This is the forum for all people who wish a debate on the Iranian situation.
Printable View
This is the forum for all people who wish a debate on the Iranian situation.
Touch Iran in a War, You Will Hear Russia and China | Oriental Review
"Despite the areas of difference and the rivalries between Moscow and Tehran, Russian and Iranian ties are increasing. Both Russia and Iran share many commonalities. They are both major energy exporters, have deeply seated interests in the South Caucasus, oppose NATO’s missile shield, and want to keep the U.S. and E.U. from controlling the energy corridors around the Caspian Sea Basin. Moscow and Tehran also share many of the same allies, from Armenia, Tajikistan, and Belarus to Syria and Venezuela. Yet, above all things, both republics are also two of Washington’s main geo-strategic targets.
The Eurasian Triple Entente and Iran’s Significance for Russia and China
With the inclusion of the Chinese, the Russian Federation and Iran are widely considered to be allies and partners. Together the Russia Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran form a barrier against the United States. The three form this through a triple alliance that is the core of a Eurasian coalition resisting Washington’s encroachment into Eurasia and America’s quest for global hegemony. The Chinese primarily face U.S. encroachment from East Asia and the Pacific, the Iranians primarily face U.S. encroachment in Southwest Asia, and the Russians primarily face U.S. encroachment in Eastern Europe. All three states also face U.S. encroachment in Central Asia and are wary of the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan.
Iran can be characterized as a geo-strategic pivot. The entire geo-political equation in Eurasia will change on the basis of Iran’s political orbit. Should Iran ally with the United States and become hostile to Beijing and Moscow, it could seriously destabilize Russia and China and wreak havoc on both nations. This would be due to its ethno-cultural, linguistic, economic, religious, and geo-political links to the Caucasus and Central Asia."
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/446.jpg
Continues.....
A map of US bases surrounding Iran.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/521.jpg
India Increases Iran Oil Imports - WSJ.com
" Media reports said on Thursday that Iran's crude exports to India have increased to 550,000 barrels a day in January which shows a 37.5% growth compared with the same period last year.
India has increased oil imports from Iran to become the Islamic Republic's largest customer last month, ignoring recent sanctions imposed by US and EU on importing Iran's oil.
The development, the Wall Street Journal report said, has partly offset a 50 percent cut in crude exports to China as a result of pricing dispute. China now imports around 250,000 barrels a day from Iran.
The news comes despite the West's rising pressure on Iran to halt its peaceful nuclear program.
On the New Year's Eve, the United States imposed new sanctions against Iran aimed at preventing other countries from importing Iran's oil and doing transactions with its central bank.
After months of debates, the EU member states also eventually reached an agreement in their meeting on January 23 to sanction oil imports from Iran and freeze the assets of Iran's Central Bank within the EU.
Following the decision, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton claimed that the sanctions are aimed at pressuring Iran to return to talks over its nuclear program.
Despite Ashton's claims, Iran has always underlined its preparedness to resume talks with the West but has meantime stressed that it will never accept any precondition for such talks.
After the EU oil ban against Iran, members of the Iranian parliament finalized a draft bill on cutting the country's oil exports to the European states in retaliation for the EU move.
"The bill has 4 articles, including one which states that the Islamic Republic of Iran will cut all oil exports to the European states until they end their oil sanctions against the country," Vice-Chairman of the parliament's Energy Commission Nasser Soudani told FNA last month.
Elaborating on the other parts of the draft bill, he said another article requires the government to stop imports of goods from those countries which are a party to these sanctions against Iran.
In relevant remarks last week, Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi also underlined Tehran's determination to retaliate against the western states' oil ban against the country, and said Iran will certainly cut its oil exports to certain European countries.
"Export of oil to certain European countries will certainly be cut," Qassemi said in a press conference.
"We will decide on stopping oil exports to other European countries later," he added. "
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
"TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel"
U.S. Prepares Georgia for New Wars in Caucasus and Iran [Voltaire Network]
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/703.jpg
"On January 30 President Barack Obama met with his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili in the Oval Office at the White House for an unprecedented private meeting between the heads of state, a tête-à-tête initiated by Washington.
Details of the discussions were not divulged, though Obama is reported to have confirmed American support for Georgia’s full integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and expressed appreciation for Saakashvili almost doubling his nation’s troop strength in NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to approximately 1,700 soldiers, making the Georgian contingent the largest of any non-NATO member even as other troop contributing nations are planning to withdraw troops from the over ten-year war in South Asia.
