This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: International Sanctions Inflicting Pain At Gas Pump, Stalling Energy Projects
Submitted by www.oilprice.com
International Sanctions Inflicting Pain At Gas Pump, Stalling Energy Projects
Although the Iranian government insists that countries like China and Russia can make up lost Western investment in the petroleum sector, rising gas prices and stalled energy projects are signs that the regime is beginning to buckle under international sanctions.
The United States, Canada and Australia, as well as the United Nations and the European Union, have stiffened financial penalties over the last several weeks against Iran for its nuclear program, which Tehran argues is meant for civilian uses like power generation and medical purposes.
In recent weeks, Tehran has begun to feel “a lot of pressure” on the gasoline front, said Houchang Hassan-Yari, a professor of international relations at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario. The government is now curbing from 100 liters to 60 liters (roughly 26.4 gallons to 15.9 gallons) the amount of subsidized gas consumers can buy each month, Hassan-Yari told OilPrice.com.
Iranian motorists must pay 100 tomans per liter of gas (less than 10 cents), “but if you purchase more than 60 liters, you have to pay 400 tomans per liter,” he noted. “And there is no clarity about the situation in the next two or three weeks to two months in terms of volume but also [in] the price.”
The increase has already begun to affect many aspects of Iranian life, including moving agricultural products to market, he said, citing the rising price of beef.
International players have targeted Iran’s energy sector, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, and other areas of the economy. The oil and gas industry, the lifeline of Iran’s economy, has been particularly hit. The country holds the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves and the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Iran, however, must still look overseas for refining capabilities.
As U.S. sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas industry took hold, firms like Lukoil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total and Reliance stopped selling gas supplies to Iran. The government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which needs Western technology to help modernize the energy sector, last March announced plans to seek a $200-billion investment in oil, gas and refinery industries over the next five years.
In another indication the energy sector is in trouble, the Revolutionary Guard has found it tough to drum up enough money to advance the so-called “peace pipeline,” which is meant to transport gas from southwest Iran to Pakistan and potentially India and Bangladesh, Hassan-Yari noted.
The South Pars gas field -- “arguably the most important” of Iranian gas undertakings – has not attracted Western investors either, added Alex Vatanka, a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. The government, however, has dismissed the impact of sanctions on its stalled South Pars activities and argued that it does not need foreign partners, Vatanka told OilPrice.com.
“The timing is more than just a coincidence,” he said of the South Pars decision. “I think sanctions had something to do with how the Iranians went around and announced they’re going to do it alone and at home.”
Since then, Iran declared an intention to offer the first tranche of a $3-billion dollar domestic bond issue to fund the development of the South Pars field and will later make an international bond offering of two billion euros, according to an Aug. 15 Agence-France Presse report.
Liquefied natural gas, overall, may be in trouble. The government’s recent decision to put on hold LNG development was probably not initially its intention, said Vatanka. Iran’s closest rival in the gas industry is Qatar, a country doing “fine on the LNG front because they have access to money, technology and so forth,” he said.
Although Iran was trying to catch up to Qatar, “suddenly they’re throwing the towel in and saying they’re going to . . . go with pipelines,” Vatanka said. “I think it’s a reaction to some squeezing of Iran on the sanctions front.”
Despite the many countries joining the pro-sanction camp, Iran is not completely alienated. Earlier in August, China said it will invest $40 billion in its ally’s oil and gas sector. Only days ago Venezuela announced plans to ship gas to Iran, and Russia may boost fuel shipments to the country as well. Turkey, also dependent on Iran for natural gas, plans to continue its relationship, while Sri Lanka said it would extend a
crude oil deal with the Islamic regime.
It will be “tough to measure” the actual pain of international sanctions without a clear picture of the long-term impact of major energy project delays, Vatanka continued. Giving up a “crucial technology” like LNG because Iran cannot tap into needed Western expertise is a key example, he said, noting that the fuel represents Iran’s future energy prospects.
How long Tehran can weather such external economic pressure is uncertain.
