Don't listen to the president Santa. You're still the greatest thing ever, under my Christmas tree.
The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Seems sensible.
Problem is, the bypass of the strait to the North runs through Iran. That's an obvious problem.
The bypass to the South runs through UAE & Oman. - OR -
To the Northwest toward the Mediterranean, but that's over 750 miles through Iraq & Syria. That's a long pipeline.
The third option is an undersea pipeline. That's got its own risks.
Circumventing Iran seems like a good idea.
I'm not sure a pipeline is the best option, or even a viable option.
For Saudi Arabia, it would seem they could just use the Red Sea coast instead of the Persian Gul coast?
For Iraq, the pipeline would just have to go thru Jordan?
Perhaps surprisingly, the seemingly philanthropic OPEC nations aren't actually in the oil bidness to insure we can get to the stadium in time to see the opening kickoff.
They're in it for $Profit.
If they don't arrange a solution, whether transportational, political, economic, or other, it's likely to be because they do not perceive there to be sufficient economic incentive to do so.
Trump has a tiger by the tail.
I suppose it depends on the destination.
If the oil is going to India, then the Gulf of Hormuz would be shortest.
But if going to Europe or the US, it would seem a pipeline at Palestine would greatly shorten the trip?
sidetrack:
I recommend against it, but I saw the Paul Williams movie Phantom of the Paradise 1974 PG https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071994/?ref_=fn_t_1
While substantially without merit, this movie made one important, life-long impression on me. Specifically:
The one we think is the demon, the one we perceive to be pressing his own agenda, isn't.
Regarding commerce through the Strait?
Economics is clearly a major driver here. BUT !!
There is a powerful and engaged undercurrent of geopolitical alliances and allegiances here.
When the giant stumbles, the tiny are trampled.
I am a little confused because the US does not allow foreign military ships within 200 miles of our coasts, and yet we send our military ships into the Straits of Hormuz, only 21 miles from the shores of Iran?
nuh uh!
Not as confused as me.
In the '50's I though it was "the 3 mile limit". Meaning, in coastal States where gambling was illegal, all a vessel had to do was travel more than 3 miles off shore. Beyond that limit was considered international waters ("high seas"*) where State gambling prohibitions did not apply.
Then, still in my childhood, the 3 mile limit became the 12 mile limit.
Now it's 200?
I don't have the information.
But I suspect there may be international right-of-way standards, exceptions to a more standard distance from shore limitation. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters
"The three-mile limit refers to a traditional and now largely obsolete conception of the international law of the seas which defined a country's territorial waters, for the purposes of trade regulation and exclusivity, as extending as far as the reach of cannons fired from land.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-mile_limit **
"Territorial sea is a belt of sovereign water that extends at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline of a coastal state,[6] including the airspace over and seabed below it. Although the territorial sea is sovereign territory, foreign ships (military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Territorial_sea
** The "Maritime zones under international law" graphic at this link may help.
I don't know where I got the 200 miles from, but the AI tells me that it is actually only 12 miles.