On Iran, oil prices and how the Hajj f$#/ed Iran
After Iran had broken off the negotiations over its nuclear program and refused to ship some of its uranium supply to France, and other western countries, talk about the imminent attack have, once again, started to make the rounds. In his recent interview with the British Daily Telegraph , French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, expressed his deep concern ( as if ) over Israel. As you might know, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited his Russian colleague Vladimir " I can kill you with my bare hands, and I will if you don't STFU and do as I say " Putin to discuss the potential backing of Israeli war efforts against Iran. The Jerusalem Post reported that the conversation between the two tsars .... uh, i mean, prime minister was focused on the potential Russian arms backing of Iranian military. This is the short excerpt from the article in The Jerusalem Post:
Israel Radio reported that Netanyahu leased a private jet since he knew using an Israel Air Force jet would raise the suspicions of the Israeli media.
For the purpose, his office used a plane of the company Merhav, a company owned by Israeli mogul Yossi Miman, one of the shareholders of Channel 10 and EMG, an Egyptian company supplying gas to the Israel Electric Company. Miman was not directly involved in leasing the jet, as this was done through a company he owns.
The PMO and Merhav refused to divulge the cost of the flight. Israel Radio further reported that the plane took off from a terminal in Ben Gurion International Airport which is mostly out of use.
Israeli media outlets speculated on the secretive nature of Netanyahu's Russian visit. One reasoning was that Netanyahu tried to persuade Putin about not backing the Iranian military efforts with shipments of Russian weaponry to Iranian military. Some journalist even reported that Netanyahu had promised Putin, that the dispute over a defense shield in Eastern Europe will be resolved shortly, if Putin stays clear from providing any help to Iranian government. After the talks were over, president Barack Obama publicly announced that the project of an Eastern European defense shield will soon come to an end.
There was some speculation brewing over the potential pan-Arabist unification if Israel attacks Iran, and that the potential Arab block could easily halt any global recovery via implementation of oil exporting embargo, as was done in the 1970s by King Faisal ibn-Saud during the Arab-Israeli conflict. But there is no support for such a claim, quite the opposite is true. Today the Saudi Hajj minister Fouad al-Farsi told Iranian officials not to politicise, or in any other way, disrupt the Hajj. Here is the article in which this is mentioned
#2b2b2b;">JEDDAH - Saudi Hajj Minister Fouad al-Farsi told Iran not to politicise the hajj after Tehran leaders said Iranians could experience mistreatment during the annual pilgrimage, a report said Wednesday.
Iran "should not take advantage of the pilgrimage for political purposes and its own agenda," Farsi was quoted as saying in the Al-Watan newspaper report.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently warned that Saudi Arabia, a predominantly Sunni Muslim country, might abuse the mainly Shiite Muslim pilgrims from Iran during the hajj, which begins in November.
"If they impose restrictions on Iranian pilgrims... the Islamic Republic will take the appropriate measures," Ahmadinejad said Monday in a meeting with hajj officials, according to the official website for the Iranian presidency.
On Monday Khameini also raised the issue of alleged "insults and mistreatment against some Shiite Muslims," saying "the Saudi government must take action against such acts."
As a gravitational center of Islam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an important international player. As the largest oil producer on Earth, it also has a strong voice when it comes to global geo-political affairs. That said, it is impossible to consider that the Saudis and their allies will take sides with Iran. I would, if the circumstances were normal, never write about this, since we have seen similar situations, regarding Iran, in the past.
But given that the last peaceful solution has been rejected by Iranian officials, and that the sanctions which the international community is trying to put on Iran are not a pragmatic way to diminish the potential threat which would emerge with Irans development of a nuclear weapon, this circumstances, can in no way, be considered as normal. Hence the potential for, yet another, conflict in the Middle East is real. With the global economy on the path of recovery ( yes, yes, i also think that is BS, but the powers to be think otherwise ) the neighbouring Muslim nations will not take any part in this conflict if one emerges.
So, it is my belief that the serious disruption, in the global oil prices, will occur for several reasons. The current dollar policy conducted by the FED chairman Ben Bernanke has already influenced the rise in oil prices. Whether those price increases were due to the sectoral inflation, or because the traders were just hoarding into that specific commodity due to the belief that the recovery is on the way, is unimportant. What is important to know is that the stronger demand for oil will surely emerge IF the conflict arises, if for nothing else than for the demand which will be generated by both sides of that potential conflict. Also, if the FEDs dollar policy continues, and the dollar becomes weaker, a sudden surge of liquidity in oil will happen given that it is almost a standard belief that commodities are a good inflation hedge.
The situation in equities is, also, not bright and shiny, and many analyst, among them David Rosenberg, predict that the US indexes reached a top when the DOW passed the 10 k barrier. I do not recommend you any trade based on this, this is simply an outline of what might potentially happen if yet another conflict in the Middle East arises. But if history is any kind of a teacher ( and is usually the best one ), the best thing is to study the oil prices after the war in Afghanistan started, and ater Iraq was attacked.
Now, most of you know what happened to the oil prices, and where that lead us. Now multiply that by 10, and you will have a pretty good picture of the economy we will have IF, yet another time, a dark side of that what constitutes Humanity wins.
Thank you for reading.
(7 votes)
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:23
#113162
Good catch, Cheeky. Long time observer-first time poster on your post.
Also, don't forget recent approaches of Turkey's pro-Islamic AKP government towards Russia, Pakistan and, of course, to Iran.
What a great strategic partner! More to come in Middle >east, that's for sure.
Keep up the good work, CB.
Best,
A.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:35
#113344
Summary of article:
If there is an oil embargo the price of oil will increase and the recession will be worse.
