Back off or suffer oil shock: Tehran

[cthrumatrix]

Back off or suffer oil shock: Tehran
AFP, Reuters
March 07, 2005

OIL-rich Iran has raised the stakes in the standoff over its nuclear program, warning that any attempt to impose sanctions on its activities would lead to an energy crisis in the US and Europe.

Referring the Islamist state to the UN Security Council, as the US had urged, would be "playing with fire", Iran's top nuclear official said yesterday.

"The first to suffer will be Europe and the US themselves," Hassan Rowhani said at a Tehran conference on nuclear technology and sustainable development. "(It) would cause problems for the regional energy market, for the European economy and even more so for the US."

snip

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12461201%255E2703,00.html

[FloridaPat]

1. Two oil suppliers telling us to stay away. Intersting. When do you

think we should panic? Anyone ready for $80 a barrel oil yet? How much alternative power research could $300 billion supply do you think>

[cthrumatrix]

2. people in the US better wake up quick ..... the world knows what peak oil

means...and what the US military plans are all about

[sarcasmo]

3. This a great way to keep King Chimp out of Iran and away from Chavez.

I also think this will help us avoid the draft. One thing the Repukes know is the value of oil. If we invade Iran and then prices jump to $4.00 a gallon it will make even the Repuke public irate. The threat of oil maybe the only thing that keeps King Chimp out of Iran.

[Toots]

11. It may do the exact opposite

They may get their dander up and say fuck you Iran we will kick your ass. That is Cowboy talk the GOP is famous for but hell they captured Iraq's oil and they think they can do the same with Iran. If they feel threatened they may just act sooner rather than later. Their was an article written by a Canadian but about the US saying if any of these countries tried to keep their oil from us we should attack and take it. That our National Security demands it....:crazy: No looking for Alternative energy with these bozos.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. "Kick Iran's ass" ??? - ahem I don't think so -

.
.
.

The US attacked a defenseless country of 20 million, and 2 years later 150,000 troops can't keep their soldiers or their occupied civilians alive.

Iran is well defended, and 70 million people.

Russia and China have already let the US know that they better stop messing around in "their" back yard.

Hitting Iran would be a wee bit too close methinks

- nukes are out of the question

- should radiation and/or fallout reach Russia or China . . .

expect a bombardment headed not for the military in the East,

but thousands of ICBMs headed for the USA mainland

Sooner or later, if'n the US keeps pushing,

The big guys on "the other side of the pond" will say enuf is enuf!

If only Joe average voter in the States knew how many ICBMs were locked on their cities right now . . . They might not be so cocky about their "military might"

Everything is relative . .

Russia and China have been minding their own business, while the USA is minding everyone ELSE'S business.

Shoulda stopped at Afghanistan, and finished what they CLAIMED they were in the ME for.

Methinks Afghanistan was just the "justified" stepping stone to get the troops and equipment to the ME for the REAL target - IRAQ

Iran WILL beat the crap outta the US unless the US goes nuclear -

And going nuclear will sign the death warrant for the USA IMO.

(sigh)

[Robeson]

45. You are correct....

...a convetional war in Iran would be suicidal for this country. A lot of Americans just don't realize there is limit to power. In order to fight a country of 70 million people on their soil, a half-a-globe away, would take an effort on par with WW II. Are all Americans really ready to either go make tanks and planes in Detroit, or join the Army to go fight? I don't think they are. The ONLY way we would accomplish this, is, as you say, going nuclear. And as you pointed out, the world may decide they've had enough with the bully on the block, and start firing those ICBM's our way. We're not the only country with "the bomb".

[cliss]

28. Interesting concept.....

Attack and Take It. I wouldn't be surprised if they are talking about that very thing, right now in their Board rooms.

And that's the absolute insanity about such an idea. Most important reasons:

1) The US represents 3.8% of the world's population. Do we really believe that we can stake a claim on the world's biggest oil deposits (one of which is Russia) and HOLD ONTO THEM? They are out of their fucking minds if they believe that.

2) We don't have enough troops to do it. We're stretched to the breaking point right now in Iraq & Afghanistan, and we're not accomplishing anything except spinning our wheels in the dirt. We're stuck.

3) We don't have enough money to stay over the long haul, which is what's going to be required. Since we can't "take the oil and run", we've got to STAY THERE and guard it.

