What would be the likely results of an American attack on Iran?

[Inquisitor]

In the fall of 2004, The Atlantic conducted war games (reported in the December 2004 issue in an article by James Fallows, titled "Will Iran be Next?"). The magazine hired retired military strategists to come together and, in discussions, play out three possible scenarios: a limited attack on Iran's nuclear research facilities, an air attack on the Republican Guard designed to destroy Iranian overall military capability, and an all-out invasion aimed at regime change.

Each ended with unacceptable consequences.

The attack on nuclear facilities, the participants agreed, would be unlikely to stop research and would probably only redouble Iranian resolve to develop nuclear weapons. An air attack on Iranian military units would provoke retaliation against US forces in Iraq. And a full-on invasion would entail US casualties and an ongoing occupation and guerilla warfare. The war games leader, retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner (who ran war games at the National War College for more than two decades), summarized the group's conclusions: "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

Nevertheless, despite the counter-productiveness of the likely outcomes, the war gamers could not rule out the likelihood that the US would pursue one or more of these strategies: "Companies deciding which kinds of toothpaste to market have much more rigorous, established decision-making procedures to refer to than the most senior officials of the US government deciding whether or not to go to war", said Michael Mazarr, a professor of national-security strategy at the National War College. Thomas Hammes, a Marine expert in counter-insurgency, added that "You can never assume that just because a government knows something is unviable, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was unviable to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries make very serious mistakes."

The neoconservatives appear to have a view of the situation that is not reflected in these war games. They evidently believe that, after the first strikes, the Iranian regime will simply collapse. Hersh in The New Yorker writes:

The government is urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. "Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement", the consultant told me. "The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse" - like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.
However, Hersh notes that Iran experts dispute the likelihood of a quick collapse of the Tehran regime, and say that a more likely consequence would be a stiffening of Iranian opposition. Again, one cannot help recalling how similar expectations were voiced by administration insiders prior to the Iraq invasionand how those expectations were dashed. The US administration appears to be cherry-picking expert advice, accepting only those views that coincide with what higher-ups want to hear. This is evidently a policy emanating from top levels: George W Bush himself is said to have told advisors that he wants to hear only good news.

However, the news following an invasion might be anything but good. According to a Reuters report by Amir Paivar titled "Iran Promises 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor", dated February 10 2005:

Iran, facing mounting US pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "Burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution. "The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion", President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran. "The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them", he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow blizzards, chanted "Death to America!"
While such threats can mostly be chalked up to bluff and bravado (most of the Iranian war machinery is outdated and worn), Tehran does possesses some weapons that are accurate and destructive - far more so than any used by Saddam Hussein against American forces. An example is the Russian-made Sunburn cruise missile, specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system and said to be the most lethal anti-ship weapon in the world.

If attacked, Iran would likely foment a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq against US occupation forces, an insurgency that might far surpass in extent and deadliness the current Sunni-led resistance. Moreover, Tehran might also unleash its 300 North Korean-engineered Shahab-3 ballistic missiles on US bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If invaded, Iran's tactic would be to wage a guerilla war similar to that undertaken by the Sunni-led resistance in Iraq. Tehran has already announced efforts to increase the size of its seven-million-strong "Basiji" militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Iraq during the 1980s. According to news reports, tens of thousands of rifles are currently being handed out.

A US attack could have serious implications for international relations. Iran has spent the past few years cementing economic and military ties with Russia, China, and the EU, and such efforts have intensified dramatically within past weeks. These nations, to varying degrees, view the US as a superpower that has outlived much of its usefulness to the rest of the world.

The US is now a liability in many respects: its immense national debt and trade deficits weigh down the global economy; its profligate consumption of resources leaves less to go around for other nations; its refusal to sign the Kyoto accord ensures a century of environmental collapse; and its arrogant militarism serves to undermine any hopes for cooperative solutions to future contests over dwindling resources.

No government wants to take on the US militarily. But Washington appears determined to control the chokepoints of global resource flows. Thus the leaders of China, Russia - and to a lesser extent even those of the EU - would in their own view be acting in self-defense by drawing a line in the sand around Iran. Indeed, in recent weeks Russia has begun selling some of its more advanced missiles to Syria, Venezuela, and Iran, just as the US has amped up its rhetoric against these countries.

Likely Scenarios

What can we expect in the weeks and months ahead? Over the short term we will see diplomatic wrangling, and the seeding of news stories with inflammatory comments from unnamed government sources. An example of the latter is a Reuters article, "Iran Will Know How to Build Bomb in 6 Months - Israel", by Andrew Cawthorne, dated February 15, in which anonymous Israeli officials are quoted as saying that Tehran is much closer to having atomic weapons than most US and European experts have estimated.

If and when EU talks with Iran break down, China and Russia seem likely to block any UN Security Council resolution designed to impose sanctions on Tehran. The US is no more likely to find support for punitive measures among the G8 nations, since Japan obtains about fifteen percent of its oil from Iran and has few easy alternative sources to make up the difference in the event of a trade embargo.

As noted above, the Administration evidently feels that an attack on Iran will result in a quick collapse of the government, and so Iranian dissident groups are no doubt being prepared to step into the power vacuum that might emerge. However, if the neoconservatives are as wrong here as they were in Iraq and the Tehran regime does not fall, then the US will be presented with a dilemma. If it withdraws, it will face defeat and humiliation. But a pursuit of invasion and militarily enforced regime change will be extremely costly in terms of dollars and human lives. How to justify either effort to the American people?

Because the likely outcomes are unpalatable, and because the ongoing occupation of neighboring Iraq is not going well, American officials would find it nearly impossible to launch an attack on Iran without an adequate immediate pretext. Therefore Iran must be enticed to attack the US, or must be made to appear to do so. The most likely scenario would be for Israel to take the lead in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. To Tehran, this would signify US involvement, as Israeli planes would likely fly over US-controlled Iraqi air space. Iran would then predictably retaliate against both Israel and the US, perhaps by launching Scud missiles toward Israel and Sunburn cruise missiles against one or more American warships stationed in the Persian Gulf. The loss of an aircraft carrier or battleship with hundreds or thousands of American sailors on board could then summon a sufficient emotional response from the American people so that the full resources of the nation (including an immediate re-institution of the draft) could be mustered behind a three-pronged invasion of Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf.

Alternatively, if Iran did not take the bait and sink a US warship, Israel could do so under false flag, with the American people being told that the Iranian mullahs were to blame. Or an American city could be attacked from within by "terrorists", with Tehran again being assigned the guilt.

These events are most likely to commence before the end of 2005, as Iran cannot be permitted to open its oil bourse in March 2006.

Once the chain of events begins, it is anyone's guess how it might unwind over the ensuing weeks, months, and perhaps even years. It seems more than likely that China would take this as an opportunity to dump its dollar holdings on world markets, thus tipping the US economy into a depression. Russia's response can only be guessed at. Domestically, the US would likely institute draconian measures to monitor citizens' "patriotism" and severely restrict the freedoms of those who questioned the government's actions. And the US might well take the opportunity to widen the war to Venezuela and other sites of "tyranny" around the world.

While the Iraq invasion and its aftermath have been immensely destructive events, there are signs that what is in store will be far, far worse.

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/margo_kingston/000762.html

[Criminal Minded]

Iran next stop.

[Eat Me]

Iran looks big, dark and smelly, but in reality they can be toppled over more easily than the Taliban!

Let's fuckin' do 'em! What are we waiting for? For them to hae nukes first? Fuck that!

[Desert Dog]

Iran next stop.

Yep, unless somehow, someway, the people will somehow, someway get rid of those sobs that run that country. I mean they want freedom.

[Desert Dog]

Iran next stop.

Yep, unless somehow, someway, the people will somehow, someway get rid of those slobs mfs that run that country. I mean they want freedom. Too bad they are subjugated by a intolerant and completely ridiculous religion that has no place in the 21st century.

[Desert Dog]

Iran looks big, dark and smelly, but in reality they can be toppled over more easily than the Taliban!

Let's fuckin' do 'em! What are we waiting for? For them to hae nukes first? Fuck that!

They really are fucking brain dead. None of their aircraft ever worked for very long. (You see; the Soviets only gave them one of each block and so did the Americans; so parts are not only not procruable, the planes can't interchange parts. You know the ol' hey "let's take two and make one good"; nope doesn't work) They might take ten or twenty and get one in the air. Fuck 'em.

[Shinywalrus]

Curious how people are acting as though Bush has been campaigning for war here. He hasn't, and he's been relying heavily on diplomacy in Syria AND Iran for quite some time.

And 'unacceptable consequences' is a grievously poor description - ultimately, we would hope the reactors and facilities themselves would only be attacked if it was thought to be imminent that uranium/plutonium extracted from them was being developed into weapons-grade varieties. Assuming that would be the case, which is reasonable, it makes no sense to call it an 'unacceptable consequence' that Iran would speed up its nuclear ambitions.

That's like shooting a dog for biting your child, then being warned that if you shoot him, he might become violent toward your children.

[Truthsayer]

Go for it, You will see Tel Aviv frying like Chicken in a Pan of Hot Grease, and their Russian made Torpedoes and missles will tear the American Navy Apart. Look Iraq had sanctions on it for 10 years and they have managed to Kill 25000 American Soldiers to date. Can you imagine how many Marines you will loose if you mess with Iran. I am sure that Tehran is chomping at the bit to Tear the USA a new Asshole! :add09:

[Shinywalrus]

Go for it, You will see Tel Aviv frying like Chicken in a Pan of Hot Grease, and their Russian made Torpedoes and missles will tear the American Navy Apart. Look Iraq had sanctions on it for 10 years and they have managed to Kill 25000 American Soldiers to date. Can you imagine how many Marines you will loose if you mess with Iran. I am sure that Tehran is chomping at the bit to Tear the USA a new Asshole! :add09:

25,000? What?

