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

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Dec 2005, 14:55

MacG wrote:Just about everyone have everything to lose from messing with Iran. The reason is spelled: "Strait of Hormuz". Some 15 million barrels of oil per day pass trough the strait of Hormuz. The strait is completely controlled by Iran. It would just take that the guys in charge in Iran declare that "no traffic is allowed and all traffic will be fired upon" to make the insurance companies revoke policies for tankers passing the strait. No insurance - no traffic. 15 million barrels per day.. *pfhuh* I guess the bankers will have GWB assassinated if they thought he was up to something against the bearded guys in Iran...

Yes, we can be absolutely sure that the US will have in place a suitable strategy for knocking out key Iranian posts along the main islands of the Strait. If I were going to attack then I'd disarm these military positions at the same time as attacking the mainland. The bankers of the world already own the US anyway under the guise of the privately owned Federal Reserve. I'm sure they would be in favour of strengthening the trade of US dollars via oil by controlling the Strait as well.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Dec 2005, 16:14

Bozzio wrote:Yes, we can be absolutely sure that the US will have in place a suitable strategy for knocking out key Iranian posts along the main islands of the Strait. If I were going to attack then I'd disarm these military positions at the same time as attacking the mainland. The bankers of the world already own the US anyway under the guise of the privately owned Federal Reserve. I'm sure they would be in favour of strengthening the trade of US dollars via oil by controlling the Strait as well.

The thing is that it take so little to disturb the tanker traffic through Hormuz. You dont need large installations and delicate infrastructure. There are hundreds of ways to interfere with a tanker - anything from divers attaching magnetic mines to a tanker or small vessels with torpedoes or small missiles. There also seem to be an abundance of suicide bombers in the region, who could be convinced to use a four meter boat instead of a car.

It would only take one tanker in ten to get hit, and one in fifty to actually blow up to stop the traffic. 15 million barrels a day is a hell of a lot. Some 20% of world consumption. Nobody would be able to handle the sudden loss of such amounts.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Dec 2005, 16:53

MacG wrote:The thing is that it take so little to disturb the tanker traffic through Hormuz. You dont need large installations and delicate infrastructure. There are hundreds of ways to interfere with a tanker - anything from divers attaching magnetic mines to a tanker or small vessels with torpedoes or small missiles. There also seem to be an abundance of suicide bombers in the region, who could be convinced to use a four meter boat instead of a car.

Hi MacG,

I didn't realize you are such an expert on boat warfare.

I apologize for even suggesting that the US would have to consider protecting this region if they do attack Iran. No doubt they will consult you personally if they ever do decide to press ahead with such matters.

On the other hand they could just patrol the Strait day and night with a few subs and armed boats. 'Tis only a thought and pure speculation of course.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Dec 2005, 17:40

Bozzio wrote: I apologize for even suggesting that the US would have to consider protecting this region if they do attack Iran. No doubt they will consult you personally if they ever do decide to press ahead with such matters.

On the other hand they could just patrol the Strait day and night with a few subs and armed boats. 'Tis only a thought and pure speculation of course.

Ah, now I finally understand! You mean like the runaway success in imposing security in Iraq? Please, accept my apologies, I was completely mistaken.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 27 Dec 2005, 18:19

MacG wrote:Ah, now I finally understand! You mean like the runaway success in imposing security in Iraq? Please, accept my apologies, I was completely mistaken.

I think that you will find sea warfare to be very different to land warfare. For a start there are no civilians wandering around, or indeed insurgents dressed as civilians. Secondly, you can tend to spot your enemy through the use of radar and the fact that open water has fewer hiding places. I could go on but as I said before it's all speculation so quite pointless that you or I assume strategic reasoning.

Don't be fooled into thinking the US is after control of Iraq in terms of limiting civilian and miltary casualties. It's aim appears more to be about gaining control of oil. The fact that people keep blowing things up is a minor niggle in my opinion although granted it doesn't make them look good.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 27 Dec 2005, 21:05

Bozzio wrote: It's aim appears more to be about gaining control of oil.

Well, it dont look like they have been overly successful in actually getting any oil out of Iraq. Last thing I read was something short of two million barrels a day, compared to three million barrels before the invasion, but after ten years of sanctions...

The point I try to make is that it only takes a declaration from the Iranian government and one single sunken tanker and unsuccesful attacks on every ten to twenty tankers for Lloyds to either cancel the insurance policies or make them stupidly expensive.

Large scale civilian shipping require close to 100% security in order to function at all. And 15 million barrels a day is such a stunning large flow that even a small dent in it would cause oil prices to rise to stupid levels. And dont even think of a large dent!

The Iranian guys seem to be very cozy with both the Chineese and the Russians right now, and can be expected to have all kinds of fireworks to play with. Combine this with a track record of exploiting religious fanatism, and no remorse whatsoever, and it's an imposssible situation. Iranian leadership would not hesitate to set off 50 suicide attacks in small vessels, while knowing that 49 of them would fail. (Remember how they cleared minefields during the war with Iraq?) There is no way the US navy will be able to provide 100% protection for civilian shipping against a determined Iranian leadership. And it will only take one "success" for Lloyds to react...

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 28 Dec 2005, 02:12

Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of scenario in which I could see the likelihood of a nuclear strike.

The last few posts in this forum scare me considerably. I hope you are all wrong, whilst suspecting you may in the worst case scenario be too close to the truth.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 28 Dec 2005, 08:53

snow hope wrote:Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of scenario in which I could see the likelihood of a nuclear strike. The last few posts in this forum scare me considerably. I hope you are all wrong, whilst suspecting you may in the worst case scenario be too close to the truth.

I'm not overly worried about a nuclear disaster in the middle east. Quoting Dmitry Orlov:

Dmitry Orlov wrote:The next circle of denial revolves around what must inevitably come to pass if the Goddess of Technology were to fail us: a series of wars over ever more scarce resources. Paul Roberts, who is very well informed on the subject of peak oil, has this to say: "what desperate states have always done when resources turn scarce? [is] fight for them." [ MotherJones.com, 11/12 2004] Let us not argue that this has never happened, but did it ever amount to anything more than a futile gesture of desperation? Wars take resources, and, when resources are already scarce, fighting wars over resources becomes a lethal exercise in futility. Those with more resources would be expected to win. I am not arguing that wars over resources will not occur. I am suggesting that they will be futile, and that victory in these conflicts will be barely distinguishable from defeat. I would also like to suggest that these conflicts would be self-limiting: modern warfare uses up prodigious amounts of energy, and if the conflicts are over oil and gas installations, then they will get blown up, as has happened repeatedly in Iraq. This will result in less energy being available and, consequently, less warfare.

Take, for example, the last two US involvements in Iraq. In each case, as a result of US actions, Iraqi oil production decreased. It now appears that the whole strategy is a failure. Supporting Saddam, then fighting Saddam, then imposing sanctions on Saddam, then finally overthrowing him, has left Iraqi oil fields so badly damaged that the "ultimate recoverable" estimate for Iraqi oil is now down to 10-12% of what was once thought to be underground (according to the New York Times).

Some people are even suggesting a war over resources with a nuclear endgame. On this point, I am optimistic. As Robert McNamara once thought, nuclear weapons are too difficult to use. And although he has done a great deal of work to make them easier to use, with the introduction of small, tactical, battlefield nukes and the like, and despite recently renewed interest in nuclear "bunker busters," they still make a bit of a mess, and are hard to work into any sort of a sensible strategy that would reliably lead to an increased supply of energy. Noting that conventional weapons have not been effective in this area, it is unclear why nuclear weapons would produce better results.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 28 Dec 2005, 08:58

snow hope wrote:I hope you are all wrong, whilst suspecting you may in the worst case scenario be too close to the truth.

I'd like to think I am wrong and hope MacG is correct. Attacking Iran and the consequences that would have on the Strait, the Chinese (who have made long term LNG deals with Iran) and other factors would be suicide for America and the rest of the world. I guess I am concerned that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield will take their power trip to another dimension.

I really hope not.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 28 Dec 2005, 09:06

Bozzio wrote:
snow hope wrote:I hope you are all wrong, whilst suspecting you may in the worst case scenario be too close to the truth.
I'd like to think I am wrong and hope MacG is correct. Attacking Iran and the consequences that would have on the Strait, the Chinese (who have made long term LNG deals with Iran) and other factors would be suicide for America and the rest of the world. I guess I am concerned that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield will take their power trip to another dimension.

I really hope not.

They wont , Bush/Cheney are stupid but not that stupid.

If the Middle east goes up (which it will with an invasion of Iran) it is game over for the US anyway, and despite what you may think , BUsh and Cheney do not want that to happen on their watch!

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 28 Dec 2005, 09:38

Totally_Baffled wrote:If the Middle east goes up (which it will with an invasion of Iran) it is game over for the US anyway, and despite what you may think , Bush and Cheney do not want that to happen on their watch!

Definitely so!

If I was living in the US, I would be slightly worried though. The ultimate goal for the government-memeplex is to preserve itself, and it will resort to any means neccesary to achieve that.

Attempt at logic: The US consume 25% of the oil extracted from this earth, and need more and more every year to prevent the debt and interest based monetary system from collapsing. What to do to preserve government when the earth simply wont yield more and more oil every year, no matter what you do? The most obvious thing to do is to impose tighter controls at home.

The Soviet Union tried to preserve itself by turning to it's opposite in the last years. It would after all have been pretty difficult for them to increase the degree of opression. It would be pretty logical for the US to make an attempt at it's opposite when the empire comes to an end, so I would expect increased opression and government control.

When thinking "opposite" I watch out for things like a dirty bomb in San Fransisco, prison camps and relaxed drug laws in the years to come.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 29 Dec 2005, 09:31

James Petras - Israel's War with Iran - the unabridged version
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005 ... -iran.html

Israel?s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel?s war policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and Congressional backing.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 30 Dec 2005, 20:55

I know this is the Iran thread, but I don't want to start a new one on Syria until such time as the story has enough traction of its own, if that's ok with everyone? There is a lot of overlap with the Iran situation anyway.

UN's Mehlis report discredited: International espionage over Syria?
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e10818.htm

Mehlis is currently Senior Public Prosecutor in the Office of the Attorney General in Berlin, and has prosecuted numerous terrorism and organized crime cases including most prominently the 1982 bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in West Berlin. That terrorist attack was promptly blamed by the Reagan administration on Libya, justifying the US bombing of the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, killing at least 30 civilians including children.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 30 Dec 2005, 20:57

Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran

By BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Former CIA analysts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e11410.htm

Nothing else more dangerous to the world, to the Middle East, to the oppressed Palestinians, or to the true interests of the United States is happening today -- anywhere. Americans who do not want an eruption of a new world war, started by our own government, ought to be strongly lobbying the Bush administration and all members of Congress against supporting any military action by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Globally, people who oppose such a war should be lobbying their own governments in similar fashion.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 30 Dec 2005, 21:08

Persian Fire
By Chris Floyd

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e11316.htm

The Rubicon of the new war was crossed on Oct. 27. Oddly enough for this renewal of the ancient enmity between the heirs of Athens and Persia, the decisive event occurred on the edge of the Arctic Circle, at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, where a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit. This launch, scarcely noticed at the time, has accelerated the inevitable strike on Iran's nuclear facilities...