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

[skeptik]

The Joker in the pack is that George Bush is a psychopath

Don't you mean Dick Cheney?

Cheney doesnt exhibit any obvious signs, unlike Bush. Bush life history is also indicative. I dont know anything about Cheney's life. Did he enjoy pushing lit firecrackers down the throats of toads, throwing them up in the air and then laughing when they exploded? (Like Dubya did when he was a kid) Did Cheney go AWOL duing the last year of his military service?

...ok Im now officially off topic... enough already.

[Ballard]

Military action has been 'ruled out', apparently.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20060602/48967860.html

The Iran Six - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany - met Thursday in Vienna to discuss the problem, and Sergei Lavrov told journalists Friday: "I can unambiguously say that all agreements of yesterday's meeting ... rule out the use of military action."

Phew... I can go back to sleep.

[hatchelt]

Phew... I can go back to sleep.

but alex jones says we're all going to war! PANIC DAM YOU, WE'RE ALL GOING TO WAR!!!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... _b_war.htm

[grinu]

Little snippet - quite interesting tho...

Iran rents more tankers to hold unsold oil

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/16793

TEHRAN, June 2 (UPI) -- Norwegian ship brokers have confirmed that the National Iranian Tanker Co. has chartered two more very large crude carriers to store unprocessed crude oil.

The latest bookings raise NITC's floating storage capacity to 18.4 million barrels, the Oil & Gas Journal reported Friday.

Iran already has seven very large crude carriers under contract for use as storage because of difficulties selling heavy, high-sulfur crude oil on the world market.



Copyright Political Gateway 2006?
Copyright United Press International 2006

[XENG]

Looks like Iran is sabre rattling again:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5047642.stm

[snow hope]

Iran given one month deadline to stop nuclear enrichment by UN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 232288.stm

[snow hope]

Iran respond with threat of $200 / barrel !

http://tinyurl.com/r68x4

[Ballard]

Deadlines approach, and TPTB draw up plans.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... A-IRAN.xml

IEA looks to OPEC to boost oil output if Iran cuts

"We are prepared for the possibility of releasing emergency supplies as always at the IEA," the agency's director general Claude Mandil said on the sidelines of an industry event in Norway.


"But we think our strategic stocks are only for use in the case of real supply disruption, and after other possibilities have been exhausted, in particular OPEC spare capacity."

OPEC President Edmund Daukoru said earlier this year that the group was unlikely to intervene if Iran -- OPEC's second largest producer -- cut its oil exports. He said the group did not want to get dragged into a political dispute.

and

The governments of the 26 IEA member countries own about 1.5 billion barrels of oil in strategic reserves, Mandil said. That would be enough to compensate for a loss of all of Iran's oil exports for at least a year and a half, Mandil said.

Because any conflict would be 'mission accomplished' within a year and a half...

[Andy Hunt]

OPEC President Edmund Daukoru said earlier this year that the group was unlikely to intervene if Iran -- OPEC's second largest producer -- cut its oil exports. He said the group did not want to get dragged into a political dispute.

Bollocks - if you'll excuse my French. The Saudis cranked up production during the first Iraq war to cover the losses from Iraq.

What Daukoru is saying is that OPEC won't increase production - because OPEC can't increase production. Politics have got buggerall to do wi'it.

[mikepepler]

From the ODAC newsletter:

IF AND WHEN BUSH 'IRAQS' IRAN (The Washington Times, Wed 03 Oct)

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 ... -6971r.htm

This particular story seems to be gaining credibility, if the Washington Times is following it up (albeit a ?Commentary?). Anyone familiar with Peak Oil will know just how bad an idea bombing Iran would be, but that does not mean to say it will never happen. Estimates are that 2-17 Mb/d of crude will be removed from global markets, promptly:

>>A strategic thinker who called all the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says, started a year ago when the U.S. began conducting secret recon missions inside Iran.

Sam Gardiner, 67, has taught strategy at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. The retired Air Force colonel recently published as a Century Foundation Report "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing the U.S. Military Option on Iran."