Ahmadinejad is already waging internal battles with the nation’s conservatives. Not only are certain factions within Iran’s parliament at odds with him over his economic policies, the regime’s powerful clerics are critical about his handling of social issues like an appropriate dress code for women, Hassan-Yari, the Canadian academic, said. Some members of parliament have also taken aim at the president for a foreign policy
deemed “too adventurous,” yet they have not specifically mentioned sanctions, Hassan-Yari said.
Eventually, Ahmadinejad’s opponents may exploit the international community’s financial punishment as justification for a “more imaginative economic policy” in Iran, said Vatanka. He added that the president would have to go if he fails to deliver on this front.
“It’s that’s kind of scenario that I can see,” he noted, “if this fight continues among the hardliners.
By. Fawzia Sheikh for Oilprice.com who offer detailed analysis on Oil, alternative Energy, Commodities, Investing and Geopolitics. Visit: http://www.oilprice.com
»
- 4470 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Now really! Who is going to trust an LNG tanker from Iran? Come on!
...said the same person who probably consumes toxic shit from China
douchay!
Obama isn't a socialist, he's an ARSONIST
+1
" the regime’s powerful clerics are critical about his handling of social issues like an appropriate dress code for women"
Obama, bad taste is all the reason you need to blow the shit hole to hell.
Given the fact that bombing the everloving shit out of everything in sight hasn't exactly made for great foreign policy in the last decade, I heartily disagree. Bombs haven't really solved a fucking thing as of late, though I'll freely admit that it probably has as much to do with the douchebags at the helm as it does with the self-defeating irrationality of warfare if humanity as a whole is supposed to be so goddamn smart.
Besides...there are some seriously hot women over there.
A minor quibble: we haven't really, really bombed the everloving shit out of anything lately. If we had, you can bet that while we might have some different enemies (seeing as we had bombed the shit out of the old ones), they might actually feel something called "fear." The whole "rather be feared than loved" thing.
At any rate, I'm not one much for warfare, especially with all the bullshit going on at home. When Americans are generally blase about troops dying in two wars that have been dragging on for years, something is seriously fucked up. However, if we're going to fight, let's get in, annihilate our enemies until they're all dead or have no more taste for battle, and get out. War isn't nice and precision and decorum are not the true goals. Winning is the true goal.
Agreed, if you're using the Hiroshima standard for damage. We fucked Iraq up pretty bad, though...no denying that. War really ought to be the measure of last resort, not some political football that gets tossed about on a lazy afternoon. I think that at least our current and former presidents are of a different opinion, though, and it's a shame, all around. What idiots.
"However, if we're going to fight, let's get in, annihilate our enemies until they're all dead or have no more taste for battle, and get out."
Always assuming of course that that does in fact "solve" your problem - and doesn't just create more and worse ones instead.
You know - that whole "Blowback" issue.
Your solutions are sounding a lot like the opinions of an armchair warrior.
Thanks for responding, but make sure you read the whole comment before doing so.
At any rate, I'm not one much for warfare, especially with all the bullshit going on at home.
Blowback is obviously a consideration when making the decision to wage war. That solidifies my point that if a country is going to battle, it had better be a battle and not a police action. I'm of the mind that war is justified in the interests of national defense, not in defense of national interests.
Is this piece meant as propaganda? See how bad we're hurting Iran, who says their nuclear projects are only intended for peace?
I don't get it, otherwise.
Do we have STUPID on our foreheads?.
Either way......the Old song, "CRY ME A RIVER",comes to mind.
If there was a way to move the good people of Iran out of the areas where these reactors, and subterfuges are built,under construction, there would not be a one left without a 200' deep crater left, tommorrow morning.
If it were left to me.
One thing I cannot stand is threats, from 4'-8" tin horn goat fking dicktakers, that never shuts his mouth, and threatens the worlds greatest (SO FAR) Military like we're dogs.
If we had a real leader, this shit would have been resolved months ago.
But, relatives don't bomb relatives.
Can't bear to leave a question unanswered.
Yes.
In thicky, thick marker-pen.
I bet my dictator could beat up your dictator!
That's why it isn't left to you.
The best sanction we can send them is our FRN's as they go to zero. I'm all in...
There are 999 posts on the hyperinflation post. Who will be 1,000?
MsCreant,
You caught it, take the honors.
Musta hit a nerve ya tink. I liked it.
Cramers ad is lame...
"I know it sounds crazy: Other people pay hundreds of dollars for this service, but I am so sure you will love it, I want you to see what’s in my charitable trust portfolio—and how I trade—"
Who the fuck paid him hundreds of dollars? The man is a clown.
I clicked on the ad, waited for it to pop-up, and closed it. This was simply so ZH could get paid and CNBC would get charged (albeit, not a huge charge, but a transfer of wealth non-the-less) I was fortunate not to have read whatever was in the ad.
However, to answer you question "Who the fuck paid him hundreds of dollars? The man is a clown." There is a sucker born everyday and I'm sure people have paid because I have met people who own his book. It's just the way of the world.
Every time you mention his name, he makes five bucks. I propose bombing the advertising industry.
" The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. "
Mark Twain
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
Mark Twain
A question out of curiosity.
What harm has IRAN done to the USA except retaliation fo installing a puppet regime under the Shah that was hugely unpopular ?
IRAN has not orchestrated any terrorist attack against this country.
There is not a single IRANIAN al-qaeda in Guantanamo. Very puzzling is the way this country views IRAN thro' someone else's prism.
Your real question: why should we come to the aid of other people?
What harm did Hitler do to America?
I think our intelligence network is sufficient to allow the U.S. to view Iran through our own prism.
I do not care about Hitler. Sh!t happened 68 years ago.
Who is going to help us ?? ! ?? Nobody.... We are done for.
Why are we messing with Iran? What harm have they done to us?
Why are we messing with Hitler? What harm has he done to us?
You asked a question. I gave an answer. If you don't get it, hopefully you will some day.
No. You didn't give an answer. Your "answer" was a "question".
Socratic Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
If you come to understand why we bothered with Hitler when he had done nothing to us, you will understand why we bother with Iran. Or North Korea. Or Venzuela. And so on. It is not useful to wait until someone kills you to begin wondering if they might be out to do you harm.
Um, yeah. But there is a not so subtle difference.
Hitler was hellbent on dominating Europe and USSR. He was taking agressive military action against those countries and killing millions of their citizens. Whereas I don't see Iran going gung-ho USA-style on it's neighbors - tanks, rockets and all.
So in essence during WW2 USA sorta helped the world get rid of a wanna-be dictator. Sorta, because they were pretty late to the game, waiting to see how the chips fall on the geomilitary map. Today they are bullying a country trying to find it's way that doesn't resort to militant action. I admit that not all is well in that country, but neither is everything well in US. Or any other country on the globe.
So a message to all those breathing righteous anger against Iran's domestic problems from the comfort of their debt-supported apartments/houses: get off your high horse and do something for a change to fix the shit in your fucking country. Then, and maybe then only, will you have a moral right to criticize someone else.
He (Hitler) was taking agressive military action against those countries and killing millions of their citizens.
And that is why I pointed to Hitler and the value of lessons learned. It is not useful to let circumstances get to the point described in this quote before we start to question whether someone might mean us harm. Better that we question intent well before any atrocities start. In an effort to head off any atrocities.
So you're basically saying that it is okay to chuck out of the window Presumption of Innocence. Good luck selling that line of BS. Minority Report is not a movie anymore, I guess.
And to stay on topic let's look closer at the details of the issue. You are stating that Iran, a much less developed country that does not have the means to produce nuclear wepons according to a number of agencies in US, poses a risk of possible future atrocties and harm to the US, which has the largest military power and budget than most countries in the world combined? You jest me, sir!
The detail of the issue is that King_of_simpletons proposed that the US is viewing Iran through somone else's prism. I countered that the U.S. is looking at Iran through it's own prism, for it's own reasons. Nowhere did I state that the U.S. is threatened by Iran. My reference to Hitler points out that the U.S. does come to the aid of those who are threatened by others, even when the U.S. itself is not threatened. And note that international diplomacy does not bother itself much with presumptions of innocence. It focuses on the presumtion of intentions.
Moonrajah, nothing in this last post of yours actually addresses any of the points I made to King_of_simpletons. You've put words in my mouth that I did not speak.
Diplomacy - yes. But sanctions and pre-military actions should rely on something more hard than presumptions of intentions, which at the end of the day is just someone's perspective of what is possibly going to happen. And perespectives can be wrong, unfounded, biased or just plain vanilla delusional. Case in point - Iraq and WMD.
So what did you mean by stating "It is not useful to let circumstances get to the point described in this quote before we start to question whether someone might mean us harm" in the previous post? Then again, it is all a matter of perspective - if you don't consider Israel the 51st state of USA, then maybe you are right and US is not threatened by Iran.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you come across as a person who believes that USA is entitled to be the world's policeman. And that's something I can't agree with. Not one country should have the right to decide the fate of others. Because then the whole geopolitical balance is skewed towards the interest of that one sovereign.
King_of_simpletons mentioned view or interpretations, he did not mention actions. I was responding to his comment. One collects information, and interprets it, so as to not be caught by surprise. How one acts on that information is a different subject. A study of history demonstrates that society is always skewed to the strongest of the bunch. That truth exists at a tribal level as well as a national/global level. Given that, the question then becomes who is going to be allowed to assume the position of strongest of the bunch? At the global level, where global war is possible, that is a relevant question.
There really is not much global debate about whether there should be a leader. The debate is over who that leader should be. The answer to that question is influenced by whether one is from the West or the East. Broad strokes I know, but space is limited.
Well, for the last couple of decades and until now there has been just one leader - USA. And look where it got us. The system was much better at checks and balances when there were at least two - the second being USSR. Now, I don't want a return of a cold war, but a system where there are two axis instead of one looks to be more balanced on the whole. It's a lesser of two evils, since neither party is free to do what it pleases.
Although I think a lot of people in the world would actually prefer that there were no global leaders at all due to that leader sticking his fingers into everybody's pies.
And to stay closer to the topic of the post we are talking about actions here - sanctions against Iran (which is okay if it is done by a collective body of different sovereigns like UN, although it could also be biased due to the clout of the global leader), but moving aircarriers and warships closer to the borders of a country are something different. This is action, and a hostile one at that.
In this thread posts you are trying not to touch the subject at hand and instead abstract it into something more palatable. And that makes it pointless.
The subject at hand was the claim that we view Iran through someone else's prism and that Iran has done us no harm so why are we paying attention to them. I touched that subject at hand directly with my response. What I have not touched, except obliquely, are your attempts to change the subject from the one I was responding to.
QED.
What harm has Iran done to the USA you ask. For starters they have said some nasty things about Israe'ls right to expand their territory and they've insulted Israeli leaders like Rahm Emanuel, Paulson, Natanyahooo, Bernanke, Geithner and the whole tribe. I can't remember which Israeli leader said it but, "Any attack on Miami Beach will be considered a direct attack on Israel!" Push comes to shove, Israel will fight to the last American.
Now that is classic... hilarious!
+++QUOTE OF THE WEEK+++
Sir, I salute you! That was fucking hilarious!
That would be funny if it was satire, but it is just too close to the truth for comfort.
King, thanks for your insightful questions. The talk here and the hateful trends we see in America are more than words. They are of the essence of killers. They are a rush to war against innocents. These words by ignorant and the selfish are as dangerous as if they carried the guns themselves. The rush to war reminds me of these words in J. Gilchrist Lawson’s “War!”
“Oh hear ye that foul and fiendish laughter/Ascending from the depths of hell!/In conclave plot for our disaster/The foulest of the demons fell,/The plot’s arranged-the work is done-/Hie they to their malicious fun:/They stir two nations into strife,/As we might stir two foolish curs;/And while they fight, the demons fife/And cast at them their leering slurs,/They send the evil of contention/To move the spirit of the just,/Nor suffer they the least suspension/Of this blood-thirst of mortal dust;/And often in an angel’s guise/They draw a veil o’er Christians’ eyes,/Nor suffer to desist.”
Except that we are not fighting Iran (militarily), probably won't be, and are joined by other nations in the sanctions levied against Iran - other nations who also are concerned about Iran's intentions.
Actually a lot of people are concerned about US and it's military clout which it is not shy to use. The problem is everybody is afraid to say no on their own to the big bully and his pack of brown-nosed shills.
"
"A question out of curiosity.
