This hasn’t gone unnoticed by Iran’s leaders. To try and address the problem, the Iranian government is now placing tenders for the expansion of port facilities at Qeshm island, which is located a few kilometres off the southern coast of Iran, opposite the port city of Bandar Abbas. However, the new port on its own won’t be sufficient, as the island is detached from the mainland. To remedy this problem, the Iranian government also intends to build a new bridge to connect Qeshm to the mainland, thus allowing the cargo offloaded from the ships to be transported more easily and efficiently into Iran using trucks or cargo trains.
The new UN sanctions imposed under resolution 1929 are likely to have added a new urgency to the project. According to these new sanctions, ships going to Iran could be searched in international waters. Iran has warned against such measures, but due to their size, some of the ships destined for Iran have no choice but to dock at UAE ports since Iran’s own ports are for the time being unable to handle them. This could make it much easier for countries wishing to enforce the new UN sanctions—all they would have to do is wait until the ships are inside UAE territorial waters, and then search them. And Iranian authorities would be powerless to stop this as the ships will be in the territorial waters of another country.
Although it’s unclear when construction will actually begin, much less how long it will take for Iran to complete this project, the fact that it has decided to embark on such a venture will be welcome news for reformists and conservatives alike. 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.
And there’s also the question of nationalist pride. Why should Iran, a country with thousands of years of civilization and that sees itself as a superpower depend on a country that’s barely more than 40 years-old for something as vital as its shipping needs?
With new UN, as well as EU and US sanctions looming, some of its Persian Gulf neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia, may try and use Iran’s increasing isolation and its dependence on the UAE to further weaken its position. Of course, this wouldn’t be an easy job—Iran has other important levers, such as its influence in Iraq, to ward off the Saudis. But it’s unlikely to stop the Saudis from trying—and asking other countries such as the UAE to join them in a regional campaign to hurt Iran’s interests. After all, they did it during the 1980 Iraq-Iran war by supporting Saddam Hussein. They could do it again.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
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.