Iran warns of 'consequences' if referred to UN re uranium

Post by **mikepepler** » 14 Feb 2006, 08:55

hatchelt wrote:
mikepepler wrote:Thinking about personal preparations for the economic aftermath of a war against Iran,
What kinds of preparations are you thinking of Mike? (this might make a good thread else where)

Probably just increasing stocks of food and essentials further still, buying up plenty of fuel (veg oil in my case

), having some cash stored away. The usual peak oil stuff, just quicker and more intense. Being a student I don't need to worry about losing my job at least, though hyper-inflation would kill me!

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 14 Feb 2006, 09:16

OxfordResearchGroup
Iran: Consequences of a War
Professor Paul Rogers, February 2006

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/p ... uences.htm

A very interesting read !

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 15 Feb 2006, 22:04

Earlier DamianB linked to the very-low-profile story "IEA 'could compensate for halt in Iran crude'"

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/1yr_arc_ ... =2-10-2006

I thought these coments from Claude Mandil didn't get the press they deserved, but had two quite different angles, firstly:

"I therefore say to countries mandated to negotiate with Iran, I do not know what your plans are, but when you consider the different options, you do not have to worry about an eventual loss of Iranian oil because you have the means to deal with it."

Which sure sounds both like they've given it some thought and is a tacid endorsement of some of the military options.

And:

"If ever, for whatever reason, there was a loss of supplies from Iran, which represent around 2.7 million barrels per day, strategic stocks managed by the IEA ... would be able to compensate for those lost 2.7m bpd for a year and a half,"

I thought this was the more interesting quote, since it brings into focus the key question - what would happen to the price of crude in the event of conflict, and what would this mean to the man in the street?

So what the IEA are saying is that "there will not be shortages - we'll empty the tanks", but I have a 2-part open question:
1) Will the oil market either freak at the missing 2.7mbd (as you would expect) or will it be more relaxed since the IEA-tanks are pretty large so supply will just keep coming, like we saw in the longer post-katrina period?
2) In the inital post-katrina phase we saw a big run up of the WTI spot price and a big run up on gasoline wholesale but since most forecourt supply is on long-term contract there must have been a slice of profiteering in this - not all of the 3.50-dollar gas being sold had been bought that day at the high spot price, right?
So will we see the same again, more so in the UK this time, where there is no real supply shortage (thanks to deep IEA pockets) but its a good oppertunity to both run the spot price up (not based on real reasons) and to flog a load of 5-year-contract supplies at skyhigh prices?

For sure the IEA collective "spr" will need refilling at some point, but how long could Iran keep the taps closed for? I mean the US could take the fields by force in a "year and a half" if needs be and the oil available on the market in that time would not really have changed, raw supply wise.

What do people think, esp you pro traders out there??

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 17 Feb 2006, 14:23

I have an Iran question if you dont mind.

The IOB argument goes something like:

1.Iran wants to set up payment in Euros

2. Eventually enough other oil producers follow suit causing pressure on the dollar and thus end the US economic "free ride"

3. US therefore proceeds to spout copious amounts of propaganda to justify an attack on Iran.

4. Iran gets blown to bits and therefore any move to trade in Euros is prevented.

Now , as we all know , this propaganda is b*llshite, and like Iraq , Irans WMD wont exist (the euro thing is the main reason)

IF this is the case why are the French buying into this bullsh*te story? , why are the french , germans , China and many other "anti" Iraq war countires suddenly backing the US bullsh*te position on Iran?

Indeed Germany and France said this week , "Military action cannot be
ruled out!".

What gives?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 17 Feb 2006, 14:32

Get the feeling there's trouble on its way?

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=1757

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 17 Feb 2006, 15:53

Totally_Baffled wrote: IF this is the case why are the French buying into this bullsh*te story? , why are the french , germans , China and many other "anti" Iraq war countires suddenly backing the US bullsh*te position on Iran?

