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

ironsides
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran has met all their agreed NPT obligations. If you believe otherwise, please give an example of an agreement that they signed and subsequently broke.

No of course peaceful Iran would not start anything, they just want to live peaceably with everyone, except of course giant Israel. and I thought we were being nice by giving them the room to play.


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.
"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)



little extra from one of your sources.

International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran – UN Human Rights Committee Grills Iran on Treaty Violations (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Why do you care? To have nukes is insane. Those that have them are just as dangerous as those you fear having them. In the overall picture of the Universe, it is inconsequential what happens to this insignificant planet or our insignificant species. If you are going to spend your life worrying about crap you have no control over, you will lose control over your life. You may as well be dead already. The only important question for humanity is, are we to get rid of the stupid things or continue this insane game of "you are either in the club or you are not? If you are not then, you suck." The pettiness of this stupid game is not really worthy of wasting any time on. I obviously have too much time on my hands.

It is a discussion - I asked a clear question - he finds those difficult. As to nukes being insane I tend to agree.

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

[FONT=Arial]No of course peaceful Iran would not start anything, they just want to live peaceably with everyone, except of course giant Israel. and I thought we were being nice by giving them the room to play.
]

Best not to have a carrier in the strait - Big target. The carrier can sit way off land and still conduct operations.
 
petros
#123
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.


Just? They put up a satellite years ago. If you can put a satellite in space, a nuke is a joyrider in comparison.
 
MHz
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post


little extra from one of your sources.

International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran – UN Human Rights Committee Grills Iran on Treaty Violations (external - login to view)


The ICCPR is the major international treaty protecting civil and political rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from torture. Iran ratified the ICCPR in 1975 and is legally bound by its provisions. As party to the ICCPR Iran must submit itself to a periodic review of its record of compliance by the Human Rights Committee, a body of independent experts (external - login to view) that monitors the implementation of the Covenant and makes recommendations for needed improvements.

Does that means all the 'studies' they have done since 1975 are open to the public? Even a list for the last 10 years would be helpful in establishing their track record in pursuing human rights abuses

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post


No of course peaceful Iran would not start anything, they just want to live peaceably with everyone, except of course giant Israel. and I thought we were being nice by giving them the room to play.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.
"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.
Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNA - Yahoo! News

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

"We"?? I'm not sure the carriers are in any real danger, however supplies going to Bahrain and Iraq/Kuwait/Wherever do not always have the same level of protection.

Should the Army be commenting on a naval movement? Sailing over the horizon doesn't put those aircraft out of range of his forces and equipment. Even if the US shut down using the Gulf there is still a lot a territory that has a land border that the Iranian army would have to watch, that would take batteries of anti-aircraft missiles but the distances are long so detection probabilities get better and better.
 
ironsides
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post



Best not to have a carrier in the strait - Big target. The carrier can sit way off land and still conduct operations.

No question about it, the carrier was just moving out to open water just in case, but within range. The cruisers and destroyers will stay in close to the straits.
 
Goober
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

No question about it, the carrier was just moving out to open water just in case, but within range. The cruisers and destroyers will stay in close to the straits.

It would have been a dumb move to leave it there. To big, to easily tracked. And if it was damaged it would affect operations.

I am sure the Navy will send an Aegis destroyer(s) or some sort thru, when they wish to.
 
darkbeaver
#127
5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire

Posted on December 31, 2011 (external - login to view)
Israel Shahak wrote a foreword to his translation of Oded Yinon’s 1982 paper for the World Zionist Organization which revealed Zion’s plans for America, Israel, the Mideast and the world. Wesley Clark was given a list of 7 Muslim nations 10 days after 911 that America was to invade. That 2001 hit list originated in Israel in 1982. The last nation on that list is Iran.
Today I would hope to prove that if America attacks Iran for Israel, then the Israeli Empire will self-immolate and the America we knew will die. The words 5 Minutes in the title refers to the undeniable fact that it will take Iran 5 Minutes to sink the American Persian Gulf fleet, eviscerate the US Central Command and send America into a Depression so severe that I think it should be called the Greatest Starvation.5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire | Video Rebel's Blog (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire


Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs (external - login to view)

Iran feels the squeeze
By Victor Kotsev

Several clocks are simultaneously ticking in the Middle East. We can still dare to hope for a last-minute miracle - and we can be certain that there are plenty of well-intentioned people working tirelessly behind the scenes to produce one.