Speculation emerged before the meeting that Obama had summoned the ambitious and erratic Georgian leader to Washington to propose a quid pro quo: The use of Georgian territory for American attacks on Iran in exchange for the U.S. exercising its not inconsiderable influence in Georgia – with a population of only 4.7 million the third largest recipient of American foreign aid – to assist in securing Saakashvili’s reelection in next year’s presidential poll.
Former president Eduard Shevardnadze, who was overthrown by Saakashvili’s self-styled Rose Revolution in 2003 (after which the usurper won over 97 percent of the vote in a dubious special presidential election in January 2004, the near-unanimous result not bothering the U.S. and other NATO nations in the least), was quoted a week before the Obama-Saakashvili meeting as warning, “I don’t rule out that to retain the [presidential] chair Saakashvili may join a military campaign against Iran, which would become a catastrophe for our country.”
Georgian analysts and opposition party leaders seconded Shevardnadze’s suspicions, specifying that the Saakashvili regime would provide air bases and hospitals, of which a veritable proliferation have appeared in recent months, for such a war effort. A Georgian opposition analyst estimated that 30 new 20-bed hospitals and medical clinics were opened last December and that new air and naval sites are being built and modernized, military air fields in Vaziani, Marneuli and Batumi most ominously.
The U.S. launched a train and equip program for the Georgian armed forces over a decade ago, initially staffed by Green Berets but shortly thereafter and to this day by the U.S. Marine Corps, which has refashioned the nation’s military into an expeditionary force for American and NATO wars around the world and in the process (and by design) a combat-trained and -ready force prepared for invading and subjugating neighboring Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which had been part of former Soviet Georgia but never of the Republic of Georgia) and for the inevitable war with Russia which would result from the attempt. The constantly-upgraded Krtsanisi National Training Center and the Vaziani Military Base outside Georgia’s capital are staffed by U.S. and NATO as well as national military personnel.
During the five-day war between Georgia and Russia in August of 2008 which ensued after Tbilisi invaded South Ossetia days after U.S. airborne and Marine forces led a NATO Partnership for Peace exercise, Immediate Response 2008, in Georgia, American military transport planes returned the 2,000 Georgian troops stationed in Iraq – at the time the third largest foreign military contingent in the country, only exceeded by those of the U.S. and Britain – for the war with Russia.
Had the Georgian assault against South Ossetia, timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing while the world’ attention was focused there, succeeded in driving to the Roki tunnel which connects South Ossetia with Russia and thereby blocking reinforcements to repel the Georgian attack, the next target was to be Abkhazia, where Saakashvili had massed 8,000 troops near the Kodori Gorge on the Abkhaz side of the border.
Novosti quoted former Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, retired Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov two weeks after the war ended claiming: “In the operation the West conducted on Georgian soil against Russia – South Ossetians were the victims or hostages of it – we can see a rehearsal for an attack on Iran. There are a great deal of ‘new features’ that today are being fine tuned in the theater of military operations.”
A month after the Georgian-Russian war ended then-Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin held a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels and, as quoted by Novosti, maintained that: “Russian intelligence had obtained information indicating that the Georgian military infrastructure could be used for logistical support of U.S. troops if they launched an attack on Iran. “‘This is another reason why Washington values Saakashvili’s regime so highly,’ Rogozin said, adding that the United States had already started ‘active military preparations on Georgia’s territory’ for an invasion of Iran. “‘Georgia’s president is ready to make his nation a virtual hostage of a risky military gamble,’ he said.”
A United Press International dispatch at the time revealed that “a secret agreement between Georgia and Israel had earmarked two military airfields in the south of Georgia for use by Israeli fighter-bombers in a potential pre-emptive strike against Iran.”
According to journalist Atul Aneja in The Hindu in October of 2008:
“Russia’s military assertion in Georgia and a show of strength in parts of West Asia [the Middle East]…appear to have forestalled the chances of an immediate strike against Iran. “Following Russia’s movement into South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Moscow was aware that serious plans to attack Iran had been laid out. ‘We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and [a] military solution to the nuclear crisis,’ he said at the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual forum of opinion-makers in Moscow. “Russia’s confrontation with Georgia appeared to be partly responsible for Moscow’s perception that an attack on Iran was in the works. “It is now acknowledged that Russia seized control of two airfields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned. “The Russian forces also apparently recovered weapons and Israeli spy drones that would have been useful for the surveillance of possible Iranian targets.”
As the U.S. and its NATO allies escalate their military presence in the Persian Gulf – the U.S. has two carrier strike groups in the area and a third on its way – Washington is consolidating military ties with Georgia to a new level. The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 passed in December calls for supplying new “defensive” arms to Georgia, with emphasis on air defense and anti-tank weapons. And perhaps more. Much more.