Indeed Germany and France said this week , "Military action cannot be
ruled out!".

What gives?

I think our European friends are coming round to our way of looking at Iran. I imagine they're not any happier than Bush and Blair are with the prospect of an ascendant Iran calling the shots in the Middle East.

Angela Merkel said today:

"Considering that a country like China formulates its foreign policy around raw materials, Europe would be well advised to clarify -- at least internally -- what our interests are, especially seeing that we are trying to formulate a common foreign security policy," Merkel said.

Reuters

I very much doubt that China will back any UN resolution for sanctions or an ultimatum on Iran, given their substantial investments.

When it comes down to it, the number one priority for all the nations not immediately affected by shifts in the balance of power in the region is energy security. European nations are as energy insecure as we are. And while Chirac and Schroder have, in the past, chosen the popular path of opposing US interventions in the Middle East, they're ultimately as vulnerable as the rest of us to the consequences of a shift in the balance of power.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 17 Feb 2006, 18:55

Andy Hunt wrote:Get the feeling there's trouble on its way?

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... php?t=1757

Dont know what I think about all this, but my associations go more to Mugabe than to Hitler and Stalin. That goes for the neocon crowd in the US also. I guess that the end result will remind of Mugabe also.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 21 Feb 2006, 22:01

Bush Says U.S. Would Defend Israel Militarily

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02134.html

President Bush said yesterday the United States would defend Israel militarily if necessary against Iran, a statement that appeared to be his most explicit commitment to Israel's defense.

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 22 Feb 2006, 18:58

Iran, Oil and Euros: The War Scenario

Here?s the scenario. On March 20 Iran opens a new ?bourse? (exchange) on which countries all over the world can buy and sell oil and gas not only for dollars but also for euros. It also establishes a new oil ?marker? (oil pricing standard) based on Iranian crude and denominated in euros, in open rivalry to the existing West Texas Intermediate, Norway Brent and UAE Dubai markers, all of which are calculated in US dollars.

The Iranian bourse is an instant success with countries and companies that are unhappy about having to hold huge amounts of overvalued US dollars to finance their oil transactions, all of which must presently be conducted in that currency. Very large sums start to shift from the dollar to the euro, although exactly how much is unknown because the US Federal Reserve System (by pure coincidence, of course) has chosen late March as the time to stop publishing the data that would make it easy to know how fast the hemorrhage was.

[/url]

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 22 Feb 2006, 19:03

Reuters: Iran will not use oil as weapon in atomic row

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 22 Feb 2006, 22:40

Totally_Baffled wrote: BTW, Iran is in breach of the NPT.

Iran was not referred to the Security Council for Noncompliance
By Mike Whitney
02/21/06 "ICH"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e12002.htm

How powerful is the corporate information-system we call the mainstream media?

Is it powerful enough, for example, to mislead the public into believing that Iran has been ?referred? to the United Nations Security Council for violations to the NPT, thus paving the way for another war on the back of false information?

The IAEA DID NOT report on Iran?s ?noncompliance? to the Security Council, because there is no evidence that Iran has done anything wrong. In fact, as nuclear physicist Gordon Prather points out in his recent article, ?March Madness?, ?THE BOARD DIDN?T REPORT ANYTHING.?

Then why does the media keep insisting that Iran is being called before the Security Council for noncompliance?

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 26 Feb 2006, 00:17

This contributes as much to the pro/anti nuclear debate as it does to the Iran discussion, bargin....

Nuclear Proliferation, Iran and the Green Renaissance
Electric Politics
February 20, 2006

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast ... n_and.html

Ambassador John Ritch, a West Point graduate, now the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, is about as experienced a practitioner in nuclear proliferation and nuclear issues writ broad as anyone. He's also a leading nuclear evangelist. In addition to being a first-rate intellect he's one of the nicest guys to have worked in Washington ? that I've met. If the Democrat Party gets lucky in 2008 most likely he'll provide ballast in some (very) senior foreign policy position.