Truly, the gloomiest moments are often also the moments of greatest opportunity, for war drums drown out the noise of secret


negotiations, and when the hawks are occupied, the doves get just a moment of opportunity to fly free.

Yet it is not easy to be hopeful. Policy analysis often uses historical paradigms to evaluate the course of international crises, and while indeed there are examples of the above pattern in history (the end of apartheid in South Africa comes to mind, as well as that of numerous low-intensity conflicts from the past few decades), there are also some very worrying counter-examples.

Fiery rhetoric carries inertia of its own, and massive arms build-ups - such as we have witnessed in the Middle East in the past years, months and weeks - cannot be sustained for very long. This produces a sense of urgency. If a breakthrough in negotiations fails to materialize, the likelihood of an explosion of violence increases. Even a fairly minor incident could trigger a major confrontation; a prominent example of this is the start of World War I in 1914.

Nor is there a shortage of potential triggers for a large-scale confrontation in the Middle East. For example, following the sanctions against institutions dealing with the Iranian central bank, which United States President Barack Obama signed into law at the very end of 2011, the black-market exchange rate in the Islamic Republic reportedly shot up to 16,000 rials to a US dollar, or a level about 30% higher than the official exchange rate of 11,170 rials to a dollar.

This bodes poorly for the Iranian economy and regime; in fact, scholars of peace and conflict sometimes use the gap between the official and unofficial exchange rates in a country as an indicator of its stability. The ayatollahs are finding themselves with little room to maneuver, and this makes war an attractive option for them. In some ways, an American or Israeli attack would be a political blessing to them, as it would rally domestic support.

A pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities may well happen, although likely not in the next few months, and only if the crisis is not resolved in some other way first. Israel's threats have grown to a crescendo over the past month or so, but an Israeli operation does not appear imminent. More recently, the US has taken an increasingly tougher stance against Iran, and analysts have started to ask themselves if Obama may not order an attack in the run-up to the November presidential election. [1]
 
ironsides
#129
To quote: L. Vincent Poupard

"The military should simply keep the aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Oman and play a game of "I'm not touching you!" With stronger sanctions coming into place right now, it is only a matter of time until the government of Iran begins to take resources from the people and Iranians are pushed over the edge. All we have to do is wait."
 
Goober
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

To quote: L. Vincent Poupard

"The military should simply keep the aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Oman and play a game of "I'm not touching you!" With stronger sanctions coming into place right now, it is only a matter of time until the government of Iran begins to take resources from the people and Iranians are pushed over the edge. All we have to do is wait."

They are having runs on the banks, converting currency, next is rapid inflation - Freezing of assets will start - China has already cut their oil purchases in half - why some wonder - Saudi pressure for one - next will be layoffs at small business. Gas prices skyrocketing as they import gas / diesel.

When subsidized food prices go thru the roof - watch for the demonstrations - How the Thugs react will be a test.

Iran is starting to see the writing on the wall.


Iran-U.S. tensions reach 20-year high over Strait of Hormuz warning | News | National Post

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Iranian warning “reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness” and suggested Tehran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than one-third of the world’s oil flows, is merely bluster aimed at creating a diversion.

“This is a significant escalation of tension between the United States and Iran, and the start of a more dangerous phase in the West’s attempt to curtail Iran’s nuclear program,” warned Vali Nasr, of Washington’s Brookings Institution.

Gen. Salehi’s threat came just two days after the United States adopted stiff new economic sanctions against Iran that will penalize foreign companies doing business with Iran’s central bank.

