Bad news for Sunni jihadists; good news for the World

From the article:

In an effort to buttress the Iraqi military’s abilities, the Obama administration has sought congressional approval to lease and eventually sell Apache helicopter gunships. But some lawmakers have been hesitant, fearing that they might be used by al-Maliki to intimidate political opponents. [Emphasis added.]

No doubt the same Senators who want greater sanctions against Iran, just as the US is negating a peace treaty with Iran and Russia and China and France and England and Germany.  Those Senators like Sunni extremists.  I wonder why.  Are the Senators ideologically committed to Sunni jihadists, or are they paid for a commitment?  Or both?  In any case they are not a credit to America.

allie durell douthit

3423 francis street

808/675-8750

ddouthit@mac.com

შეიძლება თქვენ ფეხით სილამაზე. 

Dallas Morning News, by way of The New York Times

Karim kadim/The Associated Press

A man stood guard while women walked through the site of a bombing in a Christian section of Baghdad on Wednesday.

Published: 25 December 2013 10:56 PM

Updated: 25 December 2013 11:00 PM

U.S. sends arms to help Iraqis fight extremists

WASHINGTON — The United States is quietly rushing dozens of Hellfire missiles and low-tech surveillance drones to Iraq to help government forces combat an explosion of violence by an al-Qaeda-backed insurgency that is gaining territory in both western Iraq and neighboring Syria. 

The move follows an appeal for help in battling the extremist group by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who met with President Barack Obama in Washington last month. 

But some military experts question whether the patchwork response will be sufficient to reverse the sharp downturn in security that has already led to the deaths of more than 8,000 Iraqis this year, 952 of them Iraqi security force members, according to the United Nations, Iraq’s highest level of violence since 2008. 

Al-Qaeda’s regional affiliate, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, has become a potent force in northern and western Iraq. Riding in armed convoys, the group has intimidated towns, assassinated local officials and, in an episode last week, used suicide bombers and hidden explosives to kill the commander of the Iraqi army’s 7th Division and more than a dozen of his officers and soldiers as they raided an al-Qaeda training camp near Rutbah. 

Bombings in Christian areas of Baghdad on Christmas Day, which killed more than three dozen people, also bore the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation. 

The surge in violence stands in contrast to earlier assurances from senior Obama administration officials that Iraq was on the right path, despite the failure of U.S. and Iraqi officials in 2011 to negotiate an agreement for a limited number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq. 

Iraq’s foreign minister has floated the idea of having U.S.-operated, armed Predator or Reaper drones respond to the expanding militant network. But al-Maliki, who is positioning himself to run for a third term as prime minister and who is sensitive to nationalist sentiment at home, has not formally requested such intervention. 

The idea of carrying out such drone attacks, which might prompt the question of whether the Obama administration has succeeded in bringing the Iraq war to what the president has called a “responsible end,” also appears to have no support in the White House. 

“We have not received a formal request for U.S.-operated armed drones operating over Iraq, nor are we planning to divert armed ISR over Iraq,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, referring to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. 

For now, the new lethal aid from the United States includes a shipment of 75 Hellfire missiles, which were delivered to Iraq last week. The weapons are strapped beneath the wings of small Cessna turboprop planes and fired at militant camps, with the CIA providing targeting assistance. 

In addition, 10 ScanEagle reconnaissance drones are expected to be delivered to Iraq by March. They are smaller cousins of the larger, more capable Predators that used to fly over Iraq.
U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say they have effectively mapped the locations and origins of the al-Qaeda network in Iraq and are sharing this information with the Iraqis.
Administration officials said the aid was significant because the Iraqis had virtually run out of Hellfire missiles. The Iraqi military, with no air force to speak of and limited reconnaissance of its own, has a very limited ability to locate and quickly strike al-Qaeda militants. The combination of U.S.-supplied Hellfire missiles, tactical drones and intelligence is intended to augment that limited Iraqi ability. 

The Obama administration has also given three Aerostat balloons to the Iraqi government and has provided three additional reconnaissance helicopters to the Iraqi military. The United States also is planning to send 48 Raven reconnaissance drones before the end of 2014 and to deliver next fall the first of the F-16 fighters Iraq has bought. 

But the lack of armed drones, some experts say, will hamper efforts to dismantle the al-Qaeda threat in Iraq over the coming weeks and months. 

“Giving them some ScanEagle drones is great,” said Michael Knights, an expert on Iraqi security at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But is it really going to make much difference? Their range is tiny. 

“The real requirement today is for a long-range, high endurance armed drone capability,” added Knights, who frequently travels to Iraq. “There is one place in the world where al-Qaeda can run a major affiliate without fear of a U.S. drone or air attack, and that is in Iraq and Syria.” 

In an effort to buttress the Iraqi military’s abilities, the Obama administration has sought congressional approval to lease and eventually sell Apache helicopter gunships. But some lawmakers have been hesitant, fearing that they might be used by al-Maliki to intimidate political opponents. 

