«

»

‘Military Option’ Poses Threat to Global Economy (Handelsblatt, Germany)


Sep 24, 2012 by

How damaging would another war in the Middle East be, not only in terms of human life, but damage to the global economy? Columnist Dietmar Neurer of German business daily Handelsblatt reveals a jittery atmosphere among German economists and banking officials, who express concern about the ramifications of war and talk of war on the global economic climate.

For Handelsblatt , Dietmar Neurer writes in part:

Joschka Fischer is no economist, but the former German Foreign Minister’s recent assessment of the Middle East was not far off the mark. Especially considering that when his views were published, it wasn’t yet known that an Islamophobic U.S.-made film would lead to a wave of violence in the Arab world. “The next few months threaten to be dangerous. Several severe regional economic and political crises could combine into a mega-crisis, which would in turn create very serious global shockwaves,” wrote Fischer. “The drums of war in the Middle East are pounding ever louder.”

 

Fischer referred to the crises over Syria and Iran, and the fact that around the world, there is talk of a “military option.” If such forecasts come to pass, there will be no limited “surgical strike,” but the beginning of two wars: an air war led by the U.S. and Israel, and one that will be asymmetrical led by Iran and its allies. Fischer warned that under these circumstances, the “effects would be far reaching.” Such a war in the Persian Gulf, the “petrol station of the global economy,” would impact oil exports, and prices would go through the roof.

 

Fischer’s concerns are now shared by leading German economists, as the situation has become increasingly dangerous. Many economists have expressed the view that a further escalation could have a massive impact on a sensitive world economy. “The global economy is vulnerable to geopolitical shock,” chief economist at Dekabank, Ulrich Kater, told Handelsblatt. “At a time when many economists are trying to deal with domestic debt problems, economic confidence remains low.”

 

Particularly after significant economic crises, the economy is left vulnerable. “Negative influences (when the economy is weak) can cause far greater damage than during more robust times.” Kater said. A “precipitous rise” in oil prices along with an ailing economy in many industrial countries can hit hard.

READ ON, OR READ MORE ON THE UNFOLDING CRISIS, AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Related Posts

Sponsors

468 ad

3 Comments

  1. slamfu
    September 24, 2012 | 12:10 pm

    Iran is in an ideal position to make sure they get nukes. They apparently don’t care about the impact of sanctions on their general population, and no one wants another war in the middle east. If they really want nuclear weapons there are only 2 things that can prevent it. Either someone attacks them and provokes another conflict, which will cause yet another global economic crisis as oil prices skyrocket again, which no one wants, or by some miracle the Iranian people have an Arab(Persian?) spring style revolution, which I don’t see happening.

    Frankly I am shocked that Iran’s neighbors seem to be pretty unconcerned with the fact that they will have nuclear weapons sometime in the near future. This whole nuclear non proliferation thing only works if we have the backing of other major players like Russia, China, India, etc… They have shown some support for the sanctions but I don’t see them putting the pressure on all that much. Iran has been supporters of terrorist groups, Hezzbolah and Hamas, in addition to using some of the most violent rhetoric to describe its foreign policy. I just don’t see why there isn’t more support for keeping nukes out of their hands.

  2. StockBoyLA
    September 24, 2012 | 1:38 pm

    I think China is still trading with Iran. The sanctions the US have on Iran aren’t followed by everyone.

  3. cjjack
    September 24, 2012 | 11:29 pm

    I just don’t see why there isn’t more support for keeping nukes out of their hands.

    I think there’s support for the idea of keeping nukes out of their hands, but the reality of stopping them is much, much more complicated.

    Attacking them would not be enough. If the Iranian regime is determined to get nuclear weapons, then simply bombing suspected parts of their alleged program will only set them back a bit. In order to truly end the regime’s quest for nukes, you’d have to end not just the regime, but the entire political, military, and (to a considerable degree) religious structure of the country. Remember that when the “Green Revolution” hit Iran a few years back, the revolutionaries weren’t working towards a secular, western-style remaking of Iran, but rather only a slightly less fanatic Islamism.

    I’m fairly well certain that an unprovoked attack on Iran, however well-intentioned, would lead to a level of nationalism among Iranians that even they cannot imagine.

    No, the best course of action is deterrence. Should they develop a nuclear capability, welcome them to the club, and the target list.