Washington Post, November 17, 2004:
U.S. officials have expressed fear that China's veto power could make Iran more stubborn in the face of U.S. pressure.Deepen, and for 25 years, really? Well, if analysts say so, it might be true, though I wouldn't bet anything important on it...
The burgeoning relationship is reflected in two huge new oil and gas deals between the two countries that will deepen the relationship for at least the next 25 years, analysts here say.
The New York Times, September 29, 2009:
...as the United States issues new calls to punish Iran for secretly expanding its nuclear program, it is not at all clear that Washington’s interests are the same as Beijing’s.Are those the same analysts, I wonder? The chinese meaning of "reliable defenders" might have eluded those analysts just a tad, me thinks.
That will make it doubly difficult, these analysts say, to push meaningful sanctions against Iran through the United Nations Security Council, where China not only holds a veto but has also been one of Iran's more reliable defenders.
AFP, this weekend:
Strangely, I couldn't find the word "analysts" in the entire article. They're probably on a sunny beach somewhere, sipping exotic drinks with little umbrellas. Quite sure that they won't be needed for another, uh, 25 years or so.Later on Sunday, China signed energy deals with Saudi Arabia as Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited Riyadh.The two countries inked several economic and cultural agreements including a Memorandum of Understanding between Saudi petrochemical giant SABIC and China's Sinopec to build a petrochemical plant in Tianjin, Saudi state news agency SPA said.
Oh, well. That should teach western politicians (and analysts, let's not forget the analysts!) a lesson about both the Middle and Far East. Should, but will it?
Too bad the not-analyst John Elfreth Watkins jr isn't around anymore. His totally non-analytical predictions from more than 100 years ago proved true, well most of them: