadership candidate and environmental hawk Thomas Mulcair announced his intention to implement a, “new comprehensive plan to combat climate change.”  According to his press release, “Mulcair’s new plan would still be industry-focused and based on the principle that ‘polluters pay’, but it would expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution.” Want to understand what this means?  Here are three questions you should ask – Who’s covered? What’s the cap?  Who gets the permits?
Broader coverage sounds promising – Canada’s GHG emissions are not as concentrated among large, industrial sources as most people think.  In fact, if you look at the 500 or so largest industrial emitters in Canada, those emitting more than 50,000 tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs per year, they account for about 250Mt of annual emissions. Canada’s total GHG emissions in the same year (2009) were 690 Mt, so the direct emissions from the largest industrial facilities account for a little over 35% the Canadian total.

Lindsay: Why the Strait of Hormuz matters

The strait really is a choke point when it come to the transportation of oil. Only the Strait of Malacca, which runs between Indonesia and Malaysia, comes close in its importance to world shipping.

Nearly sixteen million barrels of oil move through the Strait of Hormuz each day. That translates to nearly twenty percent of all the oil moved daily.
Now for the good news. The odds that Tehran could shut down the strait are close to nil.


As far as Iran`s ability to close the strait goes,one factor will be the effect on insuring shipments.
Another is wargaming results – which hardly reflect your analysis
Not that wargaming foresees the real world. http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html
And sanctions affecting Iran so desperately after decades of imposition
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/12/19-december-sanctions.html must surely go along way to consider this what it has been always but was denied : open warfare on Iran.
Where is the loss then from closing the strait as the policy tends to disable this leverage.
Not that representing the nation fighting against nuclear arms as being the real danger has proved totally incorrect – as they are now reported as being able to precision target Israeli WMD and potentially turn it to dirtybombs threat against Israel. Nasty as that is, poetic justice sounds about right.
Also old phrases like balance of terror and mutually assured destruction apply : though the mention of Russia`s determination to treat the security of Iranian power generation as their vital concern should have become as evident as when they responded to US WMD in Turkey decades ago to precipitate the Cuban Missile Crisis.
We live in interesting times still.

( Lost was a note Iran would hardly initiate any nuclear event affecting itself also lightly. )

Oil drops as European debt counters Iran tension

Iran’s growing state of desperation

Israel ties to South Sudan a must

With the anticipations of unpredictable governments in the neighboring countries, due to the recent Arab upraising, Israel stands a better chance by strengthening the old alliance to the South. Thus far, two of the principals of East African countries of Kenya and Uganda, have respectively made separate trips into Israel, in efforts to bolster the existing relationships. Therefore, South Sudan boosting of relationship with Israel is an added bonus to the regional strategic interest.

 Editorial: Diplomatic necessity
January-07-12 4:38 PMA  few years ago, it would have been a diplomatically outrageous and insane act to think of a rapprochement between Egypt’s Brotherhood and the American administration. But history always throws up surprises, and the latest one is that the Obama administration is thinking of doing business with the Muslim Brotherhood and establish relations with the ‘once hated’ organization.
The new US strategy is a reaction to the new realities emerging on the ground. Egypt is a strategic partner for Washington and it cannot decide that it will engage with the government in Cairo only if it is ruled by someone of its liking. After the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, Egyptians have been clear on who should rule them. The elections held in the country have shown unequivocally that the people prefer Islamist parties over secular parties. The reason is Islamists have deep roots in the Egyptian society and were present when Mubarak was ruling the country, while the secular parties, much preferred by the West, have no network and connections with the people which can match that of their electoral rivals. So keeping aloof from the Islamist parties would ultimately mean shutting the door on the future government. The Obama administration has been intelligent enough to understand this reality and has acted wisely by choosing to engage with the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood also, on their part, has been happy to extend a hand of cooperation to the West, especially America, and has repeatedly asserted that they stand for peace and harmony and will be happy to abide by all the international treaties which the previous governments has signed. The US decision to engage with the Brotherhood will set an example for other Western governments and they will not be far behind in building and mending ties with the Islamists. Being Islamist is not being extremist, they have been saying.
In fact US officials are saying the recent outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, which appears destined to win the largest share of parliamentary seats, is a chance to put in practice policies of President Obama which he first outlined nearly three years ago in a major speech proposing a new relationship of mutual respect with the Muslim world. In May, three months after Hosni Mubarak resigned after a popular uprising, Obama reiterated that theme by saying that “not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.”
As a leading power in the Arab world, Egypt is vital for US interests and for its key ally Israel. So it is natural that US is readjusting to the new realities.
( It is natural the US is adjusting the narrative to reflect better on chosen replacements for the old regime )
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment