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
#151
A month ago it was 17%, then 20%, now 30%. In 5 months it will be 113%.
 
Goober
#152
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

A month ago it was 17%, then 20%, now 30%. In 5 months it will be 113%.

Not sure what you are referring to? Was it this?

On Tuesday the exchange rate for dollar was 15,300 rials at the free market, from around 13,400 rials to the dollar last week. The rial has lost over 50 percent value against the dollar in the past few months.

International sanctions imposed on Iran since 2006, particularly those which made it difficult to transfer cash in and out of Iran, have had a negative impact on the value of the currency and made it difficult for Iranian banks to do business with western banks.

Oil earnings still account for up to 60 percent of state income and a surge in consumer imports under Ahmadinejad and fuel and food subsidy cuts since 2010 have hit local industries and forced some plants to close.

A member of Tehran's Chamber of Commerce said the rial will further lose value in the coming days.

"Iran's foreign exchange system is suffering from weak management (failing) to curb the exchange rate," said Asadollah Asgaroladi, the Jomhuri-ye Eslami daily reported.

Revelation of a $2.6 billion embezzlement case in October also caused distrust among ordinary Iranians.

Some hardline politicians linked the main suspect in the fraud to a so-called "deviant current", allegedly led by Ahmadinejad's chief of staff and closest ally Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie.

He is accused by many Shi'ite clerics and politicians of trying to undermine the central role of the clergy in politics by emphasising the nationalist strain of Iranian history and culture.

Some MPs said the government was linked to the scam in order to fund monthly compensation of $40 per person introduced since eliminating fuel and energy subsidies.

"People do not trust the Central Bank's monetary policies," said economist Abolqasem Hakimipour, the semi official Fars news agency reported.

"The continued increase of the foreign exchange rate will lead to inflation rate to be over 27 percent and preventing this requires the Central Bank's swift action." (Reporting By Mitra Amiri)
 
MHz
#153
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Not sure what you are referring to? Was it this?

I was referring to the percentage of the world's oil that goes through the Strait. Your article points to it being the 30% one that is specific to oil shipped by water rather than it being 30% of all oil moved worldwide

This represents 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of oil traded worldwide in 2011.[2] (external - login to view)
Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Located between Oman and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Hormuz is the world's most important oil chokepoint due to its daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million bbl/d in 2009-2010. Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35percent of all seaborne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Thirty percent of global seaborne crude shipments and 17 percent of oil traded worldwide passes through the waterway.
Strait of Hormuz threat rattles oil markets. Time to sell? - CSMonitor.com (external - login to view)

With tankers getting bigger all the time I would think some nice big new ports south of the Strait would be a wise move just because cleanup costs keep rising. Monorail trains designed for cargo containers would do it faster than could a ship and once on the rail system it could go straight to destination without a lot of time in various depots. The inner harbor would see more hydro-foil ferrys than the lumbering tankers and container ships as well as the tourist super boats. If money is going to be spent in the area you will be happier in the end to go this route than opening up another war that cost just as much if not more and has nobody smiling in the end, even the shareholders lose their smile because the war eventually has to end. Creating an affordable resort for tourism means generations after generations can reap the rewards of some building that went on at one point and then from then on everybody seemed to have free time and money, a commodity lacking for some in this day and age.
 
earth_as_one
#154
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


I fully support imposing sanctions against countries with poor human rights records like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel...

No one here has provided any proof that Iran has violated any agreement that they signed. If you listen closely, the MSM doesn't claim this either. They claim Iran isn't compliant with the NPT, which is true. They are not compliant with one of the voluntary protocols. But since they didn't ratify that additional voluntary protocol, they aren't bound by it.

BTW, this is the same rationale Israel uses regarding the entire NPT. Not only has Israel not signed any of the voluntary protocols, they haven't even signed any of the mandatory ones. Since they possess nuclear technology and haven't signed the NPT, Israel should face even more severe sanctions that Iran faces for refusing to sign one voluntary confidence building protocol.

Regarding the peaceful nature of Iran, you seem to imply Iran is war like. Please list the wars initiated by Iran since the 1980's. If you like we can compare that with a list of wars initiated by the US and Israel during the same time period to determine which nations are more war like.

Can you list even a single war started by Iran since 1980, when it became a Theocracy? I can think of several countries the US and Israel have attacked since the 1980's. In the case of the Iraq war, the US invented justifications for war, which were believed by millions of gullible people. Now the same countries which pushed for an unprovoked war with Iraq are pushing for yet another unprovoked war with Iran.

