Facing Sanctions, Iran Uses Oil to Seek Allies

[varun]

Even India and Pakistan are willing to forget their differences to get Iranian oil...and showed Condi the finger recently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/business/worldbusiness/19tehran.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=30e5e598b0fcc3b2&hp&ex=1113969600&partner=homepage

TEHRAN, Iran - As it faces the threat of global sanctions from the United States and Europe because of suspicions that it is turning its nuclear program to weapons production, Iran is fighting back with a powerful weapon of its own: its vast oil and gas resources.

Iran's ruling clerics are meticulously arranging energy sales and building partnerships with influential countries, including China and India, as a way to win stronger friendships around the world.

The rising price of oil, nervousness in the energy markets and the scramble by fast-growing countries to secure their own access to oil supplies has lately played into Tehran's hand.

This renewed push to turn underground riches into political power complicates the Bush administration's attempt to isolate Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil deposits and has the second-largest gas reserves....

[bemildred]

1. Iran faces no sanctions.

An invasion or bombing campaign maybe.

Building networks of allies and partners is a good thing in itself,
one need not assume some outside threat is forcing the issue. The
real story is that Iran is FREE to pursue these alliances and that
its partners are WILLING to join with them in such efforts and the US
and the EU are IMPOTENT to do squat about it.

[SouthernDem2004]

2. It is the US, EU and UN. but

I would not say the US and EU are impotent, the UN yes.

[bemildred]

4. "Global sanctions".

You can't do "global sanctions" with just the US and EU.
The notion the the EU is up for sanctions is yet to be proven, too.

Edit: "impotent" in general is not the same thing as "impotent to do
much about Iran". I meant the latter, as was clear from the context.

[leveymg]

3. Why does the NYT assume that the EU will vote for sanctions?

That's the Bush Administration's position, and Tony Blair's (of course). Most of the rest of Europe, dependent as it is on a continued energy imports, is unlikely to take the penultimate step of actually voting to cut itself off from Iranian oil and gas. Such a move would be tantamount to imposing a 15% rise in energy costs with a proportional slowing in their economies. Whatever sanctions the EU imposes, if any, are sure to be superficial and intended to appease Washington and not to truly isolate Tehran.

The fact is, the only thing that the Europeans (and most of the rest of the world) want is for Iran to calm down and continue negotiating. Everyone with any sense sees that a stable, secure government in Tehran is a lot less likely to lash out.

Backing the present Iranian leadership into a corner with escalating threats of bombing and assassinations makes a violent outcome far more likely. A war with the US, Israel, and whatever countries who might join them, also virtually insures that even more radical elements come to power in Tehran. If we are party to an attack against Iran, a mass casualty event in America then becomes inevitable, and one in Europe more likely. Right now, the chances of the Iranian government initiating state-sponsored attacks against the west are virtually nil. Further escalation of tensions by the U.S. or Israel would change that.

Therefore, the result of a show-down is predictably not in anyone's interest, except those regimes who stay in power through the continual threat of war. The Bush-Sharon Axis is the true terrorist regime that needs to be changed.

Regime change at home to prevent World War III (IV?) would be an act of self-preservation by the American people.

:bounce: