[quote=Rector]I don’t think we are preparing for war; we are preparing to keep the SOH open and preparing to assist in the protection of Israel after they launch a strike on Iran. Here is my reasoning:
Israel is GOING TO STRIKE IRAN.
[/quote]
IF you are right… you sure know how to pick the wrong side!
IF I were Obama, and IF I knew Netanyahu doesn’t give a shit, I would give him an ultimatum: Strike Iran, or even just attempt to, and we switch sides.
Simple.
If Israel strikes Iran, you lot can kiss your oil supplies goodbye. FOREVER! IF you support them… all hell will break loose, and I don’t see in whose advantage this whole mess would end. The repercussions would be breathtaking…
Mike
Poet, thanks for expanding the discussion. I can’t think of anyone in the region that would welcome a nuclear Iran. It is surprising that Chris does not focus more on Israel in this dynamic and how Israeli interests are magnified by American politics, especially in an election year. Also, I think the US and Europe are not just looking at oil, but also volatility. A nuclear Pakistan is a huge regret for the West but also Russia and Central Asia.
I don’t think the American public is itching for another war just yet. We need at least 18 months for the bitter taste of Iraq to fade. Plus, we have to somehow announce a victory in Afganistan despite Karzai.
I think Israel is sitting on it’s own oil and will surprise Iran and China when they have run out of oil .
FM
[quote=Full Moon] I think Israel is sitting on it’s own oil and will surprise Iran and China when they have run out of oil .
FM
[/quote]
I think THAT would surprise a whole lot more people than the Iranians and Chinese…! Where did you get that idea from?
Mike
Here’s one more reason why America may not care so much about what happens in Iran in the short term:
WTI edging on Brent Crude Oil?
[quote]
Lately the price of WTI crude oil has been catching up on the price of Brent crude oil thanks to a new Seaway pipeline, moving oil from Cushing to Gulf coast refineries as early as April 2012, at the rate of 400,000 barrels per day. This new pipeline will help reduce the US dependency on oil from the Middle East.
[/quote]
Oh no… unless the Canadian housing market collapses just in time and brings down Alberta with it 
Samuel
CMartenson,
I think your article is very thoughtful and well written. And I don’t war any more than you do. I am not a war monger and the Media-Military-Industrial-Complex in the US literally troubles the heck out of me. I think they’re out of control actually.
But as I’ve pondered the issue of war with Iran I’ve not been able to get across the following questions:
- You claim that the U.S. has already committed acts of war against Iran. Do you not know that Iran has already committed acts of war against the U.S.? Do you not consider the guerilla war they are funding and making weapons for - that have killed thousands of U.S. soldiers - "acts of war"?
2. You suggest that the U.S. government may not understand the oil markets (or, at the very least, if they do they are picking the wrong time economically to target Iran). You further argue that the international oil markets would suffer greatly with a war. I couldn’t agree more.
But what price do you think oil would be trading at if Iran was the only oil producing nation in the middle east that did have a nuclear weapon?
- Putting war propoganda aside, it’s clear that Iran has hegemonic ambitions. They’ve stated as much publicly. Clearly that makes them different from Pakistan which you also cite in your article. Pakistan’s primary concern obviously is a balance-of-power relationship against India, etc. But Iran believes their culture is and has long been (since before Darius the Great, Xeres, etc) culturally superior to their neighbors.
How do you think a country that has publicly declared their hegemonic ambitions will treat their neighbors if they have a nuclear gun pointed at the head of their neighbors?
- Dominance in the Middle East has long been a struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. For the last century both countries have been propping up client states in the region and trying to exercise hegemonic dominance.
Every time Saudi Arabia and its client states work with the Western countries Iran uses that as a PR recruiting tool to remind their client states that Saudi Arabia is selling out.
If Iran had nuclear weapons how do you think that would change the balance of power with Saudi Arabia? Do you think that could limit Saudi Arabia’s relationships with their client states?
5. If Iran had nuclear weapons, who do you think would be next in line to get them?
-
Do you think Theocracies with nuclear weapons act differently than secular nations with nuclear weapons?
-
We almost lost 5,000 people in the Iraq war and believe me I know from personal experience the pain of a loss in war.
