LA Times - Breaking News - Showdown between USA and Iran

[truedelphi]

Strait of Hormuz: Threats exchanged, U.S. carrier tracked

Iran and the U.S. continued to trade words Thursday over an Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Meanwhile, Iran said it had tracked a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
Full article is at:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/12/strait-of-hormuz-threats-iran-united-states.html

Strait of Hormuz: Threats exchanged, U.S. carrier tracked
The action by an Iranian surveillance plane showed that Iran had "control" over moves by foreign forces in the region, the Associated Press quoted from an official Islamic Republic News Agency report.

Tehran is currently holding a 10-day military exercise in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, Iran's top naval commander expounded on the issue of control to the nation's English-language Press TV. Habibollah Sayyari said Iran could close the strait but did not need to do so at this time because "we have the Sea of Oman under control, and we can control the transit." Chief Pentagon spokesman George Little said Wednesday that any interference by Iran in the strait would "not be tolerated," stressing that the region was "an economic lifeline for countries in the gulf."

Thursday morning, Iranian officials struck back. Their basic message: You can't tell us what to do.

[Enrique]

1. GOP candidates announce: Obama's handling this wrong

we don't know how he's handling it yet, but when we find out we will tell you how very wrong it is.

[SpiralHawk]

24. Republicons occultly dispatch Sen. David Vitter (R) to the Sea of Onan

to lecture the Muslin heathens on Republicon Family Diaper Defense Values.

[PurityOfEssence]

111. No problem: the administration is doing this correctly

Fer, agin, whatever; they're on your side.

No issue is too big for them to not be on both sides, unless it's possible to avoid any stance.

Sure, the reactionaries will hate anything he does, but measuring policy by the yardstick of feudalists shows nothing.

At least ideologues believe in things, regardless of how skew these things may be to reality. What--if anything--our President believes in is an open point of debate, but his willingness to fluff things to the last moment is rather consistent. Hey, it's nice to have some consistency now and then...

[EC]

2. You know what?

I'm not worried with Obama and Clinton in charge.

[earthside]

5. I am.

It's an election year.

[chervilant]

49. Why worry?

The whole thing comes to a screeching halt on 12/21/12, donchaknow?

[ixion]

6. lol... amazing.

Absolutely amazing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. I am since the Iranians are so unstable.

I does not matter who is the President or the majority in the House and Senate, the US is the Great Satan to current Iranian leadership.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. There's a 'sarcasm' tag missing from the post you are responding to. ;)

[SkyDaddy7]

39. I totally agree!

No sarcasm tag.

[ronnie624]

61. The Iranians are unstable?

The U.S., on a regular basis, has slaughtered millions in other countries, while the Iranians haven't started a war in centuries, but they are unstable.

Professor indeed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Perhaps if you actually looked at what Iran has done under the mullahs, you would have

a better informed opinion.

[ronnie624]

78. It isn't my opinion.

The U.S. has slaughtered millions in aggressive war against other countries, while Iran has not. Those are indisputable facts of history, 'professor'. Whatever Iranian political leaders have done in their own country, it is strictly the business of the Iranian people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. So you support the stoning of gays just for being gay, killing of women for disobeying husbands,

and honor killings since they are all internal to Iran. Nice to have a clear statement of where you standing on international human rights.

[ronnie624]

89. You make a "statement" and attribute it to me?

That's wierd.

Our government has killed far more poeple than the Iranian government, so according to your 'logic', you would surely support attacks against the U.S. in retribution.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Per your own words...

"Whatever Iranian political leaders have done in their own country, it is strictly the business of the Iranian people. "

And that was a partial list of the atrocities they are committing...but then again its no ones business outside of Iran according to your own words.

[ronnie624]

95. I support the right of other countries to be free from U.S. aggression,

no matter how it is rationalized by 'professors' and war mongers.

Of course the belligerence against Iran is about control of energy resources, not honor killings. I wonder how many Iranians will support the impending U.S. aggression against their country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. As am I

The presence of a carrier in international waters is not aggression, though can be one helluva threat. If it has been assuring Iran's irrationality is restricted to words and not deeds, I would count that a good thing.

The real restraint on Iran here is China. It is also a restraint on action against Iran. My take is that this is just another temper tantrum for internal consumption and nothing substantive will happen. If the mullahs do not provide bread and circuses, the Iranian people will rise up.

[ronnie624]

98. It's the U.S., not Iran, that has its military spread all over the world.

If a powerful nation invaded Canada and Mexico, and began ringing the U.S. with military bases, while simultaneously conducting naval exercises off its coast, its pretty easy to predict the reaction from the U.S.

You aren't dealing with reality.

[cpwm17]

124. Thank you for your comments

It's amazing how little self awareness most Americans have about our own foreign policy and war making. Iran isn't a threat. It's not in their recent history. The US is a big threat to many countries in the World, including Iran. Iran knows firsthand how much harm the US can do. They've already suffered greatly from our behavior. We've already overthrown their democracy and help murder hundreds of thousands of their citizens over the last 60 years.

Currently the US is conducting terrorist attacks against their citizens. The US has had unprovoked sanctions against Iran for decades, and now are working to install crippling sanctions against their economy. War-mongers couldn't care less how badly Iranian women are hurt by these sanctions.

The war mongers just have to start talking about treatment of women to get many Americans in line for their unprovoked wars of aggression. Thousands of women die in these wars, and many more are left homeless. But you know what: war-mongers couldn't care less.

[bahrbearian]

121. We have conquering armies that Ill-legally Occupy 2/3rd of Irans Borders no aggression there ?

[bitchkitty]

103. +1

[Ezlivin]

3. Why don't we just switch to domestic oil for our needs?

Because that's a fucking lie put out by the oil companies to allow them license to drill anywhere, anytime, regardless of the sociopolitical or environmental consequences.

Even if every well in the USA was producing oil and gas, we consume too much to subsist solely upon domestic sources.

Our asses are over a barrel. Iran knows this.

[tawadi]

43. Because we are selling it to China?

[truth2power]

53. There is no domestic oil as such. All oil, no matter where it's drilled, is sold on the world market

[BeHereNow]

90. Thank you! So many have failed to grasp that fact.

We provide subsidy money to US based multi national companies
for oil exploration and such, who then sell it to the highest bidder
on the global market.
Americans are clueless about these matters.
BHN

[wordpix]

122. +1 so true

[dixiegrrrrl]

128. Bingo!

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Seems like Iran is picking this fight....

[ixion]

7. Whose carrier is in their territory?

If the roles were reversed, you might have something. Otherwise, not so much.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Who's threating to shut down international trade? And I know of no carrier in....

...." their territory" but I'm sure ours are heading towards international waters or the waters of our allies.

[ixion]

16. heh... 'ours' go wherever they want and do whatever they want.

That is the source of this problem.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. Oh ok...

[cleanhippie]

57. Actually, they don't

They stay in International waters at all times unless authorized to come closer by the host country.

[ixion]

58. lol... yeah, right.

Got a bridge to sell you, if you believe that. They may not go full force, but they go.

[cleanhippie]

63. After spending the last 21 years on US Navy ships, my experience says that you have no idea what

you are talking about.


Come talk to me when your Sea Counter starts accumulating. Until then, try and refrain from displaying your ignorance on subjects you know nothing about.

[ixion]

68. history is on my side of this debate

not yours.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. No it is not, but ignorance clearly is

There is a well defined process for clear transit. It is posted elsewhere in this thread.

The US can clearly be an international bully, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Iran will attempt to block international waters.

[ixion]

72. I'm not disputing there is a well-defined process.

I'm saying that the US military has made it quite clear that they'll use whatever means they see fit to accomplish their goal. Are you saying this is false?

[cleanhippie]

79. You stated that "they go where ever they want." That is a 100% false statement.

They stay in International waters.

[ixion]

85. Well, it's not actually.

But nice try.

[cleanhippie]

93. Well, it is, actually. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of your assertions.

It should be strong enough to disprove mine, which includes 21 years of Naval Service, 9.7 years of which were days UNDERWAY at sea, and qualifications out the wazoo which included...


You know what, on second thought, you just go on thinking you know what you are talking about. You seem to really enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

Good night, and good luck.

[Knight Hawk]

107. Ok

Cant speak for the US Navy but as a Vietnam combat vet(First Cav,central highlands)machinegunner, I can guarantee you the US Army does all sorts of marginal stuff.And I was a gung ho rightwinger at the time.

[cleanhippie]

77. Sure it is, if you are making it up as you go along.

You really should just stop while you are behind, and before you make a complete jackass of yourself.

