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

[fishertrop]

DAILY KOS - 2006: Escalation of the Resource Wars

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/2/84040/12187

First, resources are fundamentally different from manufacturing, in that manufacturing is wide spread, but resiliant. Resources are concentrated, but brittle. This makes a difference both during escalating tensions, and for the possibility of all out war. The resiliant nature of manufacturing means that pin prick military actions are generally worthless. Bomb one plant, and the equipment will be moved to another. Extraction is the reverse - it is rife with fragile infrastructure that is very worth destroying - oil refineries, petrol storage facilities, oil and gas pipelines and nuclear reactors for enriching Uranium - are all fragile and expensive, and generate economic benefit far out of proportion to their size.

[fishertrop]

George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?

Thursday January 5, 2006
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0, ... 20,00.html

The former officials also said these kind of programmes must be closely monitored by senior CIA managers in order to control the flow of information to the adversary. If mishandled, they could easily help an enemy accelerate its weapons development. That may be what happened with Merlin.

[PS_RalphW]

The former officials also said these kind of programmes must be closely monitored by senior CIA managers in order to control the flow of information to the adversary. If mishandled, they could easily help an enemy accelerate its weapons development. That may be what happened with Merlin.

This story appeared in several papers around the world on the same
day. This makes me wonder if this is not a leak but some CIA inspired
black propaganda - How better to convince the world
that Iran is building a bomb than by implying that we told them
how to do it ourselves?

I take this kind of un-sourced media story
with a very large pinch of salt. Reading the article all it says is that
a CIA agent anonymously delivered a set of blue prints for part of a
bomb mechanism to an Iranian office with a note to the effect that
they are a CIA plant and clearly won't work.

Even if this farcical plot line is true it adds nothing to the current Iranian position -
the CIA is not the only organisation in the world that knows
how to build a bomb, the info has been around in many countries for
50 years now. I doubt they much that it is on the critical path analysis
for any potential Iranian bomb.

[fishertrop]

Recently Econbrowser nicly referenced a betting "contract" on Tradesports.com for an airstrike on Iran.

It's a bit difficult to link to directly but I think this does it http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/search/ ... chstr=iran#

(failing that go to http://www.tradesports.com and search for "iran" !)

Such indicies are a interesting alternative way to look at the likelyhood of such incidents.

[grinu]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id210.html

Come March 2006, not only will any county purchasing oil from Iran be able to do so with euros, but because Iran will actually be operating an oil exchange, China will be able to purchase oil from Russia through the Iran Oil Bourse, and pay for it with petroeuros. Suddenly, hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars will no longer be necessary for every nation of the world to hold so that they can purchase oil. If nations desire to dump all their dollars, they will be able to do so and still be able to purchase oil. If, or when this occurs, the U.S. dollar will be weakened to such a degree that it could be rendered worthless. When this happens, inflation in the United States will reach levels that will make the Great Depression of the 1930?s look like a decade of gluttony.

[EmptyBee]

Iran's nuclear ambitions pose the next big test

Israel's acting leader has already been briefed on plans to strike at atomic facilities

?There is no room for doubt,? wrote the columnist, Caroline Glick. ?The need to conduct a military strike against Iran?s nuclear programme increases with each passing day.?

Security sources said that since taking over as acting leader, Olmert has been given details of the attack plans. Unlike Sharon, however, he does not have a military background and any decision on action would be taken by an ad hoc three-man body set up this weekend, which also includes Shaul Mofaz, the defence minister, and General Dan Halutz, the armed forces chief of staff.

The precise nature of any Israeli attack is a secret, but a security source said it would employ highly sophisticated weaponry and involve the targeting of at least 10 Iranian installations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 61,00.html

So, it looks like Sharon's stroke won't change much then...

[fishertrop]

So, it looks like Sharon's stroke won't change much then...

At least Sharon had a lifetime of military experience behind him - a civy being "advised" by a commitee of generals sounds like lamb-to-the-slaughter to me....

[Joe]

At least Sharon had a lifetime of military experience behind him - a civy being "advised" by a commitee of generals sounds like lamb-to-the-slaughter to me....