... Mr. Gardiner reminds us air planners almost always fall short of promises -- e.g., World War II, Korea, Vietnam and more recently Israeli air attacks on Hezbollah. "No serious expert on Iran believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he says, and "it is far more likely such strikes would strengthen the clerical leadership and turn the U.S. into Iran's permanent enemy." Which is what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prays for five times a day.

... No sooner does the first U.S. bomb impact in Iran, mines will be sown in the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's oil consumption passes daily. Iran also has sleeper cells among Shi'ite workers in Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields. Oil would quickly skyrocket to $200 a barrel. With prices surging to this level, concludes Mr. Gardiner, a "global synchronized recession, intensified by the existing U.S. trade and fiscal imbalances" would soon follow.

Syria and Iran signed a mutual defense agreement June 15 under which Syrian forces would be involved if Iran were attacked. Such a crisis could quickly escalate into a regional war. <<

The report referred to in the article: The End of the ?Summer of Diplomacy? (PDF, 109 Kb)

Note that this very important quote from the very beginning of the report (4th paragraph) is missed out from the above article:

>> Unfortunately, the military option does not make sense. When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense ? that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran. <<

[MacG]

From the ODAC newsletter:

Unfortunately, the military option does not make sense. When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense ? that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran. <<

Oh dear! Well, since an assault on Iran seem to be at least a finite possibility, I'd better treat it as other small but finite possibilities. I mean, I always had insurance for my home and cars, although I have never needed them, and all flights I have taken has started with a safety demonstration, including lifewests.

Better do some last minute buying. Let's see:

Warm clothes and shoes for the entire family
Sleeping bags for the entire family (for indoor use if the heat goes off)
Camping stove
Kerosene lamps
Kelly kettle
50 liter denatureted ethanol
50 liter kerosene
20 camping meals
10 kg rice
10 kg pasta
10 kg flour
20 kg sugar
10 kg salt
Freeze-dried yeast
10 tubes vitamin-C tablets
50 kg seed-potatoes for next growing season
250 candles
50 pairs of cheap reading glasses (for barter)
Straight razor and strop
Axes, shovels, grinding and honing stones, any tool I can put my hands on...

Dammit! We live in a society! Why is not contingency planning a part of society? Why do I have to do all this on a hobby basis? A simple insurance costing ?200 per year should be able to give me access to all that stuff...

[Billhook]

Attacking Iran makes no sense from the cost benefit analysis of controlling nuclear research versus global economic recession,
but it makes perfect sense if generating the latter is a desired goal.

The question that is not getting asked is :

can the Chinese communist government survive a sudden deep recession, without any dole law in place, after years of frantic growth ?

In strategic terms this would be a twist on what Weinberger et al did to Russia -
the US would have pushed China up a growth curve until it went bust.

Which is not to say that it will work out as the planners intend . . . .

regards,

Bill

[simonrichards912]

I don't believe the US has the personnel available for another major conflict in the Middle East, unless it pulls soldiers out of Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case a new front would open up on the Iran/ Iraq border from the militia already operating there.
Further, it is likely the US would have to go it alone, probably without the support, passive or otherwise, from Russia and China. UK support would be largely ineffective due to our existing committents. It seems likely to me that Bush doesn't have sufficient political capital to engage on an operation of this sort, not least until after the next presidential elections.
Whats more the Iranians know this, hence their posturing on the the nuclear issue.

[Totally_Baffled]

I don't believe the US has the personnel available for another major conflict in the Middle East, unless it pulls soldiers out of Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case a new front would open up on the Iran/ Iraq border from the militia already operating there.
Further, it is likely the US would have to go it alone, probably without the support, passive or otherwise, from Russia and China. UK support would be largely ineffective due to our existing committents. It seems likely to me that Bush doesn't have sufficient political capital to engage on an operation of this sort, not least until after the next presidential elections.
Whats more the Iranians know this, hence their posturing on the the nuclear issue.

Agreed

Even the insane bush administration are at stalemate on this one.

Furthermore , NK is another state that the US says "it will not allow" to have nukes.

They cannot possibly take on either of these , let alone both!

[mikepepler]

I don't believe the US has the personnel available for another major conflict in the Middle East

They could just nuke Iran. Not right now, of course, but after a suitable media buildup and maybe another "terrorist" attack?