What harm has IRAN done to the USA except retaliation fo installing a puppet regime under the Shah that was hugely unpopular ?"
Isn' it enough already? I think it's called "lese majesty" in english. Which is no less that the idea of the mafiosi to not let any act of desobeyance go unpunished in order not to loose authority: and if this takes decades, no precedent can be allowed. Vendetta is a plate best served cold...
"IRAN has not orchestrated any terrorist attack against this country."
Oh, is it not in the Menu already? Never mind this can be arranged any time: be prudent, don't give funny ideas to "those-who-can"
"There is not a single IRANIAN al-qaeda in Guantanamo."
Right on the way sir: and for dessert? Any wishes?....
Just stop accepting dollars and euros for oil already and give the chinese an excuse to dump the bonds and crush the currency regime. Dollars are just swaps for gold and oil anyway. The US military wouldn't have enough fuel to enforce a embargo for long. First one to dump the fiat system wins.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
"Dollars are just swaps for gold and oil anyway. The US military wouldn't have enough fuel to enforce a embargo for long. First one to dump the fiat system wins."
No no no no no. Dollars are not just swaps for gold and oil. If that were true there would be no problem. You see gold and oil comes from multiple places. Dollars only come from one place. He who controls the supply controlls the swap spread. Therefor a simple value abstraction allows a lie to be perpetuated. Which is why every oil producing nation on the planet either already hates us or is rapidly developing said hatred. By converting a multi-source supply to a single source abstraction through much force.
Less than 10c per litre, (to less than 40c per litre if you fill up more than one car).
Man, those guys are *screwed* aren't they... - what a mess. Bloody towel-heads etc....
Dabama here....OK lets figure out how to save America.
Chorus of PPT actors---Sure what you got in mind boss?
Well I am thinking that drawing a line in the sand worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we draw a line on the SPX and defend it.
PTT hehe, we know hwo to defend it...we just make the hush hush call to Goldman, Morgan, and those newish guys, and they crank the futures...we just have to give them free money, that they can pump with, and they can also lend that money back to us to Support T-bills also. High five guys!!! We save the country, the market, and our debt all in one shot!!!!!
Dabama: OK good, so where should we draw that line....
PPT--deep thought............hey how about 1040, you know, like the tax form....yeah yeah,,,,,<round of high fives>
Dabama: great and easy to remember, OK code word for da pump boyz is 1040 taxes. Just call them and say hey did you file your 1040 tax form yet....it's perfect
High fives, high fives.
Charts at
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2010/08/dabama-here-defend-our-country-b...
As far as I know they have little to no way of refining their crude, maybe they should have invested in oil refineries instead of nuke plants ;-)
I believe that they one refinery (Esfahan), which produces +/- 50% of their gasoline.
"Someone" takes Esfahan out, and the Iranian military runs until their gas tanks go empty. Might take out railroad bridges in northern Iran, and no gasoline from Russia.
Certainly sounds like the Iranian government thinks long term and in the interest of their people don't it...LOL.
It is certainly a challenge, giving how lazy western culture has become, to break through the media sound bite of "a religion of peace". It is not. The religion of Muhammad is conquest and the imposition of Sharia Law upon it's new subjects, which will then redirect all revenue, wisdom, loyalty etc. to the top.
You see it everywhere a theocracy based on Islam is set up in the world. There is nothing "democratic" about it. It is the opposite actually.
It is nothing but the tyranny of a minority over the majority.
Of course lately, we don't have much room to talk ;-)
Beyond common sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11095267
Hmmm...apparently the aid was given "without preconditions" ;-)
These people (Taliban, AQ, My-Mood etc.) are the epitome of evil.
Maybe the left is waking up to that fact...no junks...amazing.
Back on Iran for a minute...I wonder why Zoroaster is not mentioned in the Quran. Could it be that Muhammad & the Arabs did not seek to pass down wisdom to Persia (Iran)...nawww, couldn't be suppression/oppression...LOL.
These fuckers have been hating us for generations, of course we have been sticking our noses in their business since we set up Israel.
Right or wrong, my attitude after 911 is screw this.. All this because we can't admit a mistake and send the Jews back home. Helen Thomas was right- I hope to see a Jewish Chanchellor soon.
