As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his Latin American tour, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrived in Beijing to persuade the Chinese government to support sanctions on the Iranian oil industry.What Should China's Response Be?
China is the largest importer of Iranian crude but decreased volumes recently due to a dispute over contract terms. Although the country’s demand for crude oil has decelerated, the latest data still showed a growth of 6 percent in 2011 compared to a year earlier.
I propose this:
Dear Secretary Geithner In light of the fact that the US Defense Secretary announced on Face the Nation that "Iran Not Trying to Develop Nuclear Weapon" China will not support a US-Led oil embargo. Moreover, we will consider any efforts by the US or Europe to block Iranian exports to be economic warfare against China. We call on the United States to dump their unfounded economic attack on Iran immediately.
That would set the proper tone for discussion and make the Obama administration as well as Republican warmongers look foolish in the process.
Unfortunately, China is unlikely to do that. Instead, If the US and Europe are stupid enough to ban Iranian oil, China would have additional leverage on those disputed Iran oil contracts mentioned above.
Shoddy Reporting by Bloomberg on Oil Story
I call your attention to shoddy Bloomberg reporting in Obama Prepared to Use Force to Stop Nuclear Iran, Former Adviser Ross Says.
Nowhere in the slanted article does the author mention the fact that Leon Panetta emphatically stated "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us."
Instead all we see mentioned in the above Bloomberg article is "They need to know that if they take that step, they’re going to get stopped,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Jan. 8 on CBS News’ Face the Nation."
Not only is Panetta's position absurd, so is the war-mongering position started by Bush and continued with Obama.
Speaking of which, notice how these war-mongering nutcases think:
"[Former Obama advisor] Ross underscored that U.S. willingness to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons affects decision-making in other countries that fear Iran, including Israel and Gulf states. If the White House abandoned a pledge to stop Iran made by Obama and President George W. Bush before him, the U.S. would lose all credibility, he said."
Credibility is lost when the secretary of Defense freely admits Iran has no nuclear weapons program, when Iran volunteered to step up inspections, yet the US insists that Iran stop its nuclear program entirely, not just its weapons program (that it does not even have, much like the nonexistent WOMD program that Bush used in a war that wasted $trillions in Iraq).
Credibility in news reporting is lost when Bloomberg quotes the defense secretary, leaving out the most important part.
I emailed, Mark Silva, the Bloomberg editor responsible for this story this morning. I will send a second email with a link to this article Mark Silva and also to Indira Lakshmanan, the reporter for this slanted story as well.
(An important interview) Saving the Net from the surveillance state (And Crony Media): Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) | Nick Sorrentino