If someone kept tell me lies over and over, I'd consider them untrustworthy. How is it that you can believe anything from the sources which claimed Iraq had WMD stockpiles and links to 9/11? I'd say you'd have to be gullible... yet here you guys are believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons without any conclusive proof.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 5th, 2012 at 03:48 PM..
 
Goober
#155
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post




If someone kept tell me lies over and over, I'd consider them untrustworthy. How is it that you can believe anything from the sources which claimed Iraq had WMD stockpiles and links to 9/11? I'd say you'd have to be gullible... yet here you guys are believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons without any conclusive proof.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Take your concerns to the IAEA - They are the UN Police for the NPT. Are they in error?

Oh yes - Would arming Hamas & Hezbollah be considered acts of War or Terror?

Also the Thugocracy has been killing dissidents abroad for decades.
Last edited by Goober; Jan 5th, 2012 at 04:35 PM..
 
earth_as_one
#156
No the IAEA isn't in error. But what they have reported is being spun.

I suggest you read this commentary which explains the subtleties of where Iran is relative to its NPT obligations and what is being reported about Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program:

Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran 23 November 2011 (external - login to view) by Ernie Regehr (external - login to view)

While Iran is clearly ignoring the Security Council’s demand that it suspend uranium enrichment, and while it also fails to satisfactorily address the outstanding questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the true nature and objective of Iran’s nuclear activity is much less certain than some reporting and commentary suggests.

Canadian Conservative MP Chris Alexander insisted on the CBC’s As it Happens that the IAEA’s most recent report[i] (external - login to view) is “conclusive” on the question of whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That’s not what the report says – it in fact goes to some lengths to say that its findings are inconclusive. Indeed, the IAEA’s most prominent refrain is that the lack of cooperation from Iran prevents it from being conclusive: “The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.” It is of course that very uncertainty that is the source of worry – in other words, the fact that it is not able to say conclusively that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons is the problem. And since you can’t prove a negative, it becomes a matter of positing degrees of confidence....


The rest here:

Uncertainty made certainty in responses to the IAEA on Iran | disarmingconflict.ca (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#157
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

No the IAEA isn't in error. But what they have reported is being spun.

I suggest you read this commentary which explains the subtleties of where Iran is relative to its NPT obligations and what is being reported about Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program:
]

As I mentioned earlier - Iran has refused for the last year to discuss this with the Europeans /US

Sanctions have brought them back to the table.

The IAEA has legitimate concerns and states that Iran is not providing information as requested and agreed upon. Spin it anyway you want. Those are the facts.

You stated Iran has not attacked another country. I asked 2 questions. Care to answer?

Oh yes - Would arming Hamas & Hezbollah be considered acts of War or Terror?

Also the Thugocracy has been killing dissidents abroad for decades.
 
gerryh
#158
Your first question has nothing to do with Iran, and the second is a statement not a question. Let me also make it clear I am not backing eao in this as he still hasn't fully answered my question from way back, just stating an observation.
 
Goober
#159
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Your first question has nothing to do with Iran, and the second is a statement not a question. Let me also make it clear I am not backing eao in this as he still hasn't fully answered my question from way back, just stating an observation.

A country arming groups to attack that specific country is an Act of War. IMHO
 
gerryh
#160
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

A country arming groups to attack that specific country is an Act of War. IMHO

What I should have said was it didn't have anything to do with this op. This is about sanctions because of a possible nuclear threat. It would be up to Isreal to decide if the arming of her enemy's was an act of war.
 
Goober
#161
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

What I should have said was it didn't have anything to do with this op. This is about sanctions because of a possible nuclear threat. It would be up to Isreal to decide if the arming of her enemy's was an act of war.

What they do can be considered an Act of War. That was my point.
 
ironsides
#162
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post




If someone kept tell me lies over and over, I'd consider them untrustworthy. How is it that you can believe anything from the sources which claimed Iraq had WMD stockpiles and links to 9/11? I'd say you'd have to be gullible... yet here you guys are believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons without any conclusive proof.



What do we do, wait until they have a atomic weapon or stop them by any means from having the capability to build them?

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran appears to be testing atomic fuel intended for a planned reactor which could one day yield nuclear bomb material, a former senior United Nations nuclear official said on Thursday.
The Islamic Republic is building a heavy water research reactor near the central town of Arak, a type which Western experts say could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.
Earlier this week, Iran announced it had made a breakthrough in producing fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
Olli Heinonen, former head of nuclear safeguards inspections worldwide at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, said he believed the fuel was being developed for Arak, which Iran hopes to bring on line by the end of next year.
Ex-IAEA official: Iran nuclear move may raise concern - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

Iran testing nuclear fuel that could yield bomb, says ex-official

Iran could start building a nuclear bomb in a matter of months, the UN atomic watchdog warned yesterday. The regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is already thought to have built a top-secret explosives test facility at a site in Parchin, just outside the capital Tehran, where it is conducting experiments to develop a weapon. A hard-hitting report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was leaked last night, said scientists are building hi-tech precision detonators which would be essential for a nuclear device, and developing a uranium core for a nuclear warhead.



