Iran may use oil as a weapon

[JCMach1]

Iran would consider using oil as a weapon and denial of access to international nuclear inspectors if the United Nations Security Council is pressurised by the US and allies to impose sanctions against it merely on suspicion that it is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, asserts Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an exclusive interview with Khaleej Times, President Ahmadinejad said Iran like other countries had the right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy and no nation could dictate to it. There was no question of Iran using nuclear energy for making weapons as the country was governed by islamic principles which prohibited production or use of nuclear weapons... http://khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/October/middleeast_October8.xml§ion=middleeast

[lovuian]

1. Ya who needs a Nuke not selling oil to US would be worse!!!

:nuke:

[cliss]

2. And that's probably the way it should be.

The oil countries are the SUPPLIER. The U.S. is the PURCHASER. Since when does the purchase call all the shots, and declare war on the supplier?

Beggars can't be choosers.

[tritsofme]

8. I don't believe we buy oil from Iran

because of the sanctions passed in the late 70s.

However a shutdown of Iranian production would have a huge impact on the global oil market.

[JCMach1]

9. Pricing is about the "TOTAL MARKET"

Any discruption would cause a price spike!

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Ever hear of a little company called Wal-Mart?

They are out of Arkansas.

[Strelnikov_]

3. "Attack On Iran Would Rocket Oil Prices To 400 Dollars"

Considering most wars are started due to miscalculation, the following statement is somewhat troubling.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3859

. . .

Brigadier General Hassan Abbasi, who heads the Centre for Research on Security Without Borders Doctrines, speaking in the town of Karaj, said that until now negotiations with the Islamic Republic over its suspected nuclear weapons program were carried out in the framework of one of three doctrines; “Carrot and Stick”, “Good Cop, Bad Cop”, and “Trigger Mechanism”. Abbasi described the West’s latest doctrine vis-à-vis Iran’s sensitive nuclear work as the “Chicken Strategy”, where “both parties follow a collision course at such fast speeds until one side eventually backs off”.

. . .

“Given the West’s new doctrine against Iran, our country’s officials must resist to the last moment”, Abbasi insisted, adding that they must make use of the country’s geo-strategic position and economic advantages, such as its immense oil reserves, so as to never back down from their stance.

“All of this is at a time when the West’s problem is simply a shaky economy dependent on oil”.

“During last year’s evaluations of various theoretical outcomes, we reached the conclusion that in the event of an oil sales embargo on Iran the price of oil would reach 110 dollars and in the case of a military attack on Iran its price would reach 400 dollars. Therefore, knowing the West’s strategic knowledge of this matter, the oil sanction and military attack options against Iran are just a bluff.”

[NEOBuckeye]

5. $400 per barrel = $17.00 PER GALLON!

Grand Depression, here we come!

[bananas]

6. “Chicken Strategy” - U.S. may end participation on Russian space flights

In case you hadn't seen this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1817527&mesg_id=1817527

NASA chief warns that U.S. may end participation on Russian space flights

By Mike Eckel
ASSOCIATED PRESS

8:22 a.m. September 30, 2005

BAIKONUR, Kazakhstan – NASA's top official said Friday that the future of U.S participation in Russian space flights is in doubt due to a congressional measure that aims to punish Moscow for its cooperation with Iran.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters near the Baikonur cosmodrome that "an acceptable financial agreement" could be reached in response to Kremlin demands that the United States pay for its participation in future Russian flights.

But Griffin said the chief obstacle that could end "a continuous American presence on the ISS (international space station)" was the 2000 Iran Nonproliferation Act, which penalizes countries that sell unconventional weapons and missile technology to Iran.

<more>

[lcordero2]

7. if that's the case then they could say

get out of the Middle East NOW!!! or you won't have an economy by the end of the week.

[rustydad]

20. Iran has no choice

They are a country that needs a cash commodity to sell to the world because they need lots of imports to keep their population content. They have lots of oil and even more natural gas. In a few decades though they will be down to only having enough for themselves. So setting up nuclear reactors now makes lots of sense for them. Enriching their own uranium also makes sense for them as getting it from foreign suppliers is risky in the long run. From their perspective they feel the US pressure to deny them nuclear power is an insult given the support we give Israel whom all acknowledge has several hundred illegal nuclear weapons. many pointed at Iran I would add. And reducing their oil exports to select countries is no different than the US embargoes against countries we dislike like Cuba. They would need to slow the flow and drive prices up enough to punish but not kill the demand by causing economic disruption world wide. Rising oil prices hurt some countries more than others. The poor countries like Indonesia and Africa are hurting now. But the richer western nations in Europe are so far OK because they are so much more efficient in oil consumption getting twice the GDP per unit of oil as the US. Russia would of course be a big winner in price escalation. Countries with very high fuel taxes also have the luxury of lowering taxes to keep prices stable.

In the final analysis it is likely the US that would take the biggest hit. We are financially stretched to the limit. Many Americans are deep in debt and ant increase in interest rate will push them over the edge. The only advantage we might seem to have is the military might of our forces. Yet this is like the bullet you cannot use because it will rick-o-shey and come back to hurt us. Normal politicians would understand this. But today politics in the US is anything but normal. Bob

[necso]

4. Um,

the idiots in charge here don't really care about oil prices going up (and their cronies and masters profit big time) -- unless it hurts them politically. And if they can blame high oil prices on the Iranians, it may even help the neocons.

And denying access to nuclear inspectors will be spun by the neocons as "proof" of Iranian nuclear-weapon related plans and activities, Iranian insincerity, etc. (And it might work.)

These threats sound tough, but carrying them out would be to invite a little visit from Mr Atom. (The neocons are nuts -- take it as a given.)

[JCMach1]

10. This is also a WARNING SHOT across the bows of Sec. Council Members

Or at least certain ones...

[RONSTOO]

11. doh.......

no they wouldn't dream of that ...fucking come on...come up with bettter shock value news than that.

[sarcasmo]

12. Nominating, a very smart power play on Irans part.

150 dollar oil barrel prices would cripple this country. Iran is saving many of our younger peoples lives by using this move.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. And converting to Euros instead from dollars would increase the price

even further.

[YapiYapo]

16. Indeed

Big dilemma hey ?

Attack = oil price skyrocket worldwide.
No attack = Creation of a Middle east oil bourse (March 06) to sell oil in euro = collapse of the dollar.

[jody]

13. Reducing Iran's oil supply would strengthen Venezuela's position. n/t

[Mika]

15. Plus, Ven and Iran have a mutual agreement. If one is attacked by the US..

.. then the other withholds oil sales.

[jody]

18. Do you have a source? nt

[VegasWolf]

17. Just imagine Cheney's and Bush's stock portfolio if oil goes to $400 a

barrel!! They are already raking in obscene profits on oil after successfully screwing up Iraq. Now they piss off Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela and to run the oil futures market into the ground and Bush and his cronies become unimaginably wealthy.

[kineneb]

19. and history will repeat its self

...re: the French revolution

Hello, Madam Guillotine

[Eugene]

21. BBC: Iran denies report of oil threat

Last Updated: Saturday, 1 October 2005, 18:36 GMT 19:36 UK

Iran denies report of oil threat

Iran's president has denied reports he threatened to withhold oil
sales if Tehran was referred to the UN Security Council over its
nuclear activities.

The UN nuclear watchdog agency passed a resolution a week ago paving
the way for Iran to be reported to the council.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he did not give an interview
to a Dubai newspaper which reported him as issuing the warning on
oil sales.

However, the Khaleej Times newspaper is standing by its freelance
reporter.

<snip>

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4300124.stm

[IndianaGreen]

23. Sounds like the US-Iran War has started

If Bush follows the path he followed to lie our country into war with Iraq, we are going to be reading a lot of stories in the press about "Iran this" and "Iran that" which are meant to increase public anxiety about Iran. Then Bush will get the idiots in AIPAC to start their own "panic attack" campaign about Iran being a threat to Israel and, voila, we got ourselves another war.

[Megahurtz]

40. I'm sure that's exactly what *he* wants. n/t

[Robb]

22. No, no, no ...

We're supposed to be making nicey-nice with these guys. :eyes:

[Giant Robot]

24. So we have found the WMD's

n/t

[daleo]

25. Why is it ok to deny them nuclear power?

But when they refuse to sell their oil to others that is called "using oil as a weapon"? Isn't the proposed denial of the right to nuclear technology then "using nuclear power as a weapon"?

How do you use oil as a weapon? Drop it from the sky? Fire it from cannons?

[Supersedeas]

35. Energy alternatives is both a carrot and a stick in power brokering

ie. North Korea

[robert135]

26. We are right to block Iran

I am no fan of the administration, but we are completely correct to block Iran in any attempt to work nuclear equipment and fuel.

Regular nuclear energy production can make nuclear weapon grade stuff people. Sad that I have to spell it out, but it is a fact as a byproduct of producing the stuff.

Iran has flat out been behind many of the terrorist attacks against the US well before 9/11, and while I am no fan of Israel either, they have shown a willingness to bring weapons against the west that few other nations in the region have had the recklessness to try.

A nuclear free Iran is a nation we can negotiate with... and one day welcome to a democratic state (hopefully... slowly ploddingly and even if they still don't like us) we can accept them... but if they start pushing on us with nukes at their back... we are going to either back down to Islamic extremists (I would die first), or we are going to have a war that makes Iraq look like a picnic.

It is in both countries best interest to negotiate this... because past a point, there is little else to do.

[tainowarrior]

27. Would every other country be completely correct

in denying us nuclear power? I mean, no double standards please. "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you".

Iran has "flat out" been behind terrorist attacks against the U.S? WHich ones? Evidence? Source? Website links? As far as I know, Iran has only supported Hezbollah, a Lebanese, localized resistance group that acted mostly against Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Their prominence or activity has lessened since Israel left Lebanon. I've never heard of Iran attacking the U.S. since the hostage situation.

When you mean "negotiate", you really mean "push around" with the threat of overwhelming military invasion. A nuclear Iran would prevent us from being able "negotiate" (I mean, "push around") because they could dangle the nuke to "push us back".

Instead of starting a nuke war, or conglomerating all Islamic people as "Islamic extremists", how about this for a novel idea: LEAVE EM ALONE.

You read that right. Leave em alone. Do you see Iran's neighbors fearing Iran? Do you see China, Russia, Europe, and other nations feeling like they're "backing down" to Islamic extremists? This is just a peculiar habit of the United States to think that everything revolves around them, and that they must be willing to fight everyone to look macho.

I assume, since you claimed that you'd rather die than back down to the Islamic extremists, that you were the first in line to sign up for Iraq, and would be the first in line to sign up to fight Iran, right?

We're awaiting your response, friend.

[lonestarnot]

30. Maybe you would like to join the "Wo on terism" I can find a close

recruiting office if you just give me you address.

[robert135]

31. You guys don't get it.

We have not Pushed them around as you say, yes Bush style deplomacy is ass hat and incredibly stupid, but when the real negotiators go in they flat out offer to provide from the US, or USSR, or whom ever to provide the fuel AND the storage of the WASTE for Iran.

Why on earth would we do that?

Because we can monitor exactly what goes in... and what comes out... as a matter of fact it is so important that that happens that we even get out of the way and have said... fine work with the French, Russians, whomever you want to ... but we are not going to let you just willy nilly use nuclear enrichment.

We worked our ass off to get our companies in Iran and other places for this exact same reason. The costs are negligable... we are working to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation... that is all.

Look up the text of our negotiated policies... I know a bit about what this shit really is about... and it is about how the fuel is processed... not the power that is created... UNDERSTAND THAT. WE offer to GIVE FOR FREE power... they say NO.

ONCE MORE, would you say no if someone offered to you ... sure you can build all the cars you want... only on the condition that we can provide the gas for you and do your car check ups for free....

The only reason to turn that down, is because its not the power you want.... it is the plutorium for nuclear weapons.

[LynnTheDem]

28. What bullshit.

Judging by your posts, you certainly are a fan of the criminal bush Cabal.

[Make7]

29. Welcome to DU!

Looks like you've had quite a reception so far.
___________________

I'd just like to point out something from a speech by David Kay:

"...the first nuclear reactor given to Iran was given by the United States in 1967 - a five-megawatt trigger reactor, research reactor, under the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace Program. Still operated ... The other thing that Americans forget is that in 1974, the shah announced a policy of 23,000 megawatts of nuclear energy in Iraq. The US reaction? Henry Kissinger beat down the door to be sure that two US constructors, General Electric and Westinghouse, had a preferred position in selling those reactors. We did not say, "it's a stupid idea, why would you want to do that when you are flaring gas and you have immense oil reserves?" We said, "That is very interesting; it's an example of how the Iranian economy is moving and becoming modern." Imagine in Iranian ears how it sounds now when we denigrate that capacity. They remember. We were sellers of nuclear reactors and wanted to be sellers of nuclear reactors to the shah."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html

It would appear that the US objection to Iran's current nuclear program is not based on any moral principle, but rather on political considerations. Which is entirely predictable, but difficult to take seriously based on the hypocrisy obviously shown in the history of its policy.

-Make7

[iconoclastNYC]

39. ok so we'll spend $500billion to "free them", and 4000 dead Americans

Whatever....meanwhile the Bush administration let our buddies in Pakistan setup an internation Nuke-tech Qwicky-Mart....with no consequences.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

Name some terrorist attacks against the USA that Iran has been behind?

[Barkley]

32. Iran is taking lessons from Hugo - nt

[merkins]

33. Petrodollar Warfare: The Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

great article here fleshing it out:

Synopsis:

It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in a desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Regardless of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that down-graded Iran’s potential nuclear weapons program, it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.

If recent stories are correct regarding Cheney’s plan to possibly use another 9/11 terrorist attack as the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial attack against Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is prepared to undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades.

However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability regarding a terrorist attack in the U.S. A unilateral military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse.

Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC and Russia to move towards a monopoly petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S. dollar and thwart the U.S. global military presence. I refer to this in my book as the “rogue nation hypothesis.” (A similar tactic was used by the U.S. to end the 1956 Suez crisis.)


much more here:

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[NoBushAndCo]

34. They have to sell their oil because of financial problems internally. nt

[against all enemies]

36. Do they have to sell it to us? Can they give China a price break?

[triguy46]

38. Sounds like a line in the sand

War for oil is a red cape in front of the bull* repugs. They've got that trick down, at least the war part. Haven't seen a drop of oil yet, they kinda need to work on that part.