Thanks for the insight Cheeky Bastard
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:08
#113390
uh, dude, actually no. I wrote the exact opposite of that. I said that the oil prices will go up simply because there will be SOME disruption in the transportation of oil, and many other things, and that there will be no oil embargo like in the 70s , because the Saudis are very militant toward Iran. I only mentioned Faisal' embargo as a historical reference, not as a historical similarity. Actually, the Saudis would love if Iran gets fucked by Israel, simply because the oil would go up, without any increase in production or anything else. there is app. 500 billion bbl of oil in on shore storage' and in off shore tankers waiting to be used one way or another. Also, more realistically is that the oil will go up amid FED monetary policy.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:36
#113470
I stand corrected: If there is a supply shock the price of oil will increase.
My apologies.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:09
#113641
look man, if you want to hear made up shit dressed in a pink dress and served to you just to make you feel happy i suggest you go watch CNBC .... OK ... not one thing you mentioned quoting pieces of the article is untrue, and it is not my problem you have some dislike of the truth .... again, if you want made up shit go watch CNBC ... don't pollute the comments section with your drivel ...
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:19
#113702
You're bullsh*t right now. Really truly you are.
This isn't about reading you or watching CNBC. It never has been and never will be. The comparison is off topic.
Nothing about my posts states that the factual evidence you presented is untrue. Its just boring. Its true. But useless. Honestly.
My comments aren't drivel. You are getting called out for wasting everyone's time and diluting the ZH brand, publishing facts that everyone already knows. Its a wake up call, Cheeky.
New information. I don't care how you get it.
Just don't bore me.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:40
#113716
CB,
don't forget to source your quotes;
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPY_dViJhkBpqRQGLlzyK...
This is a very important article, despite what others might think.
Another is this:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/130251/Saudis-will-let-Israel-bomb-I...
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:09
#113498
Agree that there will be no embargo, but I wouldn't want to be sailing any large tanker thru the stratz while Iran is on a rampage to shut it down. It would amount to a percieved embargo.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 19:23
#113574
I see how ZeroHedge Operates:
Dissent is censored.
I bring up an attention deserving point.
Cheeky Bastard's post has an economic utility equal to that of a domesticated feline.
The jist of his ramble is simply that given supply disruptions the price of oil would increase, hampering the global economic recovery.
It is long winded, yet short on non-public information and meaningful analysis and insight.
"Hence the potential for, yet another, conflict in the Middle East is real."
Really? Anybody who has been reading the news for the last five years understands that the situation in Iran is inherently unstable and this condition adds to volatility in the price.
"So, it is my belief that the serious disruption, in the global oil prices, will occur for several reasons.
The current dollar policy conducted by the FED chairman Ben Bernanke has already influenced the rise in oil prices."
The devaluation of the dollar has lead to increased prices in the oil market, yes, thank you Cheeky.
"Whether those price increases were due to the sectoral inflation, or because the traders were just hoarding into that specific commodity due to the belief that the recovery is on the way, is unimportant."
Sectoral Inflation--as in the global recession, the demand for oil in particular increased and thus drove the price up? Wtf mate?
"What is important to know is that the stronger demand for oil will surely emerge IF the conflict arises, if for nothing else than for the demand which will be generated by both sides of that potential conflict. Also, if the FEDs dollar policy continues, and the dollar becomes weaker, a sudden surge of liquidity in oil will happen given that it is almost a standard belief that commodities are a good inflation hedge."
Yes, this is a very basic, accurate outlook. Anyone would guess that a troop mobilization would increase demand for petrol.
Something of note and interest would be speculating that the long term effects of a price spike may lead countries such as America/China/India looking for economic substitutes causing lower demand and thus demand in the long term. Essentially, what Cheeky's analysis misses is that this price spike would drive people away from using imported oil. I.E. The Natural Gas Act of 2009 would gain immediate popular support.
If a war breaks out, demand for oil will rise. Ok, yes, good point, but anyone could have come up with that.
The fact that I was censored only outrages me.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:35
#113714
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment. As both you and Cheeky write better than my somewhat-less-than-funny style I can only encourage both of you to continue to contribute comments and works.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 19:39
#113582
I see how ZeroHedge Operates:
Dissent is censored.
I bring up an attention deserving point.
Cheeky Bastard's post has an economic utility equal to that of a domesticated feline.
The jist of his ramble is simply that given supply disruptions the price of oil would increase, hampering the global economic recovery.
It is long winded, yet short on non-public information and meaningful analysis and insight.
"Hence the potential for, yet another, conflict in the Middle East is real."
Really? Anybody who has been reading the news for the last five years understands that the situation in Iran is inherently unstable and this condition adds to volatility in the price.
"So, it is my belief that the serious disruption, in the global oil prices, will occur for several reasons.
The current dollar policy conducted by the FED chairman Ben Bernanke has already influenced the rise in oil prices."
The devaluation of the dollar has lead to increased prices in the oil market, yes, thank you Cheeky.
"Whether those price increases were due to the sectoral inflation, or because the traders were just hoarding into that specific commodity due to the belief that the recovery is on the way, is unimportant."
Sectoral Inflation--as in the global recession, the demand for oil in particular increased and thus drove the price up? Wtf mate?
"What is important to know is that the stronger demand for oil will surely emerge IF the conflict arises, if for nothing else than for the demand which will be generated by both sides of that potential conflict. Also, if the FEDs dollar policy continues, and the dollar becomes weaker, a sudden surge of liquidity in oil will happen given that it is almost a standard belief that commodities are a good inflation hedge."
Yes, this is a very basic, accurate outlook. Anyone would guess that a troop mobilization would increase demand for petrol.
Something of note and interest would be speculating that the long term effects of a price spike may lead countries such as America/China/India looking for economic substitutes causing lower demand and thus price in the long term. Essentially, what Cheeky's analysis misses is that this price spike would drive people away from using imported oil. I.E. The Natural Gas Act of 2009 would gain immediate popular support.
If a war breaks out, demand for oil will rise. Ok, yes, good point, but anyone could have come up with that.
The fact that I was censored only outrages me.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:24
#113602
Again, why am I being censored?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:01
#113636
I'm filing a motion of No Confidence in Zero Hedge/Cheeky Bastard. While everyone else was posting and being published I was silenced. I'm disgusted.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:03
#113638
you are not being censored, just stupid. create a nick and there will be no time delay between when you hit " save " and when you are able to see your comment .... no need to post the same thing 4 times ....
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:21
#113644
On a side note, besides censorship, it is interesting to think about the reflexivity of the whole idea, and additionally raises questions about how markets possibly work.
Yes, the surge in oil prices resulting from a conflict would draw additional investors and thus drive the prices up further, given that additional supply couldn't miraculously appear to quench the thirst for exposure/consumption. This would be the reaffirmation of the prevailing/underlying assumption.
This thought draws to mind the thought that the initial violent price movement upwards would in the long run limit/or use up some of the total price movement. As in the price movement has only so much to go, and a veracious price movement early on would serve to in the long run limit the total price move. As in the market serving as a information discovery mechanism, the initial movement signaling to participants that the commodity itself is economically expensive, and that a viable alternative/reduction in consumption is needed, limiting long term demand, thus affecting long term price.
A weird thought involving time, price movements and underlying macroeconomic fundamentals.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:05
#113687
Someone named anonymous is complaining.......How many times have we seen this?
Cheeky....don;t waste your breath on this ass clown
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 23:23
#113747
I agree with you that there is nothing particularly insightful in Cheeky's article. On the other hand, I agree with Cheeky that you are stupid.
on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:01
#113760
+1
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:40
#113178
CB,
I'm keeping my eye on Russia. Joe Biden's recent speech was very provocative from Russia's perspective. I believe the Russians will respond by increasing tension in the Persian Gulf.
I believe conflict is very close at hand.
I always wondered why oil was being stored on tankers at sea when the price of oil was low last fall. Start a conflict with Iran and have the Straits of Hormuz closed and the oil on those tankers will be worth a lot of money.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:49
#113194
Biden is full of shit. If Putin and Netanyahu had an agreement, Putin will not brake it. Say about him what you want, but the man keeps his words. Also, i think it is stored at sea for 2 reasons only
As I said, Netanyahu cleared most of the problems for Putin in Europe, and that is all the man ever wanted. Also, he is having his eye on Ukraine ( because of the economical problems ) and is basically treating it like it is his own little dance monkey. You will witness that in the winter months,when the question of gas pipes will, again, emerge as a central question, for both, the Ukraine and the EU ( especially Germany ).
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:11
#113228
Netanyahu may have cleared problems for Putin in Europe but the U.S. is trying to stir up trouble on Russia's periphery. Thus the provocative speech last week. Why is Obama stirring the pot? Russia knows that the U.S. needs their help on Iran. Poking Putin in the eye with your middle finger seems counter productive.
What's your take on Ukrainain election in January? I think Yushchenko gets the boot and Ukraine moves closer to Russia.
Thank you for your work
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:15
#113232
I really would like to give you my take on the whole Obama-Putin poking-in-the-eye thing, but i have no idea why Obama ( or better said his advisors ) are being such dubmfucks.
I agree, Yushchenko out, someone from the Russian side in. A natural political move, IMHO. Will ease the things on both Russia and the Ukraine. Thanks for commenting man.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:58
#113262
I thought Obama already made his deal with Putin on Iran implicit in Iran's political flailing ever since, which was compounded by BN's visit? My read for a month has been no attack as Russia has already been given the task of babysitting. It's just that the Mullahs don't want to look powerless. My Take ... No attack.
No way. No how !
Lot's of full tankers floating out there now...
some are owned by banks I here.
The Poland missle shield DOA was deal to which I referred.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 19:50
#113587
CB study history on the Russian empire and who overthrew the once mighty, free and great Russia. During the 1000 year Romanov reign it was a pretty awesome place so history says... Russia wasn't the always the whore/house mob run country that it is now. (Much like the US) You will find the your link directly to why BN and Putin are in cahoots...it is all a show
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:12
#113229
Right. An attack on Iran would raise crude prices dramatically - good for Russia. The said attack would also create vast logistical problems for U.S. forces in the region - good for Russia.
I also feel that Iran would openly sacrifice a few nuclear sites for the same reasons stated above. Chess originated in the region; I believe we are witnessing some master players at work.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:14
#113231
Interesting. Recent report from "Upstream":
Russia decides to not pay advance tariff as Ukraine hints at increases.
Looks like Russia-Euro gas could be headlines again this winter.
However, the election in Ukraine is Jan. 17, so I don't expect any problems before then. Russia is rumored to be supporting Timoshenko.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:40
#113179
Great article, you bastard. +5
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:41
#113182
Whether.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:43
#113189
Thank YOU for sharing your insight!
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:48
#113199
Most have forgotten that Muslim extremists took and held Mecca hostage on Nov 20th 1979 for a couple of weeks. The Saudi's had to call in the French Foreign Legion (based in Djibouti at the time) to clear them out. They had a simple method. Light tires on fire and roll them into the rooms they were barricaded in. Almost zero western media coverage by the way.
It is also widely believed that the Iranians were a part of it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 13:55
#113206
Thanks for the story. It would be interesting to see more stories that focus not just on commodities but on currency and other trading as a tool of strategic geo-policy. The financial markets are as much a tool of war as they are of "free market capitalism".
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:03
#113216
i agree ... i will do my best to cover the developments outside the US ( i mean Tyler and the gang have that pretty much covered ). I will focus on that in my future posts. Simply to give a, more, global view on the economy. I will prepare a story on joint arab currency proposed recently, and will keep you guys updated on the non-US developments.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:45
#113421
I would take Cheeky Bastard seriously if he used proper grammar and punctuation. The ADHD sentences don't help, either.