The new sanctions could also encourage the European Union to follow suit before the month is out in declaring an embargo on Iranian oil sales and effectively cutting off much of the Iranian government’s funding.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said Tuesday he was convinced Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. He said he wanted to see “stricter sanctions.”
 
Cliffy
#131
Ah! Insanity is still on the menu I see. Bunch a crazy fuggers running this world. I think I'm going back to the woods 'til this crap blows over or blows up. Bears are a lot more easy to get along with than humming beings. Must be something in the food supply that causes insanity.
 
Goober
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Ah! Insanity is still on the menu I see. Bunch a crazy fuggers running this world. I think I'm going back to the woods 'til this crap blows over or blows up. Bears are a lot more easy to get along with than humming beings. Must be something in the food supply that causes insanity.

Most countries with nukes are relatively stable. Now N Korea, Pakistan - wackos - you want to add a third to that.
And Pakistan is ready to fall apart. Nukes anyone, special on, buy one, 1/2 off on the second.
 
Cliffy
#133
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Most countries with nukes are relatively stable. Now N Korea, Pakistan - wackos - you want to add a third to that.
And Pakistan is ready to fall apart. Nukes anyone, special on, buy one, 1/2 off on the second.

They may be stable in that they haven't fired one off at another country in the last 50 years, but they are still bat sh!t crazy and attack other countries just to see sh!t blow up. If that ain't insane, I don't know what is. I don't trust people like that with a nuke. The people in charge of the war machines in US and UK should all be in straight jackets.
 
gopher
+1
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran has met all their agreed NPT obligations. If you believe otherwise, please give an example of an agreement that they signed and subsequently broke.

Iran is in full compliance with international laws in this regard. Each and every link that denies it has been fully refuted on this forum innumerable times.
 
Goober
#135
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Iran is in full compliance with international laws in this regard. Each and every link that denies it has been fully refuted on this forum innumerable times.

Another who used the IAEA as their Biblical reference - My how the narrow minded have fallen. Turning upon the very organization they prayed to, like Zealots before an Idol with feet of clay, and then now treat this org as Heretics for not agreeing with their lack of logical thought.
Change horses to many times and you will fall from the saddle. Seems you fell again.

Introductory Statement to Board of Governors (external - login to view)

Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
As my report on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran shows, the Agency continues to conduct verification activities under Iran's Safeguards Agreement.

I had meetings in June and July with H.E. Dr Fereydoun Abbasi, Vice President of Iran and Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and with H.E. Dr Ali Akbar Salehi, the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Deputy Director General for Safeguards travelled to Iran in August and visited a number of facilities, as described in my report. Iran demonstrated greater transparency than on previous occasions. Greater transparency and Iran's full proactive engagement are also needed concerning its other nuclear activities. Since the last Board meeting, Iran installed centrifuges in Fordow, with the stated objective of producing UF6 enriched up to 20% U235, and informed the Agency that tests for the conversion of UF6 enriched up to 20% U235 into U3O8 would start on 6 September 2011, in further contravention of Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions.

The Agency is increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency continues to receive new information. In the near future, I hope to set out in greater detail the basis for the Agency's concerns so that all Member States are fully informed.

The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. I urge Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of all relevant obligations in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic
In my last report on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic, I informed you of the Agency's conclusion that it is very likely that the building destroyed at the Dair Alzour site was a nuclear reactor which should have been declared to the Agency. That conclusion stands.

On 9 June 2011, the Board adopted a resolution finding Syria to be in non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement and reporting the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Staff of the Department of Safeguards provided a technical briefing on the subject to the Security Council at its request.

Following my last report, in a letter to the Agency dated 26 May 2011, Syria indicated its readiness to fully cooperate with the Agency to resolve issues related to the Dair Alzour site. After a number of meetings with the Agency, Syria, in a letter dated 24 August 2011, stated its readiness to have a meeting with Agency Safeguards staff in Damascus in October. Syria's letter stated that the purpose of the meeting would be "to agree on an action plan to resolve the outstanding issues in regards to [the] Dair Alzour site." The Agency subsequently proposed that a meeting take place on 10 to 11 October 2011 with the aim of advancing the Agency's verification mission in Syria.