4) The rest of the world (ther other 94% is fed up with us). They've had it with the US and its Fat-ass belligerence, and they're going to throw a stick in the spokes of all our upcoming plans.

Washington is screwed.

[Sterling]

32. No this will just get us in to a war faster.

Do you really think the government will sit by while this happens?

[Straight Shooter]

4. It's a pile-on! Quick, georgie, terror alert, make another bin Laden tape

terra, terra, terra, don't look here, look there!

Sacrifice, Americans, and then sacrifice Americans.

[ramapo]

5. Them's fightin' words

What could be more of a terroristic threat than shutting off our supply of (cheap) oil?

[cthrumatrix]

6. the US is playing the end game for oil....and it's not pretty

[NNN0LHI]

8. What would America look like with its oil supply cut off?

Remember the movie "Mad Max"? There you go. The US will never allow its oil supply to be disrupted...until there ain't no more. We will go to war over it. Wouldn't make a lick of difference who was president at the time either. Even Nader would send the troops in over that. Take that to the bank. The US has went to war over much more minor shit than this in the past.

Don

[Sterling]

33. It would look like a country in the process of invading the ME.

The US public would support whatever steps were needed to keep the flow going. Bet on it. And yes that would mean whatever military options the BFEE thought it had to use including nukes. I really hope people understand how serious this is. IMHO they did 9-11 to give them the excuse to do this. Iran would be playing into their hands.

[NNN0LHI]

40. Venezuela is next on the list

The US and others cannot afford to lose that oil. I think the US is prepared to take on anyone over this. China, India, Russia, or all of them at once if necessary. France, Germany, and the rest of old Europe will be right along side of us too.

Don

[chlamor]

7. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Oil-Never Mind The Liberty

[primavera]

9. Bill Maher put it best:

"What do I care? I drive a Prius. I fill up once ever six months."

Threats to withhold oil exports have much less impact in Europe than they have here because Europeans have always paid real world gas prices and so long ago made the switch to fuel efficient, low emission vehicles. They are consequently not only less vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices, but they have cleaner air to boot. I say it's about time we followed their example. We may finally get those damned Hummers off the road after all.

[anarchy1999]

10. Well now, there you have it! 1st Venzuela, next Iran, who's next?

"I'm a uniter" is certainly doing well, isn't he? Please let us not forget India, China and or Japan, not to mention oh, maybe Brazil? Whoops, I forgot RUSSIA!

Just wait till OPEC decides to go to the Euro. You know that is what Saddam did in December of 2000, just right after the Supreme Court appointed George the 2nd.

When I think of China, I am fearful. It comes from a little 2 or 3 page essay I read in a Reader's Digest many years ago ('85 to '88). It was written in the form of a fable I believe, but it was hard hitting.

A grandfather was talking to his grandson about how great this country used to be after the grandson asked if it had always been this way here in this country. They were poor serfs serving very wealthy foreigners.


I am on a semi-mad, semi-insane drive to find this essay. I need to find it because it is what is happening now. If anyone can help I would appreciate it alot.

[amandabeech]

20. The Chinese and the Canadians are in talks to export some

Canadian oil, possibly tar sands type, to China. The Chinese are already in the Middle East. I guess that the next market that the Chinese will penetrate is Mexico's. I'm waiting for an announcement from Petroleos Mexicanos.

[cliss]

12. It's a stand-off!

Check-mate in Oil Chess. The question of the day is: who's stronger? The oil suppliers, or the oil consumers?

Let's look at the facts: Iran is now threatening the US to cut off its oil supply. Venezuela did the same thing over the weekend. We should take them seriously.

If there were a stalemate, who would fold?

1) Can Venezuela and Iran do without Petrodollars for a while? ....I believe they can. They probably have some staying power, because they're not used to living high, like we are.

2) Can the US do without oil for a while? Answer = ---

I think I know who has the upper hand in this stand-off.

[Blackthorn]

13. I'm sure China will pick up whatever they refuse to sell the US...

n/t

[bpilgrim]

14. Can Venezuela and Iran do without Petrodollars for a while?

they got other thirsty customers besides us...

i agree they are in a much stronger position than we are :scared:

peace

[reprobate]

17. That's why Chaves has been doing deals with China and India.

I believe his intent is to place Venezuela in the position to turn the tables on bush. With China and India buying his oil he can tell bush to go piss up a rope.