Do you even know anything about "Russian-made Torpedoes" or are you just blathering like an idiot? Which ships in the Iranian navy would FIRE them, exactly? Do you mean the THREE obsolescent Kilo-class submarines? The British Vosper 5 frigates?

God is punishing all of us for the fact that your mother allowed you to have a computer in your room. It's just not fair.

[The Breeze]

Go for it, You will see Tel Aviv frying like Chicken in a Pan of Hot Grease, and their Russian made Torpedoes and missles will tear the American Navy Apart. Look Iraq had sanctions on it for 10 years and they have managed to Kill 25000 American Soldiers to date. Can you imagine how many Marines you will loose if you mess with Iran. I am sure that Tehran is chomping at the bit to Tear the USA a new Asshole! :add09:


Isn't this what you said about Iraq, N. Korea, russia? What a fool! Do you ever get tired of being an ass?



"I pity the fool"

[The Breeze]

25,000? What?


God is punishing all of us for the fact that your mother allowed you to have a computer in your room. It's just not fair.

Its not his mother or his room, its warden and cell!



"Recidivism"

[oxy]

Go for it, You will see Tel Aviv frying like Chicken in a Pan of Hot Grease, and their Russian made Torpedoes and missles will tear the American Navy Apart. Look Iraq had sanctions on it for 10 years and they have managed to Kill 25000 American Soldiers to date. Can you imagine how many Marines you will loose if you mess with Iran. I am sure that Tehran is chomping at the bit to Tear the USA a new Asshole! :add09:

Why do you insist on making yourself appear to be a complete and total moron. Do you enjoy people constantly insulting you because of the wisdom you display day in and day out?

Why do you insist on this 25,000 number when you know it's not so? What do you gain from it? You live in America but yet seem to take great joy in lying about our soldier death count. Are you cheering the terrorist on? You complain about your ancestors being slaves but yet the very people you cheer would do the same to you all over again. You just don't make any sense toothy unless of course, that is your goal.

[Criminal Minded]

Iran wants profit sharing with us. LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050316/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc_1

[Bman]

If and when EU talks with Iran break down, China and Russia seem likely to block any UN Security Council resolution designed to impose sanctions on Tehran. The US is no more likely to find support for punitive measures among the G8 nations, since Japan obtains about fifteen percent of its oil from Iran and has few easy alternative sources to make up the difference in the event of a trade embargo.



The US can do nothing in Iran without the approval of our lenders, Japan and China... Without their money, the US economy collapses in a catastrophic fashion.. PERIOD

Bman

[Shinywalrus]

The US can do nothing in Iran without the approval of our lenders, Japan and China... Without their money, the US economy collapses in a catastrophic fashion.. PERIOD

Bman

lol! The sky still falling, eh?

How's it going, Bman?

[Bman]

lol! The sky still falling, eh?

How's it going, Bman?


No.. the sky isn't falling...

We're just not going to attack Iran, unless China and Japan allow us.

that's all


Bman

[Alli]

No.. the sky isn't falling...

We're just not going to attack Iran, unless China and Japan allow us.

that's all


Bman
Good morning BMAN, Shiny. Why not forgo attacking alltogether, and let China and Japan attack Iran?

[Bman]

Good morning BMAN, Shiny. Why not forgo attacking alltogether, and let China and Japan attack Iran?



I agree.. we have absolutely no interest in attacking Iran, in my opinion


Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are far greater threats to the US (as is China, for that matter)

wasting time and resources in Iran would be disasterous

Bman

[Mr. Drags]

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are far greater threats to the US (as is China, for that matter)

now that i definitely agree with. neither the pakis nor the sauddis can be trusted.

I found it laughable that the saudi government had taken out radio ads in the US last year saying they were our allies, etc. ad nauseum. They can't be trusted.

I was also having a talk with one of our US senators and he said that was something that concerned him as well. that the saudis would have to stop playing both sides and choose who they wanted to be allied with, the west or the jihadists

[Bman]

The US can do nothing in Iran without the approval of our lenders, Japan and China... Without their money, the US economy collapses in a catastrophic fashion.. PERIOD

Bman


Need more evidence?



Asia's mass debt weapon points to US

March 13, 2004

Despite some evident misgivings about his rising level of indebtedness, US President George Bush's bankers of last resort are continuing to lend him the funds to pay for vital necessities like tax cuts, the war in Iraq and missile defence.

Toshihiko Fukui and Zhou Xiaochuan no doubt have their disagreements about Mr Bush's priorities, but as governors of the central banks of Japan and China, respectively, they are continuing to build up already massive holdings of US Treasury securities.

A warning signal is flashing, however, in a trend by Asian countries to diversify new additions to their foreign reserves away from US dollar investments into other currencies and assets. This is a sign of concern about the growing "twin deficits" in the United States, a federal budget deficit projected at $US524 billion ($717 billion) and a similar current account gap, each equivalent to around 5 per cent of GDP.

Around Asian financial circles there is growing, if still muted, talk of a looming "dollar crisis" equivalent to the sterling crises of the 1960s - when London could no longer support the reserve role of the British pound - unless Washington mends its profligate ways and accepts higher interest rates and taxes.

A default by the US government is still unthinkable, but not so a unilateral change in the rules of international finance - akin to Richard Nixon's halt to the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971, or Franklin D. Roosevelt's devaluation and repudiation of gold-denominated contracts.

Among the possibilities being discussed are a closing of the exit door to prevent a sudden sell-off of US treasuries by Asian governments, which would require sudden leaps in US domestic interest rates, triggering a recession.

In a recent research note, Hong Kong-based Union Bank of Switzerland economist Jonathan Anderson notes a "cautious stance" on the US dollar among Asian central banks emerging from US Treasury data for December. As the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves accelerated in the region, new net purchases of US assets were broadly unchanged.

The figures suggested that Asian central banks had directed about 50 per cent of new reserve inflows into US dollar assets during the second half of last year, compared with an average of about 90 per cent from 2000 to 2002. "This is still a net reduction in support for the US current account deficit - but far from a dollar sell-off," Anderson says.

But a smaller portion of a growing pie may still be enough for US Treasurer John Snow to finance Bush's controversial budget strategy. The combined foreign reserves of 11 large and medium-sized economies in Asia continued to soar past the $US2 trillion mark in the first two months of this year.

Japan's reserves grew to a staggering $US777 billion at the end of last month, equivalent to 20 per cent of its GDP. Bank of Japan governor Fukui said this week it was still too early for him to take the foot off the yen-depression pedal and stop buying dollars, because Japan's emergence from deflation was still tentative.

China's foreign reserves hit $US416 billion at the end of January, and would have been $US45 billion higher if that amount had not been diverted to shore up the capital base of two of the large government-owned commercial banks in an unusual transaction at the end of last year.

People's Bank of China governor Zhou has fewer and fewer excuses for keeping the yuan low by sterilising surpluses offshore by buying dollars. Frenetic growth in the Chinese economy is showing its effects in consumer prices, which rose 5.7 per cent in the year to February, the highest rate in seven years, and up from 3.2 percent in December. Only 18 months ago, China too was suffering mild deflation.

With ports, railways, canals and roads choked by the massive shipments of raw materials being imported or transferred internally, more price pressure is likely to feed into the economy unless Premier Wen Jiabao and the PBOC governor can quickly rein in money supply growth and excessive capital investment.

Escalating prices for raw materials and shipping have already helped cut China's overall trade surplus, and February trade actually showed a deficit of $US7.9 billion. But the country's capital account is no longer being driven by its trade surplus and foreign direct investment inflow. Last year, foreign reserves rose by $US161 billion, more than double the combined trade surplus ($US23 billion) and FDI inflow ($US53 billion).

"The heavy pressure has actually been speculative capital inflow," said one senior regional government financial official. "A whole range of people think the renminbi ('people's money' - the yuan's official name) is going to appreciate."

The speculative influx has occurred despite official capital movement controls which are unlikely to be relaxed for five to six years, according to recent Chinese official pronouncements, and frequent statements from central bank governor Zhou down that the currency will not be revalued soon.

Scepticism about these statements is widespread, with the US investment bank Goldman Sachs forecasting a 10 per cent revaluation of the yuan by year's end.

However, many analysts think it will be domestic weaknesses like inflation which eventually cause Beijing to move from the 10-year-old peg of 8.28 yuan to the US dollar which has fuelled growth.

A recent paper by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (written by economists Michael Dooley, David Folkers-Landau, and Peter Garber) sees the "trade-account" countries of Asia continuing to push their growth strategy based on low currency valuation and capital controls as far as it will go - to the detriment of "capital-account" countries, including the European nations and Australia, with floating exchange rates whose trade (except, implicitly, in resources) will be gobbled up by the Asians.

Meanwhile, Asian countries will accept low yields and depreciation of their US dollar foreign reserves as the price of growth. "The US does not have to feel defensive about its situation, and the rest of the world is going to need it as much as it needs them," the foreign financial official said.

Foreigners still own only a minority share of total debt and equity in the US. But the top six Asian central banks held 56 per cent of the US Treasury securities in foreign hands at the end of 2003, up from 51 per cent at the end of 2002.

As a percentage of total outstanding US Treasury securities, including those in domestic hands, the percentage held by these six Asian central banks is lower, about 35 per cent, but still big enough to cause a massive sudden capital shortage if pulled.

But why would they? A forced US recession would rebound immediately on Asian exporters. As a source of innovation, the US has no replacement. It would take a sudden political crisis - such a realisation in Beijing that it was about to permanently "lose" Taiwan - might invoke the debt weapon.

Meanwhile, corrective mechanisms are beginning to work, despite the best efforts of the Asian central bankers. The dollar is sinking, the yuan and yen are under upward pressure, and US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has just given the first hint of a mid-year interest rate rise. As Japan heads towards becoming the first country with trillion-dollar foreign reserves, the absurdity of its continuing to cower in the Asian trade-account block is more and more obvious.

If the Asian countries do let their currencies rise, leading to tapering trade surpluses and slower speculative inflows, the central banks would have less offshore dollars to sterilise anyway and US Treasurer Snow might have to offer more for his deficit-covering funds: a case of be careful what you wish for.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594565010.html

[Truthsayer]

Iran is going to smoke the US in a confrontation, and it might well bring in the Ruskies and the Red Chinese, but formidable opponents. I think Bush should put his gun back in his pocket if he knows what is good for him.!

[Shinywalrus]

I agree.. we have absolutely no interest in attacking Iran, in my opinion


Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are far greater threats to the US (as is China, for that matter)

wasting time and resources in Iran would be disasterous

Bman

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any reason right now to attack Iran. The only thing I'm arguing is that the administration is being gung-ho about bringing that about. That's an unwarranted characterization, in my opinion.

Economic sanctions can be fun - how about we kill two birds with one stone: tell Iran that if they don't shape up, the civilized world won't buy their oil. Then tell the Saudis, Kazakhs and Russians to increase their production to fill the void, or else we take away the Prince's membership to his Aspen skiing club.

Sounds fair to me anyway.

[fastball]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any reason right now to attack Iran. The only thing I'm arguing is that the administration is being gung-ho about bringing that about. That's an unwarranted characterization, in my opinion.

Economic sanctions can be fun - how about we kill two birds with one stone: tell Iran that if they don't shape up, the civilized world won't buy their oil. Then tell the Saudis, Kazakhs and Russians to increase their production to fill the void, or else we take away the Prince's membership to his Aspen skiing club.

Sounds fair to me anyway.
That's fine to conceptualize that notion – that we tell those named parties to increase their oil production – however, I don’t believe we have the necessary clout to convince them to do so.

[Shinywalrus]

That's fine to conceptualize that notion – that we tell those named parties to increase their oil production – however, I don’t believe we have the necessary clout to convince them to do so.

It was a joke.

[fastball]

It was a joke.
I guess the jokes on me then. Often, what is posted on this board (which I believe should pass for sarcasm) is a literal interpretation of what should "be".

[Bman]

Iran recently inked a massive 70 Billion dollar long term deal to supply China with oil

Now they've inked a hefty 22 billion dollar deal to supply India with natural gas and give them a stake in the oil fields


Iran seems to be lining up nuclear armed allies who will protect it from international sanctions/and or military threats when it declares itself a nuclear power



AFX News Limited
Iran, India sign 22 bln usd LNG supply deal UPDATE
06.13.2005, 02:16 PM

(Adds value of the deal, details of oilfield rights talks)



TEHRAN (AFX) - Iran and India have signed a deal worth 22 bln usd under which Tehran will supply India with 5 mln tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) a year over a 25-year period from 2009.

'The exports should begin in 2009 and rapidly reach a level of five million tonnes annually,' Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanghaneh said following talks with his Indian counterpart Mani Shankar Aiyar

The contract was signed between the National Iranian Gas Export Company and three Indian firms -- Indian Oil Company (IOC), Gail et Baharat India.

Zanghaneh also announced that discussions would continue between the two countries over awarding India exploitation rights in the Jofeir oilfield and 10 pct of a field at Yadvaran in Khuzestan province of southwest Iran.

'If India accepts increasing the exports of LNG by 2.5 million additional tonnes, its share in Yadvaran will increase to 20 percent,' he added.


http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/06/13/afx2090346.html

[Atlas]

A drowning man will grasp even the point of a sword

[Bman]

A drowning man will grasp even the point of a sword


I don't get it

[involved]

When the announcement comes that Europe or Russia is selling arms to China again,just know,it's diplomacy at it's finest.
Iran is going to smoke the US in a confrontation, and it might well bring in the Ruskies and the Red Chinese, but formidable opponents. I think Bush should put his gun back in his pocket if he knows what is good for him.!

[Atlas]

The mullahs are desperate, doing business with a Hindu country where muslims are persecuted.

It must be getting big play in Pakistan, where they hate both Hindus and Shiites

[involved]

As long as Israel have nuclear weapons,the incentive is going to continue.

[Aziraphael]

"Companies deciding which kinds of toothpaste to market have much more rigorous, established decision-making procedures to refer to than the most senior officials of the US government deciding whether or not to go to war", said Michael Mazarr, a professor of national-security strategy at the National War College.

:add09: So fucking true. :mad_08:

[Bman]

The mullahs are desperate, doing business with a Hindu country where muslims are persecuted.

It must be getting big play in Pakistan, where they hate both Hindus and Shiites


Oh, don't worry.. Iran is busy making deals with the Pakis and Russians too

As I said, it appears to me they are going out of their way to set up alliances (particularly involving energy) with nuclear armed neighbors

As I have pointed out many times, this makes any US attack on Iran impossible. Why would nuclear armed Russia, China, India and Pakistan give up their oil and natural gas supply, so that Chevron and Exxon could have it?? LOL.. seems ludicrous




Iran in Oil Talks with Russia and Pakistan/India

June 8, 2005 2:37 p.m. EST


Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Contributor

TEHRAN, Iran (AHN) – Iran is looking to Russia and Pakistan to create new oil deals in the face of the new Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which cuts Iran out of the bulk of the lucrative Caspian oil trade.


Iranian press is reporting that Iran has offered to conclude a 25 year “swap” deal with Russian energy companies for delivering “as much as 300,000 barrels of Caspian crude” at its northern Neka port and receiving an equal volume at the Persian Gulf ports.


Iran has also concluded “in principle” a deal to build a pipeline to transport oil to India, via Pakistan. Iran would sell their Caspian oil to the two nations through the pipeline.

The pipeline would help supply India and Pakistan’s growing energy demands, as well as provide an economic tie between the two countries which could help cement the fragile peace between them.

Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs, Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, raised the proposal in a recent visit to Moscow and has established a committee to advance the issue.

Nejad-Hosseinian said currently the Iranian port at Neka has a 170,000 barrel capacity that can be raised to as high as 700,000 barrels if there is a permanent customer, such as Russia.


An oil official spoke to the Persian-language newspaper Jahan-e San'at, saying that Russia's LukOil can currently deliver 120,000 barrels of oil to the Neka port, if a deal is completed.

Currently, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are looking for a way to export their Caspian oil. The only economically viable option right now is the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

However, if Iran can increase their deal with Russia to transport as many as 300,000 barrels of crude oil a day, then Iran would be a viable alternative for those two countries.



http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2236511692

[Aziraphael]

Iran looks big, dark and smelly, but in reality they can be toppled over more easily than the Taliban!

Let's fuckin' do 'em! What are we waiting for? For them to hae nukes first? Fuck that!
Your just lashing out cause it makes you feel impotent to know that you CANT actually attack Iran. Nevermind who wants you to, or who doesnt, it eats you up inside to know that you CANT do it.

[Aziraphael]

Yep, unless somehow, someway, the people will somehow, someway get rid of those slobs mfs that run that country. I mean they want freedom. Too bad they are subjugated by a intolerant and completely ridiculous religion that has no place in the 21st century.
But they arent christians.... oh, you mean another religion based on a book that is centuries out of date.

[DC Penguin]

In answer to the original post, the US interests in Iraq were in large measure due to the need to protect the U.S. economy, which could be impacted negatively by the turning tides in the Middle East. This is not meaning that Iraq was critical, but rather that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to its surrounding nations, inclusive of Saudi and Kuwait, with potential major problems coming for the U.S. oil supply that could cripple her economy.

So why is that relevant? The next up and coming superpower is China, and China receives much of its oil from Iran. The issue is not whether the U.S. would be successful in a battle against Iran, but how China would respond to such an action.

If Israel were to attack Iran in a defensive mode, and the U.S. backed Israel, then the resulting conflict would be justifiable, although still plenty ugly. However, a unilateral strike by the U.S. would not be well received by a planet still trying to get George Bush to tell them why he committed his last military action.

[jimb]

Who realy wants a big war in the Mideast. No one wins
due to a vacuum for greed and power from many nations.
Iranians would be losers too if they seek a large war.

Iran has more to win if they seek peace and to live in a modern world.

[Bman]

In answer to the original post, the US interests in Iraq were in large measure due to the need to protect the U.S. economy, which could be impacted negatively by the turning tides in the Middle East. This is not meaning that Iraq was critical, but rather that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to its surrounding nations, inclusive of Saudi and Kuwait, with potential major problems coming for the U.S. oil supply that could cripple her economy.

So why is that relevant? The next up and coming superpower is China, and China receives much of its oil from Iran. The issue is not whether the U.S. would be successful in a battle against Iran, but how China would respond to such an action.

If Israel were to attack Iran in a defensive mode, and the U.S. backed Israel, then the resulting conflict would be justifiable, although still plenty ugly. However, a unilateral strike by the U.S. would not be well received by a planet still trying to get George Bush to tell them why he committed his last military action.






Well, as I pointed out in my previous handful of posts, its not just CHINA that has an energy interest in maintaining THE CURRENT regime in Iran.. but also the Russians, Paki's, and now... the Indians

Well over half of the world's population and half of the known nuclear armed states (not counting N. Korea) have energy alliances with the current Iranian regime

[Bag Sniper]

Well, as I pointed out in my previous handful of posts, its not just CHINA that has an energy interest in maintaining THE CURRENT regime in Iran.. but also the Russians, Paki's, and now... the Indians

Well over half of the world's population and half of the known nuclear armed states (not counting N. Korea) have energy alliances with the current Iranian regime

I can't wait for you to uncover a secret Bush memo linking all the above .... right to Karl Rove ........................... oh ..... and Blair ... of course .....

