kathimerini.gr
Subtle Maritime Disruptions Signal New Cold War
In July 2024, the US-flagged oil tanker Overseas Santorini was denied refueling in Gibraltar, highlighting a pattern of subtle disruptions to US maritime interests by China, Russia, and Iran, who seek to control key waterways and influence global trade.
- What specific actions have China, Russia, and Iran taken to exert control over key maritime passages, and how are these actions impacting global trade?
- China, Russia, and Iran have been strategically gaining control of key maritime passages over the last 20 years, influencing global trade and challenging US dominance. These actions, such as securing port shares and establishing advantageous agreements, are subtly shifting global power dynamics.
- What are the long-term implications of this subtle shift in control of maritime trade routes, and what strategies can the US employ to counter these actions?
- The struggle for control of strategic chokepoints, like the Strait of Bab el Mandeb, represents a significant shift in global power dynamics. Future conflicts may not begin with overt military action but with economic strangulation via the disruption of trade routes. The Biden administration's inaction contrasts sharply with the Trump administration's response to this emerging threat, emphasizing the growing stakes.
- How are seemingly minor incidents, such as the denial of refueling to the Overseas Santorini, contributing to a broader geopolitical strategy by adversaries of the US?
- In July 2024, the US-flagged oil tanker Overseas Santorini, traveling from Texas to Israel, was denied refueling in Gibraltar, causing significant delays. This incident, seemingly minor, reveals a pattern of subtle disruptions to US maritime interests, highlighting a new Cold War tactic.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the situation as a struggle for control of global trade routes, emphasizing the potential for economic warfare and disruption. The use of strong terms like "strangle the economy" and descriptions of actions as "undermining the US" shapes the reader's perception of the severity of the threat. The headline (if there was one) would likely reinforce this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is relatively strong and opinionated. Phrases such as "shadowy points of war control," "strangle the economy," and "undermining the U.S." are examples of charged language that could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives could include "strategic control points," "disrupting the economy," and "challenging U.S. interests.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of China, Russia, and Iran in controlling strategic waterways, but omits discussion of the perspectives and actions of other global powers or international organizations involved in maritime trade and security. The lack of diverse viewpoints might lead to an incomplete understanding of the complexities involved.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the Trump and Biden administrations' approaches to this issue, portraying Trump's response as decisive and Biden's as neglectful. The reality is likely more nuanced, with various factors and considerations involved in each administration's approach.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how China, Russia, and Iran are manipulating strategically important straits to their advantage, thereby undermining the US and potentially impacting global trade and economic stability. Control over these passages allows them to influence the flow of goods, potentially disrupting supply chains and harming economic growth in other nations. The actions described, such as the denial of refueling to a US-flagged vessel, exemplify this. This directly affects decent work and economic growth by creating uncertainty and potentially causing economic losses.