Morris is something of a hack, but here he proposes something I find interesting. Too bad the Republicans probably won't sign on to it...

STARVING THE MULLAHS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on June 25, 2007.

The conventional wisdom says that we have two choices in confronting and containing Iranian nuclear ambitions - United Nations sanctions and diplomacy, or a military strike to knock out key nuclear sites. But neither option is a good one. U.N. sanctions are relatively tame and don't go to the heart of how to cripple the Iranian theocracy. A military strike, meanwhile, would solve the regime's major problem: how to gin up popular support and stay in power. Any attack risks causing nationalism in Iran to soar, rallying the public around a now-unpopular government.

But there is a way to strike hard at Iran and encourage a change in regime or at least in policies: We can stop investing in companies that invest in Iran. Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Pentagon official, and his group disinvestterror.org list 485 companies that do business in Iran.

Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East negotiator, told me recently that he felt that disinvestment "could be important in bringing about a change in Iranian policy" on nuclear weapons.

Of course it could: The Tehran regime gets 85 percent of its revenues from the energy sector and needs the cash to pacify the population. With high unemployment and low job growth, the government hangs on by the skin of its teeth by subsidizing prices - gasoline costs 30 cents a gallon in Teheran.

But oil exports have dropped year after year as domestic demand has grown 10 percent annually. Despite rising oil and gas prices, energy revenues to the government have dropped from $55 billion in 2006 to an estimated $44 billion this year.

Current estimates are that Iran's oil exports will drop in half by 2011, and hit zero three years later. The regime desperately needs new investment to prop up its oil production.

It's up to the public - and to our leaders - to see that Western companies don't provide that investment.

Already this month, California, Ohio and Florida have passed bills requiring their state pension funds to cut off any investment in these companies. State Sen. Jeff Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester) has proposed similar legislation in New York. He says that $20 billion of our state pension-fund assets are now invested in companies that invest in terror sponsoring nations. (The list includes most major oil companies and international banks.)

But state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli doesn't have to wait for the Legislature to act. He should withdraw all investments by New York's state-employee-pension fund (the No. 2 in America) from companies that do business of any sort with Iran, Syria, Sudan or North Korea.

American companies are already banned from investments in Iran - but not so, European ones. Thanks to former Sen. Al D'Amato, a 1996 law imposes sanctions on foreign companies that invest in either Libya or Iran - but President Bush, like Bill Clinton, has consistently exercised the law's national-security loophole to waive it.

But the Europeans can't stop us from selling off the stock of companies like Shell, Repsol or Total that do business with Iran. The disinvestment drive is only a few months old, but it has already pushed Repsol, a Spanish company, and Shell, a Dutch firm, to reconsider their Iranian investments.

It's no sure thing - but disinvestment is a safe way to weaken the Iranian regime, and one we don't need approval from the United Nations - or Washington - to execute.

Originally posted by countezero
But oil exports have dropped year after year as domestic demand has grown 10 percent annually. Despite rising oil and gas prices, energy revenues to the government have dropped from $55 billion in 2006 to an estimated $44 billion this year.

Current estimates are that Iran's oil exports will drop in half by 2011, and hit zero three years later. The regime desperately needs new investment to prop up its oil production.

It's up to the public - and to our leaders - to see that Western companies don't provide that investment.


They may be withdrawing their goods from Western companies to starve us. I've read that Iran is on business terms with Russia, Venezuela, China... who knows for sure, but they don't need us to protect their economy.

Also, we don't need the U.N. to resolve our differences. Why go through a process? We could just talk. Or brandish our weapons. Or use them.

Iran has already been under sanctions since 1979.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/108E16.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1219357.stm

500,000 children died under sanctions in Iraq. Changed anything much over there?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

Anyway, all the Iranians have to do is sell their oil only in euros, along with Venezuela and the US is f*cked. And this strategy will give them the perfect excuse to do it. :rolleyes:

I disagree strongly with the notion of sanctions. They never remove ideologues, and I have little doubt that the religious authorities would rather see the people of Iran starve than back down from anything.

Smart Americans are disinvesting from dollars. The irony is astounding.

Smart Americans are disinvesting from dollars. The irony is astounding.

The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?

~String

The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?

~String

Cos they're smart?

http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jun/11dollar.htm



On March 28, 2006, the Asian Development Bank is reported to have issued a memo, advising members to be ready for a collapse of the US dollar.

Since end March 2006, the US Federal Reserve has stopped publishing the quantum of broad money (that is the aggregate of US dollars circulating in the entire world -- technically called 'M3') in the US economy. This is the worst possible signal that the US Federal Reserve could have sent to the world.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=BVd&q=bank+dumps+dollars&btnG=Search

Originally posted by superstring99
The dollar is inentionally weak right now... on purpose.

Care to explain why Americans are disenvesting right now (as part of a growing trend)?



I guess you could say that it is intentionally weak, considering the direction our economy has progressed. Devastating deficit of outstanding credit that the US dollar is holding like Atlas, and as the value drops the circumstances get heavier. My guess is that Americans would disinvest from the dollar because they want to convert it into the currency of rising markets... or precious metals, materials, and fuels.

Most Americans are shifting to the euro; Gates and Buffet have been doing it since 2001.

http://alternativeperspective.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-vs-bill-gates-warren-buffet-george.html

The article you posted was written over two years ago... sagacious investors regularly shift their investments between curriencies. Again, if you knew a thing about the way Soros did business (as in, switching to the Thai Baht, then liquidating it which pompted the Thai recession in the early 90's... then did the same thing to the Russian Ruble a year later), you'd just how timely an article like that has to be to be relevent.

This is not a sign of the fall of the USA... just a sign that wise investors keep their money moving.

~String

The article you posted was written over two years ago... sagacious investors regularly shift their investments between curriencies. Again, if you knew a thing about the way Soros did business (as in, switching to the Thai Baht, then liquidating it which pompted the Thai recession in the early 90's... then did the same thing to the Russian Ruble a year later), you'd just how timely an article like that has to be to be relevent.

This is not a sign of the fall of the USA... just a sign that wise investors keep their money moving.

~String

If you say so. :shrug:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070625033206256

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/M_K_Venu/The_decline_of_the_dollar/articleshow/2148962.cms

The USA is not weaker in absolute terms but in relative terms to other economies than it was a decade ago. It's actually a positive for the American economy that it is not so dependent on itself in 2007. This makes future periods of inflation, depression, etc. less dramatic. The booming upstart economies of China, India, Brazil, indonesia, etc, are huge new markets for American trade.

The USA is still the world's largest exporter. 8 times the per capita exports of the Chinese. A lot of this is in high tech 'stuff' such as airplanes, communications, software systems, military goods and agriculture. what's not so good for American foreign policy is that the USA is an ever shrinking piece of the global economic pie...the USA isn't poorer but the pie keeps getting bigger. The days of American imperialism are still around but less of a hammer. China, Pakistan, India, Russia an so on might give lipservice to American imperialism on certain issues (such as sanctions against Iran) but the Americans haven't much clout in enforcement. Chavez has already declared he will show solidarity with the Iranians in turning off the taps if necesary but who knows? China certainly isn't going to hurt its own economy because the Americans havea hissy fit with Iran. Iran is nowhere near the U.S. border and the attitude of many in the world is 'why the f...k is the USA sticking its nose in Iran?'. The Israeli card is the reason but rightly or wrongly that won't win much support.

Anyway, all the Iranians have to do is sell their oil only in euros, along with Venezuela and the US is f*cked.

Even after I asked you to check out how international currency rates are set, you still don't know how currency rates are set, do you, Sam? ...LOL!

Sam, really, check out the method of how international currency is set/determined, then you won't look like such a fool, okay?

Baron Max

Even after I asked you to check out how international currency rates are set, you still don't know how currency rates are set, do you, Sam? ...LOL!

Sam, really, check out the method of how international currency is set/determined, then you won't look like such a fool, okay?

Baron Max

Why don't you ejukate me Baron?:)

If you say so. :shrug:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070625033206256

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/M_K_Venu/The_decline_of_the_dollar/articleshow/2148962.cms


The USA is not weaker in absolute terms but in relative terms to other economies than it was a decade ago. It's actually a positive for the American economy that it is not so dependent on itself in 2007. This makes future periods of inflation, depression, etc. less dramatic. The booming upstart economies of China, India, Brazil, indonesia, etc, are huge new markets for American trade.

The USA is still the world's largest exporter. 8 times the per capita exports of the Chinese. A lot of this is in high tech 'stuff' such as airplanes, communications, software systems, military goods and agriculture. what's not so good for American foreign policy is that the USA is an ever shrinking piece of the global economic pie...the USA isn't poorer but the pie keeps getting bigger. The days of American imperialism are still around but less of a hammer. China, Pakistan, India, Russia an so on might give lipservice to American imperialism on certain issues (such as sanctions against Iran) but the Americans haven't much clout in enforcement. Chavez has already declared he will show solidarity with the Iranians in turning off the taps if necesary but who knows? China certainly isn't going to hurt its own economy because the Americans havea hissy fit with Iran. Iran is nowhere near the U.S. border and the attitude of many in the world is 'why the f...k is the USA sticking its nose in Iran?'. The Israeli card is the reason but rightly or wrongly that won't win much support.

Thank you... which is a point that S.A.M. so greatly misses. It's not so much that the USA is weaker "gram-per-gram" is just that there are so many other powerful economies and currencies in which a nation can and SHOULD invest... most notably a resurgent Yen and the new and mighty Euro. Good. Powerful economies outside the USA are great for the big economy inside the USA.

Something S.A.M. so painfully misses.

~String

Thank you... which is a point that S.A.M. so greatly misses. It's not so much that the USA is weaker "gram-per-gram" is just that there are so many other powerful economies and currencies in which a nation can and SHOULD invest... most notably a resurgent Yen and the new and mighty Euro. Good. Powerful economies outside the USA are great for the big economy inside the USA.

Something S.A.M. so painfully misses.

~String

I'm glad you see it that way. :)

If we try to starve the Mullahs they'll blame it on the US and lots of people will enlist in their army to fight so their families won't starve.

If we try to starve the Mullahs they'll blame it on the US and lots of people will enlist in their army to fight so their families won't starve.

Starved (dead) soldiers don't make much of an army. :rolleyes:

500,000 children died under sanctions in Iraq. Changed anything much over there?

Apparently so. The sanctions kept Saddam from rebuilding his military and building those pesky weapons of mass destruction we didn't find, or have you forgot that already? Isn't it one of your talking points...

Halliburton does business in Iran - they'd be happy to pick up anything Shell leaves on the table. Americans are going to boycott Halliburton? Us lefties have been recommending that for years now.

Boycotting an oil exporter like Iran is not a simple thing to do. And the sanctions have already done most of a boycott's actual potential damage.

The Iraqi sanctions were undermined and about to collapse - as Iran's are, apparently - with growing pressure from China, etc. A boycott will fare no better. You going to stop buying gas for your car, to starve Iranian children?

Apparently so. The sanctions kept Saddam from rebuilding his military and building those pesky weapons of mass destruction we didn't find, or have you forgot that already? Isn't it one of your talking points...

Yeah, see how easy it has been over in Iraq, fighting all the starving zombies so many of whom lost their children to sanctions.:rolleyes:

Yeah, see how easy it has been over in Iraq, fighting all the starving zombies so many of whom lost their children to sanctions.:rolleyes:

No s.a.m. the Iraqi people didn't loose their children to sanctions, there was plenty of money available to feed and keep the health care system operational, if Saddam didn't use it for bribing the corrupt leadership of the U.N., to buy weapons of war, and build new Palaces, Saddam had tractor trailer trucks filled front to back with cartons of $100 dollar bills, banks full of gold, silver, and what did he do with all that money, did he make the lives of his people better? no he spent it on himself, and the toys of war, just how many Billion Dollar Palaces did he need? when his people were starving and the children were dieing, How many billions of dollars did he need to spend to have his own toy soldier army to parade for him? when his people were starving and the children were dieing, now who is at fault for the deaths of those 500,000 children? When Saddam had control of were the Billions of Dollars that he was reaping in Billions in kick backs, bribes, oil revenues and taxes from his people, did Saddam stop the intake of taxes, so his people could feed their children? yes who is responsible, Saddam who started a War? invaded his neighbor Kuwait? and then brought his nation under sanction for his action, and then failed his people by not using the moneys he had, and were flowing in from the oil for food program to help his people in their need, instead he use that money for his own selfish need to big a Buddy Fucking Big Shot.

Which is why the US changed the oil trade back to dollars from euros even though it meant that Iraq lost a great deal of money


In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq's oil for food account at the UN was also in euros and Iraq later converted its $10 billion reserve fund at the UN to euros. Several other oil producing countries have also agreed to sell oil in euros-Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Indonesia, and Malaysia (soon to join this group). In July 2003, China announced that it would switch part of its dollar reserves into the world's emerging "reserve currency" (the euro).
On January 1, 1999, when 11 European countries formed a monetary union around this currency, Britain and Norway, the major oil producers, were absent. As the U.S. economy began to slow down during mid-2000, Western stock markets began to yield lower dividends. Investors from Gulf Cooperation Council nations lost over $800 million in the stock plunge. As investors sold U.S. assets and reinvested in Europe, which seemed to be better shielded from a recession, the euro began to gain ground against the dollar .
After September 11, 2001, Islamic financiers began to repatriate their dollar investments-amounting to billions of dollars-to Arab banks, as they were worried about the possible seizure of their assets under the USA PATRIOT Act. Also, they feared their accounts might be frozen on the suspicion that such accounts fund Islamic terrorists. Iranian sources stated that their banking colleagues felt particularly hassled as Washington heated up its war of words and threats of military intervention. This encouraged Tehran to abandon the dollar payment for oil sales and switch to the euro. Iran also moved the majority of its reserve fund to the euro. (Iran is the latest target of the U.S., which has interfered by stirring up opposition forces, and making covert threats.)
OPEC member countries and the euro-zone have strong trade links, with more than 45 percent of total merchandize imports of OPEC member countries coming from the countries of the euro-zone, while OPEC members are the main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. The EU has a bigger share of global trade than the U.S. and, while the U.S. has a huge current account deficit, the EU has a more balanced external accounts position. The EU plans to enlarge in May 2004 with ten new members. It will have a population of 450 million; it will have an oil consuming-purchasing population 33 percent larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. In order to reduce currency risks, Europeans will pressure OPEC to trade oil in euros. Countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia-which export oil and natural gas to European countries and in turn import goods and services from them-will have an interest in reducing their currency risk and hence, pricing oil and gas in euros. Thus momentum is building toward at least the dual use of euro and dollar pricing.
The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.
The U.S. also wants to create a new oil cartel in the Middle East and Africa to replace OPEC. To this end the U.S. has been pressuring Nigeria to withdraw from OPEC and its strict production quotas by dangling the prospects of generous U.S. aid. Instead the U.S. seeks to promote a "U.S.-Nigeria Alignment," which would place Nigeria as the primary oil exporter to the U.S. Another move by the U.S. is to promote oil production in other African countries-Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Angola, from where the U.S. imports a significant amount of oil-so that the oil control of OPEC is loosened, if not broken. Furthermore, the U.S. is pressuring non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market control and challenge the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro.
To break up OPEC and control the world's oil supply, it is also helpful to control Middle East and central Asiatic oil producing countries through which oil pipelines traverse. The first attack and occupation was of Afghanistan, October 2001, in itself a gas producing country, but primarily a country through which Central Asia and the Caspian Sea oil and gas will be shipped (piped) to energy-starved Pakistan and India. Afghanistan also provided an alternative to previously existing Russian pipelines. Simultaneously, the U.S. acquired military bases-19 of them-in the Central Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in the Caspian Basin, all of which are potential oil producers. After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. controlled the natural resources of these two countries and, once again, Iraq's oil began to be traded in U.S. dollars. The UN's oil for food production program was scrapped and the U.S. Iaunched its Iraqi Assistance Fund in U.S. dollars. In December 2003, the U.S. (Pentagon) announced that it had barred French, German, and Russian oil and other companies from bidding on Iraq's reconstruction.