And at $700 Billion the cost of the Iraq war was indeed large. $100 billion a year is big bucks no matter how you look at it.
But folks who understand markets know that $100 billion a year given our $15 trillion economy (+ another $15 trillion in Asia + another $15 trillion in Europe) makes the $100 billion investment to secure commerce between ourselves and our trading partners SMALL POTATOES.
Given almost $50 trillion in global commerce, do you think $100 billion year is a large "capital expenditure" to secure the single most important economic resource we have?
-
Personally, I agree 100% with your theory that every nation has a right to self-determination. Does that mean you would have allowed Cuba to become a nuclear power during the Kennedy administration?
-
You talk about the threat of an escalation that could lead to war given all the people in the region so angry with each other. What do you think an escalation would cost if these countries were armed with nuclear weapons?
I am not for war by any means. I’m really not. I just haven’t been able to answer the above questions in a way that lets me argue against war with Iran. I’ve concluded that the only thing worse than war with Iran would be an Iran with nuclear weapons.
I look forward to your well-reasoned answers.
Sincerely,
Dylan Jovine
Ahmadinejad believes he personally has been chosen by Allah to hasten the return of the Muslim messiah (12th Imam). The way to achieve this goal for the Iranian president is the occurrence of a nuclear Holocaust. And this is why it is so vital for Ahmadinejad that Iran acquire a nuclear weapon.
Source: " Bomb and the Koran" by Michael Taubmann
I think we should take this seriously from a guy who thinks the extermination of 6 million Jews in WWII was a myth.
Israel is surrounded by oil producing countries . I can see them sitting on it and using up everyone elses and saving theirs for last . FM
Can not post where the hunch comes from on this site
I see the Nuclear threat as an attempt to distract and not a real threat. (i.e. like Iraq WMDs) WAR is a possibility, but mainly because USA can’t gain control of Iran and Iran is opening up its Oil Bourse.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/94459-iran-to-regularly-offer-crude-oil-on-bourse-next-year
But as I read the comments and this article, I can’t help but think that everyone is being distracted by this article and not following what is the root cause and reasons for US aggression.
Am I alone in thinking this?
I see your point, but I cannot see the US suddenly switching sides to align ourselves with Iran, regardless of justification. Like it or not, the US and Israel have a long history of mutual support, and the opposite is true of the US and Iran. There would be serious domestic political consequences for such an ultimatum.The leadership of Israel believes they could be targeted if Iran goes nuclear. Given that perspective, the international ramifications of a preemptive strike are less signifcant. The experience of WWII and the Holocaust are the lens by which the Israelis view existential threats.
I take the Iranian leadership at their word with regards to their feelings about the Israelis. They are committed and vocal about their future ambitions. This is well documented and not difficult to confirm.
If you think the threat is overblown, and Iran has only peaceful intentions for nuclear technology, then I can understand your anger. However, many people in Israel in the United States and around the world are afraid of a nuclear Iran more than they are of the consequences of war.
The whole argument rests on three things: Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? What will they do with them if they get them? What are the consequences of inaction?
Using the same philosophy of being prepared for the worse case scenario that we practice here at CM.com, it is not entirely irrational to prosecute a preemptive strike, as long as the consequences are less serious than a nuclear attack.
A complex situation to be sure. Its not easy to know the right answer.
Rector
Its possible, however I think its something that may be discovered in the future, and hasn’t been confirmed yet. Hard to keep something like that a secret. Plus, oil is fungible.
The correct translation of what Ahmedinejad said is ‘the regime should disappear from the pages of history’,NOT that Isreal should be wiped off the map!I believe the more,shall we say,atomically aggressive,comment was an intentionally bad translation by the Isrealis in an attempt to do exactly what it has done.
Just a thought. A friend of mine mentioned that an oil shock would be a great way to gain more support for the XL Keystone pipeline.
I didn’t understand why Obama opposed the pipeline. As you say, maybe we need a shock first. I personally am deadset against the Northern Gateway pipeline, for both environmental and strategic reasons. North America’s oil should stay in North America. We shouldbe using it to build out a solar energy infrastructure, not sending it to Asia to burn in ICE’s, never to be seen again. Plus, when global currencies collapse and the only thing of value is energy, food and to some extent minerals, then why would any country export oil? What is there of value that it could be traded for?
WTI edging on Brent Crude Oil?[quote]
Lately the price of WTI crude oil has been catching up on the price of Brent crude oil thanks to a new Seaway pipeline, moving oil from Cushing to Gulf coast refineries as early as April 2012, at the rate of 400,000 barrels per day. This new pipeline will help reduce the US dependency on oil from the Middle East.
[/quote]
Whoever wrote this has no idea what they’re talking about… The US consumes (without checking for EXACT figures) ~22Mbarrels/day, and only produces ~6Mbarrels/day. So you import ~16Mbarrels/day… which means piping 400,000 barrels is not going to make one iota of difference to your importation needs.
Mike
[quote=Ruhh]Just a thought. A friend of mine mentioned that an oil shock would be a great way to gain more support for the XL Keystone pipeline.
[/quote]
When will people realise that Nth America is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of supporting its greedy oil needs regardless of how many bloody pipelines you build?
If a war stops all oil from the NE to flow, you can kiss your lifestyle goodbye…
Mike
[quote=dbworld]I see the Nuclear threat as an attempt to distract and not a real threat. (i.e. like Iraq WMDs) WAR is a possibility, but mainly because USA can’t gain control of Iran and Iran is opening up its Oil Bourse.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/94459-iran-to-regularly-offer-crude-oil-on-bourse-next-year
But as I read the comments and this article, I can’t help but think that everyone is being distracted by this article and not following what is the root cause and reasons for US aggression.
Am I alone in thinking this?
[/quote]
Not at all… I’ve posted similar items here, and they’ve all been ignored. The whole Nuclear Iran thing is a beat up. So far, they’ve proudly produced ONE FUEL ROD. And bomb material is 100 times harder to produce…
Iran needs nuclear energy because it damn well knows it’s PEAK TIME…
Iran crude-oil extraction extrapolated to the year 2100:
The dashed curve is for total extraction of about double (400x109 barrels) the solid curve,
which corresponds to a reserve of about 240 x109 barrels.
The large dip in crude-oil extraction due to the Iranian/Islamic Revolution put Iran in a good position for future crude-oil extraction, causing its peak to be delayed until at least 2015.
Wow… three more years.
That such a significant cohort of CM.com commenters are members of the war party is worrying, and disappointing. To a person I suspect they are unaware of the fact helpfully noted by HarryFlashman above regarding the deliberate mistranslation of Ahmedinejad’s remarks by MEMRI and, as intended, the subsequent parrotting of it ad nauseam by the MSM and politicians.I had hoped that this self-selected community at CM.com were true critical thinkers but it seems that the MSM has done its job well as even here we find many supporting a war that will bring ruin upon us all.
[quote=debu]That such a significant cohort of CM.com commenters are members of the war party is worrying, and disappointing. To a person I suspect they are unaware of the fact helpfully noted by HarryFlashman above regarding the deliberate mistranslation of Ahmedinejad’s remarks by MEMRI and, as intended, the subsequent parrotting of it ad nauseam by the MSM and politicians.
I had hoped that this self-selected community at CM.com were true critical thinkers but it seems that the MSM has done its job well as even here we find many supporting a war that will bring ruin upon us all.
[/quote]
debu-
Funny, I have not yet seen a single comment here in this thread advocating a war in Iran. There were only a handful of commentors (one of them that just registered today) that described Iran as belligerent and poses some threat to it’s neighbors and/or regional stability, yet not one said war was the right thing. So how does this make up a "significant cohort" of CM.com warmongers?
Just because one party is being a bully does NOT automatically make the other bullied party a sainted and non-threatening entity. Isn’t it possible to make a case that Iran (or rather the ruling regime in Iran) poses some level of threat and has demonstrated ill intent and actions (most of it through proxies in the region), but still be against a military conflict? Ignoring the subtleties and details of the situation in favor of a black & white mindset is a sure recipe for pain and bad decisions.
Maybe one or two here cited the mistranslation you refer to, but if you really want to help you can try simply educating them instead of talking down to them.
- Nick