Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran

Over 70 oil refineries in europe depend on Iranian oil, and with Iran threatening sanctions on oil exports to europe, the british have to be seen publicly to not want or help towards conflict with Iran, we need that oil, we have to put our best interests first...Something america forgotten to do, fighting israel's wars

Sanctions or a complete stop on european oil exports from Iran could possibly destabilize the whole of europe, into chaos.

Europe starting to grow old with this phony terrorist war now that has no end, we had our fill, and starting to distrust the American/israeli administration, who are intent on bringing about the 3rd world war.

reply to post by TheMaverick


The U.S. has taken the position of securing access to as much oil as possible instead of trying to wean themselves off of it. The worst part of this is China also gets around 10% of it's oil from Iran, as does India as well. They aren't likely to accept further oil sanctions as it's going to disrupt their markets.

Removed erroneous information

reply to post by TheMaverick


Er, dude, not sure how up to date your info is, but the EU banned Iranian oil (and oil products) from import or distribution in January of this year, with all contracts to be terminated by July...

BBC

reply to post by stumason

Er, dude, not sure how up to date your info is, but the EU banned Iranian oil (and oil products) from import or distribution in January of this year, with all contracts to be terminated by July...

HERE and practically most major news sources, i would link you to at least 4 or 5 maybe more, simple google search and no doubt your find many.

reply to post by Trolloks


This is nothing more than political rhetoric for consumption by the masses.

Cameron can not afford to further alienate the UK public who are very much anti any military confrontation with Iran.
This 'move' may give Cameron a bit more credibility.

But the truth is that as snactions begin to really bite in Iran the USA has no intention of carrying out any sort of strike against Iran but they want the perception that they might to remain.

Ahmadinejad is under intense pressure domestically with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the judiciary and his own spiritual advisor Mesbah Yazdi all distancing themselves from him whilst there are frequent protests against both him and his Presidency.
In addition Ahmadinejad can not legally have a third term in office - in effect he is being isolated and is becoming something of a lame duck President who will quietely see out his last 8 months in office whilst people position themselves for the oncoming power struggle.

Iranian politics is far more complicated and entangled than most people think.

The US will wait to see who or what follows Ahmadinejad by which time the political climate in both the US and UK could be very different from what it is today.

reply to post by TheMaverick


You've misread your link. What the Iranians are saying is if they cut off their exports, the oil price will rise hurting consumers in the EU and US. However, the EU and US buy no Oil or Oil products from Iran themselves, it is merely the effect of the loss of Iranian crude to the market that he is going on about.

For example, you want apples. John sells apples and Bob sells apples, but via the Market. You don't want to buy Johns apples, so you buy Bobs. However, if John decided not to sell his apples on the market, supply would drop, driving up the price you pay, affecting you indirectly even though you didn't buy John's apples yourself.

Here is a link to a simple google search. In each, you will find references to the EU's banning of Iranian Oil imports, effective as of July this year. As of this moment, NO Iranian Oil is sold to ANY EU customer.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by TheMaverick

 

You've misread your link. What the Iranians are saying is if they cut off their exports, the oil price will rise hurting consumers in the EU and US. However, the EU and US buy no Oil or Oil products from Iran themselves, it is merely the effect of the loss of Iranian crude to the market that he is going on about.

For example, you want apples. John sells apples and Bob sells apples, but via the Market. You don't want to buy Johns apples, so you buy Bobs. However, if John decided not to sell his apples on the market, supply would drop, driving up the price you pay, affecting you indirectly even though you didn't buy John's apples yourself.

This is usually the point where the US declares war and kills John....then the US takes John's apples and sells them like they are still a rare commodity...sending profits to the "black" budget.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


While that is the usual mantra trotted out for Iraq, it doesn't bear out under scrutiny.

Of the 4 Oil fields that have had licenses issued, one is split between a Chinese and French firm, one to Shell (a Dutch firm) and Petronas (Malaysian), one to BP and the last one is split into phases, with a Russian firm having one slice and Exxon-Mobil/Shell having the rest.

So only one field has an American company running it and even then, in conjunction with the Dutch firm. All of the licenses involve paying a price of $1.40/barrel to the Iraqi Government. I cannot see where the Americans will get back any of the vast fortune they spent in Iraq via Oil.

If you want a conspiracy about Iraq, it's who won all the contracts to "rebuild" or supply the vast occupying Army. That's where the real money is.

Nice name by the way, LeatherNlace...

reply to post by stumason


I haven't misread, your reading from the link i provided which is forexpro, its talks about the global effect on the markets, very briefly, don't believe for a second europe hasn't been buying Iranian oil, of course they have, Iran priced there oil so cheap, europe would be fools to actually implement export sanctions, especially the british, who have no oil left, or gas.

Thanks for your explanation you gave, no doubt you type it in crayon to emphasize the sarcastic post, just so you know, i do my research, i don't make this stuff up.

Do you know how many times British Petroleum has been caught doing business with the iranians over the years while sanctions have been implemented, the oil mafia work under a different set of rules to the rest of us, and always get away with it.


Edit to add: Here's what happen to the european sanctions you were talking about way back at the start of the year.
Iran Sanction Bill Exempts BP Project

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

While that is the usual mantra trotted out for Iraq, it doesn't bear out under scrutiny.

Of the 4 Oil fields that have had licenses issued, one is split between a Chinese and French firm, one to Shell (a Dutch firm) and Petronas (Malaysian), one to BP and the last one is split into phases, with a Russian firm having one slice and Exxon-Mobil/Shell having the rest.

So only one field has an American company running it and even then, in conjunction with the Dutch firm. All of the licenses involve paying a price of $1.40/barrel to the Iraqi Government. I cannot see where the Americans will get back any of the vast fortune they spent in Iraq via Oil.

If you want a conspiracy about Iraq, it's who won all the contracts to "rebuild" or supply the vast occupying Army. That's where the real money is.

.

I agree with everything you said....including this:

Nice name by the way, LeatherNlace...

.

As I'm sure you know....it's a Stevie Nicks song.

About time UK stood up to the US and stopped this crap about Obama telling us to jump and we say, how high? Enough is enough! If the US want a war again with some country, then let them get on with it but keep us out of it.

Well, way back in the Reagan / Thatcher days, the story at the time was that Reagan had called nearly all the Government leaders in Europe for permission to use bases to strike targets in Libya, and had been rejected by every single one.

In the end, so the story goes, he called Thatcher in the middle of the night to tell her "we've sent planes from bases in the UK to attack Libya, just thought you should know".

I'm guessing something similar will happen to David Cameron.

However, in the day of aircraft carriers and stealth bombers with flying distance of thousands of miles, why does the USA need to use european bases for an airstrike on Iran?

reply to post by Trolloks


I've been saying the US will be on their own with their Iran Issues since the proposed the idea of military intervention. The world doesn't want another war.

reply to post by Trolloks


There are serious credibility issues.

To begin with, it's a little hard for the US to be preaching any kind of moral high ground when it comes to extradition, it's widely known that the US expects extradition agreements to be one-sided. They want people, they cry and scream about it, but when the tables are turned they'll protect criminals from other nations and the justice of those people.

In addition, the US has openly admitted to torture. There are international agreements on dealing with states that torture, perhaps the USA should have thought about that. The same applies to the UK from other nationalities. Torture might have seemed like a good idea to some 'tards in the military and governments of our countries, but they yielded nothing but rubbish, and further damaged foreign relations with plenty of other countries who now do not trust either.

The UK government is responsible to the UK citizens, if America wants to use our bases, we would be in the firing line over a conflict the people of Britain want no part of. That is why, I suspect, the British government has politely declined the request of the US.

It's good to see our own national policy actually being dictated from London, rather than our pathetic little BS merchants in suits nodding along with whatever the BS merchants in Washington want.

I hope we stick to it, and when Israel decides to pull the trigger we'll be prepared to protect the UK from attack while the US enters yet another war and adds yet another $10 trillion to their national debt.

Originally posted by babybunnies
In the end, so the story goes, he called Thatcher in the middle of the night to tell her "we've sent planes from bases in the UK to attack Libya, just thought you should know".

I find that very hard to believe. Not impossible, but unlikely.

I doubt little Eton boy Dave would actually do anything about it if this happened again. Although, if it were to happen like that, I wish he would then tell them that they were not cleared to return to the UK once they take off.

Originally posted by babybunnies
However, in the day of aircraft carriers and stealth bombers with flying distance of thousands of miles, why does the USA need to use european bases for an airstrike on Iran?

Would you use your best china when the boys are round eating Pizza?
No, you save the good stuff for a more impressive occasion. No need to swat a fly with a baseball bat, and risk damaging the bat.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
I haven't misread, your reading from the link i provided which is forexpro, its talks about the global effect on the markets, very briefly, don't believe for a second europe hasn't been buying Iranian oil, of course they have, Iran priced there oil so cheap, europe would be fools to actually implement export sanctions, especially the british, who have no oil left, or gas.

You need to do a lot more than simply state they are buying it. As it stands at the moment, the lack of Iranian crude on the EU and US markets has been met with increased production from the rest of the world, including Saudi which has upped it's production an extra 100k bpd from this time last year.

As for your British quip, we still pump a fair amount of Oil and Gas, with new fields being explored. We actually pump around 1 million barrels of oil a day, roughly the same as Texas.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
Thanks for your explanation you gave, no doubt you type it in crayon to emphasize the sarcastic post, just so you know, i do my research, i don't make this stuff up.

Crayon? What? Where was I being sarcastic? You have some comprehension issues, chap.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
Do you know how many times British Petroleum has been caught doing business with the iranians over the years while sanctions have been implemented, the oil mafia work under a different set of rules to the rest of us, and always get away with it.

Edit to add: Here's what happen to the european sanctions you were talking about way back at the start of the year.
Iran Sanction Bill Exempts BP Project

edit on 25-10-2012 by TheMaverick because: (no reason given)

You're referring to the Shah Deniz project, which is actually in Azerbaijan. The Iranian Oil company NICO holds a 10% stake in the project, hence why it would have been subject to sanctions, not because it is Iranian Oil. For that matter, Azerbaijan is freezing out NICO from the pipeline project to supply said Oil/Gas to the EU:

www.businessweek.com...

It looks like they have taken a public stand but this will go ahead imo. we will back them in some way or other at least. Its probably a European war to begin with. Just my opinion.

reply to post by stumason


You left out Shah Deniz project is actually in the caspian sea, the pipeline will run through Azerbaijan.

I guess we both have different opinions on the subject, so were have to disagree, and its late so i'm off to bed.

Originally posted by stumason
Here is a link to a simple google search. In each, you will find references to the EU's banning of Iranian Oil imports, effective as of July this year. As of this moment, NO Iranian Oil is sold to ANY EU customer.

Not saying you're wong Stumason, but I recently stumbled across this - dated 24/10/12

Referring to the banking sanctions, the oil embargo and to sanctions barring EU-based insurance companies from covering tankers carrying Iranian oil, Khosrojerdi said that the private consortiums had “completely neutralized sanctions on foreign exchange transactions, on insurance and on Western oil tankers.”

Defying sanctions via the private sector. Is this not proof that in some ways a corporatocracy is indeed existent in today's playing fields?