He has not forgotten the CIA instigated coupes that he successfully avoided. The American need for endless supplies of oil is our achilles heel. Chaves knows this and is using it against us. And we deserve it.

[MadisonProgressive]

39. He has not forgotten the CIA instigated coupes...

I thought the CIA only instigated sedans?

[anarchy1999]

26. Euros comes to mind.

n/t

[amandabeech]

21. I imagine that Venezuela would accept PetroEuos.

I believe that Iran already does.

The suppliers have the upper hand now and probably will have until the oil is gone.

Iran could also shut off the Straights of Hormuz and the entry to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. That would stop almost all shipping of Middle Eastern oil. A little might leak out of Yemen and the Emirates and the Saudi Yanbo terminal, and more might leak out into the Caspian and the Russian pipelines from Iran. Other than that, the rest of the world would have considerably less oil sloshing around.

Get those bicycles tuned up now, folks.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

25. Info on Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and dollars and euros...

Here's some info re Iran:

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

...and here's an upcoming book on this subject:

Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq, and the Future of the Dollar
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541

Editorial Reviews

Product Description:

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9/11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production and the ascendance of the euro currency.

Energy analysts agree that world oil supplies are about to peak, after which there will be a steady decline in supplies of oil. Iraq, possessing the world's second-largest oil reserves, was therefore already a target of US geostrategic interests. Together with the fact that Iraq had switched to paying for oil in euros-rather than US dollars-the Bush administration's unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.

Meticulously researched, Petrodollar Warfare examines US dollar hegemony and the unsustainable macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling,' pointing out that the issues underlying the Iraq war also apply to geostrategic tensions between the United States and other countries, including the member states of the European Union, Iran, Venezuela and Russia. The author warns that without changing course, the American experiment will end the way all empires end-with military overextension and subsequent economic decline. He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms within a UN framework to create a more balanced global energy and monetary system-thereby reducing the possibility of future oil and oil currency-related warfare.

A sober call for an end to aggressive US unilateralism, Petrodollar Warfare is a unique contribution to the debate about the future global political economy.

[Sterling]

34. If Iran wants to become a US teritory this is the way to go.

There are no limits to which the US will go to defend it's resource supply. Take it to the bank.

[Massacure]

44. Blowing up a oilfield is much easier than protecting it.

The U.S. would be SOL if the Iranians decided to use a scorched earth policy.

The world uses about 80 million barrels of oil per day, with 3.75 million of that comming from Iran. A 4% shortage would spike the cost of oil. If other OPEC nations got involved, it would be even worse.

[Sterling]

46. Sure it would upset the market, but that cost would be passed on

to us and make lots of money for the petro BFEE. It would take ugly total war to make happen. Fortunately Bush has been preparing America for such a war. Oh joy.

At the end of the day it is almost more about denying the resources to other countries as it is getting them for ourselves. It has a similar strategic effect.

[Trillo]

15. Is Tehran implying the U.S. won't suffer if our government backs off?

I have trouble believing that implication.

[DireStrike]

16. That's true

But then the fault for the suffering will lie with our shortsighted "leaders."

[Strelnikov_]

18. Oil Price, Sky's The Limit Under This Scenario

Interesting article.

Hang On, It Could be a Wild Ride
by Charles H. Featherstone

http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone22.html

I cannot prove it, but I think the prospect of war with Iran has been haunting world oil markets since last summer, when the price broke $40 and then wandered on up past $50. Sure, there were other things affecting the price of Brent and West Texas Intermediate, most notably short gasoline stocks in the US and unrest in Iraq. But ever since the Bush administration committed itself to filling the 700 million Strategic Petroleum Reserve by the middle of this summer, I think a lot of people believe that reserve is being filled to make up for the huge disruption in world crude oil supplies that any sustained attack – air campaign or land invasion – of Iran would most assuredly bring.

. . .

I don't think the Bush administration would do much if gasoline prices hit $5 per gallon. It means good money for friends and relations in the industry. It also probably means more government power – in the form of rationing and "aid" to those worst effected – as well.

I hope the red state fascists, those for whom patriotism and love of country is mostly about waving flags and foam-rubber fingers and kicking foreigner ass, understand this when they cannot fill the tanks of their pickup trucks and SUVs, when they no longer have jobs and cannot afford groceries because diesel fuel is simply too expensive. But all there will be left is government jobs, assuming governments can collect any taxes or borrow some more from the Chinese and South Koreans.

