Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

MHz
#61
Perhaps the war game is a cover for sending Syria the armaments that are supposedly going to be used will really be sent to Syria to aid them in their upcoming war for the sea and skies.
Everything that could be used in a sea war can be used in a land war except the hi-speed torpedoes. Terrain-hugging supersonic cruise missiles designed to be a one-punch solution to anything smaller than an aircraft carrier would certainly work against supply depots on land.

Why wouldn't you also defend in the direction the captured drone originally came from? (perhaps even more-so) Radar and missiles no longer have to be sitting next to each other to be working together.

What Libya went through and what Syria will be going through will be proof enough for Iran to never give up once they come under actual attack.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

U.S. Fifth Fleet (C5F), an Echelon III command, supports all naval operations in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). It encompasses about 7.5 million square miles and includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, and parts of the Indian Ocean. This expanse, comprised of 25 countries, includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
The usual force of 20-plus ships, with about 1,000 people ashore and 15,000 afloat, consists of a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, combat aircraft, and other support units and ships. Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts.

You sound like a recruiting station. Didn't see hospital ship(s) listed, are drone attacks hazard free business?
 
ironsides
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post


You sound like a recruiting station. Didn't see hospital ship(s) listed, are drone attacks hazard free business?


Can you name one ship that is part of the 5th fleet today? Hospital ships??, carriers have a full hospital, as do assault ships..
 
Goober
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Can you name one ship that is part of the 5th fleet today? Hospital ships??, carriers have a full hospital, as do assault ships..

I think the West will speed up implementation of sanctions

Iran’s nuclear progress spurs sanctions - The Globe and Mail

The UN Security Council has already imposed four rounds of global sanctions on Iran, but Russia and China have refused to back sanctions that would seriously affect Iran’s oil industry, so the EU and United States have taken measures on their own.

Just how far the latest U.S. measures will go could depend on how Mr. Obama decides to implement them.

The U.S. defence funding bill, approved by Congress last week, aims to reduce the oil revenues that make up the bulk of Iran’s export earnings. Mr. Obama signed it in Hawaii on Saturday, where he was spending the Christmas holiday.

If enforced strictly, the sanctions could make it nearly impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, the world’s fourth biggest producer.

However, Mr. Obama asked for scope to apply the measures flexibly, and will have discretion to waive penalties. Senior U.S. officials said Washington was consulting foreign partners to ensure the new measures did not harm global energy markets.

Despite its missile tests, war games and threats to close the Hormuz Strait, Iran has also made conciliatory gestures, saying it wants to resume talks with major powers, stalled for a year, about its nuclear research program.

Western officials suggest the offer may be a stalling tactic to avert sanctions and buy time for more nuclear progress.

Iranian media reported on Saturday that nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili would write to the EU foreign policy chief to say Iran was ready for talks.

A senior Western diplomat in Tehran, who asked not to be identified, said the stepped-up Iranian threats show “that they are worried about losing petrodollars, on which more than 60 per cent of the economy depends.”

The rising tensions are having an impact at home. Iran’s currency has nosedived in recent weeks as ordinary Iranians have moved money from savings accounts into gold or foreign currency.

The price of staple foods has increased by up to 40 per cent in recent months and many critics have put the blame on increasing isolation brought about by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s economic and foreign policies.
 
earth_as_one
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Nobody wants a war with China, but right now China is not that invincible power some here think it is. China would back off if Iran tried blocking the straits. If Iran did attempt to block the strait, it would be Europe who would feel the effects first and yes the priceof oil we use would rise. During the Iran-Iraq war there was no need by either side to block the straits and bring outher countries into the conflict.

Iran stated that in the event of conflict, they would respect the Law of the Sea. Iran would only close the strait to belligerents. China would be a neutral nation.
 
ironsides
#65
Sanctions from the west alone should be enough to bring Iran to their senses. Russia and China may protest, but neither of them want serious trouble with us. (Plus Russia and China have enought problems with each other)
 
Goober
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran stated that in the event of conflict, they would respect the Law of the Sea. Iran would only close the strait to belligerents. China would be a neutral nation.

