It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran could use Oil as a Weapon if it is Refered to UNSC

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

www.aljazeera.com...
Iran could use oil as a weapon if its nuclear case is referred to the UN Security Council, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

In an interview with the English-language daily Khaleej Times, Ahmdinejad said that the Islamic republic might also block inspections of its nuclear sites if the United States and its allies push the Security Council to impose sanctions.

“If Iran's case is sent to the Security Council, we will respond by many ways, for example by holding back on oil sales or limiting inspections of our nuclear facilities," he told The Khaleej Times on Saturday.

"We have been extremely cooperative, we have had more than 1,200 man days of inspections, monitoring cameras are everywhere in our facilities,” he added.

Continued....


How much are you willing to pay for oil, and gas?

Is your future more secure by being hostile to Iran?




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   


bbc news
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.

The editor, Prem Chandran, said the reporter has now clarified that on several occasions when she spoke to the president she presented herself as a reporter with the US-based Arab News, and not as a Khaleej Times reporter.

In her report, journalist Nihal Kamel quoted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying: "We will respond by many ways, for example by holding back on oil sales."



even if they did its not like they supply the US or anything

so its doutfull they would



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
last tiem i check, they supply china with most of the oil..... so it wouldn't hurt me here



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

even if they did its not like they supply the US or anything
so its doutfull they would


It would push up prices everywhere in the world, including America.

The price is a factor of supply -vs- demand.

Lower supply and price goes up....



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Is your future more secure by being hostile to Iran?


It's a lot more secure by acting now to contain Iran rather than waiting until they can use both nuclear weapons and oil to hang over our heads.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

It would push up prices everywhere in the world, including America.

The price is a factor of supply -vs- demand.

Lower supply and price goes up....



Yes the price goes up in those countries that import oil form Iran, the United States is not one of those countries.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

It would push up prices everywhere in the world, including America.

The price is a factor of supply -vs- demand.

Lower supply and price goes up....



Yes the price goes up in those countries that import oil form Iran, the United States is not one of those countries.


The price would go up in ALL countries.

Those that had been buying oil from Iran would now be buying from other sources competing against us for the reduced supply.

With a market based pricing system it matters not where you buy oil, only that you do buy it, and no one buys more than America.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Is your future more secure by being hostile to Iran?


It's a lot more secure by acting now to contain Iran rather than waiting until they can use both nuclear weapons and oil to hang over our heads.


How many countries will have to "contain" before we can be "secure"?
Should we nuke them now just to be on the safe side? I don't want to send my son to die on foreign soil to "secure and contain" the oil companies' profits. Do you? We can't "secure and contain" Iraq. that has no WMDs. How well do you think we will do against a country that can defend itself? There is no way to win a nuclear war except to avoid one, and an excellent way to do that is to not attack other countries, even if we think it is for thier own good. If we nuke another country do you think that it will not have an effect on our environment? Do you think that the rest of the world will stand by while we impose ourselves on every government that our corporations have a problem with, or simply want to take over in order to do thier business more efficiently? Why should we be able to decide who has the right to defend themselves. If we didn't have over 10,000 nukes ourselves, maybe other countries wouldn't see the advantage of investing in this technology.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
ArchAngel is right about the price of oil. If Iran stops selling oil the price will go up in the U.S. even if we don't directly buy any from them, since Iran's current customers will have to buy oil elsewhere and compete with us for the resource, driving the price higher.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes the price goes up in those countries that import oil form Iran, the United States is not one of those countries.


The price will go up everywhere because if Japan, Italy and France can't buy their oil from Iran that means they'll have to buy from another country, possibly one that the US buys from. That increased competition for crude will drive the prices up.

EDIT: Others beat me to the reply while I was looking up the major importers of Iranian oil.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I know that, but the US’ biggest seller of oil are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. 3 of the four would rather do business with the US than other countries. That list was before Iraqi was friendly with the US.
Also would someone tell me what percentage of Iran's economy is made up by their oil export market, this should give us a good idea if they are bluffing or not.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I know that, but the US’ biggest seller of oil are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. 3 of the four would rather do business with the US than other countries. That list was before Iraqi was friendly with the US.
Also would someone tell me what percentage of Iran's economy is made up by their oil export market, this should give us a good idea if they are bluffing or not.


Maybe you mean two out of the four????

The PRICE of the oil is set by the markets, and if it goes up in Asia it goes up in America too.

BTW- Iraq is not 'friendly' with America now...



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I seriously doubt Iran will do this because first they need the money, and second that would remove any reason for other countries to continue dragging their feet on the confrontation of Iran. I'm sure one of the only reason Europe has been relatively slow with Iran is because they are currently getting a lot of oil from them.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
No, its definitely 3 of the four, the Saudis can also feel the US presence in the gulf.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also would someone tell me what percentage of Iran's economy is made up by their oil export market, this should give us a good idea if they are bluffing or not.


Their GDP in 2004 was $155.4 billion and, of that total, $32.5 billion was revenue from oil exports. eia.doe.gov



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The situation in Canada is very 'fluid' right now. China spend a few days here talking deals (Rummy couldn't make it) for our natural resources and already have bought into some of the infrastructure of the Athabasca Tar Sands. They would dearly like to also increase their share of that resource and they are building a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast so they can pick it up more readily by ship.

On a side note...the recent problems with the softwood lumber dispute and America's unwillingness to pay back the $5 billion US owed is making ripples here.

I can't understand it...for a paltry $5 Bil., America would put NAFTA at risk?

Our government is talking retaliation on trade issues, so don't be assuming things are hunky dory with the canucks.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by masqua]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I think the US is worth more to Canada than 5 Billon $

And until further events I will presume the status queue.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by WestPoint23]


cjf

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Their GDP in 2004 was $155.4 billion and, of that total, $32.5 billion was revenue from oil exports. eia.doe.gov


Reading the numbers this way can cause some ‘oversights’ in what oil (and natural gas) exports mean to Iran’s as an economy and government.

Using the source provided previously, oil exports (which also include LNG) account for 80-90 percent of total exports, and approaching half of the government budget.

80 percent of what Iran exports to Europe is oil and the total international non-oil exports in US$ is currently tracked at only 8.5 billion and Iran is targeting US$ 12.5 billion by 2010.
(link)

The non-oil sector of the Iranian economy is 80 percent state run and considered by most mismanaged and under funded at best. (link)

Yet Iran is attempting to ‘sluff’ this problem and began a few years ago re-examining its’ insignificant position in the international non-oil market which is not keeping pace with the nations estimated annual 14.5% inflation rate.

Eg. Mohammad Khatami had proposed Iran try to begin to break its’ reliance on oil exports earlier this year; however was defeated.

Iran must also pump near US$3 billion back into its oilfields each year to maintain current production and maintenance. Also, although the vast proven reserves are there, such as the Azadegan oilfields with 26b bls., the oil is essentially 'locked' because Iran has had difficulty in finding outside investors (Shell, Japan, India to name a few) to fund the huge project simply because of the way ‘they’ do business (strictly ‘buy back’) which causes lengthy negociations as well as Iran's nuclear ‘development’ projects which are causing international pressures etc.

For further reading if interested:
COMEX complete listing to indexed related international articles about Iran/oil/economics etc

Iran's economy as strong as the reported language coming from Teheran.

.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Well what do you know? I guess Iran won’t be keeping the oil tankers and refineries running at full export capacity once their country is being attacked after all (especially if it’s with a few thousands tonnes of weaponry and troops).
As for today the fact Iran exports oil remains a good reason for the U.S not to attack Iran. So until the president starts the invasion stopwatch I don't think Iran will be wanting to cut the U.S economies "drug" supply too hastily.

On the other hand if we do invade Iran things will get really exciting!!!
For a start their in alliance with Syria so any oil from that area of the world will also be gone. Then you have to remember that both countries may use their forces to disrupt other countries supplies.
A quite predictable way of doing this would be to fund the insurgency in Iraq. They are already attacking Iraq's oil infrastructure on a near daily basis (someone told them it had something to do with us being there).

But if both countries leaders figure they are doomed anyway they may as well do a lot more than that. Certainly once we have invaded them many of their people will be queuing up to join terrorist organizations with or without their government request.
Then you have to remember that Iran is well prepared for an invasion. They are already thought to have both biological and chemical weapons. Because unlike Saddam they don't believe the promises of “we won't invade you once you’ve fully disarmed yourself of WMD's”.

It gets even more interesting if you figure they have learnt from Iraq. It’s widely thought that rather than fighting the U.S in big chunks of military assets (perfect for air bombing) the government will instead provide its resources to resistance organizations so that they can continue the war after the battle has been lost. Ironically enough this was planned for England in the event the Nazis invaded during world war two.

With all this in mind I doubt we will be invading Iran. Sanctions maybe (but hopefully not till the price of crude has gone down). Sanctions won't be much good because Iran can still export oil to other countries (though it would dent their revenue).
The other thing Preza Bush might do is do is order a few strategic air strikes. Trouble is you don't want Iran to retaliate against the damned holy land of Israel. And in any case it solves the symptoms of the "problem" not the cause as Iran can just build deeper nuclear facilities.

Personally I would let Iran have the nukes. It’s a threat to Israel and maybe our pro Israel policy. But it’s NOT a threat to me or anyone I know. In fact in my opinion Israel probably deserves whatever it gets. Most of its land has never been paid for; and they kill way more Arabs than the Arabs have ever killed of them. Add to that, that 2000 year old claims to bits of land put pieces of our family farm in jeopardy to descendants of Roman Italians.
I'm sick of our troops and citizens dying because we can't along with Arabs because our government happens to support Israel. If I was an Arab I wouldn’t like friends of Israel ether.

Anyway Iran’s possession of nukes will probably merely cause Israel to treat Arabs with a bit more respect. As given that Israel already has nukes Iran’s possession of them isn’t exactly a death sentence, its more of a last resort potential threat.
This is even more so when you remember America will extend its nuclear deterrent to cover Israel (if it doesn’t already).

Another good thing about Iran having nukes is that once they have them we can stop talking about invading them. Cos if you ask me that's the reason why they want them most.
Maybe America is just another part of Israel. But say it isn’t then it can prove it by keeping out of this Israeli problem. America has nothing to lose other than a few moments cradling of Israel. Surely America will still have an Israel to love and protect with or without Iran having nukes?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Its a two edged sword. Iran also needs the money the sales of oil bring in. While not exactly happy with the religious cliqe that really runs the country, Its not like the opression seen under Hussain in Iraq. That would change however if the Iranian economy tanked and embargo's took thier effect.

So this just seems like alot of bluster to me.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join