Last month Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned that his country will target missiles stationed in Georgia as part of the U.S.-NATO interceptor missile system.
The Georgian government approved its latest Annual National Program with NATO slightly over a week ago. The Annual National program was launched by the Western military alliance shortly after the 2008 war. At the same time General John R. Allen, commander of all NATO and American troops in Afghanistan, visited Georgia to meet with senior military and government officials.
After his meeting with Obama in the White House, Saakashvili visited with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, leading members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (which, along with the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership, functions as the main pro-Saakashvili Georgian lobbying group in the government), Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta at the Pentagon, from which he was flown on a V-22 Osprey military aircraft to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) in Annapolis, where he was greeted with a 21-gun salute. This week Georgian Defense Minister Bacho Akhalaia announced the imminent arrival of a delegation of American military experts, asserting U.S.-Georgia military relations were entering “an entirely new phase.” One that, as he elaborated, now extends beyond the U.S. Marine Corps training Georgian troops for Iraq and Afghanistan and to future prospective joint operations against nations like Iran."
Fars News Agency :: Iran to Send Heavy Satellites into Orbit
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/784.jpg
" Iran plans to send heavy satellites into orbit and is setting up a new launch base for this purpose, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said.
Vahidi said Thursday that the base will be used to launch one-ton satellites into an orbit of 1,000 kilometers.
He said that among Iran's next year plans was the launch of Tolou (Rise) and Fajr (Dawn) satellites into orbit. Vahidi also said that Iran is planning to launch satellites into orbits of up to 36,000 kilometers next year.
Last Friday, Iran successfully sent Navid-e Elm-o Sana'at (Promise of Science and Industry) satellite into orbit. The 50-kilogram orbiter lifted off into space with an orbital angle of 55 degrees on the Iranian-made Safir satellite-carrier.
The Islamic republic, which first put a satellite into orbit in 2009, has outlined an ambitious space program and has, thus far, made giant progress in the field despite western sanctions and pressures against its advancement. "
Progress from internal development along with help from other countries expertise no doubt. Similar to the US, UK and Russia when they "imported" Nazi expertise and prototypes after WW2.
No room for debate Oh-oh, seems you've covered every angle. US "encroachment," is that like having militant neighbors? Good post Oh-oh, you need to start an Iranian help line.
Not worried about Iran's space program, I'm sure the yanquis have sufficient anti-satellite capability already in place. All those covert shuttle missions and all....Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
According to Iran state TV, Iran will shortly announce some "very important nuclear achievements".
No link, obviously. I'll elaborate when it's published.
All I can find right now is a Sky News report and a Reuters tweet.
Iran to announce "very important" nuclear achievements - TVQuote:
https://teakdoor.com/data:image/png;b...AAAElFTkSuQmCC
President Ahmadinejad says Iran will soon announce "very important" nuclear achievements - TV
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/874.jpg
TEHRAN | Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:58pm IST
(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday the Islamic state would soon announce "very important" achievements in the nuclear field, state TV reported.
"In the coming days the world will witness Iran's announcement of its very important and very major nuclear achievements," Ahmadinejad said in a speech, broadcast live on state television.
(Reporting by Parisa Hafezi)
Link
Israelis: no attack on Iran until after Madonna gig
By Jennifer Lipman, February 10, 2012
Israeli fans of Madonna have appealed to Benjamin Netanyahu to postpone action against Iran until after her Tel Aviv concert.
Fans of the singer, who announced this week that she will open her global tour with a show in Israel, launched a campaign on Facebook.
They are asking the Israeli Prime Minister to say "no to war with Iran" until after the May 29 gig.
On of the creators of the page said the page was intended to be pro-peace and was meant in jest.
"We love Madonna, and it's just our humorous way of dealing with not so humorous life in the Middle East," they said. "We send our neighbors in Iran a message of unity, and hope Madonna will grace their country with a visit on her upcoming tour."
Link
Probably the reactor has finally started producing electricity. Anything elase will not go down well.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Fars News Agency :: Russia Renews Opposition to Military Option against Iran
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2012/02/1129.jpg
"TEHRAN (FNA)- Russian top diplomat Sergei Lavrov reiterated his country's strong opposition to using military force against Iran, and urged a negotiated end to the differences between Iran and the West. Lavrov said on Monday that his country will not accept use of military force against Iran.