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.
 
earth_as_one
#67
Bring Iran to their senses? Or illegally interfere with Iran's NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology...

Q&A
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 (external - login to view)
Developing states rap "interference" in Iran deal
www.reuters.com/article/2007/...54089720070911 (external - login to view)

The countries violating the NPT are the ones interfering with Iran's legal and peaceful nuclear program.

Countries which possess nuclear weapons are supposed to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals. They are not allowed to research and develop new types of nuclear weapons, and they aren't supposed to threaten non-nuke weapon nations with nuclear attack. The US has violated all of their NPT obligations. Meanwhile Iran hasn't violated a single mandatory NPT obligation, despite attempts by the MSM to make unsubstantiated allegations to sound like proof of violations. Iran refuses to sign voluntary confidence building protocols which would also assist US/Israel efforts to spy on and sabotage Iran's nuclear program as well as assassinate Iranian scientists. Given the number of unexplained explosions and unsolved murders... I'd say Iran isn't being paranoid:
www.spiegel.de/international/...777899,00.html (external - login to view)

www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...missile-blast/ (external - login to view)

Iran has stated that despite sanctions, murder and sabotage, they won't be deterred from pursuing their right to peaceful NPT compliant nuclear technology. Iran is not known to currently possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has signed treaties repudiating the possession of weapons of mass destruction including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War. (eao: with the assistance of the US They Said It: The Iran-Iraq War: This Far and No Further (external - login to view) ). Iran is not known to have resorted to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran–Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons.

en.wikipedia.org/a/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 1st, 2012 at 07:19 PM..
 
Goober
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Bring Iran to their senses? Or illegally interfere with Iran's NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology...

Not according to the UN IAEA. But then the IAEA was your fount of protection of your opinion - now they are not.
Try to keep current. I have little time / patience to bring your mediocre knowledge level up to the minimum required for informed and accurate discussion.
 
earth_as_one
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.

Iran has stated that if they are attacked, they will attack their attackers. Iran has not threatened neutral nations.

I have read the law and you are wrong. Iran has the right to control navigation within its territorial waters.

Law of the Sea: Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage (external - login to view) through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage (external - login to view), in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Sea#UNCLOS_III (external - login to view)



To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage (external - login to view) provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (external - login to view).[1] (external - login to view)
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 1st, 2012 at 07:59 PM..
 
Goober
#70
[QUOTE=earth_as_one;1527902]Iran has stated that if they are attacked, they will attack their attackers. Iran has not threatened neutral nations.
QUOTE]

Hormuz is classed as international waters - transit is authorized thru internal waters.

Iran now is now considering Nuke talks. It has been a year. Oil sanctions - we do not have to buy their oil - is not an Act of War - Closing the strait is an Act of War.
And they would lose, the people would riot, their capability to produce oil for export would be delayed for years.
 
earth_as_one
#71
Transit passage is a concept in Law of the Sea (external - login to view) which allows for a vessel and aircraft in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (external - login to view) (Part III) of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait (external - login to view) between one part of the high seas (external - login to view) or an exclusive economic zone (external - login to view) and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state[1] (external - login to view).

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

...Hormuz is classed as international waters - transit is authorized thru internal waters.

According to the Law of the Sea, anything within 12 miles of Iran's coast is territorial waters, even the Strait of Hormuz. Military vessels can pass through the strait using transit passage rules. But transit passage rules can be suspended for national security reasons, such as during a war or self defense.

If the US or Israel attacks Iran, of course Iran would be completely justified in defending itself.
 
Goober
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Transit passage is a concept in Law of the Sea which allows for a vessel and aircraft in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Part III) of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state[1].
According to the Law of the Sea, anything within 12 miles of Iran's coast is territorial waters, even the Strait of Hormuz. Military vessels can pass through the strait using transit passage rules. But transit passage rules can...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
But not for oil sanctions.
 
earth_as_one
#73
The US and Europe are free to not buy oil from Iran. They are free to use economic means against Iran through economic sanctions. I suspect that most non-aligned nations and China will do as they please.

Sure Iran, can't block the strait in response to US led economic sanctions. But a military blockade of Iran ports would be an act of war. Vessels from belligerent nations would become fair game. Vessels from neutral nations would need to transit permission from both sides.
 
Goober
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

The US and Europe are free to not buy oil from Iran. They are free to use economic means against Iran through economic sanctions. I suspect that most non-aligned nations and China will do as they please.

Sure Iran, can't block the strait in response to US led economic sanctions. But a military blockade of Iran ports would be an act of war.

Where has the US stated this. It is only Iran that has made threats about closing the Strait.
 
earth_as_one
#75
The US has at various times threatened to attack Iran, including a thinly veiled threat to use nuclear weapons... yet another US violation of the NPT:

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states.[154] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[155] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[156]
Iran and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)


Meanwhile:
Iran backs off threat to close Strait of Hormuz
December 31, 2011

TEHRAN, Iran—Talk of blocking the strategic oil route through the Strait of Hormuz is a discussion of the past, a commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Saturday in comments that seemed to back away from an earlier threat. But he said Iran had other, unspecified strategies for reacting to any Western aggression.

"Discourse about closing the Strait of Hormuz belongs to five years ago. Today's debate in the Islamic Republic of Iran contains new layers and the time has not come to raise it," Gen. Masoud Jazayeri said in comments posted Saturday on the Guard's website, sepahnews.com (external - login to view).

Jazayeri did not elaborate.

Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened on Tuesday to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

Iran's navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari warned on Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic oil route at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

He took a slightly more conciliatory tone Friday, saying Iran can choke off the vital waterway but it has no intention to do so at this point.

The U.S. has strongly warned Iran against closing the vital waterway, saying it won't tolerate it.

www.boston.com/business/artic...ait_of_hormuz/ (external - login to view)
 
gerryh
+1
#76
I'm curious eao. If Iran decided to close the straight because of the imposed sanctions, and the u.s. and allies decided to use that as an excuse to intervene. Where would you stand?
 
MHz
#77
Do you mean specifically the oil tankers of any nation if Iran is 'sanctioned' from having any ships carry her oil rather than closing the straits to any/all traffic?
As that is a natural bottleneck warships would then be considered legit targets

Here is a question for you. If the sanctions are enforced by the US being able to 'çontrol' how other Nations 'vote' is it truly an international backed 'solution' or is it another example of a temper tantrum by a few spoiled children?
 
gerryh
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Do you mean specifically the oil tankers of any nation if Iran is 'sanctioned' from having any ships carry her oil rather than closing the straits to any/all traffic?
As that is a natural bottleneck warships would then be considered legit targets

Here is a question for you. If the sanctions are enforced by the US being able to 'çontrol' how other Nations 'vote' is it truly an international backed 'solution' or is it another example of a temper tantrum by a few spoiled children?


We'll wait for eao's answer. Then I'll answer your questions.

Ahhhhhhh.... it's a bitch when your called on your bullshyte. Isn't eao?
 
gopher
+1
#79
Quote:

I don't see how the US or Israel could possibly act militarily against Iran and not sustain serious damage or risk dragging most of the world into the conflict.

Wealthy elites in the USA will be only too happy to start yet another war if it will mean more war profits. Iran is no threat to world peace as the threats being made here are by the USA.
 
petros
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

International waters - Read the law please. They first stated if sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are not an act of war - If they were Iran would have acted. Oil sanctions will cripple their economy.
China and India would also be pressured by Saudi to buy as little as possible.

You can't sail a full tanker through the Straits without going through Irainian waters. If they say no they say no. If tankers can't get into the gulf but can fill at Kish they have one hell of an oil economy.
Last edited by petros; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:21 AM..
 
earth_as_one
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'm curious eao. If Iran decided to close the straight because of the imposed sanctions, and the u.s. and allies decided to use that as an excuse to intervene. Where would you stand?

Iran can't legally close the strait due to US endorsed economic sanctions. The US has a sovereign right to choose their trading partners. That not only includes Iran, but any nation or organization which does business with Iran. Iran is free to impose its own punitive sanctions against the US in response...

If Iran decided to close the strait illegally and the US and allies used that as an excuse to intervene.. I'd buy shares in Cenovus.
Cenovus Energy Inc: TSE:CVE quotes & news - Google Finance (external - login to view)
Yes the US and other countries would have a right to bomb Iran, but I doubt Iran would be that dumb... Iran doesn't want a direct conflict either. I'm not sure what was behind that recent Iranian statement, but Iran also profits from high oil prices.

Pragmatically, Iran has no interest in shutting down the gulf, while they continue to sell oil. Most Iranian oil terminals are in the Persian Gulf and indefensible. A war would be extremely destructive for everyone including Iran.

Iran can only close the strait legally to belligerents in response to an act of war. Economic sanctions and trade embargoes aren't acts of war. IMO these types of punitive measure are a legitimate means for one nation to apply pressure on another which could avert or cause war.

BTW, any nation including Iran could covertly close the Persian Gulf to tankers using floating mines deployed by commercial vessels. Even if the mines never hit a single tanker, the gulf would close immediately based on insurance rates. The US and other nations could go in and clean it up, but a month later and a few more mines would close the gulf again... the source of the disruptions could be difficult to prove... even potentially false flag (Iranian deployed American made mines?) In the current volatile situation, a relatively small terrorist or militant group could spark a world war with a few floating mines and a lucky hit.

Iran is a threat to Israel, but they don't need nukes to defeat Israel. Iran's leaders probably intend to a fight proxy war.

Iran's domestic arms industry:
List of military equipment manufactured in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Misagh 2
man-portable surface to air missile
fire and forget infrared
Effective range: 5000 m
Warhead weight: 1.42 kg

Fajr-5
Rocket artillery
15,000 kg (System)
90 kg (HE Content)
175 kg (Warhead)
915 kg (Rocket)[3]
Effective range 68-75 km

Haifa Attack 6 aug 2006 - YouTube



Toofan (Storm) 5 Missile, Anti Tank/Aircraft with counter electronic warfare systems

Iranian - Toofan Storm 5 Missile Anti TankAircraft with counter electronic warfare systems - YouTube



A Russian viewpoint of the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah skirmish... re: anti-tank weapons and other man portable munitions:
Hezbollah (external - login to view)

Likely Iranian defense strategies based on military capabilities
Iran's Military Doctrine | The Iran Primer (external - login to view)
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:21 AM..
 
gerryh
#82
didn't answer the question. Try again.
 
earth_as_one
#83
Doesn't this answer you?
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

...If Iran decided to close the strait illegally and the US and allies used that as an excuse to intervene..
Yes the US and other countries would have a right to bomb Iran ...

Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.
 
petros
#84
Even without Iran Cenovus is a no brainer. Their CO2 oil extraction process technology is priceless.
 
MHz
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.

Who makes up for the oil that Iran currently sells? OPEC (or others) may not be able to fill all those orders so would the embargo not be an act of war by the US on those Nations?
If Iran decided offer it's oil at a discount to certain countries (everybody but the G-20) could their oil even be shut off without a war crime being committed?
When Venezuela delivers free heating oil to Miami does the 'diesel' get delivered directly to the homes from the tanker or does the tanker unload into a common tank? If it is the common tank then do the 'needy' ever see that amount of free oil??

Iran doesn't need to close down the strait, they only need to be able to get at ships that use that same strait when they are in a war. That means war ships so it is the interest of the US (and their Military partners) to get the International community to foot the bill for having the UN supply the order that gives military force the funding to the 'solution' of keeping the straits open. Let it be closed, other routes could be found to get the current level of goods in and out. If Berlin could be saved via air drops Kuwait could be saved by land caravans and pipelines to Saudi ports. Merchant vessels won't be allowed in by their insurance companies.
The US would have to abandon Bahrain if Iran does have supersonic cruise missiles that could get the ships while still in harbor. (and hi-speed torpedoes once they were away from port) The air campaign could be better fought from land bases further to the west who would be resupplied from new ports on the Red Sea (if it was to be a long and active war, if the S-series air defense system works then cruise missiles would be the next hope and barring that long range 'artillery' that get targeted via laser pointed by boots on the ground or from satellites. Anything larger or slower is going to get detected and destroyed before it gets to it's destination.)
 
ironsides
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran has stated that if they are attacked, they will attack their attackers. Iran has not threatened neutral nations.