Using extortion and playing on Sunni grievances against al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government, the al-Qaeda affiliate is largely self-financing. One Iraqi politician, who asked not to be named to avoid retaliation, said al-Qaeda militants had even begun to extort money from shopkeepers in Ramadi, Anbar’s provincial capital. 

A number of factors are helping the al-Qaeda affiliate. The terrorist group took advantage of the departure of U.S. forces to rebuild its operations in Iraq and to push into Syria. Now that it has established a strong foothold in Syria, it is in turn using its base there to send suicide bombers into Iraq at a rate of 30 to 40 a month, using them against Shiites but also against Sunnis who are reluctant to cede control. 

Michael R. Gordon
and Eric Schmitt,
The New York Times

Images from Google Images:

A tradition of treating captives humanly has not, unfortunately, 

taken root in the Middle East. 

Nor in America, sadly.

Conflict in the East China Sea; and a recommended movie

The Times article below tells of potential conflict between China, Japan, and South Korea in the East China Sea.  I won't try to summarize the Times article.

Here are maps and pictures of the islands -- Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China -- in dispute, and the names of the three seas in the region.

The last map shows how extraordinarily close Japan and Korea are.  A beautiful movie, about disaffected young men in Korea an Japan and heir peculiar relationships with each other, is, in netflix streaming, named Boat.  Google has no good stills from the movie but here are posers:

The movie has Korean subtitles when he Japanese  guy is talking, and Japanese when the Korean is talking; English for both. T he guys can understand each other's language.

One can, apparently, row a boat from Korea to Japan, overnight if one is a smuggler, so close are the two countries.   And at times the East Sea or Sea of Japan is flat and tiny waves lap both coasts.  Life as we don't know it.  Highly recommended.

∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼

The New York Times

December 1, 2013
In the East China Sea, a Far Bigger Test of Power LoomsBy DAVID E. SANGERWASHINGTON — In an era when the Obama administration has been focused on new forms of conflict — as countries use cyberweapons and drones to extend their power — the dangerous contest suddenly erupting over a pile of rocks in the East China Sea seems almost a throwback to the Cold War.
Suddenly, naval assets and air patrols are the currency of a shadow conflict between Washington and Beijing that the Obama administration increasingly fears could escalate and that American officials have said could derail their complex plan to manage China’s rise without overtly trying to contain it. As in the Cold War, the immediate territorial dispute seems to be an excuse for a far larger question of who will exercise influence over a vast region.
The result is that, as the Chinese grow more determined to assert their territorial claimsover a string of islands once important mainly to fishermen, America’s allies are also pouring military assets into the region — potentially escalating the once obscure dispute into a broader test of power in the Pacific.
Now a maritime outpost that had modest strategic significance is taking on enormous symbolic import. South Korea, which has broader concerns about China’s regional power, is building a new naval base for 20 warships, including submarines, arguing that it has to protect vital shipping lanes in the East China Sea for its exports — including many electronics headed to China.
The Japanese, after largely depending on American bases on Okinawa to back up their own limited patrols in the area, plan to build a new army base by 2016 on a small, inhabited island near the disputed islands, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.
The Japanese are also planning to deploy more F-15s and radar planes to Okinawa and a new helicopter carrier, and, for the first time, have considered buying unarmed American drones to patrol the area, part of a three-year-long shift in military strategy to focus on their southern islands and on China. That is part of a fundamental change in the national mind-set toward a Japan that is more willing and able to defend itself than anytime since World War II, in part because of doubts about America’s own commitment to the region.
As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. left on Sunday for a trip that will take him to the capitals of all three major contestants — Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing — the administration’s public message is that all sides need to cool down and keep nationalistic talk from making a tense situation worse.
Mr. Biden will encounter countries that are now re-examining how civilian and military officials interact: Over the past few weeks, for very separate reasons, Japan and China have each approved the creation of a national security council. For Japan, it is an effort to strengthen the hand of the prime minister in times of crises, a concept the Japanese body politic long resisted because of the legacies of World War II.
For China, it appears to be an effort by President Xi Jinping to exercise a degree of control over all sources of national power that his immediate predecessor, Hu Jintao, never fully mastered. Interestingly, as China sent its aircraft carrier to another potential trouble spot, the South China Sea, its path avoided the disputed islands, perhaps a sign that the Chinese realize they may have overplayed their hand.
Still, in private, American officials say they are worried that a small incident — a collision like the one between an American intelligence plane and the Chinese air force a dozen years ago off Hainan Island — could rapidly worsen the situation.
On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Tom Donilon, who was Mr. Obama’s national security adviser until earlier this year and a principal architect of the administration’s approach to China, said a similar “risk of miscalculation” is what “we need to be very concerned about going forward here.” A senior administration official said Mr. Biden’s message would be that the United States will “seek crisis management mechanisms and confidence-building measures to lower tensions and reduce risk of escalation or miscalculation.”
But one of Mr. Obama’s current advisers said, “It’s pretty clear this isn’t really about the islands.” Declining to speak on the record about a sensitive strategic issue, the official added that it was about a desire by some in China, including the People’s Liberation Army and perhaps the new political leadership, “to assert themselves in ways that until recently they didn’t have the military capability to make real.”
The adviser added: “They say it’s in response to our efforts to contain them, but our analysis is that it’s really their effort to push our presence further out into the Pacific.”
In fact, on his last trip to Asia as secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates said in January 2011 that he believed the long-term goal of the Chinese was to push the United States to “the second island chain,” farther out in the Pacific, keeping American air and naval assets ever farther from the region around China’s coast. Two years later, Obama officials will not utter that view in public, but it is a running theme in American intelligence assessments about the Chinese military, tempered by evidence that some Chinese officials worry about blowback if they overreach.
That has been a repeated cycle in Mr. Obama’s relations with the Chinese. In 2010, a series of episodes, touched off by American arms sales to Taiwan and the ramming of a Japanese coast guard ship in the Senkakus by an inebriated Chinese sea captain, led China to cut off military-to-military relations between Beijing and Washington and the sale of rare-earth metals, used for electronics, to the Japanese.
Both proved temporary, and by the end of the year some senior Chinese officials, led by the state councilor, Dai Bingguo, warned that China’s actions were driving countries in the region into American hands. “Some say China wants to replace the United States and dominate the world,” Mr. Dai wrote in an article that Mr. Donilon frequently cited. “That is simply a myth.”
But Mr. Dai is gone from power, and the Obama administration is now trying to figure out how to interpret each new Chinese action under Mr. Xi, of which the recent “air defense identification zone” was considered the most calculated and, perhaps, the most muscular. Many countries claim such zones; China knew it was claiming it over disputed territory.
Mr. Obama’s immediate response was to send two unarmed B-52 bombers on what the Pentagon called “routine” runs over the territory; they were routine, but the timing and symbolism were lost on no one. Now the White House faces the more complex task of its longer-term response. To make the promise of his “Asian pivot” real, the president will have to convince Congress, and allies in the region, that he means to devote more military, diplomatic and economic attention there — not to contain China, he insists, but to preserve and extend America’s longtime role as a keeper of the peace in the Pacific.
That will be challenging at a time of Pentagon budget cuts, a national mood to focus on problems at home and a national security apparatus focused on Iran, Syria and the future of the Middle East.
Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Beijing, and Martin Fackler from Tokyo.