[DC Penguin]

Well, as I pointed out in my previous handful of posts, its not just CHINA that has an energy interest in maintaining THE CURRENT regime in Iran.. but also the Russians, Paki's, and now... the Indians

Well over half of the world's population and half of the known nuclear armed states (not counting N. Korea) have energy alliances with the current Iranian regime


You must first spread reputation . . .

Thanks, Bman. I took a short cut and only mentioned China, but I know you're correct.

[Bman]

Iran recently inked a massive 70 Billion dollar long term deal to supply China with oil

Now they've inked a hefty 22 billion dollar deal to supply India with natural gas and give them a stake in the oil fields


Iran seems to be lining up nuclear armed allies who will protect it from international sanctions/and or military threats when it declares itself a nuclear power





http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3178.asp

World starts getting polarized around energy conflicts - India unfazed by US opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline


Balaji Reddy
Jun. 16, 2005


India has to take care of its energy needs. According to India nothing more important for India than the reliable source of energy. India, Pakistan and Iran agree on the Gas Pipeline. But US has shown increasing irritation over the Pipeline.

According to media sources, India yesterday said "it was unfazed" by US opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, adding it would continue to pursue gas imports from Iran to meet its energy requirements.

"I am unfazed specially because my friend and Cambridge college mate, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri had given a befitting reply (to US opposition) in Washington," Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar said here.

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is reported to have warned Pakistan of sanctions if it continued to pursue the proposed pipeline project to meet its energy demands.

"So long as India, Pakistan and Iran hang together, there is every assurance of energy needs of India and Pakistan being met on the basis of remunerative returns for Iran and affordable price for India and Pakistan," he said.

Kasuri is reported to have told Rice that Islamabad was pursuing the pipeline as Pakistan would be come an energy deficit country by 2009-10.

Aiyar said India needs 100 million standard cubic metre per day of gas at present and imports from countries in the neighbourhood like Iran were the only economic and sustainable source for meeting the needs of its fast growing economy.

[Jake]

Invading Iran would be an unbelievable mess-- would make Iraq look like a game of checkers.

Better to secretly arm the Iranian pro-democracy movement (which is huge in Iran-- more Iranians want a moderate Islamic Western Democracy than want an Islamo-fascist state).

And do surgical airstrikes on their nuke facilities (if we can find them).

Iranians want democracy but-- they still think the U.S.A. is the Great Satan-- and, if we invade Iran, they would make Baghdad look like a love-fest by comparison.

[Jake]

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3178.asp

World starts getting polarized around energy conflicts - India unfazed by US opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline


Balaji Reddy
Jun. 16, 2005


India has to take care of its energy needs. According to India nothing more important for India than the reliable source of energy. India, Pakistan and Iran agree on the Gas Pipeline. But US has shown increasing irritation over the Pipeline.

According to media sources, India yesterday said "it was unfazed" by US opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, adding it would continue to pursue gas imports from Iran to meet its energy requirements.

"I am unfazed specially because my friend and Cambridge college mate, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri had given a befitting reply (to US opposition) in Washington," Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar said here.

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is reported to have warned Pakistan of sanctions if it continued to pursue the proposed pipeline project to meet its energy demands.

"So long as India, Pakistan and Iran hang together, there is every assurance of energy needs of India and Pakistan being met on the basis of remunerative returns for Iran and affordable price for India and Pakistan," he said.

Kasuri is reported to have told Rice that Islamabad was pursuing the pipeline as Pakistan would be come an energy deficit country by 2009-10.

Aiyar said India needs 100 million standard cubic metre per day of gas at present and imports from countries in the neighbourhood like Iran were the only economic and sustainable source for meeting the needs of its fast growing economy.

This is actually good-- interdependence will stabilize Indo-Pakistani relations and cool their arms race.

Nothing like business to turn an enemy into a partner.

[OldGit]

What would be the result - why the end of moves for reform by the 70% of the population who are under thirty years of age, of course.

Were you aware that Iran is holding elections this very day?

Are you aware that Iranians are likely to elect reformist candidates?

Probably not, given that quite a few of you want to 'do 'em'.


Tell me, would you be 'doin' 'em' to bring about freedom and democracy, perhaps, or just for the hell of it?

[Truthsayer]

Iran has been buying all kinds of technology from Russia and China, they are not Iraq, if the US goes into Iran they better bring a tow truck of Body Bags, there will certainly be a lot of dead American there. Better stick to bullying weak sanctioned countries like Iraq! :add09:

[OldGit]

now that i definitely agree with. neither the pakis nor the sauddis can be trusted.

I found it laughable that the saudi government had taken out radio ads in the US last year saying they were our allies, etc. ad nauseum. They can't be trusted.

I was also having a talk with one of our US senators and he said that was something that concerned him as well. that the saudis would have to stop playing both sides and choose who they wanted to be allied with, the west or the jihadists

Maybe we could all just try and get along... Wouldn't that be the better option?

[Bman]

Well, as I pointed out in my previous handful of posts, its not just CHINA that has an energy interest in maintaining THE CURRENT regime in Iran.. but also the Russians, Paki's, and now... the Indians

Well over half of the world's population and half of the known nuclear armed states (not counting N. Korea) have energy alliances with the current Iranian regime



THE ELECTRICITY DAILY

September 8, 2005, Thursday

Vol. 25, No. 48


Indian Supports Iran s Peaceful Nukes

Despite a recent warming of nuclear relations with Washington, India has declared support for Iran s peaceful nuclear energy program.

We support the pursuit by Iran of its peaceful nuclear energy program in keeping with Iran s international obligations, India s External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh said in Tehran after an hour-long meeting with Iran s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the nuclear issue.

We believe all sides should take steps to facilitate dialogue and resolve outstanding issues within the framework of the IAEA (guidelines) , Singh said. He refused to take questions, saying the matter was confidential. India not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Singh is on a three-day visit to Iran. This is the first visit by a senior minister from the ruling United Progressive Alliance(UPA) after Ahmadinejad was sworn in as the head of a new government in Tehran. Reports suggests Iran recently resumed uranium enrichment at one of its plants despite strong U.S. and European opposition.

Larijani, who was sent to New Delhi just two days ahead of Singh s visit to his country, has said Iran wanted to cooperate in a serious way with the IAEA and is committed to international regulations on nuclear proliferation.

Analysts say that reassertion of support for its nuclear program by India clearly means a lot to Tehran, which has been trying to move beyond its current EU negotiators -- Britain, France and Germany -- to include other countries in its future nuclear negotiations. Iranian diplomats have broadly hinted at involving the UN in these negotiations. The IAEA is a UN agency.

The IAEA has been investigating Iran since early 2003 on U.S. charges that it was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes, although why it needs enrichment capability for a peaceful program is questionable, given the easy availability of low-enriched uranium fuel on world markets.

It may be a coincidence, but an IAEA report asking Iran to be more transparent was released on the same day that Natwar Singh was holding discussions with Iranian leaders. India s arch-rival Pakistan has already supported Iran s right to pursue its nuclear program for peaceful purposes. As signatory to the NPT, Iran has legitimate right for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, Pakistan s Foreign Office spokesman Mohammad Naeem Khan told reporters recently in Islamabad.

According to a ministry spokesman, Iran gave final clearances to a $22 billion deal to export 5 million tonnes of liquified natural gas (LNG) to India for 25 years starting from 2009-10. Also, Iran is said to be giving positive consideration to India s desire to increase the agreed amount of five million tonnes of LNG by another 2.5 million tonnes.

Iran and India are working together to build a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline that will run 2,600 kilometres from Iran, through Pakistan and to India, in order to serve India s growing energy needs. [TJM]

[Bman]

Xinhua General News Service

September 8, 2005 Thursday 9:00 PM EST


Musharraf for peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear issue
ISLAMABAD



Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf Wednesday stressed the need to observe international legality and resolve Iran's nuclear issue peacefully, according to a statement issued by the Foreign Office.

"Pakistan, being a friend and immediate neighbor of Iran, wishes an early peaceful end to this issue," Musharraf said at a meeting with Ali Larijani, secretary to the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, who called on him later Wednesday.

Musharraf hoped that Iran-EU dialogue would be resumed and pursued to a successful conclusion.

He said Pakistan valued its relations with Iran. As immediate neighbors, sharing strong commonalities of history, faith and culture, the two countries had great potential and should spare no effort to further strengthen bilateral cooperation.

Larijani, who arrived here early Wednesday morning to seek Pakistan's support for the continuation of Iran's nuclear program, briefed Musharraf on the policies of the new Iranian government. He conveyed the desire of the Iranian leadership to further intensify cooperation in various areas of mutual interest.

Larijani appreciated Pakistan's positive role at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to help resolve controversy over Iran's nuclear program. He said Iran had seriously pursued its dialogue with IAEA to reach an amicable solution.

Iran is still ready to cooperate with IAEA within the framework of the agency's regulations, but it would not give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purpose, Larijani said.

Larijani's visit marked the first high-level contact between Pakistan and Iran since the installation of the new government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month.

Earlier Wednesday, Larijani called on Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who also expressed Islamabad's support for peaceful settlement of Iran's nuclear issue.

[jimb]

The USA would have to have to be severely threatened to attack any peoples with Nukes.

[Truthsayer]

What would it be like if America attacked Iran?

Answer, Iran would fry our asses with Nukes and Russia and China would probably help them spank the American Ass.

[wanderer1]

Xinhua General News Service

September 8, 2005 Thursday 9:00 PM EST


Musharraf for peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear issue
ISLAMABAD

With the exception of violent george, everybody wants a peaceful resolution. The man's certifiable and would like to set the world ablaze.

[JustAVoice]

With the exception of violent george, everybody wants a peaceful resolution. The man's certifiable and would like to set the world ablaze.

