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.

 

The limitation of Iranian Oil.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Thursday, the offer was placed for Iran.
Friday, the US stated that iran didnt have much time to respond
link

Iran stated on Friday, AFTER the offer that they will NOT stop nuclear research and negotiations must NOT have any clauses forbidding them to research nuclear material.

link 1

So obviously, Iran arent going to stop.

They also stated that they will control fuel exports, effectivley hurting the US economy, the WORLD wide economy in such a way that NO body can predict with absolute definitive expectations.

Once the sanctions have been induced, and Iran limits its oil supplies to the US..
could be this be considered, an act of war?

With bush changing the rules and bending them as he pleases..
could he pass a law, stating any country deliberatly cutting its fuel exports with the precise reason being to HURT the US economy will be considered an attack on the USA?

We know how much the USA prefers dollars, to lives..

Could this be spun into such a scenario where no first strike is needed..
The the west will consider ANY limitation on the availability of its LIFE blood and act of war?


ALSO..
Isnt this guy meant to be a friend of the US
well according the Michael Moore
link

Why would hamid karzai be side by side with Irans leader?

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Agit8dChop]




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Interesting post, Agit8dChop. The propaganda machine is playing it very smart. Putting all the attention on Iranians uranium enrichment program.

Actually, this is quite similar to the pre-Iraq-war scenario. When Bush; Blair; their political/propaganda masterminds put all the attention on the WMDs. Blair once said: ''Iraq has bio/chemical weapons ready to deploy within 45 minutes'' Meanwhile he sent his soldiers unprotected, or with a gas mask only to the battlefields, strange huh?

At the beginning of the anti-Iran media campaign I actually was quite worried too, they almost managed to indoctrinate me. Till I saw several articles of the Iranian Oil Bourse; it's Iraqi brother, the Iraqi Oil Bourse. CNN did not mention it when the Iraqi Oil Euro was changed back to the Oil Dollar, which is in mine, and of many others the reason to protect the American economy, and thus America as a whole. Without a powerful economy, you cannot afford to keep up such a military, without a military you cannot protect yourself against enemies, and other countries trying to take over your leading position. That's exactly why the Bush administration takes such a big risks, he has no other options left.

However, to get back ontopic, through the eyes of the Bush administration it might be seen as an act of war, but internationally they have no right to call it like that. No other country will concur with that statement (except of Britain perhaps).
We live in a ''democratic'' world, so if one country decided not to trade with another anymore, it should be allowed to do so, whatever the other country's opinion is.

The west will accept the limitation, but does the US accept such a limitation. The US consumes as much as a quarter of the total oil consumption, which basically means they will be relatively harder than other western less consuming countries.

According to your last question, this is what I found:


May 27, 2006 -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in Tehran today for a two-day visit.

Karzai is scheduled to meet with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and to hold talks on developments in the region with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

Earlier this month, Karzai's spokesman said Afghanistan is ready to mediate between Iran and the United States in the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, and that Karzai would raise the issue in Tehran.

But Iran's Foreign Ministry today said Iran's nuclear program is not on the agenda for Karzai's talks.

(AFP, dpa)


I have no clue why Karzai visited Iran, as Afghanistan doesn't have a proper advantage for Iran.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Maybe to create an alliance? Maybe to ask iran to supply weapons to afghanistan to kick out US?


[edit on 6-6-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Oh please, the world is 4% dependent on Iranian oil, but Iran is 100% dependent on Iranian oil. Additionally, the have ZERO refining capacity. They IMPORT refined products like diesel and gasoline.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
C'mon, can you see the oil companies saying

' hey we were wrong, we've noticed little difference in the oil, thus we wont raise prices '

Sure,
that oil is going high, either iran make it that way, or the powers that be decide oil isnt a cheap commodity ne more.

but after 6 months, of drastically increased fuel costs, food costs going high, both market confidence and expansion dissapears..
people are broke, people are poor, people are angry.

these same people, day after day need to go to the fuel pump, and empty there wallets just to GET to work.

we'll be angry enough as a western nation, we'll be BEGGING for a reason to go in.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Look right now oil is a bit under its inflation adjusted peek in ‘81. However, America gets about twice as much GDP per barrel of oil than we did back then. So, while any further increase in oil and gas prices would hurt, it would not be devastating by any means.

Additionally, an increase in price would further encourage increased production. At $100+ a barrel you can bet there won’t be any shortage of it. Anybody with oil will be making hay while the sun shines.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
but every day tom dick and harry will struggle to pay there way.
how big is debt for america?
not just the country but for the citizens each..

its becoming too hard for people to work, buy a house and live.
life is getting to expensive, while cheap labour, and advance technologies force major unemployment, and downsizing of wages.

oil above $100 a barrel means food in the shopping centre goes up..
it means driving around goes up..
costs of getting to work go up.

I like when people refer in ecnomic terms to previous happenings.
that was then, this is now.
outside influences mean that jsut because something happened before, means its going to happen again.

regardless of what happened in 81,
oil is becoming scarce to get.
the countries who own it are no longer our friends.

so as soon as the iranians and americans start really getting serious on there last choice scenario's, the oil issue is going to spread to different area's.

Nigeria is already having americans taken hostage.

I think of it as domino's.
once smoething has happened the door has been set for the next issue to walk right in.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
oil above $100 a barrel means food in the shopping centre goes up..
it means driving around goes up..
costs of getting to work go up.

I like when people refer in ecnomic terms to previous happenings.
that was then, this is now.
outside influences mean that jsut because something happened before, means its going to happen again.



The so much ingorance here it's hard to know where to start.

Oil is scarce? Since when? It might be more costly, but I can go buy all I want. And higher prices encourage increased supply. If you had oil that selling for $100 a bbl but only cost you a $6 a bbl, would you sit on it or sell it?

America's are working few hours to fill up their tank than they did in 1981, that's just a fact. That why nobody's getting too excited about it.



its becoming too hard for people to work, buy a house and live.
life is getting to expensive, while cheap labour, and advance technologies force major unemployment, and downsizing of wages.


You mind posting some data supporing that? Let's see what was in yesterday's Washington Post had to say about that.


The American economy is the strongest in the world and growing faster than that of any other major industrialized country. It grew at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter -- the fastest growth in 2 1/2 years. It has added more than 5.3 million jobs since the summer of 2003, and employment is near an all-time high. The unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is well below the average for each of the past four decades. Mortgage rates remain near historical lows, homeownership remains near a record high, and sales of new and existing homes reached record levels in 2005. Real disposable personal income has risen almost 13 percent since President Bush took office; and core inflation rose just 2.3 percent over the past 12 months. The Dow Jones industrial average has risen from under 7300 in 2002 to above 11,000 for most of this year. Tax revenues are at an all-time high -- and so is total household net worth.

How about America's social issues?


Violent crime rates remain at the lowest levels in the history of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' survey (which started in 1973). We are experiencing the sharpest decline in teen crime in modern history. Property crimes are near the lowest levels in the history of the federal survey. Welfare caseloads have declined almost 60 percent since 1996.
www.washingtonpost.com...


You're just blathering your uninformed opinions, you might try opening a paper or book now and again.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Luis Tiant]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Foreign policy wise I think any reduction in Iranian oil would be considered an act of economic warfare.
However this does not translate into warfare. Like Luis Tiant said: we are 4% dependant on Iranian oil, and they are nearly 100%.

Losing oil from Iran is no big deal. It's going to be annoying, maybe upset the inflation targets a percentage point or two, but its not going to bring about a wall street crash were ordinary Americans are reduced to rag clothed tramps with begging bowls (empty of oil).

What might do that is a war with Iran. Because there goes Suis Canal output, there goes a few million rounds of ammunition to terrorist organisations. There goes virtually or the oil output of Iran and Iraq because there will be no shortage of well armed terrorists or insurgents to blow up the pipelines.
Basically a war with Iran could cut Middle Eastern oil production in half. And even if we don't actually invade the country there is no telling how much trouble the Iranians may decide to cause us by disrupting the output of our allied middle eastern nations. They won't need an Iranian army to do that, they just need a terrorist one (of which there are plenty that could do with things like better shoulder to air missiles). Landmines could also become a big problem.

Once oil prices go over board our economies will start to collapse. Ever since the dot.com crash we have always been quite close to a recession but smart people controlling interest rates and other things prevent that becoming a reality. However should the price of oil go beyond 100 dollars a barrel (or even more) then it is economic "Game Over" time. This is when you and me will feel the difference.

Actually invading Iran is Wall Street Crash 2 with vengeance. Because even if Iran doesn’t yet have nuclear weapons we will have to filter the anthrax, smallpox and other things out of the region. If Israel isn’t destroyed with biological bombs then it will be devastated by disease that finds say person to person contact to get through. This will apply to many Arab nations, because that’s the nature of biological warfare. But don’t think these weapons won’t be used if we are insane enough to go in for regime change. That’s why I agree with Sceptictjc (who’s on this forum) that this option isn’t on the table. But if it is, or does get on the table then it’s like that bible prophecy stuff.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luis Tiant



The American economy is the strongest in the world and growing faster than that of any other major industrialized country. It grew at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter -- the fastest growth in 2 1/2 years. It has added more than 5.3 million jobs since the summer of 2003, and employment is near an all-time high. The unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is well below the average for each of the past four decades. Mortgage rates remain near historical lows, homeownership remains near a record high, and sales of new and existing homes reached record levels in 2005. Real disposable personal income has risen almost 13 percent since President Bush took office; and core inflation rose just 2.3 percent over the past 12 months. The Dow Jones industrial average has risen from under 7300 in 2002 to above 11,000 for most of this year. Tax revenues are at an all-time high -- and so is total household net worth.

How about America's social issues?


Violent crime rates remain at the lowest levels in the history of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' survey (which started in 1973). We are experiencing the sharpest decline in teen crime in modern history. Property crimes are near the lowest levels in the history of the federal survey. Welfare caseloads have declined almost 60 percent since 1996.
www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Luis Tiant]


Ah Luis Tiant, or should I say El Tiante (clone)?
I don't know whether it's biasism or igorance, but obviously you have no clue at all. Since you can't respond anyway I'll do one more (short) attempt to give you some idea on what is actually going on.

A commonly used instrument to measure the strength of an economy is inflation; figures, which are publically released by the Fed. and other institutions are not the real figures. A major French bank confirms this:
You might want to read the entire report here:
www.gata.org...


The changes in CPI methodology since the Clinton Administration are estimated by Williams to have led to the CPI figures systematically understating the true level of US inflation by 2.7% on an ongoing basis.
The Fed's focus on the "core" level of inflation is also misleading. The core CPI is
calculated by excluding the "volatile food and energy" components. At around one
quarter of total consumer expenditure, these categories are very significant, especially
when energy prices are so high.


Figures given by the Fed show 4.7%, which is actually 6.7%

Another indication is that the Fed discontinued to publish the M3 Chart:



www.investmentu.com...

Last month, the Federal Reserve quietly issued a statement that it would no longer publish the M3 – the broadest measure of the money supply. Behind the scenes, this spells trouble. Here’s why…

While attending the San Francisco Gold Show last week, my friend Van Simmons (a rare coin dealer) and I had lunch with famed monetarist Milton Friedman, who is 93 years old, but still very alert and knowledgeable about current geo-politics.

“I don’t know why the Federal Reserve discontinued the M3 chart,” he said. “But inflation is clearly a problem right now.”



It predicted that GDP growth in the United States is expected to moderate slightly to 3.4 percent in 2006 from 3.5 percent in 2005, but still the highest among the Group-7 industrialized countries and a major engine of world economic growth.

Meanwhile, the economic gain in the Euro area is predicted to be 2 percent this year, much stronger than the 1.3 percent in 2005. Japan's growth will increase to 2.8 percent this year, also slightly higher than the 2.7 percent last year.


The US economy is the biggest of the industrialized countries, but compare the increases of the EU and US in one year time. The EU isn't a developing country, which rejects the idea of another Chinese developing economy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join