No s.a.m. the Iraqi people didn't loose their children to sanctions, there was plenty of money available to feed and keep the health care system operational, The blockade included medical supplies, anesthesia, disinfectant, water treatment supplies and sewage treatment nfrastructure parts, testing and diagnosis equipment and parts, drugs, scalpels, dialysis equipment, refrigerant, dental gear, etc etc etc.

For the stuff permitted, the bureaucratic guantlet often took months. There were warehouses full of badly needed stuff in the ports all around Iraq, waiting for paperwork approval, when the US invaded.

About 500,000 children were killed by the blockade. Which is typical for a seige - cholera and dysentery and the like always kill more than the weapons.

The blockade was pretty effective, only thing that did make it through the blockade regularly were tankers full of blackmarket oil, which were often permitted to pass unmolested by the US Navy with the excuse that they were in coastal territorial waters of Iran, etc. .

The blockade included medical supplies, anesthesia, disinfectant, water treatment supplies and sewage treatment nfrastructure parts, testing and diagnosis equipment and parts, drugs, scalpels, dialysis equipment, refrigerant, dental gear, etc etc etc.

For the stuff permitted, the bureaucratic guantlet often took months. There were warehouses full of badly needed stuff in the ports all around Iraq, waiting for paperwork approval, when the US invaded.

About 500,000 children were killed by the blockade. Which is typical for a seige - cholera and dysentery and the like always kill more than the weapons.

The blockade was pretty effective, only thing that did make it through the blockade regularly were tankers full of blackmarket oil, which were often permitted to pass unmolested by the US Navy with the excuse that they were in coastal territorial waters of Iran, etc. .

Correct. Which is why the sanctions are rightly held responsible for the death of those 500,000 children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm


The British government claims that if the 'oil for food' programme were efficiently implemented there would not be a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Is this true?

The UN Secretary-General does not think so. On 2 March 2001 he told the Security Council that: "the programme was never meant to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people and cannot be a substitute for normal economic activity in Iraq." (§154)

Neither does Amnesty International. In February 2003 it commented: "There have been claims that the Iraqi authorities have deliberately manipulated the sanctions regime for propaganda purposes - but that does not absolve the UN Security Council from its share of the responsibility for failing to heed the calls to lift all sanctions provisions that result in grave violations of the rights of the Iraqi people."

Iraq's failure to perfectly implement the 'oil for food' programme is detrimental at the margin, but by focusing on the actions of the Iraqi government the British government ignores the root cause of the problems in Iraq. Suffering is not an unintentional side effect of sanctions. It is their aim. Sanctions are instruments of coercion and they coerce by causing hardship.

An honest appraisal of the effects of sanctions would include an acknowledgement that they were imposed because it was believed that the suffering they would cause was a price worth paying for the policy objectives they were intended to achieve.

On 12 May 1996 Madeleine Albright demonstrated the difficulties involved in admitting the consequences of these sanctions in an appearance on the US television show, 60 Minutes. At the time she was the US ambassador to the United Nations; six months later she became Secretary of State. Host Lesley Stahl, referring to a 1995 figure, asked:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Correct. Which is why the sanctions are rightly held responsible for the death of those 500,000 children.

No one is denying that. But I think some people are saying that's not the fault of the US. We didn't violate international laws and bring down the ire of the UN, Iraq did. So the deaths of those children are on the shoulders of the Iraqi leaders, and obviously Saddam Hussein in particular.

No one is denying that. But I think some people are saying that's not the fault of the US. We didn't violate international laws and bring down the ire of the UN, Iraq did. So the deaths of those children are on the shoulders of the Iraqi leaders, and obviously Saddam Hussein in particular.

Sorry no one agrees with you.

And the same will be true if it is repeated elsewhere.


In 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that:

"the effect of sanctions and blockades has been to cause suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children" (§4).

In 1998, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized that:

"the embargo imposed by the Security Council has adversely affected the economy and many aspects of daily life, thereby impeding the full enjoyment by the States party's population, particularly children, of their rights to survival, health and education" (§5).

The Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council wrote in March 1999:

"Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war" (§45).


Iraqis blame sanctions for child deaths
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm

You know, I disagree with sanctions generally, but has anyone seen this:


Iran fuel rations spark violence

There were angry protests as people rushed to buy petrol
At least 12 petrol stations have been torched in the Iranian capital, Tehran, after the government announced fuel rationing for private vehicles.
Windows were smashed and stones thrown at the stations, and there was traffic chaos as motorists queued to buy fuel.

Iranians were given only two hours' notice of the move that limits private drivers to 100 litres of fuel a month.

...

"Guns, fireworks, tanks, [President] Ahmadinejad should be killed," chanted angry youths, throwing stones at police.

The protests are the first large-scale outpouring of anger against the Iranian government since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243644.stm

So...the sanctions are actually working then?

You know, I disagree with sanctions generally, but has anyone seen this:



So...the sanctions are actually working then?

Fuel rationing for private vehicles?

Why do you want to starve Iran? The same failed approach which wrecked havoc for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq is not going to work against Iran.

I would think that the US would want to make peace with Iran and eventually gain a strong ally in the region.

Fuel rationing for private vehicles?

Yes, and they seem pretty pissed off about it. Iran imports most of its oil, as I understand - low refining capacity, no catalytic crackers.

Yes, and they seem pretty pissed off about it. Iran imports most of its oil, as I understand - low refining capacity, no catalytic crackers.

Hmm but it's hardly unanticipated.

And it would insulate the country against sanctions


Fuel is heavily subsidised in Iran, where gasoline price per liter is 9 U.S. cents. Economists say such a cheap price encourages waste and a thriving trade in contraband fuel to Iran's neighbors.

In November, Iran also said it was planning to launch a system of "smart cards" for purchasing gasoline, a move which analysts said paved way for possible fuel rationing next year.

Rationing would be sensitive in a country where cheap, abundant fuel is considered a national right.

Many Iranian officials say Iran's dependence on imported fuel threatens national security, particularly when the country faces United Nations sanctions over its disputed nuclear program.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811934.html



Iran is Opec's second largest crude oil producer but does not have enough refining capacity to meet its domestic needs.

The Islamic republic currently has to import about 40 per cent of its fuel requirements.

That's what I'm saying: they're actually NOT insulated against sanctions since they don't produce their own oil.

That's what I'm saying: they're actually NOT insulated against sanctions since they don't produce their own oil.

They import 40 percent and sell it at 9 cents a liter. I'd say rationing would help.

And if they have the ability to refine 60% they can improve upon it. Besides will everyone agree to the sanctions? The Russians, the Chinese, Venezuela?

Yeah but that's a stopgap. As for the sanctions, it looks like a lot of countries are agreeing to them, since there's a discernable effect. What would happen if everyone did? Who knows. Maybe Iran is the exception to the rule.

Buying Iranian oil, the mullahs' lifeline, should be boycotted. Further, importing refined gas into Iran (40% of the gas they use is imported), should also be stopped. The regime will collapse unto itself in a few months.

It's one thing when an already-poor country that's got nothing has even severe sanctions put on it. shit is already so bad, nobody even feels the additional burden.

But a relatively rich - and proud - country like Iran will feel the pressure very fast. The UN sanctions that have been put on Iran in the last few months are very mild, relatively speaking, and already they're causing riots and gas rationing. Imagine what serious sanctions on oil would do to the regime.

Don't forget that Ahmediballsack was elected in an election where only 12% of the electorate voted. There was a huge boycott by the rest of the electorate who are liberal. If there won't be a revolution (which there's a good chance that there will be, judging from the reaction to the rationing which was caused by the mild sanctions), the liberals that will come to power will be much friendlier to the US and the world.

Sanctions suck, but the fault of any hardships falls on the shoulders of the tyrants, not on the people who are trying to protect themselves from terrorism and nuclear bomb proliferation.
Plus, the oil sanctions won't affect little babies. Let them import all the sanitizer they need. But they won't be driving cars. Hey, Green Peace should be the greatest supporters

Sanctions suck, but the fault of any hardships falls on the shoulders of the tyrants, not on the people who are trying to protect themselves from terrorism and nuclear bomb proliferation. There are no tyrants in Iran. The President is elected, the theocrats govern at a lilttle distance, etc.

If some country deliberately uses artificially created hardship among the civilian population as a lever against a government, that country is responsible for those hardships - not the target government. Leave "they made me do it" to the wifebeaters and fourthgraders.

And the idea that the US is "protecting itself" from Iran's nuclear ambitions or terrorist endeavors is bizarre. Iran is absolutely no threat to any US person who has not traveled half way around the planet with a weapon to threaten Iran.

Any threat posed by Iran is vastly superseded by the military strength of the US, Israel, and NATO.

It would be suicide for Iran to attack the US. This is a highly unlikely scenario, just like Iraq's perceived threat was.

It would be suicide for Iran to attack the US.
Well thats what people are suggesting, that Irans leaders are such maniacs that they would carry out such a strike.

Well thats what people are suggesting, that Irans leaders are such maniacs that they would carry out such a strike.

That is the root of the errors of this new propaganda. Iran has an interest in thriving and living in peace.

That is the root of the errors of this new propaganda. Iran has an interest in thriving and living in peace.

When you compare the belligerence of the USA and Iran, you wonder who really is thirsty for war./

(1)There are no tyrants in Iran. The President is elected, the theocrats govern at a lilttle distance, etc.

(2)If some country deliberately uses artificially created hardship among the civilian population as a lever against a government, that country is responsible for those hardships - not the target government. Leave "they made me do it" to the wifebeaters and fourthgraders.

(3)And the idea that the US is "protecting itself" from Iran's nuclear ambitions or terrorist endeavors is bizarre. Iran is absolutely no threat to any US person who has not traveled half way around the planet with a weapon to threaten Iran.