The Struggle by the West, Russia, and China for economic control of Central Asia

What, you might ask, is the Western Coalition of Armies doing in Afghanistan?  Why is the coalition negotiating to keep a military presence there past 2014?

These conflicting news reports will help you understand why I think the West want a presence in Afghanistan.

The first report is from the Western-leaning New York Times:

The New York Times
November 19, 2013
Vladimir Putin Clings to the PastBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDThe former republics of the Soviet Union have been sovereign, independent countries for almost 22 years, free to develop economic and political relations with any foreign nation or trading bloc they choose. That point appears to have eluded President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who is doing everything he can to prevent these countries from developing closer ties with Europe — even threatening to cut off the gas that one country needs to get through the winter. 

“The Cold War should be over for everyone,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said this week. Not, it appears, for Mr. Putin. 

Next week, six former republics — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine — are scheduled to meet with leaders of the European Union in Vilnius, Lithuania, to discuss enhanced economic, political and diplomatic ties with the union. In 2004, Lithuania, along with Estonia and Latvia, became the first former Soviet republics to join the union. 

To qualify for stronger ties, the six nations will have to demonstrate progress on democratic and judicial reforms required by the European Union. That may prove difficult for some, like Ukraine, which has, so far, refused to allow its imprisoned former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, to travel to Germany for medical treatment. 

Europe’s use of trade leverage to encourage democracy is constructive and reasonable. Russia’s attempts to bludgeon former vassals into continued economic dependence are not. The European Union offers something real and attractive. Russia, which wants them to join the customs union it has formed with Belarus and Kazakhstan, offers threats. 

In September, a Russian deputy prime minister warned Moldova that it might lose access to gas this winter should it strengthen links with Europe. Then it banned imports of Moldovan wine. Next came threats to expel tens of thousands of Moldovans working in Russia. Yet, far from backing down, Moldovan leaders have continued negotiations with Europe and are now working to reduce the country’s economic dependence on Russia. 

Moscow’s bullying has had more success in Armenia, which counts on Russian support in its territorial dispute with Azerbaijan, and has agreed to join the customs union. Even Lithuania, already a member of the union, has been subjected to trade harassment, presumably in retaliation for hosting next week’s Vilnius meeting. 

Similarly, Russia has threatened to slow Ukrainian imports with exacting customs inspections, although the main obstacles to stronger Ukrainian ties with the union involve domestic politics. In any case, Ukraine, which is economically robust, is perfectly entitled to choose its own course, as are the other former Soviet republics. 

In the waning years of the Soviet Union, its last president, Mikhail Gorbachev, talked optimistically about a post-Cold War Europe stretching undivided from the Atlantic to the Urals. Mr. Putin, however, seems to long for a return to the days when an iron curtain divided the Continent, darkening the horizons of the satellites and Soviet republics to the east — nations that now seek the enjoy more fully the fruits of independence.

The second if from RT, a Russia-leaning Russian national news outlet.  Both suggest competition between East and West for trade associations with Central Asian countries.  Judge for yourself how fierce the competition will become.

RT
Ukraine-EU trade deal: Business seeks delay, quarreling MP’s stall
Published time: November 13, 2013 11:51
Get short URL

Activists of Ukrainian movement "For European Future" hold EU flag with the Ukraine national emblem during their rally at Independence Square in Kiev on October 30, 2013.  

Ukraine’s prospect of signing a key Euro-integration deal this month remains questionable. Its big business suggests delaying the move by at least a year, while parliament has stalled a vote that could release ex-PM Tymoshenko. 

Kiev may sign the EU Association Agreement, a free trade agreement that paves the way for eventual membership in the union, at the EU's Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius on November 28-29. However it faced strong resistance from Russia, which wants Ukraine to be part of the Moscow-led Customs Union along with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Ukrainians themselves are also split in their opinion over their country’s strategic course. 

The split was underlined at a meeting of leaders from Ukraine’s major industries and unions with President Viktor Yanukovich. At the closed-door session they voiced their concern that Ukraine’s battered economy is not ready to be opened up to its strong Western neighbor.  

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych “If it is possible, let’s postpone the signing [of the Association Agreement] by a year. Give us a chance to prepare more, to buy equipment. This is not only my request, it’s a request from industrialists,” Valentin Landyk, President of the Nord Group holding said at the Tuesday meeting as cited in a statement released by the president’s office. 

The business captains asked the government to take several measures, which would raise the competitiveness of the Ukrainian economy before integrating with the EU, Kommersant Ukraine business daily reports. Those included boosting domestic demand, making credit cheaper, lowering taxes and normalizing trade relation with the Customs Union members. 

Yanukovich did not comment on the proposition to delay signing of the trade deal, but ordered his government to review the concerns. Both the president and Ukraine’s ruling Party of Regions insist that Ukraine’s course for European integration is firm and that Kiev has every intention of signing the agreement. 

“I believe we have all the preconditions for a positive result [at the summit],” Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara reiterated on Wednesday, adding that only political issues need to be settled.
The intention however saw another setback on Wednesday when the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, postponed a vote on a bill, which would allow former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who is serving a prison term now, to go to Germany for treatment of back pain. The delay until Tuesday next week was caused by the failure of a working group preparing the bill to find a compromise alternative. 

The European Union considers Tymoshenko, sentenced to seven years for overstepping her authority during her term in office, a political prisoner. Releasing her is one of major conditions for Ukraine to be granted a free trade deal. 

The bill would allow a long-term transfer of Tymoshenko outside of Ukraine due to health reasons, which would constitute a de facto release. 

The ruling party accused opposition parties of derailing the work, saying they bombarded the working groups with amendments and gave them no time to review them. 

“There is a growing suspicion that you’ve been playing a show for the voters, while imagining yourselves candidates at the next presidential election, and you don’t even intend to solve the Tymoshenko issue,”Regions’ parliamentary faction leader Aleksandr Efremov lashed out. 

“You’ve been deceiving European representatives while trying to frame the Ukrainian authorities,” he added in a reference to this week’s visit of a European Parliament observer mission to review the preparation for the Vilnius summit. 

Meanwhile some opposition members are accusing Yanukovich of spinning the public opinion for an eventual failure to sign the deal. Tymoshenko said the president “has in the last weeks already been kicking the Association Agreement to death” in a statement. And opposition leader Arseny Yatsenyuk has called for an investigation over whether the president committed treason by traveling to Russia last weekend for a meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. 

"Right from the start Yanukovich did not want to sign anything with the European Union," Tymoshenko ally Yatsenyuk wrote bitterly on Twitter. "He played and outplayed even himself."

Here's a map showing the countries mentioned in the two article, except for Vietnam.

Moldavia is new to me.  Here's a map of that country, showing a portion of the country that has seceded with apparent success:

Moldavian footballer . . .

 Country-side. . .

City . . .

Village.

Moldavians speak Romanian, and French is the  most-often taught foreign language.

It interests me that Belarus and Kazakhstan are the only two countries, so far, to join with Russia in the customs union.  They are about as far apart as can be.

Kazakhstan is also a member of the Turkic Council . . .

. . . which, under Azerbaijan's leadership, is also creating a common economic, political, and ethnic union, a buffer blocking Russian and Chinese expansionist desires in Central Asia. 

Russia, the Times reports, supports Armenia against Azerbaijan in their territorial dispute.  So does Iran, even though Armenia is a Christian nation and Azerbaijan is the only country besides Iran with a Shiite majority.  Since Russia and Iran are allies in Syria it makes sense that Russia would support Armenia, though Armenia and Turkey are mortal enemies and Russia and Turkey need each other if a good outcome in Syria is to happen.

See Wikipedia for a summary of the various nations that have an interest in the customs union.

The Shanghai Cooperation organization is an economic, political, and military union of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

There are many other cooperation agreements in Central Asia, some inchoate.  Lots of interest.  Lots of activity.  Lots rests on outcomes.  The West needs a presence in Central Asia.  Afghanistan is the only chance left.

The US,Chevron,China,and Central Asia

Busy, busy, busy, our State Department is, to keep Iran’s natural gas bottled up.  

I wonder how the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Pipeline (TAPI), as opposed to the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline (IP Pipeline) which will also feed India and China, figures into our negotiations for Peace in Iran.  US oil interests will not be involved in the IP Pipeline; and the US promotes TAPI vigorously  and threatens Pakistan with sanctions if it fulfills ins contract with iran to construct the IP  Pipeline.     

How much weight do the oil companies' interest figure into our negotiations with Iran?  The US has done its best to block Iranian oil exports since the Islamic Republic overthrew the Sash and nationalized natural resources.  Opening the flow of oil and gas from Iran to the world  should be a major part of our negotiations with Iran over it’s suspected but not proved desire to develop the Bomb.  Is it?

Liberals did their best to discover Cheney’s conversations with energy companies when he met in secret with them as Bushco’s energy policies were developed, even applying to the federal courts for aid.  Shouldn’t Liberals make the same demands of the Obama administration?  I Shouldn't we know of conversations with oil interests about matters that concern Peace with Iran?think we should. I’m not a powerful lobbying entity, but this is a subject I will address to my congresspersons.  Will you, too?

If the report in the PakTribune, below, is accurate, why is it that a private company is able to pay 10 Billion Dollars to develop the TTAPI Pipeline, when Pakistan and India seem unable to do it themselves?  I favor modifying our tax code.  Radical Republicans claim we don't have enough money to support our poor, and an oil company has, if the report is accurate, money to burn.  Something is wrong here.  Are we concerned that oil companies will move to Dubai to avoid US taxation, as Cheney has done with his companies?  Does the UN need taxing power, just as the US developed the power to regulate powerful railroads when the individual States lacked the power?  Is the analogy good?

The TAPI pipeline is good news for the Taliban and the Balochistan Resistance Movement, since security of the pipeline is a major concern and their power to disrupt it is great.  I’m pleased with prospect of the Balochistan Resistance Movement’s possible gain in power, since the Balochi are treated unfairly by Pakistan and Iran.  I’m not pleased with the Taliban’s.

Roadblocks remain to TAPI pipeline construction - Oil & Gas Journal

Note:  Wikipedia, which frequently reports on the trustworthiness of news outlets, has no report on the PakTribune's trustworthiness, so I’m cautious about the authenticity of the report below.  Stay tuned.  I’ll see if the story is picked up by other news outlets.

US pushes Chevron's bid for TAPI pipeline project12 November, 2013

ISLAMABAD: The United States may press Pakistan to award the multi-billion-dollar contract for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline project to pipeline to US energy giant Chevron. 

"During the energy group meeting, the issue relating to awarding TAPI gas pipeline contract to Chevron will come under discussion," sources said, adding that representatives of the US State Department and Chevron had also visited India for the same purpose. 

Chevron and Exxon Mobil, renowned oil and gas companies with vast experience in the energy sector, have expressed interest to be the consortium leaders for the project, sources say. All participating countries have signed Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA) with Turkmenistan to import gas under TAPI gas pipeline project. 

Pakistan is keen to see Chevron undertake work on the pipeline and sources stress there is a strong possibility that the US energy giant will be selected as consortium leader to finance, design and build the pipeline. 

On its part, Chevron has sought exploration rights in Turkmenistan as well as contracts in response to financing and running the project. However, Turkmenistan has offered exploration rights for offshore fields and asked Chevron to swap gas found in these fields for onshore ones and export it to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India under the TAPI project. Turkmenistan does not allow foreign companies to search for hydrocarbons on onshore fields. 

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), hired as an advisor to help generate funds for the project, has already warned that the TAPI gas pipeline project cost may exceed $10 billion against earlier estimates of $7.5 billion due to delays in implementation of the project. 

The pipeline will pass through war-torn Afghanistan, which has assured Pakistan and other participating countries of providing adequate security for the pipeline. 

Under the TAPI project, Pakistan and India will get 1.365 billion cubic feet of gas per day (bcfd) each from Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan will get 0.5 bcfd. 

Turkmenistan will export natural gas through the 1,800 kilometer pipeline that will reach India after passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

TAPI and Turkmenistan’s Natural Gas | GeoCurrents

 Note that TAPI has no proposal for supplying gas to China, while he IP Pipeline passes right by Gwadar, the deep water port China is spending millions to develop right on the Iranian Iranian border with Pakistan.

China Strings Pearls While US Kills Terrorists | Culture of Life News

Business Recorder

巴基斯坦将瓜德尔港经营权转交中国公司-观察者网

Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline | emptywheel

Chinese workers in Gwadar

For more on the IP Pipeline, see this blog here and here.

For more on Balochistan see Mansouled Fiery Islands, here and here.

Another reason not to Bomb Iran

A clear financial reason not to Bomb Iran, and to w negotiate a peaceful settlement in Syria. DON'T OMB IRAN.

November 8, 2013
As Tensions Fall in Iran, So Do Costs of GasolineBy CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HOUSTON — Gasoline prices are tumbling just in time for the holiday shopping season to begin. 

Consumers can thank the tentative reduction in tensions in the Middle East and swelling supplies of domestic oil for their good fortune, and energy experts say prices could fall further if negotiations between the West and Iran progress. 

The cost of a gallon of regular gasoline has dropped by 6 cents a gallon over the last week alone, in line with a steady swoon through the fall that has brought prices to their lowest levels in three years. 

Seasonal price declines are expected this time of year, but the slide this year is particularly steep. It brings modest relief to consumers at a time when families try to scrape together disposable income for gifts, road trips and entertaining family and friends. 

“From a psychology standpoint, lower prices at the pump are correlated with higher consumer confidence,” said Michael Niemira, chief economist for the International Council of Shopping Centers. “Over the years Walmart has said how deeply dependent their consumers are on gasoline prices and it goes beyond Walmart.” 

The national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.21 on Friday, 14 cents below a month ago and 25 cents below last year, according to AAA’s daily fuel gauge report.
Drivers in all 50 states are enjoying lower gas prices than a year ago, and Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas filling stations are now charging $3 or less a gallon on average. The AAA automobile club predicts that the national average will dip to as low as $3.10 a gallon for regular by the end of the year, and some analysts see even more declines. 

“The majority of the population will be able to find gasoline for less than $3 a gallon between now and New Year’s,” Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at GasBuddy.com, said. 

The average household consumes 1,200 gallons of gasoline a year, which translates into a $120 annual savings for every dime shaved off the price of gas, energy experts say. 

Economists say over time lower gasoline prices act like a tax cut, or in the case of this year, a partial cushion for the resumption of Social Security payroll taxes that had been temporarily reduced after the financial crisis. 

There was a spike in oil and gasoline prices over the summer after the Egyptian army staged a coup and when the United States appeared poised to take military action in Syria. 

The Brent oil benchmark climbed above $115 a barrel in early September, but began drifting down by more than $10 a barrel after President Obama backed off attacking Syria and the Syrian regime agreed to demobilize its chemical weapons stockpiles. The principal American benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, had climbed to $110 a barrel but is now below $95. 

Oil price spikes have been common since turmoil spread across the Middle East and North Africa three years ago, and as the United States and Europe tightened sanctions on Iran, trying to force the country to modify its nuclear program to exclude nuclear weapons. 

The Western sanctions on Iran have taken as many as a million barrels a day of oil off world markets. A full resumption in Iranian exports, according to a report this week by Bernstein Research, would reduce crude prices by 9 percent — or nearly $9 a barrel — although such a development is unlikely for many months at best. 

“The market fundamentals don’t support $100-a-barrel oil except for the political risk factors, and the biggest one — Iran — appears to be easing,” said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, a consulting firm. “The suppression of Iranian oil sales seems likely to diminish and therefore the market will become increasingly glutted.”
The rule of thumb of many economists is that every $10 drop in the price of a barrel of oil increases economic growth by 0.2 percent to 0.3 percent, as long as a broad economic slowdown does not shave consumer and business spending. 

There are limitations to how low oil and gasoline prices can go. Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states need high oil prices to pay for social programs that ease political tensions, and they can always cut production to firm up prices. Saudi Arabia, which had been pumping at record levels to compensate for lost Iranian exports, cut back its output slightly in October and may reduce production some more if Iranian oil exports flow again.
Still, developments closer to home are also bringing down oil and gasoline prices. United States domestic oil production has increased by about 40 percent over the last four years, adding 2.5 million barrels a day to the market — an amount that is almost exactly equivalent to the total supply disruptions amounting from the sanctions on Iranian exports and the production and export blockages in Libya, Syria and recently parts of Iraq. 

United States benchmark oil prices have been dropping faster than the international Brent benchmark in recent weeks, as crude inventories built up in the nation’s heartland where the shale oil drilling frenzy is strongest. Some Canadian crude can be bought at prices below $50 a barrel because of surplus supplies in the United States, while Bakken crude from North Dakota is priced at about $80 a barrel, still well below international price 

“Cheaper gas prices are being passed along to American drivers because North American crude prices have become disconnected from world crude prices,” Mr. Kloza of GasBuddy said. 

Inventories at the large Gulf of Mexico refineries have crept up 15 percent since January, and with exports of gasoline and diesel slowing to Mexico and Venezuela, large inventories of petroleum products could continue to build and further depress prices.

Peace with Iran

My sentiments exactly.

New York Times  

November 3, 2013
Talk to Iran, It Works
By RYAN C. CROCKER
There were high expectations after President Obama and Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, talked on the phone in late September. Those hoping for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear standoff were excited that a breakthrough was imminent; meanwhile, some American allies, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, expressed deep skepticism over a potential American rapprochement with Iran. 

No breakthrough was achieved when American and Iranian officials met for negotiations last month, but few observers expected one. Later this week, another round of talks is scheduled to begin in Geneva. 

The window for achieving a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is not open-ended. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Rouhani face domestic pressures — from skeptical members of Congress in Washington and anti-American hard-liners in Tehran.
Nevertheless, despite three decades of frosty relations and although most Americans may be unaware of it, talks with Iran have succeeded in the past — and they can succeed again. 

Immediately after 9/11, while serving in the State Department, I sat down with Iranian diplomats to discuss next steps in Afghanistan. Back then, we had a common enemy, the Taliban and its Al Qaeda associates, and both governments thought it was worth exploring whether we could cooperate. 

The Iranians were constructive, pragmatic and focused, at one point they even produced an extremely valuable map showing the Taliban’s order of battle just before American military action began. 

They were also strong proponents of taking action in Afghanistan. We met through the remaining months of 2001 in different locations, and Iranian-American agreement at the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan was central to establishing the Afghan Interim Authority, headed by Hamid Karzai, now the president of Afghanistan. 

I continued to hold talks with the Iranians in Kabul when I was sent to reopen the United States Embassy there. We forged agreements on various security issues and coordinated approaches to reconstruction. And then, suddenly, it all came to an end when President George W. Bush gave his famous “Axis of Evil” speech in early 2002. The Iranian leadership concluded that in spite of their cooperation with the American war effort, the United States remained implacably hostile to the Islamic Republic. 

Real cooperation effectively ceased after the speech and the costs were immediate. At the time, we were in the process of negotiating the transfer of the notorious Afghan warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, from Iranian house arrest to Afghan custody and ultimately to American control. Instead, the Iranians facilitated his covert entry into Afghanistan where he remains at large, launching attacks on coalition and Afghan targets. 

I had another set of negotiations with Iranian diplomats when I was ambassador to Iraq in 2007. The goal was to persuade Iran to cease supporting groups like Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, a Shiite militia that was targeting the Iraqi government and coalition forces. Unlike the Afghan negotiations, these talks took place in the full glare of the media, rendering the give-and-take of effective diplomacy impossible. While the negotiations accomplished nothing, they may have convinced Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that his only option for dealing with the militias was military force. He launched a military operation against them in April 2008. In fighting that extended from Baghdad to Basra, the government eventually prevailed, with substantial coalition support. 

The Afghan experience demonstrates that diplomatic progress between the United States and Iran is possible. It is certainly not guaranteed, but a solid diplomatic solution is always better than the alternatives. 

The government of the Islamic Republic is clearly an adversary, but it is also a rational actor. And, like all governments, it is capable of being pragmatic and flexible when it is in its interest to do so. There is a chance that the Obama administration can replicate past successes if it applies four lessons from the 2001 talks. 

First, American negotiators must understand that serious progress is likely to come only in direct talks between the United States and Iran. The involvement of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany should continue, but the heavy lifting will have to be done by the two central actors. 

Second, the substance of the talks must be closely held. Revealing the details too soon will give ammunition to those who oppose the talks and limit the flexibility of the negotiators.
Third, America should be ready to introduce other issues beyond the nuclear file. Progress in one area can build confidence and facilitate progress in others. I mentioned this in a discussion with Iranian leaders in New York last month and they seemed receptive, mentioning Afghanistan and Syria as possibilities. 

Finally, the United States must make clear that we do not seek to overthrow the Iranian regime. Iranian paranoia on this issue is virtually limitless and understandably so. In 1953, the American and British intelligence services ousted a democratically elected Iranian prime minister, an episode that very few Americans remember and no Iranian will ever forget. 

The outlines of a deal are already clear. Iran wants sanctions lifted and an end to its isolation while the international community wants clear, continuous and unambiguous verification that Iran’s nuclear energy program will never be weaponized. The Iranian leaders I met in New York argued that a nuclear weapon would actually degrade Iran’s security because it would spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation among its Arab neighbors. They insisted that Iran wants security and stability in the region, not a nuclear arms race.
That is encouraging talk, but the Iranians will have to move first. There can be no question of easing American sanctions until Iran has demonstrated its seriousness in confining any nuclear program to peaceful purposes. 

Ryan C. Crocker, a former United States ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, is dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A & M.

[Emphasis added]

A new wrinkle in exporting Iran's Pars gas fied

Iran's Pars natural gas field is the largest in the world.


International sanctions and the U.S. Fifth Fleet, stationed in the Persian Gulf  has blocked export of gas from the Pars field.