Stressing his country's stance against any probable military action against Iran, Lavrov said [COLOR="rgb(255, 250, 205)"]in a press conference with his Emirati counterpart Abdullah bin Zayed Al- Nahyan in Moscow that Iran's nuclear issue must be resolved through political means. [/COLOR]
He said Russia is concerned about developments on Iran's nuclear programs and believes that [COLOR="rgb(255, 250, 205)"]the only way to solve it is through peaceful means, and taking any the military action must be completely removed from the agenda[/COLOR].
"Russia is interested in establishing peace and stability in the Middle East region and is ready to negotiate with all UN Security Council members to reach a consensus on establishment of security in the Persian Gulf," the Russian foreign minister said.
The Russian foreign ministry had earlier rapped the Zionist regime for its war rhetoric against Iran, and cautioned that the approach will increase tensions and have dire consequences. On Wednesday, Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of Security and Disarmament Department at Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [COLOR="rgb(255, 250, 205)"]denounced Tel Aviv's hawkish rhetoric on Iran over its nuclear program as "inventions" that "are increasing the tension and could encourage moves towards a military solution with catastrophic consequences." [/COLOR]
The top Russian official also described the speculations over Iran's nuclear program as "noise" and reiterated that such allegations "have political and propaganda objectives, which are far from being inoffensive."
The US and its close ally Israel have recently intensified their war rhetoric against Iran. The two arch foes of the Islamic Republic accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.
Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry. Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.
The United States has long stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.
Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.
"
Lounge? Shouldn't this be in issues?
A question indeed, maybe the mods of the "issues" thread will enlighten you/us.
Asia Times Online :: Attack on Iran easier said than done
"WASHINGTON - Despite renewed media speculation regarding possible Israeli attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities as early as this spring, skepticism that such a campaign could actually be successfully carried out remains relatively high, raising the question of whether there is more bark than bite to Israeli threats.
It cannot expect a repeat of 1981 when the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak reactor at Al-Tuwaythah, just south of Baghdad.
The Iranians are aware of both Israeli capabilities and the US-made precision-guided penetrating munitions in the Israeli inventory. The Iranian program has been dispersed all over the country - estimates range between 12 and more than 20 locations - and the facilities have been built with US and Israeli capabilities in mind and are protected by modern Russian air defense systems.
The single-most critical element of the Iranian program is thought to be the Natanz facility. The heart of the facility is the centrifuge area, located in an underground, hardened structure.
But even if Israel tries to limits the target set, it would still have to attack other facilities besides Natanz. For example, the newer Fordow fuel-enrichment plant near Qom, where Iran has already moved 3.5% enriched uranium from Natanz, is built into the side of a mountain and is heavily fortified. There is a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, a heavy-water facility being constructed at Arak and centrifuge factories outside Tehran. "
The article continues with a breakdown of the Israeli airforce calculating which routes are best, which countries will "enable" them and the consequences to those countries from Iranian response.
It concludes with
"Theoretically, the Israelis could do this, but at great risk of failure. If they decided to attack Natanz, they would have to inflict sufficient damage the first time - they probably would not be able to mount follow-on strikes at other facilities.
The ultimate question is once Israeli planes have flown back, won't Iran be able to repair the damage and accelerate the nuclear program? Or does Israel assume that the US would pick up where they left and start a long-term war with Iran? "
Iran stops oil exports to six EU countries - state TV | Reuters
"(Reuters) - Iran has stopped oil exports to six European states in retaliation for European Union sanctions imposed on the Islamic state's key export, its English-language Press TV reported on Wednesday.
"Iran cuts its oil exports to six European countries," Press TV reported.
Press TV said Iran has stopped exporting oil to Netherlands, Greece, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy.
Brent crude oil prices were up $1 a barrel to $118.35 shortly after the announcement.
The EU's 27 member states have decided to stop importing crude from Iran from July 1 over its disputed nuclear programme, which the West says is aimed at building bombs. Iran denies this.
Iran's oil minister said on February 4 that the Islamic state would certainly cut its oil exports to "some" European countries."
Looks like Iran has the oil contracts it needs in the bag.:)
If there is a war with Iran can we make it 'The west against the rest' We can wipe out Iran and Israel as well as north korea, china, burma, pakistan, all the other stans, venezuela, mexico(what the hell), Russia, Greece, Spain, Nigeria (gotta put an end to those scammers), all those other places in Africa where rapists and people that cut of hands live are and Switzerland (they deserve it) along with a few other areas where facists have settled in the western world like that strip from Texas to the Atlantic in the states.
Thus spake the voice of moderation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampsha
:rofl:
(Can we do France and Belgium as well, they're horrible c**ts).
let's make it simpler and nuke America and England, everyone in the world fucking hate themQuote:
Originally Posted by Hampsha
I offered the southern US already. That's all you are getting.
Will that get Mexico?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampsha
let's keep NY and San Francisco, the only place in the US where Americans are not complete retardsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hampsha
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Essex, that is after N&J leave in March. Bournemouth and Manchester any time tomorrow would be good.
Iran sends reply to Ashton?s letter on 5+1 talks - Tehran Times
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
"TEHRAN – Iran sent a reply on Wednesday to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s letter dated October 2011.
Ashton represents the 5+1 group (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) in nuclear negotiations with Iran.
The letter contains suggestions about the date, venue, and agenda of new round of talks about Iran’s nuclear program between Tehran and the 5+1 group, Ali Baqeri, the deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), told the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
It is more than likely that the new round of talks will be held in Istanbul in the near future.
The Iranian official also emphasized that the Islamic Republic will accept no preconditions for the resumption of talks with the six major powers.
In a letter to Iran dated October 2011, Ashton announced that the 5+1 group is willing to resume talks with Iran within weeks if Tehran is prepared to “engage seriously in meaningful discussions.”
The letter came after Saeed Jalili, Iran’s SNSC secretary and chief nuclear negotiator, wrote a letter in September 2011 to Ashton announcing Iran’s readiness to resume talks.
If Iran is ready to discuss concrete confidence-building measures without preconditions, “we would be willing to agree on a next meeting within the coming weeks at a mutually convenient venue,” Ashton said.
“I welcome your suggestion to resume talks, in order to take fundamental steps for sustainable cooperation,” she said."
Excellent move, lets hope they last a while and not just a couple of days of tongue lashing.
Could have saved time by simply writing "fuck off" back in October.Quote:
The Iranian official also emphasized that the Islamic Republic will accept no preconditions for the resumption of talks with the six major powers.
Exclusive - Europe's big buyers cut ties with Iran oil | Reuters
"(Reuters) - Iran's top oil buyers in Europe are making substantial cuts in supply months in advance of European Union sanctions, reducing flows to the continent in March by more than a third - or over 300,000 barrels daily, industry sources said on Thursday.
France's Total has already stopped buying the crude, which is subject to European Union sanctions from July 1 and market sources say Royal Dutch Shell has scaled back sharply.
Motor Oil Hellas of Greece was also thought to have cut out Iranian crude altogether and compatriot Hellenic Petroleum along with Spain's Cepsa and Repsol were curbing imports.
"We have significantly reduced our purchases because of the political situation," said one customer, until now one of the larger EU buyers of Iranian crude. "We are still lifting - but much, much less than two months ago."
For Iran's smaller European customers, primarily in Italy, it was business as usual.
Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said, but by the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban.
Of that volume, companies were cutting back at least a third voluntarily - starting with March shipments, according to industry sources and Reuters calculations.
Some trading sources said the self-imposed curbs will push out even more Iranian barrels, limiting Tehran's flows to Europe to about 350,000 bpd from next month.
Companies have cut back now because tighter sanctions from the West have made it much harder for them to finance their purchases. Flows from Iran could slow more over the coming months as transport and insurance become sticking points.
The cuts meanwhile also offered a degree of protection for companies concerned that Tehran might preempt the EU ban and stop exporting to its customers in the West.
REPLACEMENT BARRELS
Total's chief executive Christophe de Margerie said at the end of last month that the French major had stopped buying from Iran, but Shell has avoided public comment on its position.
The Anglo-Dutch major is one of the biggest consumers of Iranian crude worldwide, industry sources said, taking around 100,000 bpd into Europe and about the same quantity into Asia under a deal with Japanese company Showa Shell that expires in March.
Speaking on February 2, when the company reported earnings, Shell Chief Executive Peter Voser declined to elaborate on how much Iranian crude the company was still buying.
"Shell will comply with the sanctions and we will therefore get our crude from somewhere else," Voser said.
Cepsa and Repsol declined to comment on their positions.
Those that have reduced Iranian imports are filling the void with a range of replacement barrels from top exporter Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Russia.
Saudi Arabia is prepared to supply extra oil either by topping up existing term contracts or by making rare spot market sales, oil executives said.
STILL BUYING
Some of the smaller buyers of Iranian crude, namely Italian companies, have not changed anything, so far.
Italian oil firm Eni continued to receive one cargo of Iranian crude per month, a volume that has been stable for the last couple of years.
The company expected this to continue after July 1 as it receives the oil as payment for work it has done in Iran under so called buyback deals more than a decade ago.
"At the moment, we are continuing as usual," said a source familiar with the matter. "We have a lot of credit to recover."
Italian refiner Iplom also continued to buy Iranian crude, and the amount remained about one cargo a month, industry sources said.
Oil traders said Iranian crude was relatively cheap compared with rival grades such as Russian Urals, an added bonus for those companies continuing to purchase it.
Iran's Oil Ministry is putting commercial considerations uppermost, industry officials said, disagreeing with calls from some Iranian politicians for Iran to stop selling its crude to the EU in retaliation for the sanctions.
"We at the Ministry of Oil are fundamentally opposed to this," said an Iranian oil executive."
Lots of unattributed "comments" few named quotes, "exclusive" is the byword for propaganda now in the west.
Pity that even if the EU countries stop "ordering" more shipments, they still have to pay for their contracted amount.
Meanwhile the US, who "demanded" the oil embargo, have not noticed a thing due to them not buying any in the first place. But Russia, who supports a Syrian led solution, sells even more oil and gas to the bankrupt western countries, lets hope they demand payment up front.
Is there any rationale behind the bits you've highlighted in yellow here, or were you just trying to make it look pretty?
:)
I am glad that you appreciate my "highlights", however the comment above may help with your comprehension of my posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Don't get me wrong, I'll emphasise a paragraph or sentence to highlight it, but I don't really see a pattern to what you've highlighed here, and frankly there are so many of them it defeats the object.
Asia Times Online :: US, Iran inching toward talks
"The foreplay is nearing completion on the Iran situation. The surest sign is that there were no serious takers in Western capitals for the Israeli smear campaign this week that Tehran's agents had been going about placing bombs in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok. Simply put, there is growing impatience that it is way past the time for histrionics.
Several indicators are available that matters are moving towards a substantive plane. One cluster of events this week consists of the Iranian reply to the letter from the European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, penned by Tehran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Simultaneously, Tehran announced it was developing a new generation of centrifuges and augmenting its number of centrifuges from 6,000 to 9,000 as well as loading a research reactor with Iran's first batch of domestically produced fuel.
While Tehran's announcement of new nuclear "achievements" might have appeared as a belligerent move - Washington derided it as "hype" meant for the domestic audience in Iran - the contents of Jalili's letter, and, more important, the initial responses of cautious optimism it generated within hours in Western capitals convey that there are positive stirrings in the air.
The reaction in Washington is particularly noteworthy. A White House official was quoted as saying, "It [Jalili's letter] could lead to further diplomacy, provided that they [Iranians] are serious about it. We have made clear that this has to be a dialogue about their nuclear program specifically."
Jalili's letter apparently said Tehran would have "new initiatives" and indicated Iran's openness to discussing the nuclear issue. It suggested that "[A] constructive and positive attitude toward the Islamic Republic of Iran's new initiatives in this round of talks could open a positive perspective for our negotiation".
Jalili concluded, "Therefore ... I propose to resume out talks in order to take fundamental steps for sustainable cooperation in the earliest possibility in a mutually agreed venue and time." Significantly, neither Ashton nor Jalili raised any pre-conditions for the talks. Quite obviously, Brussels has already begun consultations with Washington on setting the date and venue for the resumption of talks between the "Iran Six" and Iran after a gap of three years. The "Iran Six" - also known as the "P5+1", includes the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the US, France, China, Russia, Britain - plus Germany.
A second cluster of positive signs is the virtual toning down of rhetoric on both sides. The most significant contribution to an easing of tensions came from senior American intelligence officials in the course of a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday - within a day of receiving Jalili's letter. It is interesting that the hearing itself came on the heels of a bipartisan draft resolution being mooted by 32 senators "ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran".
James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, assessed that as of now, Tehran has not decided whether to build a nuclear weapon, although it has been acquiring some skills. He doubted whether Iran would really take the plunge, either:
We [US] believe that the decision would be made by the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] himself and he would base that decision on a cost-benefit analysis. I don't think he'd want a nuclear weapon at any price, so that I think plays to the value of sanctions. They are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time.
Conceivably, Clapper was also acknowledging Washington's appreciation of the self-restraint Tehran has been showing in not optimally pursing its nuclear program. In parallel testimony, the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, added that "Iran today has the technical, scientific and industrial capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons" and notwithstanding the international pressure through sanctions "we assess that Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandon its nuclear program".
Putting both testimonies together, the Barack Obama administration has unambiguously indicated that the time is most opportune to engage Tehran in talks. Both Clapper and Burgess downplayed the prospect of Iran posing security threats to the US or to the Strait of Hormuz.
