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

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 05 Oct 2006, 13:00

Not sure what nuking would achieve.

However, Iran's oil facilities lie handily along the border to Iraq. Iran's military, economy etc. could probably be brought to a grinding halt if the oil facilities were seized by, say for sake of argument, the US.

Scary, but not outside the realms of possibility.

Post by **mikepepler** » 16 Oct 2006, 14:15

From the latest ASPO newsletter (item 754):

Lastly, to be cynical, if a threatened US attack on Iran should take place just before the mid-term elections to rally the nation to its President and his party, traders in the know could be talking down the price to make a killing when prices soar after the attack. Apparently, a naval task force led by the carrier Eisenhower is due to arrive off the Iranian coast by October 21st, suggesting that this might indeed be a golden moment to buy oil futures.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 16 Oct 2006, 15:58

mikepepler wrote:From the latest ASPO newsletter (item 754):
Lastly, to be cynical, if a threatened US attack on Iran should take place just before the mid-term elections to rally the nation to its President and his party, traders in the know could be talking down the price to make a killing when prices soar after the attack. Apparently, a naval task force led by the carrier Eisenhower is due to arrive off the Iranian coast by October 21st, suggesting that this might indeed be a golden moment to buy oil futures.

Yes - but to relieve an existing carrier group in the area perhaps?

The ships will head to the Mediterranean Sea and eventually will relieve the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier U-S-S Enterprise strike group. The Enterprise is in the Arabian Sea supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=5491098

Its just a thought - wouldnt want you to get your fingers burnt

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 16 Oct 2006, 16:11

mikepepler wrote:From the latest ASPO newsletter (item 754):
Lastly, to be cynical, if a threatened US attack on Iran should take place just before the mid-term elections to rally the nation to its President and his party, traders in the know could be talking down the price to make a killing when prices soar after the attack. Apparently, a naval task force led by the carrier Eisenhower is due to arrive off the Iranian coast by October 21st, suggesting that this might indeed be a golden moment to buy oil futures.

An attack on Iran would set up a completely unpredictable situation. It's completely within the parameter space to get a global "game over". A blocked strait of Hormuz and a sunken US fleet would lead to "out of gas" within hours. Panic "topping up the tank" will break the JIT logistics of the petrol stations, and then the loss of 30% of world production will do the rest. Those oil futures could end up worth nothing at all if there is no place to trade them.

Post by **mikepepler** » 16 Oct 2006, 17:16

Totally_Baffled wrote:
mikepepler wrote:From the latest ASPO newsletter (item 754):
Lastly, to be cynical, if a threatened US attack on Iran should take place just before the mid-term elections to rally the nation to its President and his party, traders in the know could be talking down the price to make a killing when prices soar after the attack. Apparently, a naval task force led by the carrier Eisenhower is due to arrive off the Iranian coast by October 21st, suggesting that this might indeed be a golden moment to buy oil futures.
Yes - but to relieve an existing carrier group in the area perhaps?

Just goes to show it depends how the news is presented I guess. From the same story:

The "Ike" last deployed in 2000. It entered a shipyard the following year for a mid-life refueling of two nuclear reactors and an overhaul.

Perhaps it went for an overhaul and refuel to get ready for the war!

(I don't actually believe that though!

)

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 16 Oct 2006, 17:34

Why is not contingency planning a part of society?

It IS .... easily available if you are a politician, civil servant, soldier, policeman etc.

However dear ordinary Mr or Mrs Smith, please DO feel free to get a good stock of goodies in.

Your local police station or council offices look forward to taking it off your hands for "the common good" you DIRTY HOARDER!

Your local Planning Officers are especially keen on chocolate truffles, so please get some of those in.

Also, please make your generator one of those nice electric start ones because your local VAT Inspector doesn't what to have to strain his arms when getting ready to watch football on the widescreen TV he confiscated for "social use".

And don't try to hide your ILLEGAL PREPARATIONS ... your unprepared neighbours will be only too ready to report your selfish behaviour to the authorities.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 16 Oct 2006, 18:55

It is interesting though - on the face of it, the US seems to have gone a little cold on the idea of more military adventures.

Of course I could be wrong, but if you had said to me 12 months ago what I thought the US would of done If North Korea had successfully tested a nuclear weapon , I would of said the yanks would of flattened the place!!!

The same seems to be the case with Iran. OK, Iran has oil - but this seems irrelevant now, as the Iraq adventure has shown that war would mean no oil anyway.

It which case you could argue that Iran and North Korea are now similiar stalemates. Iranian oil may of meant the US taking a risk - but post Iraq , I think they're out of ideas.

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 16 Oct 2006, 20:38

Interesting interview with Scott Ritter today on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... /16/144204

He doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 16 Oct 2006, 21:38

EmptyBee wrote:Interesting interview with Scott Ritter today on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... /16/144204

He doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Is this the same guy that predicted this ?

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2005/02 ... -june.html

He has as much clue as anyone else what is going on regarding US policy and Iran.

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia?s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq...

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 16 Oct 2006, 22:16

And just what has happened to the elusive "Iranian Oil Bourse"?

GD · Post by GD » 16 Oct 2006, 22:34

[Edit - this is in reply to TB]

Just cos it got signed doesn't mean it was inevitable... Ritter did raise awareness of the fact the US has been making recon missions in Iran air space - an act of war, to which the Iranians would be within their right to shoot the americans down. The reason they never was to give some sotr of "legitimacy" to an invasion.

Anyway, some more fuel to the fire:

Michael T. Klare: Beware Empires in Decline

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 17 Oct 2006, 07:48

GD wrote:[Edit - this is in reply to TB]

Just cos it got signed doesn't mean it was inevitable...

Well in that case, what makes his predictions in his recent interview in "Democracy Today" inevitable? (as per empty bee's link)

Or do all doomsday predictions about what the US is planning with Iran come with caveats?

The bloke is just guessing...

Who would of thought that the US would of tolerated a nuclear NK? Similiar predictions of war were made but have not come about.

GD · Post by GD » 17 Oct 2006, 09:25

Totally_Baffled wrote:Well in that case, what makes his predictions in his recent interview in "Democracy Today" inevitable? (as per empty bee's link)

Nothing.

Totally_Baffled wrote:Or do all doomsday predictions about what the US is planning with Iran come with caveats?

Perhaps they ought to!

Totally_Baffled wrote:The bloke is just guessing...

I would say he's doing more than that. With his history he's probably got decent contacts inside. That's not to say that what comes from the grapevine is what ends up as policy exactly.

Here's some more speculation to play with:

Chomsky wrote:In Iran, which is the big one, if you look at it, the oil of the region (that?s where most of the hydrocarbons in the world are) they are right around the gulf, the Shiite sections of Iraq, the Shiite sections of Saudi Arabia and an Arab?not Persian?region of Iran, Khuzestan, right near the Gulf, it happens to be Arab. There is talk floating around Europe (you know it?s probably planted by the CIA) of an Ahwazi Liberation Movement for this region. A feasible, I don?t know if it?s feasible or not, but I think the kind of thought that would be occurring to the Pentagon planners is to sponsor a liberation movement, so-called, in the area near the Gulf then move in to defend it. They?ve got 150,000 troops in Iraq; presumably, you might try that, and then bomb the rest of the country back to the Stone Age. It?s conceivable, I mean, I wouldn?t be surprised if those are the kinds of plans that are being toyed with.

That's not to say it's what would happen exactly (though I thought it wasa coincidence it was mentioned on newsnight yesterday - splitting Iraq up - not the bit about "bombing the rest of the country back to the Stone Age")

Totally_Baffled wrote:Who would of thought that the US would of tolerated a nuclear NK? Similiar predictions of war were made but have not come about.

Sure. It has to be said though that the rhetoric was toned down somewhat AFTER it was known about the NK bomb.

EmptyBee · Post by **EmptyBee** » 17 Oct 2006, 10:13

I agree, I don't think Scott Ritter is guessing at all, I expect he does have insider sources that are the basis for any predictions. Notice he never actually came out and said the US would bomb Iran at particular time, he only stated that US forces had been put into a state of readiness. That bombing didn't happen was probably a political rather than a strategic decision. It sounds like there's still a core of nut-cases who want a war.

Also, as has been speculated in this thread, there remains the question of what extent the US is willing or able to commit itself militarily. It does sound like ground troops are out of the question, so it's hard to see what they expect to achieve with only a few rag-tag dissident groups on the ground sympathetic to the US. Aerial bombardment alone does not pose a credible threat to the survival of the Iranian regime, and if it's regime change they want, rather than a halt to their nuclear program, then any such limited attack would probably be a waste of time if it ended there. What we might see (as I think Gardiner suggests) is a strike that starts an escalation in hostilities.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 17 Oct 2006, 12:21

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6057740.stm

One is the phased withdrawal of US troops - the other is to invite Syria and Iran to come into Iraq to help stop the fighting.

As for working with Syria and Iran, that would be a radical move for President Bush, he says, but coming from James Baker, a close friend of the Bush family, it may be acceptable.

So let me guess this straight - the Bush administration fears heavy losses in the November elections due to the quagmire in Iraq.

So to resolve this they intend to ask for Iranian and Syrian help to stop the fighting, whilst at the same time bombing the shit of Iran (as per Scott Ritters guesstimates)

Hmmmm.....Either the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing , or Scott Ritter is just guessing!!