(1) please re-read my previous post. and it's laughable that "there are no tyrants in Iran". i doubt you yourself believe that the Iranian process is democratic. why the demagoguery?

(2) the mullahs have mismanaged Iran's assets so badly that the people are angry. how is that US's fault if Ahmedinejad doesn't listen to his economists and advisors, cancels their policies, and arbitrarily makes his own against their good judgement? there are countless examples of this, and i'll provide links if u really want. the funniest one is when he decided to cut interest rates despite the 17% inflation rate (that's the official rate. the real one is likely higher)

(3) and having these people who travelled half-way around the world with a gun has nothing to do with Iran's own activities? i suppose Iranians destructive and destabilizing activities in the Gulf are OK by you? that's even without their biggest export: terrorism, and their nuclear weapons aspirations.

(1) please re-read my previous post. and it's laughable that "there are no tyrants in Iran". i doubt you yourself believe that the Iranian process is democratic. why the demagoguery?

(2) the mullahs have mismanaged Iran's assets so badly that the people are angry. how is that US's fault if Ahmedinejad doesn't listen to his economists and advisors, cancels their policies, and arbitrarily makes his own against their good judgement? there are countless examples of this, and i'll provide links if u really want. the funniest one is when he decided to cut interest rates despite the 17% inflation rate (that's the official rate. the real one is likely higher)

(3) and having these people who travelled half-way around the world with a gun has nothing to do with Iran's own activities? i suppose Iranians destructive and destabilizing activities in the Gulf are OK by you? that's even without their biggest export: terrorism, and their nuclear weapons aspirations.

edit: The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor people and their economic status. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting.


The President is elected, if the people can't be bothered to vote they get the government they deserve.

All mullahs are not the same so lumping them together reveals your ignorance more than anything else.

As for Iran supporting terrorism, from their point of view, the US funding of militants in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel and even Palestine is a bigger problem, since they actually live within shooting distance of the missiles (unlike the wet pantied Americans and their phobia of WMDs) and have suffered 25 years under US funded state terrorism. Given their history, their reactions are pretty mild.

S.A.M.,

All mullahs are not the same so lumping them together reveals your ignorance more than anything else.
I know the liberal mullahs, which do exist contrary to popular belief, don't have any power. Case in point: Khatami. You wanting a nuance either exposes you as a demagogue who knows this, or as an ignoramus. The mullahs who are in power, and who have the wide support of the Basij and IRGC are ultra conservative.

S.A.M.,

I know the liberal mullahs, which do exist contrary to popular belief, don't have any power. Case in point: Khatami. You wanting a nuance either exposes you as a demagogue who knows this, or as an ignoramus. The mullahs who are in power, and who have the wide support of the Basij and IRGC are ultra conservative.

Sounds like Bush and the neocons. How is that any different?

I don't understand what you mean... could you elaborate?

I don't understand what you mean... could you elaborate?

When a country is under pressure, economic or military, they don't elect liberals.

I know the liberal mullahs, which do exist contrary to popular belief, don't have any power. Case in point: Khatami. And yet in the last "midterms" the candidates backed by the more liberal mullahs won big, and the hardliners - including Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor - got whomped (I think he finished 9th, or 11th, something like that, in an important district).

Yes, the Iranians are restless under the current governance. But the bad guys have a handy excuse, don't they? And a handy threat - the US army right next door.

If US hardliners can panic the whole country by inflating Saddam to some kind of looming shadow, imagine what Ahmadinejad can do with an army actually sending terrorists into his country, and flying planes over it, and blockading its trade, and camping on its borders and seaways with the worlds mightiest armed force.

Give the Iranians some elbow room, and they show every sign of being ready to boot the ersatz Mussollinis and get themselves more sanity in governance. Put the screws on, and they'll go with the fruitloop who seems strong and confident and patriotic and defiant. Sound familiar ?

imagine what Ahmadinejad can do with an army actually sending terrorists into his country, and flying planes over it, and blockading its trade, and camping on its borders and seaways with the worlds mightiest armed force.
... you forgot about the largest strike group since WW2 a few hundred miles from Iran's coast.

so we disagree on this: you say that pressure will empower the regime, and i say that enough of it might just bring it crumbling down.


Give the Iranians some elbow room, and they show every sign of being ready to boot the ersatz Mussollinis and get themselves more sanity in governance.
...
And yet in the last "midterms" the candidates backed by the more liberal mullahs won big, and the hardliners - including Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor - got whomped (I think he finished 9th, or 11th, something like that, in an important district)

yea sure, and Ahmedishitface's term was shortened by the Majlis. so?
when Khatami and his peeps were "in power" their activities were curtailed. that's why in the next election only 12% of the electorate voted -- they were frustrated that even when their candidate wins he is powerless to execute the platform he ran on.

even if the whole parliament is "liberal" (i.e. by mullah standards), the ultra conservatives which are really in power (i think they're called the Guardian Council?) just override everything.

i've talked to many Iranians here in Canada and they think a revolution is needed. not through elections, but a literal overthrow of the government -- maybe even violent. they don't want an outside army to bomb their country, but their only solution is an illegal revolution.

so Bush is helping them with funding and equipment so they can organize, but all they can muster is a little riot here and there. and in the meantime the mullahs are continuing to export their terrorism and destabilization.

