Iran will be punished for selling all oil to China

15
A drone attack on Saudi Arabia will have extremely serious consequences for the Middle East. Now, the leading EU powers have blamed Iran for it, despite the fact that the Yemenite Hussites have taken all the blame. What prompted Europe, which until then had tightly seized the Islamic Republic with its hydrocarbon reserves, to switch to the US side? Are there any drones here?





Donald Trump has long and unsuccessfully tried to put together a broad coalition against Tehran. A number of dangerous provocations were carried out, the responsibility for which was automatically assigned to Iran. The American president intends to force the leadership of the Islamic Republic to conclude a new "nuclear deal" on much less favorable terms. The United States seriously fears the Iranian missile and nuclear program, which in the future could threaten not only their allies, but also themselves.

But Europe, more concerned about its energy security, held on to Tehran to the last. Brussels was determined to keep the “nuclear deal” as it was, and having developed extraordinary activity, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, even invited his Iranian counterpart to the GXNUMX summit, and tried to bring him directly to Trump. The EU has developed a special mechanism to circumvent US secondary sanctions in trade with the Islamic Republic.

But now the goodwill of the West was blown away by the wind. The joint communiqué of the heads of France, Germany and Great Britain said:

It is obvious to us that Iran is responsible for these attacks. There is no other convincing explanation.


Now the Old World began to consider Iran a "bad guy." Europe expressed the demand to supplement the existing “nuclear deal” with an agreement concerning the Iranian missile program. And this is a fundamental step towards the positions of the United States and Israel. The outline of the future Western coalition is looming more and more clearly.

What happened?

Without pretending to be the ultimate truth, let us make an assumption that the collective West could seriously anger at Iran for its “throw under China”. A few days ago we toldthat Tehran and Beijing signed an updated comprehensive cooperation agreement. Now China will invest $ 280 billion in oil production and refining in Iran, plus another 120 billion will be spent on the development of transport infrastructure. Chinese business received carte blanche in the Republic for the next 25 years.

Here you don’t need to go to a fortune-teller to understand how Europe, who sincerely considered Iranian oil to be her, scoffed at such a Tehran fortress. Practice shows that where the Chinese entrepreneur went, others have nothing to catch. It is likely that Berlin and Paris decided to bring the Iranian leadership “to life,” showing its teeth.

Peace in the Middle East will now depend on whether Tehran can move to a more “multi-vector policy».
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    26 September 2019 08: 36
    “Yes, you wake up faster, Zap.” Europe ... - turn on your brains faster ... - if you want to continue to be Europe, and not ....

    Peace in the Middle East will now depend on whether Tehran can move on to a more “multi-vector policy."

    Yes, Iran will not switch to any "more" multi-vector policy "now ... Iran has already simply "bit the bit" ...
    - And Iran today can be sobered only by a complete economic "oil blockade" (which is absolutely beneficial to Russia) and a radical attack on Iran's industrial facilities ... - Personally, I already wrote that this should have been done "yesterday or tomorrow morning" .. - It has already passed since then ... - Alas ...
    1. +2
      26 September 2019 13: 33
      I do not agree. No strikes against Iran of the Russian Federation are beneficial from any direction whatsoever, neither from the military, nor from the political, nor from the economic. Not to mention the possible military presence of the United States in Iran later. And about

      can Tehran move to a more “multi-vector policy" ...

      - he will be able to, but now he is unlikely to want. With such a powerful "vector" behind, in the form of the PRC. The Europeans will now have to play this very "multi-vector" approach, balancing between the interests of the United States, relations with China, and their own economic interests. And something tells me that all this is not going to be in favor of Europe.
      And if the Chinese place their people and industries there, then everyone can forget about all sorts of "strikes on the territory of Iran" in general ... And they will forget, right away, do not even hesitate. The PRC is no longer a nut to crack for force action today ...
      1. -1
        26 September 2019 13: 39
        - You first answer, and only then put the minuses ... - Your minuses have already "said" everything for you ...
        1. 0
          26 September 2019 13: 41
          ... And I didn’t put you any cons ... that’s why I answer. Cons - this is for someone who, apparently, does not like, but nothing to say in response. hi
          1. +1
            26 September 2019 14: 26
            - Well, if so ... then ...

            I do not agree. No strikes against Iran of the Russian Federation are beneficial from any direction whatsoever, neither from the military, nor from the political, nor from the economic. Not to mention the possible military presence of the United States in Iran later.

            Russia still benefits from strikes on Iran ... But under Trump this ... is unlikely to happen ...
            - As for China, then ... then ... now ... then China is impudent, because it relies heavily on any help and unquestioning support from Russia ...
            - Yes, and China is largely bluffing in terms of its military power ...
            - Yes, and to create military bases in Iran, China needs quite a lot of time and money ... and the permission of the Iranian religious leadership .. - But China does not have them yet ...
            - And ... and ... and if Russia were in place ... Turkey, then it would immediately strike a treacherous blow in the back of China ... in this situation ... - Yes, and China would not dare to steer at all to such a situation having allies in Turkey ...

            - So Russia will be in life ... grief with ... with ... with ... with China ... - as with a hated unloved husband ...
            - And strikes on Iran bring Russia great prospects in terms of even the same supply of weapons ... - It is unlikely that Iran will rely only on China in everything ... - And then ... it's time to incite religious protests against China in Iran ... China is not a Muslim state and keeps its Muslims in China in a "black body" ...
            - But Russia can frustrate everything again ... - Russia will "let the organs" itself ... - if only to save China ... - It's just a misfortune ... some kind of ...
            1. +1
              26 September 2019 14: 37
              -So Russia will be in life ... grief with ... with ... with ... with China ... - as with a hated unloved husband ...

              - Are there candidates for the beloved and the good? wink

              But seriously, China does not need to establish military bases in Iran, it is enough to "guard" its facilities. This does not require military treaties. And China itself, and without any support from the Russian Federation, will cope with everyone it needs. And no one will dare to climb the PRC ...
              I think that, apparently, the PRC and the Russian Federation simply agreed on the division - Venezuela for the Russian Federation, Iran for China. Ours need to put pressure on the States with their presence there, and the Chinese need to build their "Silk Road" ... And if anything, some will support others where necessary. It's my opinion...
              1. -2
                26 September 2019 15: 43
                But seriously, China does not need to establish military bases in Iran, it is enough to "guard" its facilities. This does not require military treaties. And China itself, and without any support from the Russian Federation, will cope with everyone it needs. And no one dares to climb the PRC ..

                But what kind of protection is this "their objects" ... ???
                - If China is going to stay in Iran seriously and for a long time, then ... then ... then ... then it just needs bases and other "auxiliary infrastructure" where local Iranians will work ... - Otherwise, China will look like occupant...
                - Once the Persians grubbed Griboedov and the guards from the Cossacks did not help ... - they cut everyone ... for a short while and lasted ...
                - And why is all this praising China so much ??? Is it the sense of herd that worked when the Americans "allowed" (by virtue of their cooperation) the whole world to be loyal to China ... and consider it good ... ??? - That's why Russia was pretty good ...
                - And today the Americans say that China is bad ... and they will all again treat China badly ... -Hahah ...
                - Everything would be fine if Russia had not climbed with its eternal cliché support ...

                ... I think that, apparently, the PRC and the Russian Federation simply agreed on separation - Venezuela for the Russian Federation, Iran for China. Ours need to put pressure on the States with their presence there, and the Chinese need to build their "Silk Road" ... And if anything, some will support others where necessary.

                -Yes, your "optimistic naivety" can only be envied ...
                If Zap. Europe will turn to China ... mmmm ... its back, then no "Silk Road" will take place ...
                China did not "exchange" Venezuela from Russia for Iran, but temporarily yielded and allowed Russia to settle everything there, adjust, set up and launch a lot ... And then declare "for its own" ... -Hahah ...
                1. +2
                  26 September 2019 17: 41
                  You are too pessimistic belay unlike me, the "naive optimist" feel But this is your opinion, and you naturally have the right to do so.
                  I think that, firstly, if over the past couple of thousand years Europe has not turned away from China, then this will not happen in the near future - there are no prerequisites, rather, everything will be exactly the opposite. Moreover, the "Silk Road" is, of course, mainly for China and about China, but it is also a project in fact, a common Eurasian one, and Asia is not only China, and Europe is not only Western. And secondly, no one extols China anymore, it just extolled itself to the # 1 economy in the world, and on the military side, the PRC, like the Russian Federation, is certainly not the greatest and invincible force in the world, but already such, with which absolutely no one wants to enter into a forceful confrontation ... And this is an objective reality that simply needs to be reckoned with ... hi
                  1. -1
                    26 September 2019 18: 46
                    Pathetics, continuous pathetics ...
                    Yes, there is no "real Europe" except Zap. Europe ... - And there are no "Eurasian projects" ... - And there is Europe (that is, Western Europe) and Asia ...
                    - Russia is an absolute West Asian country ..., i.e. West Asia...
                    Only in Europe and Asia the opposite is true ... - In Europe, the West rules. Europe and Eastern Europe "looks into her mouth" ... - And Asia is ruled by Eastern, Island, Oceanic and whatever else it is ... Asia ...
                    That's because Russia is Zap. Asia (by definition) .., then East rules Russia. Asia ... i.e. China rules Russia ...
                    - And all these "geographic troubles" are not for politics and economics ... - There is subjectivity, but there is objectivity ...
                    - They came up with myths about "geographical hermaphrodites" ... and they themselves believed in them ... -Hahah ... The Chinese have everything clearly and clearly ...- it's yin and yang ... -And they don't care about the rest. .. For them, except for China, there is no one else in the world ...
                    - But ... they think so ...
                    - But in fact ... - China is hardly such a "warrior" as many people imagine it ... - the last time China fought with Vietnam and ... and quite successfully ... - occupied part of the territory of Vietnam, but then itself and left ...
                    - But it was Vietnam, and China has not yet had to deal with a real modern army of the enemy ...
                    -So so far everything is 'at the level of legends' and remains ...
                    1. +2
                      26 September 2019 19: 20
                      You have a very specific outlook on international relations. But in some things you yourself contradict. Well, for example, if, as you say, China seized part of the territory of Vietnam, and then left, then China’s goals are not seizures of territories?
                      Yes, China is "not a warrior," but in the sense that it is not an invader (like Japan) and not someone who tries to dictate his will by force of arms (like the United States). And in this sense, Russia is "not a warrior." But I am sure that if someone really touches the vital interests of the PRC, the Chinese will immediately become warriors, but exactly until they eliminate the threat to their interests. No less, but no more.
                      The US Army, by the way, also never had to face

                      a real modern army

                      that is, and they, apparently, are all at the level of legends? And they are also not warriors ... So right? Their last clashes with the real army were with the German Wehrmacht in WW2, and in the absence of multiple superiority of forces, they always ended, by the way, very deplorably for the Americans ...
                      1. +1
                        27 September 2019 03: 12
                        You have a very specific outlook on international relations.

                        - I have my own view on everything and "international relations" are not an exception ... - And what about you ???

                        But in some things you yourself contradict. Well, for example, if, as you say, China seized part of the territory of Vietnam, and then left, then China’s goals are not seizures of territories?

                        - And I ... said so that they say ... - the goal of China then was ... - is it the seizure of territory (in particular, Vietnamese)? Have you come up with this yourself or ...?

                        The US Army, by the way, also never had to face ...

                        - The US Army (Navy) had a major naval battle with the Japanese Navy of World War II in the Pacific, which took place in June 1942 .. which "determined" the outcome of the entire war with Japan ...
                        - In those days ... - it was a super modern war with the use of aircraft carriers, aircraft, submarines, etc. ...
                        - The forces were almost equal then, but the Americans still won ... - it is obvious that the Japanese were more disgusting to our Lord God than the Americans ... - There is simply no other explanation ...
                        - Our victorious Red Army in WWII, fought mainly by the land army ... - by tanks, artillery and infantry ... - Aviation and the Navy were used very poorly and not effectively ... - therefore such monstrous losses ...
                        - As for the actions of the US Ground Army and the allies, I don't understand at all ... - How did they then manage to land and launch some kind of offensive ... This is some kind of solid "blank spot" ...
                      2. +1
                        27 September 2019 10: 17
                        -If this is not your minus, then at least neutralize it with your one plus ... if you want to continue ... - I will not repeat again ...

                        Irina! Despite the fact that the minus is really not mine request What are these blackmail and threats? laughing
                        If I’m not mistaken, you said earlier about China that it wants to capture everything (not this time) and deceive everyone, and substitute, including the “unfortunate wife” in the form of the Russian Federation ... Hence the passage about Vietnam.
                        About the United States in the Pacific Ocean - if you mean the battle at Midway, then yes, Japan suffered heavy losses there, but I would not say that it was the main and decisive one in the war, if you look at the entire course of hostilities in the TO and East Asian theater, then in general, this is hardly a story of the constant success of America and its allies, this is a), and b) the United States won always and everywhere (if it won) only with the help of a huge numerical advantage and industrial potential that was able to replace losses, and which was not in any other country in the world. And this, in turn, is due to the absence of hostilities on its own territory. In any example of a clash between the US army and another "real" army in a position with at least comparable forces on both sides, I do not remember brilliant American victories ...
                        The history of the war in TO, in general, has always been less interested in me than Europe, which is closer to me. And about her, including about the "white spot" of the landing in Normandy, I know more for sure. As well as about why such losses of spacecraft (not because of the weak use of the Air Force and the Navy for the most part) ...
                        ... I thought for a long time why you should put such an important plus for you winkif I disagree with almost everything, but decided that at least for this:

                        I have my own view of everything and "international relations" are no exception ...

                        - I met few women, unfortunately, with whom you can communicate on such topics. So, plus is well deserved. But don't blackmail me anymore! lol
                      3. 0
                        27 September 2019 12: 58
                        - I am explaining for the last time ... - not "blackmailing" anyone and "not extorting anything" from anyone ... - this applies not only to you, but literally all "capable" sites (regardless of their gender, nationality and confessional accessories...)
                        - Personally, I will respond only to those Sites who, seeing that I have minuses ... - neutralize one (naturally, minus) with their plus ...
                        - If "the balance is positive", i.e. I will have pluses, then I do not need any pluses (this is at your discretion); the same is true for the "zero balance" (when I have no pluses and no minuses) ...
                        “It’s just that from ... to ... from ... to ... to ... it’s not even necessary to fight ... - at least it’s enough to not indulge ...
                        PS Thanks for the "plus" ... but I did not write about "such pluses" ... - Well, since you did not fulfill my conditions and did not "neutralize" any of my minuses in this topic, then I do not answer you ... - to your comment ...
                      4. 0
                        27 September 2019 14: 31
                        Thanks for the "plus" ... but I did not write about "such pluses" ... - Well, since you did not fulfill my conditions and did not "neutralize" any of my minuses in this topic, then I am not answering you. .. - to your comment ...

                        - Something I’m completely confused ... But what’s wrong with my plus? request
                        By the way, I "neutralized" 2 or 3 of your disadvantages, but since you personally approach this so stupidly, I will not do this anymore. I don't understand at all why someone should "neutralize" the disadvantages that others have set for you? Nonsense...
                        You, it seems, are already confused in this mathematics ...
            2. 123
              +1
              26 September 2019 15: 05
              The UN embargo on arms supplies to Iran, expires in October 2020. Resolution No. 2231.

              Radical striking at industrial facilities in Iran ...

              Personally, I already wrote that it had to be done "yesterday or tomorrow morning" ... - Since then, it has already passed ... - Alas ... ".
              Where did you get so much bloodthirst from?