A fascinating aspect of the testimony was that the US officials virtually admitted that Tehran was on the whole being reactive rather than being provocative or belligerent in ratcheting up tensions. Burgess went to the extent of saying Iran could be expected to respond if attacked, but that in the US estimation it was unlikely to start any military conflict on its own.
Clapper went a step further, directly linking any shifts in Tehran's peaceful nuclear program to an eventuality where "the [Iranian] regime feels threatened in terms of its stability and tenure". Clapper also agreed with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that at any rate, producing a bomb "would probably take them [Iranians] about a year, and then possibly another one or two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort".
Clapper added, "It's technically feasible [making a bomb] but practically not likely. There are all kinds of combinations and permutations that would affect how long it might take, should the Iranians make a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon." In sum, Clapper poured cold water on the Israeli scenario of "apocalypse now". (He also repeated that Israel was not planning to attack Iran.)
On the whole, these testimonies must be seen as a comprehensive assurance being held out to Tehran that there are, after all, enough folks in Washington who haven't lost their sanity through all these months of shadow-boxing and grandstanding in the US-Iran standoff.
Alongside, in a third cluster, Tehran, too, has resorted to a bit of public diplomacy to project its interest in constructively engaging the US. Prominent among these have been three articles penned by Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who held a key position in Iran's nuclear negotiating team until six years ago (besides serving as Iran's ambassador to Germany for seven years.)
His opening article was featured in the influential US magazine Foreign Affairs. Mousavian looked back at the US-Iran standoff on the nuclear issue over the past eight years as a chronicle of wasted time, of missed opportunities and misunderstandings and mutual misconceptions feeding on each other with both sides resorting to miscalculations that ultimately didn't help matters, leave alone end the stalemate.
He placed the blame squarely on successive US administrations for not having cared to explore repeated Iranian overtures for a normalization of relations.
His refrain throughout has been that the nuclear issue should never have been regarded as a "stand-alone" question that could be dealt with separately from the larger issues of the confrontational relationship that the two countries have had since the 1979 Iranian revolution.
As he put it, "There won't be a solution to the nuclear dispute as long as officials in Tehran and Washington continue to base their relationship on escalating hostility, threats and mistrust, particularly if the ultimate US goal is regime change." (By an interesting coincidence, this was also the grain of what Panetta and Clapper said this week.)
In his latest and concluding third part, Mousavian suggested the "bottom lines" in the upcoming negotiations: "For Iran, this means the ability to produce reliable civilian energy, as it is entitled to do under [nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty. For the US and Europe, it means never having Iran develop nuclear weapons or a short-notice breakout capability."
How are the expectations of the two sides to be harmonized? Mousavian has the following to say:
Specifically, the West should recognize the legitimate right of Iran to produce nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment; remove sanctions; and normalize Iran's nuclear file at the UN Security Council and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. To meet the P5+1 conditions, Iran should accept the maximum level of transparency by implementing the IAEA's Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1 and the Non-Proliferation Treaty's Additional Protocol, which broadly enable intrusive monitoring and inspections of nuclear facilities.
To eliminate Western concerns about a possible nuclear weapons breakout using low-enriched uranium, any deal should place a limit on Iran's enrichment activities to less than 5 percent ... A deal should also cap the amount of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride that Iran can stockpile; limit its enrichment sites during a period of confidence building; establish an international consortium on enrichment in Iran; and commit not to reprocess low-enriched uranium during the confidence-building period.
The "Mousavian suggestion" is somewhat modeled on Russia's "step-by-step" plan that also includes full supervision by the IAEA; implementation of the Additional Protocol and Subsidiary Arrangement between the IAEA and Iran; limiting enrichment sites to one; and temporary suspension of enrichment.
Moscow proposed that in return, Iran would expect the "Iran Six" to remove sanctions and normalize Iran's nuclear file in the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.
To what extent Mousavian's opinions reflect the thinking within the Iranian regime is hard to tell and indeed he is conscious that the "domestic political climate in both countries" has come in the way of meaningful negotiations between Washington and Tehran in the past.
But what is striking is that the testimonies by Clapper and Burgess are in broad harmony with what Mousavian has suggested as the way forward. "
Some good points in a suggestion for "normalisation" of Iran's world position worth the interested parties discussing in this article.
I don't think there's any smear campaign, it's stating the bloody obvious.Quote:
The surest sign is that there were no serious takers in Western capitals for the Israeli smear campaign this week that Tehran's agents had been going about placing bombs in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok.