Iraq and Afghanistan can't wait for the Iranian grassroots forever. and they're just 2 interest groups...

Bush is funding the Sunni extremists in Iran, hardly the kind of revolution one wants.

First of all, Iran wants to be independent for nuclear fuel, and it has stated repeatedly that it would not use it, as well as signing the NPT. If any country produces sufficient evidence that its producing nuclear WMDs then, you can invade to your hearts content. Also, At least Halliburton, ergo the Bush family doesn't get much money, if its boycotted. If people lose money, then they might do something about it.

so we disagree on this: you say that pressure will empower the regime, and i say that enough of it might just bring it crumbling down. And we can both be right: The military pressure fixes the hardliners in power, and then "crumbles" that power. Why would you want that?

Do you want the Iranian quasi-democracy to "crumble" under military pressure and economic blockade ? What do you think will replace it, under those circumstances - another democratic government of a unified Iran?

Haven't you seen enough of the consequences of crumbling governments in Islamic countries, to have second thoughts about the wisdom of crumbling one of the view quasi-democratic ones, and one of the more militarily capable ones, in the area?

Bush is funding the Sunni extremists in Iran, hardly the kind of revolution one wants.

If that were true, what would the difference really be?

If that were true, what would the difference really be?

The difference between Iran and Afghanistan

If that were true, what would the difference really be? Unlike the Iranian Shia, the Wahabi Sunni really do finance terrorism worldwide, destabilize foreign countries, fly planes into buildings, etc.

And Iran has nuclear means and nuclear connections, along with high-quality small-missile tech etc, which iif fallen into the hands of stateless terrorists (a possibility if Iran crumbles) could do much harm.

I disagree strongly with the notion of sanctions. They never remove ideologues, and I have little doubt that the religious authorities would rather see the people of Iran starve than back down from anything.

:bravo: agreed. since when have sanctions hurt those in power?

The difference between Iran and Afghanistan

Well hold me back, then. Oppression or oppression. Misogyny vs. misogyny! Oooh...errr...I can't decide! They all sound so great! A difference so vast that you couldn't slide a fatwa between it.

Well hold me back, then. Oppression or oppression. Misogyny vs. misogyny! Oooh...errr...I can't decide! They all sound so great! A difference so vast that you couldn't slide a fatwa between it.

Hmm if your intent was sincere and to learn, I would have explained it. But as you appear to be merely mocking me, I shall allow you to continue to wallow in ignorance.

No, no, great imama. Tell me the difference. I'm all ears.

Iran is one of the most peaceful a nations of the Middle East. I don't know why Westerners hate Iran so much? Even to the extent of knowingly mistranslating statements made by the President of Iran to demonize him. The entire Western media are accomplices to building support for an invasion of Iran, just as was done with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran is one of the most peaceful a nations of the Middle East. I don't know why Westerners hate Iran so much? Even to the extent of knowingly mistranslating statements made by the President of Iran to demonize him. The entire Western media are accomplices to building support for an invasion of Iran, just as was done with Afghanistan and Iraq.


Oh wow. How could you not notice your brain falling out?!

Oh wow. How could you not notice your brain falling out?!

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is there a problem with my statement?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is there a problem with my statement?


Oh wow again. Just wait, you'll hear all about what is wrong with that statement.
There is a saying here "Did you fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?" I'm thinking the tree fell on you.
oh oh oh

Oh wow. How could you not notice your brain falling out?!

The only war that Iran has fought in recent history has been against Iraq which attacked them first.

Oh wow again. Just wait, you'll hear all about what is wrong with that statement.
There is a saying here "Did you fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?" I'm thinking the tree fell on you.
oh oh oh

In the last 50 years, has Iran invaded any nation? How many nations has the US invaded in the last 50 years?

Second, I have listened to the statement made by Iran's President in its original farsi and I can confirm for you that he did not say that 'Israel should be wiped off the planet', far from this, he said (and I have said this many times on this forum) 'Imam Khomenei foretold of the fall of the communist regiment [USSR] from the pages of history, so to will Israel vanish from the pages of history due to its unfair treatment of the Palestinians.' Now which part of this statement says of an active attack on Israel? None. The destruction of Israel will be passive and self-imposed as the destruction of the USSR was.

Finally, it is rather obvious that the case for war with Iran is being made and furthered by the biased Western media sources. The complicity of their reporting in gaining popular support for the two prior wars of Afghanistan and Iraq was obvious.

Iran is one of the most peaceful a nations of the Middle East. I don't know why Westerners hate Iran so much?

Lemme see: hanging mouthy sixteen-year old girls, lashing women for the crime of being raped, restrictions on the rights of religious minorities and the virtual extirpation of their culture, arresting men and women for not wearing religious coverings and the near-complete failure of the separation of mosque and state.

No, I can't think of anything either.


Even to the extent of knowingly mistranslating statements made by the President of Iran to demonize him.

Because, when he calls for wiping Israel off the map, what he really means is elementary-school geography reform.


The entire Western media are accomplices to building support for an invasion of Iran, just as was done with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, sure. ALL of them. Absolutely.

he said (and I have said this many times on this forum) 'Imam Khomenei foretold of the fall of the communist regiment [USSR] from the pages of history, so to will Israel vanish from the pages of history due to its unfair treatment of the Palestinians.' Now which part of this statement says of an active attack on Israel? None. The destruction of Israel will be passive and self-imposed as the destruction of the USSR was.

Ah. So Iran's going to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah and IJ, and Hamas, then? Are they going to educate them on "passive sit and wait for it to happen" tactics? "Couch Potatoing 101"?


Finally, it is rather obvious that the case for war with Iran is being made and furthered by the biased Western media sources.

Sure, sure: like the NYT, for example?

Ah. So Iran's going to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah and IJ, and Hamas, then? Are they going to educate them on "passive sit and wait for it to happen" tactics? "Couch Potatoing 101"?


?

Sure, when the US stops supplying weapons to <insert latest militant and dictator or Israel>

There was a thread not too long ago with the title, "Ahmadinejad's Letter to America". It can be found here:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60373


I regard it lightly, not knowing how to understand Farsi and therefore unable to know what the original message was. Are there any sources of such speeches or declarations translated to English with minimal error? Also, on various media outlets, both on American television and the Internet, I have read headlines such as "Iran calls for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'".

There was a thread not too long ago with the title, "Ahmadinejad's Letter to America".

This may help you. A translation of his letter to Bush:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm

I only hope that more people can read this.

Sure, when the US stops supplying weapons to <insert latest militant and dictator or Israel>

How is the US not giving them economic and military aid (and economic aid that gets used for military aid, i.e. feeding starving AK-74s) going to affect Iran's supplying them?

This may help you. A translation of his letter to Bush:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm

I only hope that more people can read this.

I read it once, and I swear, it was the funniest letter a midget crackpot ever wrote. Man, that was good.

How is the US not giving them economic and military aid (and economic aid that gets used for military aid, i.e. feeding starving AK-74s) going to affect Iran's supplying them?

Anyone who sees how Israel has been invading its neighbors and occupying them since inception is entitled to self defence, especially when they are being supported by the biggest bullies on the planet. Look at the map of the UN partition and then at present day Israel again in case you've forgotten who is the real invader and occupier here. You can also compare Iran for the same two time periods if you choose.

Anyone who sees how Israel has been invading its neighbors and occupying them since inception is entitled to self defence, especially when they are being supported by the biggest bullies on the planet.

Strange. I could have sworn you were talking about the Egypt-Syria-Iraq-Jordan-Palestine alliance and Soviet Russia for a second there.


Look at the map of the UN partition and then at present day Israel again in case you've forgotten who is the real invader and occupier here.

You might have a case on success...but not on intent. That belongs to both sides. Frankly, the Israelis pulled off a staggering success against long odds, having to defend themselves for no reason other than breathing Middle Eastern air.


You can also compare Iran for the same two time periods if you choose.

Well, Iran's conquests were long before. How does that change anything? The Baluchistanis still want to be free.

Strange. I could have sworn you were talking about the Egypt-Syria-Iraq-Jordan-Palestine alliance and Soviet Russia for a second there.
If you remember rightly Iran was there, Israel was created.




You might have a case on success...but not on intent. That belongs to both sides. Frankly, the Israelis pulled off a staggering success against long odds, having to defend themselves for no reason other than breathing Middle Eastern air.

Like the Americans pulled off a staggering success against the native Americans.


Well, Iran's conquests were long before. How does that change anything? The Baluchistanis still want to be free.


Then you can show a Baluchistan (most of which is in Pakistan btw) that existed before?

If you remember rightly Iran was there, Israel was created.

That's odd. I thought we were talking about Israel-Palestine. Is Iran next to Palestine? I keep hearing about how the geography of the region in Iranian textbooks is wrong. Maybe they're not sure where they are.


Like the Americans pulled off a staggering success against the native Americans.

Did the native Americans leaders and society have a genocidal worldview of the immigrants? I think I missed that bit in class too. They probably swapped it out for the Iranian geography lesson.


Then you can show a Baluchistan (most of which is in Pakistan btw) that existed before?

Hey, oppression is older than maps. Do you have a map that shows territory by religious expression before 600 AD and after 800 AD? I bet that would be a comparison worth seeing too, huh?

That's odd. I thought we were talking about Israel-Palestine. Is Iran next to Palestine? I keep hearing about how the geography of the region in Iranian textbooks is wrong. Maybe they're not sure where they are.

Neither are the Israelis apparently


Did the native Americans leaders and society have a genocidal worldview of the immigrants? I think I missed that bit in class too. They probably swapped it out for the Iranian geography lesson.

Why don't you tell me?




Hey, oppression is older than maps. Do you have a map that shows territory by religious expression before 600 AD and after 800 AD? I bet that would be a comparison worth seeing too, huh?

So then the territorially expansive Persians were not Muslims, hmm? I thought so.

Neither are the Israelis apparently

Yeah. They thought they showed up in the Promised Land back in the 20s; no one told them it was actually Dhimmi City.


Why don't you tell me?

No, Rambette, they didn't.


So then the territorially expansive Persians were not Muslims, hmm? I thought so.

Holy crap. You know, I don't blame muslims for bloody everything. Man.

Yeah. They thought they showed up in the Promised Land back in the 20s; no one told them it was actually Dhimmi City.



No, Rambette, they didn't.



Holy crap. You know, I don't blame muslims for bloody everything. Man.

I think we're done here. Promised land indeed.

Way to take offense, quickdraw.