Iran nuclear weapons row: 'Months from building atomic bomb' | Mail Online

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 
Goober
#163
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

What I should have said was it didn't have anything to do with this op. This is about sanctions because of a possible nuclear threat. It would be up to Israel to decide if the arming of her enemy's was an act of war.

I was just trying to show EAO that Iran has committed what can be considered an Act of War. That was all. And you are correct it is about sanctions. It is also about trust and the Regimes purposes and problems caused by the regime. Present as well as future problems are also considered by the West.
 
Cliffy
#164
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I was just trying to show EAO that Iran has committed what can be considered an Act of War. That was all. And you are correct it is about sanctions. It is also about trust and the Regimes purposes and problems caused by the regime. Present as well as future problems are also considered by the West.

What a bunch of political double speak. Why does anybody trust the west to make decisions that are beneficial to the world when they are the ones attacking other countries and messing with other sovereign nations internal affairs? This whole GD mess is of the west's making. They are the aggressors, so I have to wonder what is the motivation of those who parrot the west's hate propaganda. There is no proof of aggressive behaviour on the part of Iran except for stuff being published by the western media. I call BS on the whole GD thing. All any of this jabber proves is that this planet is a lunatic asylum.
 
Goober
+1
#165
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

What a bunch of political double speak. Why does anybody trust the west to make decisions that are beneficial to the world when they are the ones attacking other countries and messing with other sovereign nations internal affairs? This whole GD mess is of the west's making. They are the aggressors, so I have to wonder what is the motivation of those who parrot the west's hate propaganda. There is no proof of aggressive behaviour on the part of Iran except for stuff being published by the western media. I call BS on the whole GD thing. All any of this jabber proves is that this planet is a lunatic asylum.

I call your attitude BS - We all need another Wacko Thugocracy with Nukes. WTF do you think would happen if a small tactical nuke went off in a European or US City.
How long before the missiles fly. And Iran has a fair share of wackos.
 
Cliffy
#166
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I call your attitude BS - We all need another Wacko Thugocracy with Nukes. WTF do you think would happen if a small tactical nuke went off in a European or US City.
How long before the missiles fly. And Iran has a fair share of wackos.

Perhaps the human race would get wiped out and the planet would recover, as at Chernobyl, and be much better off without us.
 
gerryh
#167
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Perhaps the human race would get wiped out and the planet would recover, as at Chernobyl, and be much better off without us.


and there's your answer from the "self haters".


These people are the ones that secretly hope that the world goes off the deep end so that they have an "easy out".
 
Goober
#168
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Perhaps the human race would get wiped out and the planet would recover, as at Chernobyl, and be much better off without us.

Brilliant.
 
Cliffy
#169
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and there's your answer from the "self haters".


These people are the ones that secretly hope that the world goes off the deep end so that they have an "easy out".

Sorry to disappiont you gerry but that is not what I hope for. It is just that listening to the insanity of the war mongers is deafening. I was trying to use a little reverse psychology but it obviously didn't work.
 
Goober
#170
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Sorry to disappiont you gerry but that is not what I hope for. It is just that listening to the insanity of the war mongers is deafening. I was trying to use a little reverse psychology but it obviously didn't work.

The OP is about Sanctions - The only ones threatening attacks have been the Thugocracy.
 
Cliffy
#171
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The OP is about Sanctions - The only ones threatening attacks have been the Thugocracy.

Sanctions are an attack on a nations sovereignty. People die. Babies die. We have been through this before. The thugs are the west.
 
gerryh
#172
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Sorry to disappiont you gerry but that is not what I hope for. It is just that listening to the insanity of the war mongers is deafening. I was trying to use a little reverse psychology but it obviously didn't work.


I hear you say it all the time cliffy. This is not the first time.
 
Goober
#173
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Sanctions are an attack on a nations sovereignty. People die. Babies die. We have been through this before. The thugs are the west.

They cut subsides for food. Now inflation is hitting. They have dedicated tens of billions to Nukes - they have literally told the UN and the IAEA to Fuk off.

The money is there - They,the ruling Thigs who murder their own citzens decide how to spend it.
And if a country imposes sanctions it is NOT an attack. They should have done this 5 years ago.

U.S. carrier may face problems if returns to Persian Gulf: IRGC general - Tehran Times (external - login to view)

– IRGC Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri warned on Wednesday that if the U.S. aircraft carrier, which had left the Persian Gulf because of Iran’s naval war games, returns to the sea, it may face problems.


He said, “We tell the Americans that now that you have left (the Persian Gulf), you had better not return. In case of your return, you will be responsible for possible problems in the future.”


He added that U.S. forces should leave the region to prevent undesirable consequences.
 
ironsides
#174
The Straits of Hormuz are a narrow international water way, and anybody who tries to block or hinder the passage of ships is committing a act of war. Iran is planning war games in February right in the straits. That in itself could be the catalyst that starts a war. All they have to do is interfere with the safe passage of oil tankers in and out.
 
MHz
#175
Define 'interfere' and 'safe passage'. Are you saying they wouldn't have the right to inspect such ships for explosives before they entered the Strait? If they can't then can they demand that somebody do things like a quick hull inspection before the ships enter the straits. One ship damaged would close the straits down not Iran's problem if those delays cause crude to jump $50/bbl, or more depending how long it goes on.

So far nobody has mentioned any oil for food program for the children of Iran, is the farce of kindness being lifted as the true results of the effects of the program in Iraq are now well known, it was a way to bring war down on the least able to defend themselves, just like it was intended to do from the beginning.
 
ironsides
#176
No they wouldn't since that do not own the straits. You can only stop ships if your working for the international community and there is a plausible threat to the strait itself. The subject of oil for food is not a issue yet. Iran is not a starving nation, even under the Shah the people ate.


WASHINGTON — The European Union appears on the verge of banning its member countries from buying Iranian oil, a move that would culminate a years-long behind-the-scenes campaign by two U.S. administrations to cripple that oil-rich nation's lifeblood industry.
Over the years, the Bush and Obama administrations regularly pressured the CEOs of foreign oil companies and key politicians in Europe and even Malaysia to halt their investments in energy projects in Iran and to steer clear of new investment.
The oil companies and governments all tried to walk a fine line between meeting Washington's demands and keeping a foot in the door in Iran, the second-largest exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the oil cartel. That would change with a decision to bar purchases of Iranian oil, a step that EU foreign ministers may take as soon as Jan. 30.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/05/2017486/a-europe-boycott-of-iran-oil-would.html#storylink=cpy (external - login to view)
 
Cliffy
#177
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

No they wouldn't since that do not own the straits. You can only stop ships if your working for the international community and there is a plausible threat to the strait itself. The subject of oil for food is not a issue yet. Iran is not a starving nation, even under the Shah the people ate.


So, can you explain why Israel is allowed to blockade ships from Gaza but Iran is not allowed to block the straights? If it is illegal for Iran, it would seem to be illegal for Israel since both are supposedly in international waters. There appears to be a double standard here. This looks like the old Freedom fighter/terrorist dichotomy.
 
ironsides
#178
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

So, can you explain why Israel is allowed to blockade ships from Gaza but Iran is not allowed to block the straights? If it is illegal for Iran, it would seem to be illegal for Israel since both are supposedly in international waters. There appears to be a double standard here. This looks like the old Freedom fighter/terrorist dichotomy.
[/FONT]

Easy answer, Gazians are shooting, attacking Israel. Israel has every right to defend themselves from terrorists.
 
darkbeaver
#179
An article I was reading this morning regarded the cause of the present Israeli angst is Iran having already some time ago developed a fully operable deterrent to Israeli first strikes by means of blanket conventional long range missile systems..The author explained that Dimona was already an achievable kill 100 per cent certain. That would be the end of Israel.
 
Cliffy
#180
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Easy answer, Gazians are shooting, attacking Israel. Israel has every right to defend themselves from terrorists.

I'm sure the Gazians think the Israelis are terrorists, just as I'm sure the Iranians think the Americans are terrorists. Funny how it depends on which side of the fence you are on. I don't choose sides because I think they are all crazy.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

An article I was reading this morning regarded the cause of the present Israeli angst is Iran having already some time ago developed a fully operable deterrent to Israeli first strikes by means of blanket conventional long range missile systems..The author explained that Dimona was already an achievable kill 100 per cent certain.

I really don't understand all this dick waving going on over there. Nobody would survive a war. I'm pretty sure nothing is as bad as we are being told. It is like the cold war. The international bankers own every country and they play this game to scare the crap out of everybody so they can pick their pockets while they are hiding under their beds. The so called middle east crisis is just the cold war warmed up, repackaged and sold to s gullible herd of sheeple.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts