In addition to everything I said 2 posts ago, here’s another reason why these efforts will stall. According to an Al Jazeera article published today, the proposed UN sanctions would include their oil and natural gas industries.

Petro Politics and ME Peace, Incompatible?

China, being Iran’s largest customer of these exports, and one of the world’s leading consumers of oil (increasingly so every day) cannot afford to cut these ties and will block this sanction within the security council. Japan, being Iran’s second largest consumer of Iranian oil products and a temporary member on the Security Council may also oppose this sanction.

This is a huge obstacle and if it’s overcome, I’d be surprised.

Update:

The Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, has announced plans to build a de facto Palestinian state within 2 years regardless of headway or setbacks to the I-P peace process.

Members of Israel’s conservative Likud party, including its finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, have opposed this idea, and continue to, saying that

[t]here is no place for unilateralism, no place for threats, and of course, there will be no Palestinian state at all, if any, without ensuring the state of Israel’s security

and called the move

contrary to all the agreements signed between the sides.

Though the Netanyahu administration has not officially commented, Fayyad has called this effort complimentary to the current process, not meant to be

in lieu of the political process, but to reinforce it.

I my view, Israel cannot assure its own security without allowing the Palestinian Authority some room to build state-related capacities. Their continued occupation of West Bank and Gaza will only further inflame, not assuage the greivances of millions living in those territories.

]]> http://morelightthanheat.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/potential-for-a-much-wider-conflict/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:28:03 +0000 morelightthanheat http://morelightthanheat.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/potential-for-a-much-wider-conflict/

I’ll be away this weekend and glued to my TV on Tuesday, watching Barack Obama being inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States.  It’s time, in fact way past time, to turn the page on the last eight years.  But before I go, I wanted to share some additional thoughts on the situation in Gaza.  Perhaps by the time I’m back, a cease-fire agreement will have been reached and put into effect.

After responding to Outside the Echo Chamber’s comment, I think I may be moving beyond the humanitarian horror of the assault on Gaza to considering the wider implications of the situation.  I’ve begun thinking about Gaza not just in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or even as part of the overall turmoil in the region.  I’ve begun pondering the potentially global geo-political implications.

Many Americans, seeing the demonstrations in other Arab countries, have dismissed them as little more than the ranting of people who already hate both Israel and the US.  Other Americans castigate the leaders of the other Arab states for not providing more assistance to the Palestinian cause. And as George W. Bush so often reminded us, planting the seeds of democracy in Iraq would, in his view, usher in freedom throughout the region.  He also said that Arab countries yearn for freedom, that the reason they hate us is that they are jealous of our freedom.

The reality is that most Arab rulers are horrified at the idea that freedom and democracy might come to their country.  Even those Arab states that are not ruled by a hereditary monarch are a far cry from democratic.  One-party rule assures that most Arab presidents rule for life and, like in Syria, succession frequently falls to a son or other family member.  Interior Ministries or secret police keep close tabs on the populace, and the ruling elites live in luxury while the majority of the populations are mired in poverty.

History teaches us that rising expectations, especially expectations of more personal autonomy, usher in a dangerous time for countries.  There are numerous examples of an autocratic ruler relaxing control a bit in response to public pressure only to find that a full-fledged revolution results.  Should the calls from the Arab street result in those nations joining in the struggle, a regional war or multiple civil wars and insurrections could easily result.

It seems clear enough that western control of oil resources was at least a contributing factor in several previous wars in Iran and Iraq.  We know that western oil companies have made billions of dollars in the past decades by exploiting Saudi reserves and that the recently-signed treaty concerning Iraqi oil gives preference to American oil companies for several decades into the future.  And we are constantly reminded of our dependence on foreign oil, including oil from the Middle East.  We also know that the mere threat of shutting down the Straights of Hormuz — that narrow strip of water between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula — is enough to send oil prices higher.

It’s not hard to imagine that a wider regional conflict would impact the flow (and the price) of oil from the Middle East.  And it’s a logical and rational conclusion that such a conflict could easily widen well beyond the Middle East if the G-8 nations, India and China thought that their access to oil would be threatened.

So, I question of the wisdom of the current conflict in Gaza continuing.  It is clearly a humanitarian crisis for the 1.5 million people crowded into that strip of land, cut off from the rest of the world by sea, by land or by air.  Outside the Echo Chamber thinks that Israel’s response has been proportional.  But I think it can at best be viewed as unsuccessful in halting the rocket attacks.  Additionally, it may well be counter-productive other than in the immediate term.  And finally, it could be disasterous for Israel’s neighbors and the larger international community.