What there is though is probably a lot of irritation with Israel for starting it with their own agents bombing Tehran.
U.S., EU optimistic about renewed talks with Iran - Xinhua | English.news.cn
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- The United States and the European Union (EU) on Friday saw positive signs in Iran's stated willingness to reopen talks over its controversial nuclear program.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the reply letter sent by Iran to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton "an important step".
"As outlined in Cathy's October letter to Iran, any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program and Iran's response to Cathy's letter does appear to acknowledge and accept that," the top U.S. envoy told reporters after meeting Ashton at the State Department.
Iran's letter, sent by its chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Tuesday in response to Ashton's October letter offering to resume talks on condition that the Islamic republic sets no preconditions, said it is ready for renewed negotiations with the six powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia, the U.S. and Germany.
Clinton demanded Iran's assurances for a "sustained effort" in reaching an outcome once the six powers go ahead with the talks.
However, she added that "I think it's fair to say -- of course I'll let Cathy speak for herself -- that we think that this is an important step and we welcome the letter."
For her part, Ashton said she was "cautious and optimistic" about the prospect of resumed talks with Iran. She sent her letter to Iran on behalf of the six powers, whose last talks with the country broke down in Istanbul, Turkey in January 2011.
"There is a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks. We'll continue to discuss and make sure that what we' re looking at is substantive," she said, adding "But I'm cautious and optimistic at the same time for this."
Iran is suspected of seeking nuclear bombs under its nuclear program, but the country counters that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purpose.
Washington and the EU have targeted Iran's central bank and oil exports for sanctions in their continuous efforts to press the country to stop its uranium enrichment activities."
A positive response to the Iranian letter at last.
It's good to see Hilly and Cathy on such intimate terms, or was it a ham-fisted attempt at a put down to the tea girl?
Suspected by some political leaders.
Totally legal under the global institution rules.
Again, there seems no rationale to your use of yellow.
What are you trying to say?
1. The use of "Cathy" by the Secretary of State it shows a certain lack of manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
2. "Iran is suspected" continuing the same old accusations with no proof.
3. "to stop its uranium enrichment activities" all countries, whoever they may be, are entitled to undertake an enrichment programme, run and organised by themselves. To go to war, any use of financial weapons is regarded as an act of war by many countries including the EU and US. If Iran is subjected to this type of warfare other countries disobeying UNSC and UNGA resolutions should equally be facing the same.
Or do the "rules" only apply to "them" and not "us"?
How quickly everyone forgets the media froth and jerk-off of just a few years ago. This is a build up of Israel and their bought-and-paid-for American pols and bureaucrats preparing the ground work for a move against Iran - just as surely as the Arab Spring was an engineered Zionist Winter implemented by Uncle Sam-berg.
1. In this context, it's used to show they have a close friendship, as she does with the press corps. They'll write what they want. This is beyond irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh1. The use of "Cathy" by the Secretary of State it shows a certain lack of manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
2. "Iran is suspected" continuing the same old accusations with no proof.
3. "to stop its uranium enrichment activities" all countries, whoever they may be, are entitled to undertake an enrichment programme, run and organised by themselves. To go to war, any use of financial weapons is regarded as an act of war by many countries including the EU and US. If Iran is subjected to this type of warfare other countries disobeying UNSC and UNGA resolutions should equally be facing the same.
Or do the "rules" only apply to "them" and not "us"?
2. Iran IS suspected. There is no proof because they refuse to co-operate with the IAEA and answer questions about their program. Have you not grasped this yet?
3. Pointless asking them to stop it, if they are concealing it, hence the sanctions and threats from Israel.
Do you have Alzheimers, because I seem to have to come back to the same old points all the time, even though the answers are already there.
Why do Israel want to emasculate Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
There was an interesting discussion this morning to the effect that, if Iran do get nukes and can only reach Israel and Saudi, but not New York, London or Paris, should NATO get involved?
Of course the answer is yes, because without oil the world economy is down the shitter.
When the same standards of "proof" are demanded for all other participants then it would be acceptable, until then it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
You have obviously "forgotten" about the suitcase bombs that don't need missile systems for delivery.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Why should Iran be denied a missile industry but "others" in the region be permitted/given one?
Again selective use of force/sanctions or is Iran not one of "our preferred types of country".
NATO is a "defensive" organisation, not a force to impose the wishes of political leaders. it's own founding statement article 5 states that.
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security "
I have yet to hear of the Iranian/Iraqi/Libyan/Syrian/Afghanistani attack on North America or Europe + Turkey.