But I doubt it. They will likely go on supporting the troops and cheering "the commander in chief." Sure, they'll blame the Ay-rabs, the Eye-ranians and whatever derogatory term we'll give to the Venezuelans, and holler and hoot as the bombs fall.

[heidler1]

19. Has this oil war been a success?

Bush's intentions are pretty clear as to trying to secure Iraqi oil for the US, but is it working? I'd say no. Will it work to grab Iranian oil. I doubt it. Oil by nature is not easy to protect while you steal it. Iraq has shown this to be true with all of the pipeline bombs we have been confronted with. Saddam had better success with crude production than we have had. I believe this is a big part of why crude has went up in price so drastically. If we invade Iran there will be a repeat of the same problem only doubled. Bush needs to deal from a more congenial basis and quickly.

[cliss]

27. Excellent point.

It's really hard to steal something that you can't take away, like a petty thief who's managed to get inside a BMW and manages to pry loose the CD player.

You're looking at hard-core occupation, "management" of the resource, and unfortunately all the people living on top of that deposit.

You're right: that's where the astronomical costs come in. Because this is an unusual asset. They can't pump it out and take it. They have to siphon off, but leaving the vast majority of the asset there.

I also agree about Iran. They will be overextending themselves if they try to invade.

I think this "Oil grab" was more like them pouncing on the oil fields, and warning everyone else to "back off" while their guns are loaded.

That would also explain the incredible brutality of the occupation. They were trying to intimidate everyone.Problem is, we can't hold out indefinitely. It's costing us too much. We're hemorrhaging to death financially.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world sits in the background, watching and waiting.....as we bankrupt ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.....

...then......

[heidler1]

36. The Republicans like to give Raygun credit for weakening Russia, but

they did it to themselves by invading Afghanistan. This demoralized the Russian army so that they couldn't protect their empire, thus the split up. Some people like to credit a Union in Danzig, Poland but I believe they shot themselves in the foot. Is there any other cynics here that wonder if some Texans are motivated to create a viable succession.

We already took this poison pill once in Vietnam. Bush is feeding us another dose now. Will we ever learn?

[Conservativesux]

23. Support Iran. Keep buying those SUV's and Hummers, folk !!

[Blue_Tires]

24. and so it starts

I've said for years that the arabs could shut off the (oil) tap anytime they wanted, and our whole continent would be SOL...with a little proper foresight and planning (yeah, right...lol), the U.S. would ALREADY have a widespread, viable alternative to oil...sadly, things are worse

[Wwagsthedog]

29. Remember 1973 & 1979

Those were two oil "shocks" that finally got us to manufacture more fuel efficient automobiles by the mid-80s. Just like any other business cycle, there is an ebb & flow to the energy bidness. We are in a flow situation now that has answers which are more complex than those in the 70s & 80s. China & India didn't have many cars. Our own power production didn't use much natural gas. Yes, I could carry on about all of this but until we recognise our geopolitical limitations we will succumb, as Chalmers Johnson so eloquently states, to the "Sorrows of Empire".

[Massachusetts]

38. "The Imperial Masquerade" continues

[0007]

30. Hmmmm.

Is this the way the "Shake Down" racket works. Give us oil and we won't nuke you?

[Sterling]

35. That is what it will come down to.

PNAC love it or hate it, it's now all of our baby.

[Sterling]

31. This will only bring the end of Iran quicker.

I think we all know what will happen in this situation.

[Massachusetts]

37. The Last Time

we played with Iran was the hostage crisis. I wouldn't call that a victory for us.IMO

The U.S. policy is still like the 15 year old boy who is 6'5" weighs 250 pounds, has a size 14 shoe and can't keep his balance.:bounce:

[lovuian]

41. Iran is just proving the point Bush is making

they are a dangerous nation!!!

[bicentennial_baby]

42. Finally

I was wondering when we would get to this...Things should be very "interesting" from here on out...

[Trish1168]

43. The victims are getting together and will fight against the US-bully

Good for them, bad for us.

We have W's arrogance and bully tactics to thank for the mess we will soon fid ourselves in.
:puke:

[Deja Q]

47. Time is the fire in which we burn. And the fuel is about to be shut off.

This gambit will PROVE if these hostilities are about oil. If Iran closes shop, you bet the US will have to retaliate. And not with economic chicanery.

Expect a LOT of anti-Iran talk by the M$M. I thi