Why do Iranian militants and Al-Qaeda keep calling for "Death to America"??

[Atlas]

Invading Iran would be an unbelievable mess-- would make Iraq look like a game of checkers.

Better to secretly arm the Iranian pro-democracy movement (which is huge in Iran-- more Iranians want a moderate Islamic Western Democracy than want an Islamo-fascist state).

And do surgical airstrikes on their nuke facilities (if we can find them).

Iranians want democracy but-- they still think the U.S.A. is the Great Satan-- and, if we invade Iran, they would make Baghdad look like a love-fest by comparison.

I like the surrogate plan better than most others :add08:

[wanderer1]

Why do Iranian militants and Al-Qaeda keep calling for "Death to America"??

Because they hate us, of course! But that is not to say they want to nuke us. Only we want to declare war on everybody and their uncle.

The world is not the wild west, get get it?

Also, al qaida does not represent Iran, so don't even go there.

Hey, and speaking of al qaida, whatever happened junior's promise to find bin laden? LOL

[JustAVoice]

Only we want to declare war on everybody and their uncle.


Everbody??

Which countries have we declared war on?

[Inquisitor]

Everbody??

Which countries have we declared war on?

He said want, not have.

A more pertinent question would be which countries do we (US) want to declare war on?

[wanderer1]

Everbody??

Which countries have we declared war on?

You're a great one for splitting hairs aren't you. Unfortunately, the drunk still comes out smelling like shit. At the present time, he's itching to attack N Korea, Iran and Venezuela for good measure. And we have thus far invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. In the meantime, bin laden and WMD are nowhere to be found. Anymore apologies you can think of?

Good thing we have all those young people willing to kill and be killed for junior's boondoggles, uh?

[Voice of Reason]

What would be the result - why the end of moves for reform by the 70% of the population who are under thirty years of age, of course.

Were you aware that Iran is holding elections this very day?

Are you aware that Iranians are likely to elect reformist candidates?

Probably not, given that quite a few of you want to 'do 'em'.


Tell me, would you be 'doin' 'em' to bring about freedom and democracy, perhaps, or just for the hell of it?
Moves for reform? Holding elections? Reformist candidates? -- are you serious?

and the last guy who I recall saying 'can't we all just get along' was Rodney King, a little late... perhaps you should ask Iran's governing mullahs to stop leading their people in chants of Death to Israel and the USA, and that Great Satan thing... if you want to know why can't we all just get along.

and we wouldn't be 'doing them' to bring about freedom and /or democracy, but because their soon-to-be-nuclear-armed belligerent attitude is quite frankly a threat to civilisation. Now this doesn't mean that I would have every answer to how to handle things after deposing the regime, any more than I would know what to do after they try to trigger World War Four by a nuclear strike against Israel or the US. Seems to me better to have the former situation than the latter.

For the USA to give up its role as the sole superpower and withdraw to its own boundaries and take up an isolationist stance is admittedly an attractive concept, and would no doubt be well received around the world -- but look how it turned out last time.

[wanderer1]

For the USA to give up its role as the sole superpower and withdraw to its own boundaries and take up an isolationist stance is admittedly an attractive concept, and would no doubt be well received around the world -- but look how it turned out last time.

Attractive or not, the Iraqis are going to send us home with our tail between our legs just like the Vietnamese did. Mark my words.

[JustAVoice]

Attractive or not, the Iraqis are going to send us home with our tail between our legs just like the Vietnamese did. Mark my words.

It's interesting....the 80% of the Iraqi's who were oppressed under Saddam and are now creating a new Iraqi government and working with the Coalition forces don't agree with you.

At least the insurgents/former regime members who are killing Iraqis almost daily have your support.

[wanderer1]

It's interesting....the 80% of the Iraqi's who were oppressed under Saddam and are now creating a new Iraqi government and working with the Coalition forces don't agree with you.

At least the insurgents/former regime members who are killing Iraqis almost daily have your support.

Yeah, Iraqis love us for destroying their country.

[JustAVoice]

Yeah, Iraqis love us for destroying their country.

Iraq is destroyed??

Where do you get your news?

You know more people died last year in America due to car accidents than died in Iraq due to the war......

[wanderer1]

Iraq is destroyed??

Where do you get your news?

You know more people died last year in America due to car accidents than died in Iraq due to the war......

Nah, it's in great shape since junior started dropping napalm and assorted bombs! Hell, every civilian population looks forward to a violent lunatic's military attack!

Take 9/11, for example, Wasn't New York a beautiful sight after bin laden hit us? Bombs can do wonders to reorganize the landscape! What kind of idiot would ask that kind of question anyway!

The problem with you is that you don't know the difference between right and wrong. In other words, you're a lot like violent george. You actually believe Iraqis enjoy being maimed and killed by americans. You're sick, get help..

[JustAVoice]

Nah, it's in great shape since junior started dropping napalm and assorted bombs! Hell, every civilian population looks forward to a violent lunatic's military attack!

Take 9/11, for example, Wasn't New York a beautiful sight after bin laden hit us? Bombs can do wonders to reorganize the landscape! What kind of idiot would ask that kind of question anyway!

The problem with you is that you don't know the difference between right and wrong. In other words, you're a lot like violent george. You actually believe Iraqis enjoy being maimed and killed by americans. You're sick, get help..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the insurgents are killing more Iraqi's than Coalition forces.....

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress voted for the Authorization to use military force in Iraq PRIOR to the Iraq War.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 48+ countries provided material support for the Iraq War.

Your move, Einstein.

[wanderer1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the insurgents are killing more Iraqi's than Coalition forces.....

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Congress voted for the Authorization to use military force in Iraq PRIOR to the Iraq War.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 48+ countries provided material support for the Iraq War.

Your move, Einstein.

Get this through your head: americans are the insurgents. We are not wanted there, Iraq is not our country, we are not Muslims. Do you understand?

Junior destroyed the country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and now the asshole doesn't know what in the hell to do.

Iraqis, with the help of other Muslims, will send us home with our tail between our legs and it couldn't happen to a more deserving country!

Now think up another war we can lose because the sun is setting on this country. :happy_01:

[JustAVoice]

Get this through your head: americans are the insurgents. We are not wanted there, Iraq is not our country, we are not Muslims. Do you understand?

Junior destroyed the country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and now the asshole doesn't know what in the hell to do.

Iraqis, with the help of other Muslims, will send us home with our tail between our legs and it couldn't happen to a more deserving country!

Now think up another war we can lose because the sun is setting on this country. :happy_01:

There are millions of American Muslims....and there are Muslims in the U.S. military.

Al-Zarqawi, head of the insurgency in Iraq, is NOT AN IRAQI.....HE IS JORDANIAN.

Your move, Einstein.

[wanderer1]

There are millions of American Muslims....and there are Muslims in the U.S. military.

Al-Zarqawi, head of the insurgency in Iraq, is NOT AN IRAQI.....HE IS JORDANIAN.

Your move, Einstein.

that changes nothing. Amercans are still not wanted in Iraq so get over it! See how stupid you are, you think the world loves us no matter what crimes we commit? Arrogance will be this country's undoing.

As for Al-Zarqawi being Jordanian, you simply don't understand the world.

Take Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, for example, he is Iranian and he is beloved by the Shia in Iraq. Country of nationality means NOTHING. Americans are ignorant about the world around them. To people like you it's all about americans, the same is not true about the rest of the world.

You should consider traveling and reading from time to time. You're ignorant and an embarrassment to your country.

SO REMEMBER, AMERICANS ARE THE INSURGENTS AND COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY MEANS SHIT. MUSLIMS ARE NOT AMERICANS! GET IT? GOOD!

[JustAVoice]

Not millions, billions! But that changes nothing. Amercans are still not wanted in Iraq so get over it! See how stupid you are, you think the world loves us no matter what crimes we commit? Arrogance will be this country's undoing.

As for Al-Zarqawi being Jordanian, you simply don't understand the world.

Take Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, for example, he is Iranian and he is beloved by the Shia in Iraq. Country of nationality means NOTHING. Americans are ignorant about the world around them. To people like you it's all about americans, the same is not true about the rest of the world.

You should consider traveling and reading from time to time. You're ignorant and an embarrassment to your country.

SO REMEMBER, AMERICANS ARE THE INSURGENTS AND COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY MEANS SHIT. MUSLIMS ARE NOT AMERICANS! GET IT? GOOD!

Muslims are not Americans????

Really, how old are you....?

There are MILLIONS of American Muslims.

Are these Muslims: http://www.masnet.org/ ??

How can you be so naive and ignorant?

Country of origin means nothing?

OK, then the millions of American Muslims can also lay claim to Iraq.

Your move, Einstein.

[wanderer1]

Muslims are not Americans????

Really, how old are you....?

There are MILLIONS of American Muslims.

Are these Muslims: http://www.masnet.org/ ??

How can you be so naive and ignorant?

Country of origin means nothing?

OK, then the millions of American Muslims can also lay claim to Iraq.

Your move, Einstein.

Where did I say Muslims are not or can not be americans? I said you are ignorant and don't understand their world. Country of nationality has nothing to do the price of apples.

Also, so long as american Muslims are wearing an american uniform they most certainly can not lay claim to shit.

[Jake]

Not good.

1) Invasion-- Iran has a much bigger population than Iraq and part (not all, but a big enough part) of Irans' population is more radical than anything in Iraq (even more than Al Sadr).

Basically invading Iran would make Iraq look like a tea party.

2) Airstrike-- might slow things down but they know it may be coming and they have hidden a lot of their nuke R & D facilities, so we can't hit them.

So an air strike won't really stop Iranian nukes from being built.

The fact is, Iran is going to (eventually) have nuclear weapons. The best we can do is support the very large pro-democracy movement there with money (covertly) and hope they come to power before Iran gets it's first nuke.