Clear and concise. What's so hard about that?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:15
#113456
will take ADHD over immaturity any day of the week.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:20
#113599
I agree. Too bad Cheeky isn't mature, either. The title of his post is:
"On Iran, oil prices and how the Hajj f$#/ed Iran"
You call this mature?
"Vladimir " I can kill you with my bare hands, and I will if you don't STFU and do as I say " Putin"
"Actually, the Saudis would love if Iran gets fucked by Israel"
"the conversation between the two tsars .... uh, i mean, prime minister was focused"
Do you think Cheeky is mature and my post isn't? He writes like a teenage boy.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:55
#113633
cheer up
it called humor
get some
money is not the most important thing in the world
neither are you
This was for free, and another one ... it really doesnt interest me what you have to say, if you cant say nothing of substance ...
good
good
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:15
#113698
dude, how about moving on to another article instead of trolling this one? We get it. Cheeky's thesis is obvious, he's immature, he needs help with spelling and grammar, blah, blah, blah.
Your criticism is monotonous and redundant. (Ironically, the same problem you had with Cheeky's comments).
I happen to think Cheeky's points are timely considering the direction oil has been trading the last few sessions. Basically, no other resource is more sensitive to geopolitical events and being reminded of that every so often doesn't warrant your negativity.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 19:24
#113575
+1 A pet peeve of mine too. We all have spell-check, yet spelling is worse than ever. On the other hand, Teddy Roosevelt tried to switch us over to phonetic spelling, but no, so I guess we have only "ourselves" to blame. And those weird French and Latin guys with their weird letter combinations.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 23:56
#113758
English is half French, half German. It's the French part that makes it sound so funny. Try: Push to flush.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:43
#113621
Hes a third grade economist. No meat.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 23:34
#113749
"What's so hard about that?". You tell me. By the way, you misplaced a comma after the word help in your sentence.
on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 15:03
#114405
Plus, "Clear and concise" is a fragment. By the way Mortimer, your commas were perfect.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:00
#113213
A complicated issue being played out on several levels. Does Obama "allow" the Israelies to fly over Iraq to bomb Iran?...or do the Israelies try and use Turkey? How can Turkey keep its' "props" with the Islamic world if it allows the IAF to use Turkish airspace? Can the IAF hit enough targets in Iran to eliminate the inevitable counterstrike?
Who the fuck knows. but I am glad I gotta little gold.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:00
#113214
Good article...I am surprised by the Hajj's comments but not Saudi's there is something MUCH deeper going on behind the scene's for that to go public...very revealing.
Everyone is certain about Saudi and the "anglo-banker" ties...that is now very evident to the masses during the Bush administration and they are still in disbelief that "this time is different" with Obama but we have all seen this before
Again there will be conflict but it won't be nuclear...to many assets in IRAN, Obama is stalling in afghan because they want to drag it out because they don't want to hit IRAN yet...they want to sit tight until it is time and any headway made will take away from a future build up...(which is coming)
Finally a spike in oil prices will provide perfect cover for the bankers when the "recovering" economy collapses and the bankers will again re write history of "the oil shock that collapsed the recovery" ...
Also Leon Ponetta (CIA DIRECTOR) just said there will be another "cyberspace Pearl Harbor"......this will be the move to control the internet and its contents...see the last quote published here on Oct 27...
http://blog.madhedgefundtrader.com/
The last guy to call an "Pearl Harbor" event in the US was Dick Cheney two years before 911.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html
Well probably all just coincidences...
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:10
#113451
Leon's roars have been spooking me a lot lately as well. It makes total sense. There is no way they can continue on this path without controlling the information flow. And just like the wars, the public will never approve of a bill unless there's some sudden attack.
PNAC was a lot more dicks than one. I see Chris Floyd did some contribution to your second link. He does interesting stuff and has brilliant style.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:28
#113648
The important thing is the saber rattling between Iran and Saudia. In event of combat operations, Saudia implies it will replace any Iranian shortfalls out of its incredible 'spare capacity'. This is important and can't be over- emphasised.
Saudia has the veto over any actions directed against Iran. The problem is that Saudia is caught between its ongoing and long running lies about its reserves and its perceived need to become the Arab hegemon in the gulf.
Good article Cheeky, don't let the Bastard(s) get you down.
steve
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:08
#113215
Persian Gulf would be blocked, oil prices thru the roof. But the Saudis would still be able to ship oil thru the Red Sea. Gives me the creeps. This is the last thing we need now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/images/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Infrastructue%20Persian%20Gulf%20(large)%20(2).gif
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:20
#113235
According to The Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials, who gave their tacit approval to Israel's use of the kingdom's airspace.
"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia," The Sunday Times quoted a diplomatic source as saying last week.
The report also quoted John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as saying that it would be "entirely logical" for Israeli warplanes to fly over Saudi Arabia en route to bombing nuclear targets in Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1097882.html
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:06
#113221
Thank you guys for all the additional sources of info. Will put them to use.
Its fucking nice to have commentators like you . Thanks again.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:06
#113224
Nice, finally a thought about oil and not a story about support levels. This post and your post about the European theater are a welcome relief to the stale dollar/gold fairytales.
Your time and effort are appreciated Cheeky, but you will never hear me say so.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:16
#113509
+1
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:15
#113233
god I love this site!
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:32
#113244
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160014.html
Cheeky , Nice job !
Please keep this topic going with the Israel / Russia/ Iran topic being white hot and our kids being hammered in Afghanistan ....this context is an imperative.
Also very tradeable intelligence.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:42
#113246
Imagine the economic kill shot of a dual rally in USD and oil.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:59
#113266
not an impossibility, but that would necessitate Ben Bernanke stop being a stupid fuck and starts to behave like a rational human being .... so .... not an impossibility, but highly unlikely .....
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 14:48
#113252
I've often wondered if Ahmadinejad is just plain loony or crazy like a fox. I suspect it is the later. The regime knows full well if they get their hands on the bomb, they will be untouchable. I personally don't think they have an intention of using the bomb for terrorists acts. Even the Iranians aren't that stupid. I'm just glad that W is no longer in the White House to handle this. The real wild card in the mix is the Israelis. Will they or won't they (i.e. attack Iran)? No offense, even if the Iranians get the bomb, this would be an extremely stupid act on their part.
Iran ultimately represents the southwest flank of the Russo-Chinese hegemony. Although the U.S. is in Afghanistan, our presence is temporary at best and is very dependent on the continued good will of the neighboring powers. I'm sure everyone is just happy we're keeping the Taliban occupied while they are off doing more important things like figuring out how dump the dollar and finally kick us out of central Asia when time is right.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:31
#113336
Iran and Russia have never agreed on a number of issues. This is the main reason Russia has not fully backed them in the UN, finished the reactor, sourced a credible anti-air missle systems...etc. Russia wants Iran accept Russia as the Kingpin in determining the path of future oil and gas pipelines in and out of both countries. Iran is betting it will be able to use China's need for energy to allow it ignore Russia's demands. Unfortunately for Iran, at this point in time it does not have a source of modern technology (weapons/exploration) it can depend on.
The US and Israel are both delusional if they believe they will be able to force Iran back into the 50's so it can be looted once more.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:20
#113313
So what's the best long oil play for the retail investor? I have not been impressed with the correlation between px/barrel and the "supposed" oil ETFs. Anything out there on a leveraged non-ETF play (i.e. - calls)? Thanks in advance.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:55
#113375
you should ask an oil trader or your financial advisor .... i cant give any comments or recommendation on investments ... i can just offer you my point of view, and the logic i use to link them all together. I can not, or what is more important, will not recommend or comment on any investment, nor give anyone an investment advice. That is up to you, and what you think, and how you employ the data which you collected.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:04
#113385
Thanks, Cheeky. I understand and agree with your position on the matter. That said, I'm not looking for "stock tips" (we all know what those can be worth). I'm looking for suggestions as to the right vehicle (preferably with leverage) to do my own dd on. As I said, I haven't been pleased with the correlation/value proposition between the oil ETFs and the movement in px/barrel of crude. Thanks again for your intel.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:21
#113315
Shutting off the gas in the winter is short-term a threat to the East European countries. Germany has storage for natural gas for a a month or so. Longer term the gas has to flow and the dollars in the opposite way.
While looking for natgas on the oildrum.com I found this:
VIENNA, Oct. 24 (Xinhua) -- The United States, Russia and France Saturday endorsed a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear development, but Iran said it needed until next week to respond.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/25/content_12319063.htm
Is that outdated or the opposite view??
Moreover Iran does not accept US$ for oil anymore.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_iran0110_05_02.asp
Any relationship to the tensions?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:29
#113333
basically thats old news. Iran said, thanks, but fuck you very much, and refused to take any further participation in the negotiations.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:22
#113317
Bravo Cheeky!
Keep it coming, please.
And, thank YOU for taking the time to share these fantastic insights.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:26
#113326
hmmm. didnt like article too scare mungering - "what if"
Threats to close oil supply routes have been with us for decades,along with conflicts in the Middle East.Yes if it happened oil would spike -however it wouldnt last long .Oil demand is down and will remain down for some time . Stocks are at all time highs , oil is on tankers because storage is full.Recent price strength in oil is due to the weakness of the dollar and the commodity bubble created by the bankers/hedge funds, oil is in steep contango-no one wants the physical stuff. With recent dollar rebound watch sell off of oil/commodities which have been hijacked by traders .A mild winter should see great pain for oil horders.
brn
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:27
#113329
Iran and Russia have never agreed on a number of issues. This is the main reason Russia has not fully backed them in the UN, finished the reactor, sourced a credible anti-air missle systems...etc. Russia wants Iran accept Russia as the Kingpin in determining the path of future oil and gas pipelines in and out of both countries. Iran is betting it will be able to use China's need for energy to allow it ignore Russia's demands. Unfortunately for Iran, at this point in time it does not have a source of modern technology (weapons/exploration) it can depend on.
The US and Israel are both delusional if they believe they will be able to force Iran back into the 50's so it can be looted once more.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:28
#113331
CB,
Geopolitics is what drives oil prices. That and the USD. Dollar rallied sharply today, oil fell further, and solar stocks got slaughtered (love them even more at these prices). Will Israel attack Iran? Nobody really knows but if they do, oil prices will soar past $200 a barrel in a matter of weeks, not months.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:34
#113342
thank you Leo, my point exactly. While the technical aspect of analysis is always a handy tool to seek the future movements in oil, and other commodities, i prefer the fundamental view which is dictated by geopolitical developments, as well as currency policies ( basically the $ policy ). I respect the view of those who put their money in oil based on TA, but, me personally,advocate the use of fundamental analysis and the studying of historical fundamental trends, and how they correlate with current events. Thanks for your comment Leo, its always nice to hear from you.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:17
#113458
Cheeky, excellent post. I'm really looking forward to your int'l missives. You're opening ZH readers eyes to to a wider world & provoking thoughtful comments.
As for TA, I use it all the time. That said, one's best trade is the combination of fundamentals & technicals. It gives one great conviction on a buy or sell. What's missing in our MSM is unbiased fundamental reporting & critical analysis. That's where you come in to help folks understand. Keep 'em comin'... Please!
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:18
#113459
geologicalpolitical developments
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:56
#113377
Looked at First Solar after hours today?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:15
#113411
OUCH, but I am not suprised given SunPower's release last week. I am more focused on Chinese solar players who I think will take market share from First Solar. The companies on my radar are Canadian Solar (CSIQ), Suntech (STP), Trina Solar (TSL), LDK Solar (LDK), Renesolar (SOL) and Yingli Green (YGE). But First Solar's results will hurt the sector tomorrow, no doubt about it. Having said this, looking at FSLR's chart, I would be buying it at $120 and especially at $100, if it goes that low. It is still the leader in the sector.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:49
#113482
"Will Israel attack Iran?"
Highly unlikely Leo.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160014.html
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:15
#113506
$200 / bbl.
Goldman's target price.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:37
#113348
Afghanistan: the source of the world's painkillers
America better start selling some of its technological advantages, because right now they are just being stolen!
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:42
#113352
Herd, i actually planned on writing about the central role Afghanistan represents in the future of oil trading and transportation of oil, but given today events with the Saudis i changed the main point of my post. But i will get to the issue of Afghanistan in one of my future post. Its something that needs to be put into perspective and be shown as not only a futile war, but in its true nature; as a central strategic point in the future of oil business.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:49
#113427
oil and opium pipes
this is an old piece
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071102_pipelineistan.html
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:54
#113367
not sure that a major conflict involving Iran is consistent with a weak USD, just the opposite I suspect
as for the impact on oil - 10x is reasonable if Iran starts the festivities however should they wait for Ben N. and Barack to fire first then Iran's ability to disrupt the Strait will be all but eliminated - yes oil will rise in that scenario but quickly settle back to a 2x premium.
for the House of Saud, a conflict between Iran and Israel may serve to embolden the Shia minority and if that were to take hold then all bets would be off (but not likely)
You neglected to mention that during all of this the PTB in DC would be sitting on their hands waiting for their McKinsey account rep to get back to them on the best course of action
edit: outstanding that you are now a full fledged contributor your comments are always a highlight - Zero has attracted quite a stable of talent +1
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:59
#113381
Anon, scroll up, and click on the haretz link, interesting stuff going on with the Israelis and the Saudis.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:22
#113400
makes sense, the Shia are their biggest internal threat and in the longer term, a nuclear Iran would shift the power from Riyadh to Tehran so it's pretty clear that Saudi would love to see them taken out
so questions arise:
does Ahmadinejad shoot first? IMO he has to otherwise he will have limited recourse and no matter what happens he'll be accused of shooting first anyway
does he target in addition to Israel parts of Saudi (easily blamed on Israel) for the reasons mentioned in the haretz link?
what is Ahmadinejad's/the clerics' end game? because doing nothing is not an option and we all know what "cooperation" vis a vis inspectors got Saddam
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:36
#113405
"so questions arise: does Ahmadinejad shoot first?"
No, Iran in not that crazy. My guess is that Israel would want to take the initiative, at a time of their own choosing. Black ops. A false flag operation can "justify" the attack.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:56
#113433
If there is a high level of certainty that Iran will be attacked by Israel/US would it not be logical for Iran to pre-empt such an attack and create the maximum disruption possible for Israel's allies by blocking the Strait. If they wait they lose that option.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:23
#113454
I don't think Iran wants a fight, not right now, and they probably can control the strait at will. Nor the current US administration, Brzezinski (the key geopolitician in charge) has already suggested denying Israel access to Iraqi airspace, the old man has balls. IMO Iran is several years away from nuclear capabilities, so I was hopping all the sable rattling by Israel was just for show, until I saw the MI6-Mossad leak and concluded that a Saudi deal is a very plausible scenario. I'm still trying to figure out why now since it would be a kill blow to Western economies.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:54
#113373
Good post Cheeky. You might also want to consider George Friedman's take. I find him to be a very strong analyst and he's been posting regularly on this affair. Here's the latest, but folks can go through a string of his free analysis on the site: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091026_russia_iran_and_biden_speech .
The work is good enough to have me considering paying for a full subscription.
In any event, there are a couple of things that strike me as interesting with the Iran situation:
1. It's a great catalyst for a massive dollar rally. Obviously, we've printed tons of money (and also destroyed quite a bit on paper while basically grinding velocity to a halt, but that's a different argument). This has gotten everyone in the world short dollars. Other countries are issuing debt in dollars, because they are sure it'll be paid back in worthless nothings. I don't think it's ever that simple, and I doin't think we go off the dollar without a fight FWIW. Drop some bombs and the world WILL run to the dollar and it will catch everyone scrambling for the exits and make at least a case for the dollar and the US still having some relevance.
2. Someone just mentioned the tankers filled with oil from the contango trade. My understanding is this has been going on enough that there is about as much product being stored as there has been in a long long time. This never made sense to me on a fundamental basis. I mean, I understand the arbitrage, but there is counterparty risk, so if you're a trader and you're filling up tankers because your customer is guessing oil should be $80/bbl, but the fundies suggest a much lower demand, you have to hope they're there with the checkbook wehn you deliver, right? This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm willing to entertain any education here. But, nonetheless, I think we're about as prepared as possible for somehting nasty in the gulf. Not saying it's a non-event, but we have about as much floating around as possible and that WILL come in handy if there's an issue. Cost will be much higher, but there will be supply, at least until the mines are cleared out.
FWIW, I'd love to see anyone bomb the living hell out of all the mullahs and oligarchs. But, that's just a personal matter on my part. I'm not going to say the US is any angel, but this is a medieval society with modern trappings. And even if it's for all the wrong reasons, they surely deserve to make their trip to 'paradise' sooner rather than later.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:57
#113379
I don't know what to make of this article, but it adds some interesting perspective to this discussion.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091005_two_leaks_and_deepening_iran_crisis
Supposedly, the British Sunday Times "leaked" the fact that "the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran's nuclear weapons program."
Based on this "outing" of their intelligence program, the article concludes/speculates the following:
"... And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.
Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.
It follows from this that ... the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future -- the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system."
Interesting implications, if this article is more right than wrong.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:34
#113530
I was posting while Anonymous directly above me was posting - so I didn't see his link until now. Two strangers, posting from the same source, but different articles, at the same time. What hath Cheeky wrot!! I got from my article this thought: if Israel can discover the names of the Russian scientists helping Iran (assuming they actually did), perhaps it is not far-fetched to think that Israel can disable Iran's nuclear program in ways other than fly-over bombing.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:37
#113413
This situation is unfortunately more of the same. Back in the 70's (and earlier) the US and USSR were supplying BOTH Iran and Iraq with various weapons. Even got them to fight each other from 1980-1988. Two Shia countries at each other's throats, a great balance as far as the Saudis (Sunni) were concerned.
Saddam tries to build a nuclear power plant in Osirak, it gets bombed flat in '81 or '82 as I recall. No getting onto alternate forms of power, no breaking the oil stranglehold of 90% of your economy.
Later good ol' Saddam Hussein sez he wants to get off of the dollar for oil pricing. Wrong answer! War ensues, and two Bushes try their best John Wayne impressions. The oil interests later figure they can suck out the oil directly and screw paying the Iraqi govt (and people). A great idea until chaos reigns when the flowers and candy were really IEDs and suicide bombers. Now the stability of Iraq vs Iran keeping each other in check (suppressed) goes out the window.
In March 2008 Iran announced it was going to start an oil bourse in order to trade oil in Euros and Roubles. Rhetoric starts getting ratcheted up, etc etc. Iran is developing on nuclear power, knowing that oil/NG supplies are not going to last forever and that they must sell as much oil/NG as possible and try to get their own disastrously bad economy moving. Iran also makes friends with China and wants to make pipelines to the East. More problems for the US: one country not living on its knees in a dying energy/economic paradigm; the other, considered a rival, making friends and gaining independence from western interests. All of these things must be stopped.
As for the Hajj, I don't doubt that a Shia would experience discrimination in Saudi Arabia. They've been arguing this for 1300 years. But it is minor noise, attempting to distract from the main issues.
References:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2076
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:48
#113424
Great article Cheeky Bastard. Only on ZH can you read an article that is not a load of controlled media bollocks!
I second the "I love ZH and its commentators.
Stay thirsty my friends.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 16:57
#113434
Iran can take a first strike. Then what will the West do?
This is something that must concern the Western powers.
Israel will then be dangling from it's own noose and they will have to eat the consequences of an angry Islam. Obviously the Zionist ambition of running every risk to become the regional gendarme can meet with failure-and it may be that the Zionist leaders are unable to flee to the land they bought overseas.
Then there is China. China would not be happy with a strike
on Iran. How can the Americans sideline China?
Lastly, it is very possible this is all a staged managed game for public consumption. One would be rather surprised if Iran had not purchased their atomic arsenal already.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:31
#113464
I doubt there will be bombing with the OIL @ above 50. We (Americans) are unwilling and are busy somewhere else. Israelis, well assuming they are freaked out about Iran and trigger happy, they are mostly good with their timing. Now what better timing for such an action than the double dip in the world wide economy or the recovery of the US economy? Israelis were delaying the Iranian bombing action at least since 2003. There is little reason for them to rush. Iranians won't be putting extra defense or nuclear effort anytime soon, because they are way too busy in containing the last summer riots.
When Israelis will go silent about the Iranian subject, then and only then I would expect some action.
Netanyahu is much more capable in strategy and government than "Omlet." , I doubt he will let the emotion to get better of him and repeat the recent Lebanon fiasco. (In the majority of Israeli public, everything but fast decisive victory is fiasco.) He also credited with restoring Israeli high tech economy after the 01 bust, and I doubt local economic considerations won't play a role in timing, given they are serious.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 17:33
#113468
CB - Ya having fun yet?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:28
#113522
Cheeky,
Your contribution to ZH is great!
Your perspective on issues I follow is informative.
I look forward for your updates.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:38
#113537
Of course, how much of this could be mitigated if we just drilled and developed our own resources? Why is the idea of energy independence such an anathama?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 18:50
#113547
I would expect the fact that no one can afford a war to be the real restraining factor in this. It's possible to what are called 'surgical strikes' might take place, but I'm not sure if any sane analyst could ignore the potential for escalation. Still, being very bearish and highly unlikely to be involved this, I'd welcome the development.
Also I'll agree that Iran is unlikely to get support from arabs, I assume you know but educating your average reader about the make up in area might not be a bad thing:
- Iran is not an arab nation, if you want to give those mixed groups a race, it's 'persian'
- Nor do they speak arabic (any dialect really) it's Farsi (assuming that's right spelling for it in english)
- And indeed, they are mostly Shiite, while pretty much everyone east or south of Iraq(yes, Iraq) is Sunni unless I rememeber absolutely wrong.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:34
#113614
And then there is this development:
Saudi Arabia on Wednesday decided to drop the widely used West Texas Intermediate oil contract as the benchmark for pricing its oil, dealing a serious blow to the New York Mercantile Exchange.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8cda145a-c3fe-11de-8de6-00144feab49a.html?ncli...
How does this fit into the discussion?
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:52
#113629
Interesting timing. US market is about 20% of Saudi exports, if the basis WTI-Saudi crude can get out of line by so much, it makes sense to de-link it from WTI. Their main markets are in the Far East, about 50%.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/OilExports.html
BTW, the East-West pipelines have good capacity in case the Persian Gulf is blocked by Iran. Price increase will compensate the fall in volume.
Major Ports
Saudi Arabia has three primary oil export terminals:
1)The Ras Tanura complex has approximately 6 million bbl/d capacity; and the world's largest offshore oil loading facility. It includes the 2.5-million bbl/d port at Ras Tanura. More than 75 percent of exports are loaded at Ras Tanura Facility.
2)The 3 to 3.6-million bbl/d Ras al-Ju'aymah facility on the Persian Gulf.
3)The Yanbu’ terminal on the Red Sea, from which most of the remaining quarter is exported, has loading capacity of approximately 4.5 million bbl/d crude and 2 million bbl/d for NGL and products. The facility is reportedly not used to full capacity.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:43
#113620
Excellent article, Cheeky! There are a lot of angles and nobody can figure them all out, which makes the whole situation fun!
I'll drop your article in full over at The Oil Drum.
As for the floating storage, there is about one week's US consumption afloat. Not enough to swing a market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=azZjM_PLNf0s
Forget the bombers; the Israelis would put commandos on the ground.
http://www.shimshon9.com/israeli-commando-visited-nuclear-reactor-iran/0...
http://kr8.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=31756
The real battle is in DC w/ Obama- McChrystal vs. the 'liberals' who want out of Afghanistan/Iraq. The US/Nato has a large buildup in the region adding all the 'assets' in both countries and offshore .. plus Israeli forces. Probably close to 250,000 US/Nato regular combat troops plus aircraft and vehicles. Don't forget the 'private armies' of contractors. Maybe 250,000 ... of which a large proportion are high- quality combat soldiers.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/p_vault/5A_august_3rd_qtr_2009.doc
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.troop.withdrawal/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2009/10/24/nato_allies_...
This is enough for an invasion of Iran and occupation. Forget Goldman- Sachs, this would be the biggest theft in history. Iraq/Iran and ??? Would an invasion 'wash'?
Whaddyu think? I suspect there are more US/Allied troops in theater than during the height of the Vietnam war in 1969. It's the 'secret buildup' that doesn't hit the media. 'Taking' Iran and Iraq's oil would both stifle the Chinese ambitions in the area, guarantee some 'notion' of fuel security and shift the 'white shoe' balance of power from the Shiites- driven militant factions toward the Sunnis and Saudi Arabia. The US and Europe would deplete the two countries in ten years or less and that would leave Saudia as the world's swing producer.
The 'attack' or raid or whatever it's called would require gas rationing in the US, but the curve of depletion will require rationing in a few years, anyway.
http://www.hedgeco.net/news/10/2009/logi-energy-determines-saudi-oil-pro...
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:51
#113628
So long ZH.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 20:57
#113634
If the military action is short and effective and also takes A-Jad out in the process, I think we would see oil drop back to the levels prior to any spike. You might be underestimating Israel's capabilities. Isn't everyone getting tired of A-Jad's crap? Won't he be isolated? Seems that he's the problem, not the Iranian people.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:51
#113729
I don't think being "tired of A-Jad's crap" is a suitable justification for yet another "preventative" war of aggression.
As a signer to the NPT, Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy.
According to US intelligence agencies and the IAEA, there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Not to mention that the last time Iran started a war with another country was in 1826, at the behest of British agents.
What "everyone" is tired of are the bloodthirsty, deranged fanatics in Washington, London and Tel Aviv and their morally bankrupt foreign policy of perpetual war. Orwell is rolling in his grave.
You and your fellow travelers--a veritable locust swarm of useful idiots, keyboard warriors and media bobble-heads-- are human excrement.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:52
#113673
Cheeky Bastard- just give me the truth brother. It is all I ask
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:53
#113674
Excellent site for all things Asia, Mid. East, etc.
http://atimes.com/
Keep up the good work Cheeky.
Regards.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 21:57
#113681
In my experience there is a pretty strong rally in anticipation of the advertised conflict to come (sort of like now); July 1990 $15.00 crude to $41 in Oct. 1990. The actual bombing started Jan 17 1991, and the high that night was around $ 35, every cargo was for sale. By the next morning the price was around 25 and it hit $17 over the next few days. For Iraq War, right after the Dec 2001 wrap up of the initial invasion of Afghanistan, Jan 2002 saw $15 crude. It rallied in anticipation to a high of $40, Feb 28 2003, with the war talk and was still around $35 on the Mar 20th invasion, before falling to $26 rapidly.
So to point out the obvious, crude is NOT at $15. Additionally this strike , IF carried out, would likely be without warning and complete very quickly.
Stockpiles of crude and products domestically are WAY over the 5 yr. avg at 1,822.7 million bbl.s., not to mention cargoes on the water and China SPR stockpiles this year.
By the time you woke up, the price of crude would be cratering.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:22
#113703
While I think of this issue all the time, I keep getiing back to one conclusion. Iran with or without nuclear is no threat to Israel. I ma sure people have heared a lot of Ahmadinajad reoteric,and it is kinda like make you think that he is going to wipe Israel off the map. But for anybody who digs deeper into Shi'at and Sunni(the two main branches of Islam),eventually realizes that enemy number one for Shiate(Iran's sect) are the Sunnis. So in fact if Iran is going to drop a nuke on somebody,it is going to be Saudi Arabia and not Israel. And yes,I am sure the Saudis will love it if Israel bombed the hell out of Iran(they were behind Saddam invading Iran),but I don't think Israel is so stupid to fall into the same trap that Saddam fell in. At any case,if things get to the point of attacking Iran militarily,then of course we could look at a prolonged and widened conflict in the area,high oil prices and no recoveries in the west. Instead,look for the exact opposite. Iran is only dragging to get the maximum bargain(they are traders after all). So look for the following:eventual agreement on the nuclear issue. In return,the west will give Iran1- its previous status as the Persian gulf policeman.2-The eventual establishments of the kingdom of Bahrain which will include the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia(populated by a majority of Shia)and might even extend into Kuwait and the Southern part of Iraq(all the oil rich areas).And u guys might ask,and how is that possible?my answer is look at Iraq. Wasn't Iran at odds with the US back in the nineties?yet all the negotiations and plans about Iraq that took place between Chalabi(where is he now) and Wolfowiz in the US,were transmitted to the Higer Council for the Islamic Revoution(an Iraqi exile group)based in Iran by Chalabi himself. And for anybody to think that they the US didn't have the Iranian implicit agreement on those negotition,dosn't know the structure of Shie'sm.Well,eventually that plan was put into action after a couple of years and under a different administration.
on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:43
#113720
Cheeky rocks. Nice job.
Post new comment