Here is where I will put assignments for you to complete. I will tell you in class what I want and when, but in the meantime, here it is

  1. Q1. I do not a conflict will happen in the future. The reason is that blocking the strait of Harmouz is not in Iran’s interest as it will affect its economy which as the article says represents 80 percent of its income. In addition, blocking the strait will cause a clash and a battle between the Iranian navy and the American navy which is not in Iran’s interest as its military power is less compared to America’s. However, Iran will continue to use the strategic location of the strait to threaten the West and the economy of the West. So this looks like a cold war with some clashes like the ones that happened before like in 2008 as the article says. As a result of this cold war America’s response is what determines if a conflict happens in the coming years. If America sees that fighting Iran will be in its interest economically (like controlling the oil) and militarily (like winning the war) it will decide to fight Iran.

    Q2. As Mr. L always says there is no black and white so we cannot just say that one country is more ready for a conflict. This concept should be viewed from two main perspectives, the economic one and the political one or the military one. In terms of economics no country will benefit from a conflict in the strait’s region. If a war happens there I ran will lose 80 percent of its income and its economy will drastically change. At the same time, if the strait is blocked and no ships can pass by America and the West will have less oil exported to them than before which will surely affect America’s economy. In terms of the military and power, America will be more ready as their bases are wide spread in the gulf and the article supports that as it says “Iranian navy’s weakness and America’s military superiority in the Gulf” and it also says “Recent assessments indicated that the American 5th Fleet is capable of opening the Straits to naval vessels within a week”. Also everyone knows that America’s army is almost the strongest in the world and thus will be able to end the Iranian dream of becoming a strong nation. Also as the article says “Iran is incapable of blocking the Straits completely for long and will therefore focus on disrupting the freedom of movement in the Gulf in general, while attempting to avoid a comprehensive campaign that might cost it dearly – militarily, politically and economically”. This quote shows that America is more ready and a war for Iran might be a devastating one that would end its current boom.

    Q3. The conflict if it occurs will have deep effects on the surrounding nations like Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi. The effects will be physical and economic. About 90 percent of the Gulf’s oil exports go through the Straits and a huge amount of the natural gas also goes through the straits. So basically this is a huge amount of the Gulf’s economy. Therefore, if a conflict takes place in the Gulf, the whole economy of the mentioned countries will collapse and especially if the conflict lasts for a long time. If a conflict happens there the US will try to escort the ships as it did before “At the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian attacks on naval vessels generated an American response, whereby American navy ships escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers to and from the Gulf”. However, Iran will have its response as the article says “Iran is developing its conventional military with ‘limited’ offensive missiles and naval assets able to disrupt Gulf shipping,” and it “has the ability to restrict access to the Straits of Hormuz with its naval forces temporarily and threaten U.S. forces with missiles”. This was for the economic effects. For the damages in the Arab Gulf countries a lot will happen also. The article says “it may be that in tandem with an Iranian blockade of the Straits there would be an attack on the western shore of the Gulf, where there are strategic infrastructure facilities such as ports, refineries, and desalination plants”. So basically if a conflict happens in that area the Arab gulf countries will be Iran’s enemies. The main reason is the fact that there are American military bases over there and because there are many facilities as the article say. Iran’s first enemy will be America and so any allied countries with America will be Iran’s enemies also and so I am talking here about those surrounding Arab countries in the gulf. Moreover, those countries will be attacked by Iranians to stop the export of oil through the other pipes that are alternatives for the Harmouz straits and those are mentioned in the article “alternate shipping routes such as the Saudi pipeline moving oil from the Gulf to the Red Sea (5 million barrels per day) and the Habshan-Fujairah pipeline, which is supposed to start operating next year and ferry 1.5 million barrels per day from the Gulf daily”. Finally, those countries’ economies will eventually collapse if a conflict lasts for a long time and their territories will be attacked by Iran as they are America’s allies.

  2. 1. Does this article lead you to believe that a conflict will be coming?

    Conflicts between two different opposing sides are a constantly available thing that is considered as human nature. The relationship between Iran and the USA is described as tensed. From this we might predict that conflicts might happen anytime and anywhere. However, if we look closely we can notice that Hermouz striates is a very essential point worldwide; this importance makes countries all over the world participate in forming peace treaties and sign papers between any opponents, so that they do not fight in that red area because they will have a negative impact on the world as a whole. In other words, 13% of the oil in the world is produced in the area also called the Gulf. From this we learn that it is not beneficial for any country in the world to attach that part of the world due to its importance for everyone. This also means that a war in that area would cause the world a very high opportunity cost and cause a lot of economies to fall.

    2. WHich nation is more readily avaliable to deal with a conflict in the straits?

    This answer can be answered in several ways by looking at the issue from different perspectives. If we start by discussing geography, I believe that Iran will be able to get that element to its side simply because they control one part of the land that forms the Strait, and since the strait has a small place for ships to enter, Iran will be able to easily defeat any opposing country that uses water to attach it. However, we know that the USA is well equipped which means that they can use several other ways than see to attach Iran. In other words they can use bombs and air forces. Talking about the economic power of the two countries, we obviously know that the USA possesses one of the strongest economies in the world. Therefore, it will be able to spend as much money as it wants to make sure that winning the war will be to her side. We can also look at the issue from a totally different perspective; we know that the USA is considered to be an owner of the technology of our era. And technology might seem like a normal thing to some people. But I would like to reemphasize the point that if technology was used properly it will be a killing weapon that will be able to defeat a nation without even physically attaching it. On the other hand, we might say that Iran will form a treaty with the Gulf countries and work together on threating the world to stop producing oil if any attacks on Iran happen. From this we learn that both countries can be ready in different ways to start a war there, but it’s not to anyone’s good to get even close to that tensed area.

    3. What affects will such a conflict have on surrounding nations? Be specific!

    Hurmouz strait is surrounded by the producers of 13% of the world’s oil. Yemen, Oman Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab emirates are countries that base a lot of their economy on oil production; Saudi’s economy for example is 90% based on producing and exporting oil. If a conflict happens in Hurmouz Strait Saudi same with the other countries wound be able to export oil which will cause an economic crisis not only to those Gulf countries but to the world as a whole; that is simply because oil is used in almost producing everything around us. What would happen if oil amounts decreased? Demand on oil will stay constant, but supply will decrease causing a left shift on the supply graph. This shift will change the equilibrium price of oil to a higher one and the equilibrium quantity will drop. This will also have a negative impact on Saudi and other countries that are dependent on oil production; because as we know, Saudi for example bases 90% of its economy on oil, so if we take oil away from it life in Saudi will be miserable due to the drop in economy , unemployment, poverty and a lot other things.

  3. Yanbo Wang says:

    what is the usage of this webside

  4. Bara'ah AlDunaibat says:

    A big question came into my mind when i wrote my essay. I thought about wither America is really the problem in the middle east of not! I thought about everything that America puts itself in it and then it flips into a disaster. Does America has that negative effect on the Middle East ?

    • Osama Al Mahasneh says:

      I think that the US has to intervene in all the conflicts in the Middle East since The US is actually the strongest country in the world, so other countries depend on the US to solve their problems. Also, having conflicts in the Middle East does not actually help the US since it actually gets oil from the Middle East, and conflicts might prevent that process from happening.

    • hussam yaseen says:

      i think that America affects the middle east in both positive and negative ways, so for example if we take the civil war in Syria as something that America is part of it, we see that they are looking for solutions to solve the problem that is taking place there, Also America is a ig supporter and defender for many Arab countries and the most important one is Jordan. But if we look at the negative side, we notice that America sometimes are causing problems instead of solving and an example for that is the Israeli Palestinian conflict that we always notice that whenever America is mentioned in this conflict, the consequences are always negative and lead to more problems

  5. hussam yaseen says:

    When i was looking at the agreement that happened between Syria, Untied Stated, and russia i noticed that it is so similar to what happened between Iraq and United States, so a question came to my mind, Do you think that all things happening in the middle east are planned ahead of time or it is only a coincidence?

  6. Nick Jonsson says:

    This is an interesting article from the New York Times on the two-state solution, and how this author views that avenue to peace as essentially dead. For the most part, I disagree with the author, because I see no viable alternative to a two-state solution. He is leaving out many nuances to the conflict that would preclude a one-state solution, like population trends that result in enormous Israeli opposition to one state. What do you guys think about this author’s opinion? Is the two-state solution really dead?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s