[ixion]

82. lol...

yeah, right. Your premise: That the US military always 'follows the rules' is easily debunked.

Noam Chomsky agrees with me on this, so I feel in good company.

[cleanhippie]

88. *facepalm*

Good night, and good luck.

[Joe the Revelator]

102. Citing Chomsky is clear proof you have no idea what you're talking about...

Enjoy the rest of your winter break.

[ixion]

116. How so? Given that he concurs.

Or do you disagree with his premise: that the US is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. What utter nonsense

Our carrier is in international watersYes its in the Gulf, but it is not in Iranian territory

[AtheistCrusader]

30. If that new Chinese aircraft carrier was parked in international waters outside puget sound

you can bet we'd be making noises about it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. We would not be talking about sinking ships in international waters

Note that ship is no where near equivalent to a US carrier.

[ixion]

76. Again, your only issue is with the type of response

(the equivalent of crying 'not fair') despite the fact that our response would be proportionate.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. Our response would be within the international diplomatic and legal framework

It would not include sink ships in international waters, mining international waters, or otherwise impeding traffic in international waters.

[ixion]

86. Yeah, maybe it would be like when we bombed Cambodia and Laos

Or when we extra-judicially assassinate people abroad, or when we 'infinitely detain' people without charge, or when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or when we performed atomic testing on people in the Bikini Atolls, or when we illegally invaded Iraq, or when we fly drones over Pakistan and Yemen, or when a US military spy plane crashes inside Chinese air space, and on and on.

Historically, the US military does whatever they want if they feel it will accomplish some particular goal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. Actually it is the will of the US Civilian Government being implemented by the military.

The EP-3 crash being the obvious exception in your list.

Please note the President Obama is actively directing the concerns you raise that are ongoing.

[ixion]

118. Yes, as CiC, that stands to reason.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

[solarman350]

99. How About When the U.S. Staged the Gulf of Tonkin Incident or Mined Haiphong Harbor

or how about when the CIA illegally mined Nicaraguan harbors in support of the Contras?

Yup, "them that's got are them that gets."

[ixion]

117. Yep, I was going to include both of those

Appreciate you adding them to the list.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Um, where were you during the cuban missile crisis?

"or otherwise impeding traffic in international waters."

The hell we haven't.

In fact "mining international waters" isn't accurate either. Hell, we've mined soveriegn waters.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America
We lost that case.

[ixion]

62. Yeah, and I'm sure if Iran was a few miles off the coast of New York, our govt would be a-okay

with that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Considering that happened when the Soviet Union was still around...

We would piss and moan, but not threaten to sink ships in international waters with the expressed intent to close of a large body of water.

[ixion]

75. perhaps not that precisely, but something just as devious...

so your objection is to their response, not the response itself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. You statement does not parse

[ixion]

87. Sounds like you need to reboot.

[ixion]

73. If an Iranian ship of some sort was in international waters off the coast of New York

do you think the US government would tolerant of that?

[OmahaBlueDog]

106. We scrupuously tolerate that which is within international law

The Russians would park subs off major sea routes all the time and run aircraft down the East Coast to Cuba. In return, we'd send subs off of their ports and send ships to monitor their subs.

Iran plays this game about every 10 years or so. We talk tough. They talk tough. Boats play chicken with one another. If we're all lucky, no shots will be fired.

[Posteritatis]

109. You do know that sort of thing happens all the time, right? (nt)

[usrname]

66. Qatar

has the largest US military presence in the whole Middle East. Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi are just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Glass parking lot to Iran if it wants to try anything.

[truedelphi]

9. Scratching one's head...

Have you ever seen a map of what the region looks like, in terms of our occupations, military operations, NATO operations?

The Iranian people feel as though war has already been declared upon their nation. The officials there feel that way as well.

And of course, we have a populace so dumb that until the Pentagon has a "Sixty Minutes" special explaining exactly why there are all these military bases, naval vessels, occupations etc surrounding Iran (An explanation they will avoid until the day the President launches the next new war) most people will blithely continue going to their NASCAR rallies, basketball games and watching Fear Factor. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along and get in some decent "after Christmas sales" shopping.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. And the Iranian people are oppressed by a crazed lunatic hell bent on picking a fight with...

The entire west.

[truedelphi]

12. Unlike our wonderful nation, which had a guy from Texas with an IQ of room temp,

Totally devoted to kicking Iraq from one end of hell to the other, yet who managed to be in power here for
eight long years.

Would you have wanted some Super Power to bomb us to smithereens for our having such a leader?

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Our crazy leader was voted out, their crazy leader rigs his elections.

And let's not act like thousands of people didn't die due to our crazynleader's recklessness.

[KansDem]

20. But thousands of people did die due to our crazyleader's recklessness...

Our crazy leader was voted out No, he served both terms and left office as a result of the 22 Amendment

their crazy leader rigs his elections. So did ours, or his handlers did.

Here's a brief overview of the 2004 election regarding paper vs. electronic ballots. Check out Florida and Ohio!:


...and so far 100,000s of Iraqis and over 4,000 Americans have died due to our crazyleader actions.

[Joe the Revelator]

23. Agree on people dying for Bush's stupidity....

Not so much on the election rigging after 2000. Time to move on from Ohio...


But even if everything you say is true, does that make Achmadinigad right or his people any less oppressed?

[truedelphi]

42. I have seen how all the many nations and their people's have fared after we

went in with our msisiles and rockets and Agent Organge and Depleted URanium weaponry.
In case you neare not mindful of these actions of ours (not "wars" as Congress never voted on them):
Vietnam - six million either dead, wounded or left homeless. Over fifty five thousand of our troops killed. No Victory for Our Side.

CAmbodia - due to the de-stabilization of the surrounding area, as a result of the above conflict, Pol Pot, our ally, tortured and killed several million Cambodians. (No victory for our side)

Nicarauga - tens of thusands killed in the civil war there, supplied on our side by our Pentagon, and involving the "Iran Contra scandal. In the end, the nation choose a Cuba-style, Communist=baseed system No victory for our side.

[Zorro]

67. Pol Pot was a US ally?

You must be reading the history books cross-eyed.

[LiberalAndProud]

92. Of course not.

However, John Pilger has made a compelling argument here "that the role of 'civilized' governments in bringing Pol Pot to power, sustaining his movement and rejuvenating it was a critical component."

The genocide in Cambodia did not begin on April 17 1975, "Year Zero." It began more than five years earlier when American bombers killed an estimated 600,000 Cambodians. Phosphorous and cluster bombs, napalm and dump bombs that left vast craters were dropped on a neutral country of peasant people and straw huts. In one six-month period in 1973, more tons of American bombs were dropped on Cambodia than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. The regime of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did this, secretly and illegally.

Unclassified CIA files leave little doubt that the bombing was the catalyst for Pol Pot's fanatics, who, before the inferno, had only minority support. Now, a stricken people rallied to them. In Panh's film, a torturer refers to the bombing as his reason for joining "the maquis": the Khmer Rouge. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. And having been driven out by the Vietnamese, who came from the wrong side of the cold war, the Khmer Rouge were restored in Thailand by the Reagan administration, assisted by the Thatcher government, who invented a "coalition" to provide the cover for America's continuing war against Vietnam.

[truedelphi]

112. Then talk to Trudeau, the Doonesbury cartoonist, who

Referenced this alliance on and off for several years, while it was occurring.

Also look up who voted with us in the United Nations, and that was the givene reason for the alliance between Pol Pt and the USA -we needed Cambodia to side with us.

Or you can read one of the better indie journalists out there, John Pilger:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/UncleSam_PolPot.html

The Long Secret Alliance:
Uncle Sam and Pol Pot
by John Pilger
Covert Action Quarterly Fall 1997


The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct.''

[truedelphi]

114. Please see response 112, two spots down from this.

[newspeak]

132. it will never be time to move on when it comes to election rigging, caging, and other

dirty tricks to win. And how about the 2000 election? Gore won period, a count stopped by the supreme court-two of those justices had family in little boot's campaign, they did not recuse themselves. No, why should we forget that we are becoming like any other corrupt banana republic?

It has nothing to do about freeing oppressed people. BIL had a friend who was there during the death squads-thinks north was an evil bastard, only seen him in plain clothes until that hearing. They murdered children, bayoneted babies-a bunch of murdering thugs and the faction of the u.s. supported these atrocities.