I will continue to keep the Board informed of developments.
 
ironsides
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

They are having runs on the banks, converting currency, next is rapid inflation - Freezing of assets will start - China has already cut their oil purchases in half - why some wonder - Saudi pressure for one - next will be layoffs at small business. Gas prices skyrocketing as they import gas / diesel.

When subsidized food prices go thru the roof - watch for the demonstrations - How the Thugs react will be a test.

Just a matter of time.
 
Goober
+1
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Just a matter of time.

Inflation and high unemplyment will now take a significant jump - The Govt supports many foodstufs -

EU agrees 'in principle' on Iran oil embargo - Middle East - Al Jazeera English (external - login to view)

EU buys approx 20 % - China has cut their oil purchases by 50 % and got steep discounts- The money train is being squeezed. When both low income and middle class start feeling the economic pain then we will see what Iran will do.

European governments have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian oil, dealing a potentially heavy blow to Tehran that intensifies the bite of Western economic sanctions just months before an Iranian election.

The prospective embargo, announced by European Union diplomats on Wednesday, along with tough US financial measures signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, form a concerted Western campaign to impose sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, but Western countries say a November United Nations report shows it has sought to build an atomic bomb. Talks between Tehran and major powers broke down a year ago.

Diplomats said EU envoys had held talks on Iran in the last days of December, and that any objections to an oil embargo had been dropped, notably from crisis-hit Greece which gets one-third of its oil from Iran, relying on Tehran's lenient financing.

EU countries buy about 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iran's 2.6 billion bpd in exports, making the bloc collectively the
second largest market for Iranian crude after China.

Economic hardship

Most traders expect Iran will still find buyers for its crude, mostly in Asia, but it is going to have to offer substantial discounts, cutting back the revenue that the state relies on to subsidise basic goods for its citizens.

Tougher sanctions appear to be having an impact already on Iran's streets, where prices for foodstuffs are soaring.

The rial currency has lost 40 per cent of its value against the dollar over the past month.

Currency exchanges have shut in Tehran and Iranians have queued to withdraw their savings from banks and buy dollars.

That economic hardship is being felt by the public two months before a parliamentary election, Iran's first since a
disputed 2009 presidential vote that led to massive street demonstrations, put down violently by Iran's rulers.

Supply shock

Iran's leaders are anxious to prevent any popular unrest, especially after the Arab Spring revolts last year showed the
vulnerability of Middle Eastern governments to street protest.

The EU diplomats said member countries had not yet agreed on how soon the embargo should take effect and were still debating other possible sanctions.

The new US financial sanctions, if imposed fully, would make it all but impossible for many refineries to pay forIranian crude.
The law grants Obama the power to issue temporary waivers to prevent shocks in energy markets.
 
ironsides
#138
I was surprised that China cut their oil imports by 50%, guess they are just against any armed intervention at this time. France wants the E.U. to stop imports as well. It will be worth paying a little more to cripple Iran's economy to the point that they stop all the saber rattling.
 
Goober
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

I was surprised that China cut their oil imports by 50%, guess they are just against any armed intervention at this time. France wants the E.U. to stop imports as well. It will be worth paying a little more to cripple Iran's economy to the point that they stop all the saber rattling.

China is and has Saudi as a major supplier - Why piss the Saudis off - and include all the others that side with Saudi.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15648166 (external - login to view)

The words are dry and cautious. But Tuesday's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the UN's nuclear watchdog - represents a serious indictment of Iran's nuclear activities.

At the very least, Tehran has a troubling case to answer.

"Since 2002", the agency says, it has become increasingly concerned about "the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

The phraseology is ponderous but the message is clear. Iran, the IAEA believes, may well have been working on research for a nuclear bomb to arm one of its long-range missiles. This subject has long been a source of charge and counter-charge. Iran, of course, insists that it has no military nuclear programme; its nuclear activities it says are solely for civil purposes.