Hmm, interesting. Shaul Mofaz is a hard liner and Halutz is popular with the right. However, Mofaz is an Iranian Jew who spent his first 9 years in Tehran. I doubt any misty eyed sentimentality on his part will be a major influence on any military decisions; on the contrary, he may be more keen to avoid accusations to that effect by taking an overtly aggressive stance on Iran.

[Totally_Baffled]

Anyone here think they would of been bombed already if there was spare oil capacity elsewhere?

Hatchelt, yep i agree. If you have 970tcf of extremely cheap gas in your country, why do they want very expensive nuclear with all the waste implications etc

Very suspicious.

[EmptyBee]

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... #paginator

i think this is pretty interesting...especially the "Iran is swimming in oil, why does it need another energy source?" comments..

You mean this one?

Q. Why does one of the world's largest oil producers need nuclear power? (Incidentally, the US, UK and Russia are major oil producers too).
A. Because some day the oil will run out. Not just in Iran, but everywhere. It's rather foolish to ignore this fact, and prudent to diversify your energy sources.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, if we were in Iranian shoes, we would want them too.

The fact is that it's not that suspicious to want to diversify your energy portfolio, especially when you consider the lead time for a functioning nuclear program. What oil and gas production will Iran be on in ten or fifteen years time?

The only thing that I can't understand is that Iran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program in the face of increasing belligerance from the US, the UK and Israel. I can't understand why they aren't backing down and at least accepting a compromise deal for the time being, rather than insisting on carrying on with the 'complete cycle' of enriching their own uranium.

Iran has reason to be unafraid of any significant sanctions (economic or military) being passed against it at the UN with China and Russia on their side, but there's nothing to stop unilateral action by Israel/US/UK which seems to be increasingly likely if the tone of the current discourse isn't just sabre rattling. Maybe Iran is counting on the fact that a war (on whatever sacle) would almost certainly have serious implications for the world economy and thus is assuming it's all bluff. It's a very high stakes poker game that's being played here.

[Andy Hunt]

Maybe Iran is counting on the fact that a war (on whatever sacle) would almost certainly have serious implications for the world economy and thus is assuming it's all bluff. It's a very high stakes poker game that's being played here.

I think that military action against Iran would be a huge gamble. Who knows what weaponry they have - the Russians and Chinese have probably provided them with sufficient gear to cause major problems for their attackers, if not enough to actually win a war.

I also think that the Iranians are mad enough to hit back with everything they have, even in the event of a 'limited' military strike. Look at how they fought in the Iran/Iraq war. Their leadership has promised a "crushing" response to anyone attacking their nuclear facilities. They have repeatedly stated that they are prepared for such an eventuality.

I think that if there is an attack on Iran, it will precipitate the global energy crisis that Peak Oil would precipitate naturally, in any case. I don't think the world would ever recover from it.

[Totally_Baffled]

A. Because some day the oil will run out. Not just in Iran, but everywhere. It's rather foolish to ignore this fact, and prudent to diversify your energy sources.

Ahhhh , so there isnt a problem with Uranium resources then. Excellent.

Irans gas reserves at current consumption will last over 100 years according to BP.

If they kept all the gas for themselves then at current Iranian consumption there gas reserves would last tens of thousands of years!!

That means they forsee Uranium lasting even longer than that!

If there is a genuine issue with Uranium , then the Iranians wont half be kicking themselves! (why did we bother ! )

Iranian gas reserves are 970 tcf and consumption is 8.4bcf (FYI)

[Bandidoz]

Iranian gas reserves are 970 tcf and consumption is 8.4bcf (FYI)

If they are telling the truth...

[EmptyBee]

Ahhhh , so there isnt a problem with Uranium resources then. Excellent.

Not yet, no, because nuclear currently comprises a fairly small and slowly growing part of the energy market.

Irans gas reserves at current consumption will last over 100 years according to BP.

Note the caveat - at current rates of consumption- and that's probably overstated. Iranian fossil fuel energy could be in decline in a decade or two -oil has been plateauing for years (although it's hard to say what spare capacity has remained unused in that time).

If they kept all the gas for themselves then at current Iranian consumption there gas reserves would last tens of thousands of years!!

That means they forsee Uranium lasting even longer than that!

Not necessarily. Iran, and the Middle East as a whole has experienced massive population growth in recent years. If current population and energy use trends continue in the region while production remains static then the Iranians, the Saudis and all the other major producers will have barely enough energy to meet the needs of their own populations, let alone have resources left over for export - which is their mainstay of wealth creation currently.
It could be that the Iranians are simply looking at the long term and see nuclear as a strategically sound way of producing energy for their own consumption, while retaining as much fossil fuel energy as possible for ever more profitable exports.

If there is a genuine issue with Uranium , then the Iranians wont half be kicking themselves! (why did we bother ! )

Iranian gas reserves are 970 tcf and consumption is 8.4bcf (FYI)

Not as much as France, the US or the UK.

Anyway, what gives us the right to dictate the energy policy of another country? What actual evidence is there that Iran poses a threat regarding nuclear proliferation? Are western countries even abiding by the terms of the non-proliferation treaty? The last I heard we were planning on finding a replacement for Trident not decomissioning as the Non-Proflieration Treaty demands.

[EmptyBee]

Just to expand on the demographic problems within OPEC:

Extracted from Revisting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct, After All?

An Energy White Paper by Matthew R. Simmons, October 2000.

The implications of this explosive population growth creates an interesting future energy dilemma. Focus on just one of the OPEC countries as a classic illustration of some possible limits to future growth.

Saudi Arabia had only 6 million people in 1970. By 2000, their population grew to 22 million. 43% of Saudi Arabia's 22 million people are 14 years old or less. The country's fertility rate is 6.3 children per female. If these trends continue, Saudi will have 45 to 50 million people by the year 2030. If Saudi Arabia's population growth from 1970 to 2000 continues unabated, the country will have 80 million people by 2030. On the surface, these numbers sound impossible but they merely highlight how hard it is to gauge exponential rather than linear rates of growth.
...
If Saudi modernizes its economy to a level which the United States now enjoys, its increased electricity needs would propel its internal energy use from just over 2.1 millon BOE per day to over 12 millon BOE per day by 2030. If Saudi's 50 (to possibly 80) million people also want to drive, the oil consumption this implies makes it far-fetched to think that Saudi could also continue to be the rest of the world's swing oil producer too. I suspect the demographic numbers for Saudi Arabia would truly shock the authors of The Limits to Growth. But these numbers are real facts and the future they portend is profound from an energy perspective.

Saudi's demographics are not an exception to the rest of the OPEC countries. A careful analysis of the OPEC countries' population, their current electricity use (as a proxy for total energy use) and the age and "fertility" rate for each country portrays the possible energy squeeze the world could experience if the population of these countries continues to grow and eventually narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Exhibit 11 details this data

With the exception of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, every OPEC producer has far lower GDP per capita than any of the prosperous countries of the OECD. Many still have 25 to 50% of their population living below the poverty line. Their average electricity use per capita is only 15% to 20% of what the U.S. now enjoys.

All of these countries have a burgeoning population of people under 14 years old, and their senior citizens (those older than 65) make up only 2% to 5% of the population base. Many of the countries also have a current "fertitily rate" of 3 to 6 children per female.

What these numbers suggest is that some, or possibly all, OPEC producers might end up consuming all of the energy they now export, even if they vastly increase their respective energy supplies. Some of these countries will undoubtedly switch from being energy exporters to becoming energy importers, assuming some other countries end up with enough spare capacity to still be an energy exporter by 2030!

Is this OPEC scenario a mere fantasy or a "sky is falling" scare tactic? Only time will tell. But it must be highly unrealistic to assume that another 30-years could elapse with these struggling countries continuing to supply the rest of the world with precious energy whilst also being mired in poverty.

Never mind eh? If we bomb them enough they may stay in poverty for the time being.