So, we can do what we did for iraq, kill the people to "free" them? destroy their infrastructure and have all those greedy corporations waiting in the wings like vultures, ready to "help." Will we be paying their bill, again? How many died in iraq, how many children sick or dead or no limbs?

[truedelphi]

113. Thank you KansDem -

The crowd that frequented DU circa 2005, 2006 knew these charts like they knew their kids silhouettes.

Sad most of them aren't here now.

I came aboard in early 2005 invited by a certain Andy.

[Devil_Fish]

101. You don't think U.S. ellections are rigged??

Hay buddy, you want to buy a bridge??? I got one that I'll sell you cheep.

[Knight Hawk]

108. Thousands?

Try hundreds of thousands if not a million.But we were after his weapons of mass destruction.Yeah right

[JackRiddler]

136. Actually, "our crazy leader" lost two elections, and yet was inaugurated both times.

There's a better case that the 2000 election was fixed for Bush than that the 2009 election was fixed for Ahmedinejad.

[Turbineguy]

55. Is that in Fahrenheit or Celsius?

Definitely not Kelvin or Rankin (I put that in in case there's a wingnut troll who is borrowing the family's only working braincell).

[BeHereNow]

25. +1 gazillion and furthermore-

China and Russia are well aware of our presence.
They will not sit quietly should we be insane enough to
try and to grab the remaining oil in Iran.
They need it and already have several deals going there.
So the situation is extremely grave and the majority
of Americans are clueless to the peril we are setting up
by invading the area, land and sea.
Not going to turn out very well I'm afraid.
BHN

[chervilant]

50. You forgot to mention

their zombie-like attention to Faux snooze.

[truedelphi]

11. Here's a link to such a map - the tiny black boxes etc are

our forces at occupations, military actions or permanent military bases, surrounding Iran.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-12/news/30507017_1_military-bases-nuclear-program-iran

[dixiegrrrrl]

131. What's cool is that Business Insider is crediting DU as the source of the graphic!

[truedelphi]

134. That was cool, wasn't it. n/t

[msongs]

51. the USA = world's biggest bully, causing it all nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. So, with the Straits of Hormuz being an "economic lifeline"

for countries in the gulf, why are they all sitting on their hands waiting for the US to act?

If they can't export their oil without Iranian interference, and importing countries can't get their oil for the same reason, it seems to me that there are a host of dogs in this fight, not just us.

[BeHereNow]

27. In a word? China

An attack on Iran is an attack on China.
BHN

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. Okay, so then let them plead their case to China

and let the Chinese rein them in before the entire region becomes a sea of green glass.

[BeHereNow]

34. It will be very interesting to see how China reacts, or doesn't.

China has major investments in Iran.
Pipelines, mineral explorations and so forth.
So in short: Yikes.
BHN

[truedelphi]

41. Spot on analysis.

China is the card that trumps all others.

It's not only that they are powerful in their own right - it is that due to our politicans selling us out right and left, most Amerians rely on China for everything from honey to hamburger.

Plus all the plastic crap that keeps our economy going.

[dixiegrrrrl]

129. And Russia.

[BeHereNow]

133. Yup that one too. n/t

bhn

[BeHereNow]

38. Here is an excellent read about the China/Iran/Russia pipelines and agreements.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/05/22/russia-china-iran-defeat-u-s-in-the-pipeline-wars.html

We used to have discussions about this when it was going down, but
I guess it kind of faded away.

The Empire is going down- and rightfully so.
Being a bully in the area was never a good idea,
and all the other players needed to do was wait
for us to run out of blood and coin.
They won.

BHN

On edit: Pasting a snippet of the article:
However, as the Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar put it in an article for Asia Times, “The United States' pipeline diplomacy in the Caspian, which strove to bypass Russia, elbow out China and isolate Iran, has foundered.”

Recently, the U.S.’s Turkmen-Afghan pipeline plans have suffered what appears to be a fatal blow. On January 6, Turkmenistan committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia, and Iran with the inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran (DSK) pipeline which connects Iran's northern Caspian area with Turkmenistan.

As Bhadrakumar explains, Turkmenistan “has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing.” The operation of the DSK pipeline, along with the launching of another one between China and Turkmenistan in December 2009, has “virtually redrawn the energy map of Eurasia and the Caspian,” he maintains. “We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil [private Western multinational oil companies]. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran, and Turkmenistan hold, respectively, the world's largest, second-largest, and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to U.S. global strategy.”

[Ruby the Liberal]

52. Thanks!

[dixiegrrrrl]

130. Also...the countries we have been "challenging" are because of the currency issue.

They have challenged the US dollar as the reserve currency for buying/selling oil.
In Iran's case:
from Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
The Iranian Oil Bourse (IO is a commodity exchange which opened on February 17, 2008.
It was created by cooperation between Iranian ministries, the Iran Mercantile Exchange and other state and private institutions. The IOB is intended as an oil bourse for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies other than the United States dollar, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies.
The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.

During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies.
By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies."

and
from Project Censored:
The U.S. media tells us that Iran may be the next target of U.S. aggression. The anticipated excuse is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. William Clark tells us that economic reasons may have more to do with U.S. concerns over Iran than any weapons of mass destruction.

In mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting eurodollars as payment for its oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales (Censored 2004 #19). However, Iraq’s plan to open an international oil exchange market for trading oil in the euro currency is a much larger threat to U.S. dollar supremacy than Iraq’s switch to euros.

While the dollar is still the standard currency for trading international oil sales, in 2006 Iran intends to set up an oil exchange (or bourse) that would facilitate global trading of oil between industrialized and developing countries by pricing sales in the euro, or “petroeuro.” To this end, they are creating a euro-denominated Internet-based oil exchange system for global oil sales. This is a direct challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy in the global oil market. It is widely speculated that the U.S. dollar has been inflated for some time now because of the monopoly position of “petrodollars” in oil trades. With the level of national debt, the value of the dollar has been held artificially high compared to other currencies.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-irans-new-oil-trade-system-challenges-us-currency/

[leftyohiolib]

120. all the more reason to start finding other sources of energy

[BeHereNow]

125. The MIC consumes the most oil on the planet-

They are no where near figuring out how to maintain
their military might without oil.
It's going to get really interesting in our lifetimes.
BHN

[Old and In the Way]

14. The Strait of Hormuz is about 26 miles wide.

Or about 1 minute as the missile flies. And I doubt it will be a single missile if that point is reached.

[gordianot]

17. Pure economic and military suicide; closing the Straight of Hormuz.

It would be a cause of celebration for the return of Cheney's. Closure would be short term and be a real gain for arms dealers everywhere.

[TBF]

19. Here we go again. nt

[99th_Monkey]

26. So the Strait of Hormuz is the new Gulf of Tonkin? US OUT OF ME !! nt

[BeHereNow]

32. Bite your tongue!

But yeah, possibly- we are taunting them to make
a move, or maybe we'll "create" one to justify our
actions.
Where's that Mayan calendar?
I need to check a date...
BHN

[99th_Monkey]

36. Why can't int'l shipping just go through the territorial waters off coast of UAE?

Doesn't every coastline country have a certain number of miles off their coast
where they have some kind of sovereignty over? or maybe that's what is
being disputed?

[slay]

29. After all the bullshit wars we've been put through

we do NOT need to be fucking with Iran. i don't blame them for hating us one bit - just leave them be and monitor their nuke shit.

[Xolodno]

31. Meh....

...Doubt Iran is dumb enough to close the strait. Their navy would be at the bottom of the gulf in no time. And their ports and ship building capabilities would be pounded into the stone age. It would take them almost a decade to rebuild. And, the US would then have an excuse to bomb all nuclear targets on top of that. Oh and then secretly arm the populace as well. It would be far more effective to contain them.

Invasion would be absolutely stupid....but then again, I'm assuming a fruit loop from the Republican Party won't get elected as President.

I'm thinking Iran is manufacturing the crisis to keep its own populace in line with the threat of war. And then pump up the price of oil in order increase income...just in case a new round of sanctions take place.

[Knight Hawk]

110. Different reason

I think ,and have read,that the main reason Iran is doing this is to stop more serious sanctions and sanctions from more countries. The current sanctions are hurting Iran and they do not want the sanctions to squeeze them more.This is their best card to play.To threathen to close the straits.Remember this is the people,Persian,who invented the game of chess.

[90-percent]

35. War with Iran

Oh this is just fucking great.

Iran ain't no pushover like Iraq. They will fight back with large standing armies and modern weapons. Maybe we can relive those delightful years of the weekly Viet Nam body count?

Five hundred dead Americans a week? Yeah, sure, it will be worth it to go to war with IRAN!

This Military industrial Congressional Complex we have is sure serving America's best interests, now isn't it?

-90% Jimmy

[coalition_unwilling]

37. Add to that the very real possibility that our supply lines could easily be cut (Iraq to

the west and Afghanistan to the east) and we might be creating a whole new Dien Bien Phu for ourselves.

[James48]

40. It's a narrow area

The Strait of Hormuz is a pretty narrow area, where all the traffic has to go into one of two one-mile-wide lanes. The top one they travel from east to west. There is a one-mile-wide buffer in-between. Then a one-mile wide path to transit west to east.



IF the Iranians really wanted to close it down, it would be fairly easy for them to simply drop some mines in the water and close it off. It could take weeks or months for us to be sure there were no mines in the area, and for shipping to resume. Remember, it would only take one mine, blowing up one tanker, for all the tankers moving through to stop where they are until it was clear that it was safe to travel. In the meantime, the resulting snarl would ensure gasoline prices doubled to tripled.

Not a fun thing to do.

[James48]

44. BY the way-

This isn't "Iran threatening to keep their domestics in line".

In fact, there is really nothing new today at all, except for the press and the right THINKING that there are new threats being made from Iran.

The actual language being used by Iranian leaders is exactly the same as it's been for nearly three decades. Iran doesn't like it that American military naval vessels transit their waters, and they continue to say so.

In reality- it's the neo-cons who simply pump up things in the press to try and start wars.

[jaysunb]

45. The Iranians are very afraid of Obama

They've seen him at work w/ others and so far he hasn't missed.

When he publically sent good wishes for Nowruz (New Year) back in 09, it was almost like watching the Godfather. "
I will not be the one to break the peace, but if a cops bullet or a bolt of lightening should befall my son, then somebody is going to pay."

They knew....

[Scuba]

47. How dare they locate their country so close to our carrier!

[Scuba]

48. More...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100282510

[anakie]

54. simple question

Where will the money come from to pay for this 'showdown'?


Peace

[BootinUp]

56. They tracked a carrier?

Wow, what an accomplishment. I guess they think that will impress somebody. If they really want to impress me, they should avoid making us launch any air-to-air missiles at their planes.

[A Simple Game]

60. I guess you think Iran has been trading all of their oil for vodka and plastic toys.

By all accounts Iran does have some very good weapons.

[BeHereNow]

64. Anyone recall Richard Perle? Criminal at large?

http://nationalcorruptionindex.org/pages/profile.php?profile_id=3
"Perle accepted a lobbying position from now-bankrupt telecommucations company Global Crossing and met with Adnan Khashoggi, a notorious international arms dealer and weapons broker in the Iran-Contra scandal. Perle then resigned from the Defense Policy Board in 2004."

And let us not forget the Seymour Hersh article in the NYT/2003.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/17/030317fa_fact

BHN

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Fair ones. Sure kills on commercial shipping, not so much on military vessels

[AtheistCrusader]

105. This is a bigger deal than you might think.

It speaks directly to how many minutes we can expect a carrier within 400 miles of their coastline to continue to exist, should an actual shooting war break out.

They aren't going to send PLANES out to kill it.

[marasinghe]

59. long past time for the adult in the playroom to step in. sadly this appears to be Russia.

Russia should tell the US & Europe to stop fucking around its backyard & go play in their own shithouse.
and give Iran just enough nukes to defend themselves against any bleeding assholes attacking Iran;
and put an end to the "stopping Iran from acquiring nukes" nonsense being spouted by all the bloodthirsty scum in the West.
but not enough for the bloody assholes in the Iranian govt. to attack anyone else.
unfortunately, Putin doesn't seem to have sufficient smarts, guts, or - perhaps - support within Russia, to do that.
or, maybe, he's done that already & all this is just sound & fury on the part of all concerned - signifying nothing.
whatever said & done, it's high time the US govt. kept their fucking nose out of Iran's internal affairs over this 'acquiring nukes' shit;
and realized that the rest of the planet is not the USA's personal fucking toilet to dump on - as & when they feel like.

[cpwm17]

126. I like your thinking

Plus give (sell?) Iran the best defensive weapons, including weapons to shoot down any attacking aircraft.

US war-mongers heads might explode, and the world would then be a much safer place.

