Fears Of Iran Nuclear Weaponizing Lead To Brent Break Out

Tyler Durden's picture

What is today's most underreported news of the day, and the reason Brent is breaking out, is that according to WaPo, IAEA is about to report that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear state: needless to say this is just the green light all of its enemies need to launch a pre-emptive strike (not to mention, GDP-boosting). Below is some must read commentary from Emad Mostaque of Religare Capital Markets on what this IAEA finding will mean for the region, for the world and for what really matters: capital markets.

The IAEA report on Iranian weaponization is due to come out earlier than expected on Nov 9th. We maintain our belief that this report is likely to state that Iran close to becoming a full nuclear power and we look at the near term implications in this note.

  • Nothing new: The report is unlikely to contain much new information, but rather to “connect-the-dots” in line with increasing US/Israeli influence over the IAEA. It is very difficult to prove weaponization absent a mushroom cloud.
  • Breaking out: We believe that Iran does not intend to create nuclear weapons but are looking to reach “breakout” potential to act as a deterrent. We believe this is 6-12 months away, shifting the balance of power significantly. Iran will continue with its program regardless of international sanctions or pressure.
  • Oil support, sanctions and attacks: Oil should get more support and take the Brent-WTI spread back toward $20 given the broken nature of that market. The first move may be to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, cutting oil exports and dividend repatriation (negative for MTN and the like). Russia and China will push back on this toward the end of the month, increasing the probability of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities late November/December, which we upgraded to 40% a month ago.

Full report:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Nice... Decoy time-out.

redpill's picture

This is ridiculous, Iran isn't going to nuke anyone even if they get a bomb.

qussl3's picture

Pretty sure they would shove a nuke up the zionists' butts if they could without fear of reprisal.

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

This is exactly why the election of a weak presidential candidate like Ron Paul would be disastrous for America's national security. We need STRONG leaders like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, who stand firmly behind Americas national defense and will put America first when it comes to dealing with the threat of terror from middle eastern countries. Freedom is rare, and many countries despise and envy our liberty in here the US. And it's not just up to politicians to look out for our safety - EVERY American needs to do their part to fight terrorism by staying alert and aware of suspicious activity at home.

Pladizow's picture

Should we report your outlandish sarcasm?

It may help the junkers!

whstlblwr's picture

Yes, This is exactly why peace loving candidate like Ron Paul is too dangerous to be elected. He will make sure that threats from war mongers are ignored which will lead us to quiver in fear at Iran who can’t make enough gasoline for own people. We will need to build up underground storage bunkers and buy more guns to protect self against scary terrorist who behind every lamp post. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who are status quo are safest choice to make sure build up of military industrial complex stays at peak and keeps us safe from our own dark shadows.

sqz's picture

Leading into US elections next year, we note that all of the main Republican candidates are in favour of military action on Iran, with the possible exception of Cain who may have confused it with China.

All right, I can't help it, I'm starting to like this analyst :)

SGS's picture

Funny how a country of 7.5 million can have the worlds 3rd largest stockpile of nuclear weapons but Iran cant even have one.

DosZap's picture


Not funny when that 7.5 is surrounded by a Billion plus BENT on your total annihilation.

Haven't seen Israel threatening to use them on anyone either.

Much less making a declaration of IRAN must be totally wiped off the planet.

How about you?.

whstlblwr's picture

Well rather than make it two billion bent on total annihilation why not be proactive for peace instead of war and shrink the haters. The motto that they hate for our freedom is false and everyone but ignorant who watch TV news know it.

Fukushima Sam's picture

Rose petals let us scatter
And fill the cup with red wine
The firmaments let us shatter
And come with a new design

-- Hafez

eisley79's picture

What does a country's population have to do with nuclear weapons?  The smaller you are, the more you need, if they are for defence....and the number will always be proportionate to the size of your enemy and enemies.


Otherwise cold wars become hot wars.  Israel has nukes, so that its enemies know if they ever try to kill all the israelis, the cities the left from to attack, will be glowing nuclear embers when they return.

Cathartes Aura's picture

and so, by your reasoning, Iran NEEDS to get nukes if it doesn't want its cities to "be glowing embers" from Israeli attacks?


JW n FL's picture




Uploaded by on Nov 6, 2011

Through a number of leaks and well-publicized war exercises, the Israeli government has dramatically increased its threats against Iran in the past days

According to a widely circulated if anonymous assessment (presumed to have come directly from high-ranking Israeli officials), the window of opportunity for striking the Iranian nuclear sites this year will close in a matter of weeks, with the coming of the winter.

much of this is clearly posturing, and Israel seems to be playing the bad cop in the American pressure campaign against Iran at the UN Security Council.

