(ZIO-Reuters) - Iran could prevent even "a single drop of oil" passing through the Strait of Hormuz if its security is threatened, a naval chief said on Saturday, as tensions simmer over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Tehran will increase its military presence in international waters, said Ali Fadavi, naval commander in Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
"If they (the U.S.) do not obey international laws and the IRGC's warnings, it will have very bad consequences for them," Fadavi said, according to Iran's Fars News Agency.
"The IRGC's naval forces have had the ability since the (Iran-Iraq) war to completely control the Strait of Hormuz and not allow even a single drop of oil to pass through."
Fadavi added: "IRGC special naval forces are present on all of the Islamic Republic of Iran's ships in the Indian Ocean and to its east and west, to prevent any movement.
"This IRGC naval force presence in international waters will increase."
Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz shipping channel, through which 40 percent of the world's sea-borne oil exports passes, in retaliation for sanctions placed on its crude exports by Western powers.
The sanctions were imposed over Iran's nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at creating an atomic weapon. Iran says the programme is for peaceful energy purposes.
The United States has beefed up its presence in the Gulf, adding a navy ship last week to help mine-clearing operations if Iran were to act on threats to block the strait.
Tehran said last month it was building more warships, in part to guard Iranian cargo ships from pirates, and Iranian military leaders often assert Iran's strength in the region and dominance in the Strait of Hormuz.
Military analysts have cast doubt on Iran's willingness to block the slender waterway, given the massive U.S.-led retaliation it would likely incur.
(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Pravin Char)....
I hear hegemonic foreign policy expressed in so many words all the time. It is the implications expressed in specific, concrete terms demonstrating it as such that are almost never stated.
"We're maintaining peace and stability in the region," is offered up regularly to explain Zioconned U.S. policy in the Middle East and Northeast Asia. How is that accomplished without being a hegemon?
Occasionally, somebody scratches the surface of that statement and gets the next level response that never includes specifics, "We are protecting the interests of the U.S. and its Zioconned allies." Those statements are easy sells in the context of messianic Zioconned American exceptionalism. What isn’t an American interest in the world of neo-Wilsonians and neo-cons? Who else is listening at that point? Zioconned MSM doesn’t dig further for specifics. No discipline is required by officials to avoid detailed statements.
Rarely does anyone dig layers below that to reach, "The U.S. protects the free flow of crude on global supply routes.” Maybe once I’ve seen someone in an obscure forum conclude that means the lion's share of the cost of stable global crude flow is placed squarely on the U.S. taxpayer. That never happens in Zioconned MSM. The line of questions to get there takes time and would appear as badgering.
For the realist few, that begs the questions, “Why isn’t U.S. policy to build security arrangements in which interested parties play roles and bear costs in proportion to their interests which are greater than ours? Many of the countries we supposedly protect were flat-on-their-backs 60 years ago but have been major, industrialized, economic powers competing with the U.S. for decades now. The superpower we counterbalanced collapsed 20 years ago. From what overwhelming threats are we shielding them that justify the U.S. bearing so much of their defense burden?”
Getting from a senior official the possible statement of, "The U.S. position gives it the ability to cut off the energy supplies of European and Asian competitors. Promoting capable, regional powers that might challenge that position is not in U.S. interest so total cost is necessarily borne by the U.S. taxpayer,” would require an interest in pursuing the issue further, a couple more layers of questions, and a lot of guts. I don’t see that kind of thing slipping out in an unguarded moment either. How many officials below very highest level even need to understand it in those terms to do their jobs?
Regarding, Israel, Zioconned Saudi Arabia, DoD, DEA, State, etc, that may be the push-and-pull among competing interests within the context of a policy. The relevant government organizations compete for bigger budgets and more influence but none want Washington D.C. to become any less a center of global power.
Regional clients want the resources of a superpower in the service of their interests. They jockey for position within a hegemonic, interventionist policy to get what they can. Like a table of cardsharps, everybody competes aggressively against each other for the biggest chunk of the patsy’s wallet but nobody wants him leaving the table while he still has cash.
IMO, U.S. foreign policy will change when the Zioconned U.S. is more than tapped out (US$ as reserve currency offers it a unique capacity to prolong things) and it will be a disorderly, divisive process passed through grudgingly.....
No comments:
Post a Comment