> But where is the news in this?
The existence of an interesting article is news enough.
While I agree with that sentiment, the idea that large investments are risky is not in itself interesting. What does this add to the conversation?
The question basically says "this article is far from interesting" and you answer with "because this article is so interesting"?
> There's a reason why there's so much fighting in this area. And it's not just oil.
Well, do share that non-oil reason you had in mind there!
As GP said it is easy to underestimate the Middle East because of all the oil. Israel is obviously a high tech powerhouse. Iran alone has over 80 million people. Despite the tense relationship with the US, there are close to 10 thousand postgraduate Iranian students in the US, one of the largest after China and India. https://wenr.wes.org/2017/02/educating-iran-demographics-mas...
True enough, doesn't explain his "there's another reason than the oil for the fighting" suggestion. Germany is also "a high-tech powerhouse and has over 80 million people".. =)
Now readers are bound to come up with common tropes like "sectarian strife" or "tribal rivalry", but again.. he made it sound like there's a transdimensional portal hidden in the ME or something.. clearly had a non-obvious aspect in mind, that I wanted elaboration on. =)
If you read the article, OP was obviously responding to the silly claim that
"More likely, however, China’s dependence on trade, and particularly its interest in Middle East oil, may fall almost as fast as it has risen over the past thirty years."
I think OP was just pointing out that there is more than oil in the Middle East.
TL;DR it's not what they promise.
But where is the news in this?
I think the interesting facts are that (a) they still manage to influence countries with their plan (and might for instance gain more influence over Afganistan than both US and Russia have achieved), (b) they still manage to increase internal growth through their projects. Both are really good things for China. That you need to tell a story of historical values with such a big plan is normal and should be expected. Sadly the article doesn't discuss that and instead just focusses on showing the obvious. Also it vastly underestimates the middle east. There's a reason why there's so much fighting in this area. And it's not just oil.