We need a Ron Paul typ non-interventionist policy towards other nations. We don't have the means to bully the world anymore, especially because half the friggin people in this country are dependent on it.
Optimator...right on the money. Too funny, sad and true. Once people finally get it..it will be too late.
Two things trouble me about this article. One, I’m suspicious of its motive since it’s obviously too soon to tell if the sanctions have had any effect. And only factions who are interested in seeing the sanctions working would take this early position.
Secondly, this article is from a web site, oilprice.com, that earlier posted one of the most outrageous stories of the year--As the Middle East Peace Talks Hit Deadlock, Talk of Israel Joining the European Union Increases--written by the Energy Hedge Fund Syndicate after Italy’s crook, Silvio Berlusconi, masquerading as a prime minister on a visit to Israel, said that Israel should be admitted into the European Union.
While the world laughed, Berlusconi as one of Israel’s strongest supporters, was trying hard to make some of his pals in Israel feel good. But to think that Israel would want to be a part of the European Union and be subjected to restrictions or that anyone in the EU would want them is ridiculous. It would be like asking Israel to settle for being just another state within the United States.
Said the article:
“[I]f Turkey feels it belongs in the EU, then why not Israel, where a large portion of the population has direct ties to Europe.
“The knee-jerk reaction from much of the Arab world will most likely be to throw a temper-tantrum. There will likely be anti-Italian demonstrations, threats to boycott Italian goods (which will be short-lived given the Middle East’s attraction to pasta) and in the extreme case, some maniacs will attempt to carry out terrorist acts against Italy. But anyone with an ounce of logic should jump on the Italian bandwagon. Support the initiative.”
There are two sides to this issue and none in the middle. You either receive the Iranian viewpoint or the Jewish viewpoint. And I don’t care where this latest article came from, this is a Jewish viewpoint story. The sanctions have been in effect only a few weeks. And from all news accounts I’ve heard, it’s too early to say the sanctions are working. This story, based on little detail IMO, is just hoping they are having an impact.
The “world’s” actions are encouraging Iran to necessarily develop nuclear weapons. These sanctions, IMO, are likely to drive all the so-called moderates versus the clerics versus the professional class in Iran together into one solid front. The more Iran has been criticized for its nuclear ambitions, the more support its government gets.
Ahahaha! Is there still someone taking seriously the self proclaimed "best prime minister in history since 150 years"?
To be clear, don't underestimate him just because he's acting like a clown: to save himself he wouldn't think for a second to desenchain the third world war if he thinks it could suit him well.
That filthy chameleon can say to Nethanyau that it's time for Israel to join the EU and only few hours later he welcomes his personal friend Muhammar Gheddafi, tho whom he donated just one year ago 5 BILLIONS euro of italian taxpayer's money (they exist!), with all his caravane of over 30 horses and of course the gentle ladies of the coronel's own personal guard, this old best whoremonger in history since 150 years...
But beside this, I like him... :oD
If we really wanted to mess up Iran's economy maybe we could print up a large number of rials and send in a special team to inject them into the system, causing their money to become worthless.
But I guess we need Bernanke and his team here to deal with our crisis.
100 bucks says Iran, even under sanctions, will still outlast the US.
Any takers on my bet???????
So nice to see that our country's main ideological export, that everlasting and long-suffering game of "Fuck You," is still a hot commodity.
the bigest harm to Iran is the rascists in power like Ahmadinejad
The biggest threat to Iran are the Ziofacists hoping to turn the clock back to the 1960's when they controlled Iran and looted it for billions. The US and it's allies want to keep China and India from growing. Israel wants the billions in free oil they used to siphon off the Tipline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Israel_pipeline
It is outrageous that Israel, which has 600 nukes, and refuses to sign the NPT, is stirring up the world, and dragging their lap-dog US government, into thinking somehow that Iran should not be allowed to develop their country's infrastructure, that they need to be bombed back to the stone age, or at least back to the condition of Gaza. The Israelis are even bigger warmongers than the US, and that takes some doing. The EU and NATO are less than useless to stop this abuse. But the sanctions are going to produce the opposite effect intended (no reason for this administration to lose its perfect record): the more they try to isolate Iran, the more they will drive them into the arms of the Chinese and Russians.
I agree that Amhidinnerjacket leaves a lot to be desired as a leader, but there are lots of worse alternatives waiting in the wings if the sanctions succeed in toppling him. But the treatment of women, civil liberties, the rule of law, and religious freedom will not get better because of the sanctions, so I fail to see how they are relevant (unless it is about the oil, baby). As to whether Iran is really trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and they would be crazy not to be, is also pretty irrelevant. Who is to say one crazy 'world leader' (such as Obummer or Netanyahoo) 'deserves' to have as many nukes as he wants, and another crazy leader absolutely must not be allowed to have any? Seems to me the maximum peace is obtained when everyone is equally armed. I say we allow them all to have two stones each, and make each one spend some time understanding what it means to be a man.
deleted - duplicated
uh huh, massive global depression, financial weapons of mass destruction, pervasive evidence of illegal market manipulation - for the profit of a few and to the detriment of all defined and illustrated by chartered practioners, and nations.. yet this the US supports.
I'll take the US claiming to have an interest in supporting peace, or justice, or any of those quite pleasant things, with a pinch of salt.
The West has pushed Iran into China and India's sphere of influence. These two countries can consume every molecule of oil and gas that Iran can produce. Any problems due to Western sanctions will fade to zero once the new infrastructure that China and Russia are building comes on line. Better yet this new infrastructure will not use proprietary western hardware so maintaining it will not be effected by UN sanctions.
The Ziofacists will be crying a river of tears when they realize control of Iran has been lost forever.
If sanctions fail (with Russian complicity, how can they not?); if Iranian-raised armies in Yemen continue to seek to topple Yemeni and Saudi governments; if Iranian flights to Venezuela continue to stockpile weapons and infiltrators aimed at the US homeland; if Iranian-manufactured mines continue to kill US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; if Iranian agent provocateurs continue to destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan; if Iranian arms continue to flow through Syria to Hamas and Lebanon; if 'peaceful' Iranian nuclear development continues to move toward weaponization; if Iranian threats against our ALLY Israel continue toward realization,
Do you: A) Eliminate the problem in Iran for good and all;
B) Withdraw from everywhere and wait for under your front porch
for the next threat;
C) Tell nasty little hateful jokes about Jews and preen yourself on
your intellectual acuity and moral probity;
D) Dance.
Just asking.
Again you present us with your standard litany of bare-faced lies to promote aggressive war on behalf of Israel; a war that will result in the possible death of millions and the downfall of the US.
You even have the gall to present yourself as "American" and to speak of "our ALLY" Israel.
You, Sir, are living proof, if any was still necessary at this late stage, that the Israeli fifth column stationed in the US is a hostile foreign element and represent an immediate threat to national security.
You'd better register as a foreign agent ASAP, francismarion.
Shy, you are funny.
Israel has revived its military option against Iran - especially since Iran activated its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr on Aug. 21, thereby placing the Obama administration under enormous pressure.
On top of the dire predictions of catastrophe planted on various US op-ed pages, Obama this week sent two big guns to Jerusalem to try and check an Israel attack.
A guaranteed US nuclear umbrella, nuclear attack submarines for the IDF and NATO membership may be on offer.
Stings just a little, doesn't it, Shy?
If sanctions fail (with Russian complicity, how can they not?); if Iranian-raised armies in Yemen continue to seek to topple Yemeni and Saudi governments; if Iranian flights to Venezuela continue to stockpile weapons and infiltrators aimed at the US homeland; if Iranian-manufactured mines continue to kill US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; if Iranian agent provocateurs continue to destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan; if Iranian arms continue to flow through Syria to Hamas and Lebanon; if 'peaceful' Iranian nuclear development continues to move toward weaponization; if Iranian threats against our ALLY Israel continue toward realization,
Do you: A) Eliminate the problem in Iran for good and all;
B) Withdraw from everywhere and wait for under your front porch
for the next threat;
C) Tell nasty little hateful jokes about Jews and preen yourself on
your intellectual acuity and moral probity;
D) Dance.
Just asking.
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.welcome to my site!... cheap site hosting
windows web hosting
windows vps hosting
cheap hosting