I have read the law and you are wrong. Iran has the right to control navigation within its territorial waters.

To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage (external - login to view) provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (external - login to view).[1] (external - login to view)

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.
 
MHz
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.

Stopped using the same methods, and worse, on them, how is that system 'better'? Something closer to the truth is the Nations that have nuclear weapons are the biggest bullies on the block already, the ones getting them now are only getting them as a form of protection. (not that it actually works so the whole expense of the Cold War was one big false flag operation played against the taxpayers of many countries. What a shock, ..... not.

Does Iran's 'navy' really look like it is out for world domination? (twin out-boards?? I can see the attraction from the repair angle but I was expecting to see some all weather skinny, dive into the wave, turbine-powered, missile launch platform of the jump and fire variety.
They do look like they could get to most places in that closed body of water let alone cause havoc in the chicane at the 90deg bend though especially if their machine guns have stabilization similar to an M-1 tank and it's main gun. Just like the Apache mini-gun where the pilot looking at the target is the way it is aimed except in a bucking boat you may be better off low in the boat looking at a targeting screen which is click to lock


That leaves the air for any serious containment in the whole Gulf and the summer for replacing the routes lost to that waterway (20%). Rationing gasoline would be nothing new for mainline North America and the Gov doesn't really require the public have the gas to drive around. One of the 'rewards' offered to the public was 'free/cheap gas' if Iraq was conquered via the lie of WMD's, that false promise (being false when it was even first floated) silenced the masses more than anything else and it has kept the masses close to being obedient sheep.

If that same promise is made to the public again the odds are it will be just as effective and since it is never a 'front running issue' it gets disappeared quite quickly when it fails to manifest itself. After all that would put the 'little American' as being the reason the top is so greedy, when push comes to shove everybody has a point where they start to push just for themselves. Letting millions of civilians die or suffer so your gas is $2/gal cheaper might be seen as being a tad shallow by a (much larger) population who are still waiting for electricity to manifest itself in their lives.
If the illegality of the occupation was ever going to be acknowledged (in the hopes of preventing similar situations) then something would be before the UN already.
Last edited by MHz; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 01:03 PM..
 
gerryh
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Doesn't this answer you?


Like I said, I doubt Iran would be that dumb. More likely if Iran couldn't sell its oil due to a US led embargo, they'd covertly shut the gulf down with American made naval mines or replicas.


I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.
 
Goober
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.

Gerry - EAO has a habit of strictly avoiding hard questions. The reaction is similar to Holy Water and Vampires.
 
MHz
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Gerry - EAO has a habit of strictly avoiding hard questions. The reaction is similar to Holy Water and Vampires.

My what big teeth you have Grandma.

Can a myth about a myth be the best example to use in this situation? How about, can OPEC blackmail a fellow member? Or, can OPEC cross a picket line where that goods in question are not classified as a 'humanitarian aid' Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi would be declaring war on Iran if they crossed a line that Iran called a blockade on, those same Nations voted to curb Iran's right to sell oil on the open market. Would they have voted that way if they were also told that defending the tankers that come to their ports will be at their expense? So the first blow in the war with Iran would be a 20% reduction of oil available to the world and that oil would also be considerably more expensive and there could be a big drop in availability for the first few years once the bullets started to fly. That doesn't sound like Iran is getting the worst of the deal. Try this, Iran offers their oil at a 20% (non-US funds only) discount to any Nation not aligned with NATO, who is going to close the Strait down then?
 

Similar Threads

no new posts