Iran and Pakistan signed a accord for a pipeline through Pakistan through which to sell the gas.  The pipeline could reach Indian markets and even China.

Wikipedia, Chinese Guandar Port in Pakistan.

The U.S. has threatened sanctions agains Pakistan if it participates in the pipeline  and conflicting stories appear in Pakistani and Iranian news papers about the progress of the pipeline.  It's future seems in doubt.

Todays's news account in Fars, an Iranian news outlet, describes an alternate way for Iran to get it's gas out.

We'll see how this one develops.

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:33

Iran, Oman in Talks over Gas Deal

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian and Omani experts are discussing the contents of a deal on the supply of Iran’s gas to Oman, an official announced on Saturday, stressing that Tehran is already prepared to ink the final contract. 

“Exporting gas to Oman is being pursued seriously and experts of the two sides are discussing contents of the deal,” Managing-Director of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) Hamid Reza Araqi told FNA. 

“Yet, we are right now ready to sign the contract," he said, and added, "As prescribed by the Iranian oil minister, the deal will be endorsed by the Iranian and Omani oil ministers, and we hope this to happen soon.” 

Araqi explained that once the deal is signed, Tehran and Masqat will need 2.5 to 3 years to build the infrastructures needed for the supply of Iran’s gas to Oman. 

In relevant remarks in September, Araqi said that the preliminary studies are underway to finalize a gas contract with Oman. 

He said that the NIGC was studying different aspects of the issue, including economic assessment of the contract and a report on the possible routes. 

He stated implementation of gas contracts requires preliminary expert studies which takes time. 

After several years, reaching agreement on gas price is a breakthrough, NIGC managing director said, adding the two countries have many common grounds for boosting cooperation, including feeding Oman’s LNG units with gas.  

Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh and his Omani counterpart signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in August to accelerate finalizing a gas contract between the two sides. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran as the largest owner of gas reserves in the world is the most secure and most economic source of gas exports to the neighboring countries.

For a report from Port Technology International on Oman's ports, see

$645 million Omani port expansions making progress
09 Mar 2011 - Port Planning

The Port of Salalah is to be developed within the $645 million expansion plan Omani ports.
US$645 million Omani port expansion projects progressing
Ports of Salalah, Sohar and Sultanate of Oman under development 

Omani port expansions are seeing significant progress, as multi-billion dollar investment in port operations across the Middle East continue to highlight the key role of the shipping industry for regional trade. 

The US$645 million invested in Oman's port expansion projects include the strategically positioned Sultanate of Oman, and the Ports of Salalah and Sohar

“The billion-dollar expansion plan for Oman’s seaports, particularly in Salalah and Sohar, is continuing unabated as part of its strategy to further develop a competitive and efficient industrial sector and also ensure the security of its essential food commodities,” said Chris Hayman, Chairman of Seatrade.
Up to a billion dollars has been committed to the development of Oman’s new maritime ports and the expansion of existing gateways. 

Construction work on the Port of Salalah is expected to begin by the end of March, with the first phase of the project estimated to cost around $196 million, part of the overall $645-million expansion plan. This will increase its capacity to 40 million tonnes of dry-bulk commodities and five million tonnes of liquid products each year. 

Expansion work on the Port of Sohar is also progressing, with two key projects including the development of a major deepwater jetty and a dry bulk terminal. 

Construction of the new $250-million jetty is already well underway, with completion set for the second half of 2011. Once finished, Sohar will be one of just a handful of ports worldwide with such deepwater capability, allowing for the docking of new generation super-scale ore carriers. 

The second project, the new dry bulk and aggregates terminal, is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2012. It is expected to encourage the growth of quarrying and mining activities in Oman’s Batinah region, further opening it up as a platform for foreign commodities traders to access the markets of the Gulf and wider Middle East. 

An upgrade project is also underway for Oman’s Duqm Port, with new smaller-scale ports planned for Shinas in the north and Hallaniyat Islands in the south.

For an Indian view of Oman's ports, see here.

Omaan's deep wager ports:

International Opposition to Sunni findamentalists in Syria

Two quotations from Al Monitor are of interest:

Claiming that Erdogan “was never interested in democracy or reform in Syria but merely wanted to secure the return of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Assad accused the Turkish prime minster of having “a closed and reactionary mind which does not recognize honesty.”

Note:  The Muslim Brotherhood is democratic, though barely.  Though that is damning with faint praise it is more than can be said for any other large Sunni organization, and the reason the H. Saudis spent millions to bring it down in Egypt..

Assad is undoubtedly also noting with satisfaction the rising international concern that al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria might grab the country to establish a regime that is no more democratic than the current one. That concern appears to have established a strange but unspoken coalition which includes the United States and Europe as well as Russia and Iran, who all consider Sunni fundamentalism a threat. [Emphasis added.]

The last sentence is also my view.  It is not the Saudi view.

Google-selected images for Jabhat al-Nusra, a Saudi-backed Sunni fundamentalist battalion, fighting to secure the Syrian coast for Saudi Arabia: