Anyone have any theories why the world is so invested in Iranian democracy but not Egyptian?
Islam News @ NYT- Women’s Rights in Mideast:
- Driving Miss Saudi: Young women in Riyadh try to balance Islam and modernity as the stunted desert kingdom makes progress in “Saudi Time.”
- Swedish Artist Says Sketch of Prophet Aimed to Mock All Religions: A man who prosecutors say was the target of a murder plot says his caricature of the Prophet Muhammad was intended to poke fun at all sacred symbols.
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
BuzzK 11:02 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
Oil? I heard Iran has a little less than half the world’s oil reserves and much of it is very high quality crude. I think some western countries would like the mullahs’ hands off the Iranian oil fields. Mullahs seem content to portion out Iranian oil slowly and allow Saudis to exhaust their supply.
BuzzK 11:04 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
Maybe a democracy would be more compelled to do busines.
thabet 11:58 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
There are good technical as well as economic reasons not to exhaust your resources quickly, but I am not sure the mullahs have a paricular interest in not developing their oil/gas resources. If that was the case, why would Iran be so keen to develop South Pars?
A lot of this is to do with restrictions imposed on Iran. They don’t have the technology/expertise to develop and extract their resources as efficiently. In the case of South Pars they’ve turned to China for help on this gas field when the French pulled out. (This is the largest gas field in the world and shared with Qatar which has the bigger slice.)
There is also an inbuilt suspicion amongst the Iranians toward foreign majors. And I don’t blame them for having those thoughts.
razib 12:03 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
the engineer speaketh….
BuzzK 12:42 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
Ahmadinejad has been strongly criticized for rationing gas. If they chose to develop their fields quickly, they could find a partner and terms. When 3/4 of your economy depends on oil. Same with Hugo Chavez. Also critical of democracy. Go figure. Oil supplies prop up authoritarian socialists.
Good recent article on the subject from Martin Hutchinson.
excerpt below:
thabet 2:13 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
I think there is some confusion here in parlance.
Gas(oline) = petrol = comes from oil.
The gas in South Pars is what is usually used to fuel cookers or heaters in Europe and elsewhere (as well as new ‘cleaner greener’ cars).
The Iranian state rations its subsidised gasoline precisely because it doesn’t have the capability to refine its oil (I think this includes being able to raise funds to finance multibillion dollar investment programmes). It imports a lot of its gasoline (a quick search reveals estimates of around 40%):
It can’t develop these capabilities because of sanctions/restrictions, though I don’t think the Chinese or even the French care about that sort of stuff. (Italians certainly never cared in Libya.) Iran wants to build a lot of refineries for precisely this reason.
Iran is pushing ahead with plans to develop its South Pars field, because it is in competition with Qatar — South Pars is about a third of the entire field, with 2/3rds inside Qatari waters (Qataris call it the North Field and have the advantage of Western majors expertise). Simplistically speaking, they’re both trying to suck out the others’ gas.
In sum then, there is no basis to say the mullahs are keeping hold of their oil or gas reserves in the hope the Saudis extinguish theirs. Iran just doesn’t have the availability to the finance or technology that their Arab Gulf rivals do.
Also I think Iran’s crude is sour, not sweet. That costs more to make use of because it has more impurities.
(And there maybe nothing inherently wrong with state control over resources. Iran is a bad example. Norway is a good example. And in my experience, PdVSA seems to be a mixed example.)
razib 2:42 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink
(And there maybe nothing inherently wrong with state control over resources. Iran is a bad example. Norway is a good example. And in my experience, PdVSA seems to be a mixed example.)
you’re right. but even wealthy countries can be screwed up by this sort of thing. ergo, “the dutch disease”. there is no logical reason that natural resources like this result in a curse, but as a matter of reality the vast majority of nations which are gifted with this sort of thing are screwed by it in the long run. botswana and norway are the exceptions.
believe it or not, if bangladesh had a lot more natural gas it would be even more corrupt.
BuzzK 2:51 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink
I am not confused, I don’t know about you. But this is tedious.
It is strawman to say that my comment all hinges on Mullahs trying to outlast Saudi supply. I said it but it was not central. Just an aside to suggest why Iran has chosen not to move forward. What I said was I think the west wants democracy in Iran to loosen the grip the Mullatocracy in Iran has on Oil development. Nor did I say Iran has vast refinement capability that is unused. They have vast reserves and have been slow to develop deals with willing partners. Even if sanctions come from some, others such as Russia or China are certainly willing to partner in and build refinery capability. Thus far, leadership has held off, preferring to import gas. So the “confusion” is simply another tactic to win an empty point.
In fact, there is basis to say that leadership in Iran is a problem with petroleum development. And I can provide source after source to prove it. Sanctions are a factor but not an absolute problem for Iran moving forward.
Example:
BuzzK 3:21 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink
So fundamentally, the problem is:
Refineries are very expensive, long term investments
Iranian leadership are risky & flakey business partners
Western Sanctions destabilize Iran further
“Democracy” is probably a way the the west is hoping to normalize relations with Iran so multinationals can come in and plunder.
thabet 7:17 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink
BK, I am not interested in arguing with you. I didn’t say you were confused. Only I was talking about something else (natural gas/condensate) and you were talking about gas(oline). Let’s just say at the moment the technical expertise in oil/gas industry rests largely with the Western majors. You can find this out when you work for/with foreign operators in Latin America/Gulf of Mexico, or the Arab/Persian Gulf.
And I actually agree with your point that ‘democracy’ is a green light for some to get their hands on a lot of hydrocarbon resources.
Personally, I wish Iranians all the best and hope they can create a more just and equitable political system. But I don’t want my government involved in the internal affairs of others.
razib 11:36 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink |
larger iranian diaspora? also, iran is perceived to be a more advanced nation? (perhaps through the representation of their diaspora in places like france and the USA).
aziz 6:21 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
i wonder if racial attitudes play a role also.
thabet 1:09 am on June 20, 2009 Permalink |
I wonder how many Iranians who view Ahmadinejad as a ‘president of Arabs’ for Iran’s visibly increased involvement in Lebanon/Iraq.
thabet 1:11 am on June 20, 2009 Permalink |
Sully seems to think so:
thabet 12:03 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
“The world”?
aziz 6:22 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
good call. the media? The twitterverse? the west? take your pick, answer as you choose
Mr Moo 12:13 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
To get their hands on the recipe for Chelo Kebab
.
aziz 6:23 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
actually I prefer spider kaldorei
willow 12:53 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
The Egyptian state is much cannier at repressing dissent (and the reportage on dissent) so it looks like there’s much less civil discontent in Egypt than there actually is. Hence, less global interest. They’ve been steadily rounding up bloggers for the past half-decade. Most of the first wave of Egyptian bloggers I knew are now in jail. All but the most hardened western journalists stay within the confines the regime sets for them (go here but not here; talk to these people but not those). And, it’s a military regime. The army is loyal to the army, period. If there were ever mass protests as there are in Iran, you’d have regiments of infantry firing into crowds. It’d be Tianamen Square on steroids.
Even in the heyday of Al Ghad, the opposition was never allowed to get as organized as the opposition in Iran.
aziz 6:15 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
that is a nightmare scenario.but wouldnt the regime be constrained by the US foreign aid? are you saying that the regime has essentially absolute control and total immunity to outside pressure?
Willow 10:09 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
Sort of. Here’s the thing: Mubarak has the US totally convinced that there are 2 choices: him, or the Muslim Brotherhood. An MB/coalition MB and other ultraconservatives would put Israel at risk, since the destruction of Israel is one of the main talking points of most fundamentalist groups in Egypt. So in the event that the Mubarak regime was overthrown by popular uprising, one of three things would happen:
1. Egypt would invade Israel
2. Israel would preemptively invade Egypt
3. The US would invade Egypt with the aim of preventing scenarios 1 and 2.
All of these are messy. Better to let Mubarak continue to do whatever he wants, as long as he keeps a lid on the worst parts. Mubarak knows quite well that US aid is a bribe to keep the peace with Israel, and he’s had the last 4 US presidents over a barrel because of it.
Lawrence of Arabia 8:29 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
No one would care if Iran were totalitarian if they could be bought off by Western money in the way Egypt has been. In fact, they would prefer it. Strongly centralized governments are easier to deal with.
johnpi 8:41 am on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
I don’t know about “no one” but you’ve pegged the morally challenged US foreign policy community. Spot on.
BuzzK 12:33 pm on June 19, 2009 Permalink |
Yeah, the US is very unique in this respect.
thabet 1:02 am on June 20, 2009 Permalink |
It’s not US foreign policy that is up for critique here, tbh. As someone who relishes the delicious irony offered by pronouncements from State Department/White House (for which I am labelled ‘anti-American’ by BK
), even I can see this isn’t unique to the US, or even the West. We can name dozens of countries which have dubious foreign policy records (many of them include Muslim countries, like Iran).
What I find more annoying and worthy of derision is stupid pundits and ignorant people who fail to hold their own govts accountable. Both the US and UK re-elected people who carried out an illegal invasion of another country based on lies. What does that say about us?
BuzzK 4:17 am on June 20, 2009 Permalink |
This is a very long important discussion: why leaders who abuse power are not held accountable, throughout history, except in very pointed times. Fear? Inertia? Inhumanity?
Sometimes, when you want to talk about justice and what is right, you will find the majority of people are vehemently against you.
thabet 1:21 am on June 20, 2009 Permalink |
Daniel Larison answers your question, Aziz.
Naila 5:57 pm on June 21, 2009 Permalink |
I think the intense interest in AMERICA is because of the chip on the shoulders America still has over having its puppet government (the Shah) and decades of control over Iran overthrown by a bunch of “mullahs.” The idea that the greatest nation on earth (self proclaimed by America) would be defeated, and its people humiliated (the hostage situation is seared in many Americans’ minds) irks them. Iran, compared to most nations around the world and certainly compared to America’s greatest allies, is a far more judicious nation in terms of its treatment of its people. While poor the languished under the Shah, the Iranian Revolution did help the very people the Shah brutalized.
The insane interest is in hoping to see the Mullahs overthrown — more to assuage American hurt feelings. Additionally, considering how close Israel is to attacking Iran (it is barely held back by America), there is even more interest. The neocons will twist this event to figure out ways to play it to their advantage.
ALSO, Iran lies between the oil fields of Azerbaijan and Kazakstan and the Persian Gulf. Get control of Iran, you can control of oil that can last for decades for to come.
And the Iranian revolutionaries? they are pawns.