If Russia and China could be persuaded that the Israeli government is serious in its threats, they would theoretically become more amenable to tougher sanctions against Iran (something they have so far opposed).

The IAEA report is due to be released next week, and it is rumored to be harshly critical of the Iranian nuclear program. It could - backed up by the American allegations that Iran conspired to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington - serve as a basis for another round of sanctions.



Uploaded by on Nov 2, 2011

From: http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish

November 02, 2011 - Israel has test-fired a ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran, from the central Israeli Palmchamin base, Israeli radio said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, says if Israel decided to go ahead with a strike against Iran, the current political timing is in their favour.



Uploaded by on Nov 7, 2011

Iran's nuclear program leading to military action?

To see more go to http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpictures

Follow us on Facebook (http://goo.gl/YRw42) or Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/journeymanvod)

With the IAEA due to reveal the extent of Iran's nuclear capability this week, this archive report offers a sobering insight into the ambitions of an anti-Israel president and the growing threat they pose.

The UN is committed to a policy of sanctions to deal with Iran's nuclear projects, but as this report shows, little has been achieved since 2009."They already have the knowledge to build their own nuclear bomb. Now is the time for decisions", the director of Israeli military intelligence insists.

September 2009


Reptil's picture

“The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option,”

Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.

CTG_Sweden's picture


It should be more likely that Israel nukes Iran than that West does the same.


If the West does not nuke Iran themselves they will not get any major problem with parts of the public which may think that their leaders have gone too far. But if Israel does it they can´t blame their leaders for that.


Moreover, it would probably take a lot to revoke European and American free trade agreements with Israel. There are no Muslim owners of big media in the US and Europe. Instead, there are many big media that probably would say that nuking Iran as a preventive measure was legitimate. In the US there is also a voting bloc of Scofield-Bible style (the Scofield Bible represents a different theology compared to old-style Christianity like Catholicism or traditional Lutheran churchs) Christians which represents about 20 % of the electorate which for religious reasons may feel that nuking Iran is perfectly legitimate due to Esther 9:16. In Sweden, that voting bloc represents only about 2-3 % of the population. I once asked one member of a radical, Pentacostalist-style church if he thought that it would be legitimate to nuke Sweden if Sweden was ruled by a guy like Ahmed Rami or Einar Åberg. He said “yeah!”. Even if you and your family would get killed? “Yeah, we would go to heaven if that would happen!”.


But I assume that it would be better for the United States if Israel did not actually nuke Iran but rather maintained a permanent threat to nuke Iran for the next years to come so that the oil price would remain high and the oil market therefore would be able to absorb as much dollars as possible. If the EU makes the smartest move they can in order to solve the debt crisis, namely to require payment in euros for all imported oil and print money like the US, the US will need a higher oil price for the next years to come in order to boost the demand for USD. The EU can also print more with a high oil price, provided that the EU requires that oil should be paid in euros.


However, from a strategic, military point of view it seems to make more sense for Israel and its allies to nuke Pakistan. Let me quote a part of a reader comment I posted yesterday:


“[- - -] Even though I think that it is perhaps more likely that they will attack Pakistan rather than Iran since they already have nukes and since Pakistan would be caught by surprise and since it is less unlikely that domestic, capricious radicals will be able to seize nukes in Pakistan [- - -]”


But perhaps I´m wrong. Perhaps they think that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be enough to persuade Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapons voluntarily so that no capricious radicals can lay hands on them? But I don´t think that a strike on Iran would deter Islamic radicals from their nuclear ambitions. They probably feel that Allah will help them in some way. Even though I think that is about as unrealistic as the idea that they will get those 72 virgins each if they are martyred, I reckon that is how some Islamic radicals actually are reasoning. So it is perhaps “smarter” to force a moderate Pakistani government, which pose no threat to other countries but perhaps India, to give up the nukes than wait until some radicals seize them.


I also wonder why Iran should wish to develop nukes themselves. Why not buy them from North Korea or perhaps Pakistan? North Korea could certainly use, let say, $20 or $30 billion for a few nukes.


JW n FL's picture




Just becuase Joe is a "ZIONIST" doesnt make hmi a bad guy! he is just misunderstood, when he says things like that.. it could mean so many different things that are good for the working, production based people of America!


Shalom BITCHEZ!!

the tower's picture

They could have done severe damage to Israel with conventional weapons too, or biological/chemical weapons. It's all blabla.

When the Iranians have the bomb there will be a better balance between them, maybe peace will break out.


Russia will NOT accept any agression from Israel towards Iran:




earleflorida's picture

israel's netanyahu is starting to really piss off 'mossad' big time,... ? 

mick_richfield's picture

Funny how a country of 7.5 million can have the worlds 3rd largest stockpile of nuclear weapons


Is it still called a "stockpile" if the weapons are pre-deployed?

eisley79's picture

that's a valid comparison, if you lack all knowledge of history and politics! well done

nope-1004's picture

Obama..... strong?!

LMFAO.  Wimper, more like.  Did he end the wars?  Bring troops home?  End Wall Street corruption?  The guy is a loser - and a liar.



SeverinSlade's picture

I'm pretty sure his /sarc was on.

JohnG's picture

Oh, it is ALWAYS on with MDB.  Subtle....effective.

whstlblwr's picture

Are you kidding guy has no sense of irony or sarcasm. He's fool.

Bollixed's picture

His/her sarcasm strikes right at most people's hot buttons perfectly.

Million Dollar Bonehead knows what he/she is doing, alright. The fact that so many people junk MDB must be a source of pride, I'm guessing.

Are you kidding's picture

Why not?  Isn't it all a game?

Andy_Jackson_Jihad's picture

In that case let me turn off stupid:


Someone left that tag open.  Now we can get back to business without babysiting the n00bs.

bahaar's picture

He got Osama Bin Laden killed---the only person who had the temerity to attack American mainland, the person everyone else promised to 'get' alive or dead.

Long-John-Silver's picture

Really? The body is promptly dumped in the ocean and the team that (was reported to have) killed him is killed a few weeks later. There is no evidence available that Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in that operation.

Fukushima Sam's picture

Or that he was even alive since 2002 or so...

Arthur Borges's picture

If you google around, you'll find David Frost's interview of Mrs. Benazir Bhutto recorded shortly before her death, where she mentions that Bin Laden had already died.

And Mr. Frost glides gently into his next question as if he hadn't heard a thing.

Joaquin Juarez's picture


Only person to attack US mainland?  Oh, don't forget the British and that crazy Iranian used car salesman, pothead in Corpus Christi.

"On March 9, 1916, on the orders of Mexican revolutionary leader Francisco "Pancho" Villa, (Colonel) Francisco Beltrán, (Colonel) Candelario Cervantes, (General) Nicolás Fernández, (General) Pablo López and others led five hundred men in an attack against the town of Columbus, NM, which was garrisoned by a detachment of the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment.[1] Villa's army burned a part of the town and killed seven or eight soldiers and 10 residents before retreating back into Mexico."

Today, Columbus is without a police force, as they were arrested for smuggling guns to the Zetas.  Our soft underbelly is vulnerable to attack again.


FeralSerf's picture

Why is it that nobody seems to know that the British attacked the US mainland and burned Washington DC (not necessarily a bad thing)?  The London City bankers have done a marvelous job covering up this bit of history.  Americans' real enemies are there, not in the Middle East.   They lie, they cheat, they steal, and they kill.

Arthur Borges's picture

Actually, the troops were Canadian, not British. Known as the War of 1812, the only US battlefield victory came after the war was already over. It was the fifth war the US started and lost against Canada.

Relations have been better ever since.


earleflorida's picture

it's easier to start a war than being a house-maiden,... ask bush 

earleflorida's picture

exactly what has iran done that creates so much hatred for its so[u]le  sovereignty -

just another ruse by tptb to push up the margins and rape the world -

them arabs are mf's!

john39's picture

it is a threat to zionism, and therefore must be crushed, no matter the cost in terms of lives or money.  zionists are like locusts, they consume all without thought to consequences.

gina distrusts gov's picture

They are not behodin to the rothchildes or the imf also they dared to toss out a western installed dictator

Bollixed's picture

Yup, TPTB want to see Libya 2.0 with Iran.

ralphcore's picture


dare you to say that with a straight face!

: /

Abitdodgie's picture

Hey MDB who do you work for , we know you are a sock puppet, but who for .When you go home at night do you laugh at what you wrote or do you really belive it.One other thing do you never worry that when the revolution comes , and it is , do you ever think there may be a pice of rope with your name on it for treason.

JPM Hater001's picture


You continue to show your complete lack of understanding.

One bomb is not an offense against the world.  It's a defense against the aggressors.

Surprise...we are the aggressors.

Ron Paul is the only one pointing this out.

rgilliam37's picture

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is genuine. Talking of national security the greatest threat to our country is the debt. The Fed prints money like its toilet paper which is basically maintaining a decrepit economic system.

Iraq was and is a mistake.

Michael's picture

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't win a war against a tactic.

barkingbill's picture

god man you write your thoughts like you are the brainwashed posterchild of all that is wrong with israel and america. might makes right. my land right or wrong. war first think later. with militarization and war comes more losses to our freedom and needless death and destruction. iran is no threat. you are the threat. 

Monedas's picture

The whole Muslim world, in all it's raging impotence, couldn't break out of an Israeli foreskin ! There, I've said ! Monedas 2011 Unofficial Spokeshole for the Jewish Nation