Page 1 of 5
A (missile) blast from the past?
Posted: 27 Dec 2011, 21:29
by mobbsey
For those who remember the last blockade of the Straits, in the years immediately after the Iranian revolution, this should set the alarm bells ringing!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/de ... -sanctions
Iran threatens to block oil exports through Hormuz strait in sanctions row
Country reacts to threat of sanctions on its crude oil after UN watchdog's report into state's nuclear ambitions
Reuters, Guardian On-line, Tuesday 27th December 2011
Iran threatened on Tuesday to stop the flow of oil through the strait of Hormuz if foreign sanctions were imposed on its crude exports because of its nuclear ambitions.
Western tensions with Iran have increased since a report last month by the UN nuclear watchdog saying Tehran appeared to have been working on designing an atomic bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has defiantly expanded its nuclear activity despite four rounds of UN sanctions meted out since 2006 over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment and open up to UN nuclear inspectors and investigators.
Many diplomats and analysts believe only sanctions targeting Iran's lifeblood oil sector may be painful enough to make it change course, but Russia and China – big trade partners of Tehran – have blocked such a move at the UN.
Iran's warning came three weeks after EU foreign ministers decided to tighten sanctions over the UN report and laid out plans for a possible embargo of oil from the world's fifth biggest crude exporter.
{snip}
Posted: 27 Dec 2011, 21:52
by biffvernon
Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 09:12
by mikepepler
Yes, I heard this on the radio this morning and thought 'uh oh, here we go again...'. There's always the ultimate threat of sinking a couple of tankers in the straits...
Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 11:32
by adam2
A bit worrying, and certainly underlines the importance of both fuel stocks and of reducing ones reliance on oil derived fuels.
Remember though that such tensions and concerns occur regularly, and that usually nothing much happens.
The markets dont appear much concerned, the oil price rose only moderatly.
If significant or prolonged disruption was considered likely then I would have expected a very substantial increase in crude prices.
Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 12:18
by biffvernon
Of course it would be completely impossible for the Americans (or Israel) to attack Iran because Iran would cause the end of global capitalism by sinking just a ship or two in the right place and China would support them.
(Unless the US government is stupid.)
Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 14:09
by hodson2k9
biffvernon wrote:
(Unless the US government is stupid.)
Which it is
Posted: 10 Jan 2012, 18:59
by biffvernon
The stars mark the position of US military bases
But the Iranians have no reason to feel threatened.
Posted: 10 Jan 2012, 19:07
by RenewableCandy
Makes you wonder what would happen if they all baled out and went home to the USA tomorrow.
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 20:18
by snow hope
Biff, is that from an article or something? I would like to see the source from whence it came. Thanks.
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 20:41
by Lord Beria3
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/iran ... gain/69355
Nice summary of the current situation by Chris.
There is no doubt that any attack on Iran would lead to much higher prices in the short-term and severe financial stress on the global markets, in particular the European economy which is already in recession.
If any conflict spread beyond a month, global supplies of fuels would start to go into severe stress and lead to extreme prices/shortages.
I imagine that the powers-to-be would avoid that latter fate at all costs, but of course once you start a war, it is difficult to predict where it will go or how you will end it.
It would be sensible to stock up on food/water/money/gold if you haven't already...
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 23:12
by biffvernon
snow hope wrote:Biff, is that from an article or something? I would like to see the source from whence it came. Thanks.
Er yes, but I've lost the link. It was something I found on facebook or twitter but I can't seem to find it again. Sorry
edit. try
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 23:19
by energy-village
Much more sabre-rattling and presumably the shipping insurance costs for going through the strait of Hormuz could shoot up.
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 23:21
by snow hope
No probs Biff.
Quite an amazing map - I have counted 42 American bases on that map! Iran is there for the taking really.
I bugsy being on the side of the Mericans.....
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 23:29
by clv101
snow hope wrote:Iran is there for the taking really.
Not with even remotely politically acceptable US loses. Any 'taking' of Iran would likely cost many thousand US causalities. There's no appetite for that in the US after the last decade's discredited conflicts.
Posted: 11 Jan 2012, 23:39
by snow hope
clv101 wrote:snow hope wrote:Iran is there for the taking really.
Not with even remotely politically acceptable US loses. Any 'taking' of Iran would likely cost many thousand US causalities. There's no appetite for that in the US after the last decade's discredited conflicts.
Chris, it is only a matter of time unfortunately. That map says it all. The whole situation is escalating to a much higher level than just political acceptability in my opinion. It is a final grab for the resources required for a super-power to continue their way of life for another few years...... some people refer to it as the end-game, or the last gasp of a failing super-power. Whatever it is, it is clear to me from the last 10 years of events what will happen.