Highly recomended.

john.rico · Post by **john.rico** » 26 Feb 2006, 15:10

Nice article.
Recommended.

Notably, prominent Washington neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid January that he expects an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran ?within the next 60 days,? i.e. just after Israeli elections or just before. Timmermann is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis Libby, to Doug Feith and Michael Ledeen.

Iran has become a major counterweight for Moscow in the geopolitical game for Washington?s total domination over Eurasia, and Putin is shrewdly aware of that potential.

The neo-conservatives, although slightly lower profile in the second Bush Administration, are every bit as active, especially through Cheney?s office. They want a pre-emptive bombing strike on Iran?s nuclear sites.

But whatever Cheney?s office may be doing, officially, the Bush administration is pursuing a markedly different approach than it did in 2003, when its diplomacy was aimed at lining up allies for a war. This time, U.S. diplomats are seeking an international consensus on how to proceed, or at least, cultivating the impresion.

Iraq and the deepening US disaster there has severely constrained possible US options in Iran. Back in 2003 in the wake of the Iraqi ?victory,? leading Washington neo-conservative hawks were vocally calling on Bush to ?Move on to Tehran? after Saddam Hussein. Now, because of the ?bloody quagmire? in Iraq, the US is severely constrained from moving unilaterally. With 140,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the US military physically cannot support another invasion and occupation in yet another country, let alone Iran.

Because of Iran's size, a ground invasion may require twice as many troops as in Iraq, says Richard Russell, a Middle East specialist at the National Defense University in Washington. While an air campaign could take out Iran's air defenses, it could also trigger terrorism and oil disruptions. Washington is internally split over the issue of a successful nuclear strike against Iran.

In January 2003 President Bush signed a classified Presidential Directive, CONPLAN 8022-02. Conplan 8022 is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits ?no ground troops.? It was specifically drafted to deal with ?imminent? threats from states such as North Korea or Iran.
Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating ?mini? nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran?s.
Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US strategy towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully orchestrated escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to force Iran to back down. It seems clear, especially in light of the strategic threat Iran faces from US or Israeli forces on its borders after 2003 that Iran is not likely to back down from its clear plans to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle capacities and with it, the option of developing an Iranian nuclear capability.

The question then is what will Washington do? The fundamental change in US defense doctrine since 2001, from a posture of defense to offense has significantly lowered the threshold of nuclear war, perhaps a global nuclear conflagration.

At that point there are several possible outcomes.

* The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council which proposes increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons producing while avoiding sanctions. In essence Iran would be allowed to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its sovereignty is respected so long as it respects NPT and IAEA conditions. This is unlikely for the reasons stated above.

* Iran like India and Pakistan or even China, is permitted to develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the growing military threat in its area posed by the United States from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates, as well as by Israel?s nuclear force. The West extends new offers of economic cooperation in the development of Iran?s oil and gas infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into the community of the WTO and cooperation with the West. A new government in Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine and with Syria and a new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way for huge new economic development in the entire Middle east region, Iran included. The Mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. This scenario, desireable as it is is extremely unlikely in the present circumstances.

* President Bush, on the urging of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks, decide to activate CONPLAN 8022, an air attack bombing Iran?s presumed nuclear sites, including for the first time since 1945, with deployment of nuclear weapons. No ground troops are used and it is proclaimed a swift surgical ?success? by the formidable Pentagon propaganda machine. Iran, prepared for such a possibility, launches a calculated counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla or ?assymetrical warfare? against US and NATO targets around the world.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/G ... _risk.html

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 28 Feb 2006, 14:08

Two bombs rock Iranian oil cities
Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:16 AM GMT170

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsart ... -BOMBS.xml

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Two bombs exploded in the southern Iranian cities of Dezful and Abadan on Monday wounding at least six people, officials said.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 02 Mar 2006, 11:13

Last minute talks tomorrow.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... RIJANI.xml