That plus deterrence-- we need to tell them that if they pass a nuke to a terrorist group who then nukes us-- that we will respond by nuking Iran, period.

The reason this is important is because terrorists don't care about deterrence-- but Islamic states do.

.

[Phuct]

Just OOC- why are you wasting your time with this person?



Muslims are not Americans????

Really, how old are you....?

There are MILLIONS of American Muslims.

Are these Muslims: http://www.masnet.org/ ??

How can you be so naive and ignorant?

Country of origin means nothing?

OK, then the millions of American Muslims can also lay claim to Iraq.

Your move, Einstein.

[JustAVoice]

Where did I say Muslims are not or can not be americans? I said you are ignorant and don't understand their world. Country of nationality has nothing to do the price of apples.

Also, so long as american Muslims are wearing an american uniform they most certainly can not lay claim to shit.

This was your exact comment:


MUSLIMS ARE NOT AMERICANS!

If a person who is a Muslim can claim that country of origin has nothing to do with anything, then the Millions of American Muslims can claim the entire Middle East as their own.....

Your move, Einstein.

(Phuct....shh...:)....he'll see the light eventually)

[wanderer1]

This was your exact comment:



If a person who is a Muslim can claim that country of origin has nothing to do with anything, then the Millions of American Muslims can claim the entire Middle East as their own.....

Your move, Einstein.

My apologies. What I mean is this: Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Muslims from the old world value tribal ties over nationality. Country of Origin means nothing, zero, nada. I don't know too much about american Muslims because I haven't been around them, but know Arabs, Africans, Asians (Pakis and Indians) and nationality means shit.

Werther you and violent george like it or not, we are the insurgents and they will kick us out just like they did the Russians.

The funny part is, we're in exactly the same situation Russia was in: Morally, ideologically and financially bankrupt.


BTW, my apologies were to the Muslims on the forum. I made the same mistake gentiles make with Jews all the time.

[Phuct]

(Phuct....shh...:)....he'll see the light eventually)

No- he's an idealogue. They never see the light unless some shoves a Maglight up their arse.

[JustAVoice]

My apologies. What I mean is this: Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Muslims from the old world value tribal ties over nationality. Country of Origin means nothing, zero, nada. I don't know too much about american Muslims because I haven't been around them, but know Arabs, Africans, Asians (Pakis and Indians) and nationality means shit.

Werther you and violent george like it or not, we are the insurgents and they will kick us out just like they did the Russians.

The funny part is, we're in exactly the same situation Russia was in: Morally, ideologically and financially bankrupt.

Why is it that the 80% of Iraqis (Kurds/Shia) who were oppressed under Saddam and are now creating a new Iraqi government are also working with the Coalition forces?

Country of origin means nothing? Bin Laden had his Saudi Arabian citizenship revoked and was expelled from Saudi Arabia. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, was indicted in Jordan as a terrorist. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian, was imprisoned for involvement in the assisination of Sadat.

It is a fact: The majority of Iraqi's are AGAINST the insurgency and are working with the Coalition to establish a new Iraqi government.

[wanderer1]

Another example of religion transcending country of origin is bin laden. He was born in Saudi Arabia, but he fought and helped to finance the mujahidin Afghanistan. And after 9/11, he became a regular Saladin. Nationality is not an issue in the Muslims world.

[JustAVoice]

Another example of religion transcending country of origin is bin laden. He was born in Saudi Arabia, but he fought and helped to finance the mujahidin Afghanistan. And after 9/11, he became a regular Saladin. Nationality is not an issue in the Muslims world.

because his Saudi citizenship was revoked and he was expelled......

[wanderer1]

Why is it that the 80% of Iraqis (Kurds/Shia) who were oppressed under Saddam and are now creating a new Iraqi government are also working with the Coalition forces?

The Kurds didn't like Saddam, but they don't like us either. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. I have no idea who puts these numbers into your head. In the end, Muslims from around the world will push us out with our tail between our legs and it couldn't happen to a more deserving country.

As for the bin laden's citizenship being revoked, the Saudi Arabian people didn't revoke it, the royal family did. In other words, a handful of corrupt people who feel threatened by bin laden revoked his citizenship. The fact is, Muslims around the world revere Osama. They love him because he's not corrupt and because he showed americans.

Good night.

And remember, we are the insurgents, not the Muslims. We are not wanted in Iraq or Iran. Junior went there to plunder their natural resources but as you can see, its' not working!

[wanderer1]

because his Saudi citizenship was revoked and he was expelled......

The royal family is skating on thin ice, but the people of Saudi love bin laden and don't you forget it. For you to say otherwise is pure denial.

[JustAVoice]

The royal family is skating on thin ice, but the people of Saudi love bin laden and don't you forget it. For you to say otherwise is pure denial.

I know...I know...just as the people of Iraq love Saddam.

After all, Saddam routinely got a 99% election result.

[Ethyl]

Another example of religion transcending country of origin is bin laden. He was born in Saudi Arabia, but he fought and helped to finance the mujahidin Afghanistan. And after 9/11, he became a regular Saladin. Nationality is not an issue in the Muslims world.

so what country are you from?

[undertaker]

Mubarak won big today in Egyptian elections.
A first for Egypt - He wasn't the only name on the ballot.
Just another President for life and some see it as Democracy.

Orson

[Ed Green]

These events are most likely to commence before the end of 2005, as Iran cannot be permitted to open its oil bourse in March 2006.




Will the Iranian Oil Bourse Threaten the Dollar?
Tuesday, September 13, 2005


http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1704

Iran continues to push its weight around. Now it proposes to begin pricing oil in euros. Unfortunately, just about everyone would benefit—except the United States.

For half a century, the American dollar has been the reserve currency of the world. Seventy percent of all currency reserves are in American dollars.

This has a lot to do with the fact that oil, the most important commodity traded in the world, is mostly priced in U.S. dollars. The majority of countries, being oil importers, have to buy their oil in U.S. dollars. This, together with related economic considerations, encourages them keep most of their foreign currency in dollars.

The debt-burdened U.S. economy is dependent upon this high demand for its currency in order to remain afloat. The day this demand comes to end will portend disaster for the American economy.

There is a move underway, however, to effect just such a reversal of the dollar’s fortunes. In particular, the world’s second-largest producer of crude oil—and declared enemy of the United States—Iran, seeks to end the predominance of America’s currency.

Several weeks ago, Tehran reconfirmed that it plans to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

The proposed March 2006 launch of the Iranian oil bourse (iob), if successful, would give the euro a foothold in the international oil trade, solidifying its status as an alternative oil transaction currency. This, in turn, could be a catalyst for a major currency flight from the dollar to the euro—and a disaster for America.

The iob will see crude oil, petrochemicals and other commodities of the same kind traded in euros.

Iran no doubt has multiple motives for making this move.

For one, it makes sense economically, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. But more importantly, it would strike a blow to Iran’s archenemy America—and, by hoping to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region, help drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for regional supremacy.

George Perkovich, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, stated it frankly: “It’s part of a very intelligent, creative Iranian strategy—to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilize other actors against the U.S.” (Christian Science Monitor, August 30).

Iran is eager to eliminate American influence. For Iran, which foresees a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and America—which holds the banner for the West—undermining the dollar could prove to be its best and most effective strike against a more capable military foe.

Asia Times reported that only one major actor stands to lose if oil-trading in euros takes hold: the U.S. By contrast, “Oil in euros would benefit millions … in the EU and its trading partners …. And it would loosen the grip the U.S. has on opec members” (August 26).

“One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006,” one expert on the subject stated, “when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 on the nymex [New York Mercantile Exchange] and ipe [London’s International Petroleum Exchange] or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 to €50 via the Iranian bourse” (Global Politician, September 2).

If oil-trading in euros were to get going, the already-existent global trend of foreign currency reserves being shifted from dollars to euros would rapidly accelerate. In turn, “countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more …. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst” (The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2004).

The snowballing effect of a reserve currency switch would be catastrophic for the U.S., according to the Global Politician. The U.S. “would simply have to stop importing” (op. cit.).

Considering America’s industrial and agricultural heartland has been gutted over the last half century, this possibility could be grave. As one commentator put it, the impact of the Iran oil bourse on the U.S. dollar—and the follow-on effect on the U.S. economy—could be worse than Iran launching a “direct nuclear attack.”

Should Iran’s planned euro-based oil-trading mechanism get off the ground and gain international popularity, the U.S. dollar will weaken and the euro strengthen—helping to hasten the economic decline of the U.S. and propelling the European Union into dominance.

Though many economists consider the chances of Iran’s ambitions being successful as remote, we can know from Bible prophecy that the U.S. financial system will be brought down—along with the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency.

[Bman]

Oh, don't worry.. Iran is busy making deals with the Pakis and Russians too

As I said, it appears to me they are going out of their way to set up alliances (particularly involving energy) with nuclear armed neighbors

As I have pointed out many times, this makes any US attack on Iran impossible. Why would nuclear armed Russia, China, India and Pakistan give up their oil and natural gas supply, so that Chevron and Exxon could have it?? LOL.. seems ludicrous




Iran in Oil Talks with Russia and Pakistan/India

June 8, 2005 2:37 p.m. EST


Matthew Borghese - All Headline News Contributor

TEHRAN, Iran (AHN) – Iran is looking to Russia and Pakistan to create new oil deals in the face of the new Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which cuts Iran out of the bulk of the lucrative Caspian oil trade.


Iranian press is reporting that Iran has offered to conclude a 25 year “swap” deal with Russian energy companies for delivering “as much as 300,000 barrels of Caspian crude” at its northern Neka port and receiving an equal volume at the Persian Gulf ports.


Iran has also concluded “in principle” a deal to build a pipeline to transport oil to India, via Pakistan. Iran would sell their Caspian oil to the two nations through the pipeline.

The pipeline would help supply India and Pakistan’s growing energy demands, as well as provide an economic tie between the two countries which could help cement the fragile peace between them.

Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs, Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian, raised the proposal in a recent visit to Moscow and has established a committee to advance the issue.

Nejad-Hosseinian said currently the Iranian port at Neka has a 170,000 barrel capacity that can be raised to as high as 700,000 barrels if there is a permanent customer, such as Russia.


An oil official spoke to the Persian-language newspaper Jahan-e San'at, saying that Russia's LukOil can currently deliver 120,000 barrels of oil to the Neka port, if a deal is completed.

Currently, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are looking for a way to export their Caspian oil. The only economically viable option right now is the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

However, if Iran can increase their deal with Russia to transport as many as 300,000 barrels of crude oil a day, then Iran would be a viable alternative for those two countries.



http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2236511692




Ottawa Citizen

October 17, 2005 Monday
Final Edition

Bush's Plan A isn't working: Western countries have little leverage on Iran when it has friends in Beijing and Moscow

Vivienne Walt, Citizen Special


For all those out there trying to coax Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, here's a suggestion: Wander down a leafy side street in north Tehran and drop in on the Petroleum Engineering and Development Co., which is charged with implementing international energy mega-deals for the Iranian government.

That's what I did earlier this year, and here's how it went: The company's deputy managing director, Ali Akhbar Vahidi Aleagha, rushed into his office late for our appointment, explaining that he'd been locked in talks all day with executives from the Chinese petroleum company Sinopec. He sounded like a man who had just come home from his dream date.

"China and Iran are perfectly matched for each other," he gushed in almost accentless English, honed while studying engineering at Imperial College London. China needs energy and has lots of hard cash to spend, he said; Iran needs hard cash and has plenty of energy to sell. "It's a win-win situation."

Anyone within driving distance of a Wal-Mart knows that the customers who get the most attention are those with bulging wallets and a list of things they urgently need for the house. So, think of Iran as the world's energy Wal-Mart. It controls roughly 14 trillion cubic metres of natural-gas reserves in the biggest natural-gas field on Earth -- South Pars in the Persian Gulf. Its proven oil reserves are about 130 billion barrels, behind only Saudi Arabia and Canada. (With oil at more than $65 U.S. a barrel, you do the math.) There are outlets on the Caspian Sea as well as the Gulf. Hundreds of talented engineers work in sprawling Tehran, many trained by U.S. oil companies before former president Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iran a decade ago, driving out U.S. oil companies. And unlike oil-rich neighbour Iraq, there is no war being fought on its soil and no insurgents blowing up pipelines in the desert.

Now enter customer China, whose soaring growth could create one of the worst energy shortages in history. Less than a year ago, China inked a deal with Iran that will last through the next generation, well after Iran's new conservative, populist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has quietly faded into retirement. Over the next 30 years, Beijing will spend $70 billion U.S. buying about 245 million tonnes of natural gas from Iran. Chinese oil companies will spend another $100 billion U.S. or so drilling amid mammoth oil reserves -- about 17 billion barrels -- in the newly discovered oil fields in southwest Iran. And meanwhile, another hungry Asian customer, India, has also been shopping in Tehran, agreeing to buy 4.5 million tonnes of gas annually for the next several years -- worth about $22 billion U.S. in all. No wonder Aleagha seemed pleased.

The deal-making also helps explain why President Ahmadinejad breezed into Manhattan last month for his United Nations debut with a cocky self-assuredness that has left U.S. and European diplomats seriously off-kilter. In August, he abandoned Iran's agreement with European negotiators to stop his uranium-enrichment program. In New York, he told the UN General Assembly that he had no intention of yielding to western demands that Iran freeze its nuclear program -- which he says is purely for peaceful purposes and is needed to solve Iran's own energy problems -- and then he strode into a conference room to preside over his first truly international press conference. Rakishly thin in his open-necked shirt, he was so relaxed that it was hard to remember that few people outside Iran had even heard of the Tehran mayor until he was elected earlier this year, let alone thought he'd be president of a country of 68 million people. When I was in Tehran earlier this year, as the election campaign kicked off, he wasn't even mentioned as a contender.

But Ahmadinejad could be tailor-made for Iran these days. As the first non-cleric president in decades, he seems a lot less concerned with fighting the usual Middle East ideological duels. He steered clear of them with journalists in New York, although the insult was clear when he ignored a question from the Israeli reporter sitting behind me at the press conference, about whether Iran still supported Israel's destruction. Ahmadinejad is all about money -- that could be one reason why millions of Iranians who've spent years praying for salvation from poverty voted for him in June.

That is not to say we can trust Iran not to develop long-range nuclear missiles -- we can't. Despite signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, many Iranians, even those who want reform at home, see the nuclear program as their sovereign right in a region with nukes in Pakistan, India and Israel, and most are sick of being lectured to by the West. Abandoning the nuclear program is "a red line that we won't cross," Hussein Shariatmadari, a publisher of the mouthpiece newspaper for Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a close ally of the mullahs, told me when I visited his office in Tehran earlier this year. "In fact, I believe we should get out of the NPT."

Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions have had very patchy effects in Iran. U.S. law bans American companies from operating in Iran and threatens sanctions against non-American companies investing more than $20 million U.S. a year in the country's oil industry.

But since Europe has no similar sanctions, European companies -- including oil majors like Total and Royal Dutch/Shell -- have picked up much of the slack. "This is the 21st century," says Aleagha. "We can get anything we want."

President George Bush seems ill-prepared to talk business with Ahmadinejad, although they have quite a bit in common: They both went from being local political executives to presidents, and they certainly both know about oil. But Bush is committed to U.S. sanctions against Iran and the war on global terror, and many Americans remain haunted by images of the 1979 Islamic revolution and the taking of U.S. hostages. So Bush has depended for months on France, Britain, and Germany to cut a deal to end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program and enforce nuclear inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With that plan seriously frayed, Bush now hopes for a rebuke by the UN Security Council, realizing he cannot hope to sell an Iraq-style military offensive to Americans these days. But this could also backfire, perhaps as badly as Bush's failure to get the Security Council to support an invasion in Iraq back in 2002. As long as Aleagha is locked in meetings with Sinopec and other companies, support for tough action against Iran will be thin. China -- Aleagha's dream date -- will block any hostile move against Iran, using its veto powers on the Security Council. So, too, will Russia, another permanent Security Council member, which is building a reactor for the Iranians in southern Iran. With Bush hobbled by Iran's defiance, Tony Blair last month offered a watered-down proposal to send Iran's noncompliance to the Security Council after the IAEA board meetings in November. Iran has hinted it could expel the nuclear inspectors or restart its uranium enrichment if it faces punishment in New York.

It's time for Plan B. Bush could find himself having to back away from his Security Council pursuit and live with permanent nuclear monitors in Iran.

Vivienne Walt has written for Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Slate, where this article first appeared.

[Bman]

Well, as I pointed out in my previous handful of posts, its not just CHINA that has an energy interest in maintaining THE CURRENT regime in Iran.. but also the Russians, Paki's, and now... the Indians

Well over half of the world's population and half of the known nuclear armed states (not counting N. Korea) have energy alliances with the current Iranian regime


Refresher:

OVER HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION and HALF THE WORLD'S KNOWN NUCLEAR POWERS have a VERY BIG INTEREST in keeping the current government of Iran, in place

What did the US do after it ousted Saddam?

One of the first things we did was cancel any deals he had with other countries and write off the debt that he owed them.

That's no big deal in the case of Iraq, since they were small potatoes...

Iran.. that's a whole 'nuther' ball of wax, friend.. India, China, and the Russian all have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS riding on Iran

[Bman]

Iran recently inked a massive 70 Billion dollar long term deal to supply China with oil

Now they've inked a hefty 22 billion dollar deal to supply India with natural gas and give them a stake in the oil fields


Iran seems to be lining up nuclear armed allies who will protect it from international sanctions/and or military threats when it declares itself a nuclear power





China says "NO GO" to UN sanctions on Iran



China opposes sanctions to resolve Iran dispute
Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:57 AM GMT


By Chris Buckley and Lindsay Beck

BEIJING (Reuters) - China opposes sanctions against Iran's nuclear ambitions and urges countries to consider a Russian compromise, a Chinese spokesman said on Thursday, as Tehran's nuclear negotiator held talks in Beijing.

"We oppose impulsively using sanctions or threats of sanctions to solve problems. This will complicate problems," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told a news conference.

In Moscow on Wednesday, the Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said referring Iran's nuclear activities to the U.N. Security Council would prompt Tehran to start uranium enrichment.

But he also signalled interest in a Russian proposal to enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil -- a compromise backers say would give Iran nuclear power but restrain any moves to make weapons.

Chinese spokesman Kong said Russia's offer should be seriously considered.

"We think the Russian proposal is a good attempt to break this stalemate," Kong said.

He said Larijani held morning-long talks with Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. The Iranian diplomat was to meet State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan in the afternoon and hold a news conference in the evening.

Earlier this month, Iran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed nuclear fuel research. It says it does not want nuclear weapons, and has the right to enrich uranium at home.

The United States and its European Union allies, who fear Iran might move to developing nuclear weapons, say the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should turn Iran over to the United Nations' Security Council.

LONDON MEETING

Russia and China -- who wield veto power in the Council along with the three other permanent members -- have urged other solutions to the standoff. The other members are the United States, Britain and France.

China is also hosting stop-start six-party talks, including Russia and the United States, aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programme.

Kong said all the countries involved should "intensify diplomatic efforts" to broker a solution before the IAEA meets on February 2 to debate sending Iran to the Security Council.

The Council's veto-wielding permanent members plus Germany plan to meet in London on Monday to try to resolve differences over what to do about Iran.

Larijani's visit came just a day after the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick left China following a three-day visit.

On Wednesday, Zoellick gave a positive assessment of China's role in the nuclear stand-off, saying Washington and Beijing had no major differences on the issue. Kong, the Chinese spokesman, declined to directly endorse that assessment, simply repeating Beijing's general stance.

Analysts say despite its objections, China would be more likely to abstain from a vote than use its veto. But Kong said Iran should have the right to peaceful nuclear power.

"All Non-Proliferation Treaty countries' rights to peacefully use nuclear power should be respected, but we must emphasise that these countries should also strictly abide by the relevant regulations," he said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said that if sent to the Security Council, his country would immediately halt voluntary dealings with the IAEA, which include snap checks on its atomic sites.

Iran, going beyond its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, allows impromptu inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

Mottaki urged Britain, France and Germany to renew talks they halted this month after Iran resumed its nuclear fuel research.

Kong said China has received no "formal invitation" from Iran to take part in the kind of compromise Russia proposed.

"We hope all sides will use their wisdom to provide new proposals that will create conditions for reviving negotiations," he said.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-26T095709Z_01_PEK273555_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-CHINA.xml

[emtae]

All of the scenarios that have been analyzed here.......there's one that I don't see being analyzed.....

what if he do small nukes and moabs day and night from the air nonstop for about 2 years?

we'll never put one single pair of boots on iranian sand.....

they'll be begging for peace.

[Mudshark]

Refresher:

OVER HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION and HALF THE WORLD'S KNOWN NUCLEAR POWERS have a VERY BIG INTEREST in keeping the current government of Iran, in place

Wouldn't it be fairer to say "have a VERY BIG INTEREST in securing the long term future of their energy supplies".

If that means dealing with the current regime in Iran, fine. If it means dealing with another regime in Iran, fine.

I don't think China, Russia, India etc actually like the Mullahs.

[emtae]

Wouldn't it be fairer to say "have a VERY BIG INTEREST in securing the long term future of their energy supplies".

If that means dealing with the current regime in Iran, fine. If it means dealing with another regime in Iran, fine.

I don't think China, Russia, India etc actually like the Mullahs.

Half the world has an interest but only one (AMERICA) will get up and do something about it.....the rest will sit on their ass and let Iran get away with it's bullshit

[CHE]

Western Europeans and Americans seem to think, in at least a simple majority, that war against another country is not the end of the world provided that there is little pain, cost, or loss of life on "our" side. They also seem to understand that if war against another country were to cause massive military loss of life, economic depression and counter attacks on our own soil, or any of the above, for that matter, that it is clearly an impossible course of action.

Neither is true. Not even remotely.

Just because a war against another country would be relatively painless does not serve to justify the action (id est "might equals right"). And, on the other hand, just because a war would inflict equal casualties on our own people, economies and burn down our own homes, does not mean it must be ruled out.

Saying a war against Iran might be actually be painful toward the aggressors (oh no!) or even potentially disastrous does not mean that it isn’t necessary. It depends on the risks of the alternatives.

[Bman]

Wouldn't it be fairer to say "have a VERY BIG INTEREST in securing the long term future of their energy supplies".

If that means dealing with the current regime in Iran, fine. If it means dealing with another regime in Iran, fine.

I don't think China, Russia, India etc actually like the Mullahs.


No. I put it correctly

China for instance signed $70 billion dollar energy deal with the current government of Iran.

As we saw in Iraq, the first thing that happens after a "regime change", is all of the old deals, debts, ect are cancelled

China can't afford to let that happen in Iran

[Bman]

Need more evidence?



Asia's mass debt weapon points to US

March 13, 2004

Despite some evident misgivings about his rising level of indebtedness, US President George Bush's bankers of last resort are continuing to lend him the funds to pay for vital necessities like tax cuts, the war in Iraq and missile defence.

Toshihiko Fukui and Zhou Xiaochuan no doubt have their disagreements about Mr Bush's priorities, but as governors of the central banks of Japan and China, respectively, they are continuing to build up already massive holdings of US Treasury securities.

A warning signal is flashing, however, in a trend by Asian countries to diversify new additions to their foreign reserves away from US dollar investments into other currencies and assets. This is a sign of concern about the growing "twin deficits" in the United States, a federal budget deficit projected at $US524 billion ($717 billion) and a similar current account gap, each equivalent to around 5 per cent of GDP.

Around Asian financial circles there is growing, if still muted, talk of a looming "dollar crisis" equivalent to the sterling crises of the 1960s - when London could no longer support the reserve role of the British pound - unless Washington mends its profligate ways and accepts higher interest rates and taxes.

A default by the US government is still unthinkable, but not so a unilateral change in the rules of international finance - akin to Richard Nixon's halt to the convertibility of dollars into gold in 1971, or Franklin D. Roosevelt's devaluation and repudiation of gold-denominated contracts.

Among the possibilities being discussed are a closing of the exit door to prevent a sudden sell-off of US treasuries by Asian governments, which would require sudden leaps in US domestic interest rates, triggering a recession.

In a recent research note, Hong Kong-based Union Bank of Switzerland economist Jonathan Anderson notes a "cautious stance" on the US dollar among Asian central banks emerging from US Treasury data for December. As the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves accelerated in the region, new net purchases of US assets were broadly unchanged.

The figures suggested that Asian central banks had directed about 50 per cent of new reserve inflows into US dollar assets during the second half of last year, compared with an average of about 90 per cent from 2000 to 2002. "This is still a net reduction in support for the US current account deficit - but far from a dollar sell-off," Anderson says.

But a smaller portion of a growing pie may still be enough for US Treasurer John Snow to finance Bush's controversial budget strategy. The combined foreign reserves of 11 large and medium-sized economies in Asia continued to soar past the $US2 trillion mark in the first two months of this year.

Japan's reserves grew to a staggering $US777 billion at the end of last month, equivalent to 20 per cent of its GDP. Bank of Japan governor Fukui said this week it was still too early for him to take the foot off the yen-depression pedal and stop buying dollars, because Japan's emergence from deflation was still tentative.

China's foreign reserves hit $US416 billion at the end of January, and would have been $US45 billion higher if that amount had not been diverted to shore up the capital base of two of the large government-owned commercial banks in an unusual transaction at the end of last year.

People's Bank of China governor Zhou has fewer and fewer excuses for keeping the yuan low by sterilising surpluses offshore by buying dollars. Frenetic growth in the Chinese economy is showing its effects in consumer prices, which rose 5.7 per cent in the year to February, the highest rate in seven years, and up from 3.2 percent in December. Only 18 months ago, China too was suffering mild deflation.

With ports, railways, canals and roads choked by the massive shipments of raw materials being imported or transferred internally, more price pressure is likely to feed into the economy unless Premier Wen Jiabao and the PBOC governor can quickly rein in money supply growth and excessive capital investment.

Escalating prices for raw materials and shipping have already helped cut China's overall trade surplus, and February trade actually showed a deficit of $US7.9 billion. But the country's capital account is no longer being driven by its trade surplus and foreign direct investment inflow. Last year, foreign reserves rose by $US161 billion, more than double the combined trade surplus ($US23 billion) and FDI inflow ($US53 billion).

"The heavy pressure has actually been speculative capital inflow," said one senior regional government financial official. "A whole range of people think the renminbi ('people's money' - the yuan's official name) is going to appreciate."

The speculative influx has occurred despite official capital movement controls which are unlikely to be relaxed for five to six years, according to recent Chinese official pronouncements, and frequent statements from central bank governor Zhou down that the currency will not be revalued soon.

Scepticism about these statements is widespread, with the US investment bank Goldman Sachs forecasting a 10 per cent revaluation of the yuan by year's end.

However, many analysts think it will be domestic weaknesses like inflation which eventually cause Beijing to move from the 10-year-old peg of 8.28 yuan to the US dollar which has fuelled growth.

A recent paper by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (written by economists Michael Dooley, David Folkers-Landau, and Peter Garber) sees the "trade-account" countries of Asia continuing to push their growth strategy based on low currency valuation and capital controls as far as it will go - to the detriment of "capital-account" countries, including the European nations and Australia, with floating exchange rates whose trade (except, implicitly, in resources) will be gobbled up by the Asians.

Meanwhile, Asian countries will accept low yields and depreciation of their US dollar foreign reserves as the price of growth. "The US does not have to feel defensive about its situation, and the rest of the world is going to need it as much as it needs them," the foreign financial official said.

Foreigners still own only a minority share of total debt and equity in the US. But the top six Asian central banks held 56 per cent of the US Treasury securities in foreign hands at the end of 2003, up from 51 per cent at the end of 2002.

As a percentage of total outstanding US Treasury securities, including those in domestic hands, the percentage held by these six Asian central banks is lower, about 35 per cent, but still big enough to cause a massive sudden capital shortage if pulled.

But why would they? A forced US recession would rebound immediately on Asian exporters. As a source of innovation, the US has no replacement. It would take a sudden political crisis - such a realisation in Beijing that it was about to permanently "lose" Taiwan - might invoke the debt weapon.

Meanwhile, corrective mechanisms are beginning to work, despite the best efforts of the Asian central bankers. The dollar is sinking, the yuan and yen are under upward pressure, and US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has just given the first hint of a mid-year interest rate rise. As Japan heads towards becoming the first country with trillion-dollar foreign reserves, the absurdity of its continuing to cower in the Asian trade-account block is more and more obvious.

If the Asian countries do let their currencies rise, leading to tapering trade surpluses and slower speculative inflows, the central banks would have less offshore dollars to sterilise anyway and US Treasurer Snow might have to offer more for his deficit-covering funds: a case of be careful what you wish for.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594565010.html



and now, they're threatening to USE it.


China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml)