aircraft carrier video

No Straight Talk, Only Posturing Between US, Iran on Strait of Hormuz


Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are getting a lot of play in the press the past few days. As the ten days of naval war games for Iran that began on Saturday have continued, Iran’s bluster has gotten stronger, as have the US responses.

Ironically, Iran’s stated purpose when it began the war games included the desire to “convey a message of peace and friendship to regional countries” and yet, as can be seen in the video here, Iranian authorities are now saying that should their ability to export oil be curtailed through sanctions put in place by the US and European allies, they would close down the Strait of Hormuz, preventing exports by other countries in the region.

The impact of a real closure would be huge. Many of the numbers involved can be gleaned from this Bloomberg article published this morning. Iran’s oil exports amount to 3.6 million barrels a day, which means Iran only accounts for 23% of the 15.5 million barrels a day that pass through the Strait. It is believed that Saudi Arabia could produce an extra 2.5 million barrels a day in the event of sanctions halting Iran’s supply, and up to 200,000 more barrels a day could come from other countries in the region, so about 75% of Iran’s output probably could be replaced quickly.

However, with the Strait closed, the entire 15.5 million barrels a day could be disrupted. There is a pipeline being built by the United Arab Emirates that the Bloomberg article says will be ready “soon” and could bypass the Strait with 1.4 to 1.8 million barrels a day, but this would be only a very small fraction of the lost supply.

Even though such a closure would be seen as a direct response to the US and its European allies, the impact on China should not be overlooked. The CIA world factbook informs us that the US imports 10.3 million barrels a day and the EU imports 8.6 million, but China is next in line at 4.8 million barrels a day.  How would China respond to such a huge disruption of their supply, especially if it comes about through a series of disagreements where they have not been included in the discourse? Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim To have basically 2 starting QBs in 23yrs? That is sick. Also, a song to ChiTown from Out West
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim Precisely. The Packers are blessed and, occasionally, cursed by QBs they depend on. But I'll take it!
bmaz @LegallyErin @TyreJim Seriously. Injuries are a problem, but, still, it is like the mojo or something is gone. Weird.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery You think everything that goes beyond your own point is a "red herring" Which is itself a red herring
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery But real harm comes when media misinformed public demands expanded definitions be ensconced in law.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery And, no, not all crime sprees should be blithely termed "terrorism".
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery Naw, "media" does not. They just blow adopted militaristic cop jargon out their ass like parrots.
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery dangerous to the Constitutional rights and interests of all US citizens. That fear not worth it
bmaz @armandodkos @ggreenwald @WesleyLowery I am not totally sure what any of you mean, but expanding "terrorism" beyond what it legally means...
bmaz @Subscatter @WesleyLowery One step at a time!
bmaz Because you are sane and sober, and don't want to bandy about a critical legal definitional term recklessly?
bmaz RT @BFriedmanDC: Lots of domestic terrorism in the U.S. this week. All angry, armed white guys.
November 2015
« Oct