Tensions in the Middle East rose Sunday as Tehran said it has stopped oil shipments to Britain and France and reportedly docked a warship at a Syrian port, while American and British officials warned Israel against attacking Iran.
In their warnings, both the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague said an Israeli attack on Iran would have grave consequences for the entire region and urged Israel to give international sanctions against Tehran more time to work.
“I’m confident that they [Israel] understand our concerns, that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” Gen. Dempsey told CNN.
His concerns were echoed by Mr. Hague, who stressed it was “not a wise thing at this moment” for Israel to attack Iran.
“I think Israel, like everybody else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach that we have adopted, of very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran,” Mr. Hague told BBC.
Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb – a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how best to respond to the perceived threat.
The U.S. and the European Union have both imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran's oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. The European Union recently decided to cut off Iranian oil imports and freeze Iran’s central bank assets. In response, the Iranian government ordered a halt of oil exports to Britain and France on Sunday.
Their targeting may be mostly symbolic, as the two nations depend little on Iranian oil. Sunday’s order, according to the Mehr News Agency in Tehran, came from the Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi, who had warned this month that Tehran would cut off oil exports to “hostile” European nations. At the same time, according to the Mehr agency, an official at the Oil Ministry said Iran was seeking longer-term contracts of two to five years with other European nations.
Britain and France have also pressed for change in Syria and reports that two Iranian navy ships have docked in the Syrian port of Tartus are likely to ramp up concerns about the volatile state.
According to Iranian state-run Press TV, the ships are providing maritime training to Syria’s naval forces under an agreement signed between the two countries a year ago. The Mehr agency said the fleet consisted of a destroyer and a supply ship. The reports could not be confirmed and there was no official comment from Syria.
There was no immediate reaction from French officials to Iran’s oil-export ban. The British Foreign Office in London declined to comment. A British government official, demanding anonymity to describe internal discussions, said that “we’re not getting exercised about it,” noting that Iran provides “less than one per cent of our imported crude oil.”
Jean-Louis Schilansky, president of the French Union of Petroleum Industries, told the French newspaper Le Monde that “the Iranian decision has no practical, direct consequences” for France, which since 2011 “practically stopped importing Iranian oil.”
Iran is deeply dependent for foreign currency on oil sales, which supply more than 50 per cent of the national budget and account for 80 per cent of exports. Iran produces about 3.5 million barrels a day and exports about 2.5 million, 70 per cent of that to Asia.
The 27 nations of the EU are a big customer as a whole, representing about 18 per cent of Iran’s exports. But Britain and Germany only get about 1 per cent of their oil from Iran and France only about 3 per cent.
Israel has welcomed the sanctions on Iran imposed by the U.S. and the European Union, but it has pointedly refused to rule out military action and in recent weeks sent signals that its patience is running thin.
Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its very existence, citing Iran's support for Arab militant groups, its sophisticated arsenal of missiles capable of reaching Israel and its leaders' calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Last week, Israel accused Iran of being behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.
There is precedent for Israeli action. In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. And in 2007, Israeli warplanes are believed to have destroyed a target that foreign experts think was an unfinished nuclear reactor in Syria.
Experts, however, have questioned how much an Israeli operation would accomplish. With Iran's nuclear installations scattered and buried deep underground, it is believed that an Iranian strike would set back, but not destroy, Iran's nuclear program.
In an his interview with CNN, Gen. Dempsey expressed concern that an Israeli attack could spark reprisals against U.S. targets in the Gulf or Afghanistan, where American forces are based.
“That's the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason that we think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” he said.
Describing Iran as a “rational actor,” Gen. Dempsey said he believed that the international sanctions on Iran are beginning to have an effect. “For that reason, I think, that we think the current path we're on is the most prudent path at this point.”
Original Article
Source: Globe
Author: JOSEF FEDERMAN, STEVEN ERLANGER
No comments:
Post a Comment