[workinclasszero]

65. Next war coming right up!

Hey we only got one unfunded war going, cant have that now, can we?

Wheres all the MFing republicans screaming over the deficit now eh???

[90-percent]

80. Seen this movie before

This is getting infuriating.

JUST HOW FUCKING STUPID DO THE POWERS THAT BE REALLY THINK THAT US BOTTOM 99%'ERS REALLY ARE?

THE LEADERS OF THE "FREE WORLD" are nothing but a bunch of treacherous cretins.

The people that control the world are fucking monsters. OWS is showing the world the other way! We will make a better world. All our fucking leaders are clueless assholes.

-90% Jimmy

[got root]

97. The real question is, will the rest of the world finance another war in the ME, considering last 2?

or is the plan to just give us enough rope?

[wordpix]

123. another Gulf of Tonkin "incident" is all the US gov needs to start another war

The drum beats against Iran have been going on a long time and the dumb US public is probably ready for war, as long as there is a catalyzing "incident"

[sarcasmo]

100. Guess the only question is what month does it start.

The Empire and war for profit needs to stop.



Gonna die, gonna die, gonna die for your government

[eyewall]

115. Iran is a very beautiful country

and home to beautiful cities and wonderful people.

When pronounced correctly the name, Iran, is resplendent.

I've been aware of the potential for something very bad ever since we surrounded them with the world's largest military bases and the live-war multi-theater combat deployments of our two ten year wars. We not only have them surrounded but we have our tactical bases and supply lines established and entrenched. We are ready for a full scale ground war, right now.

Iran, as somebody mentioned previously, is a very dangerous opponent. They have some state of the art weapons and a lot of very sophisticated slightly outdated weapons, and they have a formidable army to put them to task. They have dangerous allies who are already in possession of nuclear weapons. Our losses and their losses and the world's losses would be an incalculable tragedy.

I pray it will remain saber rattling and go no further. There is no appreciation of the beauty in their world or in our world from the men who profit from war.

[truedelphi]

135. Iran also has a milennia old traditon of planting

Successful crops, with no GMO's allowed inside its borders.

The population well knows the terror that the USA inflicts whenever it seeks to "install a democracy" upon another nation.

First we bomb the infra structure to smithereens, then all the Corporations allowed to set up the destroyed nation'
s rebuilding efforts are American corporations. If anyone doesn't believe me, google "Shell Oil" + Iraq. Which was the most recent travesty perpetuated on the people of Iraq.

And part of Iraq's new constitution forbids any seeds to be used in planting crops that are not GM seeds!

Most of the average Iraqi's diet of figs, and dates are now hard to come by - as American troops removed those trees since supposedly every tree of more than four feet in height provided shelter to terrorists! But hey, if people in Iraq can no longer eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, they can eat at McDonalds and KFC, coming soon to every neighborhood in Iraq.

[90-percent]

119. Wisest Solution

My suggestion to our stupid and venal Powers That Be is for Russia to simply give Iran a nuclear weapon. That is one of the best ways to get the war mongering United States out of your hair. It worked for North Korea, a leg in that nasty "Axis of Evil" that caused 9-11. USA don't fuck with North Korea too much anymore, do they?

-90% jimmy

[newspeak]

127. there was a good documentary (PBS) on Iran before little boot's reign of terror

Iran was letting up-in the film the female journalist interviewed women, one was a taxi driver; another was an artist (which was a no-no at one time). After 9/11, little boots comes out and declares Iran part of the axis of evil and starts the war drums playing for iraq. Iran, I believe because of little boots actions, voted in their own hard core nut job to counter our power hungry leader. Little boots is not dumb, he set Iran up in the PNAC game.

Remember that meeting little boots had with the taliban? It's all about corporate interests-they could give a shite if the country has a ruthless dictator; they just don't like people who listen to their people or don't deal with their business buddies. The assassination of the prime minister of iran, the assassination of the leader of vietnam, the promotion of pinochet, the death squads in central america. I think there are some in our government that only care about their own portfolio or profits for big business and use our money and government for their own agenda-they do not care about the country or its' people, just corporate interest.

Oh, and any neocon on the board, you want to drill, baby, drill in this country; well we are already exporting enough oil to other countries. Here's a clue, the oil companies get really good government leases, they drill, then they sell it on the global market. So, don't buy into the BS that our country is keeping our own resources.