Iran’s Weakness? Its Ports
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkIran is getting tired of relying on its neighbours’ deep-water ports. Doing so compromises both its trade and its security.
Building deep-water ports at home and abroad has been a hallmark of many of the world’s emerging powers. The ‘String of Pearls’ policy is arguably the most notable recent example, with the Chinese government upgrading its own ports, as well as those of countries on which it relies for trade and that have strategic geographic importance.
Such a strategy, which in China’s case has included construction of deep-water ports in Gwadar in Pakistan and Chittagong in Bangladesh, benefits both the emerging power and the developing countries being invested in. These ports have significant value, increasing the strategic importance of countries that have them, as well as boosting their economic status by enhancing their ability to expand their import and export capacities.
Yet despite all these potential benefits, it’s an area in which the Islamic Republic of Iran has been falling behind. Its southern ports can only accommodate 100,000 ton ships, meaning any ship above that capacity carrying goods for Iran has to dock in United Arab Emirates ports such as Fajirah and Jabal Ali, whereupon their cargo is loaded onto smaller ships and brought to Iran.
So does all this really matter? When a diplomat from one of the states that provides your country a trading lifeline floats the possibility of war with you, then it most certainly does.
With the increase in both the number of 250,000 ton ships and the number of shipping companies operating in the Persian Gulf turning to them, Iran is already losing out on potential income. Meanwhile, every year, Iranian companies lose hundreds of millions—if not billions of dollars—in port handling fees to the UAE port authorities for handling ships that have goods for Iran.
Perhaps most troubling for Iranian policymakers, though, is the UAE’s proximity to the anti-Iran, pro-sanctions camp. The potential difficulties first became evident with the recent closure of 40 international and local firms as part of a crackdown on companies that violate UN sanctions on Iran.
But concerns likely reached new highs after a UAE diplomat openly endorsed a military attack against Iran, stating that ‘the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear programme outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.’ Although his government may later deny this as being policy, the fact remains that a growing number of visiting politicians to Persian Gulf countries are coming back with the message that many of these countries are extremely worried about having to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Photo Credit: Luca & Vita
cna training
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
Aryamehr
The UAE would not have become what is today, in terms of infrastructure, tourism, business hub, if it was not for Iran’s isolation from the international community. Therefore the UAE would not be unhappy to see more sanctions hitting Iran because it would be beneficial to them. Don’t forget that there is 300B of Iranian capital in the UAE, which has largely contributed to their development. The UAE would be the first foreign casualty in the event of a war between the US and Iran.
Iran will become nuclear. You must start to acknowledge that reality and grapple with the accommodation of a nuclear Iran rather than indirectly supporting strikes against its program. I think Obama and his team know this already.
Arshama
“Despite the backslapping and the complimentary words that are exchanged between UAE and Iranian leaders during bilateral summits, many Iranians have resented their country’s overt reliance on the emirates. In addition, the fact that UAE businessmen have been one of the biggest benefactors from the sanctions previously imposed by the United States is not lost on Iranians.”
This whole mess is surely home-made! The IR oil revenues from the past few years equalled those from the whole Shah era, but near to nothing was invested in Iran’s infrastructure. The economic loss due to lacking competitive ports are negligible compared to the huge losses caused by Iran’s inability to exploit submarine oil fields in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea.
Apart from that I fully agree with Meir Javedanfar: one of this Holy Republic’s weak points are its ports.
L+lou
Wishful thinking does not make good analysis. Another grasping at straw analysis that does not make sense. It is interesting that a single comment from one ambassador is seized upon to make wide ranging analysis. This is an example of thin-slicing done in the wrong context. Meir is constantly wrong. UAE knows very well that any conflict between Iran and any state in the region will result in its destruction physically and financially. A state like UAE will never survive prolonged war in the gulf. The problem with punditocracy is that they failed to realize the changes that has taken place in the last 20 years. the proliferation of knowledge has made any war extremely long and costly. The UAE may believe that they can afford a war to contain a nuclear Iran banking on the assumption that there is a type of war that can prevent a nuclear Iran, thre is not such a war. The battle for Nassirya proves that, the Explosive Form Projectile proves that. If conflict broke out between the US and Iran, The US has less than three months to compel a surrender from Iran barring such surrender the nuclear Iran will emerge in the midst of the war. The punditocracy refuse to acknowledge the lesson that was learned after the fall of Baghdad, particularly how quickly the Iraqis adapt to American Armor. Well, Tehran will not fall in three months, neither will Qom or Isfhan. The IRGC and the Basij will not fall in 6-12 months. The Iranian Army is surprisingly well-trained. Any soldier who has served in Iraq will tell you that Iranian trained Mahdi army member are surprisingly well-trained and well-equipped fighters. Pundits need to acknowledge that the Iranian nuclear program is here to stay and wishsful thinking like Port problems is going to end the nuclear program is dangerous and prevent us from dealing with reality. That to me is extremely saddening.
Michael Redbourn
Not just the ports.
I find it hard to believe that Iran has to export crude and then import the refined products. It’s oil wells are falling apart and they can no longer get the parts or expertise to fix them.
The religious peasants no longer look to the regime for spiritual guidance and the masses were shocked by the faked elections.
http://www.ourchangingglobe.com/is-the-end-of-the-ahmadinejad-regime-finally-in-sight/
Iranians brought the regime to power and no how to bring it down too.
John Samford
Why do diplos place such a high value on trade? I never could figure that out. History shows that trade tends to cause wars, not prevent them. In ‘41 Panzers clanking East passed trains going west full of Soviet food and raw materials to feed German workers and their factories.
Was it last year that Russia invaded Georgia or the year before? Regardless, the invaders came thru a tunnel built to carry trade between Georgia and Russia. Without that tunnel, there is no invasion.
It was FDR’s embargo that caused the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
My final point is that people in power, the guys driven to rule no matter what the cost, are interested in money only so long as it helps their drive for power. So they don’t care if trade is disrupted. Doesn’t matter if they were elected fair and square, rigged the vote or shot their way to power.
So tell me again about how trade promotes peace. This time with a little evidence please.