Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, Crude oil and the Political insability

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by liberalcynic, Jul 8, 2008.

?

Will there be a war involving Iran with regards to its atomic ideals within the year?

  1. Yes, within the year. -Year ending in August 2009

    29.4%
  2. No, there will not be a war.

    47.1%
  3. No, but there will be a war after August 2009.

    23.5%
  1. liberalcynic

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney (NSW, AU)
    Verified:
    Photo
    One reason for the rise in oil prices is the political uncertainty over Iran and it’s ambition to produce atomic weapons. The danger isn’t the cut off of supplies from Iran –the 4th largest exporter-, but from the region – around 40% of the globally traded oil - since Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. It has been reported by Iranian newspapers that Iran has ordered the army to dig 320000 graves near its borders, for “humanitarian purposes” since it may be planning to allocate them to enemy corpses. If there is any hostility in the Gulf Iran will certainly exert its control over the Strait of Hormuz.
    If the order to dig graves isn’t a clear sign to the imminent political instability who knows what is? Not just in the Middle East, the NYMEX might cause some political instability of its own in many corners of the globe.
     
  2. liberalcynic

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney (NSW, AU)
    Verified:
    Photo
    There must be opinions out there. Please post your opinion and why that is the case, critique each opinion.
     
  3. _Alexxx_

    _Alexxx_ Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    316
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Europe
    The graves thing I think it's just propaganda sort of "We have a grave ready for every single soldier they can send here"

    About the war, I hope it doesn't happen. It all depends on the new US president to come.
     
  4. liberalcynic

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney (NSW, AU)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Wouldn't the fact that both parties have stated that the protection of Israel is important make that here nor there?
     
  5. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    If USA were to initiate a major war against Iran, we'd see preparation well in advance. Thousands of tons of food, water, fuel, ammo, and other materiel would need to be prepositioned in advance. That much stuff would take months perhaps a year to get into place. It can't be done in secret.

    If the poll question refers to USA leading such a war, it's an utterly stupid question.
     
  6. D_Fiona_Farvel

    D_Fiona_Farvel Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    17
    I doubt there will be any aggression on Iran's side prior to the election and not directly after, either. Also, I feel it is highly unlikely the U.S. would act agreesively with Iran unless there was some extreme posturing of force by the Iranians - but again, highly unlikely and unnecessary for Iran at this point.

    But there may be war (perhaps largely unnecessary) in the future, say two or more years from now depending upon various factors from our economy and position in the world to their's - which has grown quite influential this Milennium.

    Fundamentally, everything hinges on who's elected President this year, his choice of advisors, and the international policy he sets forth.
     
  7. liberalcynic

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney (NSW, AU)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I read an article sayin Iran would most likely engage with Israel before the us electon in Bush would be reluctant to act politically since there isn't as much forces in the gulf as there once where. Thus creating another political issue in the USA for the elections - oil sky rocketing et cetera ( and stop complainig about your $4/gal, in Germany people pay $3/L, or $15/gal - it's only got one way to go, and demand is strong with tight supply).
    This is unlikely to happen but had a 1 in 4 chance.
    The threat is reducing, Iran yesterday made a statement which seem less aggressive to Israel, but they're still testing missiles to this day. Oil dropped from $145 to $135 - the US dollar strengthened. IF the price goes over $160 the chance of war and global unrest will quintiple.
     
  8. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    The price of oil has little to do with waging wart against Iran. Neither has the next US President.

    The Iranians aren't stupid enough to go after Israel directly. They'll rattle their sabers and dig fake graves but they aren't silly anough to actually try it.
     
  9. camper joe

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
  10. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    I'd call Iran's missile test yesterday "empty saber rattling" and nothing more.
     
  11. D_Fiona_Farvel

    D_Fiona_Farvel Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    17
    Any possibility for citation of the articles?

    Agreed.
     
  12. _Alexxx_

    _Alexxx_ Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    316
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Europe
    Well the ability to invade a country and take oil from it for free has been proved in the past. Oh, sorry, that's still going on.
     
  13. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    There will not be war as long as the American people are fed up with this kind of imperialistic nonsense.

    Iran only wants nukes because the IUS keeps making noise about invading them. Guess what? Any nation with nukes gets treated with a lot more respect for it sovereignty.
    Who wouldn't want them?

    The Iranians are not stupid. They would not start tossing nukes around because they know both Israel and the US have more than enough to slag their entire population in 20 minutes time.

    This knowledge is why NOBODY uses nukes. Not one nation WITH nuclear capabilities is a problem on the world stage. Nuclear weapons keep your neighbors in their own yard... stabilize your


    Iran is not a THREAT... its an opportunity... while we are busy sewing discord, dissent and divisiveness everywhere we go... the Iranians are actually the only working democracy in the islamic world.

    Engagement and trade is the path to a more cooperative world.
    It worked with Red China.... its working with Korea....it will work with Iran.


    Sheesh...the infuriating thing is that this is all elementary Game theory... somthing the govenrment has spent billions of dollars figuring out.

    Its not a notion, nor something we ought to "try out".... it is a proven strategy that underlies ALL human society.
     
  14. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,724
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    I completely agree Phil.

    Whilst the missile tests in Iran may be sabre rattling, they are also a response to Israel running aerial bombing raid tests in the Med for possible strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

    If Israel decides that the threat from Iran merits a unilateral military response, then I think we all need to get very worried.
     
  15. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I'm in the process of writing a reply to this.

    In the mean time...

    Will there be a war, or more precisely, a unilateral strike on Iran? Right now everything leans to, "not likely." Much depends on the negotiations Iran and the US are conducting right now over the future of Iraq, Iraq's political situation, the reform of Syria, and Israeli politics. There are a bunch of factors, not all obvious but I think I can give a credible overview. Right now both sides are trying to avoid a lady or the tiger result. The problem is, avoiding that outcome depends largely upon external and internal factors over which neither side has total control.
     
  16. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    :rofl:
     
  17. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,445
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    If the US engages with Iran.... fuck this surgical-PC-handout flowers with one hand with the trigger on the other. Go air war... go hard (B-52s still work, by the way)... 10,000:1 Iranian:Israeli/US casualty ratio. What I appreciate with the Israelis... they don't give a shit.

    Don't think it will happen. This is Iran, puffing their 80lbs bench pressin' chest out.
     
  18. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,445
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Phil Phil... and you've had so many good posts... an unelected group of religious leaders who get to decide who runs and who doesn't...

    is not a democracy.

    I'll give ya a chance to take that back.
     
  19. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    1) Iran's nuclear program is at least 20 years old. That is long before the current wave of hostilities began and the words regime change were ever uttered. Iran's nuclear ambitions have more to do with national pride and the perhaps the ability to stand toe to toe with Israel than defense against the US. Sorry but not everything in the world can be blamed on the US.

    2) Not all nations that have nukes are treated with more respect. Pakistan is case on point. It has been treated far worse by the international community since it tested its nuclear weapons. (and rightfully so)

    3) You assume that the Iranian leadership follows the same form of logic you do. Religious fundamentalists who believe they are on a mission from God tend to have a logic all their own. Though I tend to agree that they are unlikely to just suddenly start nuking people out of the blue.

    4) Please rethink the notion that nuclear weapons stabilizes a nation that possesses them and causes stabilization in the region. That is reverse causation. Historically, it is only powerful nations, that are stable in the first place, that gain them. North Korea proves the fallacy in your thinking. No one bothered the DPRK for decades (if they wanted to live in their own little paranoid Stalinistic society, everyone was happy to let them, no matter how much they tried to provoke their neighbors) until the issue of the nuclear weapons program came to light in the early 90's. Tensions and regional instability have only increased due to the North Koreans wanting nuclear weapons.

    5) Pakistan is a great example of a nation with nuclear weapons attacking another nation with nuclear weapons (India). Look up the Kargil War. Nuclear weapons in both Pakistani and Indian hands has not defused the Kashmir problem. It has only made the situation more dangerous.

    6) Iran is not a working democracy, it is a theocracy. While the President is "elected" he first has to be approved by the Guardian Council, a religious body. No one may run for President or even for the legislature without their approval. In the past Presidential election they invalidated every moderate reformer, and left only conservatives and radical fundamentalists. They also invalidated most of the moderates running for the legislature. I'm not saying that this isn't a valid form of government. I'm merely saying that it isn't democratic. Secondly, the President's powers (and the legislature's too) are mostly for show. Most of the power resides in the hands of the Supreme Leader, a religious leader appointed by a body of religious experts called the Assembly of Experts. Lastly, Indonesia has a much better claim at being the Islamic world's (outside Turkey) first working democracy.
     
    #19 Hockeytiger, Jul 11, 2008
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2008
  20. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Turkey or Bahrain would qualify before Iran would.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted