Iran will be punished for selling all oil to China

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».
Photos used: https://newsweek.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

15 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. gorenina91 Offline
    gorenina91 (Irina) 26 September 2019 08: 36
    -1
    • 3
    • 4
    “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 go over to any "more" multi-vector policy "... - because Iran has just "bit the bit" ...
    - And Iran today can only sober up a complete economic "oil blockade" (which is absolutely beneficial for Russia) and a radical strike at Iran’s industrial facilities ... - Personally, I already wrote that it had to be done "yesterday or tomorrow morning .." - From that time already passed ... - Alas ...
    1. Pishenkov Offline
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 26 September 2019 13: 33
      +2
      • 4
      • 2
      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 can do it, but now he is unlikely to want it. With such a powerful "vector" behind him, in the form of China. It is the Europeans who will now have to play this very "multi-vector", balancing between US interests, relations with China and their own economic interests. And something tells me that it’s not in Europe’s favor.
      And if the Chinese place their people and industries there, then all kinds of “attacks on the territory of Iran” can be forgotten by everyone in general ... And they will forget, right away, do not even doubt it. People's Republic of China for power impact is already too tough for anyone today ...
      1. gorenina91 Offline
        gorenina91 (Irina) 26 September 2019 13: 39
        -1
        • 0
        • 1
        - You answer first, and then put the cons ... - Your cons have already "said" everything for you ...
        1. Pishenkov Offline
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 26 September 2019 13: 41
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          ... 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. gorenina91 Offline
            gorenina91 (Irina) 26 September 2019 14: 26
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            - 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 ...
            - But attacks on Iran bring Russia great prospects in terms of even the same arms deliveries ... - Iran is unlikely to rely on China in everything ... - And then ... it is time to incite religious protests against China in Iran ... China is not a Muslim state and holds its Muslims in China in a "black body" ...
            - But again, Russia can disrupt everything ... - Russia itself will "let go of the organs" ... - if only to save China ... - It's just a disaster ... some kind of ...
            1. Pishenkov Offline
              Pishenkov (Alexey) 26 September 2019 14: 37
              +1
              • 1
              • 0
              -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, then China does not need to set up military bases in Iran, it is enough to "guard" its facilities. This military contracts are not required. And China itself, without any support from the Russian Federation, will completely cope with all those with whom it is necessary. And no one dares to go to the PRC ...
              I think that, apparently, the PRC and the Russian Federation simply agreed to divide - Venezuela for the Russian Federation, Iran for China. Ours is necessary to press on the States with their presence there, and the Chinese to build their own "Silk Road" ... And if that, some others will support where necessary. It's my opinion...
              1. gorenina91 Offline
                gorenina91 (Irina) 26 September 2019 15: 43
                -2
                • 0
                • 2
                But seriously, China doesn’t need to set up military bases in Iran, it is enough to “protect” its facilities. Military contracts are not required for this. And China itself, without any support from the Russian Federation, will completely cope with all those who need it. And no one dares to climb on the PRC ..

                Yes, what else is the protection of "their objects" ... ???
                - If China was 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 the occupier ...
                - Once the Persians grubbed Griboedov and the guards from the Cossacks did not help ... - they cut everyone ... for a short while and lasted ...
                - Yes, and why is all this so praised by China ??? Is this a sense of herdness that worked when the Americans "allowed" (due to their cooperation) the whole world to be loyal to China ... and consider it good ... ??? - That's right, Russia was happy ...
                - 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 to divide - Venezuela for the Russian Federation, Iran for China. Ours is necessary to press on the States with their presence there, and the Chinese to build their own "Silk Road" ... And if that, some others will support where necessary.

                -Yes, your "optimistic naivety" can only be envied ...
                If Zap. Europe will turn to China ... mmmm ... with its back, then no "Silk Road" will take place ...
                China did not "exchange" Venezuela with Russia for Iran, but temporarily ceded and allowed Russia to settle everything there, set it up, set up and put a lot into action ... And then even claim "for its own" ... -Hahah ...
                1. Pishenkov Offline
                  Pishenkov (Alexey) 26 September 2019 17: 41
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  You are too pessimistic belay unlike me, a "naive optimist" repeat 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 its back on 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 on the fact of general Eurasianism, and Asia is not only China, but Europe is not only Western. And secondly, China is no longer extolling, it simply extolled itself to the world's No. 1 economy, and on the military side, the PRC, like the Russian Federation, is certainly not the greatest and invincible force in the world, but it’s already with which absolutely no one really wants to enter into a power confrontation ... And this is an objective reality that you just need to reckon with ... hi
                  1. gorenina91 Offline
                    gorenina91 (Irina) 26 September 2019 18: 46
                    -1
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    Pathetics, continuous pathetics ...
                    Yes, there is no "real Europe" except Zap. Europe ... - And there are no "Eurasian projects" ... - But 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 is the opposite ... - Zap rules in Europe. Europe and Eastern Europe "looks into her mouth" ... - And in Asia, Eastern, Island, Oceanic and what else is there ... Asia ...
                    That's because Russia is Zap. Asia (by definition) .., then East rules Russia. Asia ... i.e. China rules Russia ...
                    - And all these "geographical troubles" are not for politics and economics ... - There is subjectivity, but there is objectivity ...
                    - They came up with myths about the "geographical hermaphrodites" ... and they themselves believed in them ... -Hahah ... The Chinese are all clear ...- this is yin and yang ... -And they do not care about the rest. .. For them, besides China, there is no one else in the world ...
                    - But ... they think so ...
                    - But actually ... - China is hardly the kind of “warrior” as many people imagine it ... - the last time China fought with Vietnam and ... and quite successfully ... - occupied part 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 it remains ...
                    1. Pishenkov Offline
                      Pishenkov (Alexey) 26 September 2019 19: 20
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      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 one who tries to dictate his will by force of arms (like the United States). And in this sense, Russia is not a warrior either. But I am sure that if someone touches the real life interests of the PRC, then the Chinese will immediately become warriors, but exactly until the moment 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. gorenina91 Offline
                        gorenina91 (Irina) 27 September 2019 03: 12
                        +1
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        You have a very specific outlook on international relations.

                        - I have my own view on everything and "international relations" - are no exceptions ... - And 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 Ocean, which occurred 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 weakly and not effectively ... - therefore such monstrous losses ...
                        - As for the actions of the US Army and the allies, I don’t understand at all ... - How then could they land and launch an offensive there ... This is some kind of continuous "white spot" ...
                      2. Pishenkov Offline
                        Pishenkov (Alexey) 27 September 2019 10: 17
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        -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 you were not mistaken about China, you said earlier that he wants to seize 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 USA 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 whole course of the military operations on TO and the east Asian theater, in general, this is hardly a story of the constant success of America and its allies, it is a), b) the United States won always and everywhere (if they won) only with the help of a huge numerical advantage and industrial potential, which was able to replace losses, and which there was no other country in the world. And this, in turn, due to the lack of hostilities in its own territory. On 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 don’t remember the brilliant American victories ...
                        The history of the war in TO, I, in general, have always been less interested in than the closer Europe to me. And I know more about her, including the “white spot” of the Normandy landing. As well as about why such spacecraft losses (not due to the weak use of the air force and fleet 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 on 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. gorenina91 Offline
                        gorenina91 (Irina) 27 September 2019 12: 58
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        - I explain for the last time ... - "without blackmailing anyone" and "extorting nothing from anyone ..." - this applies not only to you, but literally all "competent" Sites (regardless of their gender, national and religious 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 will have neither pluses nor 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 Thank you 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 thread, I do not answer you ... - to your comment ...
                      4. Pishenkov Offline
                        Pishenkov (Alexey) 27 September 2019 14: 31
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Thank you 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, I will not answer you. .. - to your comment ...

                        - Something I’m completely confused ... But what’s wrong with my plus? request
                        By the way, I “neutralized” your minuses 2 or 3, but since you personally are so stupid about this, I will not do this anymore. I don’t understand why anyone should neutralize the disadvantages that others have set for you? Nonsense...
                        You, it seems, are already confused in this mathematics ...
      2. 123 Offline
        123 (123) 26 September 2019 15: 05
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        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 this had to be done "yesterday or tomorrow morning ..." - Since then it has already passed ... - Alas ... ".
        Where did you get so much bloodthirst from?