But the IAEA fears otherwise. "The Agency", this report says, "has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme." The IAEA believes that its information is "credible" and it seeks to explain both the sources of its information and why it believes it to be true - a point I will come back to in a moment.
Last edited by Goober; Jan 4th, 2012 at 06:16 PM..
 
gopher
+1
#140
From Goober's link:

''Iran demonstrated greater transparency than on previous occasions.''

That was September - in all that time, any proof of non compliance? Of course not.
 
MHz
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Iran is doing enough already to provoke preventive measures.


Such as?
If holding war games is provacation then N orea should have attacked S Korea and the US when they held some war games, oh wait, they did, they snuck in and sunk a ship using one of their diesel subs.
 
gopher
+1
#142
If some are so eager to start yet another war, this time on Iran, why aren't they equally enthused about starting one in North Korea?
 
MHz
#143
You would think this would be a perfect time for N Korea to revolt (and enjoy unlimited attention various several dozen US NGO's that are more than willing to help, such as in the recent Russian elections and Egypt once they publish something more than one scant headline. To get the ones running those organizations one year after the revolt should net you the best of the ones planning the recapture of what was lost, only this time the NGO's would be totally exposed on what they were actually promoting and who their rats were to make sure those 'interests' were the ones that implemented in the gov after the whole revolt was over. What happens there will tell if it has been a real revolt or not.
 
gopher
+1
#144
Sanctions are an act of war and why it won't work:

Escobar: US, Iran... 2012 will be hardcore - YouTube (external - login to view)
 
damngrumpy
#145
First of all, international treaties of human rights and freedom to do anything including religion
are not worth the paper they are written on. All of these agreements are subject to the will of
the national governments that sign onto them and sometimes we watch some countries sign
knowing they do not intend to live up to them.
As for a bomb, any country can build a bomb and should be able to do so within the boarders
of their own nation. The problem is, when they begin to threaten others outside their boarders
or begin to take aggressive actions the world community must contemplate action. The other
problem is, with a weapon such as the bomb the devastation can cause more problems that
cannot wait for the niceties of international politics.
Should the Iranians decide to implement a law that closes the straight to foreign ships and or
be they, military vessels, I believe it is time for gun boat diplomacy. Face it the other big powers
are going to scream but they will not act. China and Russia are quietly concerned about being
dragged into a war by Iran, and they are not in the mood for such a military action.
If Iran were to fire on a US ship in open waters, I think a full response would of course be in
order regardless of what might transpire and I have no doubt such a reaction would be the
opening act of war.
I have repeatedly said sooner or later we will be at war with this region not because of religion
but because the various tribal groups in the Middle East need to focus the efforts of their terror
actions into something with justifiable meaning. If they want to die who are we to deprive them
of their greatest desire.
It should also be noted the divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims is great. Iraq, Saudi Arabia
and others will not be too unhappy to see Iran considerably weakened, and an action against
Iran may mean a better chance for peace there in the long run.
 
MHz
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Should the Iranians decide to implement a law that closes the straight to foreign ships and or
be they, military vessels, I believe it is time for gun boat diplomacy. Face it the other big powers
are going to scream but they will not act. China and Russia are quietly concerned about being
dragged into a war by Iran, and they are not in the mood for such a military action.
If Iran were to fire on a US ship in open waters, I think a full response would of course be in
order regardless of what might transpire and I have no doubt such a reaction would be the
opening act of war.

Say Iran was to stop every tanker and take a sample of the oil being carried to be tested against known samples from all the various fields in the area with the reason being voluntary compliance with the sanctions with steps being taken to show active inspections taking place. If Isreal can determine what goods get into Gaza as a security concern I would not see why Iran doesn't have the right to hold inspections of ships coming into the waters past the Straits and that island that looks like an Killer Whale. The slowdown would certainly help in detection of the comings and goings of subs. Who could argue if Iran searched incoming ships for 'nuclear devices' on the word of some anonymous source or simply because it is part of the new security measures to fit an ever dangerous world? A new port to the south of that bend would save the inner waterways from dander of pollution due to accidental and intentional spills. It is safer to load/unload dangerous goods well away from 'residential waters' when trucking/trains would be just as efficient and the cost of tearing down the old ports is delayed and there is no real disruption to services while the new facilities are built, one side for Iran the other for Kuwait/Iraq/ etc. Should tensions ever decrease then that area could become a new Med with unspoiled shores and unlimited access to electricity and barren beaches. With enough wind turbines pumping air into the water it might even become a fishery that is renewable and a profit maker not that international trawlers would be banned.

Let's say they did do something that ended the tankers sailing those waters that was short of an act of war. Inspections for contraband (by Iran) could create a backlog two or three weeks long and that would be enough to deter tankers from going there at all. Say that caused the price of oil to rise considerably, and that increase caused hardships at home for us in North America, does that come under unintended consequences or will the Fed simply print coupons and confiscate everything the refineries can produce.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

If they want to die who are we to deprive them
of their greatest desire.

Do you drool at all when you type this sort of stuff?

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

It should also be noted the divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims is great. Iraq, Saudi Arabia
and others will not be too unhappy to see Iran considerably weakened, and an action against
Iran may mean a better chance for peace there in the long run.

Yes, ... how dare Iran allow women to vote AND drive cars, WTF is up with that? Next thing you know is they will want to not have to ask for permission to speak, no telling where it would end.
 
ironsides
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Say Iran was to stop every tanker and take a sample of the oil being carried to be tested against known samples from all the various fields in the area with the reason being voluntary compliance with the sanctions with steps being taken to show active inspections taking place.
Let's say they did do something that ended the tankers sailing those waters that was short of an act of war. Inspections for contraband (by Iran) could create a backlog two or three weeks long and that would be enough to deter tankers from going there at all. Say that caused the price of oil to rise considerably, and that increase caused hardships at home for us in North America, does that come under unintended consequences or will the Fed simply print coupons and confiscate everything the refineries can produce.


Do you drool at all when you type this sort of stuff?


.

Iran would soon meet the P8A and all associated support. Of course all sanctioned by thr UN, NATO and EU.

P-8A Poseidon: Nowhere to Run | Military.com (external - login to view)
 
MHz
+1
#148
In your battle damage assessment for this operation how many children are expected to die? If 500,000 died during the 'war for oil' period how many children are slated to be killed during the destruction of Iran? Of course all sanctioned by thr UN, NATO and EU.
Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes - YouTube (external - login to view)

Somehow I think her war-woodie would allow her to have 5M children die in Iran and the price would not be too great.

In that sales commercial did it cover being able to choose friend/foe based on transponder codes, the military only uses that system while flying near civilian airports. I would think there would be some sort of sign to remind all Pilots and ground-crew to turn off transponders when the craft is headed for a hostile zone.
Lets run the same commercial using Crews and Plots who have been on 45 days of heightened alert status with only catnaps and speed in the mashed potatoes keeping everybody going a full steam.
irish shipper vs captain us navy who will win funny - YouTube (external - login to view)


 
Goober
+1
#149
Appears the tougher sanctions have brought Iran back to the table. And that is better than a war. Perhaps common ground can be found. But is is a start.

 
Goober
#150
Interesting analysis.

Supreme Loser - By Ali Vaez | Foreign Policy (external - login to view)

The United States and Iran are once again set on a collision course -- this time over the world's narrowest choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. With the specter of more draconian sanctions hovering over its oil exports, the Iranian regime threatened in late December to seal off the strait through which 30 percent of the world's oil supply travels. Iran's menacing rhetoric was matched by a bellicose rebuff from the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, based in neighboring Bahrain, warning that any disruption of the strait "will not be tolerated."
 

Similar Threads

no new posts